Tubular.net :: Mike Oldfield Forums Discussion, news, reviews, fan music, and more.
	Search :: Members :: Help :: Guidelines

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

D Seph Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: Oct. 2006 Posted: Nov. 20 2006, 10:18 Which is better? Live is to me. More authentic. Back to top

glasgow_tubular Group: Members Posts: 215 Joined: July 2006 Posted: Nov. 20 2006, 11:03 Yeah i prefer live i think because i think being able to hear the crowd makes you feel as though you are there   . sometimes like listening to recordings because it might of been tweaked and sounds slightly better. -------------- www.myspace.com/allaroundmyhat Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Nov. 20 2006, 12:35 This is something that has always come up for discussion as long as there have been studio recordings, and during the decades where I've contemplated it, I've never come up with an answer. I'm inclined to think it's probably not a valid question: I mean - it's valid to ask which you like most (obviously), but I don't believe there's a 'better'. It all depends on context, really. A live performance was never intended to be listened to repeatedly in the way that a studio performance is. Any mistakes that are made, and dull patches, are pretty well going to stay there and become noticeable on repeated listenings. (Of course if you have another live performance from a rehearsal or something, you may be able to splice substitute passages in to replace the dud bits - but the more you do that, the further you get from the live performance.) A classic example is the Katowice show from 1999. It's a very uneven show - with some wonderful highlights and some fairly poor sections. Listened to once, it's exhilarating. Twice is fine. Three times, those mistakes are starting to really matter. You need a good long rest before you can listen to it again. I wouldn't be without this show - but it simply can't stand up to repeated listening in the way that studio recordings can. On the other hand, the studio versions can seem lifeless by comparison. The Millenium Bell was written for a specific moment in time, and the studio album just doesn't work for most people. Without that sense of occasion, the music never comes alive. I've listened to the live millenium show many times more than I have the studio album of TMB (though of course the content of the show differs in important ways form the album). So my answer is - I want both, please. Live shows and studio albums complement each other very well. When you get tired of a studio album, reaching for a live show can often be all that's needed to bring a piece of music back to life again. LATER: Reading the original post again, I wonder if I've gone off on my own tack rather - I was comparing studio recordings with recordings of live performances; but I think the original post may have been comparing studio recordings with actual live performances, i.e. really being there at the show. Oh well! Back to top

SoimSandheaver Group: Members Posts: 325 Joined: May 2006 Posted: Nov. 20 2006, 16:16 I've always liked live versions of songs better than the studio recordings. I think the joy of live songs is how some of the songs can involve a certain amount of improvisation, in which there are added sections you don't get on the studio CDs. That's why I love Queen's live shows, some of their songs have so much added material that it adds about two or three minutes to each song, and it is a pure joy to listen to. Mike's a bit like that too. I recently saw a video of his performance at Montreux in 1981, and on his performance of the excellent chaotic piece Conflict, there was approximately an added three minutes of musical genius. Anyway, that's my opinion on it anyway. And, may I just point out, that because this is a thread about a person's opinion on what they prefer, shouldn't this be in the Polls and Opinions section? Just an observation, no offence intended towards anybody. -------------- "Three blokes go into a pub, one of them's a little bit stupid, then the whole scene unfolds, with a tedious inevitability." Back to top

