Opinions?
Opinions?
What are you asking, if today's youth buys and/or enjoys live albums (past or present)? I can't think of any notable recent live albums (as opposed to live DVDs) from rock groups, but there have been some fairly well-received electronic live albums in recent years. Of course with modern electronic music it rightly gets accused of sounding the exact same way in concert as it does on the studio album. However, the French duo Justice are trying to change that image. Their live album which came out earlier this year I believe shows how, in a live setting, they like to screw around with their music. They will rearrange their songs, add samples not on the studio versions and actually play keyboards in real time.
The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off
I suppose past & /or present. I did a little digging & saw that plenty of today's biggest performers (eg: Beyonce, Maroon 5, Paramore, Miley, etc) all have live material.Originally Posted by zravkapt
Last edited by Rickenbacker; 10-26-2013 at 08:49 AM.
Pertaining to pop, considering how much of today's performances are lip-synched, is there much reason for an audio live release?
How about another question? Does today's youth buy into live drummers? Apparently, they don't, considering how few tend to be used.
"The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone!"
When I played Sweet Lorraine live by Uriah Heep for my 24 year old son he went nuts for it - He said he loves the rush you get from the sound of the crowd after a high energy song. Same with the Made in Japan album. Both Uriah Heep live and Made in Japan shortly thereafter disappeared from my CD collection and had to be repurchased. I don't mind so long as I'm teaching them good values - at least about music.
I got nothin' :
...avoiding any implication that I have ever entertained a cognizant thought.
live samples:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwbCFGbAtFc
https://youtu.be/AEE5OZXJioE
https://soundcloud.com/yodelgoat/yod...om-a-live-show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUe3YhCjy6g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VOCJokzL_s
Live albums weren't even that popular with yesterday's youth. I've never seen the point of live albums. Inferior versions of songs without the visuals, pointless!
Really? Well, Somebody was buying them in the droves back then. (eg: "Frampton Comes Alive", Kiss "Alive", etc)
Comparatively, when compared to sales of studio albums live albums have never sold well. Because, regardless of band or genre, most of them suck.
They must be because the Decemberists released one a year or so ago. It was pretty good but I would have preferred one off the Hazards of Love tour.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart
I have four sons in their early to mid twenties who listens to all of the popular young artist today as well some classic rock and thanks to me even some prog stuff from back in the day. Although they definitely enjoy seeing it live it doesn't seem as if they get to excited and willing to spend $$ on live recording releases. And most of their music collection are all digital down loads very few cd's and no vinyl at all.
I don't know if, at age 21, I qualify as "today's youth", but I just listened to King Crimson at Asbury Park, 1974 and was pretty blown away.
Ian Beabout
Mixing and mastering engineer. See ya at ProgDay !
https://cuneiformrecords.bandcamp.co...m/bakers-dozen
https://cuneiformrecords.bandcamp.co...-and-holland-3
colouratura.bandcamp.com
Don't forget Skullfuck and Europe '72, which were the first Dead albums to go gold.
I think it was Roger Glover who said that Deep Purple were initially resistant to the idea of doing a live album. Apparently, their Japanese record company wanted to record the Osaka and Tokyo dates, but the band felt that live albums were "not in" and had a "budget" feel to them.
I think the standard attitude at the time was live albums were something you did to "buy time" while preparing your next record. And because live albums typically just featured songs that were on your studio records, typically viewed as "a cheap rip off". That I think was the general opinion about the idea of live albums, at least as regards to rock music, in the 60's and very early 70's.
I think bands like Deep Purple, Allman Brothers Band, Hawkwind, and a few others were the ones that changed that logic and made the double live album "cool", making it a required part of the catalog of any band who managed to survive long enough and be successful enough to do one.
Maybe for some bands, but others careers were made by their live albums. The first three Kiss albums all sank without a trace. Kiss Alive was the record that not only saved the band, but also saved Casablanca Records.
Similarly, Frampton Comes Alive was the record that put him over the top as a bona fide (ahem) "star". It's the live versions of Do You Fee Like We Do and Show Me The Way that get played on the radio, not their studio album counterparts.
And Space Ritual seems to be the Hawkwind album everyone thinks is absolutely essential.
What's the cut-off age for "youth"? My son is 24 - he has a strong preference for studio albums rather than live ones.
I became interested in and started collecting bootlegs when I learned that a lot of 'live' albums have a lot of studio overdubs on them. I wanted to hear shows as they actually sounded, warts and all.
Obviosuly you've never heard the 30 minute version of Floyd's "Embryo."
I'd much rather have the live release than a greatest hits package. Especially if the band actually improvises.
"The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone!"
Does today's youth buy into live albums?
Funny, I don't remember there being a Pink Floyd live album that had any version of Embryo, much a 30 minute one (assuming that such a thing actually exists, I believe the longest version I've heard on the bootlegs was around 24 minutes).
Today's youth probably don't buy into albums period these days. They just download everything.
This has been my experience. My kids buy very little music nowadays; it's all available free. They'll go see a popular artist's concert, but they just download what they want to hear free off the 'net. Selling recorded music is becoming a futile endeavour. Now, sometimes they'll buy a live concert vid, but even then, most of the time it's a ripped download. Music is even less a profession now than it used to be, unless you do music-for-video. And as data rates increase, I see that disappearing as well, since video is becoming easier and easier to download.
Gnish-gnosh borble wiff, shlauuffin oople tirk.
I'm talking about one of the bootlegs (those are live albums). And yeah, it may have been ONLY 24 minutes. My point, to make it easier to understand, is that much of Floyd's best material is, IMO, on the bootlegs.
Totally irrelevant. I've heard enbough live albums to know that I think they suck. Also I've seen Floyd and many other bands live enough times in my life to know that I prefer gigs and studio albums to live albums.
No it's not, in music terminology a bootleg is an unofficial recording of a gig; a live album is an official product.
In your world, maybe. Live is live. An album is a collection of things. Whether or not it's official is not a factor.
A bootleg is the selling of an unofficial recording. The traded ones are not considered bootlegs, because no money is exchanging hands. Admittedly, there's a lot of gray area here. But you're a bit too absolute about it.
Too bad you think all live albums suck. There are some killer ones out there that you're missing. But, it's your loss.
"The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone!"
I totally agree (especially on the selling=bootleg, trading does not argument).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks