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

[bosk1]

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.

Yeah, this pretty much captures my preference.  And I have seen/heard various degrees of that that I love, and that don't bother me one bit.  Livecrime is a good example of a couple of different nights edited together where you wouldn't really know it is from different shows if you didn't know.  On the other hand, the first live album I ever bought, Scorpions' World Wide Live, is pretty obviously cobbled together from MANY different nights on the tour.  On one hand, they make it feel like a single, unified show by editing the crowd noise so that there are no fadeouts or obvious transitions between songs to let you know they are from completely different shows, and they preserve the general set order (to my understanding) from that tour.  But on the other hand, they leave Klaus's stage banter where he references several different cities untouched, and they state in the liner notes which show each song is from.  Still, it doesn't bother me.  It FEELS like a show and doesn't really take me out of the moment and impede my enjoyment. 

I generally prefer anything along that spectrum that FEELS like a single show, even if it has songs from different ones. 

Where it is more chopped up, that generally doesn't work as well for me, although I can think of a few examples of those that I still enjoy--just not as much.

I can't really think of any that are compilations from completely different tours, other than box sets that include multiple separate shows, which I am fine with. 

[wolfking]

I don't really care for a live cd if it comes across as a single show and the setlist is still represents the tour setlist if it is from different shows.  DVD's though really need to be from the same show.

[TAC]

I prefer one show, and am also fine if it's a representative show over a two night stand in one city.

I am not really a fan of tracks from different cities, like Flight 666, but since Iron Maiden have released so many single show live albums, for that release, I can overlook it, mainly for two reasons. 1, it's the same running order of the setlist, and 2. it's design was to celebrate and bring together all of the different audiences around the world.



I must say, that I have become way more skeptical of live albums. They don't even feel live to me.

[wolfking]

I prefer one show, and am also fine if it's a representative show over a two night stand in one city.

I am not really a fan of tracks from different cities, like Flight 666, but since Iron Maiden have released so many single show live albums, for that release, I can overlook it, mainly for two reasons. 1, it's the same running order of the setlist, and 2. it's design was to celebrate and bring together all of the different audiences around the world.



I must say, that I have become way more skeptical of live albums. They don't even feel live to me.

This was my point.  I can look past it if it's the same setlist.

I think most live albums these days are not that live truthfully.

[Orbert]

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. 

I think it's important to remember that those early videos were created when VHS was still the primary home video medium.  Today, I would expect you'd be able to skip to individual tracks/songs, and the interviews and other behind-the-scenes stuff would be extras.  On VHS, my preference would still have been to divide things up that way; have all the concert footage first, arranged so as to represent a complete concert (through whatever editing is necessary to sustain that illusion), followed by all the extras.  But back in the VHS days, there seemed to be a lot of videos that mixed things up, splicing the "extras" into the concert footage.  I hate that.

Overall, I agree with those who want it to feel like a single show, like I've gone to a concert by that band.  Opening stuff, banter between songs, big closing, encore(s).  There are bands I never got to see, and now I will never see them, so the closest I can come is a good concert video.  Give me the concert, warts and all, just like I was there.  I don't care if it actually comes from multiple nights, make it feel like a single show.

[TAC]

I prefer one show, and am also fine if it's a representative show over a two night stand in one city.

I am not really a fan of tracks from different cities, like Flight 666, but since Iron Maiden have released so many single show live albums, for that release, I can overlook it, mainly for two reasons. 1, it's the same running order of the setlist, and 2. it's design was to celebrate and bring together all of the different audiences around the world.



I must say, that I have become way more skeptical of live albums. They don't even feel live to me.

This was my point.  I can look past it if it's the same setlist.

I think most live albums these days are not that live truthfully.

Well, I wouldn't be happy if all of Maiden's albums were like that, but it seemed to be a one off, so I'm cool.

Besides, even back in the day, how truthful were the live albums? At least they sounded live though.

[cramx3]

I prefer one show, and am also fine if it's a representative show over a two night stand in one city.

