Making money with music

[raymondh]

Found this interesting perspective from Will.i.am

[HepCat]

That dawned on me ages ago. Hence l'm surprised that DAWs overlook the live music paradigm (even Ableton, to an extent). DAWs ought to consider live performance as a primary purpose, because that's how music has been since the dawn of time, plus it's instant gratification, making music accessible and as the video says, it's one of the only ways to actually make money from music.

Btw lol @ 3:28 "Wanna make money? Do your own festival" - OK I know he was speaking figuratively but anyway, l hear festivals are major loss-makers at the start, until they become established. You've got insurance, security, rent, bla bla de bla bla. And then somebody dies at your event because safe dance drugs are illegal, so they end up taking legal highs = weird derivatives and novelties, quite nasty chems.

[Vince-Noir-99]

That dawned on me ages ago. Hence l'm surprised that DAWs overlook the live music paradigm (even Ableton, to an extent). DAWs ought to consider live performance as a primary purpose, because that's how music has been since the dawn of time, plus it's instant gratification, making music accessible and as the video says, it's one of the only ways to actually make money from music.

Btw lol @ 3:28 "Wanna make money? Do your own festival" - OK I know he was speaking figuratively but anyway, l hear festivals are major loss-makers at the start, until they become established. You've got insurance, security, rent, bla bla de bla bla. And then somebody dies at your event because safe dance drugs are illegal, so they end up taking legal highs = weird derivatives and novelties, quite nasty chems.

Hi. I didn't watch the video yet, but regarding DAWs vs live music, I'm not sure that's their purpose, nor it probably should be. Yes, Ableton is the first major software that is designed with performance in mind, and it's amazing, however after over a decade since laptop-music became widespread, even Ableton themselves had to lower their ambitions and focus on DJ-ism more than anything. Where the boundary lies between DJ-ing and live electronic music — it's debatable. A few years back I did a research on this topic, and the gist of it is: from the audience's perspective, it doesn't matter much whether a laptop-based performance is made in iTunes or Traktor playing back third party or own mp3's, or bloody MaxMSP or Ableton Live with true real-time synthesis from the composer him/herself.
Back to topic, you are 100% right that music, especially in western popular tradition, is based on performance. Also true that the one way to make a living with music is to play it live, rather than composing it only... Unless one has ways to license it (commercials etc, although that's less of an artiste way, and more of a service job).

So, while DAWs are the main instrument to create most types of modern popular music, and nicely fit the definition of '(virtual) studio as an instrument', they remain, due to their nature, tools of expression of intellectual skills, not practical/manual. This nature is far away from the skills involved in live playing any instrument (traditionally speaking). That's why computers are best in a studio environment.

Issue: since most popular music is generated, if not entirely, at least partially through a computer and a DAW, how can it be authentically be performed live? Playing that music back on stage as an mp3 seems to be the trend, and it's indeed the easiest way. It also benefits from the fact that, culturally, anything to do with DJ-ing is cool, hip, fresh, young.. etc. But it's not that much fun, isn't it? Not for the performer, nor for the audience who could listen to that very same recording at home. On the other hand, replicating synth sounds, drum programming, sound effects manually in real-time is a very very ambitious task. And in most cases will be mainly carried out with MIDI buttons, so the skills involved will be good timing, unless everything's quantised Still, quite far from a traditional and authentic live music performance (I say 'traditional' because my point is completely inaccurate in other scenarios).

My humble suggestion to this issue? Revisit traditional instruments: drums, guitars, bass, microphones, keys.. and make it so that they can sound like the sounds that we all like which are currently crafted in a DAW. This way the process practice > rehearsal > recording > performance can be technologically consistent and possible to be replicated without having to resume to 'cheating' and self-karaokeing their own compositions. In this scenario DAWs will be DAWs for composers and producers as always.

[QVprod]

Saw ths video a little while ago. He makes excellent points. Music consumption in and of itself has never been a real money maker for the artist. It's always been tethered to the sale of other things. Find a way t use your music as advertisement to sell something else, whether it be merchandise or a service.

[Marco Raaphorst]

Saw ths video a little while ago. He makes excellent points. Music consumption in and of itself has never been a real money maker for the artist. It's always been tethered to the sale of other things. Find a way t use your music as advertisement to sell something else, whether it be merchandise or a service.

I don't think that's true. A lot of artist have made money directly from their music. Bach, Beethoven, The Beatles, Prince and so on. Many artists. The Beatles even where not playing live at all during most of their carrier.

And even 'till this day many artists are making a livin' directly from music.

[deepndark]

I think YOU CAN SELL music without doing gigs, but it would rocket-launch your career if you'd also do gigs and make interesting music videos for your fans. My opinion is that if you don't produce something good, then you won't make money. You can become a great music maker, but you never shouldn't let your past being on your way. Lots of us are in a situation that has trapped us, and not letting us DO THE FINAL STEPS to become successful.

[Aggie]

Like this thread - thanks for posting OP.

It's true - trying to sell a music track on it's own merits with no other medium in mind is like having the idea to sell something - but having no idea what you want to sell. Granted that some music, of it's own merit, becomes synonymous with an artist, a band, a medium, a venue, a product or some other placement - but the music of itself? Just a vehicle.

I recently added some of my tracks to the ever-growing list of artists on Songtradr and Music Supervisor. It's pretty clear on those outlets that marketeers and "buyers" are looking for a mood, a style, a specific beat or an archetypal sound with a product in mind. You can suggest your own works and it's up to them whether it fits the bill. But you're not selling your music on those mediums because it sounds good - it's because someone thinks it is the right accompaniment to selling something.

I think we can all live in hope that some of our work will stand up on it's own as being unique enough to sell itself. But that requires a whole package; artist, persona, personality, accessibility, range, demographics, media, mediums.... it'd have to be something breath-taking to stand out amongst the hundreds of thousands of other tracks on SoundCloud, BandCamp, etc.

IMHO: "Making Money with Music" means finding the right things to sell with it - not selling because of it.

aggie

[Carol Rein]

Back to topic, you are 100% right that music, especially in western popular tradition, is based on performance. Also true that the one way to make a living with music is to play it live, rather than composing it only... Unless one has ways to license it (commercials etc, although that's less of an artiste way, and more of a service job).

That's true, and I really feel surprised that people prefer to hear live music. It sounds always worse than the studio product.
So, If the music is the thing I appreciate from the composer, so, I'l always prefer the most achieved product, while the music is the important thing and the musician (and instruments) are just imperfect channels to materialize that music. I prefer the lesser interference as possible.
Of course, if people wants to see how much a person is capable to manage its body, and I'm speaking about virtuosity, it's just to watch a person making circus juggling, and the music will always sound worse (unless you think that the live action will add something extra, like acting or something emotional or whatever), but that happens because people do focus in the artists and deify them instead of value the music itself.
It would be off topic to speak if the composer really creates the music or if the music existed as an archetype before the composer channelizes it and the musician is just a humble medium. But that's the cornerstone about putting the value in the artist or in the music itself, thus to value the music or the artist.

And I think we western people are too ego and existencialists, so we tend to put the value in a person, we are too personalists. We value the person as the main thing, and the ideas as a secondary thing. And that's because of our materialism, we tend to think that the ideas (music included) are coming from a person's mind, and that the mind itself is a subproduct of the brain's activity. That's juts a belief, a modern myth, but it rules our world.

Well, in my case I strongly prefer the studio product. Always.

