Do You Prefer Live or Recorded?

A live performance is the best way to enjoy music. Any band worth their salt will perform better live than in the rather sterile surroundings of a studio. As most prog bands have exemplary musicians the problem of an 'off night' is rare.

The only problem I have with some venues is the fact that they are seated. I saw Rush last year on their anniversary tour and the venue was seated. This I thought detracted from the overall live experience with audience interaction at a minimum. Almost 20 years previously I saw the same band at the same venue without seats and it made for an amazing night even though the set list for the anniversary tour was far better.

GET RID OF THE SEATS!!!

I love going to concerts. You cant beat the excitement and anticipation you get a concert. Its been many years since I've been to a small gig.

I saw Rush twice on their last tour, and they were great, but as Reed rightly says, when you're stuck in a crowd of thousands there is no intimacy in the experience.

The smallest prog gig I went to was It Bites on their first tour. I saw them at a small club in Reading. Went right up to the front and even shared my pint with Francis Dunnery. Apart from the fact that their performance was superb, and the sound was brilliant, you cant beat that feeling of being right there in the thick of it.

Thats said, hearing an album for the first time can be very exciting too, and generally I'm not a big fan of live albums. Give me the real thing otherwise I'll settle for the studio album in the comfort of my own home.

Playing Devil's Advocate here...don't you think that by categorically stating 'music can truly only be appreciated or understood live', you're in effect insulting the artists who try to create a work of art via the recording?

I understand that live music has benefits that recordings can't deliver, but on the other hand a good piece of music is meant to be heard in depth- something that the live experience frequently fails to fulfil. When The Beatles created Sgt. Pepper and later decided to stop touring, they started a precedent for viewing the recording as something separate from the band's performance- something which does not translate fully to live music.

Jools wrote: This is one crazy Poll.  I enjoy both equally but whatever is immediate to the situation, I mean next time I'm in my car or in the bath Its hardly practical to prefer the live experience is it?

That's a fair statement Jools. I think one environment does feeds the other to an extent but I believe to gain a real understanding of both a band/artist and it's music, a live gig gives you so much more.

If I may use Crimson (surprise, surprise) as an example, Fripp has always maintained that they are primarily a live creature with their recorded output coming a poor second. I'm not sure I agree that most KC releases are a 'poor' anything but I can understand his point of view.

To see a live gig is to see the music created right there in front of you, mistakes and all. I remember seeing Marillion preview Misplaced Childhood before the record had been recorded and the feeling of excitement from both the band and audience was palpable. Rush have been know to work out their new material in front of a live (as opposed to dead??) audience and they claim it gives them a chance to get feedback as a form of direction. Like a crowd at a sports event you become part of the process.

I just prefer the inclusion a gig offers. It's an active thing rather than a passive one, even if it does mean paying a minor fortune for tickets.