Posts: 253
Threads: 46
Joined: Jan 2008
Hi all
Title really explains it, which do you think is better? recorded? or live? or recorded live? etc....
Record companies change the sound of a note as it is recorded to make it "perfect" does this inprove the sound? or take away part of the soul of the song?
in my humble opinion, music that is edited dureing the record does indeed take away something away from the music, humanity is anything but perfect so why should our music be? thats my logic but there we go!
Or do you totally disagree with me and think that a little tweaking goes a long way?
is a band poo if they sound compleatly differant to thier albem?
MUSE is the only example i can use, as the songs that they play live may have a fundermentle simmerlarity with the ones on the albem, and yet they are compleately differant to listen to.
thoughts, views and abuse *insert below* please
Syn
Posts: 5,551
Threads: 146
Joined: Jan 2008
I would imagine the vast majority of recorded music is edited together, even "live" albums tend to get a bit of the same treatment. You do come across the occasional "live in the studio" recording, and I usually like these.
Untouched live recordings must be fairly few & far between, but bands like Grateful Dead have released large quantities of these.
I agree that an untouched recording has an extra feel of authenticity to it, but I don't know how easily I could identify one from a well produced edited recording.
Posts: 518
Threads: 5
Joined: May 2008
I prefer just seeing the band live, though I have always liked live recordings of bands better than the studio. A lot of times, due to the difference in mixing because of the limitations of the sound board, certain elements are louder than before and are sort of put into context for me. The songs make sense. As for studio recordings taking the soul out of music... I suppose it depends on the type of music you like. A lot of pop bands use pitch correction on their vocals. A lot of bands don't. It's just a matter of taste, really... No one else I know really likes live recordings.
Posts: 838
Threads: 11
Joined: Jan 2008
It's apples and oranges to me. Sometimes live recordings of performances can capture their magic but I prefer to be present at the venue. It really varies artist to artist. Some are better in the studio, some are better live. Sometimes the studio becomes an instrument in itself, as pioneered by the Beatles and George Martin.
Even at a live performance you're not necessarily hearing the music exactly as it is performed. The mixing desk and PA system can enhance or hinder the sound.
If something is recorded, I think I prefer the studio recorded album as opposed to a live album. But then again a lot of the music I like cannot be produced live anyways. Or not in the same way.
An interesting side note - it used to be the studio session tried to mimic the live performance's sound. Now its often the other way around.
Posts: 20
Threads: 1
Joined: Jun 2008
Agreed JonG. It depends on the band and all other contributing factors.
If you can't be a wonderful example, be a horrifying reminder.
Posts: 10
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2008
I like both, but I think the best way to check out the band is to go to a live gig. That's the only way to find out how good they actually are.
The recordings can be altered in so many ways, but a live performance just says it all
It's painless.
Posts: 53
Threads: 2
Joined: Jul 2008
i like listening and watching live perfomances for the mosh pits
but if no live performances are around the next best thing is recorded
Posts: 919
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2008
Nothing beats being at the live performance - you get to find out if they can actually play (!) and you get to pick your own focus - you notice all sorts of things you'd never pick up from a recording.
I'm not usually interested in live recordings unless it's a band I am hugely fond of (SLF's 'Hanx' album is about the only live album I would play regularly).
Posts: 5
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2008
Being live at a stadium is the ultimate experience. If I was listening to it on CD I must say I prefer the 'live' versions of songs. I agree that tweaking the music is a bit of a cheat and takes away that 'human error touch'. I also LOVE to hear the audience's reactions within the song.
Posts: 153
Threads: 14
Joined: Jun 2009
what exactly are we questoning here? how musch skill the band has or if it sounds better recorded in a studio? personally i think you do have to go to a show to see how 'skilled' a band is, but that doesn't mean they sound better! look at green day... live they aren't very good but the spirit of punk is probably raging harder thatn you can ever get on a cd... some bands don't sound much different live- look at linkin park. the spirit is always going to be hyped up at a concert but a recorded and edited peice of music only makes a band sound like they want to.. otherwise they wouldn't edit it or they would edit it less. personally i like bands who don't have to edit to achieve their own standards of listening and playing. but ther will always be bands who need that extra help, not that they sound bad, just that they want to sound different. sometimes it's necessary when you can't produce what you want.
