If a band cant cut it live then they shouldnt bother with the recordings in the first place.

But overall recordings are more important. If the recordings are shite, whether it be production or otherwise then that will loose the fans. Its all well and good seein a band you like live but if you cant go home and listen to them or get your freinds to hear the music at your house or at a party or something then no point in doing it.

I think they're both as important as each other, maybe not in every genre, but certainly in rock, and especially in metal. Quite a few times I've been at a festival, and if I've seen a band that's shit live, I won't even bother checking them out after that. I also remember when The Darkness first emerged, I liked that first album quite a lot, then I saw them do a shit performance at Reading, it looked liked they couldn't give a fuck, so it put me right off them and I hardly listened to that album after that point. When I listen to an album, the majority of the time I imagine in my head seeing the music performed live (or performing it myself!). That's what it's all about for me. An album should be the best that you can make it, and a live performance the same. If I had to choose between the two, I'd have to kill myself.

Well, A smaller band could be good at playing live but a bigger band could be good on CD.

RedBurp wrote:Well, A smaller band could be good at playing live but a bigger band could be good on CD.

And what's that got to do with this?

Ooh... don't you know... dog... bone...

Sound is so rubbish at venues most of the time, it's a right pain the arse.

For me the answer's always the same - they're not mutually exclusive. Yeah?

That would be an ecumenical matter.

DRINK!

When I was younger I used to go to gigs everyday of the week, now that im older I go to a couple every month maybe.


I miss putting gigs on.

Put it this way: Maiden are fucking gant live. Recordings all the way.

Oh come on, that's mental.

I know! Honestly, they're the last band I thought I'd be able to say that about but they bored the arse off me so badly that I chose not to see them on the AMOLAD Tour. Thank Christ I didn't go because, as much as I like AMOLAD, I think I'd actually have left the gig half way through had they tried to play that album in its entirety. The fact that they never choose sets to cater for their die-hard fans also irritates me immensely.

James wrote: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.

Nah, gigs by far. Going to gigs is probably the most promenant thing in my life at the moment. Albums are all good, but they just can't compare to seeing a band live, the energy and atmosphere are just something I couldn't let go. Plus the memories you get (and sometimes not if you drink too much) are priceless, I've been to some gigs that I will never forget, gigs that will never happen again; with a cd, you can just listen to it over and over again, which can make bands get boring sometimes.

Metal Iain wrote:Put it this way: Maiden are fucking gant live. Recordings all the way.

Download 2007: Amazing
Twickenham 2008: Amazing

Donington 2003: Amazing
Newcastle 2007: Amazing
Wacken 2008: Amazing

Stevedot2 wrote:

James wrote: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.

Nah, gigs by far. Going to gigs is probably the most promenant thing in my life at the moment. Albums are all good, but they just can't compare to seeing a band live, the energy and atmosphere are just something I couldn't let go. Plus the memories you get (and sometimes not if you drink too much) are priceless, I've been to some gigs that I will never forget, gigs that will never happen again; with a cd, you can just listen to it over and over again, which can make bands get boring sometimes.

I don't think I made the question very clear, I'm NOT asking which you enjoy more as an experience. I think the majority of people would agree there is no beating the memories of an awesome gig...

What I'm saying is which of those two factors do you think are more IMPORTANT for a band to be good? It's a bit of a strange question, but basically I side with recordings because if I went to an amazing gig but then checked out the bands releases and they were mediocre/crap, this shows their music isn't actually that inspiring, it was probably a combination of atmosphere/energy/friends being there/beer that made it a memorable night. However if I bought an album and every track was an amazing potion of riffs, atmosphere, character and everything else that makes a band good, then I would think they were a great band, and if I saw them live and they were a bit shoddy/had a bad night then I would still think they have great music, but it would just be disappointing (not damning).

Of course it depends whether or not you think a live performance is an absolutely essential litmus test. As much as I enjoy a good gig, it isn't a be-all-end-all determiner for me.

Two quick examples on both sides of the issue:

Pagan Altar at ULU could have been a lot better - personally I still loved it so not the best example, but some said they wish they'd been more rehearsed. They're still an amazing band regardless.

Overkill in London - I didn't go but people have said they were incredible live - fair enough, but I doubt this would make me a fan as I don't like much of their recorded stuff.