How do you prefer your live albums? Compilation or Single Show?

[The Letter M]

A recent post in the Kansas thread that brought up their Two For The Show 2CD expanded set got me thinking about how many of the celebrated and much-loved 70s prog live albums really feature songs from different nights on a tour, and even different tours, all compiled together for a live album.

That doesn't seem to be the case nowadays, or even over the last 20 years, where live albums have typically become one complete show, released as a live album.

So I figured I'd throw up this poll and see what you all liked as far as live albums. Do you prefer single shows as a live album, or some form of compilation, be it from a multi-night stand at one venue, songs from various shows on a single tour, or songs from various tours to make a broader compilation of songs for a live album.

I think each have their own pros and cons, and I've heard plenty of live albums done in all of these ways, and I'm not sure which I prefer. On one hand, it's cool to hear a whole show, and be immersed in the single concert setting, as if I were experiencing the show like anyone would in that audience.

Compiled live albums could give a better set of songs, more hits or include some rarely played tunes that may have only appeared at a few shows. They could also include better performances of songs from different shows (because not every concert is 100% perfect, especially in prog), so even if the songs aren't fixed with post-production overdubs, pulling the best performance from different shows could make a better live album.

Then we've got songs from various tours, which, if the band doesn't release live albums regularly, could provide a good snapshot of the band's live shows as they evolved over various album tours. Some songs might only get played on a certain tour, and never again, or songs might get special treatments/jams/extensions on one tour but not the next, and a multi-tour live album could showcase those performances.

I'll be interested to read what everyone thinks, and please give examples of live albums that you like where these criteria fit! For me, I really loved Exit...Stage Left when I was discovering Rush, but as they started releasing full single shows in the 21st century, I really loved the feeling of hearing a single night and hearing how the band could pull off nearly 2.5-3 hours of music in a single night! But of course, like I said above, there are a lot of classic live prog albums that are compilations of songs, even with fade-outs/fade-ins between songs (so it's very obvious they're not from the same night or tour), and those albums tend to have some very killer performances, even if they were doctored up after the fact.

-Marc.

[Zantera]

I'd say it's a case by case scenario but just generally speaking, if a live show is 1 night and they didn't tamper with anything (cut/remove or edit songs) and it's just presented the way it was played on that night - that's a huge bonus to me. I love the idea of starting a live album and being in for the ride that is the full show. But yeah there's good ones that are basically like a compilation too.

[425]

I like one complete show. It gives a sense of continuity that just can't be replicated by cutting together a bunch of different performances.

It is nice to get some performances of songs that may have been performed on the tour but omitted from that show due to a rotating setlist as bonus tracks, though. Like what Dream Theater did on Live at Luna Park.

[Setlist Scotty]

I went with option 4. Personally, I am perfectly fine with a live album as long as all the songs are taken from the same tour. However, as you cite Rush's Exit...Stage Left, besides the murky sound quality and lack of live feel, another thing that I absolutely HATE about that album is the fact that most of the songs have fade ins and outs between them. So if a band is going to select songs from different shows, at the very least, please try to keep them in the same order (or close) as to the order they would've been played live. And make sure that there aren't any fadeouts between the songs that will disrupt the feeling of listening to a live album (unless it's between CDs or album/tape sides).

That said, if I had my druthers, everything would be taken from one show. But I realize that's not the most realistic option, because rarely does the band record a perfect show, and while I don't mind a few little mistakes being fixed here and there, I would rather the performance of each song be as free of fixing as possible.

[The Walrus]

Live albums I don't really care.

Live Blu-rays/DVDs... single show please, and leave in the warts.

[pg1067]

All other things being equal, I went with option #1, but there are many circumstances that make each of the other options palatable.  My favorite live album of all time was recorded over multiple nights at different venues on the same tour, and another favorite has three sides from one show on one tour and a fourth side from a different tour (with almost everything out of performance order).

I'll also repeat what I recently wrote elsewhere that live albums used to be special, but now some artists seem to view them as almost compulsory, which makes them a lot less special.

Live Blu-rays/DVDs... single show please, and leave in the warts.

Yup.

