Why I listen to live albums *rant

[LudwigVan]

I never understood folks who, after hearing a live album or show, exclaim "That was great!  The songs sounded EXACTLY like they do on the album!"   

For me, I would prefer if a band's live performances do NOT come off as note-for-note replications of the original studio recordings.  A good live recording should bring a different perspective, for example emphasizing a bassline or drum pattern that might've gotten obscured in the studio mix.  Or an adventurous guitarist who will put a different accent on his solo or riff.  All coming from how a player might feel on a particular day, thereby lending a totally different atmosphere to an otherwise familiar song. 

I especially love bands that "deconstruct" a song, taking it apart into pieces in a live setting and then putting it back together again.  Taking an instrumental section and extending it out... toying with the guitar riff, or changing up the rhythm midstream, or inverting the bassline, or even all of the above.  Even if the playing goes nowhere, I'd much prefer a failed experiment than no experiment at all.  When a band does this, you can almost see the creative process happening right before you. 

I was listening to Zep's Dazed and Confused on a 1975 bootleg tape when, during the instrumental, Page breaks out into a familiar riff.   I'm thinking, where do I know this?  It turned out to be an embryonic version of Achilles Last Stand that Page had been working on a year before they recorded it for Presence.  Plant hadn't even written lyrics for it and was just ad libbing some nonsense to it, which was actually quite cool.   Bands like Zep, Deep Purple and King Crimson did this all the time.
 
Maybe it's just the prog-snob in me versus a kind of "pop" music mentality, but for some reason, many fans feel that the "holy grail" of being able to perform live is to get a perfect reproduction of how they originally heard the songs on the studio album, sound-wise AND playing-wise.  To me, it just defeats the purpose.     

[Seventh Son]

Gotta disagree with you. There are bands that you go see because of the energy and intensity they can bring like a lot of Hardcore Punk bands or Death Metal. Or sometimes its just the atmosphere that the band brings out live that matters. Sometimes its not always a good thing to fix something that isn't broken 

Not saying its a bad idea to experiment, but there are bands that tend to take it REALLY overboard, you know?

[antigoon]

It seems like it's the prog fans who revel in the musicians' abilities to play the song "perfectly" live and hate anything that takes away from that such as crowd noise on live recordings.

[Seventh Son]

It seems like it's the prog fans who revel in the musicians' abilities to play the song "perfectly" live and hate anything that takes away from that such as crowd noise on live recordings.

This
I LOVELOVELOVE hearing crowd noise. It adds a level of energy you don't really get otherwise. But I'm from a metal background and not really prog so

[antigoon]

Crowd noise is awesome. It's pathetic sounding when you listen to the chorus of Take The Time from CiM and there's just NOTHING from the crowd!

[ariich]

Completely agreed LV. I went to 3 gigs in 3 nights this week.

Linkin Park put on an excellent show, and while they weren't spontaneous and didn't really jam or anything, they did play most of the songs differently to the album versions, extending sections, changing instrumentation, etc. Really adds to the live experience.

Amorphis also put on a great show and are great live performers. The one thing I was disappointed with is the way they don't really change up the songs at all, apart from a couple of songs where they got the crowd to sing the chorus a few times. Their oldest songs sound much fuller live, but other than that it's pretty much direct replication. Other than that it was an excellent show, it was just mildly disappointing in that regard.

Then Freak Kitchen last night were just so much fun. There was lots of banter with the audience, even during songs, the songs were changed a bit, sections were extended, it was all round a good laugh and the most live feeling of the three gigs.

[ytserush]

I almost ALWAYS prefer to hear songs performed live rather than on the record for most bands that I listen to.

In the cases where I don't, more often than not it's a nostalgia issue for me.

[juice]

I'm all for crowd cheers and singing but when it comes to clapping and attempting to keep time that just gets annoying since the crowd is NEVER able to keep time.

[Adami]

I'm all for crowd cheers and singing but when it comes to clapping and attempting to keep time that just gets annoying since the crowd is NEVER able to keep time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5KTlBQzYSs

[Gorille85]

That is amazing!

[In The Name Of Rudess]

I agree with LV. The only live albums I listen to are jazz records, because jazz songs are completely different every time they're performed.

