Live Music ?

Live music is the best.

Apart from actual shows I love watching Live DVDs and listening to live albums. Alot of the time the music is much better live than on the record.

If you don't like live music, you're probably xenophobic ! 

coleio wrote: I don't know if it belongs in here as it applies to all genres, but I have a feeling I must be one of a very small selection of people that actually doesn't like live music as much as listening to it on the CD or whatever format you listen to. What with all the crowd, and the constant talking by the vocalist or musicians, it ruins an atmosphere that the record would create. And rarely does it sound as good live as it does on the record. Am I alone in the this perception or are there other people who feel this way?

Good topic.  Live music can be hit or miss.  I don' t get out as much as I used to and I used to get out a lot when I was younger. 

I love watching stuff from my collection of live DVDs.  You don't have to deal with all the bad elements you generally get going out to live show.  Not that there aren't a lot of positive things too. 

But one of my last live show attendances was Porcupine Tree (Deadwing Tour).  The club was "standing room only" even though there was a balcony area closed off.  There were three aholes standing behind me putting down the band very loudly.  I was mostly unable to enjoy the performance.  By the way guys, if you read this and come back to Atlanta, please do the Variety Playhouse.  It's a nicer venue.  You know they came back by on the same tour and picked what I think is an even worse venue than the Roxy.

The best is seeing an artist that doesn't attract a big crowd at a small venue.  You can sit down, relax, get close to the performance, and maybe even get back stage to meet the band.


Edited by Slartibartfast - February 12 2008 at 07:02

A lot of bands don't play the same live as in a studio, what with multiple takes and the like.  That's one thing that's nice about jazz: live recordings and studio recordings are totally the same.  The only  difference truly is the audience. 

Live music IS the essence of rock. Like Infadous I entered Yes and genesis catalogue with "Yessongs" and "Live" back in November 1973.

Seeing a band live can revolutionize the way you hear their music, and music in general.

Edited by MonkeyphoneAlex - September 27 2007 at 21:13

ShipOfFools wrote: It really depends on the band for me. Sometimes, the studio versions are better than the live versions, but sometimes it's the opposite. Some bands are magical when they perform live (like Yes), and then there are some bands (like Porcupine Tree) that are better when they're in the studio.

I have a big collection of live albums which were often double LP's from my youth.

Edited by pero - September 27 2007 at 06:28

Are you serious? How is this even a thread topic? How could you NOT love a band playing live? Wow. That's really pathetic.

darqdean wrote: ^ I like that   However, the Studio can be used as a creative instrument in it's own right (I don't mean using the technology to correct mistakes like moving drum beats and re-tuning vocals), but as part of the creative process. George Martin recognised this and through the Beatles he revolutionised the way albums are recorded - without him Revolver, Sgt Pepper etc would have been completely different records (and probably not so highly venerated). The situation now is such that reproducing a studio album in a live setting is almost impossible (and I can appreciate that some people would rather not pay money to see an "incomplete" performance of their favorite music) - which is why I think Pink Floyd (or Sir Dave, or that Waters bloke) go on stage with dozens of other musicians to re-create their "hits".

Which has always annoyed me about Pink Floyd. I don't want to hear the studio album when I go to a live concert. I really like early live performances by Pink Floyd, as they are captured on "Ummagumma" or some early bootlegs, but albums like "The Pulse" absolutely stink, in my honest opinion. The whole idea of a background chorus on stage is already repulsive to me. And listen to what these singers do! On "The Pulse" Claire Torry's fantastic part from "Dark Side of the Moon" has to be sung by three singers, none of whom are even close to being capable to capture the emotional brilliance of her. And this part would have been ideal for improvising; but no, they have to sing it note by note! What a disappointment! No, Pink Floyd live are definitely absolutely boring, at least the latter Pink Floyd. A big "pfui" on them as a live act!


Edited by BaldFriede - August 04 2007 at 03:53