I am not really a fan of tracks from different cities, like Flight 666, but since Iron Maiden have released so many single show live albums, for that release, I can overlook it, mainly for two reasons. 1, it's the same running order of the setlist, and 2. it's design was to celebrate and bring together all of the different audiences around the world.



I must say, that I have become way more skeptical of live albums. They don't even feel live to me.

Flight 666 concert was also not the main feature of that, it's actually the bonus material.  The documentary was the main feature and following along with the tour makes a lot of sense for that live album.  I thought it was awesome to see all the different cities on the video, but generally I totalyl agree with you.  Also, being a history tour, they can get away with it vs. like En Vivo. If that was similar to F666, I wouldn't enjoy it as much, but since that was one full show of the new material (at that time) it's really perfect.  I actually watched some of En Vivo the other night, still holds up so well for a live album.

[TAC]

  Also, being a history tour, they can get away with it vs. like En Vivo. If that was similar to F666, I wouldn't enjoy it as much, but since that was one full show of the new material (at that time) it's really perfect.

Right. I agree.


That said, I am not a fan of videos of shows done with humongous audiences like that through. I much prefer an arena show. To me Death On The Road is their best concert film, not taking into account the editing. That film easily is my all time favorite Maiden footage.

I also really like the LIve After Death footage. Again, an arena.

[darkshade]

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 box set (if more than one show), full show, "they released the full show". It's not an album, though, that requires manipulation from the band/producers, especially if all they did was mix the show, and didn't clean up mistakes, vocals, add overdubs, etc...

Think DT's Live At The Marquee, Yes' "Yessongs" or any number of 70s live albums. Phish and the Dead released live albums, too, like "A Live One" by Phish, and "Without a Net" by tGD, before releasing full shows from their archives. Dream Theater have mainly released full shows, besides LatM, right? or close to full shows. Calling them albums is a stretch.

Also, the best live albums contain completely original material not found on 'studio' albums. Like if DT had songs they only played live, Raise the Knife is the closest thing to that, on Score.

[TAC]

Also, the best live albums contain completely original material not found on 'studio' albums. Like if DT had songs they only played live, Raise the Knife is the closest thing to that, on Score.

Also, this is one of the coolest sounding live album I've ever heard.

[Orbert]

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 box set (if more than one show), full show, "they released the full show". It's not an album, though, that requires manipulation from the band/producers, especially if all they did was mix the show, and didn't clean up mistakes, vocals, add overdubs, etc...

Think DT's Live At The Marquee, Yes' "Yessongs" or any number of 70s live albums. Phish and the Dead released live albums, too, like "A Live One" by Phish, and "Without a Net" by tGD, before releasing full shows from their archives. Dream Theater have mainly released full shows, besides LatM, right? or close to full shows. Calling them albums is a stretch.

Also, the best live albums contain completely original material not found on 'studio' albums. Like if DT had songs they only played live, Raise the Knife is the closest thing to that, on Score.

That's an interesting interpretation of the term "live album".  I'm not saying it's wrong, because it does make sense and if that's how you use the term, then that's cool; but you probably realize that that's not how most people use it.

Basically an album is just a collection of things.  Like a photo album.  An album of music is similar in that it is a collection of individual things (songs), and collectively they form an album.

With music, it's either a live album or a studio album.  I don't see how the word "album" implies that it's been processed or manipulated.  Jazz artists were releasing live albums for many years before the relatively recent trend of releasing full shows or boxed sets.  And live jazz albums are almost never manipulated.  The whole idea is to present the performance "warts and all".  The only editing is deciding which songs to include.  If I bought a jazz album and found out that they'd edited it to "fix" mistakes, I'd be pissed.  That is not the norm.

Side note: To many, the word "album" = "record", but that's not correct.  They're just so old that they remember when an album was always a vinyl LP, so the words are synonymous to them.  The album is just the collection of songs itself, whether it's a record, cassette, CD, whatever.

Again, my interpretations, but I'm pretty sure that's how most people use the terms.