So, regarding the money, I made some money with music, but always with studio productions... but I don't feel alright with selling my artwork as I feel kinda prostitute because the music is too sacred for me... and only once I´ve played live in a restaurant just for joy, but the resto owner wanted to pay me because he insisted and he liked my music. What I played there were just improvisations, and when people was living the resto they asked me if I had a CD or something. That made me happy because they did value the music and not me.
I think that happens with meditational music, because it is more related to spiritual and people usually tend to be less materialistic. And they want to reproduce the music in their house to create a meditational environment.

With "idol" music , things go different, because it is all about ego, and the live is important for people that has an emotional attachment to the character that the idol preforms (and most fans really believe their idols are just like the played character... so sad)

Well, I think that we can sell the music, if we think that's a mere product... or if we really want to avoid doing something else to live.
But let's be aware that we're not living in Bach's times anymore, Now the market is a monster that only wants blasting products.
So it is not possible to "make music only for God" like Bach said (and did) and at the same time be paid for it, as the world won't appreciate the God's things anymore.
So in my case, I have to choose... to be a musical prostitute, or to make music for spiritual joy and receive alms at most.

[Noplan]

It sounds always worse than the studio product.

Nope. A live perfomance can have more dynamic, expression, variation and interaction. That's a huge advantage.

[Carol Rein]

It sounds always worse than the studio product.

Nope. A live perfomance can have more dynamic, expression, variation and interaction. That's a huge advantage.

I really don't feel that advantages at all (even worse with the interaction thing, what in fact I feel as a type of interference). I always feel the milimetric meticulous perfectionism achieved in a studio is always the best product, the closest to perfection, due the high level of mental focusing, interference free.
I really don't like to people touch the music (by interacting with my soul while I'm making a performance). Because they're not artists, and they don't know what I am doing. So live is always a trampled product in my perception.
I could sound very ego, but while I conceive the performance as a channelization, I feel it as a lab work. No scientific wanted to have lots of people inside his lab while managing delicate DNA under his microscope, the same for a philosopher that needs silence and the lesser interference.

[Noplan]

I always feel the milimetric meticulous perfectionism achieved in a studio is always the best product, the closest to perfection, due the high level of mental focusing, interference free.

It always depends on the producer and decisions that are made during the production. They can be good or wrong. Seperated instrument recordings and milimetric meticulous perfectionism can also be a groove killer. That's the reason why a lot of bands sound live better.

[Carol Rein]

I always feel the milimetric meticulous perfectionism achieved in a studio is always the best product, the closest to perfection, due the high level of mental focusing, interference free.

It always depends on the producer and decisions that are made during the production. They can be good or wrong. Seperated instrument recordings and milimetric meticulous perfectionism can also be a groove killer. That's the reason why a lot of bands sound live better.

May be it is for bands. But for a single composer using a DAW, are the lab rules, because it's only one person that performs the whole thing.
And, I am always one person using DAW.

[Aggie]

Playing live and that type of interaction is a thing some listeners like that - the perfection of DAW in a recording is something other listeners like.

Even Reason has tools to put sounds and beats through the "ReGroove", rather than having that metronomic perfection...

[Marco Raaphorst]

It sounds always worse than the studio product.

Nope. A live perfomance can have more dynamic, expression, variation and interaction. That's a huge advantage.

I really don't feel that advantages at all (even worse with the interaction thing, what in fact I feel as a type of interference). I always feel the milimetric meticulous perfectionism achieved in a studio is always the best product, the closest to perfection, due the high level of mental focusing, interference free.
I really don't like to people touch the music (by interacting with my soul while I'm making a performance). Because they're not artists, and they don't know what I am doing. So live is always a trampled product in my perception.
I could sound very ego, but while I conceive the performance as a channelization, I feel it as a lab work. No scientific wanted to have lots of people inside his lab while managing delicate DNA under his microscope, the same for a philosopher that needs silence and the lesser interference.

Well improvisation and interplay between musicians is something you can't create in any other wat. It simply doesn't sound the same. I am sure you don't like that, but it is a major part of a lot of music. It's the human touch.

