Seeing the band perform live is one thing but comparing a recording of the band playing before a live audience and what was recorded in the studio is another matter. I myself just do not like many of the band's live recordings. They simply cannot match what they have done in studio. And that certainly is not the case with some other bands.

(01-12-2010 04:51 AM)Some Other Jackass Wrote:  Seeing the band perform live is one thing but comparing a recording of the band playing before a live audience and what was recorded in the studio is another matter. I myself just do not like many of the band's live recordings. They simply cannot match what they have done in studio. And that certainly is not the case with some other bands.

Honestly, if it's a crappy recording that you mainly hear the audience on, then yes, you are correct. However, if it's a nice recording, with little to no audio interference, you hear the band's sound "naked" as you might say.

Let's face it, Pink Floyd was a live band, that's not saying that they liked to play live, but when they played, they put on a good show and gave us a counterpart to the studio version of songs.

I can understand what you are saying though; many of their songs had material that could only be preformed well in a studio, (i.e. On the Run) but you have to give them credit for using what they had.

One thing I love about bootlegs is that you don't have all that studio processing going on that can mask the way the band really sounds. I have a couple boots that are honestly more enjoyable to me than their official live releases, because the sound is so damn good.

It would depend on what you are looking for in the music . Just in the way they layered the guitar and keyboards , it is difficult if not impossible to reproduce the "studio" sound in concert when it is usually just David and someone else on guitar ( Us and Them has something like 8 different guitar tracks ) . Having said that , they is something to be said for the sound captured on the "live" recordings , in particular , for me , cuts off of Pulse , I enjoy how they jazzed up songs like Money and the extended solo on Comfortably Numb . It brought a different interpretation of the song and that is one of the reasons for buying a "live" recording , I already got the "studio" version .

(01-15-2010 02:33 PM)Electrophile Wrote:  One thing I love about bootlegs is that you don't have all that studio processing going on that can mask the way the band really sounds. I have a couple boots that are honestly more enjoyable to me than their official live releases, because the sound is so damn good.

Pink Floyd doesn't have a great live catalogue anyway. I can think of four official live albums, and three of those were post-1980. If they had better official live representation it might have been the case that their official albums did end up better sounding, but if you only record one or two shows on a tour and make a live album out of that you aren't giving yourself very much choice when it comes to selecting the best performance to put on an album. Conversely, a lot of shows which weren't officially recorded were bootlegged, and the best ones are probably the ones that are easiest to find.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMpGdG27K9o

Case Closed.