Live Music ?

Well, as several people have said, music IS live.  I find it hard to imagine how a band can really be a band if they don't perform live (I've been in several bands myself).  The kind of interaction and musical interplay that is vital to a band format is not really present in the studio (unless a band records its albums live in the studio.......at least the basic tracks and adds in other stuff afterwords........like The Flower Kings did on the last album).  I have yet to hear a "studio only" band that has any depth or feeling (the Beatles are an exception, but not everything they did during their studio period).  I find the older Floyd live material far more enjoyable than the studio work of that period (though I still like it).

But generally speaking, I like both live and studio material.  I'm one of those people who sometimes finds modern prog album production to be a bit too sterile and lifeless.  But even with that I can still appreciate good music and often modern albums have an atmosphere that wasn't possible in the 70's and 80's.  The clarity is quite nice usually.  I suppose the problem with live albums nowadays is that they sometimes are nearly indistinguishable from their studio counterparts due to the pristine production.

Yessongs was the album that got me into Yes.  Genesis Live was the album that got me into Genesis.  Playing The Fool was the album that got me into Gentle Giant.  And Two For The Show was the album that got me into Kansas.  Each of these albums has a power, a presence, an atmosphere that just doesn't appear on the studio albums.  Especially in the case of Yes, the grandeur of their music really comes across in a way that a studio album just can't possibly convey.

As to live shows, I'm glad I've gone to them.  I would have missed out on the best musical experiences in my life had I not.  And as a musician, playing live is really the greatest reward for all the practicing, writing and rehearsing.  Hearing a good sounding recording of your stuff (i.e. studio) is cool, and rewarding as well, but performing live is the best.

Still some bands are not that good live, and some live shows even with good live bands have problems.  I don't go to as many live shows anymore, because I don't have the time or money mostly.  I'm not as young as I used to be either, so I like to be comfortable when I hear my music (thank god for NearFest!).  But I still think that live music is a vital part of appreciating music and the people who make it.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I think anyone who avoids live shows and feels that studio material is better is really missing out on some potentially life changing musical experiences.  Not every show is going to be great.  But enough of them will be to make it worthwhile, believe me.

I don't go to as many concerts as I used to.  Only because I'm not a people person and I feel like I'm surrounded by idiots.  But I do enjoy the live experience much more than listening to the bands at home or in my car.  I guess it depends on what kind of music the band is playing???  The one band I would of loved to see live would of been King Crimson in 1974.  Every live recording I've heard from that era is FLAWLESS!!!

I just finished reading it.  Looked like they played some good songs, especially When A Blind Man Cries.  I would of never expected that one.  But what was that about someone poking Ian Gillian in the leg trying to give him something?  It's things like that that don't want me to come to shows.  Especially with the story of the fat guy dancing.  I can't stand that sh*t.  I just go to shows to have some drinks and enjoy my favorite bands live, take some good photos and leave and make a review in my head of how the show went.

As a recording and gigging musician I tend to dislike live music. I was never a fan of going to see my favorite bands play live. The only venue that I positively enjoy live music is in a theatre with seats and proper air conditioning. That's why my goal is to bring my music to venues where people can sit in a comfy chair and enjoy the experience, without having to stand all night or sit on the grass.

I actually like studio albums rather than live albums as well. Except when a live album is done really well, and in that case its usually my favorite of the band. An example.

Edited by SoundsofSeasons - August 02 2007 at 20:41

I think rock studio albums are the least connected to what music really is, meaning a performative art of "sound and silence expressed through time". They are just a simulation of that - a good one, and usually even better than what it's supposed to simulate, but nonetheless just a mimesis. The actual thing is there, in the performance. Basically the studio album is a trick: it creates the impression of a live performance by putting together separate players and their parts. But, don't get me wrong: there's nothing wrong with it. Because besides being just a good simulation, it's also a useful one. It really is difficult to have a definitive, perfect, expression of what rock musicians want to "say" during live shows, for various reasons (sound & mixing, mastering the instruments). That's not the case with classical and jazz music, but the musicianship is different there, and the type of music is also different.
Also I can't accept the argument that studio albums have the creation part in them (Our friend The T usually claims this). Not at all. The creation part is a slow and messy process that doesn't get on the album; on the contrary, the album happens when the creation part is done ("live"! haha) and the musicians come with their parts learned and put them together a simulation of what they think their music should sound.
Remember how it's been for thousand of years: if you wanted to get music, you had to play it or to watch others playing it. When recording technology appeared, records were made to simulate the participation at a concert. It has remained basically unchanged, as classical and jazz records (with exceptions on the jazz side) are "live" performances. Of course the studio recording technology has greatly expanded the limits of what can be done in music, and I'm appreciating that. But remember that it's just a minuscule segment in music long history the fact that now we listen to music at our home without being in the presence of any music making instrument and musician(s). And who knows what else the future will bring us, myself I hope there will be other such revolutions during my lifetime.


Edited by andu - August 03 2007 at 13:49

Thanks Dean

I did pay respects to the studio when saying it has expanded the limits of what can be done, and I second what you said on the matter!

Let's buy more live albums people!

PS: By the way, my definition of the studio album being "studio simulation of a live performance" (on short), I would question the presence on the Top 100 of studio albums rather than that of live albums!

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

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

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