Live vs. recorded

I'm with Shadorne - maybe because our musical taste overlaps a fair bit. My favorite rock/pop/funk musicians are types that meticulously craft their songs, but manage to add that rock n' roll edge that suggests that it might all fall apart at any moment (think Richard Thompson to Lindsey Buckingham to Kid Creole). That tension is a real trick to pull off and the studio records only hint at the potential of a live performance where (for one thing) solos are extended and song structures break down.

These bands tend to emphasize the potential for chaos when playing live (relative to their studio recordings). For me, the trade-off in SQ is a small price to pay. But I do agree, the SQ is almost always a bummer.

Marty

I like them both for what they were intended to be. Think Sarah Mclachlan Surfaceing & Mirrorball. You can feel the artist thriving on the crowd response during the Live performance while the studio sessions are so technically wonderful. Eric Clapton Unplugged! Neil Young Live at Massey Hall! Don't get me started on all the live jazz I own. One of Harry Pearson's (TAS editor) best sounding, most recommended recordings is the live album "Jazz at the Pawn Shop". Both types of performance are entertaining.

Studio over live all ways.

I buy live music for the "many" variations the artist comes up with during a performance, not for it's sound quality. Some performances are better than others.

You can tell an artists commitment to their music by how well/often the play live. One of the best live rock performers is JAY FARRAR. His studio and live recording are exemplary.

live venue over studio and live-recording

To paraphrase the Duke - There's only 2 types of 'live' and studio recordings, good ones and all the rest! I could easily come up with a list of great 'live' recordings and just as easily make a list of the 'dogs' I've heard!