Is it just me, or do rock records sound a lot better than live rock concerts?

Cafe Society
1

I just recently went to a Neil Young concert, and the man played some of his classics (such as Hey Hey My My) after this long (complete?) performance from this rock-opera project he’s been working on called Greendale (not his finest work, IMO). Anyway, from comparing the stuff I’ve heard in both recorded and live versions, I must say that I thoughtthe recorded stuff sounded better in every case. This seems to be true for the few concerts I’ve been to (Ben Harper, Radiohead are the others). The live versions (esp Neil) often went into this loud amorphous “rock blob” sound that overwhelms the ears and doesn’t really change during the song (whatever music is going on is lost in the blob of amplified guitars). This is not very appealing to me, although some of my friends seemed to like the rock blob (though they also agree that it is more for the amped-up atmosphere than the music).

I know that classical music often sounds better live, as does a lot of other acoustic music. But are there any rock concerts that really sound better musically than the recorded version?

Anyway, I don’t think I will be going to any more rock concerts, as I don’t think spending $40 to hear a messier, louder, more annoying version of songs I already have is worth it. If I want to amp it up, I’ll play my friend’s electric guitar with the volume and distortion set as high as it can go. With the TV set to channel 349 (all static, all the time). I’d probably get the same amount of enjoyment.

Am I just weird?
(OK, I know I am weird, but I meant with regards to the topic at hand)

(gee, that was obviously implied, dontcha think?)

(shut up)

(quite witty of you)

(meow)

(that was just confusing)

(woof)

(that’s better)

(I think we distract from the OP)

(oh well, it’s your fault)

(yeah, sorry. please answer the question and ignore this)

(might as well put a sign “Do not read this”)

(don’t start with me again)

(moo?)

2

It depends on the record and depends on the show. A lot of the early KISS albums from the 70s sound nothing like the live show, especially the recent live shows. A lot of artists do things differently live. For example, “Disarm” by the Smashing Pumpkins is an acoustic guitar song on the album, but at the concert I went to, they cranked up a LOUD electric guitar and blasted it out. It sounded like a very different song. I also enjoy some of the theatrics of the bands I saw. Marylin Manson puts on one hell of a show and it adds to the music, I think.

That said, given the price of concerts anymore, I’d rather buy a live album. I keep going “Oooh, soandso is com…holy…40 bucks for nosebleed? Plus parking?” Maybe I’m getting old?

3

A professional studio’s sound booths and control room mixing board give you incredible influence over the final product. You can do retakes and then modify the results nine ways to Sunday. A live concert is done on the fly and is a much more demanding environment to extract quality sound from. An apt comparison is battle field surgery versus working in a hospital’s operating theater.

4

I can’t really think of many offhand, but I can see where some bands’ sound would be better suited to a live show than the studio. Some bands find the studio environment sterile and unnerving, which impacts the record. Maybe not the SOUND so much… and sometimes albums are not produced or recorded well.

The stuff discussed in the OP seems like more a function of Neil Young’s style of performing than anything else. Although some venues just get shitty sound due to the acoustics or bad equipment (either theirs or the band’s). I think smaller concerts almost always sound better than stadium ones. But to name an obvious (from me) example, the Allman Brothers Band gets very good sound at live gigs, especially the last couple of years because the volume has come down. A loud show is more likely to have problems with clarity and quality in my opinion. Also, what you describe as the “rock blob” - though I do know what you mean - either causes or comes from a more energetic, intense perfoformance in some cases, and that can add a life to studio songs.

5

Apt analogy. And I think that if I had the choice, I’d rather have surgery in the hospital every single time, no?

Stage theatrics are one way of adding value to the “battlefield” concert, but I have not seen anything special in this department in my limited experience.

I agree that the much more demanding live concerts would be extremely absorbing if they approached the quality of the records, but the ones I’ve seen have not, and it has left me disappointed. Of the live musicals and plays I’ve watched, the quality of acting has been equal to if not better than most films I’ve seen. I guess I want something similar for concerts, and if it is too hard (due to financial, arena, or whatever constraints), then I should probably not be going to any more rock concerts. I guess I’m just a kill-joy, as the thrill of seeing good bands live, and perhaps doing some original riffs and variations does not outweigh my annoyance at the amorphous rock blob sound and the overall decline in quality that I’ve noticed.

I still love live jazz and classical, though.

6

It’s pretty obvious that something recorded over 6 months in a state-of-the-art studio (possibly with a whole load of session musicians, timing tracks, technology to adjust the singer’s pitch and timing, etc), is going to sound better than something done on stage with no second chances. The only sonic advantage the concert has is that its sound system is probably going to sound a lot better cranked up to deafening volumes than anything you have at home.

But a rock concert isn’t purely about listening to music. It’s about seeing your favourite band, watching them interact with the audience, and being part of a crowd. It’s about seeing your favourite band sweat and dance and talk and perform, and letting you feel a part of it. Also, live venues tend to sell beer.

