Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 70% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > rock discussion forum

Better in the studio or live?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 10 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 3 Dec 2008 12:18:37 GMT
Last edited by the author on 3 Dec 2008 14:26:38 GMT
Nugent Dirt says:
In my experience there are few bands who are equally good live and in the studio. Usually they cut it better in one or t'other. Take Thin Lizzy, Cheap Trick, Dr Feelgood and AC/DC. IMO their studio albums are a bit limp but live and on their live recordings they are something else. On the other side of the coin you get bands like the Stones who frankly are a bit shoddy live but have made some great studio albums.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Dec 2008 13:46:07 GMT
FDJ says:
Robin Trower live was awesome,yet i found his studio output a bit lame.Deep Purple on the other hand ,although making one of the best live albums ( Made in Japan.),were often quite dissapointing live.Rory Gallagher was a delight on record and live.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Dec 2008 18:20:39 GMT
My preference is generally for Live as I prefer that spontaneous live feel. Often Studio albums are so produced they lose any spontaneity and reproducing a guitar solo over and over again means it is bound to lose some energy.
Depends on the band really, as already indicated:- The Stones Live are more about the complete performance and atmosphere than the music. Most Metal and rock bands are better live (Priest, Quo, Thin Lizzy, metallica etc.) unless they are limited by the number of musicians and over production in the studio.
some bands of course sound exactly the same Live or in the studio (Floyd, Eagles) which to my mind is a bit pointless although many people love note for note reproductions.

Generally though, I would recommend anyone to get out to see a Live band, you can't beat the sound of pounding drums and grinding guitars.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Dec 2008 19:57:35 GMT
UFO have to be the ultimate better live band.

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Dec 2008 22:18:44 GMT
Mark Kibble says:
Early Mott the hoople were dynamite on stage, encouraging audience participation and feeding off the response. Their studio recordings were never as good.

Free however put out some cracking studio albums, but I saw them 'live' a couple of times and they were trash. They might of stood a chance if paul Rodgers did less posing and Kossoff wasn't stoned out of his head.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Dec 2008 10:14:53 GMT
Nugent Dirt says:
Never seen Quo but the 70s live album is a blast and shows all the naysayers that they arent the lame 3 chord boogie merchants non fans take them for. I'm not particularly a Quo fan but some of their 70s albums are pretty good. IMO the classic example of a great live act but lame in the studio were The Tubes. Check out What Do You Want From Live.

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Dec 2008 13:18:29 GMT
MC Zaptone says:
Love live gigs, prefer smaller venues if possible. I can't stand live albums don't see the point, if you want the atmosphere and can put up with blown sound and people shouting, go to the gig, if you missed a classic gig listening to it on cd will still only be a second hand experience at best.

Weirdly I really dislike bands that sound note for note perfect studio & live, surely half the fun of a live gig is the banter when some-one c**ks-up and you get a sense of interacting and having a laugh with the guys in the band, for me thats what makes a gig special not just nodding/moshing along to your favourite tunes. I saw Led Zepp. @ Earls Court, when Kashmir was first released, massive audience, good sound, practice perfect perfomance
It was OK saw Love 2 weeks later only 200 in the crowd Arthur Lee spent ages talking to the members of the audience, did wierd versions of their favourite songs of his, tried dancing with the crowd, kept falling over (bit out-of-it) Buggered up a few starts of songs but we all left feeling we had had a private audience with our hero, and you would never feel that on a live recording of the gig.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Dec 2008 09:35:55 GMT
Nugent Dirt says:
MC- IMO the point of live albums is that they often improve hugely on the studio originals. Beef them up, give them more guts plus they're often extended. Good examples are Cheap Trick's I Want You To Want Me and AC/DC's Whole Lotta Rosie.

In reply to an earlier post on 5 Dec 2008 15:52:16 GMT
I agree entirely. Robin Trower albums always fail to please. I've still got two. Never play 'em. I've got a lot of Rory Gallagher albums and though I love them all, they are nothing compared to a live Rory gig.
Here was a true professional who always gave everything, especially at the smaller gigs. I saw him at an SU New Year bash in Liverpool, supported by Osibisa. There must have been 30 people there altogether, but Rory absolutely rocked the place.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Dec 2008 08:13:14 GMT
Tikka says:
My view - and I've used as a criteria 'where I've got both live and studio albums by an artist which albums do I listen to more often?' (I don't get to see many bands live these days)

Better live albums -
Thin Lizzy
Queen (specially if you count the Top 100 B**tleg series)
Dumpy's Rusty Nuts
Lynyrd Skynyrd

Evens -
Deep Purple
Green Day

Better studio albums -
Pink Floyd
The 'Oo
Black Sabbath
Iron Maiden
Rolling Stones
Gary Moore
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the rock discussion forum (785 discussions)

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums

This discussion

Discussion in:  rock discussion forum
Participants:  8
Total posts:  10
Initial post:  3 Dec 2008
Latest post:  8 Dec 2008

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions