1. Joined
    07 Jan '08
    Moves
    34575
    29 Jul '10 23:40
    Originally posted by PinkFloyd
    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.
    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.
  2. weedhopper
    Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    8096
    02 Aug '10 05:43
    Originally posted by Badwater
    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.
    I 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.
  3. weedhopper
    Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    8096
    03 Aug '10 16:36
    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.
  4. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    04 Aug '10 14:461 edit
    *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.
  5. weedhopper
    Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    8096
    05 Aug '10 03:05
    Originally posted by Palynka
    *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.
    I 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 🙂
  6. Joined
    15 Jul '09
    Moves
    1213
    08 Aug '10 21:23
    Originally posted by FMF
    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?
    They were horrible studio and live
  7. Hy-Brasil
    Joined
    24 Feb '09
    Moves
    175970
    19 Aug '10 17:091 edit
    Originally posted by Badwater
    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.
    "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. "-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!
  8. Standard memberChessPraxis
    Cowboy From Hell
    American West
    Joined
    19 Apr '10
    Moves
    55013
    20 Aug '10 03:06
    Originally posted by Badwater
    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.
    Chicago Live at Carnege Hall, is a super album.

    My opinion here, The Stones sound terrible live.
  9. lazy boy derivative
    Joined
    11 Mar '06
    Moves
    71817
    23 Aug '10 22:30
    Originally posted by ChessPraxis
    Chicago Live at Carnege Hall, is a super album.

    My opinion here, The Stones sound terrible live.
    Can't go with you there - Get Your Ya Ya's Out is a fantastic live album. One of my favorite Stone's albums live or recorded.
  10. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157650
    24 Aug '10 06:09
    Originally posted by FMF
    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 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
  11. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    157650
    24 Aug '10 06:11
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    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
    Peter Frampton live album was the best live album I ever owned.
    Back when I owned albums.
    Kelly
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree