When yall listen to Metal Songs, Do you prefer the music to be recorded from a Live Concert or from a Studio?

I myself like them recorded from a live concert.

Since I listen to a lot of black/death metal, studio stuff usually sounds significantly better, though I do have a few live albums I really enjoy.

Studio because everything is mixed and clear. The vocals are top notch aswell. Most bands dont sound as tight live but will carry over a good energy to get caught up in. Certain live recordings will grab my attention though and Il listen to them more than the originals but for the most part I perfer the studio recordings.

depends on the band, but slayer, particularly the old stuff, and halford sound better live.
danzig, deicide, and motley crue are ruined by very bad live vocals.

If the live recording is mixed well and the performances are good then live all the way.

Live albums let you witness the band's dynamic and personality better then in the studio where most of the time little nuances can be lost among layering and double tracking and whatnot. It's more natural, plus being able to hear the audience scream back choruses or verses is awesome ("War Pigs" on the Sabbath reunion album, for example).

Agreeing with the post above that it depends on the band. If a band works well as a live band with someone that knows how to properly record a show then it's great, but if it's a group of guys that don't click or if it's run by some guy who doesn't know how to mix live then it'll be pretty disastrous.

My favorite part of a live album (if done correctly) is just hearing the audience and sometimes the banter between songs. It can give a different perspective to something I've heard a million times before.

yeah i understand how some LIVE songs come out kinda bad. REALLY love the slayer ones live. some are just meant to be studio only. Live ones are kewl aswell if it was in your town/city at a time long ago, its almost like a piece of history.

I prefer studio albums, it is the way it is meant to be heard. The production, the vocals and the lyrics are made to create a particular sound for an album. In live albums the setlist is songs from different albums so usually the set loose consistency compared to studio albums. Also in some performances the band might play the song faster, with less guitar and all. Live albums aren't bad but in my opinion a lot less good than studios.

Nonetheless I still really enjoy live album as they are different experiences, they have also a particular sound and energy, usually not the one they first intended for the studio albums but a different one that compliments well the songs. Some live albums or dvds are particularly good.

Mayhem's live material is better than their studio work.

Yea some bands sound a lot better live than on record...for example:

Live Without Sense > Infernal Overkill + Eternal Devastation

I listen to mostly studio recorded music, but every once in a while I do like to see what a song would sound like live.

Studio, because I don't want to hear lame crowd cheering, the vocalist doing announcements and other dumb stuff.

I prefer studio, mainly for the same reasons as mrchris, but I also prefer the fact in studio recordings you can get other elements that would probally be difficult/near impossible to recreate in a live situation.

The vast majority of the time studio is superior. There are a few exceptions to this rule, however. For instance, Alive in Athens is pretty much the only album from Iced Earth that I listen to anymore. Some songs which sounded sterile and lifeless in studio are injected with a newfound energy on that album. The pinnacle of their output, no doubt in my mind.

marduk live albuns are way better than the studio stuff IMO

studio, always

but when you get a band that sounds almost identical live as in the studio version, thats always a real treat

For metal, I generally prefer studio because a lot of the musicianship isn't as good live. For stuff like hardcore, live can be a lot better because they might play the songs faster than usual, and there aren't any intricacies to get lost.

For non-metal, almost always live. Best example right now is "No Woman No Cry" by Bob Marley. I don't like the studio version at all, but the live version on _Legend_ is one of my favorite Marley tracks.


EDIT: One bad thing about non-meal live is that the singer almost always insists on changing the vocal melody, which I hate. An example of this is "King Without a Crown" from _Live at Stubbs_ by Matisyahu. I think the improvised guitar solo is nice, but the vocals get on my nerves to no end.

I'ma agree with Hordeofmordor when it comes to Mayhem. Midolanum Capta Est is a fucking incredible live album. I really only like live recordings for old studio recordings that sound crappier than the live versions though. Live music is better when experienced firsthand for the majority of it.

It depends. I'd rather hear a band like Taake on album but something like Mayhem gives off a huge live energy.

It depends. Some stuff suits being played live, other stuff doesn't. If I had to pick, I'd probably honestly say Studio but, as I have been disappointed by live efforts from a lot of bands.

Never really liked live performances for listening purposes. I'd much rather hear the band's fully realized vision, whatever that may be. Even a pseudo-live approach in the studio will usually be a little better and more poilished than a recording from a show.

