[Seamless Sounds]

What's your preference when listening to music?

As an arranger, I prefer studio recording because I find it easier to transcribe music this way. In a live recording everything seems meshed together and it isn't flexible for the composer to make tweaks to their music.

On the otherhand, I prefer live recordings for orchestras and classical music. Seems more natural this way.

Overall I still prefer studio recordings.

 

[krmathis]

Live for sure.
But only when its done properly. Keeping the noise down to a sheer minimum, but capturing the dynamics and depth of the music.

 

[acidbasement]

I agree with krmathis. Live is best when done right, but downright atrocious on rare occasions. In the metal genre I find live recordings are often substandard, probably due to the higher volume in the room. For bluegrass and jam rock, you cannot beat the energy of a live recording, aside from being at the show yourself.

 

[Nocturnal310]

I prefer Live performance to Recording of any kind.

 

[progo]

Studio is the fidelity, but sure a good live recording is finest at best. Studio can be overprocessed, yes. There are some records that sound better at live just because they aren't compressed whereas the studio master is a brickwall. And the spirit is usually very good with live recordings. Voted for studio still.

 

[jonathanjong]

I voted Live, but there's a caveat: It's not just recording-dependent (e.g., keeping crowd noise down), it's also artist-dependent. Some artists just don't perform as well live as in the studio.

 

[feNcheL]

I went for Studio, because in my experience, the voice of the singer starts to fatigue pretty soon and makes everything rather unlistenable.

 

[chadbang]

Studio - of course, a LIVE TAKE in a studio. I mean, this is how most of the audiophile recordings come into being. Jazz muscians don't do multitracking in general. It's cue up the machine and "lets go" for another take. If it's a non-overdubbed recording done in a studio, is it a live recording or a studio recording? Miles Davis "Kinda Blue" Live or studio? Well, its a mix.

 

[miscreant]

studio-live.
so everybody can be 100% making 1 music for that 1 music.

 

[punk4trev]

it depends...sometimes a band sounds awesome in the studio, but sounds awful live..lol.

 

[tjohnusa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by punk4trev /img/forum/go_quote.gif it depends...sometimes a band sounds awesome in the studio, but sounds awful live..lol.

I second that....Aerosmith live is sooooo loud I walked out after a couple songs. I voted studio but love Gentle Giant's Playing the Fool and Be Bop Deluxe Live In The Air Age.

 

[Happy Camper]

The live recording, if all else being equal, allows the artist more creativity in the song. While I will buy the studio issues, I won't necessarily get the live editions. As has been mentioned earlier, some bands just can't play to a crowd. Those that do will be who I buy live.

 

[paaj]

if done right, live is best. It has the right energy.
Ever listened to the Sepultura - 'Chaos A.D.' cd? some versions have two live songs at the end, awesome.
And Tool - 'Salival'. It illustrates how it gives the musicians the room to do something different.
However, I voted for studio because it seems harder to do live right and I don't often find live recordings that are better than the studio versions.
And some 'studio' versions listen just like a good live recording (or maybe they are 'live'... ?) eg Albert King with Stevie Ray Vaughan - 'In Session', Art Blakey - 'Moanin'.

 

[Libertad]

Studio is nice for all of the production effects but nothing really gives your that sense of fun a live recording does. Now not all of them do this right (example too much crowd noise) but if done right it just has that magical feeling to it that i just can't put my finger on that really makes your headphones shine and get your feet tapping.

 

[crzystng]

Live for the most part as when I am listening to music I want that feeling of standing/jumping (or sitting for those milder ones) in the front row of that concert.