Sound Off! Are “Live” Tracks in Rock Band Really That Bad?
Harmonix... get on this!
I don’t care what anybody says… Rob Halford kicks ass. He was recently on Eddie Trunk satellite radio show talking with Halford about many things, including the live recording of “British Steel.” Early on in their discussion, they addressed live versions of albums versus studio versions…
“AC/DC Live” is probably my favorite live album to listen to, so I was super pumped when that track pack was announced. There are live track packs from Alice Cooper, Iron Maiden, Kiss, Paul McCartney, The Who, Thin Lizzy, Tom Petty, and many more. And each time live DLC tracks are announced, it appears that there is an uproar in the community regarding live tracks. In fact, over at the official RockBand.com forums, there are two threads with over 70 pages of comments titled “Please HMX , CONTINUE WITH THE LIVE TRACKS” and “Please HMX ,STOP WITH THE LIVE TRACKS.”
Why is this? Is there a belief (real or not) that live tracks are not as good as studio tracks? Or is this a case of, in comedian Brian Regan’s word, “This is not what I’m used to!?”
I guess what I want to hear from you guys is are they really that bad? Have you passed on purchasing DLC because it was a live track versus a studio track? And have you ever purchased a DLC track for the opposite reason, BECAUSE it was a live track? Or are you purchasing a track based on the quality of the song itself, regardless of the nature of the recording? Sound off in the comments below!
[Eddie Truck recording via @PlasticAxe]
Print This Post
Live track are not that bad. (I love the Thin Lizzy tracks and the other too)
THESE definetly are though. You cant hear Rob for shit, and the crowd is turned down as well, which is stupid considering half the time they are the ones singing and not Halford (check Breaking The Law for a clear example)
The Thin Lizzy, ACDC, and Tom Petty live tracks are all stellar.
Some are decent….The Kiss live tracks are really bad though, the first live Judas Priest pack wasn’t that great either….
Although most live tracks are not that bad – I PREFER the studio versions of the songs to play and to listen to (for most stuff – there are always exceptions).
I loved the AC/DC, Tom Petty, and Alice in Chains live tracks. I find it kind of mind-boggling how much of a deal breaker it can be for people.
Half the time, I don’t even notice what’s live and what’s not, I just play it. The Who’s live stuff isn’t that fun, while Kansas’ live tracks are amazing. I guess it really just depends on the band and what they do in the show.
It’s really dependent on the artist. Tom Petty’s songs, for example, are outstanding. Iron Maiden was also really quite good. From what I’ve heard, these live tracks leave a lot to be desired.
It really depends. For example, I love “Living After Midnight”, but I hate the live version of it. I think it killed the music, really. The same goes for the live version of “Iron Maiden”, which is pure crap.
But there are many songs whose live versions are better than the original. “Little Girls”, by Oingo Boingo, performed at their Farewell tour is an example. Metallica’s live “Whiplash” is better. Iron Maiden’s “Fear of the Dark”. Dire Straits’s live version of “On Every Street”. Etc etc etc.
So it really depends. A little bit of wisdom and common sense goes a long way in choosing between studio or live version of songs.
By the way, the live version of “Deuce” is really awesome.
Live recording vary all over the map as far as sound quality goes; thats the most obvious problem. Some are good, some… not so much.
I’ve been listening to the Donnington AC/DC Live album for over a decade (wow…) and it’s always been a favorite. However, I’ve found that I don’t like to play it much in the game. Some songs are pretty fun to play, but it’s the ones that were fairly recent when they recorded the concert (Thunderstruck, etc.) The Bon Scott tunes are a waste of time, even though I love the songs.
The Tom Petty Live pack has similar ups and downs, although since Petty is so consistent live the pack is better overall.
The Boys Are Back In Town was a real letdown for me…
If you can see the pattern, I think it comes down to how I expect the songs to sound that affects how much I like to play them (emulating the original artist.)
Maybe if I had never heard the originals I would feel differently…
Almost forgot! I actually passed on all the British Steel tracks because of the way they sound…
It really depends on the artist and the recording. AC/DC Live is a good example because it is considered their definitive concert. So the arguments I have seen revolve around if Thunderstruck is played hammer on/off rather than if it sounds good. Iron Maiden is a little annoying because the live tracks are slower than the studio versions making it easier to play. Styx is just not worth it because the live tracks don’t include the original band members or arrangements. If Cheap Trick – Live At Buddukon was included, you probably would not have much argument because it is the version of the songs people are most used to hearing.
Previews of the tracks in the store go a long way in helping me determine if the song I am going to buy is the version I want to hear and play.
ComplicitOwl Reply:
May 17th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Styx has no live tracks, they are faithful rerecords by all but one or two of the original members.
To be completely honest with you I could care less either way. Its all about the quality of the charting in my opinion. Some of the ACDC tracks are charted great while others are not. The same goes for the Iron Maiden tracks. Some of the live tracks are charted better than the masters.
I’d prefer studio tracks in general, but if I want a song, I’ll still pick it up if it’s live. I like live because they’re more often longer than the studio tracks, but I don’t like that the vocalist will often change the pitch in parts of the song from the studio track, which can make it difficult on a sight read. Not a deal-breaker, either way.