[OpenYourEyes311]

I went with option 4. Personally, I am perfectly fine with a live album as long as all the songs are taken from the same tour. However, as you cite Rush's Exit...Stage Left, besides the murky sound quality and lack of live feel, another thing that I absolutely HATE about that album is the fact that most of the songs have fade ins and outs between them. So if a band is going to select songs from different shows, at the very least, please try to keep them in the same order (or close) as to the order they would've been played live. And make sure that there aren't any fadeouts between the songs that will disrupt the feeling of listening to a live album (unless it's between CDs or album/tape sides).

That said, if I had my druthers, everything would be taken from one show. But I realize that's not the most realistic option, because rarely does the band record a perfect show, and while I don't mind a few little mistakes being fixed here and there, I would rather the performance of each song be as free of fixing as possible.

The fade-outs are also a pet peeve of mine. Have you heard Return To Paradise by Styx? Fades in and out betweeen each song, and that was one show!! Boggles my mind!!

I don’t really mind any format. I like Score as much as Chaos In Motion (not really, but if CiM sounded better, I wouldn’t be phased by the presentation at all).

[ZirconBlue]

I want it to FEEL like it's from a single show.  But, if you can edit in different songs from different nights (like Operation: LiveCrime, or Live After Death) then it's fine.  Different tours, probably not the best.

[Trav86]

I don’t have a preference as long as it’s good. My favorite live albums are Rush’s Exit Stage Left... and A Show of Hands, which are compilations. As well as Mr. Big Back To Budokan, which is a complete show.

[Kotowboy]

I think that if a band recorded every single night of an entire tour - they could then put out the very best versions of each song they played.

Also I don't agree with studio touch ups.

I know Metallica release a song / video from every gig they play so they don't really need to do live albums anymore...

But if they'd put out a World Wired 2xCD package and included the very best performance of each song they played on the 3 year tour

that would be pretty cool.

[Zydar]

I barely listen to live albums, but I watch concert videos instead. I much prefer when they film one single show (Budokan, Score) over different concerts throughout a tour (Chaos In Motion).

[Kotowboy]

But then they have more chance to completely train wreck that one performance.

At least film three nights at one venue.

[SwedishGoose]

But then they have more chance to completely train wreck that one performance.

At least film three nights at one venue.

This is how I prefer that it's done. Would probably be just 2 nights usually but same principle.

Like how Arjen Lucassen did with Ayreon - Electric Castle and Other Stories. That was only 4 shows (and one dress reharsal but anyway) the last 2 of them were recorded so that there would be backups if anything happend on the final show which was planned to be released.
I was there on the last show and what a memento the Earbook is....

[kirksnosehair]

I buy things like this to experience a concert by the group.  I also prefer that they don't add any kind of performed element in the studio.  I don't mind cleaning, EQ'ing, balancing, etc.  But re-singing vocals and shit like that?  I'd prefer they don't do it, but I know a lot of bands do this with their live albums and videos.

[ShadowWalker]

In general, one show. warts and all. I see a live recording as capturing a moment in time.

That being said, there are exceptions. One of my favorite live albums - Bruce Springsteen & The E Street Band Live 1987-1985 spans a decade of shows but it still is assembled in such a way that it flows like a regular concert. The new Def Leppard Hits Vegas combined two nights to offer a single comprehensive recording of all the songs played across the most recent Vegas residency. This kind of compilation I am ok with. I wish they would release a separate Dead Flatbird live disc with all the tracks performed outside of the Hysteria set during the their first Vegas residency.

My bigger pet peeve is shows that are compilation recordings that have audience fade outs between tracks. Rush's Exit...Stage Left and Iron Maiden's Flight 666 Soundtrack come immediately to mind. Great only if I want that particular live track in a mix, but otherwise, I would absolutely prefer if they didn't fade the audience out and in between songs.

[cramx3]

Single show.  That's the best way to experience a live show at home is viewing it as close to the way it was presented that night. 

Often times, that will represent what the tour was for a band so making it a compilation doesn't make much sense unless you are adding in songs that were rotated or if the performances just aren't consistently good enough and you have to pull from multiple nights to get the best performances.  Sometimes that's not even on the band, but recording and videography as well with these things. 

Only time I really like multiple tour shows is if there's already a good single show performance out there.  Then those types of concerts are a nice package to complete the full one night experience plus the whole tour experience.  But I can't recall many bands doing this other than adding it in as bonus footage. 

