Live album bullshit thread!!!

[Glasser]

Bottom line, all live albums should be left in bootleg form in every aspect of all members performances PERIOD!!! If any band wants to release a live album they need to find the best show of said tour and release it AS IS!!! The official DT bootlegs are true live albums. One of my favorite live albums was Ozzy Speak Of The Devil BUT when I heard the bootlegs of the same shows Ozzy sounded god awful and now I look at that album as a re-recorded version of old Sabbath tunes. Pisses me the fuck off! Its one thing to master or brighten up the actual recording sound if need be but it should end there! I like my live albums LIVE, that means capturing and not altering the essence of the songs.

[TAC]

The worst is the DVD from that tour. Crystal clear singing vocals, but talking to the crowd like an invalid.

[wolfking]

The worst is the DVD from that tour. Crystal clear singing vocals, but talking to the crowd like an invalid.

If its the one I'm thinking of, I think I purchased that DVD but only lasted a couple of songs and turned it off cause it was so overdubbed and the video and audio didn't match up at all.  Awful.

[jammindude]

I don't mind a few reasonable touch-up, but I agree that the practice can get extremely overdone.

Sometimes I wish they would have done a touch up here or there on OIALT.   I remember being extremely excited for that album before it was released, and then fairly disappointed when I heard it.   MP is a purist, and wanted no overdubs whatsoever.   In principle, I can see where he was coming from, but in practice, they didn't capture DT at their best, and the album suffered as a consequence.   I was very happy when LSFNY captured a far better performance from everyone.  (although I think they did fix one mistake? Can't remember for sure)

[Zoom E]

I recall that Priest's Unleashed in the East was often referred to as Unleashed in the Studio because it was believed to be heavily overdubbed. Great album, but if definitely doesn't have a legitimate live feel.

[Glasser]

I recall that Priest's Unleashed in the East was often referred to as Unleashed in the Studio because it was believed to be heavily overdubbed. Great album, but if definitely doesn't have a legitimate live feel.

That's hysterical!!!!  .

I have seen Priest and Halford live and he nailed it every time.

[TAC]

I don't mind a few reasonable touch-up, but I agree that the practice can get extremely overdone.

Sometimes I wish they would have done a touch up here or there on OIALT.   I remember being extremely excited for that album before it was released, and then fairly disappointed when I heard it.   MP is a purest, and wanted no overdubs whatsoever.   In principle, I can see where he was coming from, but in practice, they didn't capture DT at their best, and the album suffered as a consequence.   I was very happy when LSFNY captured a far better performance from everyone.  (although I think they did fix one mistake? Can't remember for sure)

I'm with you completely on OIALT. I was so excited to get a live album from Dream Theater. But it's unlistenable, honestly. One, James is horrendous. My immediate thought upon hearing it, was that I do not remember James ever sounding like that, and I had seen them 9 times at that point.
Two, isn't it a mashup of two shows? I hate that.

When they released the '98 LA show as their first Live Series show on Ytsejam, I thought, well, this has to be better than OIALT. Nope. I thought it was embarrassing for James, and that was really the first sign that I thought MP must be deliberately trying to do just that. To embarrass James. Why else would he release that show, especially on the heels of the OIALT official release. Why not something earlier that showed James in a better light?

[Glasser]

I don't mind a few reasonable touch-up, but I agree that the practice can get extremely overdone.

Sometimes I wish they would have done a touch up here or there on OIALT.   I remember being extremely excited for that album before it was released, and then fairly disappointed when I heard it.   MP is a purest, and wanted no overdubs whatsoever.   In principle, I can see where he was coming from, but in practice, they didn't capture DT at their best, and the album suffered as a consequence.   I was very happy when LSFNY captured a far better performance from everyone.  (although I think they did fix one mistake? Can't remember for sure)

I'm with you completely on OIALT. I was so excited to get a live album from Dream Theater. But it's unlistenable, honestly. One, James is horrendous. My immediate thought upon hearing it, was that I do not remember James ever sounding like that, and I had seen them 9 times at that point.
Two, isn't it a mashup of two shows? I hate that.

When they released the '98 LA show as their first Live Series show on Ytsejam, I thought, well, this has to be better than OIALT. Nope. I thought it was embarrassing for James, and that was really the first sign that I thought MP must be deliberately trying to do just that. To embarrass James. Why else would he release that show, especially on the heels of the OIALT official release. Why not something earlier that showed James in a better light?

Looking forward to hearing the new tour. I'm going to assume another live album because touring is do fragile now.