[Zydar]

I'm not a big fan of live albums, I almost always prefer to listen to the studio versions. But I love to watch live DVDs, there's something about that visual aspect that gets lost on a live album.

[Orbert]

I grew up listening to a lot of live albums, including a lot of prog, so maybe I'm the exception to the rule about prog fans always wanting things "perfect" even on a live recording.  For me, it's interesting and exciting to hear what a band can do in real time.  On the album, there are two guitar parts and three keyboard parts; what are they going to do when they play it live?  

I'm looking for a good performance of the song, that's it.  If they can make it sound pretty much like the album, but with the intensity and excitement of a live performance, great.  If they have to rearrange things because it's a given that they can't pull off what they did in the studio, that can also be very cool, and I'm curious to hear what they come up with.

I don't listen to a lot of live albums from newer bands, which is interesting, because I can still pull out the old live albums I grew up with and spin them end to end.  Maybe it's the nostalgia factor.  With newer stuff, I'm kinda like Zydar; I can watch a live show and get into it.  Seeing them actually playing it, their facial expressions, the interplay between the band members, all of that adds something to the performance.  I'll watch live performances of stuff on TV that I'd never listen to on the radio, just because seeing a live show is so cool.

[skydivingninja]

Crowd noise is awesome. It's pathetic sounding when you listen to the chorus of Take The Time from CiM and there's just NOTHING from the crowd!

My biggest problem with DT live albums.  You hear cheering at the beginning, then when James asks the crowd to sing along, you don't hear ANYTHING.  When I was getting into them and I watched Score, I was wondering wtf was up with the audience.

I agree with LudwigVan as well, I love hearing all the differences between studio and live versions.  Opeth do a great job of this.  On the new DVD, Mikael's growls are very different than on the albums, "Harvest" has a whole new sound, Per's background vocals are great, and songs like April Ethereal, BWP, and The Moor get an extra kick in the balls.  Same with Muse, actually.  They sound so raw live, and they insert all these little jams between songs and extend the outros, and it really puts you in the concert when you listen to HAARP.  Extended jams are fun as well, like the way Rush would extend "Closer to the Heart" back in the 90s, as long as they don't go overboard.

[Samsara]

LV -- interesting post. I sit the fence on this. I love live shows. But it is only enjoyable when they mix it up when the band still remains faithful to the vibe of the song.

For me, a 20 minute jam session smacked into the middle of a five minute tune really needs to be incredible and interesting for me to actually like it.

For instance, one of my favorite bands, Living Colour, is known for extending songs. They have one song called "Sacred Ground" that came out on their 2004(?) album, Collideoscope. The song existed prior to that, so there were two versions, of about the same length (5 minutes).

In 2003, I saw them live, and they played that song. They turned a great tune into this repetitive, boring, ridiculously drawn out 20-minute piece. It was absolutely horrendous.

So while I like a little variety, I think for me, it means extending out a solo just a tad, or throwing in a new verse, etc. If it gets to be too long, and too far away from the original vibe of the tune, I just don't care for it.

An example of where it works: The live ending to "Eyes of a Stranger" by Queensryche. It is a reprise of "Anarchy-X" that was never recorded in the studio. That is a great part that is totally different than the ending on the album itself.

[Ben_Jamin]

Live Scenes, it has everything good about why live albums slay the studio. Added/extended sections, use of gospel choir to really bring out the emotional impact of TSCO, and the awesome Metropolis pt2. rehearsal ending that should be the real ending.

[True Death of Life]

I agree; I have a great live Styx album and all off a sudden in the middle of Come Sail Away this whole other solo pops out; it was a pleasant surprise and I love live albums for those things.

[blackngold29]

Good topic, and that clapping lesson was awesome. I prefer live albums, but with the knowledge that they wouldn't be what they are without the studio version. If you only hear the live version of a song, then it just is what it is, but when you can compare it to the studio version you can see hear a whole new layer to it. There's an extra layer of energy to live stuff too, especially when the crowd is really into it.