[Stadler]

My bigger pet peeve is shows that are compilation recordings that have audience fade outs between tracks. Rush's Exit...Stage Left and Iron Maiden's Flight 666 Soundtrack come immediately to mind. Great only if I want that particular live track in a mix, but otherwise, I would absolutely prefer if they didn't fade the audience out and in between songs.

AC/DC Live, too.  I've taken to editing the songs together on occasion, if it's really bothersome.

I greatly prefer full shows.  Second best is a composite "show" from different nights but with the illusion of a full show.   Kiss Alive fits in here.   

HATE, HATE, HATE the 70's practice of a "live record" of maybe five or six songs cobbled together (think Purple's "Made In Europe" or Sabbath's "Live At Last")  I like a full set.  Genesis Three Sides Live is one of the few exceptions, but I think that's because I fell in love with it before I knew what was what. 

[hefdaddy42]

My preference is one show in full, with as few touchups as possible.

[Anguyen92]

I would prefer if a band has the chance to do multiple nights in a single venue, then you have the chance to capture enough quality footage to make it work. 

I know when Alter Bridge did two shows at Royal Albert Hall with an orchestra, I think I read somewhere that they felt that the first night was solid, although they felt a bit nervous since they never played with an orchestra before and only had two nights of rehearsals prior to this to get the timing right.  However, they claimed that the second night was tremendous and that the majority of the footage for the DVD was from that second night. 

Oddly enough, I think back to Led Zeppelin's the Song Remains the Same film and even though they filmed three nights at MSG, they had a director switch and the second director felt that there were holes missing in the concert footage so the band had to film certain things at a studio on a mock stage that they used for those shows and I felt that it defeats the purpose of the whole thing if you need to resort to that action.  Then again, this was the 70s and certain technological advances in capturing great live footage in that moment wasn't quite there yet, I believe.

[pg1067]

Oddly enough, I think back to Led Zeppelin's the Song Remains the Same film and even though they filmed three nights at MSG, they had a director switch and the second director felt that there were holes missing in the concert footage so the band had to film certain things at a studio on a mock stage that they used for those shows and I felt that it defeats the purpose of the whole thing if you need to resort to that action.  Then again, this was the 70s and certain technological advances in capturing great live footage in that moment wasn't quite there yet, I believe.

I'd never heard that (but there it is in the Wikipedia article).  What I had heard was that they implored the band members to wear the same clothes all three nights but couldn't get one of them (JPJ, I think) to cooperate.  I didn't like TSRTS to watch it again to see if there were shots of any of them in different outfits.

[cramx3]

Dream Theater's Live at Luna Park is a good example of a band doing two nights and making one video out of it.  I don't recall if they ever confirmed if the video is from one single night or if they mixed both, but all the songs that were rotated ended up as the bonus material so you know those were all from one performance.  The end result is pretty good if you do it that way.  Which does mean wearing the same outfit 

Blind Guardian's Imaginations Through the Looking Glass is another example of two concerts morphed into one that was done really well.  If you didn't know, you wouldn't know it was two shows.  As much as I'd rather one full performance, if done right, the combining of multiple performances can be done without really knowing and it's not a bad way to go.

[Anguyen92]

I'd never heard that.  What I had heard was that they implored the band members to wear the same clothes all three nights but couldn't get one of them (JPJ, I think) to cooperate.  I didn't like TSRTS to watch it again to see if there were shots of any of them in different outfits.

I mean I don't know if it's true, since I read it on its Wikipedia, but that part really stood out to me. 

Clifton, realising that there were crucial holes in the concert footage, suggested that the entire show be recreated at Shepperton Studios in August 1974, on a mock-up of the Madison Square Garden stage. Close-ups and distance footage of the band members could then be slipped into the live sequences, which made up the bulk of the concert footage seen in the film. When it was agreed that the band would meet at Shepperton Studios for filming, Jones had recently had his hair cut short, so he had to wear a wig.[4][7]

In the May 2008 issue of Uncut Magazine, Page recalled the events surrounding the shooting of additional footage at Shepperton Studios:

I'm sort of miming at Shepperton to what I'd played at Madison Square Garden, but of course, although I've got a rough approximation of what I was playing from night to night, it's not exact. So the film that came out in the '70s is a bit warts-and-all.[8]

The inital plan was for the band to wear the same clothes for three nights, but JPJ asked the crew on one of those nights if they were filming and they said no, and thought no worries of it until he saw the cameras were rolling when he got on stage.

