I dont feel it matters the genre, a mix of both is what should be good sounding, in that even if you are in a studio, you want it to sound live

it is kind of like the pre mix of a song where it sounds dry and flat and then you add the color

I'm on the same page, I link live acoustic and studio recording for electronica.

As others have mentioned, it depends on on the genre. A lot of live versions of some songs aren't presented too differently than the studio version (i.e. Cheap Trick, Rush), whereas a group like Led Zeppelin might play the songs in a completely different manner.

Something like the live version of "Dazed And Confused" from TSRTS soundtrack is a great example, they really took it to a different place compared to the studio version: different segue sections and solos, etc.

I can think of almost no cases where I prefer a live version of a song to the recorded version. For what it's worth, I generally don't like jazz and acoustic and don't particularly like attending concerts.

I can dig both, but they both have there place, being in a band myself, sometimes i sacrifice playing during the live show for the sake of the "show" i feel the need to give people a good show seeing as they paid to come see me! but Thrice, just released a new completely live recording of they're farewell tour, and its legit

I have to say both....I love to listen to the studio version first.....then I want to see how the song has " evolved " and how they play it " today" , live....
Counting Crows come to mind....live versions always seem to have something a little different. In a nice way....lol.

maybe both? but voice recording is much better for me because the voice is good, there's a plan, coach and etc.