Regarding bootlegs, I used to find some very good quality LPs at Bleeker Bob's. I suspect the house mix engineer was involved in some of the high quality soundboard releases.
Is there anything better than live recordings?
Other than attending the concerts themselves?
I say NO.
👍
77 responses Add your response
What's better than a live recording is a live recording that YOU engineered. Having spent some time doing location recording, you've learned what works and have brought it home. When you play it back at home and it feels like it did live, THEN you've got the ultimate in audiophile experience, one that very, very few in these forums has ever known. |
@gosta Thanks for suggesting Live at Hull--I didn't even know about this recording! I've been streaming it and enjoying it. Without comparing them directly, from my memory the guitar and drums sound better than Leeds; I think the vocals are mixed too low, but given the state of PAs back then (and how loud the Who played), this might be an accurate portrayal of what the audience heard, and I think it's a more complete concert. I'm doubtful that either recording captures the low end that well; even though Entwhistle emphasized the treble at this time, I would think his bass would have had more low frequencies than these recordings reflect, a low end better captured on Tommy, for which he was similarly playing a Precision Bass, probably through a 4 x 12 cabinet. |
A famous musician once compared studio recording to live performing as building a ship in a bottle vs being in a rowboat on the open sea. |
Been to, oh, a thousand or so concerts in last 50yrs (from Hip Hop to the Bolshoi), I have about 500 CDs and about 4000 songs saved on Qobuz. I have never, ever, heard a live recording of a track sound as good as the studio. Only very rarely does the live show sound as good - never better - than the studio recording. As a rule I avoid listening to live recordings because of this. A live show is the mutual gift between the performer/writer and the audience and studio recordings only have acoustic energy. So you get that connection and real human energy from a show. But sounds better? Never. |
Hi jjbeason14 ... thanks for the topic. Based upon last Saturday's experience, I've discovered another option that, for me, beats the simple playback of a live recording. My Peers will remember the 1970's live television music variety show, "The Midnight Special." The show was simultaneously broadcasted by FM radio stations in stereo sound. Despite the small screens, it was exciting, drawing big name acts. Saturday, my wife and I drove a couple hours north to eastern Maine as a getaway weekend, and attended: Metropolitan Opera | In Cinemas (metopera.org) The opera was the Italian "Fedora" with English subtitles. Now, I'm the same guy who posted a response last week saying I much prefer listening to 2 channel in a darkened room, with just the glow of tubes. Well, the Metropolitan Opera is not just any cut-rate production. The orchestra, the camera work, the video and audio were engaging, engrossing and just plain old fun for us. We chanced into a dear friend and shared a plate. Highly recommended! More Peace, Pin (bold print for old eyes) |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
The songs are usually performed differently and sometimes with more energy. If they are well recorded, produced, mastered, pressed, etc., you are missing out if you don’t have some in your library. Al Jarrwau Look to the Rainbow, George Benson Weekend in LA, Frampton Comes Alive, Simon and Garfunkel in Central Park, Steely Dan Northeast Corridor, Wes Montgomery Full House, Billy Joel Songs in the Attic, The Who Live at Leeds, Neil Young Rust Never Sleeps (2nd side is live), Al Stewart Indian Summer ( last side or two is live) are all very enjoyable and unique. |
With my very large music collection, I have no preference studio or live. First is the performance. Some performers are great live and terrible in studios. (Mark Hambourg-pianist with 300 mediocre 78s versus great live performer). Alternatively, live versus studio recordings vary immensely in quality of sound. E.g. Ramsey Lewis in Chicago, fantastic live recorded sound while most of his Argo studio recordings also excellent sound. I much prefer studio rock recordings to most live ones. I don't discriminate on sound alone but a bad sounding recording in either is not appreciated. (I just acquired an additional 3000 LPs and 4700 CDs-yikes!) |
100% DIS-agree! Live performance is just that... it's a performance. An ephemeral event. A studio recording is "A WORK OF ART". It's a different thing entirely, and is to be admired in a totally different way. Would you ever demand a real-time "performance" from a painter? Would you ask him/her to make a painting in front of an audience, and then hold that painting up to scrutiny for years to come? No, that's not how we judge and admire paintings, photos, or sculptures. A studio album is a non-realtime creation, and is a completely different thing than a live performance. Bear in mind that I'm NOT dumping on live recordings. I love live Studio recordings. I typically do not like recordings in front of an audience however, as most don't sound very good.
|
"Live in the studio", which many jazz dudes (and some others) do, can sound amazing. Lots of pop music takes months to record, sweating over details and overdubs...some of my fave jazz musicians (or perhaps most of them) like Julian Lage or John Scofield record entire albums in a couple of days with astonishing results. |