Honestly, I don't think much of bands wearing different clothes at certain parts of the show for whatever reason and I don't think it would hinder the viewer's experience much.

[Peter Mc]

Ideally a single show but, in reality, whatever sounds better.

[Kotowboy]

Metallica's Cunning Stunts is most definitely cut together from two nights.

Sometimes Jason's t shirt changes mid song or James will sing a line different to what his mouth would suggest.

Most notable : In " Hero of The Day " - He goes " The window burns to light the way back home - ah " but his mouth doesn't do the "ah".  ***

Plus i've heard that the entire audio track from "Fade To Black" from one of their many 2009 live DVDs was the same performance used twice for two different releases.



------


*** EDIT - Also I just remembered that they also played each LOAD song twice or three times on each night to get the best version.

[TheCountOfNYC]

I said songs from a multi-night stand at a single venue but it’s interchangeable with a single show.

[Stadler]

I'd never heard that.  What I had heard was that they implored the band members to wear the same clothes all three nights but couldn't get one of them (JPJ, I think) to cooperate.  I didn't like TSRTS to watch it again to see if there were shots of any of them in different outfits.

I mean I don't know if it's true, since I read it on its Wikipedia, but that part really stood out to me. 

Clifton, realising that there were crucial holes in the concert footage, suggested that the entire show be recreated at Shepperton Studios in August 1974, on a mock-up of the Madison Square Garden stage. Close-ups and distance footage of the band members could then be slipped into the live sequences, which made up the bulk of the concert footage seen in the film. When it was agreed that the band would meet at Shepperton Studios for filming, Jones had recently had his hair cut short, so he had to wear a wig.[4][7]

In the May 2008 issue of Uncut Magazine, Page recalled the events surrounding the shooting of additional footage at Shepperton Studios:

I'm sort of miming at Shepperton to what I'd played at Madison Square Garden, but of course, although I've got a rough approximation of what I was playing from night to night, it's not exact. So the film that came out in the '70s is a bit warts-and-all.[8]

The inital plan was for the band to wear the same clothes for three nights, but JPJ asked the crew on one of those nights if they were filming and they said no, and thought no worries of it until he saw the cameras were rolling when he got on stage.

Honestly, I don't think much of bands wearing different clothes at certain parts of the show for whatever reason and I don't think it would hinder the viewer's experience much.

http://www.thegardentapes.co.uk/

All you need to know...  This is FASCINATING.   I went through not long ago and ripped the two CDs (the original and the remaster/remix from 2000-whatever) and the two DVDs (the main part of the show is the same, but there are bonus tracks and menu footage as well) to my hard drive and did some research so I could label the songs (where there were different versions).  It's amazing the work that Page put into that, constrained as he was by the visuals, and yet...

It's still a pretty good representation.

Since we're on Zeppelin, if you want one show, start to finish, with few or no overdubs, "Celebration Day" is your man.   There is a DVD version with a bonus DVD of a full rehearsal from Shepperton Studios about a week before the main show; that's interesting because you can see where the "ad libs" and the scripted stuff was.   

[darkshade]

I listen to a lot of Phish, Zappa, and sometimes Grateful Dead. I don't think an entire show released, warts and all, is a "live album".
A live album is taking live takes from various shows or even a single show, but not the whole show, adding overdubs, fixing errors, mixing crowd levels, and maybe even changing the order of the songs from the order they were performed live. They can be a single or double album. I chose the 3rd option, which would keep a consistent sound if the band or artist wanted the album to sound like it came from one show.

Frank Zappa has made some revolutionary live albums in his time. His 3 albums released from his 1988 tour are some of the best examples of how to make killer live albums.

Broadway The Hard Way
The Best Band You Never Heard In Your Life
Make A Jazz Noise Here

These albums have no overdubs, which is quite remarkable, yet the band is flawless, and the cutting and mixing from different venues, many times within a single song itself(!), it so seamless, you don't notice it at all, and it sounds like they're from the same performance. I think Jesus Thinks Your A Jerk is sliced and diced from 20 or more different shows, which is ridiculous.