TubularBelle Group: Members Posts: 1487 Joined: April 2004 Posted: Nov. 20 2006, 20:58 I have NEVER liked LIVE recordings, I prefer the crisp clean sound of a studio recording any day and if I want that LIVE experience then I go to a Concert and of course then it is a whole different story, the atmosphere, the audience, the whistling, the foot stomping, the clapping, all of that is AWESOME. But not on a cd, it doesn't make me feel like I am there at all, it just gets in the way. In fact the only LIVE recording I can recall enjoying listening to was the ASO performance of OTB the other night simply because I WAS there and was able to relive the emotion of it all. Although I do enjoy hearing improvised and more relaxed versions of a song performed by an artist, but all the background noise distracts me. So, as I seem to have also gotten confused about the actual question. I prefer a LIVE performance to a Studio recording to a LIVE recording.:D -------------- I hate getting up early. I didn't even realise there were two 6 o'clocks in one day! Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Nov. 21 2006, 03:44 Tracy's response made me think of some additional aspects of this: for me, at least, my preference varies quite a bit from artist to artist, for a whole stack of different reasons. So, for example: 1. Because Bob Dylan never performs any song the same way twice, virtually every show he does sheds a new light on most of the songs. Since the bootleggers now achieve fantastic quality recordings of his shows, listening to those is a remarkable experience. The result is that my collection of Dylan live recordings is much larger than my complete collection of his studio albums, and they've been listened to more often, too. 2. The volume of sound in some recent live shows I've been to has been destructively and irresponsibly loud, leaving my hearing impaired for several weeks afterwards (I feared it was permanent). So I can't now risk going to any more Dylan or Alanis Morissette shows. That's really the ultimate thumbs-down for these particular live shows! 3. Steeleye Span are at their absolute best performing live (and the volume is loud enough to be exciting but not so loud as to be dangerous). There's no substitute for being there. All the records (even live recordings) are pale shadows of the live experience. 4. I've only seen Mike live once, 25 years ago. As an event, it was great to be there. As an overall musical experience, it was quite disappointing. All the subtleties and detail that I'd become used to in the studio recordings were simply inaudible, swamped in the general mush of the PA (which was too loud). So ... it's a complicated business, responding to this thread! Back to top

arron11196 Group: Members Posts: 826 Joined: April 2005 Posted: Nov. 21 2006, 07:48 I recently went to see Porcupine Tree perform live in Manchester. It was my first ever live performance, and to be honest, I think it will be my last. I went with two collueges from work, one of which has been to many different concerts before. He said that the sound quality was the best he'd heard at a concert, and he's been to Pink Floyd, and so many others that are celebrated for their performance. Personally, I found it to be good, but not brilliant. No where near Perfect CD quailty as I have experienced at home. This was of course to be expected, but like Alan I'd grown to love the intricacies of the music, and when I heard it on stage - about 10% different to what I remember as well as being too loud and boomy - it left me non-plussed to the experience. With a recording I get to sit and identify with every single nuance of each performance in my own arena - with a live recording, it's a role of the dice. I know which I'm sticking with. -------------- Arron J Eagling Everyone's interpretation is different, and everyone has a right to that opinion. There is no "right" one, I am adding this post to communicate my thoughts to share them with like-minded souls who will be able to comment in good nature. (insert the last 5 mins of Crises here) Back to top

jonnyw Group: Members Posts: 522 Joined: Oct. 2005 Posted: Nov. 21 2006, 11:14 hmm i must say I believe they are in two diffrent leagues for me, I went recently to see Muse, and had a better experience than listening to their album, they had better than CD quality, because THATS how their music is written, LOUD and LIVE. where MO would be more of a multitrack fashon and thus more mellow most of the time compared to something a live band can produce. having said that, the live DVD of TBiii leaves much to be desired compared to the original CD IMHO. It takes a very special band to be great live, and at that, it always differs from performance to performance, again i worked two nights at a venue during two performances of the same band. and ill be honest, the first night they played very well, but the next night was horrendous, with the same tech crews and set list! It really can be that random. especially if an artist is on tour. So, for me, I've had experiences where live, a band beats anything they have ever recorded, its certainly the case with my own band (although thats mainly due to lack of money for good recording equipment.) and at that, it depends on the music, MO's music can really not be done very well live, or even as well as its been done on any album hes ever made, because of his composition and sheeer volume of diffrent instruments. (some of which just cant be microphoned live without hoards of feedback anyway.) I personally think its all about the actual experience when you see a live act, be it in the light show or the stage presence, (or maybe its the fact youre meters away form your hero!   ) They are two diffrent performances of music that i believe can be great in their own right, but at least on a CD you get what you expect, and theres a risk with it live due to human error or a crap venue. But thats just me -------------- Grand piano. Reed and pipe organ. Glockenspeil. Bass guitar. Vocal chords. Two slightly sampled electric guitars. The venitian effect. Digital sound processor. And Tubular bells. Solo music - http://-terrapin-.bebo.com Band music - http://www.rsimusic.com Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Nov. 21 2006, 11:19 Quote (arron11196 @ Nov. 21 2006, 12:48) With a recording I get to sit and identify with every single nuance of each performance in my own arena - with a live recording, it's a role of the dice. I know which I'm sticking with. You might find it interesting to listen to a really good live bootleg recording  of a performer you like on record. The best ones are recorded from within the audience, quite near the stage, with very high quality microphones (and doubtless 'cleaned up' later). Some of these recordings are breathtakingly detailed, and yet they also retain the ambience of the venue - so you get the best of both worlds. I have a number of these quality (illicit) recordings of Dylan shows that I actually attended, and I'm always amazed by them - what sounded like excessively loud woolly mush on the night comes through wonderfully clear on the recording. Back to top

