Disgusted by "Tooled" live recordings

[mexicola]

I started watching a live Foo Fighters show from '05 that was broadcast on the Palladia HD channel. I watched about 3 songs and had to turn it off.
I love the Foo Fighters, but this show was so obviously digitally enhanced that it didn't sound like a real band playing. Everything was way too perfect. The drums sounded like they'd been replaced by samples, there was no bleed anywhere, there was zero dynamic range on all of the instruments, and the crowd sounded like the crowd sounds from the Madden video games.
I've been mixing live sound for the better part of a decade at a mid-size venue where we regularly get bands that are on MTV and the radio. Not once has a band sounded like that.
I just don't understand why a band would want to sound like an ideal rather than a reality. I was big into bootlegs when I was a kid and I loved hearing all the ****ups, crowd heckling, and bad sound from live shows. I don't want to hear a live recording that sounds like a major label studio release. I want a live show to show me the real band, not a perfect ideal.

Barf on digital editing of live shows!

[surflounge]

Interesting comments about "sterilization" of the sound. I also record live performances, but I work in a studio stage, not a public venue. I am more concerned about how the band performs, and capturing their sound. Since we don't have an audience, I carefully monitor the crucial emotional feelings that my recordings produce, especially when mixing.
Thank you for the alert. I will pay more attention to the listeners' tastes.

[Greg Curtis]

Interesting to see this post...

I just watched "The Roots Live" on Palladia, and it sounded just like that; sterile and odd. And the mix was HORRIBLE. Just 3 elements: snare, bass drum, and singer. While we could see the trumpet, sax, bone, sousaphone, 2 keyboardists, and latin percussionist playing their asses-off... silently!

It was so bad i thought it may have been a surround-stereo fold-down problem, since the only things audible were centered.

Greg

.

[Lute]

Can these bands actually play live? I know the Foo's can but doctoring the sound of a live band is a big no-no for me. Hate the idea. Crap acts like Britney, Girls Aloud, etc, need that doing so the kids don't get disappointed but respected acts doing the same thing? Unforgiveable dfegad

[The Pressman]

I've only heard one live Fighters concert, Everywhere But Home from the One by One tour, and that sounds okay.

BUT I really can't stand the sound on any of their studio releases.
I suppose the songs are listenable sometimes, but the sound is horrible.
SO squashed and enhanced and harmonically excited and EW.

In fact, they were the reason I completely stopped listening to the radio and watching music TV channels. HAH.

[Lute]

Originally Posted by The Pressman

I've only heard one live Fighters concert, Everywhere But Home from the One by One tour, and that sounds okay.

BUT I really can't stand the sound on any of their studio releases.
I suppose the songs are listenable sometimes, but the sound is horrible.
SO squashed and enhanced and harmonically excited and EW.

In fact, they were the reason I completely stopped listening to the radio and watching music TV channels. HAH.

That and they have the same formula for every song :yawn:

[reid]

It's not as if this is a recent thing - I remember buying a Rush live album and a Simple Minds live album around 1989; general consensus amongst the buying public seemed to be that both were crap - Simple Minds owned up to going into the studio to replace parts, sounds, crowd noise - Rush didn't, but their release sure as hell sounded like it'd been assembled in a laboratory.

Weird thing is, these were both bands that could play and had no need to tweak their recordings. Give me Sinatra at the Sands anytime.....

[huub]

Wel, since the foo fighters can actually play, it is perfectly possible that you were just listening to a very polished mix... Which I like personally.. I don't really like live recordings sounding live, but that's me..

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by reid

It's not as if this is a recent thing - I remember buying a Rush live album and a Simple Minds live album around 1989; general consensus amongst the buying public seemed to be that both were crap - Simple Minds owned up to going into the studio to replace parts, sounds, crowd noise - Rush didn't, but their release sure as hell sounded like it'd been assembled in a laboratory.

Weird thing is, these were both bands that could play and had no need to tweak their recordings. Give me Sinatra at the Sands anytime.....

Live and Dangerous anyone?

+1 on the foo fighters recorded sound as well - the "one by One" album a good example. Sounds great on radio, terrible on CD.

I can't remember what "colour and the shape" sounds like from CD, but knowing the mix engineer (the mighty Chris Sheldon) I'm sure it's better...

