@gosta
Why thank you, Back atcha ;^)
Is there anything better than live recordings?
Other than attending the concerts themselves?
I say NO.
👍
77 responses Add your response
"Live in the studio", which many jazz dudes (and some others) do, can sound amazing. Lots of pop music takes months to record, sweating over details and overdubs...some of my fave jazz musicians (or perhaps most of them) like Julian Lage or John Scofield record entire albums in a couple of days with astonishing results. |
100% DIS-agree! Live performance is just that... it's a performance. An ephemeral event. A studio recording is "A WORK OF ART". It's a different thing entirely, and is to be admired in a totally different way. Would you ever demand a real-time "performance" from a painter? Would you ask him/her to make a painting in front of an audience, and then hold that painting up to scrutiny for years to come? No, that's not how we judge and admire paintings, photos, or sculptures. A studio album is a non-realtime creation, and is a completely different thing than a live performance. Bear in mind that I'm NOT dumping on live recordings. I love live Studio recordings. I typically do not like recordings in front of an audience however, as most don't sound very good.
|
With my very large music collection, I have no preference studio or live. First is the performance. Some performers are great live and terrible in studios. (Mark Hambourg-pianist with 300 mediocre 78s versus great live performer). Alternatively, live versus studio recordings vary immensely in quality of sound. E.g. Ramsey Lewis in Chicago, fantastic live recorded sound while most of his Argo studio recordings also excellent sound. I much prefer studio rock recordings to most live ones. I don't discriminate on sound alone but a bad sounding recording in either is not appreciated. (I just acquired an additional 3000 LPs and 4700 CDs-yikes!) |
The songs are usually performed differently and sometimes with more energy. If they are well recorded, produced, mastered, pressed, etc., you are missing out if you don’t have some in your library. Al Jarrwau Look to the Rainbow, George Benson Weekend in LA, Frampton Comes Alive, Simon and Garfunkel in Central Park, Steely Dan Northeast Corridor, Wes Montgomery Full House, Billy Joel Songs in the Attic, The Who Live at Leeds, Neil Young Rust Never Sleeps (2nd side is live), Al Stewart Indian Summer ( last side or two is live) are all very enjoyable and unique. |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
Hi jjbeason14 ... thanks for the topic. Based upon last Saturday's experience, I've discovered another option that, for me, beats the simple playback of a live recording. My Peers will remember the 1970's live television music variety show, "The Midnight Special." The show was simultaneously broadcasted by FM radio stations in stereo sound. Despite the small screens, it was exciting, drawing big name acts. Saturday, my wife and I drove a couple hours north to eastern Maine as a getaway weekend, and attended: Metropolitan Opera | In Cinemas (metopera.org) The opera was the Italian "Fedora" with English subtitles. Now, I'm the same guy who posted a response last week saying I much prefer listening to 2 channel in a darkened room, with just the glow of tubes. Well, the Metropolitan Opera is not just any cut-rate production. The orchestra, the camera work, the video and audio were engaging, engrossing and just plain old fun for us. We chanced into a dear friend and shared a plate. Highly recommended! More Peace, Pin (bold print for old eyes) |
Been to, oh, a thousand or so concerts in last 50yrs (from Hip Hop to the Bolshoi), I have about 500 CDs and about 4000 songs saved on Qobuz. I have never, ever, heard a live recording of a track sound as good as the studio. Only very rarely does the live show sound as good - never better - than the studio recording. As a rule I avoid listening to live recordings because of this. A live show is the mutual gift between the performer/writer and the audience and studio recordings only have acoustic energy. So you get that connection and real human energy from a show. But sounds better? Never. |
A famous musician once compared studio recording to live performing as building a ship in a bottle vs being in a rowboat on the open sea. |
@gosta Thanks for suggesting Live at Hull--I didn't even know about this recording! I've been streaming it and enjoying it. Without comparing them directly, from my memory the guitar and drums sound better than Leeds; I think the vocals are mixed too low, but given the state of PAs back then (and how loud the Who played), this might be an accurate portrayal of what the audience heard, and I think it's a more complete concert. I'm doubtful that either recording captures the low end that well; even though Entwhistle emphasized the treble at this time, I would think his bass would have had more low frequencies than these recordings reflect, a low end better captured on Tommy, for which he was similarly playing a Precision Bass, probably through a 4 x 12 cabinet. |
