- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
29 Jul 10
Originally posted by PinkFloydAgreed, and I don't think I'd be seeing Pink Floyd without Waters. I'd be seeing some other version that I'm not interested in.
I see your point, but while Waters wrote some 88% of Pink Floyd's songs from the time Barrett went over the rainbow through 1981, he wasn't "Pink Floyd". He admitted having been wrong in suing the band in an effort to keep them from performing under the name Pink Floyd. Waters is good, but he's not as good as he was when he was with Gilmour/Waters/Mason. The whole was greater than the sum of the parts.
I also refused to see Styx without Tommy Shaw. Even though he wasn't a founding member, that band is not Styx without TS.
02 Aug 10
Originally posted by BadwaterI tend to agree there as well, though I would love to have heard Curlewsli sing Lady and Lorelai live, just to compare him to Shaw.
Agreed, and I don't think I'd be seeing Pink Floyd without Waters. I'd be seeing some other version that I'm not interested in.
I also refused to see Styx without Tommy Shaw. Even though he wasn't a founding member, that band is not Styx without TS.
03 Aug 10
other groups/singers I wish I'd seen in concert are Queen, Rod Stewart, Jethro Tull (who actually played at the tiny college I would later attend), and The Who. And Hendrix of course.
I haven't been to many concerts: Pink Floyd (1984 or 85), Chicago, Boston, Rolling Stones (Steel Wheels tour), Billy Joel, The Raspberries, and Marshall Tucker Band with Charlie Daniels as guest pretty much sums up my concert experience.
05 Aug 10
Originally posted by PalynkaI always prefer studio recordings to live, but sometimes it's hard to tell the difference. Boston was a prime example--I don't think they were off one note in concert from their debut album. I guess I was looking for a LITTLE variation 🙂
*stating the obvious*
Seeing a band live on stage or hearing the recorded concert are two completely different things.
For recordings, I tend to prefer albums but there are many exceptions.
08 Aug 10
Originally posted by FMFThey were horrible studio and live
I just listened to their first six albums in oreder end to end (had a long but undemanding translation job to do).
Conclusion, umpteen hundred avidly collected scratchy bootlegs notwithstanding, Led Zeppelin were better on record than on stage.
Discuss.
What about other bands in terms of being better in the studio than live and vice versa?
19 Aug 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Badwater"Blue Oyster Cult was always better live than on the record. I saw them 6 times between 1978 and 1986.
I've not seen Zepplin live so I don't feel a comment would be anything other than opinion on my part.
Blue Oyster Cult was always better live than on the record. I saw them 6 times between 1978 and 1986.
AC/DC has a live sound that is not at all the same as their recordings. You have to see them live to understand that.
Aerosmith sounded better on th ways. Audioslave sounded equally well.
There's others but I've used up my minute.
AC/DC has a live sound that is not at all the same as their recordings. You have to see them live to understand that.
Aerosmith sounded better on recordings than the few times I saw them. So did Metallica - I think in Metallica's case their layering of guitar parts doesn't translate well live. "-Badwater
I have to agree w/you on these examples. As far a Zeppelin is concerned they were hit or miss live. You might get a good show you might not. Depending how messed up Paige got before the show.
I found The dead to be great Live.
Also, a thumbs up to George Thorogood and the Deleware destroyers for a great live performance. (50 states in 50 dates tour,early 80's) No lasers like B.O.C. but a great showman! 11 encores that night! We got our moneys worth!
20 Aug 10
Originally posted by BadwaterChicago Live at Carnege Hall, is a super album.
I've not seen Zepplin live so I don't feel a comment would be anything other than opinion on my part.
Blue Oyster Cult was always better live than on the record. I saw them 6 times between 1978 and 1986.
AC/DC has a live sound that is not at all the same as their recordings. You have to see them live to understand that.
Aerosmith sounded better on ...[text shortened]... th ways. Audioslave sounded equally well.
There's others but I've used up my minute.
My opinion here, The Stones sound terrible live.
24 Aug 10
Originally posted by FMFI saw them live in San Diego on their "Physical Graffiti" tour and heard them
I just listened to their first six albums in oreder end to end (had a long but undemanding translation job to do).
Conclusion, umpteen hundred avidly collected scratchy bootlegs notwithstanding, Led Zeppelin were better on record than on stage.
Discuss.
What about other bands in terms of being better in the studio than live and vice versa?
do that album songs live before I heard the album. I was wow'd by the concert
and loved the album. I think you get better sound out of a studio than on stage,
but the experience is better all things being equal watching it live.
Kelly
24 Aug 10
Originally posted by KellyJayPeter Frampton live album was the best live album I ever owned.
I saw them live in San Diego on their "Physical Graffiti" tour and heard them
do that album songs live before I heard the album. I was wow'd by the concert
and loved the album. I think you get better sound out of a studio than on stage,
but the experience is better all things being equal watching it live.
Kelly
Back when I owned albums.
Kelly