Best Ever Albums

Re: Studio Quality vs Live Performance

junodog4 — Thu, 7 Jun 2012 23:11:30 GMT

Author: junodog4

Posted: 06/08/2012 03:11

Two bands that are somewhat similar, yet totally different outcomes on this issue:

Guns and Roses - I quite enjoy Appetite, and while Use Your Illusion I+II gets a little bloated, there are moments of pure quality. I hardly ever get tired of the studio efforts that GnR has put on album. However, every time I've seen them (mind you, it is without Slash and others) they have been brutal live. Axel's voice doesn't hold up, they always start late, they leave huge 15 minute + silent breaks in their set, and they act like the crowd owes them something. Always disappointing.

Aerosmith - Very similar in sound. Decent albums, if sometimes becoming too rock-ballady or schmaltzy. However, in concert, these boys ALWAYS put on a show. They interact with the crowd, their musicianship steps up, and they play off the evening's energy. You end up appreciating the meaning, fun and general quality of their tracks. I have always been entertained by Aerosmith.

Re: Studio Quality vs Live Performance

BlueNote — Sun, 3 Jun 2012 17:45:53 GMT

Author: BlueNote

Posted: 06/03/2012 21:45

Mother Nature's Son wrote:

Probably yes! How would you say it out loud? Exclamation point, exclamation point, exclamation point? :-k

I believe it is pronounced "Ch, Ch, Ch." That's what I was told by someone who knows more about those sorts of things than I do.

Re: Studio Quality vs Live Performance

Mirek — Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:47:34 GMT

Author: Mirek

Posted: 06/03/2012 14:47

BrilliantDisguise wrote:

My opinion is that a band/artist should be able to play live otherwise is just a trick of editing or arranging or sound enhancements.

100% agree

Re: Studio Quality vs Live Performance

Mr. Shankly — Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:20:28 GMT

Author: Mr. Shankly

Posted: 06/03/2012 14:20

Some bands are better live and some bands are better in the studio. Overall, I have a lot more patience and am more open-minded and patient towards a live band than I am with listening to an album at home. For me to buy the CD, the music has to be pretty damn good and also has to surpass its influences. In other words, if I have music already by groups another group is practically imitating, there's no point in adding their music to my collection.

Re: Studio Quality vs Live Performance

SquishypuffDave — Sun, 3 Jun 2012 10:14:07 GMT

Author: SquishypuffDave

Posted: 06/03/2012 14:14

I saw a local folk band play live and they were enchanting, but in my opinion their music didn't have anywhere near the same effect when recorded. On tape, it lacked an sounded flat and unengaging. Not the band's fault at all; their music was just suited to live performance. Makes me wonder how many bands I've listened to and haven't liked, that I'd actually really enjoy live if I had the chance.

Re: Studio Quality vs Live Performance

BrilliantDisguise — Sun, 3 Jun 2012 09:51:45 GMT

Author: BrilliantDisguise

Posted: 06/03/2012 13:51

My opinion is that a band/artist should be able to play live otherwise is just a trick of editing or arranging or sound enhancements.

Re: Studio Quality vs Live Performance

Mother Nature's Son — Sun, 3 Jun 2012 09:47:35 GMT

Author: Mother Nature's Son

Posted: 06/03/2012 13:47

Eggman/Walrus/Taxman wrote:

:lol:

It's the most Google-proof band name one could come up with.

Except for maybe using some other symbol or something.

Probably yes! How would you say it out loud? Exclamation point, exclamation point, exclamation point? 🤔

Re: Studio Quality vs Live Performance

lancashirearab — Sun, 3 Jun 2012 09:24:14 GMT

Author: lancashirearab

Posted: 06/03/2012 13:24

I saw Soundtrack of our Lives supporting Oasis a few years ago and thought they were amazing. I bought the album and took it back to the shop because it was such boring drivel. The shop keeper was happy to take it back because he agreed with me that their live sound was in no way indicative of what happened on the CD! 😲

Re: Studio Quality vs Live Performance

Facetious — Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:58:15 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 06/03/2012 12:58

Mother Nature's Son wrote:

Wtf, there are actually a band called "!!!" 😲 . I just thought he didn't care for albums, that's why he used all the exclamation points, because what in the world he then be here for?!

