What are some of the worst live albums?

I have not moved any goal posts. And way to go with strawman. Please argue the point. I never said that they weren't any 3 record sets back in the days of vinyl. I said there were rare. Hardly ever released because of cost. And 1990 was never a cut off point. The period was 1970 - 1990. That was your lack of reading skills.

I found it funny that you thought some limited release by some minor band in 1990 was some big blow to my point.. I made a joke about finding me 10 more and you jumped to stupid conclusions. My point is that those are rare. And if there is no CD release in 1990 it sold next to nothing. Read my past posts and learn instead of coming in here saying stupid nonsense.

Oh not your friend. In the tongue of my Irish ancestors you are an "Abondon."
Have a nice day.

 

Sorry guys. I looked and looked and the triple live album isn't part of the band's catalog. It is a special issue if it even exists. Or perhaps a bootleg. Still. Very rare for triple albums k the days of vinyl to be released. Which was my point and always been my point. I was being generous with my cut off point.. you couldn't get vinyl on Canada back in 1990.

 

Let’s please focus on live albums people think suck. That discussion is at least entertaining, and it’s the point of the thread.

 

I answered the initial statement that I saw. Did not chase every other post you made where you expounding on and changed what you were asking. If you would like to dominate a thread, please consider making one about this topic, instead of hijacking another thread and resorting to name-calling.

regarding the release? I can’t prove anything, but I have a suspicion that you can access the same Google results that I can. If you’re really curious, you can research it. As I said, I only picked one. Gbvdb.com is the place to go if you really want decide whether or not that’s part of their official discography. On this act, you’ll just have to trust that you are way out of your depth, but there’s no shame in being wrong as long as you don’t get abusive about it.

1990, though? The vinyl that I have from local Canadian bands from that entire decade already has problems with your claim that there was no vinyl available in Canada after your arbitrary “cut off” (as you said in one post, and then claimed you weren’t saying in another one — since you appear to believe that I should read all of your unrelated posts while also believing that I lack reading comprehension).

it won’t cost you a dime to be nice.

 

This thread sucks, who gives a flying fluck

 

Do you like what he played on the studio albums and how he handled the Bruford songs after that tour?

 

Agree with you on performance quality - it captures them at their peak in front of their home town fans just after the release of Cosmo's Factory and they did not disappoint. However, the recording quality is sub-par even by 1970's standards. Just listen to the Doors Absolutely Live, the Allmans at Fillmore East or even the Who's Live at Leeds to enjoy a well recorded live show. As for the rest - including the live bonus tracks (that was the best unreleased recordings they had?) - is just bootleg type stuff.
I had CCR fans disagreeing with me on this on a number of occasions and countless times it inspired me to go back with an open mind and listen to any of the available Creedence live performances again, only to come to the same conclusion: they blew it; there is no decent quality live CCR concert recording available. Too bad; there was no hotter band around in late 69/early 70.

 

Excuse me dear members but today is not my day. But I have a solution. Uncle Jack has been reading the posts and says, "John K, did you turn up you Jerk level to max today?"

So Uncle Jack is going to explain the 3 record live set. He was a boom operator for the CBC back between 1958 - 1963, and had been working in a recording studio since 1965. And he used to cut records for RCA back in the 1970's until be quit really pissed off in 1975.

Hello members of Hofmann. Please excuse spelling and bad grammar. From my experience at RCA I can tell you that record companies don't like presing even double Rock albums. Most of the people buying pop records were kids. 11 - 18.
Even a single 33.3 was a big purchase. A double record was a lot more. Of course every fan would buy a double live or studio record of their beloved group. No problem, but record companies believed that a double album would hurt sales. And a 3 record set was the kiss of death.

If you look at all the triple live releases of the day they were by strong artists that had full control over their careers. But most bands were under the thumb of the large companies.

In 1975 I was asked to take a double album that was supposed to be 14 - 17 minutes per side and cut it on one record at 29 - 32 minutes per side..It could be done but the sound quality goes down big time. I refused. I don't even think the artist was aware of what the record company was planning. Remember those 2 kink albums on one record releases from the 1970's? Great value but 30 minutes per side. I walked right out that day. I quit.

22 sure....25 o.k. maybe 26.5 but not 30 minutes....And no way in hell 32 minutes. I will cut my throat first eh.

They cut Rush's Presto which was 52 + minutes. The sides are not even. They even tell you, "Side 2 is longer so turn it up."
A well cut record for it's length.

Today vinyl is a niche market. Vinyl is expensive. So a 3 or 4 record set is no big deal. Back in 1988 the minimum wage in Ontario was $5 / hr. It would take a kid working for 4 hours to buy a 3 record set. This is the reason Billy Joel put out his first live album on one hour long vinyl record. A big mistake but it sold better than most live records because it was a single record. But at 30 minutes per side the quality was poor.

By 1990 the compact disk player was in.. In Europe they would continue to press records heavy until 1994. But in North America vinyl was dead. The 1990's was owned by the CD.

 

I have an original Presto and I think it sounds pretty good (or at least as good as that recording is ever going to sound without being remixed or intentionally remastered to sound different).

