Let me preface this argument by saying I love going to concerts and seeing music performed live. Music is meant to be performed. However, I am somewhat unsure of how to treat live recordings. I don't actually own any live recordings that I can think of right now, even when collecting an artist's complete works I skip live recordings.

I have two conflicting views on live and studio recordings. The first is the idea that I firmly believe the studio recording is the definitive version of a song. The band takes has the time to meticulously rework, replay, and redo parts of the song until everything sounds exactly how they want it to. There are some effects that cannot be properly emulated live, extra guitar parts the band may not have the people to play, vocal overdubs and harmonies that cannot be perfectly reproduced, etc. They also get to chose which version ultimately ends up being released, while they may have some level of choice as far as choosing which live version of a track to use they are limited to different one-take versions of that track. To me the time and detail available in the studio produces the definitive version of a song.

My conflict is that I also see music as something that is organic and changing. Live performances show this perfectly, songs are changed, solos added, lengthened, covers are played and changed etc. Live recordings are the closest representation of this idea of music as living outside of going to an actual performance. Because of the way studios allow bands to perfect each song the organic side of the music can get lost. It becomes a science rather than an art. Mistakes are eliminated (for the most part) energy and emotion aren't as easily translated, etc.

So in conclusion, I really don't know how I feel about it. I can't decide which is more important.

It certainly depends on the band.

The merit of these bands aside --- I own a number of "live concert" records, one by the Dave Matthews Band, which is really quite good, and other from Blink 182, which makes me wonder why they would bother to regroup to try to play music again. And all makes and models inbetween. The worth is in the ear of the beholder. I do believe there is a quality live album out there for everyone.. even those who prefer studio albums.

One of the tricks with live albums is that a majority of them are overdubbed in the studio (which they usually don't put in the sleeve notes), particularly vocals, or compiled from multiple performances. Another classic live album is Zappa's "Roxy & Elsewhere", which I understand is very heavily overdubbed, and obviously it's from different venues, different nights. Despite this, it's a great, live-sounding energetic recording, something that simply couldn't be captured in a studio.

In music stores, online (Amazon etc.). It's out there.

I agree that it depends on the band although I must say that it is rare for me to be disappointed by live recordings of a band that I enjoy. Now, my degree of preference of live to studio work depends; a group like Yes I will almost always take live over studio. Yessongs is one of the greatest live albums I've heard. Zappa is another example; my favorite record of his may be Waka/Jawaka, but the live stuff is really where his work came alive. Alternatively, a group like Porcupine Tree or a performer like Peter Gabriel aren't better live, but still stand up solidly, making the products worthwhile.

A place I've found myself recently is favoring live DVDs. If the great part of a studio recording is, like a book, sort of having a one-on-one intimate intellectual encounter with the performer, then a live concert or recording should be the opposite, a melting away of the singular into the whole. And DVDs tend to communicate that a great deal better than most live albums do. That doesn't mean that live albums can't; again, Yessongs is a magnificent live album but is a terrible concert film (also, the CD mix is quite terrible, but most people don't have turntables or the scratch for a 3LP set, so...).

Not exactly sure where this post is going anymore, but i like the discussion.

Yeah, but a live recording, that's always going to be the same too.

See, I like live DVDs, when you can see the whole experience. But with live CDs, I only really like them if they were at a gig I was at. So I'm really looking forward to Onslaught's 'Live At Damnation 2008' recording. Heard a couple of tracks on their label website and it's shit hot. I'll take actual live, then studio album, then live DVD then live CD. Then shitty quality demos like Mayhem's Pure Fucking Armageddon demo.