I certainly do; "Live Era: '87-'93" is Guns N' Roses best album evar.
Free Bird's live version is super-epic, as well.
Quote from: metroidhunter777 on January 10, 2008, 04:30:39 PM
I certainly do; "Live Era: '87-'93" is Guns N' Roses best album evar.
Free Bird's live version is super-epic, as well.
You're poopting me.
Sure, GNR had a lot of live energy on that album and the band sounded great, but Axl's vocals sucked ass. Axl doesn't sing very well live because his kind of voice is very difficult, and sounds better when he's not busy performing with his throat hurting from his screeches. The vocals ruin that album, and the ending of Paradise City on it sounds intercourse ing retarded.
Some songs I do like better live. Rush's album All The World's a Stage is great. When a song is played live, there's more energy to it, and it feels realer- none of that studio mixing, just musicians doing what they do best in front of an audience of thousands. Some musicians are liked better live. Peter Frampton is most famous for his album Frampton Comes Alive (I have my dad's old record of it, it's intercourse ing sweet).
Then you got bands that are great at both. Cream is kickass while they're in the studio, but something else live. On their live version of Spoonful, they take a four minute blues song and throw in some jamming to make the song sixteen minutes long. Pure awesums.
Though some bands kinda suck live, or just sound lesser.
Coincidentally, I'm listening to a live Roadhouse Blues by the Doors. It's great, but I'm not sure how it compares to the studio version. I guess it's like, a tad bit better. I wish Jim would've screamed 'SAVE OUR CITY' like he did in studio instead of just sing it regularly.
Sometimes.
I liked Rush's Exit stage left. ;D
Quote from: Co-Z on January 10, 2008, 04:46:06 PM
Quote from: metroidhunter777 on January 10, 2008, 04:30:39 PM
I certainly do; "Live Era: '87-'93" is Guns N' Roses best album evar.
Free Bird's live version is super-epic, as well.
You're poopting me.
Sure, GNR had a lot of live energy on that album and the band sounded great, but Axl's vocals sucked ass. Axl doesn't sing very well live because his kind of voice is very difficult, and sounds better when he's not busy performing with his throat hurting from his screeches. The vocals ruin that album, and the ending of Paradise City on it sounds intercourse ing retarded.
Thanks for warning me about Paradise City before I listened to it. I kinda like his vocals on the live album, at some points, better than the album version :-X
With electronica, live sets are always more amazing than the original (unless the DJ sucks, of course).
The live version of Pink Floyd's The Wall is so far the only live album I've ever liked more than a studio album.
Studio wins it for me by far.
Really it just depends on how the live version sounds. And even then there will be parts of the live version I like better and parts of the original that I like better.
I like hearing live versions better. I'd sooner buy a live album than a studio album. Bands like Depeche Mode, Talking Heads, and REM are more entertaining to me live than in studio.
Depends on which bands, and if they can play live well. I really enjoy Keane's live CDs, and eventually I'll get the live DVD.
It really depends...
A lot of times, a singer's vocals don't sound good at all when they're performing live.
I usually like the studio versions better, but I remember I heard a live version of Hotel California on the radio and it was amazing.