Which do you prefer, music that has been well produced in a studio, or to go see your favorite artist(s) live in concert? I'll admit I enjoyed seeing Depeche Mode in concert-- lights and video and other FX was sweet. But minus that, some of the sonic experience just wasn't the same. Perhaps I'm being narrow here-- classical music on recording vs. in a concert hall would be a much more interesting discussion, as folk, country, and rock groups do not always have the benefit of a venue with great acoustics. Some acts really do not have a concert component (or none that I know of)-- Enigma was conceived as a studio concept, with the idea that the artist would be unknown and a mystery. I'm not sure if Enya has ever given a concert-- according to press, she is extremely introverted and shy. Perhaps the encouragement of bootlegs by the band Grateful Dead (of course when Jerry Garcia was alive) was really an expression that the live experience or anything close to it was best. Anyway..5 responses total.
> Which do you prefer, music that has been well produced in a studio, or > to go see your favorite artist(s) live in concert? I don't know that I agree that it has to be one or the other..
I like to see a band which has interesting studio productions and then a really good live act. Where most bands blow it is either in not "capturing their live sound" in the studio, or else attempting to exactly recreate their studio hits live. I'm usually impressed when a band can play live and come up with a good live version/adaption of their studio stuff - changing whatever doesn't translate well to the stage.
Since I only go to folk concerts, I doubt that I'm a good answerer for this question. :-) To me, the magic of a live show is pretty damn special, but I don't usually find much difference, acoustically, between most folk albums and the live shows for my favourite artists (most of them use the same instruments and not much extra on album so it's pretty close live, just because it can't help but be).
My answer to the question depends entirely on the artists. Some are dead in the studio, without an audience to feed off of, and generate enormous excitement live. Others are sloppy in live performance, and burnish their work to a fine sheen in the studio.
resp:3 well, I was thinking of the folk concerts I've been to, and I think it's a bit more charming to see the artists in person. But then again, these are small venues and you can be up close and personal. And yeah, I've noticed that too as my folks have bought a few CDs from the folk acts they've seen. Sometimes there's some studio tricks like multitracking (so artists can sing harmony with themselves), but yeah, usually, it's not much. resp:2 These days with good engineering, more acts can reproduce more of what they do in the studio. But I agree-- it's limited, and so a live performance has to be a differently constructed thing entirely. -- As far as sound, I'm not a huge fan of live performance.. I'm just too enamored of slick studio wizardry. What I like, however, is the video, lights, and seeing the performers in person. But-- I suppose I'm not one to say much, as I've only been to a few commercial concerts. I'm not a very exuberant person, so sometimes it's nice to listen to carefully crafted studio stuff that I can get lost in, especially with a pair of headphones. Maybe that's why ambient has an appeal..
You have several choices: