October 02, 2003


..I once heard someone say the following -"they were perfect, it was just as if we had put a poster of them up on our wall and pressed play on the cd, they never played a wrong note"...I decided there and then never to go see dire straits live :^)...

One of the overnight announcers on WGN in Chicago feels strongly that the old albums have better sound than CDs. I've heard them discuss it again and again. It's possible he was referring to the fact that the errors aren't removed.

Old albums have a "personality" to them you just can't get on CD. I used to listen to a group years ago on album, until it was broken. I replaced it with a CD, (I had a tape of the album), it sounded "wrong". I played the tape and the CD side by side and there were definitely differences. The CD was remastered with Dolby for better sound quality. All that did was level the peaks and valleys in the original music and made it sound "FLAT".

Albums are definately better than CD's. (My dad's collection is awesome), but being a kid of the CD generation I hae to say that watching bands play live is so much better than both.

Ok, the sound guy may stuff up for the first two songs and get the levels wrong, but the sound itself is excellent - best described as raw. Both CDs and albums are no substitute for going to gigs, the athmosphere, the noise, the sweat of other people.. ;-)

I'd have to agree with you Jester. Live is an experience. Few bands can duplicate the sound of a recording, (though I've been to a few, even before lip-synch). A GOOD band can make a live show better. A lot of people I've talked to today, expect a band to be as "clean" as the recoreded sound is. Ain't gonna happen. Garbage will get through, as well as mistakes. It will be closer to the album sound than the CD sound.
As far as live goes otherwise, you can't beat the atmosphere that comes with it. Makes it a "total" experience you can't find anywhere else.

...hehehehehehe...could I recommend fate::unknown if you download their mp3's you might think they are awful - but live they are awesome!!...but I think that can be said for a lot of groups - u2, queen, sex pistols, fate::unknown, cheap trick, oasis these are groups that love their music and their love comes through so much better live...david bowie (who is one of my rock idols) looks and acts bored on stage (he even checked the time twice on his watch) - by the end I was glad to leave and go back home to my albums :^(...
[ps. sorry for the plugs for fate::unknown but I am a very proud dad :^)]

Gee, billy, I hadn't noticed. A couple groups I have seen live that were as crisp as their recordings or better, were Emerson, Lake and Palmer, Queen, Rush, Heart, Sammy Hagar, Styx, Van Halen, Blue Oyster Cult, ZZ Top and a couple more. Most of these groups are "old school". I've seen newer groups and most don't compare. Like I said, they relied to much on the digital world. Not that they aren't good, just not honed on the road like older groups had to be.

....eeeeekkkkk...not boc :^(...the rest I'll give you :^)..but I reckon that 'old skool' came thru the basis of being good and the selling..as opposed to groups these days who start by selling first and then being good :^(..

Could very well be the case. What is wrong with B.O.C.? I got lucky when I saw them last, ALL the members (from who knows how many incarnations there were. Kind of like YES, almost a new band every other week.) were on stage, about 13 of them total. Unbelievable sound. Had to be there to appreciate it.

Wichi Dude - got here via your comment at my joint. Hey, my mon has a giant stack of 78rpm records! Too bad they aren't in very good shape or thry would be worth some $$$ to someone, somewhere. My aunt has some of those old metal records with the perforations and the machine that plays them - too cool! Take whatever you want from that collection of fine invectives!

The comments to this entry are closed.