[darkshade]

A live album is still an "album" so there should be expected post-production. To what extent is up to the band/artist/production team.
You can have overdubs, performances from different concerts, full shows cleaned up, full shows warts and all. I think most, if not all, live albums are hybrid recordings, taking dry unmixed soundboards, mixing them, and adding in audience noise picked up from different microphones in the venue.

Some artists put out live albums to showcase new material otherwise not recorded in the studio. Often, a live album is a way to put out a commercial product to give listeners an idea of what their shows sound like. Unfortunately, these days, especially with older acts, live albums are a means to rake in some cash without having to make anything new, probably due to lack of creativity and/or pinch pennies out of loyal customers for their retirement fund/estate for when the grim reaper shows up.

Sounds like OP only wants live recordings, "bootlegs" if you will, audience recordings or straight-from-the-soundboard recordings, which are dry and unmixed (some instruments may dominate the others, or have a flat sound) all of which are plentiful on a number of sites, like archive.org for example. However, they are NOT albums.

I generally only listen to live music by bands and artists that actually DO original music live, and/or play in a way that is not captured in the studio that is very distinct from what they did in the studio.
This means acts like the Grateful Dead, Phish, Frank Zappa. Jams, different arrangements, high energy playing, different set lists every night or so, themed sets, etc...
DT mixed up set lists in the 00's and threw in the occasional jam but the songs were played the same way every night, and even the jams had pre-determined destinations.
I like Score because even though there are some post-production tricks on that album (JLB vocals, UAGM fix, etc..) they did a themed show, and played music not heard on their regular studio albums. If they had the budget I bet they would have tried to clean up the out of tune orchestra. Their other live albums are fine but nothing special (aside from a few cuts that are superior to their studio counterparts, like LSFNY A Change of Seasons)

[TAC]

I still prefer the Boston Opera House boot to the actual live album. I feel like JP's amazing solo was on Space Dye Vest was cleaned up a bit. The funniest part was when James forgets Eren's name and thanks the Boston College Music College.

[HOF]

Even though James doesn't sound great on OIALT, I actually think the sound of the band on that album is better than LSFNY or Budokon which both sound kind of wimpy to me. The drums especially always sounded squashed on LSFNY.

[wolfking]

Even though James doesn't sound great on OIALT, I actually think the sound of the band on that album is better than LSFNY or Budokon which both sound kind of wimpy to me. The drums especially always sounded squashed on LSFNY.

I always liked it.  Raw and lots of energy.

[TAC]

Even though James doesn't sound great on OIALT, I actually think the sound of the band on that album is better than LSFNY or Budokon which both sound kind of wimpy to me. The drums especially always sounded squashed on LSFNY.

I always liked it.  Raw and lots of energy.

Yeah, I agree with that, but vocally, it just kills it.

[wolfking]

Even though James doesn't sound great on OIALT, I actually think the sound of the band on that album is better than LSFNY or Budokon which both sound kind of wimpy to me. The drums especially always sounded squashed on LSFNY.

I always liked it.  Raw and lots of energy.

Yeah, I agree with that, but vocally, it just kills it.

I haven't listened for a while, and while I remember James being off, I still him recall not ruining the album for me or anything.

[TAC]

If you're following the Album thread, I'll be hitting the FII Era next week, and I'll definitely be spinning OIALT for the first time in probably 20 years. I have the boot of the whole original show, which is a beast, so I'll be hitting that too.

[wolfking]

If you're following the Album thread, I'll be hitting the FII Era next week, and I'll definitely be spinning OIALT for the first time in probably 20 years. I have the boot of the whole original show, which is a beast, so I'll be hitting that too.

Alright, yeah I've seen those posts mate.  I'll follow along too from now then.

[Setlist Scotty]

I don't mind a few reasonable touch-up, but I agree that the practice can get extremely overdone.

I agree. In principle, yeah, they should just pick the show from a tour that is the best performance of all, but the reality is that not every band records every show, especially in years past. And even then, these days often times the band is also filming, and unless you're talking about Metallica, a band is likely not gonna fully film every gig, either. So minor touch ups or to fix absolutely necessary stuff (like when the guitar dropped out during UaGM at the Score show) are fine. But to overly doctor stuff is not, IMO.

I was very happy when LSFNY captured a far better performance from everyone.  (although I think they did fix one mistake? Can't remember for sure)

They did. Can't remember for certain, but off the top of my head, I think JP botched one of the solos in ACoS, so they fixed that.

