Recordings or Live Performance?

Favorited (undo) Following (undo) 12 Comments

Depends on the artist.

A recording of a live performance.

It depends. Worst case scenario there's no song at all.

It depends in these dark and modern times. Studio recordings usually mean auto-tuned crap and live could mean lip-syncing. I usually don't like live if the quality isn't "crisp", I don't like Fuzzy music. Studio gives clarity and is good as long as the people are actually singing and if the songs have meaning to them.

I prefer the recorded version for most songs, but I'll make an exception occasionally. For example, Snow Patrol's song "Chasing Cars." I can't stand the recorded version but love the live version.

Studio...it's better quality...i find listening to live albums just for the "live sound" to be a tad sad for some reason. But thats probably because i'm so cool.

Recordings. I want to be able to hear the songs.

The live recording of One by Metallica has a 5min gunfire and helicopter intro. Is it a good thing? I don't know.

Nirvana's unplugged was recorded live and some poeple regard it as KCs finest.

Both, but sometimes the recording ruins the song for you because the band has carried on developing it and you expect it to sound a certain way and then it just doesn't. I couldn't do without the thrill of live music, though. Both performing and listening to.

To me, it depends on the artist or band.

Live.

Bands that excel in live performances can take artistic expression far beyond the restrictions of the studio.

Most of these are jambands. Phish, Disco Biscuits, Umphreys McGee... they are some examples of bands that go the extra distance to put on spectacular live performances.

If it's on my mp3? Studio recording most of the time, live recordings generally don't come across as clean and you can hear people shouting in the background. (WHY do you fuckers cheer during the song?? XD)

But nothing beats going to see the bands you like live. :D