This is a tenuous segue, but Kyle's opera post dealt with a live performance (and, as an aside, I also found the review amusing. It must be extraordinarily frustrating to have one's stellar vocal performance in an opera completely overshadowed by innovative but critically skewered staging and direction) and I have been thinking about live performances lately. It is generally true of independent acts that they come across better live than in the studio. But most successful bands overcome this issue, and generate studio albums that define them. Some bands, however, seem to be definitively captured by live recordings. A few examples culled from my own collection are:
- Greatest Stories Live by Harry Chapin
- Cheap Trick Live at Budakahn
- The Last Waltz by the Band
- Frampton Comes Alive
- Neil Diamond's Hot August Night
- An Evening with John Denver
- Ted Nugent's Double Live Gonzo

Several other live albums rate among my personal favorites for certain performers, although I can't claim that these are generally considered "definitive":
- Stop Making Sense by the Talking Heads
- Bruce Springsteen Live 1975-1985
- Big Time by Tom Waits
- Neil Young - Live Rust
- Fleetwood Mac Live
- Some Enchanted Evening by Blue Oyster Cult
- Rheostatics - Double Live
- Hiatt Comes Alive at Budakahn by John Hiatt& the Guilty Dogs
- Queen Live Killers

The question for the group is - what are your thoughts about live recordings vs. studio recordings? Are they significant elements of an artist's body of work? Or are they just commercial endeavors that don't fundamentally impact a given artist's importance or legacy.