What's better? Live or recorded music?

There are a million ways to experience music, but for the purpose of this blog let's just break it down to two categories: live and recorded.

I don't know about you, but if I get to hear live music more than twice a month, that's pretty good. Sure, I can look back and remember some great concerts in my life, like the Rolling Stones at Madison Square Garden in 1969, Miles Davis in a tiny club in Greenwich Village in the early '70s, and Stevie Ray Vaughan in the '80s. The Pixies in the '90s were definitely a high point.

I recently attended a concert with the Chelsea Symphony at St. Paul's Church in Manhattan. Sitting in the top balcony, the sound was simply awesome; I've never heard anything close to that sound reproduced by even the very best high-end audio systems. The orchestra certainly didn't need amplification; it was definitely loud enough. Not quite rock concert loud, but the Chelsea Symphony's eight percussionists can make a strong impression.

Better yet, the sound never hurt my ears. But the orchestra was far more viscerally dynamic than any rock band, and the sound of strings, woodwinds, brass, and percussion filling the acoustic space of the church was a thrill I won't soon forget. That is, you don't so much hear the sound of each instrument, you hear it filling the church. The sound of the entire orchestra floated, like a cloud, above the pews. The sound was beyond what I've ever experienced from an orchestra in a large concert hall.

In those and other experiences, the music connection was stronger than it could ever be from recordings, but for the most part I actually prefer recorded music. First and most obviously because it's a repeatable pleasure I can have any time I want it. Next, recorded music is, after all, perfected and approved by the artist(s)--live music is subject to the vagaries of chance.

Recorded music's production can't necessarily be duplicated in concert. Depending on where you sit, and how good or bad the sound system is, live music is a crap shoot. With a decent hi-fi at home, you can get better sound than most live gigs. Oh, and you can play it at exactly the volume you want.

"Live" recordings fall between the two extremes, and if the band's up for it, may be the best of live and recorded.

There's an intimacy to recorded music, it's just you and the sound. Live is, depending on the venue, far less direct and the goings on around you can be distracting. Then again, when the vibe is just right, the music is that much better because of the atmosphere.

I'm not sure why, but when I've recorded live music I've noted that when playing it back the music almost never matches the feel of the live experience. Recordings and live music are two different things.

But for day-to-day I love listening to my collection; right now I'm on a major Neil Young kick. I've seen Neil in concert twice and was underwhelmed by both shows.

And finally, recorded music allows us to hear music from artists who are no longer with us, but their music lives on.

How about you? Live or recorded, which one rocks your world more?

[Thomas, David]

*chuckle*

Fact! ... Depends on the artist, and the experience they bring. But true talent is key.

[gsmiller88]

Exactly. I hate when an artist who is playing live sounds NOTHING like they do on their records. I call shenanigans in those cases! But when an artist can sing exactly like they do on their records, I call that talent.

[alegr]

"But when an artist can sing exactly like they do on their records, I call that talent."

Or lip sync.

[kjleftin]

There are some things you can get with a recording that you can't produce live, like certain computer generated instrumentation or the perfect balance of instruments. I love listening to recorded music at home over live music anytime because it sounds better and you know its the way the artist intended the music to sound.

With that said, I love going to live shows. Certain bands can express themselves in live settings so much better than in studios. I've gone to tons of shows of bands that I just 'like' and come back from the live show loving them. I go back and listen to their albums and realize exactly what they are trying to do with every track.

[ducttape36]

i agree with thomas, it really depends on the artist. however when i go to live shows i go to experience the performance more than i go to hear it. especially with jazz when the songs will wildly differ from the recorded versions due to improvisation. im not too concerned with sound quality, just how the performers interact on stage, musically and physically. imagine going to a high energy rock show but all the musicians just sit in chairs rather than move around on stage. that would be a disappointment no matter how good the sound quality is. however, for an orchestra the same rules don't apply. it all depends on the artist.

[peramica]

Excellent points in favor of both live and recorded music. However, the live music argument carries more weight. It is interesting that you mention the concert in the church, because most churches are designed for far more reverberation than is normal in the concert hall. Here the Naval Academy Glee Club and Annapolis Symphony perform Handel's Messiah at the Naval Academy Chapel is priceless musical Memory for me.

[cvaldes1831]

Sonically, there is far more range in a live performance. The venue quality varies far more for contemporary artists (pop, rock, jazz, whatever) than classical performers. If you're picky about your venues, live trumps recorded, hands down.

Heck, the audiophile fanatics venerate analog media far above CDs, etc.; the minimal amount of processing is when you listen with your own ears.

A lot of modern recordings (pop, rock, etc.) are over produced or have a commercial edge that the producers decide is necessary to increase sales. There are plenty of performers whose live sound and public persona are considerably different than their studio recordings. You cannot see a Chris Isaak show at a good venue (let's say the Fillmore in San Francisco) and claim that his studio sessions are livelier.

