Live vs. recorded

I much prefer live recordings. The Blu-ray of Tom petty at Soundstage is awesome quality - both video and sound is 10 out of 10.

The Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers Live Anthology box set (4 CD's) proves that live can sound just as good as a studio production.

I suspect that many pop/rock bands simply cannot deliver the carefully crafted, dubbed and over-dubbed polished performances that you get on their overproduced studio productions.

I also suspect there is some essence that is lost when stuff is overdubbed or people play in separate sound booths. Perhaps it is only me - but I hear something better when people are actually playing live.

For example, the overproduced Steely Dan stuff just leaves me stone cold - don't get me wrong - it is still great stuff and sounds ever so slick - but it feels lifeless to me.

I am not sure why but something different occurs when people play live together - either it is in the acoustics or the way musicians play off each other - little mistakes perhaps - is this is why Sheffield Direct to Disc were so good?

Probably for the same reason, I hate drum machines.

Anyway, I can't put my finger on it but I definitely hear something and I wish that more live music was better recorded.

Here is what I mean.

This poor quality audio youtube clip is just awesome (to my mind)

Dave Garfield

I enjoy this kind of jammin' much more than the same slick song on the studio album. So call me crazy but I really like the "live" sound.

Jim,

I think you may have hit the nail on the head - live musicians have the freedom to vary things and the little twists and nuances are perhaps what I enjoy so much (or not if the band does not groove well).

Perhaps this explains the appeal of live music to others too?