Hello, there. Sorry it has taken so long to get this out there... I've had a few minor (non-emergency) setbacks this week. Any-hoo, thanks to the 8 of you who voted in the poll (myself NOT included, as I did not vote).
It was interesting to find that 6 of 8 people (75%) prefer studio versions of songs over live versions when listening to their digital media (ipods, etc). I myself am on the fence. There are times when I like one over the other. I think it mostly boils down to who and what the live version is. There are some jam bands out there that do a nice job live and most of their stuff is better live because they are extended an pure versions (DMB, OAR, Wilco, et al) - meaning that they usually improvise and lengthen the songs as they go, or they embody a little more heart and soul into their tunes playing off the energy of the crowd.
For the most part, however, I would say I am a studio version guy. I like the clean sound and sometimes I can't stand when the audience noise is in the background of a live version, or worse some asshole screams something like, "Freebird!". Totally ruins the experience for me. Look no further than the live version of "Outside" by Stain'd for a perfect example. Great acoustic live performance by Aaron Lewis that is interrupted by Fred Durst's annoying ass mouth.
This opens another can of worms - acoustic or "unplugged versions". I really wish I would have added this to the poll, but hindsight is always 20/20. If you think about it, it really is a separate category. Acoustic versions can also be either live or studio, so it really makes you wonder where your preferences lie. There are some great songs out there that work better acoustically, just because of the crispness and simplicity of a single guitar. Plus, they are usually slowed down or toned down with the vocals, so it makes for a calmer melody which is sometimes nice when you're in a chill mood (or high off your ass).
So that sums out pretty much how I feel about it. I am curious to hear your thoughts about why you voted the way you did, or just your general outlook on the topic. PLEASE LEAVE COMMENTS...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
95 percent of my music collection is live music. Absolutely without a doubt live music. Studio gets repetitive and boring. However, the majority of the bands I listen to are known for their live music rather than their studio work. In most cases, their studio work sucks compared to them live. I really wish I could continue with this but I'm at work on my phone. Bottom line: If the bands you listen to sound better in the studio than they do live, they suck more than you realize. You might as well give all the credit to the producers and engineers because they're what prevent these bands from sounding like complete garbage. Signed, bradtannica of music bierman
ReplyDeleteI also want to note that all of my live music comes straight from the soundboard which eliminates the majority of crowd noise giving a high quality recording. Screw obnoxious "wooers"
ReplyDeleteGood point on the ability to do live music. I agree with that. A lot of what is driving the music industry today is the ability to perform live - thanks in part to the age of downloaded music.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by your second comment - "soundboard" music?
How do you feel about acoustic music (being that you're an electronic bassist)?
I can appreciate all music, whether it be acoustic or electric. As for sound board, this means that it is recorded straight from the mixer that controls all the levels and whatnot. Radiohead released their last album to fans for whatever price the fans felt they should pay. If you wanted it for free you could download it for free. They realized that selling tickets was more important than album sales. I've seen hundreds of concerts and the one Radiohead show I've seen has been one of the best. I ended up alone half the show and in jail after the show and I'd do it all over again to re-see that concert.
ReplyDelete