Is it live or is it Memorex???? Long ramble.

This has been floating around in the back of mind for a while. In the 60s and 70s "live" recordings became popular. However,, there was often a significant trade-off; the energy of a live show vs. the relatively poor sound quality of such recordings, when compared to studio. This was true, IMO, at least for pop, rock, bluegrass, folk, etc. I do not have any familiarity with classical and little with jazz. With respect to rock, there was also the issue of overindulgent soloing. So as I got older (read 30s and 40s), I listened to these "live" recordings less and less. However, now I find myself listening to modern "live" recordings more and more. Obviously, some of this is a result of the vastly improved remote recording technology available. This is, IMO, a necessary "precursor" if you will. But what also contributes to this change in listening habitat, I think, is the improved resolution of my equipment, which allows me to "hear" the venue and which communicates the emotional relationshiop between artist and audience much more effectively. Studio recordings sometimes seem too sterile. I imagine some of this is the byproduct of the way many studio recordings are laid down, track by track. But I am not sure how much. I do know that I have taken to pulling well recorded live shows more frequently than their studio "analogs". Any else feel similarly?