Records or Gigs?

by **James** on Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:33 pm

A disagreement on another thread got me thinking about this question: what's the most important factor in a band being good? Their live gigs being awesome, or their studio discography being great?

I'm going to side with recordings - there are loads of bands I listen to who I will probably never see live, and if I did and they were shoddy, I would still have some amazing records to absorb in my own time. Gigs have the energy and participatory element, but I would say they are less important as a deciding factor.

by **Lev** on Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:40 pm

Obviously seeing a band, that you love on CD, pulling off an amazing performance, would just be lovely jubbly. But it's not worth all the crowd surfers, and moshers, and the high priced drinks, and the smell of everything, and the sound guy being a tosser. Nothing really beats a top notch system with a bit of bass boost. Always clearer, no cock ups, just, yeah, tidy.

by **Bangover** on Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:41 pm

It's obviously about a balance between the two, however I would have to side with records due to the fact I don't go and see the same bands every night... Having said that though, it totally sucks when a band puts out a great record and can't pull it off live. I think that it's more common outside of metal and shows it's prominence when bands use synths, samples or heavily layered instruments etc...

by **James** on Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:44 pm

Don't get me wrong I love going to gigs and witnessing bands pull off their material with even more energy and character, but the question is which is the bigger deciding factor? If a band is entertaining live but shite on record, I wouldn't rate them very highly (loads of factors can make a live show decent), whereas I would only be disappointed (but not turned off the band much) if they couldn't recreate an awesome recording live.

by **Lev** on Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:49 pm

Yeah, I agree with that. There's very few bands I'd actually want to see live. I could take or leave a lot of bands.

by **Creeping Dan** on Wed Mar 04, 2009 9:52 pm

For me its all about live shows. Ive explained in that other thread. I dont know what id do without live shows. Just too much enjoyment. You can really let yourself go, and its brilliant.

by **ThrashConvert** on Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:03 pm

I would go with the live performance, the raw energy and the fact it has to be right first time makes it so much better. Whats better than having a pint with a few hundred, or thousand people around you listening to music you all love?? So yeah live performance for me.

by **metaldazza** on Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:10 pm

There are some bands that I will always love on CD even though they are boring live but there are some bands that I only like their CD's after seeing them live. Seeing a band live sometimes unlocks the band for me. I don't know why.

by **thrashduck** on Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:20 pm

The sound factor is important, there's been quite a few disappointments in that department. But at the end of the day.. both are good. Sit on my fence.

by **The Fourth Norseman** on Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:26 pm

it's all about recordings

by **Lev** on Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:30 pm

I go see bands for something to do, but actually full on having that urge to really see a band, there's very few. It'd be like, legends or atmospheric. So Dio, Maiden, Sabbath, Saxon, Genesis, Jackson etc, I'd go see without a doubt, and bands like Floyd or Ozric or Theater I'd go see. But the rest, bleeeeeeeeeeh, not worth the effort when you have the CD, or even a live CD.

by **Dian Wei** on Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:55 pm

Bangover wrote:It's obviously about a balance between the two, however I would have to side with records due to the fact I don't go and see the same bands every night... Having said that though, it totally sucks when a band puts out a great record and can't pull it off live. I think that it's more common outside of metal and shows it's prominence when bands use synths, samples or heavily layered instruments etc...

Yeah that's pretty much my opinion on it.

by **Herzeleid** on Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:06 pm

Recordings by a country mile. I've always felt uncomfortable at gigs anyway, they never bothered me too much.

by **thrashduck** on Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:08 pm

Herzeleid wrote:Recordings by a country mile. I've always felt uncomfortable at gigs anyway, they never bothered me too much.

Uncomfortable about being bummed?

by **blacktears** on Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:11 pm

Metal music is made to be played live. The interaction between the band, the music and the audience is what it is all about for me. Less these days, as I am not able to get out to as many gigs as I once did. From 1978 - 1997 I was going to 2-3 gigs per week, all sorts of music. There were a lot of incredible bands out there that I saw that never got to record an album or a single. However, they are seered into my memory.

If a band is unable to perform its studio material live properly, due to a mass of overdubs, that is a serious thumbs down for me in their credibility.

Perhaps I am just old fashioned,but I can never become just a hermetic bedroom listener.

Records or Gigs?

Records or Gigs?

Re: Records or Gigs?

Re: Records or Gigs?

Re: Records or Gigs?

Re: Records or Gigs?

Re: Records or Gigs?

Re: Records or Gigs?

Re: Records or Gigs?

Re: Records or Gigs?

Re: Records or Gigs?

Re: Records or Gigs?

Re: Records or Gigs?

Re: Records or Gigs?

Re: Records or Gigs?

Re: Records or Gigs?