Billy Joel's first live album was only 48 minutes. Not sure what we're talking about here. How successful it was is a very subjective thing...hard to compare it to other live albums because it intentionally was designed to be something different and not a "live hits" type thing. (Although I'd love to know the story of how this happened...if the original plan was a double with a 2nd LP of '77-80 songs or what) It's one of the best things in Billy's catalog though, so there's that.

 

Sorry but Uncle Jack can't reply because he is at work. The original live album was going to be 60 minutes according to him. He old and his memory fades here and there.

The album was made a single live album to be cheap. The record company wanted the whole hour. According to Uncle Jack the lack of hits worried them. It did not sell well. It sold o.k. for a live album but not as well as it could have been. To a record company a live album is a greatest hits collection.

Uncle Jack has a story behind the live Wall release in 1980 that never happened.

Thanks for the reply.....

 

Which Billy Joel record are you referring to? Songs In The Attic was a single album, at about 48 minutes. Kohuept was roughly 72 minutes and a double LP.

 

You forgot Vital Signs

 

I kind of wonder whether a boring, normal single-LP live hits album would've sold better. I mean, Billy was great live then, but he didn't have the live reputation of Springsteen or Zeppelin or anything, where a live album would've been a big deal. I can see the record company's concern, but I feel like Songs may have actually performed better, since it was basically an album of new (to them) songs for much of his audience. I mean, Elton's Here And There didn't exactly become a huge smash for whatever reason, so I imagine Billy's would've fared even worse: coming after the live album craze died down and being less of a superstar with a smaller catalog than Elton at his peak.

 

Dylan & The Dead is quite rubbish in my opinion. I actually adore both acts individually, esp. Dylan.

On paper it seems like a good idea, the physical execution is really poor and sad.

 

wasn't a fan of the Supertramp live album either....

 

True. ESL would've done ok if it was a 3 album, I bet. It would've been their Yessongs; right on the heels of truly breaking. Hindsight is always easier.

 

I know you didnt ask me but for the sake of conversation, Ive never had a problem with Alans drumming on the Bruford stuff later on.

Alan is just a more "meat and potatoes" kind of drummer in my mind but ive never thought he didn't play the material at least comparably.

 

I agree 100% with you. Everything you write gives context and nuance. And all basically are a true stating of the facts.
I still hate the record. Though 'Because The Night' ain't bad on it...LOL

 

I’d love a Songs In The Attic box set...album, vintage rough mixes, b-sides, and a complete club concert and a complete arena concert set. That was Billy’s best band, no doubt about it

 

I’d love a Songs In The Attic box set...album, vintage rough mixes, b-sides, and a complete club concert and a complete arena concert set. That was Billy’s best band, no doubt about it

 

You're not alone. Although I'd rather they just throw out the album, and release a composite club show and composite arena show; between the two you'd get every song played during 1980 (at least at the gigs that were recorded). If they really wanted to do it right, they'd use different performances than the ones on the album for the overlapping songs...not that any night of a Billy Joel tour sounds that different from any other, but it'd be cool to have 100% all new recordings, since everyone who would care already has the original album.

 

You're not alone. Although I'd rather they just throw out the album, and release a composite club show and composite arena show; between the two you'd get every song played during 1980 (at least at the gigs that were recorded). If they really wanted to do it right, they'd use different performances than the ones on the album for the overlapping songs...not that any night of a Billy Joel tour sounds that different from any other, but it'd be cool to have 100% all new recordings, since everyone who would care already has the original album.

 

For me this thread isn't useless and crap and everything else it has been called. YMMV. But why not ignore it when you see it isn't your cup of tea. For me I find the discussions valuable particularly when the poster gives their reasons they don't like the albums. This way others can see why folks didn't like an album and decide if they should do some more research before plunking down their cash for a live album they may end up hating....or liking. I wish the internet was around in 1977 and I doubt I would have bought this album.

My nominee for this category is the 2 disk The Moody Blues: Caught Live + 5. Three sides of live concert material from the late 60's and a 4th side of unreleased studio tracks. At the store I thought it was a cool release: Live Moodies and some songs I hadn't heard before. Then I listened to it. Yuck!! At the time I remember thinking this was the worst album I had ever heard released by major band. The live material was poorly recorded, even by 1960's standards. The performances were uneven at best and the harmonies were almost painful to listen to. At times it sounded like a bad bootleg of a bad night. The 5 studio tracks were pretty unforgettable and it was obvious why they were previously unreleased. This seemed like the kind of album an act might release to put out some "product" and meet the obligations of their current recording contract. My admiration for the Moodies took a real hit, and I figured they were one of those bands that were best heard in the studio. In fact it took me 4 years before I got talked in going to a concert at Pine Knob, an outdoor venue well outside of Detroit.

Interestingly the concert at Pine Knob restored my faith in the Moodies, but I still have trouble listening to this disk. Time has mellowed me out a little. I am at least willing to admit the material they were attempting to do live was a bit ambitious for the recording techniques of the day. So I still think the Moodies are a great group that can be good live, IMHO they were far from it on this LP.