What's better than a live recording is a live recording that YOU engineered. Having spent some time doing location recording, you've learned what works and have brought it home. When you play it back at home and it feels like it did live, THEN you've got the ultimate in audiophile experience, one that very, very few in these forums has ever known. |
The live performances cited by @petg60 are of excellent SQ because they were recorded by SOTA mobile recording trucks or in-house control rooms. OTOH, a good soundboard recording would be supplemented with a submix of dedicated mics. All live classical and opera would be recorded the same way as all their recordings in an empty concert hall or soundstage. I often saw the 60ft trailers recording sound outside Lincoln Center, Carnegie Hall, or the Academy of Music in Philly. That was when I was young, later in my career I was working in either the sound truck or companion video trailer. |
Unplugged Nirvana, Eagles, Clapton, Zep’s BBC sessions, Zappa’ New York, Roxy, A night in SF, Jazz at Pawnshop, Live at Leeds, Deep Purple Made in Japan, Talking Heads The name of the band, Portishead Roseland NYC, Belafonte at CH, China Jean MJ, Kraftwerk Min Max, Tangerine Dream Ricochet and Encore, Laurie Anderson Home of the Brave, are some nice examples. Then you have the ballets, Swan Lake, Romeo and Juliet... opera, classical in general but these cannot be performed in a studio. Generally a very few number compared to studio releases (contemporary). |
This thread has provoked a wicked game of hide-and-seek with my now unreliable memory. I humbly ask to be excused if I repeat stuff I've already mentioned on this site. As much as I love my Zeppelin albums, I enjoyed their live concert still more. The same goes for my encounter with Bob Marley and the Wailers, who I saw at the Roxy. I saw the Byrds several times, and to my ears they were never nearly as good live as they were in the studio. It was the exact opposite with Crosby Stills Nash & Young. The concert I saw with Herbert von Karajan and the Berlin Phil tramped all over the recordings I have that feature them. My experiences regarding Pink Floyd are 50-50. Likewise, both live and canned Chuck Berry was equally excellent. I could go on. And on. And on. |
@larsman What does and doesn't surprise me is that there's a market for rare bootlegs now from a collector's standpoint but certainly not from an audiophile standpoint. You're right that many/most were dreadful audience recordings. I recall reading about some guy in California in the 70s that would go to shows by Zep, Tull, etc, and roll up in a wheelchair with a tape recorder hidden underneath. He apparently made some good recordings and then gave bootleg copies out for free. |
@bipod72 - good points - back in the 70's, there were a few record shops that I would scour for the latest bootlegs from Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, etc etc. Some sounded decent, but most were pretty dreadful audience recordings. |
@jjbeason14 The last time I saw U2 live was the Joshua Tree tour. After that, the venues were too big and getting great tickets became a struggle. One of my favorite live albums Under a Blood Red Sky. When they played at Red Rocks for the War tour I couldn't get my dad to take me to see them and he wouldn't let me go by myself at age 11. Instead he took me to go see Chuck Berry at the Rainbow music hall. |
@larsman Oh I realize the OP wasn't talking about bootleg recordings BUT for a period of time in the 70s through the 80s there were vinyl bootleg pressings of live shows that, for all appearances, looked like legitimate label pressings. I had several that I acquired at record swap meets I used to go to with my dad in the 80s. I do think live recordings can be very good and as I said, it's very dependent upon the band, their sound engineer, and the venue. But if someone makes the claim that live recordings are the best...it comes with several qualifications. As we all know, even studio recordings can be crappy sometimes! |
@bipod72 - I don't think they were talking about bootleg recordings. There are hundreds of legitimate Grateful Dead live releases that are among the best sounding live recordings you'll hear. I have every one of the box sets. The Dead made sound quality a priority ever since the days when Owsley Stanley designed their sound systems. |
Friday Night in San Francisco is among the greatest live recordings ever, and in frequent rotation here. The SQ is excellent but the crowd interaction with 3 of the greatest guitarists on the planet make it even more impactful. And closely behind is Saturday Night in SF on Impex records as I recall. |
