I don't recall ever attending a concert where I was not impressed with the group's recordings before attending. Generally, I have always found live performances to be more enjoyable than recorded ones. I heard Paul McCartney perform live several years ago and he was incredible. I then listened to some of the Beatles recordings that I had, and found that they just didn't have the same special quality that I noticed in the live concert. On the other hand, I heard Elton John a couple of years ago and was disappointed, but I think that is more attributable to a decline in his vocal ability than anything else.

I think that a capella music is the same - it sounds better live than on the recorded versions of the same songs. For example, I have always loved the recorded version of Amazing Grace, as sung by Rodney and Keith, but the live version that we heard this summer at the AVB reunion concert was, well, amazing!

Randy Glover

More often then not It is the second one. Groups spend tons of money and time perfecting their albums and since the release of autotune and the like it's easier and easier for ok talent to be super stars. Case and Point. Black Eyed Peas yesterday at the season kick off. Great music, but horrible live! Although I don't mind the art form of creating some amazing complex music on an album, I think it's the bands responsibility to make sure they can translate it well into a live performance... So many songs lose energy when it's live! Unless the band has taken the time to recreate it live. Those are my thoughts and I'm sure everyone has an opinion about it. Just thought I would share my insight.

There is always going to be an inherent difference between live and recorded performances, even those recorded "live." We've gotten to the point that everything has to have its remix, augmentation, reverb, etc. during the production process, things that are all but impossible to recreate in a live, unmanaged environment. In the studio, you have sound dampeners and then added reverb and "presence." Live, you're fighting the room's natural reverb and trying to EQ the whole thing so that it doesn't peel the enamel off your teeth. And that's whether it's a cappella or instrumental.
To answer the question: Yes, I have been disappointed with live performances because of the absence of the nicely mixed layers that caught my attention in the recording. Don't know if the sound engineer just didn't know how to mix back-ups with the live sound or if the back-up was so over-produced that live vocals just couldn't be mixed in well. That's one thing I've always admired about Acappella -- that the background tracks were either so pure in their mix or that they were just so simple in arrangements that live performances were hardly different from the recording.
Comparing the a cappella and general music, you would assume that a cappella would fare better in the comparison between live and recording, but I've seen some that just didn't for some reason. I think the difference will be found in the combined talents of the studio engineer, production engineer and the live sound man. If you can get the same person in enough of those slots, you will have a more consistent presentation.
IMHO, as well as in my ignorance :-)

I prefer live if you have the talent. If not, recorded is just fine as long as it serves a real purpose. For instance, sound effects in "Arise", or if there is a duet or trio needing a fuller sound to keep things interesting during a concert. I saw a solo performance by Dennis Jernigan recently and he used tracks on one song because it contributed to the feel he was trying to get.

I remember as a teen going to a Toto concert and the crowd not even recognizing their hit song "Africa" until half way through the performance. At least at that time, they were a total "studio" band. Really disappointing. With a cappella music, in most instances, there are no instruments to cover up the vocals and usually no synthetic background to reproduce when performed live.

Live is where it's at. If someone can't pull it off live (aside from nerves), they didn't really pull it off in the studio - in other words, they had lots of help or they had to record something 50 times to get it right. Have you found that to be true, too, Keith?

A person should never expect to hear the same thing live as they do recorded. There is more freedom singing or playing live. More room to stretch. A recording sets a standard. A live performance should exceed that standard. And why would you want to hear a song done live exactly as it was recorded?

I am a huge Steve Perry (Journey) fan. His recorded vocals were pretty tame (but great) compared to how he sang live. Nobody in rock could touch his vocal performances live, in my opinion. He definitely raised the bar on stage. That's what I expect from a live show. Most of the time, that's why I've gotten from Acappella!

There has been some good discussion of this going on over the several months on the Mouth Off a cappella podcast if anyone is interested. Echoing what has been said here, there is definitely a difference between studio and live performance. They are two different art forms and I think should be treated as such.

One can not and must not try to recreate a live performance on a recording. If that is what we are solely trying to create, we get (and I say this with respect for the artists who created it) the monstrosity that is the Ben Folds collegiate a cappella album. It seems as if he one day got a flyer for an a cappella show and decided to go and then loved it and thought, "Hey, I should do something like that." Then, he got several groups and arranged his songs and put them all in a room around one microphone and recorded it in one take. This just does not work for an a cappella recording. It takes one (sometimes two depending one what is being recorded) part at a time tracked individually. It also doesn't work because in the live show there is visuals. For many groups that includes choreography. Choreography doesn't exist on an audio recording, so instead there are things to put in its place. That is when one can really spice up the sound and add all sorts of effects where preferred.

By the same token, one shouldn't just throw an audio recording and perform it on stage (generally). I do realize that some artists like Wayburn Dean do that live and it works. For others it does not. However, he is still singing the lead track live. I always get bored by artists who do not sing live. I never watched Brittany Spears perform live. It was less because of the possibly risque nature of it, but because she was not singing. It was simply a studio recording through and through. Boring.

We really cannot fully compare the two. I remember my Grandpa telling me once that he always hated girls basketball cause it wasn't as high flying and fast paced as boys basketball. Then one day he said he quit comparing the two and loved them both for the individual art-forms they were. I think it is the same with live and recorded a cappella music. While they have lots of similarities, they are two individual art-forms. Like apples and oranges; both fruits but taste completely different when taken in.

I’ve always been disappointed going to a live concert because it was so different that what I listened to on the CD or tape. Also, I have heard CD’s that I absolutely hated the first time I listened to them, but over time they became my favorite.
There is an artist named “Andrew Peterson” and I heard one of his CD’s before going to a concert and did not like his music. Then I went to the concert and fell in love and come to find out he was the artist of many songs that I loved but didn’t know who sang them.
When I have every mixed concert, rather a’capella or instrumental, I have tried to make it sound like I remember it sounding in my car stereo.

Mark