|
|
|
Columns: From
Hell's Heart...
May
2001:
Live Albums: Filler or a
Necessity?
Live Albums: Filler or a Necessity?
By EvilG
There comes a point in every band's career when it makes sense
that they do a live album. Fans want to hear how their favorite
band sounds live and why put up with a crappy quality bootleg when
you can get a professionally recorded concert? Some bands come off
better live and that energy is sometimes not captured in a studio
recording. For these reasons I would argue that yes, live albums
are a necessity. The problem I have with some live albums is that
they are sometimes put put as filler to tie over fans between
albums. As well, if the band is relatively new a live CD is kind
of pointless in my opinion!
Something I am more into then a live album is watching a live
performance! Seeing the band is not something many of us get to do
on a regular basis so having a live video (preferable DVD) can be
the best of both worlds! One band who released one of my favorite
live albums is Slayer with DECADE OF AGGRESSION. Back when it came
out I remembered reading about how a video was to be released of
the same performance. Well it didn't happen...too bad. Other
great live albums include Savatage's
FINAL BELL / GHOST IN THE RUINS and LIVE IN JAPAN, Judas Priest's UNLEASHED IN THE
EAST, Iron Maiden's LIVE AFTER DEATH... there are many!
On the negative side of live albums we need look no further
than Iron Maiden. Of course LIVE AFTER DEATH is a godly live album
and it's not the one I'm bringing up here. I'm talking about A
REAL LIVE ONE, A READ DEAD ONE, A REALLLYYYYY BORING ONE! They
went overboard there. It was unnecessary and sounded BAD. Earlier
this year Kamelot put out THE EXPEDITION which reeked of filler to
me. I love the band, but that live album was pretty much a waste of time.
When you can just as easily put on the studio album, what is the
point? So yeah, live albums are a necessity and every band
should have them or preferably a live DVD (can't wait to check out
the new LIVE Nightwish DVD - out May 21st in North America!!). |
|
Live Albums: Filler or a Necessity?
By Waspman
This is actually a timely topic, as I've seen a lot of
backlash against live albums in many recent metal pubs. My
question is why? While I don't love live albums like I used to,
I still think that live albums are pretty cool. I mean, think of
all the great live documents that are out there: PRIEST IN THE
EAST, LIVE AFTER DEATH, TOKYO TALES, TOKYO WARHEARTS, ALIVE IN
ATHENS and DOUBLE LIVE ASSASSINS all come to mind instantly. Oh
yeah, and who could forget the sheer brilliance of LAST TOUR ON
EARTH? O.K., so that last one was a joke, but the point is that
live albums don't necessarily have to be "filler". On
the other hand, there have been a lot of crappy live albums too,
albums like THE STING (see! I CAN rip on W.A.S.P. if I really
try!) that stink more like cash-grabs than anything else (um,
Iron Maiden, I'm looking directly at you). So what's the
difference between a killer live album and a crappy one?
I think it's mostly got to do with 2 things: sound quality,
and performance. If the sound quality is not there, don't bother
releasing the CD! I mean, nobody wants a canned "live"
CD, but if it sounds to muddy then what's the point? By
performance I'm talking about a number of things. First off, how
does the band sound? Are they as tight as they should be? Are at
least some of the songs different versions than on the studio
discs? Is there crowd interaction? Basically, is there anything
that's different from the other albums that justifies the live
disc's existence? I would guess that more often than not the
answer is "NO!" but lame live discs get released
anyway. I'm not too sure where I'm going with this but so long
as there's a good reason for a live album, then they're pretty
cool by me. Or something like that. |
|
Live Albums: Filler or a necessity?
Michael De Los Muertos
Generally I'm not a fan of live albums. While I think they
serve a good purpose in some circumstances, the truth is that
there are WAY too many of them out there, and most of them
really aren't necessary.
I think live albums have a bad rap because, at least in the
mainstream music world, they are often the ideas of record
company execs who use them to "tide over" fans of a
certain band until the release of their next studio album.
Unfortunately this happens in metal far too often as well. Who
hasn't been disappointed to read that a much-beloved band is
coming out with a new album in a few months, only to discover
that it's a live album, or even worse, an album of covers? What
do you really get from a live album that you don't get from the
studio albums? You won't really get the experience of seeing a
band live -- you have to BE there for that. What you get is
songs that sound like the studio versions (often with poorer
production) except with the sound of cheering crowds audible at
the beginning and ending of each track. That's basically it.
I can see the value of live albums if their intent (and
result) is to capture a band at a particular moment in their
career or at a particularly amazing show or tour. As a rule live
albums become far more interesting with the number of years that
pass since their recording. Also in some circumstances I've
found live albums useful as a way to get into a band that I'm
not that familiar with. I didn't listen to much Iced Earth
before I bought "Alive in Athens," which I do enjoy,
and which was an excellent introduction to Iced Earth's
catalogue.
Of course there are exceptions. Manowar's "Hell on Stage
Live" box set is a terrific album, and Vader's "Live
in Japan" is an unusually strong, powerful and enjoyable
live album. But most live albums just really don't do anything
for me. Come on, are you really going to listen to Morbid
Angel's "Entangled in Chaos" more, or even as much as,
any of their studio albums? Unless I have a burning desire to
collect a band's entire discography, I won't bother with live
albums unless there's some independent reason to get them. I'd
much rather have a studio album, or even a live video. Or maybe
bands should just not wait 5 years between albums! |
|
Live Albums: Necessity or Filler?
