The best of both worlds -- Location recording

[justpushplay]

Originally Posted by bjornson in another thread

Every studio engineer would benefit from some experience in live audio.

I agree 100%. It's also true that live guys could benefit from sitting between a pair of nearfields and mixing a few songs. This topic probably deserves it's own thread, but the reason I love location recording so much is that it combines the best of the two disciplines.

Michael

[Remoteness]

I started doing live sound in high school out of necessity.
I was mixing the band from the stage. It was a strange situation, but I made it work.
At the same time I also was interested in recording.
My last term in HS was played out interning at a recording studio in NYC for school credits.
It was an awesome experience that led me to what I’m doing today.
By the time I graduated HS I already blended the two fields and started doing location recording via eight mics, a Sony MX20 8X4 mixer and a Revox A700 stereo tape recorder.

Approximately a year later I started Aura Sonic Ltd. The rest is history...

I continued to do live sound and studio recording for various bands while I maintained and built on my mobile and location recording endeavor.

The best of both worlds concept is what drives me. I love this mindset.

In the studio I make the tracks sound live, but when tracking live concert performance I make it sound like its a studio recording.
If I need to add more of that “live” feel all I just bring up (add) the audience/room mics to the mix.

There’s no going back – I love my work and cannot believe its called work.

[bjornson]

Originally Posted by justpushplay

I agree 100%. It's also true that live guys could benefit from sitting between a pair of nearfields and mixing a few songs. This topic probably deserves it's own thread, but the reason I love location recording so much is that it combines the best of the two disciplines.

Michael

You're 100% right, right back at ya!
I just get tired of the project studio guys raggin on the live guys.
Steve's got it right. The excitement of live audio with the attention to detail of the studio.
By the way, as soon as I get a chance to breath, I'm going to post my
"Turning the first Carnegie Music Hall back into a live performance space" thread!

[matyas]

Originally Posted by bjornson

"Turning the first Carnegie music Hall back in to a live performance space" thread!

Do you mean Oakland or Homestead?

[bjornson]

Northside actually.
The old Pittsburgh Public Theater space.
While the Homestead location seems to have been completed first,
The Northside location was the first commissioned, or so I'm told.

[talbe1019]

Originally Posted by bjornson

Steve's got it right. The excitement of live audio with the attention to detail of the studio.

That sums it up!

[Gerax]

That's kind of like what makes it for me too.
I started as a studio engineer (and I still am), but the thrill I get during the recording of a live gig isn't comparable to the endless recording sessions in studio...Not that I don't like being in the studio, I love it, but getting out of the controlled environment, facing the "unknown perils of live gigs", trying to be prepared for everything and bringing back home tracks that sound like studio but have the energy of a live gig (maybe together with a well shot video for a DVD or live broadcast) is a real gas!!

It really is the best of both worlds...more so when I sit down and mix them.

L.G.

[marty lester]

Originally Posted by justpushplay

I agree 100%. It's also true that live guys could benefit from sitting between a pair of nearfields and mixing a few songs. This topic probably deserves it's own thread, but the reason I love location recording so much is that it combines the best of the two disciplines.

Michael

'course, i think most of us remoties can relate to my last location gig. i recorded
my buddy's day-show at a great local bar called the Longbranch Inn during SxSW.

5 bands, tiny stage, minimal PA. guess who had to set-up the PA and stage, run monitors, and FOH sound? all while setting up, and recording 24 tracks of audio...

yeah, me. with no assistant!

best (?) of both worlds!

marty.

[LX3]

Originally Posted by justpushplay

I agree 100%. It's also true that live guys could benefit from sitting between a pair of nearfields and mixing a few songs.
Michael

I've been thinking that a lot. Some of their mic choices and placement would be a bit different if they could hear how those mics really sound.

Although of course, sometimes their mic choices are right on the money as well. I've learned to really appreciate the Beyer M88 thanks to them.

a Sony MX20 8X4 mixer and a Revox A700 stereo tape recorder.