[Anguyen92]

Flight 666 concert was also not the main feature of that, it's actually the bonus material.  The documentary was the main feature and following along with the tour makes a lot of sense for that live album.  I thought it was awesome to see all the different cities on the video, but generally I totalyl agree with you.  Also, being a history tour, they can get away with it vs. like En Vivo. If that was similar to F666, I wouldn't enjoy it as much, but since that was one full show of the new material (at that time) it's really perfect.  I actually watched some of En Vivo the other night, still holds up so well for a live album.

En Vivo had the makings of a great DVD.  A good amount of stuff from the new album at the time, a few songs from the reunion era along with the classics.  In a soccer stadium in Santiago, Chile and we all know how much those South America fans love Iron Maiden.  Now if only Steve Harris didn't go crazy with the picture by picture effects and just keep the footage on one camera angle for the appropriate amount of time rather than switch the camera angles back and forth like crazy.  That would have been awesome.

Edit: Oh wait, Banger Films was the one that filmed it.  Steve Harris was deemed executive producer of the DVD though....  I'm still putting the blame on him for the camera angles then.

[darkshade]

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 box set (if more than one show), full show, "they released the full show". It's not an album, though, that requires manipulation from the band/producers, especially if all they did was mix the show, and didn't clean up mistakes, vocals, add overdubs, etc...

Think DT's Live At The Marquee, Yes' "Yessongs" or any number of 70s live albums. Phish and the Dead released live albums, too, like "A Live One" by Phish, and "Without a Net" by tGD, before releasing full shows from their archives. Dream Theater have mainly released full shows, besides LatM, right? or close to full shows. Calling them albums is a stretch.

Also, the best live albums contain completely original material not found on 'studio' albums. Like if DT had songs they only played live, Raise the Knife is the closest thing to that, on Score.

That's an interesting interpretation of the term "live album".  I'm not saying it's wrong, because it does make sense and if that's how you use the term, then that's cool; but you probably realize that that's not how most people use it.

Basically an album is just a collection of things.  Like a photo album.  An album of music is similar in that it is a collection of individual things (songs), and collectively they form an album.

With music, it's either a live album or a studio album.  I don't see how the word "album" implies that it's been processed or manipulated.  Jazz artists were releasing live albums for many years before the relatively recent trend of releasing full shows or boxed sets.  And live jazz albums are almost never manipulated.  The whole idea is to present the performance "warts and all".  The only editing is deciding which songs to include.  If I bought a jazz album and found out that they'd edited it to "fix" mistakes, I'd be pissed.  That is not the norm.

Side note: To many, the word "album" = "record", but that's not correct.  They're just so old that they remember when an album was always a vinyl LP, so the words are synonymous to them.  The album is just the collection of songs itself, whether it's a record, cassette, CD, whatever.

Again, my interpretations, but I'm pretty sure that's how most people use the terms.

I get what you're saying, but the older jazz albums were usually recorded as live takes in the studio, so the only difference with live albums was there was an audience to clap between solos, and still usually wasn't the entire performance. I only made distinctions because of the thread topic, I don't harp on people who call "Live at Budokan" a 'live album' even though it's a whole show.

[Stadler]

I prefer one show, and am also fine if it's a representative show over a two night stand in one city.

I am not really a fan of tracks from different cities, like Flight 666, but since Iron Maiden have released so many single show live albums, for that release, I can overlook it, mainly for two reasons. 1, it's the same running order of the setlist, and 2. it's design was to celebrate and bring together all of the different audiences around the world.



I must say, that I have become way more skeptical of live albums. They don't even feel live to me.

This was my point.  I can look past it if it's the same setlist.

I think most live albums these days are not that live truthfully.

Well, I wouldn't be happy if all of Maiden's albums were like that, but it seemed to be a one off, so I'm cool.

Besides, even back in the day, how truthful were the live albums? At least they sounded live though.

The "Real Live Dead One"'s are like that as well.   Still good, but...   I usually go to Maiden England or En Vivo first.  There are no rules, but the further they get from the "live experience" the more it feels like a cash grab or contractual obligation.

[Stadler]

I prefer one show, and am also fine if it's a representative show over a two night stand in one city.

