Live vs. recorded

I almost always prefer studio recordings. To me, they're a more accurate representation of the artists intent; and to my tastes, they sound better. On the occasions that I do like live recordings, it's usually because the recording was able to capture a special vibrancy in the performance that I attribute to a bonding with the audience.

Shadorne said "I suspect that many pop/rock bands simply cannot deliver the carefully crafted, dubbed and over-dubbed polished performances that you get on their overproduced studio productions. I also suspect there is some essence that is lost when stuff is overdubbed or people play in separate sound booths. Perhaps it is only me - but I hear something better when people are actually playing live....I am not sure why but something different occurs when people play live together - either it is in the acoustics or the way musicians play off each other - little mistakes perhaps - is this is why Sheffield Direct to Disc were so good?"

I say that you are absolutely correct sir, and much more so than you realize!

A lot of jazz is recorded that way, too.

Live.

I work in live music. I do 100 to 200 shows a year. Just love the soundstage of good soundboard recordings--capture the air of the venue and the energy of band when everything is right.

Most official live albums are crap. Still, some bands are releasing non-compressed discs that have a special energy. I applaud Pearl Jam for releasing every 2000 tour date under simple mix conditions (200 plus shows)and Tom Petty's recent foray into Blu Ray.

I know of many live bootlegs that are superior to the band's best studio efforts. I have incredible discs by Midnight Oil, NIN, REM, the Replacements, the Clash, Bruce Springsteen and U2 that just crush the studio versions. These discs are always on heavy rotation because they remain fresh in my mind.