More prosaically, a lot of bands only have a handful of good songs on any album, but live, they’ll do the pick of all their good tracks from over the years, plus cover versions, and new arrangements, so what you hear will be a lot better than staying at home and putting their latest CD on. There are however plenty of people like Lou Reed and Bob Dylan who seem to delight in massacring their back catalogue when they perform (although I hear Dylan has improved recently).

7

Kill-joy indeed :smiley: What you describe does not fit the rock attitude, man :). It’s about letting go, having fun, enjoying yourself, and not sitting down and concentrating to hit perfectly every note, etc. As other’s have said, I think your OP refers mainly to Neil’s style of performance, as his concerts are notoriously loud, messy, heavily improvised, and IMO (and many others, obviously) this sound lends a sense of earnest emotion to the performance. Do you have any of Neil’s live albums? Live Rust and Weld are both excellent albums IMO. I have tickets to a Neil Young concert coming up in just a couple of weeks. . .counting the days!

There are plenty of rock bands out there that do sound great live, I’ve seen NIN (a few times), A Perfect Circle, Rammstein, They Might Be Giants, Metallica (a long time ago, in an era of greatness far far away), Van Halen, The Urge, and many many others who sound as good or better in concert than on the record. I’ve not seen Ben Harper live, but I can tell you that seeing (or rather listening to) a live Radiohead performance nearly made me sick. The albums are great, but the singer definitely benefits from studio refinement.

8

troub has nailed it! Since you mention your interest in jazz as well, I’m guessing you’re not looking for the same performance that you hear on the CD. Some folks go for the “loud, messy” sort of performance, others are more tasteful. I recommend seeing Bonnie Raitt in concert. Her band is excellent, Bonnie has a great stage presence and the mix is always good.

Speaking of the mix, the blob you hear might be because of where you’re sitting. I saw Bonnie and Stevie Ray at Red Rocks, and had to sit way to the side because we were late. Yuck. I coudn’t hear Bonnie’s voice or guitar, just a big mush. We left early. (Well, and because some jerk who’d had too much beer barfed on my girlfriend, but the sound really was lousy.)

So my recommendation is: pick an artist known for tasteful performances (Bonnie, Little Feat, Eagles) and get a seat near the center of the venue. If it still sounds lousy, save your money for CDs.

And finally, to chime in with many others, $40-50 for a concert? Yikes! My 15-year-old daughter borrowed money to see the current rap tour (50 cent, Little somebody, etc.) and her comment was: “It’s only $45 so I’ll be able to pay you back right away.” Oh, my dog!

I guess I’m old, too.

9

I missed a chance to see Blood, Sweat & Tears my freshmen year in college because the ticket was $4 and I didn’t have that kind of money to waste.

One additional comment to what’s above. It’s an open secret that many “live” albums are reprocessed and sometimes even overdubbed in the studio before release to make them sound even halfway acceptable. I hate to say it, but a lot of rock bands really can’t play their instruments, and this extends beyond the punk ethic. It’s even worse for bands who are known for their harmonies and close vocals. You can’t do those in hot, humid arenas after straining your throat for hours in the 30 previous cities. Heck, you can’t even keep a guitar tuned properly under those conditions. And some venues should never be used for concerts. I remember one in which Steve Stills stopped in the middle of a song and said something to the effect of “this place has the worst fuckin’ acoustics I’ve ever heard, man.” And it was true. I found I could hear better the sound bouncing off the back wall than from the stage.

Live shows are just a different medium and you either care to accept that or not. For the most part, I’m in the “not” category along with Windwalker.

10

This is true. I remember several years ago some people were shocked to learn that Van Halen had done this (actually re-recording and overdubbing parts of songs) routinely on their live albums (IIRC). But I went to a few of their concerts, and they didn’t sound that bad to begin with (egos of certain guitar players, though, allow the release of nothing less than perfection :wink: ). I don’t see Neil Young as being one to do this, though, although the clarity of the recording is usually helped by being recording from the mixing board and not recording any mushiness created by acoustics or bad speakers.

11

Yea, tell me about it. And I like to go with someone (and now that I have a girlfriend, I think she’d object to me flying solo!), so I’d be shelling out $100 or more for a 2 hour show. The good tickets ranged from $20-35 not too long ago (4-5 years, my prime concertgoing time).

Here’s some samples of prices for acts coming to Atlanta:

R. Kelly-$34.50, $59.90
Styx, REO Speeedwagon, Journey–$47.00, $57.00
Radiohead-$40, 46
Fleetwood Mac-$37.50-$125(!)

Irony. I finally live in a town that gets a ton of decent concerts and I can’t bring myself to spend the money to go to em. But $100 bucks or more for a 2 hour show is way too much.

12

Yes, prices are just ridiculous these days, but there are certain performers that I have an emotional attachment to. These are people who’ve I’ve grown up with, and their music has been the soundtrack to my life. I go to see them, in a way, to spend an evening with old friends.

