What Makes A Great Live Album?

[LG]

I am fussy about live albums, like AAG if it's really shoddy quality I am not interested. An old Tom Petty bootleg I listened to over 30 years ago still makes me cringe when I think about it...ghastly and an insult to the musician and his talent.

 

[Powerage]

yeh, got to agree with that statement Powerage, a good example, for me, is SLADE, they sounded awesome on their SLADE ALIVE album, and it is still THE live album I recommend to anybody ( other than Purple in Japan that is..)

Great call on Slade Alive. The funny thing about that album is, I believe it was actually recorded in a studio, but with an invited audience or something. But it really is a fantastic album IMO.

My version is in the form of a double disc set they released within the last few years called Slade Alive! It's also got Reading 1980 and a couple of other shows on there. Great set.

 

[Riff Raff]

Not big on live albums at all, either I find a dvd of it or I snob them completely. jk I dig some live albums.

 

[gcczep]

Back to “live” albums in general, I've read arguments on other forums by people who wouldn't accept an album as a live album unless it's all from one single concert. Would disagree with this personally but be interesting to see what people on here think about it.

UFO’s “Strangers In The Night” was recorded at one venue during a particular show at The Amphitheater in Chicago. That was a killer evening given how electric and explosive they were. Another one is Seger’s “Live Bullet”. I don’t know if having just a lone source is the best route in releasing a live album. There could be mistakes or the band might have started the evening slow or what have you. It would be difficult to pick ONE show that would satisfy a band’s criteria let alone ALL of its members. Most groups handpick the best bits from several tapes to provide a more cohesive and representative set of a tour per se. I’d certainly choose that preparation.

The raw energy of a fresh young band caught early in their career, the location… I think another big one is capturing a band in that special time period.

On point. Many Stones fans feel that “Ya-Yas” was their best. I would certainly agree. It had that dark edge about them that disappeared once they hit the stadium level of their fame. It summed up the turbulent end of the 1960's. I feel the same way about Queen’s “Live Killers” and “Live! Bootleg” from Aerosmith. Both bands’ subsequent “live” releases “pale” in comparison. “Killers” from Queen is a fine example of how a band can interact with its audience. “Bootleg” really captures the 1970’s vibe perfectly...even the firecrackers! None of my examples were of a “fresh” band but they were still hungry and not as jaded or maybe even overly ambitious at that juncture of their career.

Some bands do a LOT of additional production after the fact which in some ways turns these live albums into semi-studio albums. Personally, I don't mind that. if they are fixing some flaws, tweaking the sound of various instruments, etc, I don't care. If they are doing it to make up for something missing in the original concert tapes or due to less than stellar recording equipment but felt that the raw energy of the concert and the response by the crowd would make these additional efforts worth it, then so be it.

That is an interesting take from you. Most listeners feel that live albums should not be tampered with to get a real sense of what they were like onstage. As far as tweaking, Jimmy Page is legendary notorious in doing this. He’d take bits from other versions and insert them into his choice or he’d re-record a guitar part or erase/add a vocal bit. Essentially it goes beyond just “dressing” it up. It hasn’t been proven but there are fans that are aware of it and notice the difference. BTW, I still dig "Alive II" to this day given how Eddie Kramer captured the band's out-sized personality and the "fun" of the shows.

I see you mentioned How the West Was Won there and that's a classic example if you compare it to their other live albums. Listen to just about any track on it and it gives those who weren't fortunate enough to see Zeppelin live a sense of being present. Lots of audience interaction and energy and you can tell the boys really got into it. It's also much more uptempo on a lot of the tracks as opposed to their studio recorded originals but it definitely does give it a lot more energy which I appreciate.

“West” was recorded from the time the band was still spontaneous and experimental on stage instead of the more rigid set lists that they presented from 1973 onwards. It was no secret that Zeppelin loved their California audiences so they were at their best performing. Part of the compilation was from the Long Beach show which Page admitted was a bit “hurried” since they couldn’t wait to get off and go to the clubs afterwards to meet their fans...and groupies. None of the live versions follow their studio counter-parts note for note. One example was “Over The Hills And Far Away”. Granted “Houses” wasn’t even released yet.

A great live album is all about how the band and the audience galvanizes itself as one where you can feel the palpable energy. I mean there are some artists out there who are so tame onstage with no personality or creativity in concert that their concert LP or CD or whatever don't do much for the listener.

 

[Khor1255]

Nothing better than seeing a list published on line or in a magazine and tearing it to shreds

I don't get this bit.

Back to Live albums in general, I've read arguments on other forums by people who wouldn't accept an album as a live album unless it's all from one single concert. Would disagree with this personally but be interesting to see what people on here think about it.

I understand the sentiment but I think it doesn't matter even if there is a little studio tweaking. I mean, I really don't like the studio tweaking thing especially if it involves a player redoing his parts because he had a bad night or whatever.

Actually, rock and roll (and a few other music types) is about on the spot innovation and making something a little outside the mold. Live albums do a superb job of this and when done correctly can be a remarkably better version of the studio cut partly because of the new take on the song but also perhaps just as importantly because you have a band playing together, off of each other just like what the most profound elements of rock and roll have always done.

I love hearing a track was done in one take or that a whole live album was from one concert but it is hardly essential for me to like an album.

I remember hearing interviews (and perhaps even the liner notes) where Rush says their first live album was a bit unpolished etc. Personally I think that is one of the best things abot that album. Yes, I adore the polished Rush sound of Hemispheres and....well....Hemispheres but the vocal cracks the rim shots and especially the unintentional feedback during stuff like one of the segways in the Working Man/Finding My way medle is just absolutely endearing not just for the human element but because they recover from this stuff like true professionals and never miss a beat or chance to ratchet up the level of excitement in spite of - or perhaps because of these 'mistakes'. God Bless live performances. This is what rock and roll is made of.

 

[Big Ears]

only complaint would be it's too short. But back in the days of vinyl we didn't have more than 40 minutes to play with.

My favourite live album is Robin Trower Live! recorded in Stockholm. It is also short, but there is no padding. Robin Trower BBC Radio 1 In Concert is almost as good.

April Wine came to attention here with Riot around 1980, when both were signed to EMI along with Scorpions, Atomic Rooster, Whitesnake, Iron Maiden and Deep Purple.

 

[billyporter]

What Makes A Great Live Album?
how about recording it in a studio without any audience?

i really dislike live albums, shock horror.
the only one i like is slade alive.
i also have live and dangerous, however i never play it anymore.
strangers in the night wasn't too bad, but not good enough for me to buy.

the slade on is good as i don't have any studio versions of the particular tracks on any other slade album.
i just don't like the involvement of the crowd especially when they're asked to sing a long.
its great if you're actually at the show, but i don't wanna hear that at home in my lounge.
unfortunately old freddie mercury was guilty of doing this, bloody awful!

 

[Vehicle]

Depends. There are lots of variables that can make or break a live recording.

For instance, I have (I think) 5 live Stevie Ray Vaughan cds. I may have more, I'd have to look.

I'll take 2 and compare.

Live At Carnagie Hall. Half the show is with Double Trouble, the other half also has a big brass section.

In Session. This one is actually Albert King's cd, with SRV sitting in.

Carnagie Hall, you would think would be a great cd. And it is. But, the sound isn't all that great. That's because that particular venue was designed for acoustic, not electric, performances. They produced it as best they could, and it's ok.

In Session was recorded live in a tv studio on a much smaller scale that Carnagie, but it's sooo well done. It's raw, without a whole bunch of mixing. Just some mikes and some musicians. The intimacy of the cd is what makes it great.