Bjork has released live versions of all her albums and I was wondering how you felt about this.

Steve

i don't know about a complete album but i definitely dig complete shows (over those cut-and-paste jobs), but leave it to pearl jam to completely overdo that concept.

Generally, I agree Chase, but I don't know how you feel about the Clash but Live From Here To Eternity is one cut and paste job that actually worked. Seamless.

Steve

Not keen on full live albums of previously released material (though cut-and-paste jobs don't bother me too much)

Very keen on live albums that consist of brand new material (There's A Riot Goin' On and The Tigers Have Spoken come to mind; I'm sure there are better examples).

What's so wrong with them doing what they did? If the market to put out all shows on specific tour is good enough, who cares?

well no, there's nothing wrong with the idea, and i'm glad that it's out there for their fans. i've just always thought of the live album as a usually poor effort, the contract filler, and then sometimes you get a good one that really kind of becomes a "treat" or the augmentation to a band's catalog already. bands like PJ or the Dead that use the live albums as a form of historical documentation, i feel, devalue my perception of the live album as something unique and make it something ubiquitous.

i like live versions of entire albums from start to finish.

like slayer did with "reign in blood". wasn't a cd, but a live dvd where they tore through the entire album.

I guess I kinda see your point. One question just cause I'm curious though:

Do you think it would have been better for them to only realease the albums to their website, or to have them available right after playing the show? I mean the Pixies did the same exact thing on their last tour. They just didn't release the shows in stores. I love having the option to buy a copy of a show I attended, provided it's worth it.

yeah, i'd probably think of that as different, and had i not been working in a record store when they were released (admittedly my fault) i probably wouldn't have ever thought about it. i just remember setting up that display with 40 different european shows and thinking, "you've got to be fucking kidding me. yellow ledbetter?" it seemed to blur the lines between appreciating the fans and a blatant cash grab.

Personally, I don't care that they release them all in the stores. When the first run came out, I did appreciate a fairly detailed review of some of the better shows in Rolling Stone----it helped me make a purchase of one show (West Palm Beach 8/09/00) which I really like and am generally pleased with siince I was probably only going to buy one. ( I wouldn't mind buying a copy of that show we saw in Atl a couple years ago Busty)

As far as live albums go, I like a complete show as opposed to a cut and paste job, though there are certain exceptions: That new Neko Case is great,; The Grateful Dead's "Without A Net" is a great representation of that last tour circa '89-'90 (with Bent Mydland---sorry Dave) before everything went to shit.

The Phish live album series is great as far as packaging goes and the ability to buy a particular show in its entirety. I would personally recommend any of the Halloween shows but I Have no taste since I like Phish so its really not even worth it, huh?

I like the live version of 'Tommy' that comes with the deluxe 'Live at Leeds'. Other than that, I haven't really heard many live full album covers.

I like live albums in general. However, a live album that is just a live recording of a studio album in order (like the Bjork mentioned, or Depeche Mode's Songs of Faith & Devotion) is pretty lame. It's also good if the artist has a somewhat long career to draw on for the live album.

I'm just bitter about being suckered into spending $30 to buy Pink Floyd's 'The Wall' Live. It's ok, performances are good but I have the studio version already so why do I feel the need to buy the same songs with cheering in between?

I still love Live at Leeds. Nice call, Dumpy.

as a concept, i'm not that fond of this idea. [depeche, anyone?] but at 25 cents a song via emusic, i'll try out those bjork albums happily.

Are you asking, uh, yourself that?

My regular plug for John Cale's Sabotage goes here, I guess. Was the stuff on Kick Out The Jams released elsewhere?

For some kinds of band, I can see the point of live versions of there already released material, but generally I would need to be a huge fan of a band before I'd be inclined that way.

i love this series except for the packaging. it is so hard to get a disc in or out of those sleeves, especially while driving. the series also leans a little too heavy on the late 90's and 00's.

the dylan bootleg series is awesome too.

but, if i'm reading the poll right, he's asking about live versions of complete albums...which i'm not sure i'd dig unless they really changed up the songs. otherwise i'd rather just listen to the original.

Well to get back to the subject then...I would not buy a live version of an album...unless I wanted to. Ah, fuck it. It just fucking depends.

If possible- I like the idea of the live album moving to DVD rather than CD. The Cure's Trilogy is a great example of one that I wouldn't ever really put on a CD player, but I love watching it.

They're not really "live versions of her albums" - they're just for the tour centered around that particular album, like any normal live album generally is. Each disc has songs from the previous albums, too.

I finally got around to listening to Radiohead's "I might be wrong" live recordings and couldn't help but think that it seemed very unecessary and that those songs worked much better on the studio versions.

Unless you're a hardcore fan and had to have "True Love Waits" I didn't see the need for it.

I'd rather have studio albums and go to a show.


That being said, Cheap Trick's "I want you to want me" live version destroys the studio version. So, there are exceptions.

in addition to "true love waits", i almost prefer the live version of "like spinning plates".