Are MP3s & Vinyl Better than Live Music?

[Implode]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsZMZ86zgF4

In interesting question posed by the Idea Channel. Now I know a lot of the points brought up are heavily dependent on the genre of music. The answer to this question will be very different for pop music and say jazz. But as far as the context of the video goes (mostly with pop music), I'm curious as to what you guys think. Have live shows become an event where people go to hear the studio recording in a live setting?

[The Letter M]

Live Music, to me, as an event, should be a full sensory experience: your ears AND eyes should be treated to a SLEW of stimuli, ranging from the music itself to a light and video show (if applicable), or at very least, watching the musicians on stage, not just playing the music, but PERFORMING it, with a live intensity not SEEN (but sometimes heard and felt) in studio recordings.

Now, as a strictly musical aspect, with regards to Studio Vs. Live, I think Live music offers a chance for the performer(s)/musician(s) to present their music in a different light, either with different instruments, instrumentation, arrangements, expanded sections, longer solos, improvised jams, etc. etc., giving their fans a (somewhat) unique experience. Plenty of bands do this while others seem to prefer to offer live music in a format that is closer to their studio counterparts, but in a live setting. RUSH have been known to try to replicate studio songs in a live setting, and much of the time, they do - their 2nd live album Exit...Stage Left is a very 'cold' and 'dry' album in terms of being live. The songs are presented with little-to-no crowd noise (cheering, roaring, clapping, singing along), and barring a few variations to the songs, they're almost like the studio versions. However, later live releases amp-up the live feel, such as their Rush In Rio release, which features a crowd of over 40,000 Brazilians singing along to songs, even instrumentals, and cheering louder than any other crowd Rush has performed in front of.

Now, some bands usually offer shows that are (almost) ALWAYS unique, with plenty of live jams and improvs. Jam bands probably have a huge following, with millions of bootlegs and bootleggers, mostly because each show IS different from each other. In that case, live music definitely has it's charms, and their fans either love or hate it (because it can be expensive/time-consuming to get EVERYTHING).

I think for many bands, there are some great live albums, such as Yes' Yessongs, where the songs are taken to the next level with bigger arrangements, longer jams, spontaneous solos, etc. etc., and where the music is transformed both by the band and the audience. There are some live albums, however, which don't offer much in the way of being different than their studio counterparts.

-Marc.

[Orbert]

Nothing is better than live music.

[nicmos]

Nothing is better than live music.

ha ha ha I don't think so.

when you are in the dark by yourself, listening to your headphones, or your stereo speakers if you are lucky enough to be somewhere loud music doesn't bother anyone else, you can fully absorb yourself in the music.  there are no distractions coming from audience noise, or no heads partially obstructing your view of the band.  your mind can go exactly where it wants to go.  I have always found listening to the recordings to be a more intensely personal experience.  not to mention the nuances that can be mixed just right, or even if they're not, you can use the equalizing settings on your sound system to make it sound how you want it to.

Put another way, I can't recall getting chills much when listening to music in a live setting, but I love getting them (as often happens) when listening to my recording by myself.  That feeling of joy just washes through your whole body.  I wouldn't trade that for having to only listen live all the time.

[Lolzeez]

Nothing is better than live music.

ha ha ha I don't think so.

when you are in the dark by yourself, listening to your headphones, or your stereo speakers if you are lucky enough to be somewhere loud music doesn't bother anyone else, you can fully absorb yourself in the music.  there are no distractions coming from audience noise, or no heads partially obstructing your view of the band.  your mind can go exactly where it wants to go.  I have always found listening to the recordings to be a more intensely personal experience.  not to mention the nuances that can be mixed just right, or even if they're not, you can use the equalizing settings on your sound system to make it sound how you want it to.

Put another way, I can't recall getting chills much when listening to music in a live setting, but I love getting them (as often happens) when listening to my recording by myself.  That feeling of joy just washes through your whole body.  I wouldn't trade that for having to only listen live all the time.