I am not really a fan of tracks from different cities, like Flight 666, but since Iron Maiden have released so many single show live albums, for that release, I can overlook it, mainly for two reasons. 1, it's the same running order of the setlist, and 2. it's design was to celebrate and bring together all of the different audiences around the world.



I must say, that I have become way more skeptical of live albums. They don't even feel live to me.

Flight 666 concert was also not the main feature of that, it's actually the bonus material.  The documentary was the main feature and following along with the tour makes a lot of sense for that live album.  I thought it was awesome to see all the different cities on the video, but generally I totalyl agree with you.  Also, being a history tour, they can get away with it vs. like En Vivo. If that was similar to F666, I wouldn't enjoy it as much, but since that was one full show of the new material (at that time) it's really perfect.  I actually watched some of En Vivo the other night, still holds up so well for a live album.

I was late to the party for En Vivo for some reason, but I picked it up a couple months ago and was blown away how good it was/is.  What a great set, too.

[Orbert]

I only made distinctions because of the thread topic, I don't harp on people who call "Live at Budokan" a 'live album' even though it's a whole show.

I just don't see how it's not a live album, just because it's the entire show.  It's them performing live, and it's an album.

[cramx3]

Flight 666 concert was also not the main feature of that, it's actually the bonus material.  The documentary was the main feature and following along with the tour makes a lot of sense for that live album.  I thought it was awesome to see all the different cities on the video, but generally I totalyl agree with you.  Also, being a history tour, they can get away with it vs. like En Vivo. If that was similar to F666, I wouldn't enjoy it as much, but since that was one full show of the new material (at that time) it's really perfect.  I actually watched some of En Vivo the other night, still holds up so well for a live album.

En Vivo had the makings of a great DVD.  A good amount of stuff from the new album at the time, a few songs from the reunion era along with the classics.  In a soccer stadium in Santiago, Chile and we all know how much those South America fans love Iron Maiden.  Now if only Steve Harris didn't go crazy with the picture by picture effects and just keep the footage on one camera angle for the appropriate amount of time rather than switch the camera angles back and forth like crazy.  That would have been awesome.

Edit: Oh wait, Banger Films was the one that filmed it.  Steve Harris was deemed executive producer of the DVD though....  I'm still putting the blame on him for the camera angles then.

I was going to say... Steve didn't edit that one and it really wasn't that bad with the cuts.  The split screens aren't constant and don't really bother me, especially when you watch ona  60 inch tv.  But that video does have the same warning if I recall that the RiR and DotR live albums do   

That said, I am not a fan of videos of shows done with humongous audiences like that through. I much prefer an arena show. To me Death On The Road is their best concert film, not taking into account the editing. That film easily is my all time favorite Maiden footage.

I also really like the LIve After Death footage. Again, an arena.

That's another interesting question for DTF.  What type of live concert do you prefer?  Arena?  Stadium?  Intimate setting?  Do you like crowd shots and crowd noise, sing a longs?

Personally, I think the bigger the better.  I like to see the band in front of their largest and most crazy fan base.  Which is also why I love that En Vivo album, the energy in that stadium bleeds out of the TV.  And I like the crowd sing a longs like Fear of the Dark. 

[Stadler]

I only made distinctions because of the thread topic, I don't harp on people who call "Live at Budokan" a 'live album' even though it's a whole show.

I just don't see how it's not a live album, just because it's the entire show.  It's them performing live, and it's an album.

I say this with respect, but I'm with you, Orbert.  I don't see the distinction, myself.   It seems sort of... arbitrary.   That means that Live After Death, Kiss Alive!, Three Sides Live, and Ozzy's Tribute are all different things, and that doesn't seem to make sense to me. 

[bosk1]

That's another interesting question for DTF.  What type of live concert do you prefer?  Arena?  Stadium?  Intimate setting?  Do you like crowd shots and crowd noise, sing a longs?

Personally, I think the bigger the better.  I like to see the band in front of their largest and most crazy fan base.  Which is also why I love that En Vivo album, the energy in that stadium bleeds out of the TV.  And I like the crowd sing a longs like Fear of the Dark. 

