My bro is a is a business journalist and sent me this the other day. Marco thought this would be a good forum to discuss this with people who know a whole hell of a lot of music. Anyone have any thoughts?

Without a live album, no one would have heard of Matisyahu. Although that about the only artist I can think of off hand whose first major release was a live disc and who became big off of it.

Only current example I can think of is Matisyahu's "Live at Stubb's", which I think made it to platinum and was his first widely known release.

Hard to say why. Is recording a live show (well) prohibitively expensive? If so then maybe it's just that bands and labels see it as a risky venture so there might not be as many live albums getting out there and pushed in a big way.

I could see Drive By Truckers benefiting from a well-promoted/pushed live album.

Barely related, I think some heads could be turned and fans won by a well-executed hip-hop live album. But it'd have to come from an act with either impeccable freestyle skills (DJ Supernatural, Lyrics Born, etc.), a great live band (The Roots, who've already put one out) or an amazing DJ(s) the MCs can have a back and forth with (Jurassic 5, RIP). I'm probably forgetting some, but the only live hip hop recording I can think of that's gotten much lasting traction was/is DJ Kool's "Let Me Clear My Throat".

Oh, and make sure your bro doesn't forget MC5's "Kick Out The Jams" in his rundown of classic examples.

I'm not saying he's wrong but I'd need more evidence to agree that Live albums were ever a launching pad for success in the music industry. There's a bunch of live albums I like and most of them are old, but was this ever really a common strategy for breaking an artist?

As far as why you don't see them on the charts now anymore, look at what the best sellers are. Lots of american idol acts, hannah montana, lots of hip hop, etc. Its not the stuff that would translate to live albums. Hell, a large % of the top 40 probably lip syncs live.

There are still good live albums coming out occasionally. Okonos (sp?) is a good example. Live albums are still incredibly popular in some other cultures, Brazil for example.

As far as favorite live albums go:

James Brown - Live at the Apollo (all three versions)
Isaac Hayes - Live at Tahoe
The Who - Live at Leeds
Cheap Trick - Budokan
Neil Young - Live at Massey

I'm sure i'm forgetting a bunch.

since i know nothing about the music industry, or finance, i'm possibly talking out my ass, but i'd think the live album has/had a great potential for profit. i suppose one could drop a ton of money into mixing and production, but really it's much more like "get on stage, press record and play a set, fans give us money."

ps: johnny cash - folsom prison

the problem is a lot of albums were touched up again in the studio to fix mistakes, or they're compilations of different shows...I'd rather just hear a great sounding bootleg.

there are still just very few examples of bands whose live albums were launch pads to greater heights.

the one thing that stands out about this is just how difficult it is to get a great recording of a great live show. either one could have glitches and not be suitable for release. i've been to a couple shows that were recorded for that purpose and then either heavily edited or scrapped entirely. the one show i've been to that is a pretty good live release still lost a lot on the recording. i mean, it's fine. but being there was incredible. although, i'd love to know what people who weren't there think of the album.

the other thing is there aren't a whole lot of bands now who rely on the live show as much as perhaps they should. they don't necessarily need to showcase how dynamic they are on stage versus in the studio... because there's hardly a difference. with autotune and other effects having large roles at shows, some acts aren't really giving live audiences much that can't be found on the albums. and what's the point of putting out a live album that sounds exactly like the recorded songs, except with banter and crowd noise?

Once upon a time, a band cut their teeth playing gig after gig after gig, developing chops in the process.

Now, acts cut their teeth on the Disney Channnel, or the music is so production-dependent that the artist could never replicate what the machines in the studio spit out.

As for a launching pad, I disagree entirely. I can't think of one significant act who debut'ed with a live album and build any kind of career out of it. Kiss already had three or four LP's under their belt by the time Alive came out, Frampton came alive and then quickly died again, Stop Making Sense was more of a tombstone than a launching pad.

I think the live album is more of a way to fill a contract or generate cash flow inbetween studio efforts. "Hey Bruce, it's been about three years since Born in the USA, how's the new album coming?" "Awww shit, man, I dunno, but I have five discs worth of live material that we copped from the Giant Stadium shows...five discs man, you can easily charge 60 bucks for it." "That's why we love you, Bruce."

the year Sgt. Pepper's came out the top two selling albums of the year were by the Monkees

I've actually been thinking about this lately. Most bands these days do the live thing as a DVD rather than a record. But no one makes it from a live record. And really, no one ever has. It's more of a feather in the cap.

