When does live trump studio?

Ahah! A musical post in the hifi room!

Of course [with reference to the original post you mention] I could suggest any number of performances from Otto Klemperer, whose recordings were of significance at the time as they still are today. The off air monitor radio tapes [of live broadcast concerts] were of little significance at the time as there would always be another performance in the future, but almost thirty years since Klemperer's passing these live recordings take on a significance not perceived at the time, and in every case they show the studio to be the place for technically perfect performance reduced somewhat in power by editing for technical perfection. 

The same is true in so many cases, and though many may scoff, one should try the difference between Dire Straits in concert and in the studio!

ATB from George

You're right, George.  Perhaps Richard can move this post to the Music Room.  Thanks

I hope he does not! We need more musical philosophy in this room, where all too many regard discussion of music as a polution of the pure persuit of the hifi hobby!

ATB from George

Hi Joe 

I have live and studio versions of Smoke On The Water, Free Bird and I prefer the studio versions. I really can't think of one instance of where I have studio and live versions and do not prefer the studio version. Though they doesn't mean to say there are not some great live albums.

One of the better live artist, Frank Zappa, does a splendid job of eliminating the audience sound. The audience sound is also not allowed to spoil the Grateful Dead's live output. In fact the live albums I'm happiest with are the ones where you can't really tell it is in front of a live audience. 

Even with the best live band I have ever seen, Christy Moore and Planxty,  I still prefer their studio output. 

Scott Walker has never, as far as I know performed Tilt or The Drift live; saying once it is done and there on record, it's done. Tilt and The Drift remain two of the most essential works in contemporary music and are like nothing else I have ever heard. 

This may be a psychological thing with me as I always think of the studio version as the definitive version and a live performance preceding its recording as a rehearsal and one postceding it as a reproduction.  

So I may be weird, but I sure ain't hungry  - as the Captain may not quite have said. 

All the best, Guy

PS

Dear George, if it all the same I prefer not to hear Dire Straits live or in the studio, but if one is as foolish, as I was, to attend a hi-fi show then one cannot escape it. Sorry, I'm sure it is well played, but just not me. A bit too PC perhaps 

All the best, Guy 

(Perhaps I should have moved in to Abbey Road)

Don't overlook recording sessions that are essentially live, though without a concert audience. This seems to really impact my enjoyment of classical recordings, chamber music in particular. I have a Deutsche Grammphon recording of Beethoven's cello sonatas by Fournier and Kempff that I kept asking "why do I like this so much" until I finally noticed "live recording" in small print. Its not perfect - there's some bow noise, chair creeks, etc that a studio probably would have taken out. But, I love it.  Yarlung's 2011 "Antonio Lysy at the Broad" (also cello), similarly recorded, is the best sounding recording I bought last year. Reference Recordings also records a lot of music "live" in halls vs. in studios.

Two of favorite Dylan albums - After the Flood, and Rolling Thunder Review - are both live, as is my favorite Dead album, Reckoning.

But, then again, we don't really need to choose favorites, and my biggest problem is choosing what music to play....Though, more and more, I'm seeking out the live (in hall) recordings for chamber music.

Extreme improvement over the studio albums: Little Feat "Waiting for Columbus"

Which song? All of them.

Also, Kiss "Alive".

An interesting question. It applies much less to classical and jazz music, as many of their recordings are essentially one live performance, for rock and other modern forms of music it is very applicable.

I own a great many live recordings (official and otherwise), perhaps almost half my music collection, and would say there are quite a few factors that influence the difference between studio and live performances.

As a group matures or get new (better) musicians they can explore a song with greater maturity. Also as the band to know the song they can explore different ideas within it, tracks like 'Dazed and Confused' and 'No Quarter' by Led Zeppelin doubled or trebled in length as they performed and expanded them over the years.

Technology advances allow some bands to explore a song more, and of course it is the live setting where it is heard, unless the band does an album like Kraftwerk's 'The Mix'.

One area where live version eclipse the studio for me is where the artist followed a fashion which I felt (personal view of course) was in detriment to their music. I really do not like Peter Hammill's recordings from the late 70's and 80's, but his song writing was as strong as ever, and the much simpler live versions that have been released recently do the songs much more justice (for me). The same is true of Joni Mitchell, I find the heavily arranged and synthesized recordings of the 80's bury the song, but when performed live on just an acoustic guitar, they come alive.

From the same period I also prefer the live Rush recordings as the guitar is much clearer in the mix, and less drowned by the keyboards.

For some bands the distinction between studio and live recordings is blurred. King Crimson and Tangerine Dream both improvised live a great deal in the 70's. Some of their studio recordings use live (recorded) material with overdubs, or (some of ) their live albums have studio overdubs. Some bands hardly record in the studio, but have most of their releases from live recordings, Redshift for example.

