Live or Studio

I prefer studio , as i like perfect sets with no mistakes, and god fobid no fan noise

You could go on for weeks about the merits of either.A merit of live is having a version of Temptation like the Taras Shevchenko one.A merit of studio is perfectionism.

Don't you like New Order ?

Eh?.Don`t i like New Order?.Is that a joke?.Why you say that?

Unless you have a recording of the live performance, it will always be difficult to understand why some people prefer the live New Order experience to the recorded one. New Order live is so much more than the band playing a few songs on stage, it is the whole social experience before and during, and then the attempt to track down a recording of the show. It's nearly always too loud, nearly always punctuated by mistakes (then again most bands make mistakes!), and nearly always a less than perfect sound. What you do get is the energy of the studio recordings brought to life in front of you, combined with Hooky's stage charisma and Bernard's attempts to be entertaining, and the chance to meet Al Jarvis ;)

The records provide something different to the live experience - not everyone gets the chance to see them live, everyone can buy the record. Unless you have experienced both though (and seen them live more than once!) you won't necessarily know which is best!

For me, the whole New Order live experience is more satisfying than the recorded output, but you'll still find me at the record shop tomorrow morning to get Krafty.

New Order live at The Roxy ,Sheffield 87 and the Reading 98 gig were both ,i have to say, better than sex.Although i cant actually remember now what sex is like .Maybe ill stop spending all my time on neworderonline and go out next weekend.

I have the 5 11 DVD, & I have to say that to me is some great New Order. I love the studio stuff, but live is just so much more energy wise. It really feels like them at their best. I've also had the pleasure of hearing a good number of their live shows, which are great.

oldmonkey wrote: Unless you have a recording of the live performance, it will always be difficult to understand why some people prefer the live New Order experience to the recorded one. New Order live is so much more than the band playing a few songs on stage, it is the whole social experience before and during, and then the attempt to track down a recording of the show. It's nearly always too loud, nearly always punctuated by mistakes (then again most bands make mistakes!), and nearly always a less than perfect sound. What you do get is the energy of the studio recordings brought to life in front of you, combined with Hooky's stage charisma and Bernard's attempts to be entertaining, and the chance to meet Al Jarvis ;)

The records provide something different to the live experience - not everyone gets the chance to see them live, everyone can buy the record. Unless you have experienced both though (and seen them live more than once!) you won't necessarily know which is best!

For me, the whole New Order live experience is more satisfying than the recorded output, but you'll still find me at the record shop tomorrow morning to get Krafty.

Good points, Tim. Although i've only seen 1 show, and my opinion is invalid, i'll let you know what i think anyway. The points you make about the "experience" of the gig is dead on. It was a great day of anticiptation and joy waiting for New Order, talking to people with New Order shirts on and finally experiencing them live. This was 2001, so "live" is a bit of a misnomer. It was as much prerecorded as it was live and i knew exactly what would be played and in what order. Regardless, i loved every second of it. I was on a high for weeks afterward. The "feeling" of seeing them live can't be denied.

Listening to bootlegs and taking the viceral effect of the "experience" of the show out of the equation, things start to change. This is the crux of my point. New Order are, with few exceptions, a terrible live act. Granted, some shows from 82 - 87 and the US mixer shows from Technique are very good, but the majority of their performances were so plagued with mistakes that it ruins the enjoyment of listening to the songs. If you were there and have memories of the show, that's one thing, but as an objective listener, their live shortcomings are glaringly obvious. The primary culprit is Bernard Sumner. Steve and Hooky are usually on the mark, Gillian often hit the wrong buttons and the primitive equipment all had a hand in the awful performances preserved forever on tape. There is not 1 definitive version of a newOrder song in the live setting. New Order are a studio band. Their albums owe a lot to the engineer/producer and technology at work. They can't just pull out an old song and perform it like most other bands. I'm not an REM fan, but if you've seen them perform, you know they can pull an old b-side out of the hat and make it sound very good. New Order cannot do this and that says a lot to me about their ability to perform live. As much as people here hate the Cure, you'd have to be ignorant or deaf to not hear the great difference in the Cure's ability to play live compared to New Order's inablity.

My preference is for studio recordings. Of course i'd love to be at the show and if I were the right age and living in England, i would have been front and center and loving every minute of it. But my experience is different. I was the only one in my small town into New Order and I was under age when they last played my state (89). I loved the electronic elements and the production of the tracks; traits that have shaped my tastes since True Faith rocked my world in 87. I don't have the great memories of those classic shows in the 80's but i do have loads of recordings from those days and the majority of the performances absolutely suck. They are not great musicians live, as evidenced by their reliance on preprogrammed elements in concert, but they are superb on record.

That's just one dumb american's opinion though, and not one with any credibility since i've only seen them once. I'll update my opinion after the 2 shows in California in a month.

i have yet to see them live, but hopefully after may i can contribute to the debate :)

i have heard a great deal of live mp3s though and i own both DVDs. i think new order could pull an old b-side out and play it well. a lot of the sounds they used from sequencers and samplers are ones they created themselves, so as long as they still have the equipment they'd be able to play it. it'd just be a question of whether they remember it or not!

and in response to the comment about REM...they truly are an excellent live band. i liked them just OK until seeing them live, then they became one of my favorites.

Biznotic Love Trapezoid wrote:

oldmonkey wrote: Unless you have a recording of the live performance, it will always be difficult to understand why some people prefer the live New Order experience to the recorded one. New Order live is so much more than the band playing a few songs on stage, it is the whole social experience before and during, and then the attempt to track down a recording of the show. It's nearly always too loud, nearly always punctuated by mistakes (then again most bands make mistakes!), and nearly always a less than perfect sound. What you do get is the energy of the studio recordings brought to life in front of you, combined with Hooky's stage charisma and Bernard's attempts to be entertaining, and the chance to meet Al Jarvis ;)

The records provide something different to the live experience - not everyone gets the chance to see them live, everyone can buy the record. Unless you have experienced both though (and seen them live more than once!) you won't necessarily know which is best!