[scottfa]

I kinda liked a couple of songs by the band......saw them live on some show like Austin City Limits(don't think it was the show....) and they sounded awful. The guy can't sing, and when he "plays" guitar I have to turn away. I also think their drummer is extremely limited. Anyway, I saw them with the "enhanced stuff" later. First thing I noticed was the fake stage amps that looked like a junk pile. Then the sound. Actually I liked it better than their real live stuff. I didn't stare in horror like the first show. I just can't listen to any new stuff anymore. So compressed etc. etc. It is really really boring. So the band went from making me puke to making me go to sleep. I guess that is an improvement

[mexicola]

Originally Posted by scottfa

I kinda liked a couple of songs by the band......saw them live on some show like Austin City Limits(don't think it was the show....) and they sounded awful. The guy can't sing, and when he "plays" guitar I have to turn away. I also think their drummer is extremely limited. Anyway, I saw them with the "enhanced stuff" later. First thing I noticed was the fake stage amps that looked like a junk pile. Then the sound. Actually I liked it better than their real live stuff. I didn't stare in horror like the first show. I just can't listen to any new stuff anymore. So compressed etc. etc. It is really really boring. So the band went from making me puke to making me go to sleep. I guess that is an improvement

I don't mind shows that sound like trainwrecks. I grew up on live Soundgarden, Nirvana, Bikini Kill, etc bootlegs...you wanna talk about raw!!!! That stuff will make your ears bleed! If it's got the energy and emotion, I can deal with the bad audio.
I just can't stand stuff that's fake and processed - it's like most of the food in the grocery store. Mainstream music has become like a twinkie. It has no nutritional value. It isn't real food, but you can eat it. And it can fill you up, but it can also make you fat and probably lead to heart disease and an early grave if you consume too much of it.
Yeah, those fake amps that looked like a junk pile were the lamest thing I've ever seen. Lamer than anything KISS ever did - and they were the lamest of the lame.

[Benmrx]

During my short stint working at a studio in L.A., I witnessed KISS coming in to record overdubs, re-do solo's, ect. for a Live album. That was a pretty big eye opener for me.

[Gutbucket]

Originally Posted by mexicola

..Everything was way too perfect.

Except the experience of listening to it. Modern gear and tech can do an excellent job of recording and reproducing all the subtle things that make good live recordings seem palpable and well, live. Unfortunately, the other side of the coin is that along with that there is more oportunity to misapply the tools and loose the essence which makes great live recordings so enjoyable.

[TRJanuary]

The new Drowning Pool live album is unusually "authentic" for a major release. It was a single live show, with a few songs omitted for time, with very little fixing.

The ONLY post was a few vocals fixed up, and they replaced a single drum fill with a better one. Later, they had to go back to remove a live-triggered sample from one song, due to a permissions issue.

Ironically, the AUDIENCE is what required bolstering. It was a VERY rocking show, and there were 3 audience mics, but they were not very helpful because of technical reasons, so the audience response was bolstered a little.

[Denny McNerney]

Originally Posted by reid

It's not as if this is a recent thing -

exactly.

during the '70's, for some reason, a lot of band's milestone take it up to the next level records were live ones...
"frampton comes alive" and "kiss alive" are two examples that come to mind...
both huge records.

and i know both of those were very doctored.

the kiss record i have been told was recorded at media sound... there wasn't even a pretense of recording any live shows...!

i doubt there have been any live records (official releases) since then that haven't been at least somewhat improved upon in post...


however... "live at leeds", and "woodstock", on the other hand...

[octopi]

Band I played in for 14 years did a 'Live' record in 2002.

The singer replaced ALL the vocals and virtually everything was edited. I refused to replay any of my own parts. I mean, what IS the point?

The fans who bought the record have no idea. It kinda makes me sad. The mix still ended up sounding really bizarre. I (and another band member) just wanted to pick one entire show out of the 7 recorded and put it out with gaps, errors, the lot....

But alas.

[huub]

Originally Posted by Denny McNerney

exactly.

during the '70's, for some reason, a lot of band's milestone take it up to the next level records were live ones...
"frampton comes alive" and "kiss alive" are two examples that come to mind...
both huge records.

and i know both of those were very doctored.

the kiss record i have been told was recorded at media sound... there wasn't even a pretense of recording any live shows...!

i doubt there have been any live records (official releases) since then that haven't been at least somewhat improved upon in post...


however... "live at leeds", and "woodstock", on the other hand...

But Woodstock sounds like crap really..

[Denny McNerney]

Originally Posted by huub

But Woodstock sounds like crap really..

sure it does, i agree.

but no one re cut their vocals on that one.

that brings us back to this discussion...

genuine live recording, warts and all, slightly less quality...

or slick, polished grand illusion?

both valid, in my opinion.

[huub]

True, both valid.. Depends really..

Although I do favour polished production generally.. Not always though, depends on the music, venue, artist, atmosphere...

[Remoteness]

Great performance; no equipment malfunctions; excellent capture/mix...

Usually any two of the above three situations makes for a good live recording.
When you get all three, wow that's magical.

[fallforward]

Originally Posted by Denny McNerney

sure it does, i agree.

but no one re cut their vocals on that one.

that brings us back to this discussion...

genuine live recording, warts and all, slightly less quality...

or slick, polished grand illusion?

both valid, in my opinion.