Great question.  And I assume you are talking about for home viewing vs. being there in person, right?  In person, I'm not sure I have a preference.  Both have their advantages.  Although I guess if I rethink it, I wouldn't personally go to, say, Wacken or Rock in Rio.  I wouldn't be willing to get there early enough to fight off the tens of thousands of other fans to get a decent close-up spot, and then stand there for hours and hours and hours, just to see the band up reasonably close.  And being lost somewhere in the back where you can only reasonably see the band on the video screens isn't all that appealing.  In person, I prefer the medium and small venues. 

As far as viewing a concert on home video, they can look and feel great no matter the size.  The Morsefest shows are relatively small, but are incredibly well done and are a blast to watch.  Contrast that with, say, En Vivo!, or Nightwish's live releases in the Floor era, or anything filmed at Wacken or other festivals.  Those are great too.  I guess if I had to state a preference, the huge shows can be a bit more fun just because the feeling for how big those shows are comes through.  So I guess I'll go on record with that as my stated "preference."  But that doesn't mean I don't enjoy shows from smaller venues as well.  Some of those are fantastic.

And, yeah, large or small, I love the crowd shots and crowd noise, sing a longs.  I get that it annoys some who just want to focus on seeing and hearing the band perform.  But that energy given off by an active, engaged crowd really kicks videos up several notches for me. 

I only made distinctions because of the thread topic, I don't harp on people who call "Live at Budokan" a 'live album' even though it's a whole show.

I just don't see how it's not a live album, just because it's the entire show.  It's them performing live, and it's an album.

Exactly.

[The Walrus]

For live releases, the bigger the better. For shows I'm going to, the smaller the better. I hate going anywhere but a small club for a show.

[Stadler]

In person, it's a no-brainer:  clubs and very small theaters.  By happenstance, the bands I want to see have largely been in those venues, and I've been truly blessed with some of the best concert experiences of my life at those.  From Casey and Jeff entering the crowd, to being close enough to high five Myles at the Slash show, to shaking hands with Ritchie Blackmore and thanking him for the music, to being on stage with Gene Simmons, nothing beats seeing your "idols" so close you can touch them.

Phrasing. 

[cramx3]

In person depends, I absolutely love big massive concerts from the social and experience perspective, but those are not the best for viewing/listening. 

I definitely would prefer a smaller intimate concert in terms of watching the actual musical performance.

But I think those small to mid size GA venues with stadium style seating along the back and sides are the best overall. 

[hefdaddy42]

Most of my favorite shows have been in clubs and theaters.

But I've gotta admit seeing the Who and Van Halen in larger venues was pretty sweet.

[Orbert]

To me, that's where a good concert video is really the best of both worlds.  I'm past dealing with thousands of screaming, sweaty people and not really being able to see or hear the band properly anyway, even if the "event" itself is very exciting.  But a good concert video gives me great sound and a great view.  In person, I'd really it be a smaller venue.  If I'm paying to see/hear someone, I want to be able to see and hear them.

[ReaperKK]

In person depends, I absolutely love big massive concerts from the social and experience perspective, but those are not the best for viewing/listening. 

I definitely would prefer a smaller intimate concert in terms of watching the actual musical performance.

But I think those small to mid size GA venues with stadium style seating along the back and sides are the best overall. 

I agree with you. My favorite place to see a show is a theater personally or club. As far as live shows I like big crowds but direction goes a long way to making it enjoyable. DT's Live at Budokan will always be favorite DT because of the way it's shot.

[The Letter M]

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 box set (if more than one show), full show, "they released the full show". It's not an album, though, that requires manipulation from the band/producers, especially if all they did was mix the show, and didn't clean up mistakes, vocals, add overdubs, etc...

Think DT's Live At The Marquee, Yes' "Yessongs" or any number of 70s live albums. Phish and the Dead released live albums, too, like "A Live One" by Phish, and "Without a Net" by tGD, before releasing full shows from their archives. Dream Theater have mainly released full shows, besides LatM, right? or close to full shows. Calling them albums is a stretch.

