Is music better on the album or live ?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't why but there is a part of me that has seen videos of live shows and have been to a few live shows and think that maybe it does sound better on the album than it does live. I seem to think some singers are just shouting live than what they sound on the album. A seem to think a recorded live show sounds better than if you someone in the audience watching it. When I have had comparison thoughts of missing out on a concert I am reminding of this in order to not feel like I am missing out.

It very much depends on the band I think.

Many bands can't sound the way they do on the album because the recording process can cover up a lot of deficiency in the performance - a crappy live band can put together a decent album for sure.

But there are other factors too. Bad sound engineering can make a good live band sound terrible.

I saw Pixies last year and I was really impressed how close their live sound was to the recordings.

But sometimes when it's too like the album you wonder what the point of seeing a band live is.

Then you have bands like Talking Heads which I love, but I far prefer their live recordings to the studio albums which sound terrible in comparison, imo. Brian Eno has much to answer for.

Live performances can often be more energetic, but studio recordings tend to give a better idea of what the song is 'supposed to' sound like.

Yeah, it depends on the band.

Personally, I tend to find that the best bands are the ones who sound better live. Leave all the production behind and just let the music speak for itself.

But regarding live albums, even those are not often 100% honest. Most of them have at least a few overdubs, and will handpick songs from different shows to get the best performances. Heck, some of the most popular live albums are almost 100% done in studio.

I love a live show for the energy and the immediacy and the passion and emotion. Those are present in the album version too, but they are not as raw or close to the surface. It depends on the band and also on the genre, but for some very raucous bands the real challenge is to capture some of the live energy on the album rather than remain faithful to the recorded sound in a live show.

My music streaming app on my phone likes to play the live versions of songs instead of the studio 1s & I find it very annoying The songs are 2wice as long cuz of the bands talking & giving shout-outs to the audience before the song starts &/or after the song ends. Plus there's lots of cheering from the audience & the sound quality majorly sux as a result. I tend to delete the live albums from the discographies I The exceptions are if it's an acoustic version & the audience & room is silent otherwise, if the band never released a studio version of those songs, or if the band is screwing around acting funny like changing some of the lyrics or doing little skits(the bands GWAR & Blink 182 come to mind here)

Last edited by nick007 on 14 Jul 2023, 3:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

Here's an example of a song that sounded better live:



Most of the time I prefer the studio versions though.

This was good though:

studio sound is polished to the nth degree. live performances tend to be more rustic but visceral, with real presence. both have their charms.

Depends. Live music can be a heavenly experience. But I wouldn't want it all the time.

the album, "briefcase full of blues" would not have worked the same way, if it were entirely a studio creation. the audience was an essential part of that record. same for "mad dogs and englishmen" (joe cocker), and the "1938 benny goodman allstars jazz concert at carnegie hall."

I've listened back to live recordings that I was present for and they seemed so much better at the time. I think the whole experience of a gig is needed to enjoy live music, as you often the production doesn't translate to the recording.
A lot of bands have extra musicians on recordings that they don't have live. Or, they have session musicians to fill the gaps at live performances. So, it's all very different, sound wise.
Some bands do actually sound very similar live and recorded, but there are so many variables.
I've seen some great live bands but have not enjoyed their recordings, and visa versa.
I sound better live than on recordings.

Absolutely. One of my all-time favorite bands keeps no secrets about the attention they put into post-production engineering (as it's an extension of their creativity), but also puts on AmAzInG live performances. Their pared-down, acoustic stuff is exceptional, too. Over the decades, they've proven themselves to be true artistic musicians, every one of them.

Studio version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m04dNK-e7pQ

Live version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zruLK8DlDCY

I definitely prefer the live version. Can't hear anything exactly wrong with the studio version, but the live one seems more energetic and immediate, especially the solo guitar work. I notice a similar thing going on with my own music when I try to record it in my home studio - the first test often has a sense of excitement about it that can't quite be reproduced when I come to record it "properly." I guess the studio discipline and the tendency to try to make everything clean and perfect tends to get tedious, and the feelings of the performers get expressed in their playing. I've also got a live recording of Clannad that for me knocks the studio versions into a cocked hat.

I used to perform with a guitarist who could sometimes play extremely well if the atmosphere at a gig was right for him. I guess it's like football where a crowd of cheering supporters seems to improve the performers' confidence and allows them to do things they couldn't otherwise do.

I heard that Marc Bolan removed a lot of the sound-absorbing screens between the players for his recording sessions, to make the result sound wilder and more exciting. I guess he'd realised that technical perfection wasn't the most important thing.

I sometimes prefer my own live performances to my studio versions because by the time I've recorded, mixed, and mastered a multi-track song, I've heard it so many times that the final result seems to become practically inaudible and has no effect on my emotions at all. Meanwhile the live performance, having been simply captured on a sound recorder in one take, has a freshness that the studio version will never have, at least to my ears.

OTOH, not many live Beatles recordings impress me anything like as much as the studio versions. It's said that for some reason they used outmoded equipment for their performances, and that nobody (not even the band) could hear much for the screaming.

Yes a lot of the live experience is visual. Mind you, I've never felt much emotional contagion from a cheering crowd, and my feelings about the music are mostly my own. I'll typically get bored after 3 or 4 songs. But the lighting can make the thing feel more exciting than it "really" is. The sheer volume of many live performances is usually rather greater than the volume most people would play the live recording back at, and that makes quite a difference too.

i think it depends on the band also sometimes on the style of music.

for example jazz i think is really great live. not that it isnt good recorded but i really think being there for the performance adds another layer to it. seeing the musicians playing the instruments etc.

i havent been to alot of concerts but the ones i have been to have been great especially the ones that were smaller as opposed to ones in large venues. though im sure thats more because of my issues being around people and being overwhelmed by them rather than the actual band and music.

I have the same problem; as soon as I turn on the metronome, the song starts to lose some quality.
Sometimes I'll record "live", just vocals and guitar, and then overdub everything over that by ear, without any sort of "click track".