blackTshirt

i've already checked and, surprisingly, there aren't threads about this

so do you like an artist and prefer the album version of a song?
or do you always only like the live thing?

like, songs can sound REALLY different...

for example, the first time i listened to Layla (Clapton), I didn't like it so much, but then I heard it live and thought it was great.. and it made me like the recorded thing, cause of the guitar in the chorus

anyway, post away

__________________

boo boo

Studio easly, and i will tell you why, even some of the best live bands were better in the studio (The Who, Queen, Cream), in the studio there is more compromise and mistakes can be corrected, if someone ****s up live, they cant fix it...Plus some of the best studio bands are mediocre live, no matter how great they can be in the studio.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

one_more_atrocity

iagree with the part how bands sound better in the studio cus if you listen to the album version of thesong and then hear the same song done live the album is far better but your not taking into account the experience of live music which, although not as good or usually as precise as a studio song actually standing there in the crowd can not be beaten by just slaping on an album in your bedroom, so i would go for live.

__________________
.::: I'd redecorate the walls with your inner thoughts, but im afraid it's the wrong shade of red :::.

ArtistInTheAmbulance

I hate when bands are better live than in the studio. If not only for the reason that you can never hear that sound again, then everytime you try and get someone into the band, they dont get hooked in as much as you did.
But meh. Theres nothing like a live show. You can play your perfectly recorded music as loud as you like, but it doesnt compare to live music.
Ill go for live. If they really do suck live, then thats not exactly the sign of a brilliant band..

__________________
shake your wings like theyre laced with sound!

Seltzer

Generally recorded. But that depends on whether a band is good live. Iron Maiden live is sensational, so live versions are great. The live version of Fear of the Dark made it on to their compilation (Best of the Beast), not the studio version. That tells you something.

__________________

judas_priest

Yeah I agree with you. In my opinion Iron Maiden is one of the best live bands, and I think that the live version of Fear of The Dark is better than the studio version.

Vai Is God

There's no contest here, live is way better, especially when it's a good live band. Sure, studio is fine, but live, a song just kicks your ass more, especially if it's already a pretty intense song. As for live albums, I prefer studio. It capturers the mood the pperformer tried to portay better. Live music is about rocking out and having a hell of a time, not paying attention to the subtle nuances required for a good studio album.

__________________
Shhh... the audience is listening.

Sneer

depends what type of music it is. for example, prog will sound A LOT better in the studio because of all the electronic wizardry that can be utilised. whereas punk or garage rock will sound a lot better live due to the raw energy being captured.

__________________
Fright Team radio show

stymie

always been a fan of live music myself. the point made about it depending on the music notwithstanding, it seems performing music is what it's all about. sure the sound will be better in the studio after production takes over and everything's cleaned up a bit but you don't get the same energy in my view.

also, i don't agree with the point made above that the who were better in the studio. the who 'was' live music.

s

sleepy jack

I agree.

__________________