Also, the best live albums contain completely original material not found on 'studio' albums. Like if DT had songs they only played live, Raise the Knife is the closest thing to that, on Score.

That's an interesting interpretation of the term "live album".  I'm not saying it's wrong, because it does make sense and if that's how you use the term, then that's cool; but you probably realize that that's not how most people use it.

Basically an album is just a collection of things.  Like a photo album.  An album of music is similar in that it is a collection of individual things (songs), and collectively they form an album.

With music, it's either a live album or a studio album.  I don't see how the word "album" implies that it's been processed or manipulated.  Jazz artists were releasing live albums for many years before the relatively recent trend of releasing full shows or boxed sets.  And live jazz albums are almost never manipulated.  The whole idea is to present the performance "warts and all".  The only editing is deciding which songs to include.  If I bought a jazz album and found out that they'd edited it to "fix" mistakes, I'd be pissed.  That is not the norm.

Side note: To many, the word "album" = "record", but that's not correct.  They're just so old that they remember when an album was always a vinyl LP, so the words are synonymous to them.  The album is just the collection of songs itself, whether it's a record, cassette, CD, whatever.

Again, my interpretations, but I'm pretty sure that's how most people use the terms.

Going to agree with Orbert here. If it's an album, with live recordings, it's a live album, regardless of where said live recordings originated from (multiple shows/tours, or a single night), and what was done to them after the performances (overdubs, post-production fixes and mixing/mastering).

Now, if you said "it's not a live album if it isn't in front of an audience", then I might agree. Live "in the studio" or without a crowd doesn't really feel like a LIVE album to me, even if the band is performing together, in one take, like those "Live At The BBC" style recordings, where they play in a studio together, but without a crowd. Those types of albums still feel like studio albums to me because that's how a lot of studio albums used to be recorded - in the room, together, live in one take. But that's a discussion for a different topic.

I was surprised by the varying replies in here as I expected most folks to say they preferred single show live albums, but it's nice to see some being OK with compiled albums, especially since like I said before, a lot of those 70's prog live albums were done that way.

-Marc.

[Orbert]

"Live at the BBC" and other "Live in the studio" recordings are almost like a third category.  It's live in that it's a single take, no overdubs, the band doing it all in real time.  But it's in a studio, so the conditions are a lot better controlled than actually performing in a venue in front of an audience.  I like them for the energy that comes with a live take; it's still in real time and there's no studio trickery involved, but the sound is often better.

[jammindude]

My actual preference is for a single night.   However, I can think of more than a few "from the same tour" albums that were better than some single show albums.   So "from the same tour" albums can be done extremely well. 

My 2nd all time favorite live album of all time is Raven's "Live at the Inferno" and I believe that was taken over several different stops on a tour. And in spite of a few "fade out/fade back in's", I can honestly say that every time I listen to that album, I feel like I went to a Raven show in their prime. 

[Ben_Jamin]

"Live at the BBC" and other "Live in the studio" recordings are almost like a third category.  It's live in that it's a single take, no overdubs, the band doing it all in real time.  But it's in a studio, so the conditions are a lot better controlled than actually performing in a venue in front of an audience.  I like them for the energy that comes with a live take; it's still in real time and there's no studio trickery involved, but the sound is often better.

The only Lady Gaga song I enjoy is Live In The Studio version of Edge of Glory


I prefer a whole entire show, warts and all, in a Video. Audio wise, I don't mind if it's a compilation like Chaos In Motion (which I am really trying to find). I am not a fan of overdubbing, unless it's a drastic thing that couldn't be helped like JP's guitar in score or JR's Keyboards in Budakon, but it doesn't bother me to the point I won't listen to the live album because of it.

I enjoy Fleetwood Mac's "The Dance" and Deep Purple's "Hell or High Water" for the interaction between the band. The odd tension between Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Knicks, and Ritchie Blackmore just not giving a shit. The songs end up being good and those live albums capture the vibe and feel of that well.

