Disgusted by "Tooled" live recordings

[Svens]

This makes me think of the thread where somebody claims the same about Greenday at SNL.

Before Butch Vig & Billy Bush joined the thread most guys agreed: I couldnt be live. Then they joined in the thread and everybody believed it. Seems that nowadays bands are looking for great sounds for a live recording also, and ask producers and great engineers to help em out with that and put a lot of time in that, where in the earlier days it was miking the instruments and press rec&play mostly.

Besides that, FF (and greenday) rock. And times changed, you get different (younger) engineers who have grown up with other live sounds then Kiss Alive & Frampton comes alive.

[mexicola]

Originally Posted by jammybastard

I've directed 2 shows of the FF.
They *really* do sound like that live and don't need any enhancement.

Eh...I have bootlegs of them from the late nineties when they sounded like a real band...before Taylor Hawkins joined when Will Goldsmith was still their drummer, and Pat Smear was still with em too.

I mean, even their first SNL performance when they played "I'll stick around" and "For all the cows" sounded freakin amazing! It sounded like a real band with real guitars and real drums and a real singer. That's not how the live show on Palladia sounded.

By the way, since you have experience with them, do their crowds really sound like video game crowd sounds or are those not enhanced either?

[LX3]

Hey guys and gals. Good topic. And an issue I've been wrangling a lot with recently.

But... (and this is why I'm only chucking in my 2p now)...

I've just been listening thru my initial mix of a show I recorded this week, and comparing it with the studio versions, with an older live album by the same band, and with Stage (Bowie - because this artist isn't a billion miles away), and a few other things. Just to see where I am, and where I might consider going with it.

And then I put on Stop Making Sense (the CD, not the movie soundtrack, which is different). This is an album I have known and loved since its release. But it's funny how you don't really know what it sounds like until you put your critical ears on...

Holy cow!

I realise it's been worked on a lot (eg sounds like triggered LinnDrum rather than live drums in places, and many instruments are completely dry, no room sound). But whether you consider it "live" or not, it totally works... as a piece of art, as something that someone might just want to listen to.

Listen to "Take Me To The River" or "Crosseyed And Painless" or "Making Flippy Floppy" off the CD, then compare it with any live mixes you've done. That's what I just did. As a result I'm broadening my perspective on this game a bit!

I think it's a different story if you're mixing for video, because the sound needs to match the picture to avoid that weird disconnection. But if you're making audio-only product, why shouldn't anything go?

At the end of the day, there's an art to mixing and production, and much as I appreciate truth in a recording, I would never restrict someone from practising their art however they want, in the pursuit of the kind of product they want. That's how new ground is broken isn't it?

More that one way to cook an egg. I appreciate a good fried egg, and I also like scrambled. And omelettes.

However, a couple of things strike me as different today, compared with twenty-five years ago (Won't it be S-M-S's 25th anniversary next year?):

1) The (vast) majority of live recordings nowadays seem to be for DVD or TV rather than CD-only release. I think maybe I'd developed a habit of restricting what I do on mixes, because of the need to match picture. Mixing for CD only is very liberating.

2) Stop Making Sense sounds like a lot of time was spent on it, maybe comparable with the time that you'd spend mixing a studio album. Who ever gets that kind of budget to mix a live album or DVD these days? (I probably mix an album or DVD on a tenth of the budget that was there twenty five years ago - and that's before accounting for inflation). It definitely restricts quality and creativity when you're on such a tight budget/schedule.

I dunno, what do you think?

[bishopthomas]

Originally Posted by LX3

I think it's a different story if you're mixing for video, because the sound needs to match the picture to avoid that weird disconnection. But if you're making audio-only product, why shouldn't anything go?

I want a live recording to reflect just that - the LIVE experience. Even if it's just audio it should still represent what happened LIVE. Otherwise why wouldn't I just buy the studio album?