By Rick
I will start this editorial with the preface that I am
not a huge fan of live albums. I have found some that I like and
others that I could leave. I remember some of the first live
albums that I owned. AC/DC's "If You Want Blood, You Got
It", Iron Maiden's "Maiden Japan" and "Live
After Death" and Ozzy Osbourne and Randy Rhoads
"Tribute. These are some of my favourite live albums still
to this day. To me they were an opportunity to hear live, bands
that I would never get to see LIVE. But there lies my problem
with LIVE albums. The whole point of seeing a band live is to
actually see them perform. When I was young and I knew next to
nothing about metal it was always cool to put on the LIVE AC/DC
Cd and imagine what it was like to see these songs done live.
When I found out that many live albums could only use the tern
LIVE loosely because of the amount of ovedubs and studio
manipulation used to make them sound better, my interest in LIVE
releases began to wane.
As of right now. I rarely if ever anticipate a live CD. It
has become a favourite way for bands to fufill contractual
obligations to their record companies. I'm not saying that the
releases aren't good but I already have the CDs and I don't
really need to hear a live version of the song. Other bands
release a live Cd for almost every studio album that they
create. Iron Maiden comes to mind right away. They must have at
least 5 LIVE releases. Why? "A Real Live On" and
"A Real Dead One" was this just a way to make a few
dollars? One of the newer ones that comes to mind as being a
filler was "Expedition" by Kamelot. It was ok but
again, Why? It seems to me that VIDEO and DVD would be the best
way to catch your favourite band live. At least you can see the
them as well as hear their live renditions. Live albums.. Far
from a necessity. |
|
Live Albums: Filler or a necessity?
By Pete
Well it can be both actually. As a necessity, live albums can
be a great introduction to someone who is just getting into an
artist. For example, the latest Halford CD is great for someone
whose not familiar with his music. Not only does it offer tracks
from his solo career, but it also offers material from his
Priest days as well. Someone who purchases this disc may in turn
purchase the entire Priest collection, which in turn is a bonus
not only for the fan and artist, but for the record company as
well.
As for it being filler, well we all know that it buys time
for the artist between studio albums, as well as fulfilling
contracts, like a greatest hits package. The only problem with
live albums is that how "live" are they actually.
After all, every performance is not flawless and some bands go
in the studio and "fix" various vocal and guitar
parts. Hell, they say that Kiss Alive, one of the greatest live
albums ever, is mostly studio, so many parts were re-done and
fixed up. Live albums should be "live", NOT studio.
Filler or necessity, you be the judge. |
|
Live Albums: Filler or a necessity?
By Keith
Live albums are great if they're done right. You need the big
hits and energy that you can only get from a live show. One of
the best Live albums I ever heard was Ozzy's Live &
Loud...great songs, great energy and you could hear the crowd
and feel the excitement. There have also been some real lame
Live records like Dio's Inferno: Last In Live. Sure, there were
great songs on the disc but the energy wasn't there. It sounded
like a rehearsal session.
Now, for the question of whether a Live album is a necessity
or a filler, I think that can answered quite simply. A few years
back I worked for the management company of Kix who were on
Atlantic Records at the time. They had some success with the
albums Blow My Fuse and Hot Wire but never had the success that
bands like Ratt and Motley Crue had. The band decided to release
a Live album in Japan only. Kix was one of the great live bands
to come from the 80's and they were able to capture that sound
and energy on the Live release. It sold relatively well in Japan
and the fans dug it. Atlantic, at this time, was quickly dumping
bands from Kix's genre (White Lion, TNT, etc.). Kix had one
album left on their deal and the label elected to release the
album worldwide, fulfilling the band's commitment to them.
With the release it allowed die-hard fans the opportunity to
capture a great live Kix show on disc. But it also allowed the
band to shop themselves elsewhere where they could get much more
attention from a new label. Within a few months the band found
themselves on an up and coming independent label called CMC
International. The band became a priority for the new company
and quickly began recording a new studio album...something
Atlantic Records would not have afforded them.
So, in the end, a Live album can be a necessity for fans and
the band themselves. I also don't think a band would want to
release a Live album unless they felt it was it was something
great. Sure, not every record a band releases will be the
greatest thing on the Earth, but it's something they want to
do...not a filler. |
|
Live Albums: Filler or a necessity?
A RANT By Joe
Are live albums really necessary thing for music fans?
I’d have to say that they are since I (and numerous other
people) aren’t fortunate to live in areas where our favorite
bands tour. Hell, if Newfoundland had a Metal scene on par
with that of somewhere like Germany, Sweden, etc..., I
wouldn’t despise this place so damn much. For me and all the
others like me, live albums are the only way to hear our
favorite bands perform live. Of course, it’s not the same as
a real concert experience since you’re not able to actually
see the bands (no drunks puking on your shoes, either...), but
I guess that why bands release live videos (*Note to self: Buy
DVD player soon...).
Another great thing about live albums/videos is that they
allow fans to listen to/watch live performances of their
favorite artists at their own convenience. As much as I’d
love to be able to go to a Priest show once or twice a week,
it’s just not possible. Even if I lived in a city that
happened to be one of the world’s Metal ‘hot-spots’,
it’s still not possible. Plus, there’s usually a certain
"energy" in a live performance that most studio
albums don’t quite capture. The majority of bands often feed
off the audience’s reaction for an additional adrenalin rush
which takes the music to a whole new level of intensity.
Sometimes, live albums serve as a good introduction to
unfamiliar bands as well. For example, I bought
Stratovarius’ Visions of Europe: Live because I
wasn’t familiar with their pre-Destiny material.
Needless to say, the music kicked my ass and I bought more of
Strato’s CD’s. Plus, I still had the live album which in
the long run is a much better CD to have than something like
their Chosen Ones ‘best of’ package, which is just
the studio versions of songs taken from the full-length albums
I ended up buying anyway. So in my humble opinion, live albums
are definitely a necessary part of a band’s catalogue.
|
|
|