# Classical Studio Albums, Live Albums or at the Show?



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

What is your favorite of those to witness?

Nothing beats live. It's simply a much better experience.

But, I enjoy both studio and live albums at home on my Fluance speakers.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Nothing beats being there in person.

I generally have a preference for studio recordings over live recordings. I feel like the studio environment gives the conductor more of a chance to make sure what he/she wants is what the listener hears. I also like the ability to remove errors, choose the best takes, and get the best sound with no extraneous noises. However, live recordings are important too; both of Furtwängler's _Ring _cycles, for example, are live and are really important historical documents in addition to being marvelous performances. I understand those who believe that the nervous energy or atmosphere of a live performance is better captured in live recordings, and it's certainly a viewpoint I find reasonable and valid. I don't feel super strongly about studio vs. live recordings, but it is nice not to have to hear coughing when I'm listening to music. Whether an album was recording in the studio or not alone isn't enough to determine the quality of a particular recording.

Then there are the "live composite" recordings like Leonard Bernstein made in the '80s, taken mostly from multiple performances with some retakes here and there, and no applause or noise so it nearly sounds like it was done in the studio. It's an interesting method that seeks to compromise between the two. Personally, I don't know if I could even distinguish them from studio recordings in a double-blind sort of test.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

For me, there isn't much of a difference between a "studio" or "live" album since one is just performed in an empty hall and the other is in front of an audience. If the performance is great, then whether it was performed in front of an audience or not is of little importance to me.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Neo Romanza said:


> For me, there isn't much of a difference between a "studio" or "live" album since one is just performed in an empty hall and the other is in front of an audience. If the performance is great, then whether it was performed in front of an audience or not is of little importance to me.



Agreed.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Nothing beats the real show, but when one lives far from the theatres or getting to old , recordings will do .


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

It just depends.

Hearing a truly great orchestra live in good repertoire is a life-affirming, thrilling experience that no home set up can ever replicate.

But a good CD of a studio performance is frankly preferable to a mediocre orchestra and conductor.

Studio vs. Live: there are some live performances that are stunning in that there are few, if any, mistakes. The Gielen Mahler cycle is one of those. The Bernstein Schumann set on DG another. I think the performances are more exciting when made in front of a live audience. But if there are too many errors, or some really godawful ones then I don't care how good the rest is, I just can't listen to it. Bernstein's Mahler 9 live is one such example. Never should have been released.

When it comes to live performances of some things, Mahler in particular, I've attended some thrilling concerts that I just know wouldn't be that great on disk, but the excitement of being there live made it sound better than maybe it really was.


----------