I understand your scientific approach. I love generative music also. But I love humans interplay. I love how when playing a guitar the sound is so wonderful and complex and dynamic. That's a whole world going on just when playing 6 string. No static at all... (Steely Dan would sing)

[Gorgon]

Saw ths video a little while ago. He makes excellent points. Music consumption in and of itself has never been a real money maker for the artist. It's always been tethered to the sale of other things. Find a way t use your music as advertisement to sell something else, whether it be merchandise or a service.

I don't think that's true. A lot of artist have made money directly from their music. Bach, Beethoven, The Beatles, Prince and so on. Many artists. The Beatles even where not playing live at all during most of their carrier.

And even 'till this day many artists are making a livin' directly from music.

The Beatles also had an incredible marketing machine.

It's pretty funny to say "well do your own festival" these days. It was a lot easier to do such things 20 years ago.

[Marco Raaphorst]

Saw ths video a little while ago. He makes excellent points. Music consumption in and of itself has never been a real money maker for the artist. It's always been tethered to the sale of other things. Find a way t use your music as advertisement to sell something else, whether it be merchandise or a service.

I don't think that's true. A lot of artist have made money directly from their music. Bach, Beethoven, The Beatles, Prince and so on. Many artists. The Beatles even where not playing live at all during most of their carrier.

And even 'till this day many artists are making a livin' directly from music.

The Beatles also had an incredible marketing machine.

It's pretty funny to say "well do your own festival" these days. It was a lot easier to do such things 20 years ago.

Best marketing of The Beatles: creating incredible great pop songs. They took a LOT of time to create these. Experimented a lot. They are among the first to record in the control booth. They changed how music is being recorded. True innovation.

[HepCat]

Hi guys, not sure if l can keep up with this thread as it's a massive debating point

What l meant when l said DAWs should primarily have live performance in mind: Of course the vast bulk of the DAW should be modelled on the studio workstation. But that part of the iceberg above the water that is live performance, is just a styling, a skin. It's not a huge amount of work compared to the rest of the DAW, mainly tweaks, and simple pulse generators (which already exist as REs tbh) with many preset algorithms, and increased MIDI controllability, and quick'n'easy audio routing solutions (i can use Send FX in the SSL mixer to audio route to different i/o channels, but that means l have to give up having any real Send FX).

... regarding DAWs vs live music, I'm not sure that's their purpose, nor it probably should be. Yes, Ableton is the first major software that is designed with performance in mind, and it's amazing, however after over a decade since laptop-music became widespread, even Ableton themselves had to lower their ambitions and focus on DJ-ism more than anything.

Agree.

... from the audience's perspective, it doesn't matter much whether a laptop-based performance is made in iTunes or Traktor playing back third party or own mp3's, or bloody MaxMSP or Ableton Live with true real-time synthesis from the composer him/herself.

Issue: since most popular music is generated, if not entirely, at least partially through a computer and a DAW, how can it be authentically be performed live? Playing that music back on stage as an mp3 seems to be the trend, and it's indeed the easiest way. It also benefits from the fact that, culturally, anything to do with DJ-ing is cool, hip, fresh, young.. etc. But it's not that much fun, isn't it?

... It would be off topic to speak if the composer really creates the music or if the music existed as an archetype before the composer channelizes it and the musician is just a humble medium. But that's the cornerstone about putting the value in the artist or in the music itself, thus to value the music or the artist.

That stumped me there but l realised l had actually thought about these objections before.

What l'm talking about is like any live performance - a band is always better recorded, be it rock or techno or choir etc. BUT in a live situation, the audience partakes of a life force channelled via the band members. Ultimately, the talisman is the DAW. No, wait, the talisman is the DAW + the human live performer + all auxillary gear.

Live performance = a magical ceremony + a tribal identity. A link forged between microcosm (the mind) and macrocosm (the cosmos) via the medium of the live performer (the middle layer).

