Studio.
Listening to the Stones Live is like watching homemade porn – you can get your ya yas off but you’re subjected to a ton of unedited imperfections...For fans with wart fetishes only.

All of it.

All the great studio recrodings speak for themselves.

...But at the same time what compares with the actual live peformance when you're there on the night ?

The third angle is live recordings ...that's the grey area.

I'd hate to be without those too...especilally as so many songs have developed another [sometimes even better ] personality as they've been re-worked and tweaked for the stage.

Quote
Swayed1967
Studio.
Listening to the Stones Live is like watching homemade porn – you can get your ya yas off but you’re subjected to a ton of unedited imperfections...For fans with wart fetishes only.

watching homemade porn can actually cause warts on your hands...it's true.

The reason why I think the studio's are better, is because they can take otherwise unremarkable songs and make them quite remarkable.

It's not hard to take Midnight Rambler and make that spectacular live, at least for the stones...so yes they do get full credit for that. But it's a great song in the first place.

But the fact is they can take a song that if recorded by someone else...well, it would be a throwaway, but because of what they did, how they recorded it in the studio, it's a gem.

My favourite example of that is She's So Cold, but there's a million examples. Rocks Off. Brilliant studio recording but live, ah...not so much.

I think their studio recordings are way, way underrated.

The Stones are widely recognized as a great live band, sure due to their 60s to early 80s shows but for most of the broader audience because of Mick's energy even to date and his his bigger than life personality. This I think tends to overshadow some of their absolutely brilliant work in the studio.

Not all the songwriting was stellar through the years, but their studio performances, with very few exceptions is exceptional.

Quote
treaclefingers
The reason why I think the studio's are better, is because they can take otherwise unremarkable songs and make them quite remarkable.

It's not hard to take Midnight Rambler and make that spectacular live, at least for the stones...so yes they do get full credit for that. But it's a great song in the first place.

But the fact is they can take a song that if recorded by someone else...well, it would be a throwaway, but because of what they did, how they recorded it in the studio, it's a gem.

My favourite example of that is She's So Cold, but there's a million examples. Rocks Off. Brilliant studio recording but live, ah...not so much.

I think their studio recordings are way, way underrated.

The Stones are widely recognized as a great live band, sure due to their 60s to early 80s shows but for most of the broader audience because of Mick's energy even to date and his his bigger than life personality. This I think tends to overshadow some of their absolutely brilliant work in the studio.

Not all the songwriting was stellar through the years, but their studio performances, with very few exceptions is exceptional.

This is so odd becaUSE I see your points, and I see the m apply the opposite.
First off, I just don't think the Stones' studio output is in any way underrated. They have been masters at recording, they have had top producers and engineers, and studios.
But your first sentence IMO applies to thr live stage. One of the major, major strengths of the Stones in their glory years, up to early 80's was that they re-worked the studio songs esp. for live stage. The 'Banquet" and "Letit Bleed" songs that are eternal nowadays became this way because of the way they performed them. "Sympathy" and "Rambler"; and the Taylor show case "Love in Vain". It is not easy at all to do this. "Rambler" went through quite a change. I think ( judging from the studio version) that it is in no way, understood that this is going to become a fast, driving song. It could have gone the slow bluesy route. Then making it a showpiece with the belt in the middle.

Sorry; I did not read through all 3 pages ("I don't need the aggravation I'm a lazy slob "... ) -
so maybe someone else already made this following remark.

But that question surely comes across like "Who 'd you pick? Mommy or Daddy? " to me.

Both live and studio Stones both have their charm. However I can't think of another band that has such a large percentage of their songs that have never been played live. I guess the late 60s Beatles you can say that as but they are not a band that has been touring for over 50 years.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
treaclefingers
The reason why I think the studio's are better, is because they can take otherwise unremarkable songs and make them quite remarkable.

It's not hard to take Midnight Rambler and make that spectacular live, at least for the stones...so yes they do get full credit for that. But it's a great song in the first place.

But the fact is they can take a song that if recorded by someone else...well, it would be a throwaway, but because of what they did, how they recorded it in the studio, it's a gem.

My favourite example of that is She's So Cold, but there's a million examples. Rocks Off. Brilliant studio recording but live, ah...not so much.

I think their studio recordings are way, way underrated.

The Stones are widely recognized as a great live band, sure due to their 60s to early 80s shows but for most of the broader audience because of Mick's energy even to date and his his bigger than life personality. This I think tends to overshadow some of their absolutely brilliant work in the studio.

Not all the songwriting was stellar through the years, but their studio performances, with very few exceptions is exceptional.

This is so odd becaUSE I see your points, and I see the m apply the opposite.
First off, I just don't think the Stones' studio output is in any way underrated. They have been masters at recording, they have had top producers and engineers, and studios.
But your first sentence IMO applies to thr live stage. One of the major, major strengths of the Stones in their glory years, up to early 80's was that they re-worked the studio songs esp. for live stage. The 'Banquet" and "Letit Bleed" songs that are eternal nowadays became this way because of the way they performed them. "Sympathy" and "Rambler"; and the Taylor show case "Love in Vain". It is not easy at all to do this. "Rambler" went through quite a change. I think ( judging from the studio version) that it is in no way, understood that this is going to become a fast, driving song. It could have gone the slow bluesy route. Then making it a showpiece with the belt in the middle.

I see your points...I think in that respect I can agree that what I've said can also work in reverse.

However even with accepting that, I'd say that on balance their quality of their studio work outshines the live material, notwithstanding that actually GOING to a live performance is something else entirely. I'm talking about live recordings in general. Not everything they've put out is Brussels or GYYYO.

Honestly both, I can't choose one.

Quote
Rockman
aaaahhhhh babeeee you don't get it do ya .... if you really wanna b....

gonyerselfyabamwidobawbagheider