Specifically there's a few bands that can pull off a section of music that builds and builds until it explodes; DT pulls that off really well in the CiM version of Dark Eternal Night, starting around 8:02 you get the riff, then JR comes in on the contiuum, by 9:00 he really starts picking up and at 9:28 they're going nuts. It feels seamless though, so you don't think much of it, because it's the sames instrument and sound of the studio version, but around 9:38 you suddenly realize "Holy crap, they're jammin" where with the studio version the emphasis is on the riff rather than JR.

[ytserush]

LV -- interesting post. I sit the fence on this. I love live shows. But it is only enjoyable when they mix it up when the band still remains faithful to the vibe of the song.

For me, a 20 minute jam session smacked into the middle of a five minute tune really needs to be incredible and interesting for me to actually like it.

For instance, one of my favorite bands, Living Colour, is known for extending songs. They have one song called "Sacred Ground" that came out on their 2004(?) album, Collideoscope. The song existed prior to that, so there were two versions, of about the same length (5 minutes).

In 2003, I saw them live, and they played that song. They turned a great tune into this repetitive, boring, ridiculously drawn out 20-minute piece. It was absolutely horrendous.

So while I like a little variety, I think for me, it means extending out a solo just a tad, or throwing in a new verse, etc. If it gets to be too long, and too far away from the original vibe of the tune, I just don't care for it.

An example of where it works: The live ending to "Eyes of a Stranger" by Queensryche. It is a reprise of "Anarchy-X" that was never recorded in the studio. That is a great part that is totally different than the ending on the album itself.

Depends on which band is doing the jamming. 

In the case of Living Colour, I'd agree with you.

I'm pretty sure I saw them last the same year you did and that jam did get a little tiresome for me.  If I remember correctly, Sacred Ground was recorded in 1994 and released on the Pride compilation (I love the song myself).

At least that's the version I'm familiar with. It doesn't appear on the version of Collideoscope I have. Where can I get the second version? (Or do you mean the live version in 2003 IS the other version?)

[ytserush]

I don't know what the hell I was thinking the other day. Sacred Ground (The less angry version) IS on Collideoscope.

I don't listen to that album as much as the others (I still haven't picked up the Paris Concert or A Chair In The Doorway yet.) and I'm not sure why as Collideoscope is pretty much on par with the rest of their albums.

Hell, until I put it on today I forgot they covered Back in Black too. (At least I remembered they covered Tomorrow Never Knows!)

But yeah, I still agree with the live version of Sacred Ground that I heard somwhere around 2002/2003 did meander quite a bit.

But more often than not, I prefer a live verison (even if extended provided it is done well).

[Marvellous G]

Obligatory 'I only listen to DMB live because it's so much better that way.'

But I often prefer live albums, the only time I'd rather take studio is when it's very atmosphere reliant, such as some PT/DT/Opeth songs.

[Samsara]

LV -- interesting post. I sit the fence on this. I love live shows. But it is only enjoyable when they mix it up when the band still remains faithful to the vibe of the song.

For me, a 20 minute jam session smacked into the middle of a five minute tune really needs to be incredible and interesting for me to actually like it.

For instance, one of my favorite bands, Living Colour, is known for extending songs. They have one song called "Sacred Ground" that came out on their 2004(?) album, Collideoscope. The song existed prior to that, so there were two versions, of about the same length (5 minutes).

In 2003, I saw them live, and they played that song. They turned a great tune into this repetitive, boring, ridiculously drawn out 20-minute piece. It was absolutely horrendous.

So while I like a little variety, I think for me, it means extending out a solo just a tad, or throwing in a new verse, etc. If it gets to be too long, and too far away from the original vibe of the tune, I just don't care for it.

An example of where it works: The live ending to "Eyes of a Stranger" by Queensryche. It is a reprise of "Anarchy-X" that was never recorded in the studio. That is a great part that is totally different than the ending on the album itself.

Depends on which band is doing the jamming. 

In the case of Living Colour, I'd agree with you.

I'm pretty sure I saw them last the same year you did and that jam did get a little tiresome for me.  If I remember correctly, Sacred Ground was recorded in 1994 and released on the Pride compilation (I love the song myself).

At least that's the version I'm familiar with. It doesn't appear on the version of Collideoscope I have. Where can I get the second version? (Or do you mean the live version in 2003 IS the other version?)

It doesn't? I have the Pride (94) version, and also the Collideoscope one. Track #13. Weird!