Studio Quality vs Live Performance

[junodog4]

Just thought I'd see what people had to add on this topic...

Some bands are fantastic in the studio, producing epic albums that launch up to the top of the BEA charts, but when it comes to their live show, they are flat, erratic, or lack charisma.

Some bands are mediocre in the studio, producing formulaic tripe, but when given the chance to perform live, they pull out all the stops and entertain, overwhelm, or inspire.

Any examples of either?

My thoughts:

Bob Dylan - while he is complete genius, he has been terrible both times I've seen him live. He plays with his back to audience, his voice is barely above a mutter, and he has no stage presence. His music is amazing, but better enjoyed at home.

Green Day - I don't mind their albums. There is some great work on many of them, but I don't think it's genius. However, when I've seen Green Day live, they pull out every gimmick possible (dancing bananas, covers, fans on stage, pyro, banter, moving stages, etc...), interact with the crowd, play multiple encores, and know how to flow from one track to another, ending with spectacular displays. I've never been disappointed.

[Noise Pollution]

I dunno. Usually I prefer studio to live for all bands, but that doesn't mean that I don't like some of their live performances. In my mind they are 2 different experiences.

AC/DC puts on an amazing live show, but I still think the album sounds better

I don't really like The Cult live
_________________
RNFNR

[revolver94]

Yeah, I usually like the studio better, just because its been carefully orchestrated and what not. Sometimes, however, something special happens in a live concert that's just amzing.

[junodog4]

But are there any bands that don't measure up to their studio work when they play live?

I've heard Arcade Fire isn't great live, but I've never seen them. The last time I saw Modest Mouse, Isaac Brock was so hammered he was incomprehensible and spent half his show lying down on the stage. Surely not all their shows are like this, but it was a huge disappointment.

Any others?

[Hayden]

Studio.

Live for some acoustic stuff.

[junodog4]

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?

[GeevyDallas]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Mirek]

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.

[SquishypuffDave]

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.