This Nicmos guy is right.

[Orbert]

I never said you had to only listen to live music all the time.  But I suppose, given the choice, I'd rather hear live music.

Listening to an album is listening to a product.  It can be fantastic and amazing, no doubt, but it is still only a finished product, static.  Play it again sometime, it will still be exactly the same.

A live performance happens only once, every single one is unique.  It is a congress between the performer(s) and the audience, each feeding the other.  If there is more than one performer, they feed each other.  If there is more than one audience member, they feed each other.  Everyone present contributes to the uniqueness of the event, which will never happen again.  Live music is personal, intimate.  You connect with the performer(s).  How personal is your connection to whoever recorded the CD you're listening to?

[TL]

The video in the OP makes the mistake of only really talking about Top 40 Pop, and then acting as if it's talking about all music. Yes, if you go see a pop artist live, it's going to be pretty damn similar in sound to the recording. If you're going to see a rock, metal, jazz, etc show, it can be a profoundly different experience.

When he cites The Beatles, he seems to miss the point. The Beatles stopped mainly because, when they played live, all anyone there heard was teenage girls screaming for the entire show. Even modern pop doesn't have that problem. Yes, they used the opportunity to get more creative in the studio, and do things that they would have had difficulty replicating live, but when bands do that, it's fine for the live version to be a different take on the song.

He also seems to make the mistake of posing it as one or the other, when for almost every musical act ever, both have a place. At home, I tend to listen to studio versions of songs. When I go to a show, it's about the experience.

Also, not really relevant, but that overused style of quick cut editing while talking into the camera 'to your audience' and having little quick cut jokes needs to go away. There are literally thousands of people doing that exact style on youtube, and you just know that every last one of them thinks they're being original.

[Implode]

Way to be a downer. 

I personally enjoy those videos. Most of the topics are really farfetched or easily dismissable. But he's not trying to convince you of anything. The videos are about posing the question to make you think of things in ways you probably haven't ever before.

And as for the style, I don't understand why you're hating on it. It's fast paced, informative, and engaging. And I doubt they think they are being original. The YouTube community is completely built upon building upon the ideas and inspirations of others.

[BlobVanDam]

Completely different musical experiences that are apples and oranges imo.
For sound quality, nothing beats the sound quality of just sitting at home with my good quality headphones and listening to the album with no distractions or background noise (on a PC, not on vinyl lol)
But OTOH, nothing beats the experience of being at a live concert, the musicians who wrote the song performing it live in that moment where anything can happen. The sound quality is obviously not close to being as good, but nothing will top the excitement of the live concert.

I don't think there's a comparison, because I get different things from each experience. I don't think seeing the live concert is necessary to appreciate the music, but I think it's an important part of being a music fan nonetheless.

[TAC]

I actually can't believe how little I listen to DT's studio albums. I almost exclusively listen to the live CDs or bootlegs.

[ReaperKK]

I have to agree with blob on this, it's really hard to compare because I'm usually in a different frame of mind while listening live versus listening to an album. The live show to me is all about the experience, everything from driving to the show to the venue, the light show, everything. Whereas when I put on an album I'm focused on the music and instrumentation.

This is probably a bad analogy but when I listen to a studio album it's like looking at a painting, at first I see it for what it is, what image it's trying to convey to me, then upon further viewings (listens) I start looking at details.

For a live show it's like watching performance art, the painting is important but watching the artist create that painting is equally as important. blaghhh I don't know where I'm going with this

I actually can't believe how little I listen to DT's studio albums. I almost exclusively listen to the live CDs or bootlegs.

I'm the opposite, when I do listen to DT (which is rare now) I rarely listen to the live stuff because I don't think they come across great on live records, they always sound flat to me.

[BlobVanDam]

I rarely listen to live recordings vs studio recordings. The appeal of live music is the whole experience, like Reaper said, but when I listen to music privately, I usually want the perfect audio and atmosphere of the studio version.

