Recording to copy the "live" sounds?

[rockstar_josh]

I was reading an interview with Andy Sneap and he was talking about players rehearsing their recorded parts so they can pull them off live, because (paraphrase) "isn't the recording the definitive version of the song?"

This was interesting to me, because almost invariably I get people who are concerned with their recordings matching their stage sound and not the other way around. A few times artists have made what I believed to be poor decisions regarding their recordings for the sake of chasing what they think they sound like on stage. Nevermind the fact that they are actually behind the sound, and what they hear on stage is different than what the audience is probably hearing.

I'm also referring more to sonics and arrangements, not just "capturing the band's energy".

Can I get some thoughts on this? I kind of agree with Andy Sneap that it would be great to make a killer record and then work to deliver that to an audience. Have any of you more experienced engineers ever thought about this?

[Led]

I've had this argument with several people. In the end if they are the artist It's there call, but I feel it's a bit stupid. If you want a live recording go record a gig. Studio recordings are about making an aural fantasy, not documenting historic reality. Imagine if movie directors and actors took that approach. How ho hum would it be..
I also despute the whole reproduce it live thing. People can only concentrate on 3 things at once. If you pick the main hooks and elements of ther recording and play them live, they won't care if you don't have the yak herder chanting in the background like you did on the CD.

[John Eppstein]

It's standard procedure among many big name acts to copy the recorded solos exactly. When I worked with Sandy Pearlman (BOC, Sabbath, Clash, Dictators, etc.) his standard procedure was to assemble a solo out of phrases from several solos and then have the guitarist learn it. Of course he generally also managed the bands he produced.

[rockstar_josh]

I enjoy the times when creativity happens in the studio, and songs really take shape.

One thing I realized is that a lot of the bands that I'm reading about write new material with the plan of recording it before playing it live. They go into pre-production and hone their arrangements, or maybe play the new material a couple of times onstage, then track it, then adjust their live show to include the new material that they're now trying to support. The disconnect, for me, is that I'm working with much smaller local artists who already have a dozen songs that they play on stage before they even go to the studio. Basically, they're coming to me to record songs that they already know and hear in a set way. Their audiences already know what the song sounds like before they get the album. Commercially I suppose it's largely the opposite - the fan hears the album then goes to the show to hear the songs played live.

[plexisys]

It's very common. Most acts have to learn the songs they have recorded.

[Never1]

Originally Posted by Led

I've had this argument with several people. In the end if they are the artist It's there call, but I feel it's a bit stupid. If you want a live recording go record a gig. Studio recordings are about making an aural fantasy, not documenting historic reality. Imagine if movie directors and actors took that approach. How ho hum would it be..
I also despute the whole reproduce it live thing. People can only concentrate on 3 things at once. If you pick the main hooks and elements of ther recording and play them live, they won't care if you don't have the yak herder chanting in the background like you did on the CD.

I'm very much in agreement with you.

We always strive to replicate the album as best we can, live.

With my band, we play all the main parts but we also have a sequencer with some filler things that come in and out during our set. We are a 4 piece rock band, with electric violin as the lead instrument, so it's cool to have the organ, piano or extra acoustic guitar and some percussion things come on at key points in our songs. It just adds a whole other dimension to the live show. I've even gone as far as adding certain delay effects that happen just like the album, under my own vocals.

We love the solid consistency of having a click track, but also know that we are all playing and singing so it's not like we're cheating. It's all live minus the ear candy which we'd have to hire 3 more members to pull off.

The audience digs it and it sounds absolutely wonderful.

I'm also all for having the live versions be totally different, too. Neil young was great at that. Strip it down live and rock the hell out of it. Works for many genres, others... not so much.

[rockstar_josh]

Originally Posted by Never1

I'm also all for having the live versions be totally different, too. Neil young was great at that. Strip it down live and rock the hell out of it. Works for many genres, others... not so much.

I suppose it takes a good musician to be able to pull if off well. I'll never forget the Counting Crows' "VH1 Storytellers" episode, where they played all of their songs in a completely different style. I was blown away!

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by rockstar_josh

I was reading an interview with Andy Sneap and he was talking about players rehearsing their recorded parts so they can pull them off live, because (paraphrase) "isn't the recording the definitive version of the song?"

This was interesting to me, because almost invariably I get people who are concerned with their recordings matching their stage sound and not the other way around. A few times artists have made what I believed to be poor decisions regarding their recordings for the sake of chasing what they think they sound like on stage. Nevermind the fact that they are actually behind the sound, and what they hear on stage is different than what the audience is probably hearing.

I'm also referring more to sonics and arrangements, not just "capturing the band's energy".

Can I get some thoughts on this? I kind of agree with Andy Sneap that it would be great to make a killer record and then work to deliver that to an audience. Have any of you more experienced engineers ever thought about this?

Some bands and projects are probably best captured with a live in the studio feel. Others may find the best realization of their creative efforts in highly crafted studio artifice. It all really depends on what kind of music they make, what their audience values, what they value.


I'll say one thing, though: when I go see a band and they sound just like the record, I'm turned off.

Getting up and performing like grinning -- or dramatically posing -- robots is not my idea of what I go to see live music for.

[taturana]

i always love to listen to a great band playing note perfect representations of recordings... but still, on my material, i really have to keep changing solos and such , because otherwise it really gets too boring to play on tour....

if you do it note by note always, it's like you're going thru the motions but it's not the same kind of emotional connection. improvisation is part of the reason i still do it after 30 years of playing, recording and whatever else... just finding a new way to play something is always a thrill (if, of course the whole band is into it also)and that is how i prevent from getting rusty in the ideas department...

[Jules]

Interesting topic

A few random observations:

Sometimes bands 'play the album" live - you can hear it - that can be an odd / stiff vibe that is minus excitement and spontaneity. I dislike this. I recall watching a well known band perform at a festival - during a solo the guitarist did an excruciatingly dull note for note rendition of the recorded version's very basic solo and I thought to myself 'dude, you are on stage, in the middle of a field, at a rock festival, you don't have play the guitar with your teeth or pour lighter fluid on it for the solo to be exciting but make some sort of EFFORT pah-leeze!"

If you arrange a song into a shorter version / radio 'single' - the band may need to un arrange it for live shows as it may simply seem too short to perform... Hopefully they wont mess that up by adding back surplus melodies and parts that were distracting the core song...

There are two conflicting philosophies IMHO
1) "Whatever make the best recording" (perhaps more producers agree to this)
2) "We must be able to duplicate this exactly live" (perhaps more artists agree to this one)
Both are valid

[taturana]

Originally Posted by theblue1

or dramatically posing -- robots is not my idea of what I go to see live music for.

but kraftwerk's show is just that and it's quite cool though!

[Felix (Flux)]

This is why we have producers...



Cheers,
/Felix