Studio or live?

[metal evilution]

This is one aimed at the muso's out there.
Do you prefer the recording of material or the live performance.
I'm sure there are good and bad sides of both but what ultimately do you think is more rewarding?

 

[MotherEel]

Sometimes with poor mixing and boring performances some bands should stay in the studio. Other bands don't make sense on a recording, especially those that rely on volume or the energy created in a small room packed with sweaty drunk people.

 

[Stormster]

It really depends on the album, artist, production, quality, etc. Some tunes sound better live, whereas some live tunes sound different to the studio version of a song, and that may be the part i like. For example, the early thrashy studio sound of Blind Guardian i dont really like that much, I much prefer songs like Majesty and Valhalla live. Why? Coz they dont have that garage production sound, but also coz the guitar tunes sound modernised, sound "fuller", i dunno, thats the way i hear it. But then again, some bands suck live, or as i said the production is shit. It really depends on a number of things.

 

[MotherEel]

Mastodon were a great studio band, live they were boring as paint on the wall.

 

[metal evilution]

Mastodon were a great studio band, live they were boring as paint on the wall.

They sure didn't do much for me when they supported SLAYER.
To be honest i actually didn't even watch them. Me bad.

 

[MotherEel]

Yeah they were shit sloppy and uninsteresting. Slayer themselves were shit at that gig.

 

[grimnekrosmurfthing]

Heh, i always spot these polls when it's too late to vote!, anyway, I like the vibe of playing live, playing to an audience is farken amazing. I also love being able to be a perfectionist with my playing in the studio and fix fuck ups! Not a fan of recording vox tho, I always push my throat too much in the studio due to the dry sound and lack of vibe. Seeing bands live is usually better when you've heard the recordings and know the songs!