I recall that Priest's Unleashed in the East was often referred to as Unleashed in the Studio because it was believed to be heavily overdubbed. Great album, but if definitely doesn't have a legitimate live feel.

That's hysterical!!!!  .

I have seen Priest and Halford live and he nailed it every time.

Isn't Kiss Alive notorious for also being rumored to have been mostly replicated in the studio after the fact, too? And IIRC, there are arguments over how much of Thin Lizzy's Live and Dangerous was truly live as well.

When they released the '98 LA show as their first Live Series show on Ytsejam, I thought, well, this has to be better than OIALT. Nope. I thought it was embarrassing for James, and that was really the first sign that I thought MP must be deliberately trying to do just that. To embarrass James. Why else would he release that show, especially on the heels of the OIALT official release. Why not something earlier that showed James in a better light?

MP released that show because all over the Ytsejam Mailing List it had been hyped up as a show not to be missed with special guests (remember Bruce wasn't in Maiden at the time) and additions to the setlist, but obviously not everyone on the list could've attended the show. So 5 years later, after finally getting the official bootlegs going, MP finally got to release it to the fans. Probably would've been better if it had been released back in 1998, but with OiaL having just been released and DT in no position to release official boots, it had to wait. It had nothing to do with MP trying to make JL look bad.

A live album is still an "album" so there should be expected post-production.

True, but we're talking specifically about a live album - not a studio album. Big difference.

Sounds like OP only wants live recordings, "bootlegs" if you will, audience recordings or straight-from-the-soundboard recordings, which are dry and unmixed (some instruments may dominate the others, or have a flat sound) all of which are plentiful on a number of sites, like archive.org for example. However, they are NOT albums.

Glasser can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he has a problem with the recordings being polished up, as in properly EQ'd, mixed and mastered. He just takes issue with all the doctoring that goes on that makes a live album less than truly live.

Even though James doesn't sound great on OIALT, I actually think the sound of the band on that album is better than LSFNY or Budokon which both sound kind of wimpy to me. The drums especially always sounded squashed on LSFNY.

I always liked it.  Raw and lots of energy.

Yeah, I agree with that, but vocally, it just kills it.

I haven't listened for a while, and while I remember James being off, I still him recall not ruining the album for me or anything.

Exactly the same for me - haven't listened to it for a long time, but I was never put off because JL didn't have a perfect night.

[TAC]

When they released the '98 LA show as their first Live Series show on Ytsejam, I thought, well, this has to be better than OIALT. Nope. I thought it was embarrassing for James, and that was really the first sign that I thought MP must be deliberately trying to do just that. To embarrass James. Why else would he release that show, especially on the heels of the OIALT official release. Why not something earlier that showed James in a better light?

MP released that show because all over the Ytsejam Mailing List it had been hyped up as a show not to be missed with special guests (remember Bruce wasn't in Maiden at the time) and additions to the setlist, but obviously not everyone on the list could've attended the show. So 5 years later, after finally getting the official bootlegs going, MP finally got to release it to the fans. Probably would've been better if it had been released back in 1998, but with OiaL having just been released and DT in no position to release official boots, it had to wait. It had nothing to do with MP trying to make JL look bad.

I know nothing about the first bolded part. I honestly don't find the show all that special TBH. Bruce makes an appearance. Whoopie!

As far as the second bolded part...if your singer sounds that bad, and you release the show anyway, then..I'm sorry, that's a dickish move. It was my first thought on my first listen, and I know I shared with you early on that I could tell there was friction between MP and JLB. And the release of this show perked me up to that.

[faizoff]

I was very happy when LSFNY captured a far better performance from everyone.  (although I think they did fix one mistake? Can't remember for sure)

They did. Can't remember for certain, but off the top of my head, I think JP botched one of the solos in ACoS, so they fixed that.

Don't know about the solos in ACOS but I think JP sang the wrong verses in one of chorus for 'The Silent Man'. Which I found weird because a few other mistakes in the main show weren't corrected. Like JLB singing 'larrying one eternity' in Through My Words. and Kevin Shirley forgetting to mix in MP's backing vocals in Strange Deja-Vu.

[KevShmev]

Bottom line, all live albums should be left in bootleg form in every aspect of all members performances PERIOD!!! If any band wants to release a live album they need to find the best show of said tour and release it AS IS!!! The official DT bootlegs are true live albums. One of my favorite live albums was Ozzy Speak Of The Devil BUT when I heard the bootlegs of the same shows Ozzy sounded god awful and now I look at that album as a re-recorded version of old Sabbath tunes. Pisses me the fuck off! Its one thing to master or brighten up the actual recording sound if need be but it should end there! I like my live albums LIVE, that means capturing and not altering the essence of the songs.

