Live Music ?

Music is a Live Art, Music moves, it's not static, a cd or a tape are good because you got the chance to listen to music that maybe you'll never could listen to in a live act(maybe because the artist is already dead or because they'll never come to your town), but live is music is The Music!!!

Man With Hat wrote: In terms of seeing music performed live, I always enjoy that. Even if the show isn't the best, the evironment is still fun, and the day isn't a total wash.   However, I prefer studio CDs as opposed to live ones. Don't get me wrong, there are some live CDs that are awesome, but sound quality is usually a sticky subject for me. Often times in a live CD the sound is decent at best. This is why my favorite live albums are usually by Frank Zappa, whose live albums (for the most part) blow me away with the crisp production and stellar sound quality. Bands that can master this art (off the top of my head I can think of a few other than FZ, such as After Crying and KC [at least for the most part/for the ones I enjoy the most], I regurd much higher. For one reason, its always nice to have alternate versions of some songs, and as said earlier, bands that can mix it up live and do something different, within the same song structure has always been interseting for me. But without a good sounds quality all that uniqueness and interest is lost in a sea of one homogenous sound or muffled behind what ever is playing the loudest.   So to answer your question, Studio albums are top for me.

This is where I differ. Sure, good sound quality is a nice asset. but come on: How many of the early prog albums really did have good sound quality? Most of the bands were glad they were able to scratch up some money for some studio time at all. Just look at the circumstances under which Genesis recorded "Foxtrot", nicely described in the "Genesis" book by Armando Gallo. In the age of digitally remastered albums we tend to overlook that fact. No, sound quality definitely is not an issue for me; some of my very favourite albums have horrible sound quality. Example given: The only self-titled album of Arzacjhel. So no, for me the thing that really counts is how vital a live album can sound, despite the fact that the sound quality is miserable. That's why "Vital" by Van der Graaf Generator always has been a 5 star album for me, despite its horrible sound quality which is not much better than that of a bootleg. The remastered version is supposed to be of better sound quality, but I haven't heard it yet.

hi, have you tried to listen to The Delicate Sound Of Thunder ? the Pink Floyd live..? just to mention one, perhaps this could chenge your view..

I remember the excitement of DSOT being released. I had only been into Floyd for a couple of years. I was only 13. I had never heard ANY live versions of the superb tracks from 'Dark Side', 'Wish', 'Animals' and 'The Wall' so I had no idea what the then 'current' Pink Floyd would sound like. A few weeks before the album was released, Tommy Vance played 2 tracks from the 'forthcoming' album on his Friday night rock show (for my overseas friends - this was a legendary radio show every  Friday evening on BBC radio throughout the 80's). He played 'Us And Them' and, naturally, 'Comfortably Numb'.
I was blown away by both but especially the elongated solo at the end of the latter.

Looking back, I now find 'Delicate Sound Of Thunder' to be over-produced. To me, it sounds like re-workings of old classics recorded in the studio and crowd noises dubbed onto it. I find 'Pulse' a much more 'live' experience.

I think live music can be appreciated in it's own right but it should be 'live' and not over-produced or you might as well have a big hi-fi system on a stage and shove a copy of 'Dark Side Of The Moon' on!

Also, I'm fed up of hearing the same tracks from the Floyd - 'Money' in particular. At least Roger has been attempting to break the mould  with 'Sheep' and 'Set The Controls'. I'd LOVE to hear the four-man Floyd, as they are now, attempt 'Atom Heart Mother' with accompanying brass band.

Going back to live albums, some are just new albums in their own right. 'Seconds Out' by 'Genesis', 'Live Herald' by Steve Hillage and 'Anorak In the UK (2 disc version)' by my beloved Marillion.

just from my experiences.... enjoyed prog-metal far more seeing it live than listening to it on album. Might have a lot to do with the problems I have with modern prog anyway, being overproduced, too sterile and aseptic.  Hearing it live with all the warts makes it seem more 'real'  and I had an wonderful time listening to the music.

