Having seen Porcupine Tree recently in a very,very small venue,I realise that I have been missing out on real live performance.

Let me explain.Since about 1985 I have only attended a few concerts (mainly Rush) and these have all been in large stadia.Rush last year was an absolutely superlative show,but that is what it was a "show".I was sharing the band with 20,000 others and there was no real interaction between band and audience.However,as I said,I went to see Porcupine Tree and there couldnt have been more than a few hundred people there.My friend and I ambled up to the stage (almost in shock) and stood directly against the apron.Anathema came on as support and we enjoyed the intimacy of the performance.The same with Porcupine Tree,we got a real buzz from the band and visa-versa-you really felt a connection and an input into proceedings.For all I adore Rush,I feel I got that elusive "something extra" from the smaller scale concert.We came out of the venue absolutely elated and "happy",and excited like teenagers again.

So,in the right circumstances,nothing can beat the "buzz" of a live performance by a band you love.

i coulsn't really vote opn this as i havn't seen any prog bands live  but i have seen dvds and from that experience (with surround sound) ..........

Defiantly LIVE music!

I think there's some kind of energie in a crowd enjoying the same parts of music in a similar way, like your feeding each other with emotion, small venues gives the bands more a chance to share in that unleashed energie, and I think that makes them better, at least for the moment, when released on CD these shows tend to sound bad, because it's all a moment thing and you have to have been there to really apreciate that moment.

Maybe a strange piece of text, but it's the closest I get to my experiences.

My first inclination is to say CDs, but I also love seeing live shows. Both bring you some of the best. Obviously, CDs shows musicians at their (hopefully) best and most concentrated. But live shows, the whole experience, along with all the energy and improv jams (awesome) provides something CDs cannot; even live CDs. So both provide something the other doesn't. It's a toss-up with me.

Live shows are good (I've been to many over the years), and i liked them alot. There is just that atmosphere of seeing a performance. But there is something (I'm not really sure what the correct word would be) about sitting back in your lounge chair, drinkin' a cold one (a soda of course, being I'm 17) and fully enveloping yourself into a CD. It really allows you to focus on the music and "feel" what the artists are doing.

Also, if it comes to a CD, a studio version is much better that a live album. The sound quality is much, much better, even if it's with "primitive" CDs. And thats not saying there are no good live albums, it's just that it is rare (case in point- Playing The Fool by GG. Fantastic work, and a great sound )

I prefer CD listening experience over live shows. As mentioned in previous comments, the recordings are near to perfect and there is nothing better than sitting back and chilling out to your favourite recording with out outside interference, if possible .

I have enjoyed live shows in the past - the more intimate 2 - 5,000 audience numbers as opposed to stadiums, where you are so far back from the action that even a pair of binoculars does not always help.

I also enjoy viewing live concerts on video or dvd - if they are produced well enough not only do you get to hear superb music but you get close up shots that you would not normally see if you were part of the audience. The only thing missing is atmosphere and I agree with previous comments that "being there" can produce an incredible buzz and memories that stay with you forever. CD's can't quite produce that state of being - cheers

my stupid answer: recording artists are best on album, and performing artists are best live.  It makes sense, in a way, because not every band that puts on a good show is worth listening to when you're at home, and not every great work of music can or should be performed live.

Socially, even a so-so live show is better than good background music...and if it's really bad, it's even more fun. I've been to a few 'favorite band' shows where the band's performance didn't blow me away (as a live band, or compared to their albums), but it was cool enough just to finally get to see them.

Having sat  6 feet away from Gary Husband's bass drum during an Allan Holdsworth Group gig in Nottingham 8 or 9 years ago; I have to say this is how it should be. However, it is not without dangers: deafness for at least 3 days, and the risk of being hit it by a flying  drumstick or two - Husband hits those skins with some power and I still have one battered stick of Husband's which passed through my hair.

Talking live. Who's bought Husband's Force Majeure live at London's South Bank DVD yet - incredible  line up (including Jerry Goodman, Jim Beard, Randy Brecker, Matthew Garrison) playing jazz in a discernable prog rock fashion?