The performer can respond to the audience too. Also the performer can also make tunes on the fly. Also the MIDI controllers, if mapped wisely, can become instruments in their own right. Just need more functions on the DAW for live working.

Btw, live jamming can also give you some good, passionate riffs, which you can then incorporate into a song in workstation mode.

... DAWs ... remain, due to their nature, tools of expression of intellectual skills, not practical/manual. This nature is far away from the skills involved in live playing any instrument (traditionally speaking). That's why computers are best in a studio environment.

Not necessarily, hence l'm suggesting that DAW manufacturers push the boat out a bit further, to make the softwares amenable to live performance. There's about 200 things l've noted down to myself, that can be implemented, mostly small things. I remember joining up to PUF years ago and listing them and everybody was telling me to f. off, thinking l was giving a list of demands. No, it was just friendly suggestions on how a DAW can do live.

... replicating synth sounds, drum programming, sound effects manually in real-time is a very very ambitious task. And in most cases will be mainly carried out with MIDI buttons, so the skills involved will be good timing, unless everything's quantised Still, quite far from a traditional and authentic live music performance (I say 'traditional' because my point is completely inaccurate in other scenarios).

My humble suggestion to this issue? Revisit traditional instruments: drums, guitars, bass, microphones, keys.. and make it so that they can sound like the sounds that we all like which are currently crafted in a DAW.

Bleh. You're rightly thinking of rock music and the like, but there's also electronic music. Maybe even hybrid stuff, like a mashup between electronica and that famous Alien diva with antennae, singing in the movie Fifth Element. The one where i think she gets shot in the chest at the end.

... 'cheating' and self-karaokeing their own compositions.

OK ok it won't be 100% live, there will be selected riffs. There will be rehearsals. But the same goes for DJing, they don't just line up tunes on the fly. They tag their songs, they rehearse the lineup, even in the old vinyl days. They rehearse with the MC as well, so he says the right thing into the mic at the right time.

So, If the music is the thing I appreciate from the composer, so, I'l always prefer the most achieved product, while the music is the important thing and the musician (and instruments) are just imperfect channels to materialize that music. I prefer the lesser interference as possible.

Yeah but don't you want the shared love to be bigger and more real, than just between you and the artist, in your living room? How about a big arena, under strobes, and the energy is flowing for real, it's not like static stagnant water, it's quickened, full of life.

I've heard live techno raves where l swear it was just one single loop for about 40 minutes with slight variations (this was back in the early 90s) but you could just feel the energy, everybody was high, everybody was trancing out, it was a tribal thing, it was electric. Sadly l only heard it on cassette

So, regarding the money, I made some money with music, but always with studio productions... but I don't feel alright with selling my artwork as I feel kinda prostitute because the music is too sacred for me...

and only once I´ve played live in a restaurant just for joy, but the resto owner wanted to pay me because he insisted and he liked my music. What I played there were just improvisations, and when people was living the resto they asked me if I had a CD or something. That made me happy because they did value the music and not me.

Good to hear you've made money from music, and that you got to play in a restaurant and ppl asked for a CD afterwards, that's really nice.

I think that happens with meditational music, because it is more related to spiritual and people usually tend to be less materialistic.

Live techno trance

... With "idol" music , things go different, because it is all about ego, and the live is important for people that has an emotional attachment to the character ...

Well, some ppl make good on-stage talismans for the cosmic forces.

... But let's be aware that we're not living in Bach's times anymore, Now the market is a monster that only wants blasting products.
So it is not possible to "make music only for God" like Bach said (and did) and at the same time be paid for it, as the world won't appreciate the God's things anymore.

This may change if we have the right tools (in DAWs), we can overturn the current music paradigm, make live performance more and more important.

So in my case, I have to choose... to be a musical prostitute, or to make music for spiritual joy and receive alms at most.

I'll have a word with you about this :-S

[Carol Rein]

So, If the music is the thing I appreciate from the composer, so, I'l always prefer the most achieved product, while the music is the important thing and the musician (and instruments) are just imperfect channels to materialize that music. I prefer the lesser interference as possible.