One area of music that may surprise some to be quite different live is electronic and techno. I prefer the live versions of many Underworld tracks, they are free-er and the way they evolve one track into the next live is fascinating. Orbital too. As mentioned above Kraftwerk have benefited from improvements in technology but their live versions also swing a lot more, an influence back from the techno bands they influenced in the first place.

One thing about rock music live, is that you hear the band all playing and interacting together, whereas with many studio recordings there is a set pattern of each musician laying down their part. Drums, bass are usually first, keyboards, guitar, vocals, etc after. This means the vocals and guitar have a lot of freedom the react to what is 'behind' them, but the drummer and bass play have much less.

Some producers concentrate on getting a raw recording of the song (Brian Eno for example), but when those songs are performed live they flesh out a great deal, examples would be U2 and Talking Heads.

So a few examples:
Led Zeppelin 'No Quarter' (Earls Court 1975)
Underworld 'Dark Train' (Bootleg Babies)
Peter Hammill 'Patient', 'I will Find You' (Gtr, pno, vox, box)
Yes 'Starship Trooper', (Yessongs) better with Wakeman playing on it, despite the loss of Bruford.
Orbital 'Satan' (live single) it had changed from a clichéd rave track to an electronic version of heavy metal.

"Substitute" from "The Who Live at Leeds" beats any studio version I've ever heard although it's a shame they didn't do the complete song.

One of my favorite live recordings is Frank Sinatra with the Count Basie Orchestra -- Live at The Sands in Las Vegas.  One can really appreciate the energy and ambiance of the live performance, and I prefer that energy to what I often hear in Sinatra's studio recordings.  Ella -- same thing.

To me this genre absolutely benefits from the live nature of the music.

I really like Dire Straits Alchemy. Sultans of Swing and Going Home sound just right to me.

I also want to add one of my favourite albums. Frank Zappa - Roxy and Elsewhere.

The energy from the band on stage is just breathtaking.

Frampton Comes Alive - Quality live performances and great band synergy. His best seller and only Frampton album I have. Seems like everybody had a copy of this when I was a teen.

Bob Seager and the Silver Bullet Band - Live Bullet. High energy, rocking performance in front of his home-town crowd in Detroit.  Had it on 8-track. Only album of his I ever bought.  All songs on this live album trump any studio versions I've heard.

Jackson Browne - Running on Empty album, includes The Load Out, and Stay.  He didn't record studio versions of these songs.

FCA is practically a studio album with all the post production on it, retakes and over dubs etc.

Cream - Royal Albert Hall Reunion concert.

This concert has a wonderful sound. Ginger Baker's drums sound so real and Jack Bruce's bass has such great "texture" or "timbre" to it, it's a joy to follow.

It's also particularly relevant for Cream as their original studio albums tended to be poorly produced, imho.........

Also, as previously mentioned, David Gilmour - Live in Gdansk is beautifully recorded, imho.

An older recording that serves as a great example too, is Dylan's Royal Albert Hall 1966 - Disc1 (acoustic set) Part of the "Bootleg Series" - Volume 7 I *think*?

It seems to me to communicate the energy and emotion of the performance extremely well, as well as the hall acoustics.

(But I am a little biased there, as it's also one of my favourite live performances from Dylan, ever!)

Yes and all the better for it, he was never one to just go with the herd and when people said he'd never make it you just knew one day they would be eating humble pie. 

Rory Gallagher: "A Million Miles Away" from Irish Tour '74; "Jack Knife Beat" and "Calling Card" from BBC Sessions.

Uriah Heeps "Gypsy" was/is always so much better live.

I think two great examples of bands who were stupendous when live but couldn't transfer this to their studio albums were firstly, Dr. Feelgood, whose live 'Stupidity' album trumps all of their (good but not really great) studio efforts, and George Thorogood and the Destroyers, whose many live albums are electrifying. I've just bought GT & D's 'Live in Boston 1982'  album - a live gig from the year I saw them supporting the Stones at Leeds - and it blows yer socks off !!! How sweet it is !

Any Bruce Springsteen live performance is  better than any of his studio albums IMO 

Graham.

It does not trump the studio albums.

It just adds something nice.

Its still my second most played live album of all time.

Stu.

This will always be my first love live abum,

Because i am on it.

The SAHB BBC live recording's CDs are also wonderful and can be bought cheap now.

Stu

The sight of vinyl is making me think about what I've got sitting in the closet.  I haven't had a TT since 1986, but I have a goal of getting one within a year.  

One live gem that's buried in there is the double album, Neil Young "Live Rust".  I'd have to say most, if not every song performed live on this LP trump the studio versions.

Great acoustics in the venue on "Live Rust" (not sure where) for his acoustic songs to start the concert.  Then Crazy Horse joins him for the electric set with some nicely distorted electric leads, esp on Cortez the Killer and Like a Hurricane. The band's energy and Neil's free-ranging leads on electric guitar made this a great listen.

I also saw the film in the theater (circa 1980); remember lots of hooded "roadies" with glowing eyes running around stage.  Weird stuff, but a lot of fun.