Ugo
Group: Members
Posts: 5495
Joined: April 2000 |
|
Posted: Mar. 29 2008, 18:52 |
|
I voted for the studio version, but I really can't decide. They're different. The studio version is shining, glowing with a pristine, translucent perfection - which I love - but I also love the imperfections of the live performance. To me the parts that are not 100% spot on are the true marking of a live performance... otherwise I could've easily believed that they were playing some tape in the Bilbao auditorium or wherever it was. But then I heard the beginning of Harbinger... with the string section struggling to play all together and finally managing to... sort-of... (and I imagined Mike O. giving the famous "Oldfield looks" to all of the string players, and to Karl Jenkins.) There are thousands of such glitches in the live performance, and that's exactly what I love about it.
One thing I like better in the studio version than in the live one is the choir. On the studio recording it's just six people, while on the live recording it just sounds like a full operatic choir... too operatic, IMHO, while (e.g.) on the studio version of Shabda the lyrics are heard much more clearly in the studio version. Anyway, all in all, that's a very minor point. The studio version is wonderful, and the live version is wonderful as well because of everything in it that's not perfect.
-------------- Ugo C. - a devoted Amarokian
|