[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Studio Vs. Live debate, continued until it's illogical conclusio



Ahh, something kind of fun to talk, studio vs. live albums.  I 
believe I read someone who believed every band's live albums sounded 
better than their studio albums.

No.

The Beatles are an excellent example of a great studio band without 
great live performances (sure, a couple for the Beatlemaniacs, but 
who really thinks they performed better?).  I'm not bashing the 
Beatles, obviously they did something right (a whole lot of 
something, they are richer than most third world countries), but I 
think playing excellent live music and recording excellent music are 
two different things.  I don't want to offend any Moody Blues fans, 
as I personally believe the Moody Blues did the same thing The Who 
did, albeit a different direction muscially, and are also an ignored 
band (Though they've sold more records than many bands, probably 
including The Who).  I own Live at Red Rocks by the Moody Blues, a 
recent ablum, and on a whole, the album doesn't impress me as much as 
sitting through Days of Future Passed (one of the few non-Who albums 
I can listen to all the way through time after time).  Some bands 
excel at one or the other, few bands are both studio and live bands.

Andy Steinke
(Goody, goody, arguments must start, all in fun)