BaldFriede wrote: Man With Hat wrote: In terms of seeing music performed live, I always enjoy that. Even if the show isn't the best, the evironment is still fun, and the day isn't a total wash.   However, I prefer studio CDs as opposed to live ones. Don't get me wrong, there are some live CDs that are awesome, but sound quality is usually a sticky subject for me. Often times in a live CD the sound is decent at best. This is why my favorite live albums are usually by Frank Zappa, whose live albums (for the most part) blow me away with the crisp production and stellar sound quality. Bands that can master this art (off the top of my head I can think of a few other than FZ, such as After Crying and KC [at least for the most part/for the ones I enjoy the most], I regurd much higher. For one reason, its always nice to have alternate versions of some songs, and as said earlier, bands that can mix it up live and do something different, within the same song structure has always been interseting for me. But without a good sounds quality all that uniqueness and interest is lost in a sea of one homogenous sound or muffled behind what ever is playing the loudest.   So to answer your question, Studio albums are top for me. This is where I differ. Sure, good sound quality is a nice asset. but come on: How many of the early prog albums really did have good sound quality? Most of the bands were glad they were able to scratch up some money for some studio time at all. Just look at the circumstances under which Genesis recorded "Foxtrot", nicely described in the "Genesis" book by Armando Gallo. In the age of digitally remastered albums we tend to overlook that fact. No, sound quality definitely is not an issue for me; some of my very favourite albums have horrible sound quality. Example given: The only self-titled album of Arzacjhel. So no, for me the thing that really counts is how vital a live album can sound, despite the fact that the sound quality is miserable. That's why "Vital" by Van der Graaf Generator always has been a 5 star album for me, despite its horrible sound quality which is not much better than that of a bootleg. The remastered version is supposed to be of better sound quality, but I haven't heard it yet.

I don't care if i see a band live on stage or just listen their albums in my record player. But i always try to find live albums because they have usually much better solos than studio versions of same songs.

The Whistler wrote: And, yeah, Crimso wins here and Genesis loses.

I have to agree on this one. King Crimson plays much more improvised and vital versions in live setting than in studio. Genesis, on the other hand, tends to replicate their studio versions note by note on stage.

BaldFriede wrote:   An example for that are Gong. No two versions of a song by Gong sound alike, that's why it is possible to have dozens of live albums of them and enjoy them all because you never know what happens with them.

Could you reccomend two-three Gong live albums to start with?

I'm really only interested in live recordings that are extremely re-arranged (like Can and magma often did) or original tracks recorded live.

When I'm actually at the concert myself, a band trying to recreate their studiotracks perfectly (like with Genesis) can be great too.  If you can't enjoy that, can you enjoy hearing any composed, classical stuff live?

Rocktopus wrote: BaldFriede wrote:   An example for that are Gong. No two versions of a song by Gong sound alike, that's why it is possible to have dozens of live albums of them and enjoy them all because you never know what happens with them. Could you reccomend two-three Gong live albums to start with? I'm really only interested in live recordings that are extremely re-arranged (like Can and magma often did) or original tracks recorded live. When I'm actually at the concert myself, a band trying to recreate their studiotracks perfectly (like with Genesis) can be great too.  If you can't enjoy that, can you enjoy hearing any composed, classical stuff live?

"Live au Bataclan" is my favourite live album of Gong. Great version of "Zero the Hero". Pierre Moerlen really shines on that one; absolutely fantastic drumming. He was always great, but this concert is one of his finest hours.

The Whistler wrote: I used to feel the same way as you (oh topic starter) about live albums; I mean, what's the point? The songs are usually messier, the band doesn't have the studio trickery to layer a song (not to mention that some musicians have to play simpler live), and besides, there's usually all that crumby audience noise.   Now, however, I've come to view live albums as the ultimate test for a band; if they can overcome all these difficulties (or at least a few) AND create a new and interesting feel for the songs live, they gain some deserved respect from me.   And, yeah, Crimso wins here and Genesis loses.