For me, the whole New Order live experience is more satisfying than the recorded output, but you'll still find me at the record shop tomorrow morning to get Krafty.

Good points, Tim. Although i've only seen 1 show, and my opinion is invalid, i'll let you know what i think anyway. The points you make about the "experience" of the gig is dead on. It was a great day of anticiptation and joy waiting for New Order, talking to people with New Order shirts on and finally experiencing them live. This was 2001, so "live" is a bit of a misnomer. It was as much prerecorded as it was live and i knew exactly what would be played and in what order. Regardless, i loved every second of it. I was on a high for weeks afterward. The "feeling" of seeing them live can't be denied.

Listening to bootlegs and taking the viceral effect of the "experience" of the show out of the equation, things start to change. This is the crux of my point. New Order are, with few exceptions, a terrible live act. Granted, some shows from 82 - 87 and the US mixer shows from Technique are very good, but the majority of their performances were so plagued with mistakes that it ruins the enjoyment of listening to the songs. If you were there and have memories of the show, that's one thing, but as an objective listener, their live shortcomings are glaringly obvious. The primary culprit is Bernard Sumner. Steve and Hooky are usually on the mark, Gillian often hit the wrong buttons and the primitive equipment all had a hand in the awful performances preserved forever on tape. There is not 1 definitive version of a newOrder song in the live setting. New Order are a studio band. Their albums owe a lot to the engineer/producer and technology at work. They can't just pull out an old song and perform it like most other bands. I'm not an REM fan, but if you've seen them perform, you know they can pull an old b-side out of the hat and make it sound very good. New Order cannot do this and that says a lot to me about their ability to perform live. As much as people here hate the Cure, you'd have to be ignorant or deaf to not hear the great difference in the Cure's ability to play live compared to New Order's inablity.

My preference is for studio recordings. Of course i'd love to be at the show and if I were the right age and living in England, i would have been front and center and loving every minute of it. But my experience is different. I was the only one in my small town into New Order and I was under age when they last played my state (89). I loved the electronic elements and the production of the tracks; traits that have shaped my tastes since True Faith rocked my world in 87. I don't have the great memories of those classic shows in the 80's but i do have loads of recordings from those days and the majority of the performances absolutely suck. They are not great musicians live, as evidenced by their reliance on preprogrammed elements in concert, but they are superb on record.

That's just one dumb american's opinion though, and not one with any credibility since i've only seen them once. I'll update my opinion after the 2 shows in California in a month.

The key words here are Substance. Ingestion of. On stage and before the show. It's a wild world out there, to paraphrase the BS man

The two or more gig thing is just because they are so maddeningly inconsistent live - somebody could see them once and they be total shit, and the experience may be so bad that they never want to see them again - others get blown away first time. I sincerely hope that all those seeing them for the first time get blown away!

I cant choose I cant choose

i dont know which I prefer or

them both

so no vote for me

studio by a long shot. they can be good live but most often than not they are shite. they enjoy making songs in the studio but hate playing concerts. simple and obvious as that.

in fact i would say they could be the worse live band ever. give me an example of anyone else that would bring out that abismal BBC Glastonbury 1987 racket??!

shocking!!!!

I think those who prefer the live work to the studio stuff are letting the experience cloud their judgement. This should be a debate about "What SOUNDS better, Live versions or Studio versions", not "What do you enjoy: Hanging with friends and gettting wasted while waiting for and watching New Order or listening to New Order at home or on your headphones". The difference in experience is not the issue with Live vs. Studio, you'd be a fool not to enjoy seeing them live, but listening to a show like Glasto 87, which got an official release and subsequent rerelease, is like going to the dentist. New Order are simply awful live, as far as playing ability goes but you get the added pleasure of being there so it evens out.

Biznotic Love Trapezoid wrote: I think those who prefer the live work to the studio stuff are letting the experience cloud their judgement. This should be a debate about "What SOUNDS better, Live versions or Studio versions", not "What do you enjoy: Hanging with friends and gettting wasted while waiting for and watching New Order or listening to New Order at home or on your headphones". The difference in experience is not the issue with Live vs. Studio, you'd be a fool not to enjoy seeing them live, but listening to a show like Glasto 87, which got an official release and subsequent rerelease, is like going to the dentist. New Order are simply awful live, as far as playing ability goes but you get the added pleasure of being there so it evens out.

You'd then have seperate hearing it live to just listening to a live recording at home. You can't escape from the fact that listening to music in a live setting or even a club is different to hearing it at home. It's even physically different to hear it at the much higher levels, before you introduce the different levels of adrenaline etc. I remember hearing Age Of COnsent played by a d.j. at an outdoor concert, totally different to home listening.

There is a debate to be had on whether a band that utilises so much studio technology and aren't that renowned for their live performances reach their pinnacle in either sphere. First concert I saw was as good to me as the enjoyment I got from owning PC&L.

As much as I can tell, the band seems to struggle in the live setting and flourish in the studio. Barney's vocals are at best mediocre and completely off key at others. Now, hopefully everyone will see this as my opinion and not bash me for what I believe is stating the obvious. I realize the lads are getting on in age as well which accounts for the lapse in performance. And to be honest, off key or right on it will not take away from the energy of the band and is not the sole indicator of great performers which I believe New Order to be. Just prefer the studio to the live.