Admittedly, there are a few musicians who have zero stage presence and are lousy showmen, but I tend to find them the exception, not the rule.

Recordings are make capable archives, but apples to apples in a great venue, live blows doors on recorded.

[aj37viggen]

You know the old saying "You never step in the same river twice"? It sums up the huge conceptual difference between being part of a live performance, and merely listening to a recording.

They're completely different experiences and it doesn't make sense to compare them. It's not that I don't appreciate the ability to listen to recorded music, but I admit that the mere fact that I know I can listen to it whenever I want makes me attach less importance to it.

Who you are may make a difference. In college I had a friend who was a very talented jazz guitarist. He'd listen to recordings on an incredibly crappy stereo system. I asked him once how a musician could tolerate such poor sound quality. His reply: "I'm not listening to the sound, I'm listening to the music."

[Dalkorian]

That's ironic, I used to work in retail audio and I heard a story from a fellow employee about a customer of his who used to buy the most expensive audio equipment available. Then one day he got tired of the whole thing and went to a bargain store and bought a $500 all-in-one system. Though the quality didn't compare to what he had before, he claimed to enjoy listening to it more because he wasn't listening to the minor deficiencies in the system anymore, but started listening to the music instead.

Live or recorded? Well, it depends on the venue more than anything else. I've seen bands play at venues that sounded like concrete aqueducts, in that case recorded is better. But go to a show in a sonically decent venue and live trumps recorded every time.

[__SdC__]

Both have their advantages (note: I don't listen much classical music, anything from jazz to rock):
Live : volume, sound quality and the feeling of being part of the experience
Recorded (without audience): no travel required, as many encores as you like, affordable refreshments, musical performance tweaked to perfection, mixed to perfection.

I don't generally like to listen at home to recorded concerts.... makes me feel more like a voyeur than a fan.

[f.arenas]

no way, I rather live

I love live music whether at a concert for the full experience or a live album.

I love seeing the energy and interaction of the artists on stage. I love seeing two or three artists performing together.

But studio recorded is good too. Like another poster said for the artists that are no longer with us.

I agree with ducttape - live shows are about the performance as much as the music. I also feel that live shows are where bands show their true colours - If I go see a live band and they reproduce their recorded tracks note for note then I tend to come away feeling kinda cheated. It's one thing being able to learn a song on an instrument, its another to actually be able to play the instrument. Playing involves being able to think in the moment, feeding off the other musicians and at times going off on unplanned detours or doing something you haven't done before because that is where the tune wants to go this particular time. It involves another level of connection between each player, their instruments and the other players in the band. There's no second takes, no studio gloss-overs just a bunch of guys and girls putting themselves on the spot and the way they handle that reflects the kind of players, and ultimately the type of people they are. That's what I wanna see when I go see a band!

I say this as some who plays in a bunch of bands and does a lot of gigs so no doubt I'm somewhat biased on the issue but for me, my MP3 / CD / Vinyl collection is there to get me from show to show - real music is live!

[gkeramidas]

i like recorded better. live is ok when you're there, but i do not like live on the radio at all. plus, the live songs are usually different from what i'm used to on the radio so i usually don't like them.

exception: frampton comes alive

[buzzvader]

Live or Recorded? What do you say about Alvin Lee and Ten Years After doing " I'm Goin' Home" at Woodstock in 1969? Is it "live" or is it Memorex?

[cvaldes1831]

You almost have to take classical music out of this discussion. Live performance styles do not deviate dramatically from studio work (i.e., they're not going to switch from piano to steel guitar, bluegrass-style), classical music venues are typically far better (acoustics, style, comfort, etc.), and live classical music is usually unamplified.

The venue is incredibly important. Many pop music venues simply weren't designed with acoustics in mind. Since amplification is typical for contemporary music, sometimes the room's shortcomings can be mitigated by a talented sound engineer. And sometimes it can't.

There are nearby venues that I can count on for good acoustics, ones that are utterly hopeless, and some that are an absolute crapshoot (you can't tell until the band starts playing).

I will reiterate that what you hear on mainstream radio is often what some record label executive thinks will sell records. This is often drastically at odds with what the artist thinks his or her sound should be. If you really want to know what a contemporary musician's *real* artistic vision is, pick a good venue and hear them live.

