Poll: What do you think of live music?
- Thread starter Syphous
- Start date
Recommended Videos
There is a band named Pe'z and their live musics are much more dynamic than their studio versions. Fast musics are sometimes faster and many of them become much more complex and interesting to listen to. so in that regards, I prefer the live version because it shows you the true ability of the performers
for example;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWPTPjrPOAU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDSf8Lo2pU0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyhfHugwAQE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypKJRNXjpEM
for example;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWPTPjrPOAU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDSf8Lo2pU0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyhfHugwAQE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypKJRNXjpEM
I hate it when the stupid drunken fans sing along. If I wanted to listen to stupid people singing I'd listen to rap.
Accidentally voted for the 2nd option, but I meant it's only good if you're there. If I could choose between going to see my favourite band or listen to a studio recording, go see 'em live definitely. But I hate listening to recording of live shows, I just don't understand it.
I love live music. Coming from Cleveland where there is a pretty active punk scene, there are always a good amount of shows to attend (I've got one tomorrow, two next week, and one next weekend). I've always felt that punk music has always translated well onto the live stage, often times it's a lot better than the recorded versions. There is a certain energy that goes along with it.
And there is a huge community part of it too. You get to know the people in your local scene pretty fast, along with people in the bands. A lot of them tour for donations and hardly break even, they just do it for the hell of it - playing in basements, bumming beds from freinds. I go to a show and I already know half the people there, it's great. It makes going to larger concerts odd, though. I saw Rise Against with a few thousand people earlier this year and it was just weird being there with thousands of other people when you are used to fifty. It's come to the point where even 'mid sized' venues like the House of Blues is weird to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF25iSAZDiM
And there is a huge community part of it too. You get to know the people in your local scene pretty fast, along with people in the bands. A lot of them tour for donations and hardly break even, they just do it for the hell of it - playing in basements, bumming beds from freinds. I go to a show and I already know half the people there, it's great. It makes going to larger concerts odd, though. I saw Rise Against with a few thousand people earlier this year and it was just weird being there with thousands of other people when you are used to fifty. It's come to the point where even 'mid sized' venues like the House of Blues is weird to me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF25iSAZDiM
To me, live music is more about the experience than the music itself. The sound quality of live music almost never matches up to a studio-produced version, but I don't go to live shows to enjoy the high sound quality and production values. I go to live shows to have a great time.
Music is supposed to be experienced live. Otherwise you miss out on things that cannot be translated through a simple recording. If music is better in studio, it means the band employs cheap recording or mixing tricks to make themselves sound good (e.g., Dragonforce)Syphous said:
The entire point of music is to connect with the artist, so that they can share something. Wouldn't you say that it's better to hear a poem read by its writer than to read it yourself?
Two words: AC/DC Live. Also the AC/DC Live at Donington concert.
I found out that Live recordings have a lot to do with how they are recorded. I've heard some pretty bad ones that didn't sound anything like they should.
album version. not too bad.
Live version. They play harder and better.
I found out that Live recordings have a lot to do with how they are recorded. I've heard some pretty bad ones that didn't sound anything like they should.
album version. not too bad.
Live version. They play harder and better.
Lakewood and Cleveland Heights are hotspots for venues and bands. Plus, two of the best punk festivals in the midwest are held in Berea and Kent, annually. It's there, you need to look for it though, which is why it often times goes unnoticed. If you are interested in it at all feel free to shoot me a PM, I don't want to drag this off-topic.jubosu said:
With a lot of live music, you definitely get advertisements on the radio and depending on how big the acts are, on television too. It's a bit different with music that isn't even mildly mainstream, and when the shows are in basements and living rooms. It's all part of the experience that adds up to why I love live music and the music community so much.
I do enjoy watching live shows on YouTube, but you will find none on my iPod. Some bands will completely change a song in an awesome way (System of a Down) and others just put on awesome shows (Amon Amarth). And then sometimes I just want to see how a band sounds live.
Depends on the band and the recording, I hate when you get a "Live" recording and the actual song is drowned out by crowd sounds...
But there's usually a lot more energy and speed to a live recording. Bands like Interpol or the ill-fate Cooper Temple Clause up the Tempo live and they're almost different songs live.
But there's usually a lot more energy and speed to a live recording. Bands like Interpol or the ill-fate Cooper Temple Clause up the Tempo live and they're almost different songs live.
Wow, I thought I was the only one who didn't like live music. Yeah, I think a studio track is much superior. To each his own, but I never found a live music I like, and since some bands I like will sometimes do some tricks to the songs (like multitracking so a singer can sing along with herself) it sounds duller when it's a live one.
live music is awesome because you are there, you get to feel the music and watch the musicians play and watch their emotions. it lets them express their music in a different way than a studio album, in that there is room for improv, the risk of error, audience interaction, things like that. going to a live show of music that you love is a thoroughly rewarding experience, and it changes the way you listen to their albums and music.
but a live cd is just another recording, with shit sound quality and a bunch of wankers bellowing out the wrong lyrics off rhythm over the top of your musical heros.
that said, there are sometimes one-off tracks that were only played at live shows - korn's cover of 'one' for example - that are worth having, and there are rare gems of songs that are at least equal to or better than their studio versions. i personally find the live version of 'contact lost' by deep purple to be much more touching than the already awesome album version. so its not a hard and fast rule.
but a live cd is just another recording, with shit sound quality and a bunch of wankers bellowing out the wrong lyrics off rhythm over the top of your musical heros.
that said, there are sometimes one-off tracks that were only played at live shows - korn's cover of 'one' for example - that are worth having, and there are rare gems of songs that are at least equal to or better than their studio versions. i personally find the live version of 'contact lost' by deep purple to be much more touching than the already awesome album version. so its not a hard and fast rule.
I voted that I like live music, but I thought you meant between seeing a band live or listening to their albums. Still, live songs are pretty awesome