Some acts are better live. Some are no good at all.
For instance, The Mahavishnu Orchestra was absolutely painful to listen to live. Not because they were bad, but because they insisted on playing loud enough to bring down any passing birds. The sonic assault made it impossible to hear the music. I hated them for years (having seen them live twice) until I could finally listen to the music at a more reasonable volume.
On the other hand, most of the J. Geils Band’s studio albums were pale imitations of their live act (though Centerfold is pretty good).
I’d nominate the Grateful Dead- I used to have a “Greatest Hits” CD by them composed of album singles, and enjoyed it but didn’t really think much of the songs, but recently I’ve been downloaded concerts by them, and I’ve been BLOWN AWAY by how much better the songs can be longer and stretched out and interpolated with one another.
My impression of Led Zep live was “they are having a lot of fun, and the fun has to do with the music don’t get me wrong, but they are NOT creating a performance”. Studio sessions are more fun to listen to than “live recordings” that aspire to be single tracks unto themselves (at least they are honest!). I dunno who cracked a whip over their heads in studio, or if they cut & spliced their way to final results, or maybe a combo of the two, but that’s the only time you get to hear anything appoximating a finished product, the studio album track.
As a song or album only captures a certain percentage of what’s in my head, the live performance of it only captures a certain percentage of that, song-wise, anyway. However, playing live has the advantage of a room rumbling with your sound and people clapping and stuff, as well as the sort of physical catharsis of it.
OK, from a fan’s perspective, I’ve only known a few bands whom I prefer live to studio, and usually because their studio efforts just never captured their live essence, as cliched as that might sound. Also, there are certain types of music that work better live, i.e. blues rock vs. psych pop.
One name comes to mind immediately: Liza Minnelli.
Over the years (decades) I have seen her live, about 4 or 5 times. She’s an amazing performer with incredible personality and energy, and has the audience in the palm of her hand. But listening to a cd of her concert . . . the best word would be “irritating” . . . especially her annoying giggling, which didn’t bother me at all in the concert itself.
Hell, the entirety of J-Pop fits the “better recorded than live” category.
SMAP is pretty much the top dog among under-40 entertainers in Japan, with at least one of the five members appearing on TV every day for the last 20 years*. And even though they’ve proved themselves to be very talented in a number of fields (including dancing, acting, comedy and cooking), they absolutely can not sing. They honestly sound like a bunch of amateurs at a karaoke bar, ranging from semi-competent to tone deaf.
And as much as I love them, Puffy (AmiYumi) are even worse, rarely being able to carry a tune even with all studio technology their producer can throw at them.
*if this is an exaggeration, it’s by very little. Between the five of them, they are currently hosts, stars or regulars on 17 different weekly TV programs. “overexposure” is an unknown concept here.
Smashing Pumpkins. Ya know the way he screams during some songs, he screamed the entire concert.
Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers, while they’re damn good on CD, there’s something about the energy they create during a live show that simply can not be captured on a studio or even a live recording. Not even a DVD of a concert does it justice, he is simply one of the most incredible live performers I have ever seen. Talk about someone who can work a crowd.
Steely Dan. Their concerts are not perfection, but their albums are.
The Grateful Dead. Their studio albums are okay. Their concerts, even their many dozens of concert albums, are much, much better.
I’ve never seen a live performer who was in such a hurry to get a show over with. He mumbled his way through songs as quickly as possible, rarely moving from one spot.
Feist. She can’t reliably hit all the high notes in concert.
Flaming Lips are about the same either way; He can’t hit the high notes either, though. Makes me wonder why vocalists would choose songs outside their range.
Honestly I think most rock/pop acts are terrible (quality-wise) live. They may do a good show but often the actual music performance is utter rubish because they often don’t have the voice/talent to match the studio creation.
I think Elvis Presely was phenomenal live or in the studio in terms of the sound being comparable.
Bonnie Pink (Japanese) is a pretty good singer, and a very good song writer, but live it seems like she doesn’t trust the amplifier to work or something. She tries to sing loud enough to fill the auditorium, but her vocal range just goes to hell for it. It was a pity, one of the few concerts I’ve been to in my life.
I’d have to disagree, although I’ve only seen them live once. They sounded wonderful live, absolutely. Well, except when Becker would do one of his songs, and everyone would head for the refreshment stands.
I’m almost always disappointed by live performances, since the sound quality usually can’t even come close to comparing to a good recording. It’s often just one big muddled mess sound-wise, with bass that’s way too overpowering or guitar that’s too shrieky, or just unbalanced generally.
Exceptions are classical music in a good concert hall, and performances in small venues with good acoustics. Most jazz seems better live than on recording, but most rock is just plain worse. Elliott Smith in particular was probably the worst live (he seemed on something), as compared to his exquisite recordings.
I’d say the Doors’ concerts, were highly inconsistent and they were just awful sometimes, from the live recordings I’ve heard. They needed Rothchild’s guidance as a producer to keep them on track. On the other hand, some of the live recordings transcend anything they did in the studio. So with them it’s either way.