[Stadler]

"Live at the BBC" and other "Live in the studio" recordings are almost like a third category.  It's live in that it's a single take, no overdubs, the band doing it all in real time.  But it's in a studio, so the conditions are a lot better controlled than actually performing in a venue in front of an audience.  I like them for the energy that comes with a live take; it's still in real time and there's no studio trickery involved, but the sound is often better.

And to confuse things further, even those are variable; Deep Purple and Zeppelin both have live albums that are "Live at the BBC" and contain both songs performed live in a studio, but also are live feeds from a performance with an audience (for Purple, the second disk of "In Concert" and the entire "Live In London" CD, and for Zeppelin, if memory serves, the second CD of the BBC CD.)    Queen did something different as well, where they brought in backing tracks, and played to those to "create" the Queen sound.  That's on the "On Air" set.

Pet peeve, since we're on it:    I think at the end of the day, "honesty" is the best medicine.   There are rumors about Alive!, but Gene has said "look, we were broke; we were living off Bill Aucoin's AMEX card; we were NOT entitled to re-record the entire album in the studio", and I believe him.   We still know that the base tracks were from certain shows.   The Dead are the best for this:   here's the show, here's what we played, deal with it.   The opposite side?  Ozzy.   I have, I think, all his live albums, and they're a f-----g mess.  Tribute is largely from a show in Cleveland, but all the vocals are redone, and that's obvious.   Speak Of The Devil is "from two shows at the Roxy", but further analysis shows that it's a combo of the shows - which had an audience but which weren't really just "shows on the tour".   The setlists are available, and there is at least one track ("Sabbath Bloody Sabbath") that wasn't played at all!   "Just Say Ozzy" says it's from a show in "November" (I forget the year) but the tour ended in August!   For fuck's sake, you're already subject to criticism for the quality of your vocals, in this day and age of the interwebs, why invite more controversy?    I swear, Ozzy has one of the worst managed catalogues of any major artist I can name.   

[Orbert]

I know some people want the "illusion" of a perfect live show.  The screaming audience, the energy of a live performance, and every note played and sung perfectly.  To achieve that, most bands would have to do some serious editing, splicing, and overdubbing in the studio afterwards.  I guess I can understand that, but to actually enjoy it, I can't know how it was achieved.  In my mind, it has to be an actual undoctored recording of what the band sounded like that night.  Anything less, and I know it's fake, and that spoils the illusion.  I might as well be listening to the studio recording.

The only exception I can think of is Zappa/Mothers live albums.  Frank makes it completely obvious what he's done; he's taken live tracks and added studio stuff because in the end, what he's created musically is what counts.  I've been listening to Frank's stuff since high school, so I guess this is another "other" category, since I accept this in the name of the art he's creating.  But somehow I have trouble applying this same mentality to other bands.  Maybe because they present it as a live album, and then it's just too obvious that it's not all live.  So the honesty is indeed important.

[Stadler]

The only exception I can think of is Zappa/Mothers live albums.  Frank makes it completely obvious what he's done; he's taken live tracks and added studio stuff because in the end, what he's created musically is what counts.  I've been listening to Frank's stuff since high school, so I guess this is another "other" category, since I accept this in the name of the art he's creating.  But somehow I have trouble applying this same mentality to other bands.  Maybe because they present it as a live album, and then it's just too obvious that it's not all live.  So the honesty is indeed important.

Crimson does - or did - the same thing; most of the "Starless and Bible Black" is taken from a show in... Amsterdam (at the Concertgebouw; I think that's in Amsterdam), the crowd noise removed, and the tracks edited and overdubbed over as if they were studio backing tracks.   Fripp has been very forthcoming about that fact, and in fact, has made it a crucial part of the mythology of the band (as primary a vehicle for improvisation). 

[Lowdz]

Going by my favourite live albums I prefer them rercorded in the studio 

[Lowdz]

i can't watch live dvds where it is obvious the music is dubbed in, with clothes and instrument changes happening randomly.
The worst culprit was a Royal Hunt live dvd where vocals were clearly not live (though I believe John West claimed they were).

[Stadler]

Going by my favourite live albums I prefer them rercorded in the studio