Yeah but don't you want the shared love to be bigger and more real, than just between you and the artist, in your living room? How about a big arena, under strobes, and the energy is flowing for real, it's not like static stagnant water, it's quickened, full of life.

I've heard live techno raves where l swear it was just one single loop for about 40 minutes with slight variations (this was back in the early 90s) but you could just feel the energy, everybody was high, everybody was trancing out, it was a tribal thing, it was electric. Sadly l only heard it on cassette

LOL no I perceive that tribal thing like a tremendous spiritual backwards. I prefer to stay as far away as possible from the mass.

[Gorgon]

Best marketing of The Beatles: creating incredible great pop songs. They took a LOT of time to create these. Experimented a lot. They are among the first to record in the control booth. They changed how music is being recorded. True innovation.

This is true. We wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the Beatles. Those guys were true pioneers with recording, overdubbing, and general fidgeting with tapes and taperecorders.

[Gorgon]

On the other hand, someone else would have picked up the glove. Maybe the Doors.

[QVprod]

Saw ths video a little while ago. He makes excellent points. Music consumption in and of itself has never been a real money maker for the artist. It's always been tethered to the sale of other things. Find a way to use your music as advertisement to sell something else, whether it be merchandise or a service.

I don't think that's true. A lot of artist have made money directly from their music. Bach, Beethoven, The Beatles, Prince and so on. Many artists. The Beatles even where not playing live at all during most of their carrier.

And even 'till this day many artists are making a livin' directly from music.

The Beatles also had an incredible marketing machine.

It's pretty funny to say "well do your own festival" these days. It was a lot easier to do such things 20 years ago.

Best marketing of The Beatles: creating incredible great pop songs. They took a LOT of time to create these. Experimented a lot. They are among the first to record in the control booth. They changed how music is being recorded. True innovation.

By consumption I mean people purchasing the music itself.

Bach and Beethoven performed live. Purchasing sheet music is technically publishing though I suppose I understand why you would label it as consumption during that time period. Additionally, many composers of those times wrote commissioned works or were on salary as a court composer of a monarch or noble. Many of them also gave music lessons as a source of income.

Ignoring playing live, Prince and The Beatles (among others) are outliers and happened to be among the top stars of their eras. Many other artists over the years have gotten endorsement deals, invested in other businesses, or started their own record labels.

[Vince-Noir-99]

That's true, and I really feel surprised that people prefer to hear live music. It sounds always worse than the studio product

Good points, and about the live performance not sounding as good as the record,, I must agree on that, in most cases it's true. I'm assuming you're referring to the sound quality and not the performance aspect. Coming from rock, I remember as a youth being often disappointed with live recordings for the lack of 'sound', which in the album version contributed to the identity of the songs, as much as the riffs and lyrics did. Unfortunately the consistency of 'the sound' is much linked to technological constraints and how studio techniques (or DAW editing/processing) affect live or even composed/programmed music. So we can have a disappointment in both electronic studio DAW music AND played more traditional music, if listened to on the album and then live. In one case it's because it sounds less nice than it did in the studio, in the other case because it's that very same recording played back as if on a lip-sync TV pop show.

For example, for some reason Metallica came to mind. In their live in Moscow back in 1991 and other lives of that era, I think, the tones are damn faithful to the record, and so is the overall performance. Everything pumped 1000 times by the environment, so that in my perception is a successful live performance.

Another example, completely different from rock standards, is electronic duo Autechre. They bring on the stage very different material from their album recordings, but it's a set especially designed for live performances. Using Elektron gear and other things (at some point the Akai MPC1000) to actually perform music (no playback).

