I think you need to go into either of them with the effort of keeping them mutually exclusive. You don't want a shitty set to tear down a record you love, but if a great set makes you love a record, all the better. I've often heard records (Midlake, most recently) and thought the recording was fine, but I really want to check it out live because it just seems like those songs live will go beyond the recording.
I've found that I expect live shows to somehow one-up the record. If I were to go see Midlake, for instance, and the show sounded just like the recording (and bear in mind I really enjoy the recording) i would consider it a shitty show. I've gotten a lot of heat over the years for bad-mouthing Wilco shows for sounding like their records. Ditto Interpol. To recreate an Interpol show you just need a picture of a the band, a dark room, and the record playing really loudly. That's it.
The reason, though, I'd say they need to be kept separate, the shows and the recordings, is because of bands like the Microphones. Phil Elverum can't very well play all 12 tracks he's recorded at once, and his live shows generally are more likely to involve a type of performance art by he and his K Records cohorts than any actual songs off any actual Microphones or Mt. Eerie album. Better or worse than the record? Truly different.
So yeah, i didn't really answer the question, other than to say that I, personally, try to keep the two mediums as separate as possible. The first time I listened to Radiohead's KId A I was blown away. When I went to see them at the Gorge the next year i was thinking, "How the hell are they gonna pull that stuff off live???" and somehow they did it, but by playing the songs all differently. They're clearly the same songs, but the electronics are very different...compare the live version of "Like Spinning PLates" from the I MIGHT BE WRONG EP to the recorded verison on AMNESIAC. Same song, entirely different interpretation. One better than the other? That's apples and oranges.
Reviews
Joseph Riippi said on February 1, 2008:
I think you need to go into either of them with the effort of keeping them mutually exclusive. You don't want a shitty set to tear down a record you love, but if a great set makes you love a record, all the better. I've often heard records (Midlake, most recently) and thought the recording was fine, but I really want to check it out live because it just seems like those songs live will go beyond the recording.
I've found that I expect live shows to somehow one-up the record. If I were to go see Midlake, for instance, and the show sounded just like the recording (and bear in mind I really enjoy the recording) i would consider it a shitty show. I've gotten a lot of heat over the years for bad-mouthing Wilco shows for sounding like their records. Ditto Interpol. To recreate an Interpol show you just need a picture of a the band, a dark room, and the record playing really loudly. That's it.
The reason, though, I'd say they need to be kept separate, the shows and the recordings, is because of bands like the Microphones. Phil Elverum can't very well play all 12 tracks he's recorded at once, and his live shows generally are more likely to involve a type of performance art by he and his K Records cohorts than any actual songs off any actual Microphones or Mt. Eerie album. Better or worse than the record? Truly different.
So yeah, i didn't really answer the question, other than to say that I, personally, try to keep the two mediums as separate as possible. The first time I listened to Radiohead's KId A I was blown away. When I went to see them at the Gorge the next year i was thinking, "How the hell are they gonna pull that stuff off live???" and somehow they did it, but by playing the songs all differently. They're clearly the same songs, but the electronics are very different...compare the live version of "Like Spinning PLates" from the I MIGHT BE WRONG EP to the recorded verison on AMNESIAC. Same song, entirely different interpretation. One better than the other? That's apples and oranges.