🤣

It's the most Google-proof band name one could come up with.

Except for maybe using some other symbol or something.

Re: Studio Quality vs Live Performance

Facetious — Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:56:47 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 06/03/2012 12:56

Hayden wrote:

Yeah. The band '!!!'.

Idiotic name.

I always thought the name was hilarious.

Re: Studio Quality vs Live Performance

Mother Nature's Son — Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:55:15 GMT

Author: Mother Nature's Son

Posted: 06/03/2012 12:55

Hayden wrote:

Yeah. The band '!!!'.

Idiotic name.

Wtf, there are actually a band called "!!!" 😲 . I just thought he didn't care for albums, that's why he used all the exclamation points, because what in the world he then be here for?!

Re: Studio Quality vs Live Performance

Hayden — Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:47:02 GMT

Author: Hayden

Posted: 06/03/2012 12:47

Mother Nature's Son wrote:

Are you talking about a specific band here?

Yeah. The band '!!!'.

Idiotic name.

Re: Studio Quality vs Live Performance

Facetious — Sun, 3 Jun 2012 08:25:33 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 06/03/2012 12:25

Mother Nature's Son wrote:

Are you talking about a specific band here?

🤣 I think he's talking about !!!, which is a band. Weird name, huh?

Re: Studio Quality vs Live Performance

Mother Nature's Son — Sun, 3 Jun 2012 07:58:42 GMT

Author: Mother Nature's Son

Posted: 06/03/2012 11:58

Norman Bates wrote:

While I don't care that much about !!! albums (always two or three extremely good tracks, the rest ranges from good to just OK), they pull out a hell of a live show.

Are you talking about a specific band here?

Re: Studio Quality vs Live Performance

Norman Bates — Sun, 3 Jun 2012 07:48:23 GMT

Author: Norman Bates

Posted: 06/03/2012 11:48

While I don't care that much about !!! albums (always two or three extremely good tracks, the rest ranges from good to just OK), they pull out a hell of a live show.

Re: Studio Quality vs Live Performance

SquishypuffDave — Sun, 3 Jun 2012 06:21:00 GMT

Author: SquishypuffDave

Posted: 06/03/2012 10:21

I'm not the biggest They Might Be Giants fan, but I've heard their live shows are a blast. At a gig my friend went to, they turned a radio on in the middle of the set and started to improvise along with whatever was playing.

Re: Studio Quality vs Live Performance

Mirek — Sun, 3 Jun 2012 04:40:14 GMT

Author: Mirek

Posted: 06/03/2012 08:40

Live music shows the real value of the artist. In the studio you can repeat and repeat until you find the best sound. During the concert you have no chance to do it again (except encore 😄 ) and if you fail you are lost. And because of this there are not so many good live albums.

Re: Studio Quality vs Live Performance

Anonymous — Fri, 1 Jun 2012 15:46:23 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 06/01/2012 19:46

Muse is spectacular live, even singing worst of their songs, somehow better than studio. But it's a kinda general law that studio albums are the ones which you can judge as an art product.

Re: Studio Quality vs Live Performance

GeevyDallas — Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:47:07 GMT

Author: GeevyDallas

Posted: 06/01/2012 15:47

The one that springs to mind immediately is The Prodigy,I find it extremely difficult to listen to their music at home but I've seen them live twice and they were the two best gigs I've ever been to,they're the greatest live act in the world on their day ,simply amazing.Another one is OFWGKTA apart from a couple of releases I wouldn't be a huge fan but on both occasions I've seen them they were fantastic,interacting with the crowd and just generally going crazy.
I've never been to see a band whose music I would consider to like that have let me down,but that's likely to change soon enough I'd imagine.

Re: Studio Quality vs Live Performance

junodog4 — Thu, 31 May 2012 21:14:35 GMT

Author: junodog4

Posted: 06/01/2012 01:14

I should change the title of this thread... It's misleading... 😨

Which bands are much better in the studio, and a disappointment live?

Which bands are much better live, even if they are a disappointment in the studio?