When having a soundset that costs almost twice as much as your car, recorded music is just HEAVEN!! BUT live is irreplacable!!! The best concert I have attended was YES at the 35 anniversary tour in Antwerp. I've also seen Caravan, Fripp, YES two more times, Rick Wakeman, Terry Bozzio and lots more that I am not going to mention right now! And EVERY time I have been BLOWN AWAY!!!! Live is FANTASTIC!! To see the artist perform his own soul product is something that I cannot describe in words....I can only say look for concerts near you and visit ALL of them!!!

I probably could've never appreciate Guapo had I not seen them live some 3 weeks ago.

Seeing a band live is really essential to understand it.

Jools wrote: This is one crazy Poll.  I enjoy both equally but whatever is immediate to the situation, I mean next time I'm in my car or in the bath Its hardly practical to prefer the live experience is it?

the poll is good, every time I eat a normal sandwich at lunch I prefer some caviar with expensive wine...as someoner earlier said; to understand the music correctely you have to witness a live performance!

A live performance is the best way to enjoy music. Any band worth their salt will perform better live than in the rather sterile surroundings of a studio. As most prog bands have exemplary musicians the problem of an 'off night' is rare.

The only problem I have with some venues is the fact that they are seated. I saw Rush last year on their anniversary tour and the venue was seated. This I thought detracted from the overall live experience with audience interaction at a minimum. Almost 20 years previously I saw the same band at the same venue without seats and it made for an amazing night even though the set list for the anniversary tour was far better.

GET RID OF THE SEATS!!!

Snow Dog wrote: I'm to old for concerts now. I just cant be bothered anymore. Last one I saw was Dream Theater supprted by Spocks Beard in Nottingham!! It was on the Metropolis 2000 tour. That was a long drive!!....Hang on...did I see Yes in Cardiff after that?   *shrugs*

No...I went to see Steve Hackett last year........I think I'm losing it

I love going to concerts. You cant beat the excitement and anticipation you get a concert. Its been many years since I've been to a small gig.

I saw Rush twice on their last tour, and they were great, but as Reed rightly says, when you're stuck in a crowd of thousands there is no intimacy in the experience.

The smallest prog gig I went to was It Bites on their first tour. I saw them at a small club in Reading. Went right up to the front and even shared my pint with Francis Dunnery. Apart from the fact that their performance was superb, and the sound was brilliant, you cant beat that feeling of being right there in the thick of it.

Thats said, hearing an album for the first time can be very exciting too, and generally I'm not a big fan of live albums. Give me the real thing otherwise I'll settle for the studio album in the comfort of my own home.

Playing Devil's Advocate here...don't you think that by categorically stating 'music can truly only be appreciated or understood live', you're in effect insulting the artists who try to create a work of art via the recording?

I understand that live music has benefits that recordings can't deliver, but on the other hand a good piece of music is meant to be heard in depth- something that the live experience frequently fails to fulfil. When The Beatles created Sgt. Pepper and later decided to stop touring, they started a precedent for viewing the recording as something separate from the band's performance- something which does not translate fully to live music.

think it depends on the band as to whether to listen to a live release or a studio album, some bands are fantastic in either, (floyd, Led Zep,) but some bands are weaker in  one or the other, for example i prefer to listen to Dire Straits' live albums as they are far better than the studio albums,

Another good floyd tribute band are Australian Pink Floyd, i have seen them twice and they were really great both time, they did dark side note for note, it was pretty much spot on.

Jools wrote: This is one crazy Poll.  I enjoy both equally but whatever is immediate to the situation, I mean next time I'm in my car or in the bath Its hardly practical to prefer the live experience is it?

That's a fair statement Jools. I think one environment does feeds the other to an extent but I believe to gain a real understanding of both a band/artist and it's music, a live gig gives you so much more.

If I may use Crimson (surprise, surprise) as an example, Fripp has always maintained that they are primarily a live creature with their recorded output coming a poor second. I'm not sure I agree that most KC releases are a 'poor' anything but I can understand his point of view.

To see a live gig is to see the music created right there in front of you, mistakes and all. I remember seeing Marillion preview Misplaced Childhood before the record had been recorded and the feeling of excitement from both the band and audience was palpable. Rush have been know to work out their new material in front of a live (as opposed to dead??) audience and they claim it gives them a chance to get feedback as a form of direction. Like a crowd at a sports event you become part of the process.

I just prefer the inclusion a gig offers. It's an active thing rather than a passive one, even if it does mean paying a minor fortune for tickets.