I only have the Sand in the Vasoline album. I remember listening to Life During Wartime and thinking it strange that there was an audience track flown in afterwards. It doesn't represent the live feel to me. A great song, performed very well, but it just doesn't capture the ambiance that I want to feel when I listen to a live album. Maybe I'm biased, coming from a "taper" background. The drunk girl screaming into the microphones was annoying, but it DID happen and now it's forever a part of history.

Originally Posted by LX3

At the end of the day, there's an art to mixing and production, and much as I appreciate truth in a recording, I would never restrict someone from practising their art however they want, in the pursuit of the kind of product they want. That's how new ground is broken isn't it?

Sure, but do you want that art to be realism or abstract?

[Denny McNerney]

as i said in a previous post, i think both forms are valid.

and i have been involved in both.

in the 70's and '80's i mixed quite a few live radio broadcasts straight to 2 track, and live to air...
really exciting, and raw. documentary style.

and i have also multitracked, and then replaced parts w/the artists afterward, for cd's and videos...
exciting too, but no danger anymore. glossy. perfect.

but you do have to think about the performer's reluctance to release something that is supposed to be a definitive live performance, which will be viewed or listened to many times, w/ that bad note. or that sloppy playing.

[LX3]

Originally Posted by bishopthomas

Sure, but do you want that art to be realism or abstract?

I don't mind either way, as long as it works. That's the thing really, as soon as I catch myself mixing things with a little bit of a formula approach, I hear something different... and it sounds fantastic. I don't recall there being any rules.

I think those two live tracks on Sand In The Vaseline are from Stop Making Sense... possibly the original masters though. I recommend a listen to the "Special Edition" of SMS. Great songs (including several classics that weren't on the original album), great performance, with the added bonus that it's very nicely mixed IMO. Really wide-sounding and punchy. Clever balance decisions. It sounds like a record rather than just another "live recording".

[huub]

Originally Posted by bishopthomas

I want a live recording to reflect just that - the LIVE experience. Even if it's just audio it should still represent what happened LIVE. Otherwise why wouldn't I just buy the studio album?

I disagree.. The band is playing live.. They're playing together, that's the live part of it.. Now I want to near these guys playing as beatifully sonically as possible.. For me, that means a polished mix, and certainly not a bucket of reverb (the ambience mics) across the whole mix all the time..
I don't want it to sound live, I want it to sound like an album that was played live..

Now ofcourse i work in video mainly, so I have to make it sound live, but I always try to find the line, so that it sounds live, but not too live (ofcourse with mic bleed sometimes it sounds superlive nomatter what I try

not that you were advocating ambience in a live mix.. I guess I just wanted to make a point

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by Denny McNerney

but no one re cut their vocals on that one.

Crosby, Stills and Nash definitely redid their vocals for the Woodstock movie/soundtrack!

When the Zeppelin 'How the west was won' DVD came out, I was totally stunned how tight the band sounded at the Knebworth gig which happened at a time when by all accounts the band was in pretty bad shape.

Some time ago, I found a clip of the same Knebworth set that seemed to be 'audio verité', actually it sounded sloppy as hell and bore no resemblance to the DVD/CD that was issued a few years ago. But I think that Jimmy Page even admitted that the 'HTWWW' tracks were Pro-Tooled...... I think it's BS because it totally changes the rhythmic feel of the band, it's impressive upon first listen but it gets old pretty quick....

[Denny McNerney]

Originally Posted by doorknocker

Crosby, Stills and Nash definitely redid their vocals for the Woodstock movie/soundtrack!

where did you get that info from?

[Remoteness]

I mostly work on live recording dates, but I also do studio dates.
My mantra is as follows...

When I'm in the studio I do my best to make it sound live; when I'm recording live in front of an audience my direction is to make it sound like we're in the studio.

I've been into this mindset for decades and it does me good.

With that said, I don't like to over do it either.

If the client or artist wants more audience beyond what was captured during the performance and you must add in canned applause, there's a simple way to approach it. Get your mix balanced; bring the original audience mics up to where they sit the best in the mix, then add in the canned applause under. It makes a lot of sense to use audience applause that is similar in room tone as the recording you captured. Once you have that canned applause where you think its sounds best, bring it down at least another dB or two for good measure. It may not sound loud enough when you're mixing, but believe you me, it will sound louder than life once the recording is available to the public.

One thing we do whenever possible is have someone go out on stage before the show to get some audience applause and reactions. This really helps when you need to add a little audience response. Hey, at least it's the same audience from the original show performance. It can sound must better to the ear when balanced right.

What about those clams?

Well, I don't mind a few clams here and there, but what if you can fix them without losing the live performance vibe?
I say, fix them if they can sound natural and not over produced.
I mean, if the fix doesn't sound bad why not make it so?

It doesn't happen much, but when stage monitors, live sound and the show recording goes really well, I sometimes joke with the FOH or MON engineer(s) that we need to overdub some feedback and noise because it was too clean and isolated...

But, you know something? There were times when I've felt like I needed to add a little noise and/or leakage because the recording sounded too much like a studio recording. Strange stuff; right?

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by Denny McNerney

where did you get that info from?

Stephen Stills broke the news to me on the golf court recently.....


No, I heard the story that their original vocals were so badly out of tune that they insisted on re-recording them but I wouldn't bet on it.

But the new Woodstock edition definitely has 'enhancements': TheStar.com | Insight | Retouching Woodstock

[bitman]

I hate "Live" records where the crowd fades out in between songs then fades in. Then the songs sounds like a studio job. BFS man .
And no way too!

tutt

[Denny McNerney]

Originally Posted by doorknocker

But I think that Jimmy Page even admitted that the 'HTWWW' tracks were Pro-Tooled......

i have been trying to find the articles that stated that are parts of the dvd where the audio and the video are from two different concerts, on different dates...

ahh, show biz.

[plexisys]

This is absoutly normal for almost all live recording in the last 20-30 years if not earlier.

Stop Making Sense, a great live sound, however, lots of overdubbing and other tricks. Great people to work with.

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by Denny McNerney

i have been trying to find the articles that stated that are parts of the dvd where the audio and the video are from two different concerts, on different dates...

ahh, show biz.

I wouldn't mind the 'assembling' so much - even though matching video to a different audio takes seems a bit much- it's rather that the heavy ProTooling kills the feel of the band. As much as I love Zeppelin some of the extended guitar solos are too much for me on the live recordings. But it's strange hearing these meanderings on top of super-tight rhythm tracks. Bonzo/Jones were THE best rock rhythm section, period... and that's exactly why I don't think that their feel should be messed with.

EDIT: I just found the thread that discussed this some time ago. (Ooops, that's 6 and a half years ago, times does really fly!! ) I think the first poster sums it up pretty well:

Live Zeppelin is bad...

[7rojo7]

As a listener and composer, I prefer to hear the real thing, it's still interesting to me. To release this to your fans? one must keep the image up. i recently recorded a solo accordeon disc (don't laugh) that won an award for best recorded live jazz recording (not a grammy, but still an award) and we added some extra applause that I lifted from another part of the recording, it was still real applause, it was just put where it needed to be on the disc, I did the same for a 3&1/2 hour opera that had more than a thousand edits lifted from 6 performances and general rehearsals, make's the little girls cry.
I would like to take this opportunity to salute Denny McNerny, who I assisted when he came to Baby Monster studios to record with producer Mike Visceglia. Some good times had there. Hi Denny!

[Denny McNerney]

Originally Posted by 7rojo7

I would like to take this opportunity to salute Denny McNerny, who I assisted when he came to Baby Monster studios to record with producer Mike Visceglia. Some good times had there. Hi Denny!

well, hello!
was that for the "dave's true story" dates?

mike v. is still one of my dearest friends... since the john cale days in the '70's.

what's your name?

[7rojo7]

Yeah, Dave's true story and one other I can't remember, and I worked with Mike another couple of times, seems like a really long time now. my name's Robert Johnson but everyone calls me rojo since my Chung King days. Glad to see you here

[Remoteness]

So Rojo, when are you going to come visit us in the States?