Live Performances vs. Studio Recordings

The epic battle of Live vs. Studio tangle in my mind and consumes my thoughts as I scroll through my 3-gig bright orange best-thing-that-ever-happened-to-me ipod. I have always been a true fan of acoustic covers and live performances. I have found myself many times on youtube typing in “covers of [insert song here]” and searching profusely for a the song.

The other night, the tv channel “Fuse” had a 2 hour no commercial Live John Mayer performance. I was astounded with the talent that he truly had. Its amazing that he can perform time and time again and impress his fans, even after being impressed from the show before.

This concept got me thinking about how much I hate artists that make great albums in the studio, but then can’t follow up on stage. In the 60’s and 70’s, concerts were usually where everyone heard music. So artists now-a-days have the better end of the deal by double tracking their voices, or using electronics to make their voice sound remotely good. The artists that just crash and burn once they step foot in front of 10,000 or more people seriously bother me, and I feel like I’m being cheated.
But the other hand of the argument, even if it isn’t the exact recording of the artist singing or rapping, the music that artists make in studio is consistantly goode. I am a fan of plenty of bands and artists that are destructively bad live, but in the studio they sound remarkable.

The respect that I have for performers that have actual raw talent live is insane. I even like some artists better live than I do in studio. Like Coldplay for example. Though i enjoy them in studio, I think that their live material is way better, simply because they rock their faces off. Any band that can do that, I have mad respect for.