[Stadler]

i'm almost positive I'm misunderstanding, but if a live albums ISN'T "an entire show released, warts and all", what is it?  And what is the "entire show released, warts and all" called?

I happen to love the Dead and how their live stuff is now being released.   I know David Lemieux is getting (and has gotten) a lot of grief for his "monetizing" of the catalogue (and particularly shows that have been historically traded in abundance, like Cornell) and some of the criticisms have at least SOME merit, but then again, he's gotten his hands on, in some cases, pristine soundboards that eclipse the sound of the traded material, and why WOULDN'T you want that (and want the band to at least share in the benefit)?   I have a complete set of the Dave's Picks series (35 shows and counting) and I can't imagine a better package.

Would that Genesis did that; we don't need 35 shows (plus the box sets of entire runs, like Winterland in '73 and in '77) but it'd be cool to have an early tour and a late tour show from '73, '75, '76, '78, '81...   Or Maiden; '81 on the England tour, '81 and '82 in Japan, '82 as a headliner in Europe and an opener in the States, '83 (the World Piece tour), a show each from '86, '87 and '88 (SiT and SSoaSS), a full Blaze show, a full Ed Hunter show...  maybe a "Scream For Me, Long Beach" box of all four nights, or a "Hammersmith Box" from the four nights there (Side 4 of "Live After Death"). 

[ReaperKK]

My preference is always one show but compilations don't really bother me. I prefer no touch-ups but if there are technical issues then it's understandable (JP's guitar on Score, or the piano missing from half of Sang Real on dredg's live album).

[The Walrus]

I just want to be clear that I never said a live album isn't a live album if it doesn't have warts, I just prefer a live album WITH the warts and without a bunch of studio overdubs. Or at least make it so it isn't obviously overdubbed especially if you're showing the singer while the overdubbed vocal lines are being played. It's like seeing a magician do his act, don't let me see the strings, bro

[Zantera]

While I can understand the concept of multiple nights at a venue and picking the best performances, part of me also feels like if you can't record a night of putting on a good show then maybe you gotta step up your live performance consistency. I get that any band can have an off night but it shouldn't be bad enough where you have to patch together a 90 min live album with songs from 3-4 different nights to get good performances of them all.

I really like those bands that record pretty much every live show and they have a live archive or whatever where you can browse through it all. And then if they want to cherry pick their best gigs and release those as official live albums that's cool.

[Anguyen92]

^^ I think the whole idea of filming multiple nights in the venue is not so much the possibility that the band may have an off night.  It's more for the cameras to capture everything in quality footage, because you never know what technical difficulties could happen on the night of filming if you only have one day of filming and the quality of the film is not up to par, then the band is screwed. 

That may have happened with Alter Bridge when they filmed a show in Milan, Italy in 2013.  They played 19 songs that day and rumors were that only 17 songs were to make it on DVD.  Also, I heard there was lighting issues or something that affected the footage.  I don't know all the details.  All I know is that DVD never got released for whatever reasons......

[The Walrus]

I beg bands to please show the full song if they take film from multiple nights and put it together. The Rhapsody DVD "Visions From The Enchanted Lands" is one of the absolute worst concert DVDs I have ever watched or paid for simply because it's filled of clips of various nights on tour in Canada. But I think - for literally almost every song - they come in late and cut out the end of the song, or have band members talk over the performance. It's almost like a documentary of a tour rather than a live concert DVD that it was advertised.

[cramx3]

i'm almost positive I'm misunderstanding, but if a live albums ISN'T "an entire show released, warts and all", what is it?  And what is the "entire show released, warts and all" called?

A bootleg

[Stadler]

I beg bands to please show the full song if they take film from multiple nights and put it together. The Rhapsody DVD "Visions From The Enchanted Lands" is one of the absolute worst concert DVDs I have ever watched or paid for simply because it's filled of clips of various nights on tour in Canada. But I think - for literally almost every song - they come in late and cut out the end of the song, or have band members talk over the performance. It's almost like a documentary of a tour rather than a live concert DVD that it was advertised.

I friggin' HATE that.  I'm not one to criticize Mike much for his artistic choices - that's why we like who we like, because of their artistic choices, no? - but the Once In A Livetime DVD and the Images and Words Live In Tokyo suffer from that.  I tried to construct a sort of "official" version of the two shows from OIAL, and I gave up because of the way the clips were edited together.