Bands don't have the talent/confidence to put out "real" live albums. Well not all of them. Pick up any Dave Mathews Band live bootleg... awesome.

[Denny McNerney]

there was a time when live radio concerts (broadcast live) were quite the norm...

i miss those days, too.

[Remoteness]

Yeah, I miss those days too.

Real (raw at times) performances.
Now, many bands tour with x amount of playback tracks just to keep them sounding like the record.

[talbe1019]

Originally Posted by Denny McNerney

there was a time when live radio concerts (broadcast live) were quite the norm...

i miss those days, too.

I miss those days too....
I think it is ok to fix a few things that were bad mistakes, but overall I prefer the recording just as it happened with minor editing.

[mdoelger]

I find it funny, that when I watch the Rock am Ring festival live (live broadcast) many of the artists (singers) are out of tune quite often. Watch it again after a week and magically they're in tune again. How come???

[G-Spot]

Originally Posted by Denny McNerney

sure it does, i agree.

but no one re cut their vocals on that one.

that brings us back to this discussion...

genuine live recording, warts and all, slightly less quality...

or slick, polished grand illusion?

both valid, in my opinion.

Very true... it's just like "Living the real life or living in the Matrix"

Most of the POP acts (Britney and others) make the kids believe that the artists are perfect in everything they do: perfect shows, perfect look, perfect photos, perfect partner, perfect (polished) sound, perfect video. That is why everyone (press) is so eager to get a picture or a video of them when they aren't (when they behave as the guy next door), when the so called "scandal" happens... (like driving drunk... ).
Anyway there are people who prefer the "matrix" world of "perfection" than the real raw life...

I don't exclude some "polished" productions from my CD/DVD player, but I do prefer the real "dirt"... although I'm not a big fan of Dream Theather, I must say that their live DVDs are the real stuff... you can hear James LaBrie (or LaFailure as I saw written recently in a Forum ) painfuly getting out of pitch and some rare (small) mistakes from the other members too but delivering great perfomances overall... I think all DVDs went Platinum .

The older I get the more polished and louder the records are getting, even the "live ones" that were supposed to be the real thing.
I think that due to this society (and competition) there's a lot of artists that are afraid and believe that cannot "afford" to be seen as a normal human being... and end up being freaks

Sinatra for example and classical symphonic and most Jazz recordings are also the representation of what REAL life can be... great musicians playing great music, recorded awesomely, with no compromise in quality what so ever.
YouTube - You Gotta Try- Vinnie Colaiuta w BR Big Band

[King Of Spain]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

I can't remember what "colour and the shape" sounds like from CD, but knowing the mix engineer (the mighty Chris Sheldon) I'm sure it's better...

I bring that disc to mastering sessions all the time...sounds great...and it just happens to document the artistic apex of the band...in my opinion.

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by mexicola

I don't mind shows that sound like trainwrecks. I grew up on live Soundgarden, Nirvana, Bikini Kill, etc bootlegs...you wanna talk about raw!!!! That stuff will make your ears bleed! If it's got the energy and emotion, I can deal with the bad audio.
I just can't stand stuff that's fake and processed - it's like most of the food in the grocery store. Mainstream music has become like a twinkie. It has no nutritional value. It isn't real food, but you can eat it. And it can fill you up, but it can also make you fat and probably lead to heart disease and an early grave if you consume too much of it.
Yeah, those fake amps that looked like a junk pile were the lamest thing I've ever seen. Lamer than anything KISS ever did - and they were the lamest of the lame.

One of the best posts I have read in a long time!

[mexicola]

Originally Posted by Karloff70

One of the best posts I have read in a long time!

Haha...thanks, i guess!
Wow, this thread got bigger than thought it would!

Maybe it's cliche, but Nevermind was released when I was 11, and Nirvana was the first band that REALLY got me interested in music. And you know what I like best about them? How bad they were at playing great songs! I have probably 50 live Nirvana bootlegs, and there's not a perfect show in the bunch! But that's why it's sooooo good! If you listen, you can tell the band really means every second of it, but it's their inability to actually do a good job playing their songs that makes it so beautiful and human. It's like a Shakespearean tragedy. Nirvana was the reason I picked up a guitar, which was how I got into playing in bands, and then buying gear to record the bands I was in, which got me into live sound, and now I own my own studio making a living recording and mixing bands.
Before Nirvana I wasn't really interested in music because all I was exposed to as a child was slick top 40 pop music. It was boring because it had no reality in it, which made it unrelateable. The humanity, imperfection, and constant **** ups in Nirvana's music was what led me into a career in music. **** perfection...it's overrated, and a byproduct of engineers who lose sight of the fact that microphones and recording equipment are meant to be like cameras and not paint brushes.

[jammybastard]

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