[QVprod]

That's true, and I really feel surprised that people prefer to hear live music. It sounds always worse than the studio product

Good points, and about the live performance not sounding as good as the record,, I must agree on that, in most cases it's true. I'm assuming you're referring to the sound quality and not the performance aspect. Coming from rock, I remember as a youth being often disappointed with live recordings for the lack of 'sound', which in the album version contributed to the identity of the songs, as much as the riffs and lyrics did.

This is surprising to hear. My experience is quite the opposite, but I guess it depends on the genre of music your referring to. Gospel music for example (as well as other soul type genres) always sounds better live. In fact the live albums generally sound better than the studio ones. Even Pop music in many instaces is better performed live because the artist/bands add extra elements to the live show. Plus live musicians always add an special quality to performances even when playing along to a backing track.

Check out this Bruno Mars performance from the AMA's just the other day. It's just as good if not better than the studio track.

[Carol Rein]

That's true, and I really feel surprised that people prefer to hear live music. It sounds always worse than the studio product

Good points, and about the live performance not sounding as good as the record,, I must agree on that, in most cases it's true. I'm assuming you're referring to the sound quality and not the performance aspect. Coming from rock, I remember as a youth being often disappointed with live recordings for the lack of 'sound', which in the album version contributed to the identity of the songs, as much as the riffs and lyrics did.

This is surprising to hear. My experience is quite the opposite, but I guess it depends on the genre of music your referring to. Gospel music for example (as well as other soul type genres) always sounds better live. In fact the live albums generally sound better than the studio ones. Even Pop music in many instaces is better performed live because the artist/bands add extra elements to the live show. Plus live musicians always add an special quality to performances even when playing along to a backing track.

Well, I din't know what happens to me... may be I'm not very human. Whenever my friends play videos on youtube, I always say "No please!! that's live! Please find the studio version!!!" And then my ears finally are in peace, with every voice and instruments modulation that I know, every tempo variations and every silence during exactly the same that is registered in my memory. May be I'm too conservative... but I feel when a band do live, they ...kinda they make a cover, but not the original song LOL (things that I'm thinking right now).
Is that change in everything I want to listen that bothers me so much during live performances.
But besides that, let's be honest, they won't sound to bright and pure while playing live than they sound in studio.

A good example of what I'm trying to say: (I LOVE this song)

Perfect:

Messy:

[QVprod]

That's true, and I really feel surprised that people prefer to hear live music. It sounds always worse than the studio product

Good points, and about the live performance not sounding as good as the record,, I must agree on that, in most cases it's true. I'm assuming you're referring to the sound quality and not the performance aspect. Coming from rock, I remember as a youth being often disappointed with live recordings for the lack of 'sound', which in the album version contributed to the identity of the songs, as much as the riffs and lyrics did.

This is surprising to hear. My experience is quite the opposite, but I guess it depends on the genre of music your referring to. Gospel music for example (as well as other soul type genres) always sounds better live. In fact the live albums generally sound better than the studio ones. Even Pop music in many instaces is better performed live because the artist/bands add extra elements to the live show. Plus live musicians always add an special quality to performances even when playing along to a backing track.

Well, I din't know what happens to me... may be I'm not very human. WHenever my friends play videos on youtube, I always say "No please!! that's live! Please find the studiop version!!!" And then my ears finally are in peace, with every voice and instruments modulation that I know, every tempo variations and every silence during exactly the same that is registered in my memory. May be I'm too conservative... but I feel when a band do live, they ...kinda they make a cover, but not the original song LOL (things that I'm thinking right now).
Is that change in everything I want to listen that bothers me so much during live performances.
But besides that, let's be honest, they won's sound to bright and pure while live.

A good example of what I'm trying to say: (I LOVE this song)

Perfect:

Messy:

In this example, it's just a terrible mix. You can barely hear the vocals. It might have sounded better live in the audience , but these recordings are often just a simple two track recording of the live mix which will never translate perfectly. It also felt a bit slower. It can be pretty hard to start a song at the right tempo without a metronome or click track. But overall I get where you're coming from.