there’s always a better live version (a pre-theory)

I remember a regular debate I used to have with a friend during high school. This debate was about the song ‘Hotel California’. His position was that a particular live version of the song (in other words, a recording from a concert) was better than the studio version (the recording made for the album that was generally played on the radio). In these pointless debates, I usually took up the opposite position.

If this debate came up again today, I’m not sure I would take up the same side of the argument. This isn’t to admit defeat, of course, for I’m pretty sure I was right about the two versions of ‘Hotel California’ in question. But I think if a similar question came my way today, I would begrudgingly admit that the odds favored whoever advocated for the live version.

This isn’t due to some special understanding I’ve acquired about music in the last decade. Rather, it’s just math. A studio version is recorded once. Now, this recording might be meticulously prepared, impeccably performed, and carefully edited. But it’s still just one performance. The song will then be played over and over, perhaps hundreds of times, and in all these repeated performances I think the odds are pretty good that at least one of the performances will exceed the heights of the studio version (even if this happens purely by fluke).

Here’s the breakdown for you math nerds out there:

n = number of performances
p ( probability best version of a song is the one studio version ) = 1 / n
p ( probability best version of a song is the live version ) = ( n – 1 ) / n

I guess the question comes down to this – are you the kind who bets on 1 out of n... or n-1?