I pretty much agree. 

"But we needed to fix mistakes."

If you want a perfect performance, that is what the studio versions are for in most cases.  A truly live version should be just that: live, faults and all.

But I pretty much accept at this point that just about every live album or video I get isn't really the true live performance, except if it's U2 or Dave Matthews Band, who I believe both usually just release everything as played live, and if there were mistakes, so be it.

[Glasser]

I don't mind a few reasonable touch-up, but I agree that the practice can get extremely overdone.

I agree. In principle, yeah, they should just pick the show from a tour that is the best performance of all, but the reality is that not every band records every show, especially in years past. And even then, these days often times the band is also filming, and unless you're talking about Metallica, a band is likely not gonna fully film every gig, either. So minor touch ups or to fix absolutely necessary stuff (like when the guitar dropped out during UaGM at the Score show) are fine. But to overly doctor stuff is not, IMO.

I was very happy when LSFNY captured a far better performance from everyone.  (although I think they did fix one mistake? Can't remember for sure)

They did. Can't remember for certain, but off the top of my head, I think JP botched one of the solos in ACoS, so they fixed that.

I recall that Priest's Unleashed in the East was often referred to as Unleashed in the Studio because it was believed to be heavily overdubbed. Great album, but if definitely doesn't have a legitimate live feel.

That's hysterical!!!!  .

I have seen Priest and Halford live and he nailed it every time.

Isn't Kiss Alive notorious for also being rumored to have been mostly replicated in the studio after the fact, too? And IIRC, there are arguments over how much of Thin Lizzy's Live and Dangerous was truly live as well.

When they released the '98 LA show as their first Live Series show on Ytsejam, I thought, well, this has to be better than OIALT. Nope. I thought it was embarrassing for James, and that was really the first sign that I thought MP must be deliberately trying to do just that. To embarrass James. Why else would he release that show, especially on the heels of the OIALT official release. Why not something earlier that showed James in a better light?

MP released that show because all over the Ytsejam Mailing List it had been hyped up as a show not to be missed with special guests (remember Bruce wasn't in Maiden at the time) and additions to the setlist, but obviously not everyone on the list could've attended the show. So 5 years later, after finally getting the official bootlegs going, MP finally got to release it to the fans. Probably would've been better if it had been released back in 1998, but with OiaL having just been released and DT in no position to release official boots, it had to wait. It had nothing to do with MP trying to make JL look bad.

A live album is still an "album" so there should be expected post-production.

True, but we're talking specifically about a live album - not a studio album. Big difference.

Sounds like OP only wants live recordings, "bootlegs" if you will, audience recordings or straight-from-the-soundboard recordings, which are dry and unmixed (some instruments may dominate the others, or have a flat sound) all of which are plentiful on a number of sites, like archive.org for example. However, they are NOT albums.

Glasser can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he has a problem with the recordings being polished up, as in properly EQ'd, mixed and mastered. He just takes issue with all the doctoring that goes on that makes a live album less than truly live.

EXACTLY!!!!!

[Cool Chris]

I want a live album to be representative of the band's tour at that time. If they muck up something badly on one show that they aced the rest of the tour, I can't say I have a problem with that being fixed. It doesn't need to be 100% live, if it is done in the spirit of the live performance. If your band isn't performing well live on a regular basis, perhaps you should rework your material or just forgo recording a live performance altogether.

However it shakes out, not a hill I am going to die on.

[gazinwales]

I recall that Priest's Unleashed in the East was often referred to as Unleashed in the Studio because it was believed to be heavily overdubbed. Great album, but if definitely doesn't have a legitimate live feel.

From Halford's book he mentioned that he had a cold during the actual live recording and he recorded all the vocals in his front room all at once a la normal live performance.

[Glasser]

I'll go a step further. I'd rather a band take songs from the same tour but different shows and use the best versions than redo ANY recordings in the studio. If a band is planning a live album they will most likely record numerous shows from the tour. That's just my opinion.

[wolfking]

I'll go a step further. I'd rather a band take songs from the same tour but different shows and use the best versions than redo ANY recordings in the studio. If a band is planning a live album they will most likely record numerous shows from the tour. That's just my opinion.

Doesn't this happen a lot anyway?

