I think you need to go into either of them with the effort of keeping them mutually exclusive. You don't want a shitty set to tear down a record you love, but if a great set makes you love a record, all the better. I've often heard records (Midlake, most recently) and thought the recording was fine, but I really want to check it out live because it just seems like those songs live will go beyond the recording.

I've found that I expect live shows to somehow one-up the record. If I were to go see Midlake, for instance, and the show sounded just like the recording (and bear in mind I really enjoy the recording) i would consider it a shitty show. I've gotten a lot of heat over the years for bad-mouthing Wilco shows for sounding like their records. Ditto Interpol. To recreate an Interpol show you just need a picture of a the band, a dark room, and the record playing really loudly. That's it.

The reason, though, I'd say they need to be kept separate, the shows and the recordings, is because of bands like the Microphones. Phil Elverum can't very well play all 12 tracks he's recorded at once, and his live shows generally are more likely to involve a type of performance art by he and his K Records cohorts than any actual songs off any actual Microphones or Mt. Eerie album. Better or worse than the record? Truly different.

So yeah, i didn't really answer the question, other than to say that I, personally, try to keep the two mediums as separate as possible. The first time I listened to Radiohead's KId A I was blown away. When I went to see them at the Gorge the next year i was thinking, "How the hell are they gonna pull that stuff off live???" and somehow they did it, but by playing the songs all differently. They're clearly the same songs, but the electronics are very different...compare the live version of "Like Spinning PLates" from the I MIGHT BE WRONG EP to the recorded verison on AMNESIAC. Same song, entirely different interpretation. One better than the other? That's apples and oranges.

I totally agree. I had the same experience with Radiohead... wondering how it was possible, but somehow it was and they were great.

If a record is good and I like it, then I listen to it. If I then go to see their live show and it sucks, I simply don't pay the money to see them live again.

Then again, some bands, of whom I don't necessarily like their music or record, put on great live shows and that is just that. They're a great live band.

My theory on the subject is to take each experience separately. If a band's album AND live show is extraordinary then they win major points in my book.

I think I alluded to this, but I actually don't like most live shows. As Huey said it Back to the Future, I'm afraid they're just too darn loud. What is the deal with how loud concerts are these days in tiny clubs. Even with earplugs, it is painful. Heck, I walked out of a Apples in Stereo show once because they sounded terrible thanks to the oppressive volumes that the band was playing. I mean, some of it is the sound guy for the venue, but honestly people, can't we just turn the amps down from 11?

Jeez, I sound like a curmudgeon at 31.

This is a really interesting debate. I tend to agree with Joseph and Shrie, that you can't truly compare the two as apples to apples.

When recording, a band has time to perfect and tweak everything...The finished product should represent the absolute best that the artists have to offer. (This is of course assuming they have access to infinite time and dollars in studio.) And they don't have to fuss over what they look like while they're playing: it's all about the sound. Why do you think so many artists come out of the studio looking like they just spent a few months in the Alaskan wilderness?

But in a live setting, you get one go--which makes it all the more exciting. There's that element of chance. Will the virtuoso guitarist crack in the midst of his solo? Will the prankster drummer blow up his kit in the middle of the set (K. Moon, I'm looking at you)? Will an impromptu jam give way to an amazing moment that goes down in the artists' lore forever? And it's about performance--pleasing the audience, aurally and visually.

Either can fall completely flat or be simply amazing. I've seen live shows by artists with a great record and been left cold. And I've seen live shows that reenergize me on a band whose record I'd dismissed.

It must be Friday. I'm chatty!

i contributed to the original debate, so i'll just say that i pretty much agree - my point was that if i dislike an album, then there's very little chance that the live show will have any effect.

a live show can definitely make me like a band much more. it's been rare that i liked an album but was so disappointed with the live show that i stopped listening to a band. if it's a band i like, i'm much more willing to chalk it up to a bad night & give them another chance. i'll part ways with joe slightly in that i've heard wilco definitely alter the arrangements to their songs (something i love about the mountain goats), but agree that interpol is less appealing due to their inability to play beyond the defined material.

I agree with the original post--there have been several occasions--particularly in Seattle--where I'll see a great live show (and a great live show doesn't just mean jumping around--but that's another topic) and then listen to the album-which will be not-so-hot when listened to at home-in the car--or with friends that I've instructed MUST hear this new band that might be the greatest thing since front shirt pockets. Having seen the live show--I can remember how the band performed the same songs--how the band connected with the audience--and how I connected with them performing their music. That's not to say I haven't put records on at home and been blown away.
However, if I hear a so-so album and then go to the show--it seems to be far less likely that they change my mind--it does happen--punk and harder rock bands are good examples. It's quite difficult to capture the energy of a great rock show or the transedence of an acoustic or ethereal rock performance on tape.
This is just my 2 cents though! Flame away, good posters, flame away!

i contributed to the original debate, so i'll just say that i pretty much agree - my point was that if i dislike an album, then there's very little chance that the live show will have any effect.

I can back this 100%. I've never been able to really figure out if it's just becuase I go into that situation with such a bad attitude that the band in question has no real hope, though.

this might be a weird question, but if you buy an album and don't like it, why would you see the band live?

i'm with eric, i don't much care for live shows because, in my experience, most current bands will just play through the high points of their catalog with little changes, leave, come back and play the song you thought they were going to play but didn't for the encore, and leave again. to all bands, please lay off hip covers, bad in-between song chatter about your tour difficulties and how tired you are, and rockstar posturing (new rule: you have to go gold on a major label before you get to act like your music is a commodity).