LemKuiper Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: Oct. 2006 Posted: Dec. 03 2006, 04:37 Studio recordings. Mike is a great engineer and I think that a lot of his skill is in the studio as a technician as well as his playing. I do think that his recent stuff is a little over produced. It's too clean and perfect in some ways. But his skill as a sound engineer is in no doubt. Live is great in a live one off situation. But live recordings grate on my ears after a bit. Back to top

SoimSandheaver Group: Members Posts: 325 Joined: May 2006 Posted: Dec. 03 2006, 15:15 Quote (LemKuiper @ Dec. 03 2006, 09:37) I do think that his recent stuff is a little over produced. It's too clean and perfect in some ways. I see what you mean. I always thought that the imperfection that was rife throughout Tubular Bells made it so much more atmospheric and added to what was essentially a wonderfully grim piece of music, placed right into the centre of an Urban calamity. That's why the incredibly metallic finalé is a great touch, as I felt that this was what the whole of Part 1 was leading up to, especially in the dying eight minutes of the piece. But, given Mike's reputation as a perfectionist, I can see why he wants his music to be spot on. In most cases, it does sound absolutely perfect, and this may make it lose a little of the atmosphere and ingenuity that imperfection often brings to a piece of music. Some of his more peaceful compositions do sound so soothing and perfect that they can seem a bit borish at times, but they are still an absolute pleasure to listen to. However, his more shady compositions, such as Tubular Bells III, do seem a lot more rugged and they really strike a chord with me. Please excuse the pun. Well, all I can think for the mo. TTFN. -------------- "Three blokes go into a pub, one of them's a little bit stupid, then the whole scene unfolds, with a tedious inevitability." Back to top

larstangmark Group: Members Posts: 1767 Joined: Mar. 2005 Posted: Dec. 03 2006, 16:58 Live or studio? I think it really depends on which of Mike's albums we're talking about. I love many of the live versions of Ommadawn that are availble, but IMO it doesn't have a lot to do with the studio version. Ommadawn is piece of rock music when played live, but the studio version is a prog-folk type thing that wouldn't translate into stage performance. I'm afraid Mike's music lost a certain quality when he started writing with stage performance in mind (ca Incantations/Platinum). Before that, anything could happen in his music. It was freer! Personally I prefer the studio versions of most of Mike's songs. His guitar lines can be quite difficult to play, and Mike has "good" and "bad" days when it comes to playing the guitar (witness the TB part of the Exposed video). -------------- "There are twelve people in the world, the rest are paste" Mark E Smith Back to top

hiawatha Group: Members Posts: 2391 Joined: Mar. 2004 Posted: Dec. 04 2006, 09:45 I'm guessing that Mike would say "recordings", as he spends so much time crafting the works, layer by later, looking for that perfect sound and combination of sounds. As opposed to just turning on a microphone/etc, jamming, and then releasing that. -------------- "In the land of the Dacotahs, Where the Falls of Minnehaha Flash and gleam among the oak-trees, Laugh and leap into the valley." - Song of Hiawatha Back to top