[hefdaddy42]

I'll just say that KISS shouldn't be allowed to make live albums anymore.

[darkshade]

What I was saying is a live album is still an album, doesn't mean it has to be a full show without overdubs.
Often, live albums do take the best performances from a tour and compiles them to represent what the average show would be like, with overdubs and mistakes fixed. The Grateful Dead did this with their traditional live albums, of course they've released hundreds of their shows in full, warts and all.

Live at the Marquee is what I'm talking about. Using live tracks as your basic tracks, and massively overdubbing it to make it sound more studio than live (something Zappa did)

Harder to do that when you have a live album that corresponds with a live video release of a show.

I agree that a full show released commercially should be as close to what it sounded like live as possible, warts and all.

An exception is something like Score, where it's being presented as this exclamation point on their career at that point, so cleaning up mistakes and fixing the vocals makes sense. Live at Budokan, however, is warts and all, no? JLB vocals are questionable at times on that one. MP messes up his drum intro for As I Am.

[faizoff]

I think the mistakes sometimes make it special and for me cause repeated listens and watches. For eg on Opeth's Royal Albert concert, there are a couple of times where the guitar goes out and it makes for a fun shot where there's no guitar on one side. I think it was Akerfeldt? or Fredrik? either way, it was really fun moment. I don't mind those being on the release.

[El Barto]

I had a discussion with the guy who edited the LTE-LA DVD over at Portnoy's forum about something they fixed, and it comes down to a sort of philosophical bent. His take was that a live DVD should be akin to a movie. Something produced to entertain and it should look and sound as good as possible. My take is that it should be a documentary. Something to show you exactly what it was like if you were there. I'm still of that opinion.

One thing I can say is that live and loud covers a lot of flaws. There are plenty of things that most people simply won't notice at 120dB in a packed arena. Obviously there are things people will. Like others, I don't mind a few touch-ups because they're probably things that, in the moment, I didn't notice in the first place. JLB's vocals from Score are a perfect example. I'm told they were touched up for the DVD release. I couldn't tell you because that's honestly the way I remember it live. Dude had a great night. If they were to turn the horrible performance from the LA boot into a great performance it would be a totally different show, and that doesn't sit well with me. If that's what bands want to present then they should just release a live music video.

Also, more annoying to me than overdubs that I can't even discern is piped in crowd noise. Every show ever filmed in Japan has more crowd noise than music, for some reason. If Buddokan actually sounded like that nobody would film there. Unleashed in the East is probably fairly representative of their live show in terms of performance, so I don't care about what was overdubbed. I do care about the constant background noise.

[Stadler]

I recall that Priest's Unleashed in the East was often referred to as Unleashed in the Studio because it was believed to be heavily overdubbed. Great album, but if definitely doesn't have a legitimate live feel.

That's hysterical!!!!  .

I have seen Priest and Halford live and he nailed it every time.

If you believe the accepted wisdom, he was sick on that Japanese tour, and they took the tapes back and in one afternoon he sang the set along to the music.   So it's "live", just not live from that night.

EDIT:  TWICE now I've been ninja'd by Gazinwales in a thread (the "Black Sabbath" thread is the other).

[pg1067]

Back in the '80s and into the '90s, I used to get excited for live albums.  So many great ones.  For me, Yessongs, All the World's a Stage and Strangers in the Night were bought long after they were released.  We had Live After Death and Operation LiveCrime.  I was really looking forward to Triumph's Stages, but it was so thin sounding, which I attributed to an inability to recreate their studio sound live as a three-piece band (even though Rush had no problem doing it).

Starting in the late '90s and for most of the new millennium, live albums haven't been special, and I rarely buy them anymore.  I don't know if it's because a lot of bands seem to release a live album every tour or what.  Someone gave me Rush in Rio, but I've rarely listened to it and don't own any of their other 21st century live albums.  I will, however, buy live DVDs -- especially if they've got something unique going on like an orchestra.

[Stadler]

I want a live album to be representative of the band's tour at that time. If they muck up something badly on one show that they aced the rest of the tour, I can't say I have a problem with that being fixed. It doesn't need to be 100% live, if it is done in the spirit of the live performance. If your band isn't performing well live on a regular basis, perhaps you should rework your material or just forgo recording a live performance altogether.

However it shakes out, not a hill I am going to die on.

That was always Paul Stanley's rationale for Kiss Alive!   It was never intended to be a representation of ONE SPECIFIC Kiss show, but a representation of the Kiss show at that time.  I've seen (and heard) enough great Kiss shows over the years that I'm okay with that approach.   

I do prefer specific, complete live shows.  I used to hate the Deep Purple live albums like Made In Europe, that were just live songs tacked together from a various shows, or albums like Seconds Out or Exit... Stage Left that were essentially live songs as opposed to representations of the band, live.   

[Stadler]

I had a discussion with the guy who edited the LTE-LA DVD over at Portnoy's forum about something they fixed, and it comes down to a sort of philosophical bent. His take was that a live DVD should be akin to a movie. Something produced to entertain and it should look and sound as good as possible. My take is that it should be a documentary. Something to show you exactly what it was like if you were there. I'm still of that opinion.

One thing I can say is that live and loud covers a lot of flaws. There are plenty of things that most people simply won't notice at 120dB in a packed arena. Obviously there are things people will. Like others, I don't mind a few touch-ups because they're probably things that, in the moment, I didn't notice in the first place. JLB's vocals from Score are a perfect example. I'm told they were touched up for the DVD release. I couldn't tell you because that's honestly the way I remember it live. Dude had a great night. If they were to turn the horrible performance from the LA boot into a great performance it would be a totally different show, and that doesn't sit well with me. If that's what bands want to present then they should just release a live music video.

Also, more annoying to me than overdubs that I can't even discern is piped in crowd noise. Every show ever filmed in Japan has more crowd noise than music, for some reason. If Buddokan actually sounded like that nobody would film there. Unleashed in the East is probably fairly representative of their live show in terms of performance, so I don't care about what was overdubbed. I do care about the constant background noise.

I'm with you on that last one; always makes me laugh when I hear a live song that was presumably played on the bands' club or small theater tour, and the crowd sounds like a World Cup game in Brazil. 

[pg1067]

I do prefer specific, complete live shows.  I used to hate the Deep Purple live albums like Made In Europe, that were just live songs tacked together from a various shows, or albums like Seconds Out or Exit... Stage Left that were essentially live songs as opposed to representations of the band, live.

Exit State Left is weird for a lot of reasons, starting with the fact that 3/4 of it is from a single night on the Moving Pictures tour while side 2 is from two shows on the Permanent Waves tour.  You then have the 13th song in the set presented as the opener.  It then goes into the 14th song, but it still fades out and fades back in between the two tracks.  Side 1 ends with the 8th song in the set.  Obviously, there's going to be fade outs and fade ins between album sides, and side 3 is great -- in part because it's continuous between the three songs that were performed consecutively (the 10th through 12th songs in the set).  Then side 4 does what side 1 does, with songs 3, 16 and 25.  Likewise, side 2 takes one song from a completely different part of the set list and puts it with three consecutive songs but has fade outs and fade ins between the consecutive songs (except for Broon's Bane and Jacob's Ladder).

Add all that to the terrible mix and it's easy to understand why a lot of folks don't like it despite the super strong material and excellent performances.

[HOF]

Back in the '80s and into the '90s, I used to get excited for live albums.  So many great ones.  For me, Yessongs, All the World's a Stage and Strangers in the Night were bought long after they were released.  We had Live After Death and Operation LiveCrime.  I was really looking forward to Triumph's Stages, but it was so thin sounding, which I attributed to an inability to recreate their studio sound live as a three-piece band (even though Rush had no problem doing it).

Starting in the late '90s and for most of the new millennium, live albums haven't been special, and I rarely buy them anymore.  I don't know if it's because a lot of bands seem to release a live album every tour or what.  Someone gave me Rush in Rio, but I've rarely listened to it and don't own any of their other 21st century live albums.  I will, however, buy live DVDs -- especially if they've got something unique going on like an orchestra.

I've always been pretty ho hum on CDs of live performances. There are a few that are special, and it does seem that the older ones like Journey's Captured or Genesis' Seconds Out have more magic than newer live albums. But something like DT's Budokan album, I think I listened to it a few times when I got it and then never touched it again until the other night when I decided I should rip the Instrumedley to my computer at least. If its a concert where the band does something unique with the songs (Counting Crows' Live Across a Wire is a good example), then I'm more interested. Sometimes a band really knocks something out in a special way, like on the first part of Score where DT did an amazing job with those early tracks. But if it's just a recreation of the studio performance (or if it's noticeably worse than the studio performance), it's not very interesting to me.

I do also really enjoy a good live DVD. Rush's R30 is one of my favorite live films, and I can watch that over and over again. But I'm unlikely to listen to the CDs that came with it.