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?
I don't know that I agree with that. Given I've never seen Led Zep live, though I did bump into Robert Plant coming out of Heals on Tottenham Ct Road once, but I've watched countless video of them. Yes, the first 5 albums are awesome, Presence being a kind of half and half transition album into their autumn days and not really making the mark. But the live performance wasn't so much about the quality of the sound, or the accuracy of technique, it was about the Thor-like fury of Bonham's arms, the exultant flash of Plant's mane as it caught the spotlight, the dark brooding calm of Jones's bass and keyboards and, of course, the arrogant shivers of Page's electricity.
There's a bit in the 'Song Remains the Same' concert video, where you've just been backstage and Plant's been going on about 'the cosmic energy hits you and you go wah, bam!' and you're immediately assaulted by Page going nuts on his Les Paul before relaxing into 'Since I've Been Loving you'. Anyway, when they get to the solo, you spend a few minutes with the cameraman panning around the members of the audience, mostly settling upon a spaced out brunette, with blue eyeshadow, who's clearly feeling the whole performance on a narcotically enhanced level, until you alight upon a security guard who's just standing there, hands dropped, jaw slack and mouth open in sheer awe at what's happening on stage. That, for me, says more about Led Zep, than anything else. Yes their album work was amazing, but their live performance had an awesome quality to it, and even their live studio stuff, like the BBC sessions, showed this.
Originally posted by FMFStudio will always 'sound' better... Live music is live. I appreciate live music much better even if it suffers a bit. In a studio you get to play a lick or riff 9 times if you need. Everyone is isolated to get the music just right and producers 'piss correct' it and it's all canned for the album.
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?
Live takes a lot more effort, and even if it doesn't sound as good, it should be appreciated more.
P-
Some bands sound actually better live (AC/DC), and some sound exactly the same--you couldn't tell the difference between a concert and the master recordings if not for the screaming fans (Boston comes to mind). But all-in-all, studio music sounds better because it IS better. LOts of electronic goodies to use, practicing a piece until it's perfect, overlay/overdub/over-engineer. THAT'S what I love about Pink Floyd 🙂
Originally posted by PinkFloydEver get to see them live? I did 4 or so times from 1985 or so on. Unfortunately they did the same set each time, closing with RUN!
Some bands sound actually better live (AC/DC), and some sound exactly the same--you couldn't tell the difference between a concert and the master recordings if not for the screaming fans (Boston comes to mind). But all-in-all, studio music sounds better because it IS better. LOts of electronic goodies to use, practicing a piece until it's perfect, overlay/overdub/over-engineer. THAT'S what I love about Pink Floyd 🙂
It was still awesome though.
P-
Originally posted by PhlabibitBy the late 80s/early 90s the Grateful Dead were able to play 5 or 6 night runs, 3 hours a night, without repeating a song
Ever get to see them live? I did 4 or so times from 1985 or so on. Unfortunately they did the same set each time, closing with RUN!
Originally posted by PhlabibitI only got to see the fake Floyd (Waters had left when I saw them). Great concert, but I'd love to have seen them in their prime.
Ever get to see them live? I did 4 or so times from 1985 or so on. Unfortunately they did the same set each time, closing with RUN!
It was still awesome though.
P-
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
Originally posted by FMFI've not seen Zepplin live so I don't feel a comment would be anything other than opinion on my part.
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?
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 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.
I always disliked Chicago because I thought the horns were overbearing in their recordings. I was at the Oregon State Fair in '93 and someone just up and gave me a ticket to the show, so I thought "What the heck..." I have never been so surprised at a live sound that was so different from the recordings! Chicago had a great sound and I did not expect that at all.
Some bands were equally impressive in recordings and live. Journey always sounded great both ways, as did the Scorpions. Styx does well both ways. Rob Zombie sounds great both ways. Audioslave sounded equally well.
There's others but I've used up my minute.
Originally posted by BadwaterI 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 refuse to see them without RW. >:[