I have to question anyone who thinks a live concert trumps a studio recording with regards to audio quality. It makes me think they haven't seen as many disappointing/meh live shows as a reference or are very selective about who they see in concert & want to listen to in a live recording. But I wouldn't go so far as to say live recordings trump studio recordings. Ever listened to a Deadhead's bootleg cassette recording of a particular show? Terrible in every way. But that's my opinion. Most of my complaints about some live recordings tend to be poor quality micing for the vocals (they tend to go in and out as the artist moves on stage) and unequal mixing. Now there are some bands that record directly from the live mix and those can be fantastic as it's as much about the energy of the live show and variations to how the band plays certain songs. I've heard some great recordings in the last few decades but those tend to be video concert recordings. Conversely, Zepplin's concert film 'The Song Remains the Same' is great at capturing the live show and makes it, to my ears, a better experience. For example, the live version of Wilco's 'California Stars' I heard in concert far surpassed the Mermaid Ave Lp version but that was because they stretched that into an epic encore version for a packed house in a historic theatre. Conversely, I saw Black Rebel Motorcycle Club at the same theatre and it was one of the worst soundboard-mixed shows and loudest concerts I've seen. The distortion and mix were way beyond BRMC's intentions to the point that it made for unpleasant listening. I've also found that the venue plays a big part in how good a live recording can be. The Merriweather Post Pavilion in MD is a terrible place to see a live show - regardless of where you sit, it's just bad. Best outdoor venue? Red Rocks Amphitheater hands down. Club shows? That's hit or miss and very dependent on the in-house set-up. All that said, I enjoy certain live recordings by my favorite artists but I'm very selective about which ones for the all the reasons I listed above. I have found that I really enjoy watching concerts via youtube when it's a professional production. Because then I get great audio and the energy of the live show. Which is why I go to concerts in the first place.
|
"Is there ANYTHING better than live recordings" That's a pretty open-ended question. I'm hoping to pole vault on my 90th birthday. That would be pretty hard to beat. Related to the music, IMHO it depends on how important your engagement is with the performers vs the music itself as a "stand-a-lone" entity. If you welcome a high degree of emotional interaction with the musicians (personality, intimacy, energy, great hair) your enjoyment may be enhanced by those factors. It you tend to prioritze getting the music "right" then a meticulous rendering of the the performance may tip the scales in your favor. That being said, if you combine those 2 factors, you may forgive a less than stellar performance/recording if the heart of the performers shines through. So, doing the math, a performance/recording of a "4" combined with a stage presence of "9" may tip the scales in the favor of that recording vs a solid "8" studio recording. A "10" plus "10" live performance would take extraterrestrial interfernce to produce a superior studio recording. When a visual is introduced, the whole process gets more complicated. A "3" performance + a "9" energy/presence + a "9.5" visual can produce a performance that can result in the most fun you can legally have at home.
|
Live is the real thing, warts and all. I remember sitting in the balcony at Heinz hall in Pittsburgh and the acoustics were so bad I told my wife I'd rather be home listening to my stereo. First floor row H that's different. But I find the sound of a live symphony is more diffused with less pinpoint imaging than you can get with a recording sometimes, but that's less "real" in one sense. |
@drmuso if I gave the impression that I did not enjoy Pink Floyd live, that was poor writing on my part. I agree with everything you said. I think you also made the point I was trying to make about DSOTM studio cut better than I did: they used the studio as an instrument. |
I haven't heard any good recordings made by dead people:)) On a more serious note - what constitutes a "live" recording?. Many classical and jazz recordings made in studios are "live" in the sense that they are played in real time albeit in the absence of an audience - though, admittedly, there may multiple takes and some post production editing. That said, lots of "live" recordings are edited too. As for rock and pop recordings, most are recorded using a feed from the mixing desk, so they are not what the audience heard via the stage / PA, with perhaps an element of feed from the PA / hall mixed in for atmosphere. |