As far as the concert experience, man has it changed. In the venues I’ve been to over the last several years, people are more interested in talking about the performance (or whatever else) than actually enjoying what’s happening up on stage. I think there’s a segment of the population that attends “just for something to do” on a Friday or Saturday evening.

You’ll never get the true RNR experience listening to a CD, or watching a DVD, though. You’ve got to go see it live!

13

Just curious as to what kind of shows you’re seeing. My own concert going experience is pretty limited, mostly free stuff at parties (anyone wanna talk about crappy acoustics and mixing?), but about a month ago I saw Godsmack at an actual venue. Three tickets for the lawn (yeah, you have to stand, but why would you want to be sitting at a rock concert?) put us as close to the stage as we wanted to get for $110.

On the other hand, we paid $75 a ticket (well, actually about $40 since my parents are covering some of it as a birthday gift, but I would have paid full price) to the Summer Sanitarium tour. But, as someone said, a concert is about seeing your favorite band, even if they are a bit over the hill and past their prime. And the fact that there are a few other guys that I won’t mind sitting through helps out a little.

14

Yea, I’ve noticed this too. These people that get upset when you stand up to cheer for the band just bother me. And the bands anymore, geez. The last concert I went to felt SO scripted! It was like,

Enter Opening Band. Opening Band plays 3 hits, 1 song from new album, 3 hits, 1 song from new album. Opening band leaves. Main Band comes out. Plays 3 hits. 1 song from new album. 3 hits. 1 song from new album. Main Band leaves.

No encore or anything. At least create the appearance of playing a live show!

15

And if you do, whether you’re sitting in the middle or back of a venue, wear earplugs. 2+ hours of exposure to 110+ dB SPL can really damage your hearing. I went to a concert in a tented amphitheater last Tuesday and was surprised how much my ears were ringing, even from sitting in the back. I’m still kicking myself for not wearing any hearing protection, when after several years of sound engineering, I should know better. :frowning:

16

Depends on the show, of course, club shows of not-so-famous bands border on the reasonable ($20-25 a ticket), but the bands I tend to like tend to start at $35 and up. But I haven’t been to a concert in a while.

17

I hate it when I go to see a band and they sound just like they do on record. When I see a live show, I expect a live show. Doesn’t matter how sloppily they’re playing just so long as they rock out and kick arse. That’s why I hate bands augmenting their sound with DATs, as a lot of big name bands do. It’s so boring. I don’t particularly care about artists displaying great musicianship or capturing a perfect sound. I like to see them get on stage and have a good time. That way, I do too.

18

It depends on the band. There’s definitely bands who are better in the studio than live, and there’s other bands who are much better seen in person, preferably at a smaller (two thousand people or less) venue. Stadium concerts, in my opinion, are generally a waste of time. Not only are they ridiculously expensive in most cases, but don’t have the same dynamic and energy level as a concert in a club. Certain types of music, like punk and heavy metal and the such, are infinitely better in a small venue setting than on the home radio. If the band are good performers, there’s just such an infectious, electric energy that can’t compare with a studio recording.

But everytime I’ve seen a decent band at a place where the crowd was in the tens of thousands or more, I’ve been disappointed. The experience is too remote, too impersonal. Last month there was a free Elton John concert in Budapest, and they estimated the crowd at a half million. I went, and, while it was nice to see a legend in action for the first time, if it weren’t free, I’d have considered it a complete waste of time.

I really wonder what concerts everyone is going to, as I’ve rarely shelled out more than $20 or $25 to see the bands I most treasure. Usually, I pay around $15. (This is when I’m in Chicago. Budapest is far cheaper, except for international acts.)

19

I love to go to concerts, but I do sometimes feel that the performance isn’t as good as it could be. Also, it is terribly expensive and I can’t justify $50 for every show I go to. As a result, I am active in the local music scene here in Indy and I can hear excellent bands pretty much any night of the week. I know it’s not the same as seeing a big name, but it is quality.

Another point I wanted to make is that many of the newer bands sound like crap because they are crap. Their cd sounds good because it’s been remastered and tinkered with until it’s perfect.

This link is great if you want a glimpse of the music industry. It’s one of the funniest stories I’ve read in a very long time.

http://www.prosoundweb.com/recording/mm/week1/mm.php

20

While I am inclined to agree with OP, Zenster does a great job in his post of describing the wonder of a live show when it works. The biggest issue is that with large rock shows, it doesn’t seem to work as often as it should. That’s why I tend to only go to jazz shows in clubs.

One exception comes to mind for rock - when a band rocks harder than the album leads you to believe. Cheap Trick Live at Budokan was just re-issued with the full concert and in the liner notes, they describe how the bands’ first albums were produced in a poppy way, and that this live album put a harder edge on the songs, making them more “power” than “pop” and increasing their appeal…