[farrell.mcgovern]

Actually, the answer is both...each has unique quality that the other doesn't share. Even just one example...say, Pink Floyd. Fantastic concert band. Fantastic Album band...but both the live show, and a studio album are two unique performances of the same music.

ttyl
Farrell

[paskunyak]

Steve's article nails the important pluses and minuses of live vs. recorded music. From nearly 50 years of concert going/record listening experience I'd say live sound is the richest, purest musical experience one can have when it comes to acoustic instruments. Rock, and most pop, is amplified and I wonder if we can even truly describe it as "live". While I have been at some great rock concerts, more often, sound quality was a major problem. I saw The Who twice, both times they were terrific, but the sound of Live at Leeds, while clearly suffering from a not great hall, is much better. The opposite was true of the Takacs Quartet who I heard doing the six Bartok Quartets live in a small hall with excellent acoustics, and I own their recording, also excellent, of the same works. I prefer The Who recorded, and the Takacs live. But is sure sounds like the people AT Leeds University were having a blast! So let's not forget the non-musical impact of a live performance...it can really ROCK!

[G|Net]

They both have their place, and I'd never want to get rid of either. Recorded music is wonderful for the sheer sonic goodness, the carefully mixed balanced of crafted elements. Live music is good for the body and soul, you can feel the thump of the bass down deep and it can get the body movin'. With most forms of contemporary music where you're hearing a loud PA system, it's never the best sonic representation of the music, but it does have a sense of dynamics that your car stereo can't match. To me, records are for the ears and the brain, live music for the rest of the body.

It does depend on the style though - with classical music, you'd almost always want to hear it live. Nothing like hearing purely acoustic music swirl around you in 3D in a concert hall.

As far as performances go, I'm one of those who DON'T want an artist to sound exactly like they do on the record; after all, if the average fan wanted that, they would just listen to the CD and save the hefty concert fees. While I agree that it takes talent to faithfully reproduce your record live, I like hearing variations in concert, to hear the music alive and breathing. But I would be disappointed if every song was done so differently as to be unrecognizable.

[alegr]

What's better? Restorant food or homemade food? This question makes as much sense as yours.

Very few people can afford enough live music. Most people can afford recordings, though.

And yes, a live classical performance is a _performance_, like a play in a theater, when you can see the musicians' emotions, body gestures, facial expressions.

Next best thing could be watching this on a big screen in a movie theater, like those opera broadcasts from Metropolian done by Fathom Events. Though then don't do that yet.

[one_flat_monkey]

I've heard Cream 4 times, Hendrix 4 times, plus dozens of other groups, spanning 5 decades. My favorite live musical experiences were The Butterfield Blues Band at the Golden Bear in Huntington Beach, a venue that held maybe 200; Cream at the Anaheim Convention Center; the last Halloween concert by Oingo Boingo at the (then) Universal Amphitheater, and Cocteau Twins in the gym at UC Irvine.

For each live concert, there were significantly different subjective criteria that made the listening experience special. First of all, at the Golden Bear, I was less than 30 feet away from the stage. Jeff Beck sat in on a couple of tunes. I know that only a handful of people got to see that. Call me a snob, but I cherish the exclusivity of that experience. Cream was really loud. Ginger Baker said after the show was over that it was the best concert they had ever done. He might have been woofin' but he didn't say that at any other Cream show I had attended.

Oingo Boingo was a full-on party. I was in the last row. It was too much fun. I can hardly imagine what it would have been like to be near the stage.

Cocteau Twins were supposed to play in an auditorium, but it got changed to the gym. Galaxie 500 fronted the show. We sat in the roll-out stands for half the show and then went down on the floor. The music swirled all around us. Sweet.

But.

I have studio albums I listen to over and over and feel transported in a way that's much like being at a live show. Maybe it's just me.

[4schler]

i prefer live music. interestingly enough, especially live electronic music, when it's done well.

and actually , i prefer live music for the exact opposite reason that you said you prefer recorded music - i take more pleasure in hearing music live that i know is NOT repeatable - at least not exactly repeatable. no two live performances are exactly the same. that makes it more special for me as a listener and makes the musical connection stronger.

[cyberDJ-2038765336053745013836]

--"How about you? Live or recorded, which one rocks your world more?"

There are merits to both:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For recorded music, the sound quality is, at least, guaranteed. There's no guarantee on whether the songs are any good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For live performances:
Much depends on the tech supporting the band.

Despite the band on stage:
>If FOH mix is wrong...
>If the monitor mix is feeding back...
>If instruments/equipment are failing...
>If the venue itself sucks...
...you will have a bad show.

I see a lot of electronic shows each year. These shows are generally $15-20 karaoke performances with the singer performing to their own pre-recorded music.

I have seen it all:

>Crashed Macbooks (hardware failure),
>Crashed software,
>Blown PAs,
>Improperly positioned PAs,
>Blown venue breakers,
>Bad MIDI interfaces,
>Bad cables,
>Faulty audio consoles,
>Broken DAT tapes,
>Broken ADAT tapes,
>Skipping CD players,
>Dead batteries for wireless connectivity...

The list goes on.

On the up side:
You have the band interaction if the show is small.
And most importantly, you have the crowd to look at.