familyjules Group: Members Posts: 1190 Joined: May 2004 Posted: Dec. 05 2006, 05:49 If I want to listen to music at home I prefer studio recordings, as I like good production and the sound of a song performed as good as it could be with all the overdubbing and mixing care necessary.  Nothing beats the sound of a good record. But to experience music in concert is a whole other thing.  There I'm not looking for perfection, I'm looking for excitement.  I don't want to hear a record perfectly reproduced - what's the point?  I could stay home and listen to the record.  I want to witness the performers transcending their perceived limitations.  I want to be caught up in a shared spiritual experience.  Afterwards, I may well hear a recording of that same concert and it will probably not be as good as my memories.  No matter. Like Alan was saying - the record is forever, and the concert is for NOW.  Two totally different things.  And I need both! Jules -------------- I like beer and I like cheese Back to top

familyjules Group: Members Posts: 1190 Joined: May 2004 Posted: Dec. 05 2006, 05:53 Quote (Alan D @ Nov. 21 2006, 03:44) The volume of sound in some recent live shows I've been to has been destructively and irresponsibly loud I've experienced the opposite problem of late - shows that have been so quiet that the music has sounded veiled and my emotional reaction has therefore been muted as a result. Ironically, this maybe because the performer is playing quieter to preserve their ears.  And it also maybe because I'm a bit deaf from years of listening to music too loud. Either way, there's little more frustrating for me than a too-quiet concert. Jules -------------- I like beer and I like cheese Back to top

Alan D Group: Members Posts: 3670 Joined: Aug. 2004 Posted: Dec. 05 2006, 10:57 Quote (familyjules @ Dec. 05 2006, 10:53) And it also maybe because I'm a bit deaf from years of listening to music too loud. Could you speak up a bit Jules? I didn't quite catch that. Back to top

familyjules Group: Members Posts: 1190 Joined: May 2004 Posted: Dec. 05 2006, 11:48 Quote (Alan D @ Dec. 05 2006, 10:57) Quote (familyjules @ Dec. 05 2006, 10:53) And it also maybe because I'm a bit deaf from years of listening to music too loud. Could you speak up a bit Jules? I didn't quite catch that. Oh yes.....I'm not the only deaf bugger round here, am I? -------------- I like beer and I like cheese Back to top

Sir Mustapha Group: Musicians Posts: 2802 Joined: April 2003 Posted: Dec. 05 2006, 11:56 It depends on the artist. Those who prefer live Beatles to studio Beatles would be practically discarding their best albums. Fact is that I appreciate the craftsmanship that goes into constructing an album and all of its details, and I get really disappointed when I find out that a live performance of a certain song by a certain artist left off the details that made the studio recording so awesome in the first place. There are exceptions, of course. I would never part with my Men At Work "Brazil '96" CD, for instance. But as a counterexample, I don't have any live Queen albums. I dunno, I just don't see the point in having 30 second versions of their best songs... Just not for me. A live performance is a whole different thing altogether. It isn't even comparable to a live DVD. There's just too much involved in being there, and I'll likely never forget that proverbially perfect David Byrne concert. -------------- Check out http://ferniecanto.com.br for all my music, including my latest albums: Don't Stay in the City, Making Amends and Builders of Worlds. Also check my Bandcamp page: http://ferniecanto.bandcamp.com Back to top

Piltdownboy on horseback 22 Group: Members Posts: 1548 Joined: Sep. 2005 Posted: Dec. 05 2006, 13:38 It depends on the band, I think. Some bands are good live but usually boring on record. (like Status Quo) Some bands/musicians are good live and record   (like Mike) Some are just nice on record. (like Bloc Party) I sometimes feel some of the details go lost on concerts, but sometimes songs sound live like the way theyre meant. Platinum live for example. I like both...   -------------- "And now we're going to play Platinum!" Back to top

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Forums | Links | Instruments | Discography | Tours | Articles | FAQ | Artwork | Wallpapers
Biography | Gallery | Videos | MIDI / Ringtones | Tabs | Lyrics | Books | Sitemap | Contact


Mike Oldfield Tubular.net