Studio vs live settings

I know this is very similar to an ongoing thread, but it's on a slightly different angle. To all of you, especially musicians, I want your thoughts: would you rather that a live performance sound similar (in instrumentation and arrangement) to the studio album, or does it make any difference to you? Some bands will go overboard in the studio and create something they can't replicate live, and so the live version will sometimes sound empty. For instance, a band with one guitarist might record several guitar tracks with different harmonies, and then live will sound rather drab by comparison. In the same way, there might be vocal harmonies on a recording that either aren't there or are poorly executed on the live version, or keyboards. Or even further, what do you think of using backing tracks to get sounds that can't otherwise be played?

So I guess the real question is this: should a band recording in the studio stick to what they can do live, or should they go for more than they can deliver? I'm just curious for your thoughts. Personally I like a band that can deliver a lot live, like Rush

Sorry if this thread is too eclectic

My first thought was Rush "Show Of Hands". That is an excellent live album as is "Exit". Pink Floyd 
Delicate Sound Of Thunder" also sounds really good but some vocal tracks are different without Roger Waters. And for vocal harmonies I really like Styx "Return To Paradise". Three part harmonies are as good as the studio versions and since the songs are live they sometimes sound a bit heavier than the studio versions. 

Backing tracks are fine with me. I remember going to see REO Speedwagon in 1991. I was there very early to get a front row spot (I was on Spring Break in Panama City before I lived here). During sound check the keyboardist was messing with vocal harmonies on his keyboard. I thought it was kind of cool, didn't bother me a bit.

Honestly, I understand the difference having recorded a little bit in college with the jazz band I played in and playing live for several years in different settings.

My first thought was Family Force 5. Never seen them live and I hesitate to watch them on Youtube. I enjoy a fair amount of their stuff but it is very layered and I think the live setting would be difficult.

That being said, most of the artists I enjoy seem to be able to reproduce what they do live as I seem to enjoy bands or artists that are more stripped down and simple. Glenn Kaiser Band is just drums, bass, guitar and vocals. Five Iron Frenzy is drums, bass, 2 guitars, horns and vocals. They have a tune or two that feature piano but they don't play those live. Bob Dylan has drums, bass, guitar, harmonica, piano and vocals but he usually has a huge band behind him anymore.

I also enjoy Boston but I heard a bootleg of them live and it sucked. They really layer the guitars on there and live it sounded kind of empty. Brad Delp was still phenomenal on vocals though.

I've heard that about Boston too but this sounds pretty good:

That does sound good. I love that first album so much - before I heard it (thanks Dad!) all I listened to was Garth Brooks and Randy Travis. It was my first rock album.

I actually want this particular song played at my funeral. I think it'll be funny to make people sit through the long intro and the lyrics fit ("It's been such a long time, I think I should be going..."). Of course I won't see the funny part... I'll be dead.

I like to hear an artist play what they did with the record--just as full; just as awesome.  If you can't do it live, then do it the way you can.  Of course, I do realize that you have to multi-track guitars to beef them up but a good sound guy can give you that definition in a live setting.

Not having backing singers in your band isn't a big deal anymore.  Instead of using prerecorded vocal tracks to fill in, you can simply use a vocal harmonizer.  You can get that 3 part harmony with just the lead singer's voice going through.  When I am ready to take my music live, I am looking at purchasing one for that very reason.