Another factor for me is that studio recordings (especially metal, and even more especially the metal bands I gravitate to) often achieve a particular ambience or atmosphere that really makes the music. That is usually not accidental - they work hard to create it. A live recording on the other hand usually just has "club" ambience. It's not the same. A good studio recording is almost other-wordly; it's a sort of fantastical artifact, created from good recording space selection, the right equipment, and judicious use of effects. By comparison, most live stuff just sounds ordinary and earth-bound.

However, I do have a few live albums, and the real cream of the crop ones are pretty good.

I think generally speaking, I would have to easily say that I prefer a studio sound over a live sound. There is something to be said about listening to music in a clean environment.

That said, I think it ultimately depends on the band. Mayhem is a perfect example of a band that just does well live. There's just something about Mayhem, and intangible, that just makes them a more appealing band live. I own two Mayhem live albums, and I don't like live albums very much. Iron Maiden is my favorite metal band by a considerable distance; they have several live albums. I don't own any of them. I own TWO Mayhem live albums. It's not that Iron Maiden are junk live, in fact, it is quite the opposite. Mayhem is just a live band.

Hahahaha. . .I wonder how Dead would interpret that?

I dislike this sort of thinking. If you can observe it, it can be analyzed. It's not really intangible, you just need to learn how to objectify that which makes the distinction.

Personally I like studio for the majority of stuff. But if we're talking something like "The Boss" Bruce Springsteen, then his live stuff is way better, so much more soul.

I think the other main factor is the amount of bands that rely on studio recordings to lay down multiple layered guitar tracks etc, and when it comes to playing live, it is an impossible feat! They then have a tendency to sound hollow and incomplete when they play live, which ruins it for me too.

Well, yeah, it's an intangible because I'm too lazy to figure out why. For now I'm completely content with just having the general sense that "Mayhem is a good live band". Call it lazy; I call it caring about other stuff more.... to each his own right?

Depends on the quality of the live album. Iron Maiden has some great ones, all very clear, but with them, it's to the point that there are too many live albums.

Some bands don't have enough, or even any, and there are some where I doubt a live recording can be as good as a real live show. For example, I recently went to a Finntroll show. They were amazing, there was a great energy there, but I doubt it can be translated into a recording.

Some bands sound better live than they do in the studio, for instance the aforementioned Alive in Athens, Rude Awakening for Megadeth, Emperial Live Ceremony, and Live in Midgard for Therion. I find every song on those albums to be a step above the album versions.

Generally I prefer live albums over studio, or live renditions of songs rather, as it has less of a sterile feel.

I suppose it also depends on the individual band's ability in PLAYING a live show also!

Power Metal and Death Metal etc, seems to be pulled off quite well live, as they strive from the energetic atmosphere at a gig, where as I think 'most' Black Metal suffers a huge loss in atmosphere etc when played live.

This of course, is only my opinion.

Do what you'd like, but often people give these completely mystical descriptors to certain bands and music like "soul" and shit when it cn easily be explained in more concrete terms.

Definitely live! But I'm reminded of Nunslaughter's Radio Damnation album, in which they recorded live on air on a radio station. That's a really cool method too. Sounded dirtier than their studio recorded stuff, but crisper than their live in concert stuff. Really good album.

I agree with you completely. But luckily not all Black Metal suffers this loss. For example, Immortal are absolutely fantastic live! Then again, they have a stronger Heavy Metal influence than a lot of Black Metal bands. But yeah, energetic atmosphere is what makes it in a live performance for me too.

I really like to listen to Blind Guardian and Vader live, IMO they sound better than the studio versions.

I prefer studio, but there's nothing wrong with live.

For me it just depends on the band and the album. Usually I prefer the studio albums, but a few bands I prefer live are Black Sabbath, Ozzy Osbourne, Motorhead, and Judas Priest to name a few.

In my opinion, i like much more the studio releases, because the most part of live releases sounds terrible or at least not better than studio, but sometimes... talking about old releases... for example "Kill 'em All" from Metallica, i like the live recordings of the songs (i don't like Metallica at all, but well, it seems to be a good example right now)

But in general, Studio stuff

it depends...but if we take Another Lesson in Violence by Exodus the difference is very little.

If the live recording is done in a pristine fashion, then I'd say that wins, hands down. Having said that, for 99% of the time I much prefer a studio album; better mixed and the subtleties certainly come through better.

Almost always studio, though in some rare cases I prefer the live version. It all depends on the crowd, the mixer and ofcourse the band's performance ...

I too usually don't like live albums, but here are some stellar examples of live excellence.


NIN - And All That Could Have Been: The older tracks are awesome on this.

Napalm Death - Punishment In Capitals.

Motorhead - No Sleep Till Hammersmith: Possibly the best live album ever.

Judas Priest - Unleashed In The East.