Wow, Steve, you've given me a giant flash-back... that's exactly what I started recording properly with (you know, once I'd got past bouncing from one cassette deck to another, or playing with a Tandberg 10XD).

Do you remember how long it used to take for the brake to stop the reels spinning after a fast wind?

My first live recording was my own band in 1981 I think, recorded to the A700 at 3 3/4 ips, straight off the desk. Shortly after, I started carrying around a PCM701, a Sony Beta HF100, and a Symetrix SX202, recording the board mix to the digital side, and two tracks of room to the Hi-Fi audio tracks on the VCR. That worked so well... two hours of four track (mostly) digital on a single video tape!

We've come a long way. Still have the 701 somewhere...

[justpushplay]

Originally Posted by LX3

recording the board mix to the digital side, and two tracks of room to the Hi-Fi audio tracks on the VCR. That worked so well... two hours of four track (mostly) digital on a single video tape!

We've come a long way. Still have the 701 somewhere...

Wow! I was doing the same thing, but with my Toshiba DX900 PCM/HiFi VCR. Trouble is, the analog side sounded better than the PCM side, so I recorded just the opposite, with audience on the PCM tracks :-)

Michael

I still have the original DX900, but the heads are worn out. I picked up another fully functional DX900 out of a studio liquidation for less than $100. I paid $1500 for my first one new in 88 or 89.

[joelpatterson]

The hugest difference is that in a live situation, all the performers' adrenalin gets racing and there's a 'harmonic convergence' when they all go for broke and give it their all (!)

That never happens in the studio. Not in the modern era of endless retakes, overdubs, slicing and dicing, comping, diddling, and dilly-dallying.

I also find-- very rare for seasoned performers to "make mistakes" live. Much more likely they will surprise everyone with unexpected flights of pure genius.

[LX3]

One of the areas live is different (in a good way) to studio work is that you never have to sit there for hours while the guitar player demonstrates over and over and OVER that they don't have a clue how to play a guitar solo. Or even what key we're in.

"No, it's okay, I know what I'm doing now, I'll get it this time..."



[PS not that I'm saying that's the *best* thing about live recording. But I just realised it's one of a number of things I don't miss about the studio]

[Corran]

Great thread! I love recording live as well, and making it sound "studio."

+1 for the "adrenaline rush" effect. I enjoy most recording live jazz, and capturing that solo that was just genious and had you on the edge of your seat.

I also occasionally do more "studio" based recording, and I like it, but it's not fun later when the client wants 6 takes spliced together, all of which still sound bad .

[joelpatterson]

Of course we all agree that musicians in the studio can consciously pursue that kind of intensity, and achieve remarkable results, especially if there are any customers reading this.

[tenor39]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

The hugest difference is that in a live situation, all the performers' adrenalin gets racing and there's a 'harmonic convergence' when they all go for broke and give it their all (!)

That never happens in the studio. Not in the modern era of endless retakes, overdubs, slicing and dicing, comping, diddling, and dilly-dallying.

I also find-- very rare for seasoned performers to "make mistakes" live. Much more likely they will surprise everyone with unexpected flights of pure genius.

You talkin' 'bout note f***ing the recording? Sure 'ya are!

[Corran]

Originally Posted by joelpatterson

Of course we all agree that musicians in the studio can consciously pursue that kind of intensity, and achieve remarkable results, especially if there are any customers reading this.

Of course.

[boojum]

My own experience in 60+ listening to music is that I prefer a live performance. Opera at the Met, orchestral works at Carnegie Hall, jazz in a club or festival, or anywhere seems to have a vibrancy rarely found in studio work. It is not impossible, but I do believe that there is more often a magic with an audience present than not. This could also be my bias from listening to live music. Maybe the occasional clinker makes it more real, too. With a really stellar group there are few clinkers and lots of spontaneous moments of genius. As usual, YMMV.