[kirksnosehair]

Interesting video there.  And some compelling points were made.


With that said, I think live music and recorded music are (or should be) two distinctly different things.


On a studio recording I expect nuance, perfection.


In a live setting I like hearing an artist make their best attempt at reproducing that studio recording, but I also like the element of potential surprise, like when they change things up a bit.


So to answer the question in the subject line of the thread: Are MP3s & Vinyl better than live music?   I think the answer, for me at least, is a qualified "No"


They're not "better" but they are "different"

[Jaq]

Neither is superior to the other because they're different experiences, created under different conditions, and generally cause different responses in the listener.

I will say while you can have transcendent moments at a live show-you also can get the Drunk Guy Who Air Guitars To Every Song And Keeps Hitting You Upside The Head, the Venue With The Really Awful Acoustics, and The Night The Drummer Shouldn't Have Eaten All Those Buffalo Wings. Live can be a total crapshoot in terms of the experience. A transcendent moment on a recording is transcendent forever.

[Orbert]

Okay, I didn't even realize that there was a video linked in the OP.  I saw the question in the thread title, started answering it in my head, and opened the thread.  I kinda blew past the OP because it just seemed to framing the question, I read Marc's response, and gave my own.

That said, I may or may not watch the video anyway at this point.  I'm not sure what the point would be.  Live music to many is about the experience, but if that experience includes huge crowds, drunk guys bumping you or puking on you, or any of the countless other reasons why I don't go to concerts, then I understand why that would be a negative.

But none of that has to do with the music.  I'm not talking about listening to awesome tunes on headphones in a perfect, quiet listening environment versus fighting a huge crowd to hear badly mixed sound at a huge festival where you have lousy seats.  I'm talking specifically about experiencing a live performance versus listening to a studio album.  I thought that that was the question.  And nothing is better than live music.  Performing it or watching it, either way.  Since musical performance is the ultimate expression of the human condition, I'm not sure how anything can be said to be better than it.

[YtseBitsySpider]

Nothing is better than live music.

I would assume you mean when done correctly.
Two of the WORST shows I've ever seen

are
1.Pearl Jam
2.RUSH

Band that I would characterize as having incredibly strong catalogues. I wouldn't see either of them again even with free stubs. But I enjoy listening to their music still.

[Orbert]

Again, you're talking about specific events, specific concerts.  Live music, as a concept, is awesome.  The sharing of artistic expression, interactively, involving both performer and audience.  "I have their latest single on mp3" just doesn't compare to that.

[ReaperKK]

Nothing is better than live music.

I would assume you mean when done correctly.
Two of the WORST shows I've ever seen

are
1.Pearl Jam
2.RUSH

Band that I would characterize as having incredibly strong catalogues. I wouldn't see either of them again even with free stubs. But I enjoy listening to their music still.

Can I ask what made those shows so bad?

[ytserush]

Okay, I didn't even realize that there was a video linked in the OP.  I saw the question in the thread title, started answering it in my head, and opened the thread.  I kinda blew past the OP because it just seemed to framing the question, I read Marc's response, and gave my own.

That said, I may or may not watch the video anyway at this point.  I'm not sure what the point would be.  Live music to many is about the experience, but if that experience includes huge crowds, drunk guys bumping you or puking on you, or any of the countless other reasons why I don't go to concerts, then I understand why that would be a negative.

But none of that has to do with the music.  I'm not talking about listening to awesome tunes on headphones in a perfect, quiet listening environment versus fighting a huge crowd to hear badly mixed sound at a huge festival where you have lousy seats.  I'm talking specifically about experiencing a live performance versus listening to a studio album.  I thought that that was the question.  And nothing is better than live music.  Performing it or watching it, either way.  Since musical performance is the ultimate expression of the human condition, I'm not sure how anything can be said to be better than it.

What he said.

There is nothing better than experiencing live music.

I'm sure there must be some, but I can't think of one song right now that I wouldn't want to hear live before I'd want to hear the original.