Junkyard Rocket Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 It struck me today that with my current band I consider it very important for any recordings to capture our live sound ie as we have one guitarist no 2nd guitar part overdubbed. I like quite a hairy bass sound and tend to stick to simple riffs so I'm probably filling the role of a rhythm guitarist with my bass as much as providing the bottom end. I'd be happy for all of our recordings to just be recordings of gigs & release them warts & all, but I guess at some point the lads are going to want to book a recording session in a studio. With my last band, which had two guitarists, when we recorded our third album we a lot of added overdubs & additional instrumentation (more guitars/organ/banjo/tambourine) so we couldn't reproduce the recorded versions of the songs live with the lineup we had, and doing those songs often seemed like a bit of a compromise compared to the richer instrumentation of the recordings. I'm seeing the current band as a gigging band that occasionally makes recordings rather than a recording band that does gigs. Is it important is it to you to be able to either 1. reproduce your recordings live or 2. Capture the sound of your gigs in a studio recording Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conan Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 Both if possible... depends on the genre though I think. In livelier, rockier material I think it is better to make your recordings sound more live; but in jazzier or prog material - the added complexity of the recording makes for a very different experience for the listener. I prefer that. Depends on the band and the producer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike257 Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) I think there's good arguments to be made for both, and you can find plenty of bands that are examples of either. Some bands will write/arrange songs in a way that gets the best out of the available line up, maximising the use of dynamics etc, which is a great skill and discipline to have. Others will approach with the view that the song is king and will do whatever they feel gives the best representation of the song in the studio environment, even if that means overdubs all over the place. These are often the bands that, once they 'make it' and can afford the wages will suddenly acquire extra guitarists/keyboard players dotted around the stage. I know, love (and have been in) bands that do both to differing extents, its just a matter of deciding what works for you at that point in time. If you go all Phil Spector on one album there's nothing to say you can't go back to basics on the next! Edited June 13, 2013 by mike257 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Junkyard Rocket' timestamp='1371127259' post='2110128'] Is it important is it to you to be able to either 1. reproduce your recordings live or 2. Capture the sound of your gigs in a studio recording [/quote] This is something that has often exercised me. Virtually every band I've been in has asked the recording engineer to 'capture the live sound'. This may be because they've all been pretty much of a genre that doesn't require lots of parts and the clarity to hear them. Thing is, capturing a live sound in the studio wasn't always practical, simply because what we heard, either from the stage or the audience was going to sound completely different in a studio environment compared to a public room where reflections and boom and stuff were mushing together nicely. Even if we took the same backline, same settings and all into a studio it would nearly always sound quite thin. In the end, we realised that getting a 'live' sound involved a fair number of trickery, even for simple songs. Subtle overdubs (doubling rhythm guitars, etc) and rearranging some of the parts. After that, compression and EQ had a big role in proceedings. Placing some mikes to pick up room noise and bleed helped as well. I suppose in an ideal world, we'd be able record songs which reproduce the band's live sound while introducing additional instrumentation which wouldn't be missed when played live. Bob Mould (Husker Du, Sugar) used to get over this by writing distinctive overlapping guitar parts for his layers, then reproducing them separately but sequentially in live performance. Tricky one, and I hope our resident guru Simon will be along presently to cast light on this. Edited June 13, 2013 by skankdelvar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Low End Bee Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 Depends very much on the band I guess. We want a slightly rough at the edges recording that's a representation of our live sound. We've dabbled with synths and stuff on demo's but have realised we're happier recording with the stuff we use live. There's plenty of guitar and vocal overdubs of course but we've decided against zithers and nose flutes. If we played more complex or proper music I'm sure we'd go to the instrument cupboard and use it all including the kitchen sink. Saying that we're not averse to adding a soundbite or a sample before or after a song if it feels right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) These days I think that live and recordings are two separate things and you should play to the strengths and opportunities of each medium. In the past all the bands I played in worked from the studio version of the song first, so consequently we had massively complex live rigs involving taped or sequenced backing in order to be able to replicate all the nuances of the recorded arrangement. It was fun to do, but the amount of equipment we required on and off stage to be able to perform severely limited the gigs we could do, and until we got our own sound engineer and FOH desk plus multicore for the electronic elements, the live sound could be pretty hit or miss. These days the band I play in is much simpler - drums, bass, one guitar, a single vocal and occasional theremin. Live we turn up plug in and play. Other than to make sure the theremin DI is working there isn't even any need for a sound check. Pretty much anyone who isn't deaf can mix us live. When we came to record our first EP we deliberately picked a studio that had a big enough live room to allow us to play all together without needing to use headphones and simply recorded each song until we got a performance that everyone was happy with. At the mix there were a couple places where at normal living-room listening volumes the guitar sounded a bit thin in relation to the rest of the track and we simply flew in the appropriate chords from another part of the song underneath and mixed them at a volume so it sounded nicely full all the way through without being obvious that there were two guitar parts at any point. Our next EP features far more use of the studio. In many ways we realised that a portion of our live sound was down to simply the volume to which the music was performed. On a recording you don't have the opportunity to dictate how loud the playback is going to be, so you have to use other methods to capture that excitement (and in-ear compression). Edited June 13, 2013 by BigRedX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Dave Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 A gig is a gig - it's gone in a heartbeat. A recording attracts repeated listening. Go for the feel you like in a proper recording environment over the one off performance every time. Studio albums are a pice of work. Live albums are a souvenir. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conan Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 [quote name='Dr.Dave' timestamp='1371133736' post='2110256'] Go for the feel you like in a proper recording environment over the one off performance every time. Studio albums are a pice of work. Live albums are a souvenir. [/quote] That is what i was trying to say! Well said Dr Dave! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lfalex v1.1 Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 [quote name='Dr.Dave' timestamp='1371133736' post='2110256'] A gig is a gig - it's gone in a heartbeat. A recording attracts repeated listening. Go for the feel you like in a proper recording environment over the one off performance every time. Studio albums are a pice of work. Live albums are a souvenir. [/quote] You can have both. And sometimes, just sometimes, the ambience and energy present in a good live gig (warts and all) can overcome all the machinery in the way and become a genuinely good recording in its own right. I have some live recordings of one band I was in, and in some cases the tracks are more energetic than their more polished studio counterparts. And in answer to the op, every band I've been in haven't recorded something we couldn't reproduce faithfully in a live environment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Dave Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 [quote name='Lfalex v1.1' timestamp='1371134348' post='2110276'] You can have both. And sometimes, just sometimes, the ambience and energy present in a good live gig (warts and all) can overcome all the machinery in the way and become a genuinely good recording in its own right. I have some live recordings of one band I was in, and in some cases the tracks are more energetic than their more polished studio counterparts. And in answer to the op, every band I've been in haven't recorded something we couldn't reproduce faithfully in a live environment. [/quote] Yes - but.... what is the music on your favourite live albums?? More than often it's a live version of a previous studio recording. There's a reason for that. No need for a chicken/egg debate on this one - the art comes before the craftsmanship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 As Skank says sometimes what you produce live will sound 'empty' when recorded. But it's true the other way round and live a song can be far too busy. Two versions of a song. One you can play live, pared down to the basics, even missing drum or bass fills if they just add to general overbusyness (is that even a word, it should be!) I saw Rush last month - far too much going on that is on the album and you just can't hear properly live. A good song is the words and melody, everything else is just production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTUK Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) Depends what market and to what end,...but live is live...IMO If you are posting tracks to get gigs then I see no point at all in having studio tracks To stretch the point, I can't see much point flying in sequences for live gigs. A friend on mine's band says their two best received numbers have a mass of strings and keys on them. These aren't emblellishments but fundemental parts which make the songs... I just laughed and said sack a gtr and get in keys..as that is a bit of a joke to me...!! Edited June 13, 2013 by JTUK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 [quote name='Dr.Dave' timestamp='1371136409' post='2110341'] Yes - but.... what is the music on your favourite live albums?? More than often it's a live version of a previous studio recording. There's a reason for that. No need for a chicken/egg debate on this one - the art comes before the craftsmanship. [/quote] Erm. The live bit comes before the recording. Always. The recording is of someone playing. Is it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RhysP Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 I've always viewed the two things as completely different. If you have an idea in your head that you can satisfactorily create in a studio then why not do it? I don't think "Can we reproduce this live?" should be the reason for any decisions made in the recording studio. When it comes down to it most grand production jobs are down to the arrangements - the song/music itself is often quite simple. If it's a good song it'll sound great played live with just an acoustic guitar as well as on record with loads of twinkle dust added to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lfalex v1.1 Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) [quote name='Dr.Dave' timestamp='1371136409' post='2110341'] Yes - but.... what is the music on your favourite live albums?? More than often it's a live version of a previous studio recording. There's a reason for that. No need for a chicken/egg debate on this one - the art comes before the craftsmanship. [/quote] Sure it's a live reproduction of a studio track. Not much point in playing a song that absolutely no-one in the audience knows! But do consider the fact that many songs are written (or at least glued-together) in the rehearsal environment. So the progression is more like: Idea > jam > record > play live [B]Edited to include the fact that I wasn't really answering any kind of chicken/egg question... More the rest of the original post[/b] Edited June 13, 2013 by Lfalex v1.1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lozz196 Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 We just record "us" and then get our producer to add any necessary stuff like compression, o if we want a particular effect on the vox. As we have a fair number of instruments, although the guitarists will do their solos in a later take, when they get to the part where they`ll be soloing, whoever would be doing the solo just drops out, as this way what we record will represent a more "live" performance. This way, aside from vocal effects, should someone have bought our album, they won`t be of the opinion "well they don`t sound nuffing like their recordings live". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pembo Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 Personally, I prefer that both live and recorded are very similair. One of my pet hates is seeing bands live that sound nothing like their recordings. One of my favourite local bands sound fantastic recorded, but cannot replicate the dynamics, overlayed harmonies, doubled up basslines, etc, live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger2611 Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 With the writing project I have been involved with for the last year or so we have recorded the songs as a live rehearsal on a number of occassions, now we are all pretty familiar with the songs it is time to get them into a studio and see what we can create in that enviroment, when that's done hopefully it will help develop how we play it live. I will call it a chicken omlette situation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted June 13, 2013 Share Posted June 13, 2013 I suppose it also depends on what you are hoping to achieve from the recording. Is it a vehicle for you to get pub gigs? Then it should be warts and all live. Is it for you as a reminder to what you sounded like when you were in a band? Or for deps to use to learn from? Then spend time recording your best most polished performance and drop back in to fix bad notes, missed fills etc. Is it to get corporate and wedding gigs? Then the whole lot - vocal autotune, vocal harmony overdubs, guitar playing under guitar solo, additional percussion... Is it a promo to get a record deal? Sky's the limit, forget trying to do any of it live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.