Live versions make quite a difference. You can lose yourself singing a tune heard one way for several years, without being fixed on the RB vocal bar. Since many live tracks in Rock Band have better-known studio versions, the different tracking puts people in “learning mode” on an otherwise familiar song they could play without thinking.
Another thing about albums and track packs is sequencing. Let’s say you know “Nevermind” as a straight-through listen. (Must be a bunch of those folks.) RB’s version has all its tracks, but some are live, which jars the memory of dedicated fans. Many songs share an innate connection with others by album or context.
On the upside, live versions push you more directly into a performance mindset (over straight-up scoring), something I hope Rock Band 3 will emphasize or at least allow for. They also work for more casual fans who didn’t buy a studio version to begin with.
I prefer the studio versions, but I have no problem with live versions either, while sometimes the live tracks are just plain awesome! i.e The Who. Really it depends on whether I like the song or not, but surely that’s how it is for everyone?
I’m not a fan of Live tracks! I like to sing, and the live stuff makes it difficult on songs I already know by heart. The only Live tracks I have downloaded are “Mary jane” by Tom Petty and “Band on the run” by Wings which are close to the studio versions.
I understand why some people like the live tracks, there are extra guitar / drum solos thrown in to some of the songs which probably makes them more fun to play.
It really varies from track to track for me. Although, I must say, that if I like an artist or a song enough, I will buy the song whether it is live or not.
I got the AC/DC live pack, and I like the songs all right, but I would’ve taken the studio recordings over the live ones if we had them. There’s just some nuances in the studio recordings that I miss in the live versions.
I got several of the live Alice Cooper tracks, all of which I thought were better than the originals. They were just more “rocking” than the originals. I especially think of “School’s Out” when I say this. They just upped the epic factor and were overall more fun to play, in my opinion.
Paul McCartney was a HUGE let down for me. I didn’t think I’d care too much at first, but to me they feel like listening to “old man karaoke” as I put it. Because I know the originals so well, hearing the live versions that Paul just cut not long ago makes me feel like it’s an old man singing karaoke to Paul’s songs. It’s just… not the same. =/ I feel similarly about The Who’s Superbowl Smashup.
In life in general, Paramore’s live album is my favorite above all of their other albums. Paramore is my favorite band, so I love all of their music, but I ESPECIALLY love their live album. Hayley just has so much more energy live in concert (I’ve seen them in concert twice). It’s the complete opposite for Evanescence, though. I feel like their studio recordings have a level of theatrical feeling and added studio effects that they cannot account for in their live tracks. I’ve never seen them in concert, so I don’t know what else they do performance-wise, but as far as just the music goes, it just seems like their live recordings are lackluster compared to their studio recordings.
Andre Reply:
May 12th, 2010 at 11:55 am
Yeah Darth Logo, I bought The Who’s Superbowl Smashup and didn’t like it very much, honestly. Played it twice and never again.
I’d say that familiarity is a big part if it. If I like the artist then I will get the track regardless but frequently it feels like something us just…off. In fact “(Sittin’ on) the Dock of the Bay” is a good example- that is a studio track, but I was a bit disappointed that it was the Take 2 that I wasn’t familiar with. Love the Tom Petty tracks, though.
As long as they don’t have that hollow, distant sounding recording quality to them, I’m ok with live tracks.
It depends on the track, really. Wilson (Live) by Phish and the Tom Petty songs are exceptional, but the Who’s Superbowl Smashup was horribad.
Most of the live tracks we’ve had in Rock Band have been good…especially the Iron Maiden ones. But “Breaking the Law (Live)” was a massive letdown for vocals. Just staggeringly terrible, though I can’t speak for the other instruments.
I don’t mind live tracks, but it would be nice if half of the lyrics weren’t outsourced to the crowd instead of the person actually playing the game.
I’ll probably by Breaking the Law, since I primarily play guitar. I really like the different riffs that are sometimes thrown in with live tracks. But yeah, I can understand the letdown on vocals…one reverse example of this is pretty funny though – I bought The Killers’ Live at Royal Albert Hall, and now I sing Spaceman like Brandon Flowers sings it live, which messes me up with the studio version :p
I skipped Breaking the Law because of the vocal track. There’s just too much of it missing. I watched this concert (and enjoyed it) on HDNet on Directv so I knew what the tracks were going to sound like. I couldn’t hear the crowd singing on that broadcast either. I am picking up Living After Midnight, You Don’t Have to be Old and Grinder. I may have done the whole album if they were the studio originals.
I like the live tracks from AC/DC, Judas Priest, and Alice Cooper. So much, in fact, that now more than anything, I want Muse’s H.A.A.R.P. on RB2.
Unless it’s a Muse song live, it’s not worth putting out. That’s how I feel.
I’m always very skeptical about live tracks. I won’t buy them until I can preview them and make sure that they sound good, if I like the studio version and the live version sounds obviously inferior that’s a big red flag for me. They should just stick to studio version unless the live version is particularly stellar, or they can’t get the masters of the studio version. I feel like a lot of the live tracks released are not obviously better than their studio counterparts, but then again some are. They just need to use better judgment in that area.