As for some of my favourites, these two are the first I reach for:

Van Morrison - It's Too Late To Stop Now
The Birthday Party - Live 81-82

barenaked ladies - rock spectacle launched them into widspread success in the US

I'm not sure a live albums has ever had the power to make an artist - all the examples listed were huge, well known acts prior to the release of the live album.

I think live albums don't hit like they used to because the live sound is less popular with people nowadays, which causes fewer live albums to be made.

An interesting case for your brother's article might be Elton John's Bennie and the Jets, which was artificially made into a live track in the studio, and which hit #1, and also was a top 40 on the R&B charts. I don't think this would happen anymore.

There are times when a live album SHOULD be the step an artist takes to make a name for themselves -- when that band is just so damn good live that it's undeniable.
Cheap Trick - At Budokon just happens to be of one of a couple of freak incidents of that occurrence.

Frampton Comes Alive is the other obvious one.

If U2 or Bruce Springsteen hadn't already become big with their studio albums, a live album could have done it. Although it didn't work for one of my favorites (Brinsley Schwarz), who sound like live monsters, judging on the live stuff that I've heard.

As to my favorite live albums:
Cheap Trick - At Budokon
Brinsley Schwarz - Cruel To Be Kind (live @ the BBC)
Talking Heads - The Name Of This Band...
The Quintet - Live at Massey Hall
Jimi Hendrix Experience - Jimi Plays Monterey
Johnny Cash - At Folsom

...and worth every penny.


I pretty much agree with what's been said here for the most part. Tough to make a case that a live album was an artists launching pad.

Much easier to make a case that a live album made them superstars.

See: Frampton Comes Alive and Under a Blood Red Sky

How many live albums has Pearl Jam released?

Almost every band is going to have 1, just so they have one in their catalog to sell a few more discs to the die hard fans.

were all those pearl jam discs official? i just thought they released every show from a tour as bootlegs.

I think the term launching pad still applies. The live album was a great way to break a band that had a number of albums under its belt but not much in the way of commercial success. So acts that had been touring for years to a limited audience - like Kiss, Frampton, Bob Seger, and Cheap Trick - could cherry pick their best songs for a de facto greatest hits album, and that's the album that launched their careers.

It doesn't work so much now, because constant touring has been replaced by the internet (and talent by trend). And just look at sites like Obner - there's a constant rush to find the new or the unheard. There's no time for a band to develop itself over 4 or 5 albums with plans of gaining an audience as it goes, because that audience fucks off for the new after their 2nd album "wasn't as good as their first ep."

I guess your question speaks to the nature of what is "official."

I would say anything sanctioned by the band, mastered by the band, and released in major retail stores is official.

However, it clearly wasn't a typical release, and the band clearly wanted to keep the "bootleg" descriptor on the albums, which is evident in the packaging. Moreover, there was no selection or emphasis of tracks or specific performances. Just a wholesale release of everything.

I'd go a little further than this. Once upon a time there were bands that were good but for some reason or another didn't make a studio album that really captured the greatness of the band. I'm not sure if it has to do with access to recording studios or just the "magic" of the band didn't translate. The Allman Brothers come to mind.

Live albums also were an opportunity for a band to show another side of themselves like Nirvana - Unplugged. Before that album, Nirvana was the aggressive destroyer of pop charts. On that album, Cobain comes off as the earnest music fan that he was.

In the record biz, most live albums are released as filler and typically don't count towards the artist's release obligation to the record company.

There are also now concert DVDs, live-recording bootlegs, et al to compete with an official live release.

I can admit to this. Occasionally there'll be a band that I'll latch onto for a few albums, but I do have a bunch of debuts or that 1 album by an artist.

I used to buy live albums when I was younger. The jammy noodling has gotten tired. I barely have time to listen to a 4 minute song in peace let alone some self-indulgent gonna play with your head 13:23 space jazz minstrel dueling synth vs guitar tripe.

Neko Case would be a good touchstone. She wanted to toss off a live record and discovered it was the hardest thing to make. The recording of it is bad enough, but getting simultaneous solid performances from a group of musicians is virtually impossible. And then you get into the editing and fixing, which can be a rabbit hole.

Maybe another way to frame the discussion is "how does the band sound its best?" Live, or in the studio? Is it a tie? Is one obviously better than the other?

Perhaps, as has been stated above, fewer bands (remember to include shitty bands who sell a lot of records) sound better live. Or sound any different, to the lip syncing point.

I think Rads nailed it, but I would also add that the majority of groups that could cross into the mainstream today aren't compelling live acts.

Death Cab, for example.