Live Recording vs Studio Recording?

Whaaaat? Talk about jumping to conclusions...my reference to(live)"performance art" was meant as part of a definition of live-recorded music. Studio-recorded music is still it own art type. Both are artistic(I hope) and differently recorded and produced, making them...well, related but different.
 
I wouldn’t be as categorical as you are. Some live performances are worthwhile some not. Especially some old ones where there was energy, yes, but very often, a poor sound (due to technology available).
Im into prog rock, and I like the sound perfection of the true studio album. I’m sorry I prefer studio album from dream theatre - can’t stand Labrie live, even Portnoy, live, annoys me. I love Floyd, but Pulse... I can live without.
On the contrary, Porcupine is as tremendous live as in studio, Marillion is often too mellow in studio (bad mix) and much better live. Anathema wasn’t that good live, but Universal (live) is so perfect. Iron Maiden, I like the energy live, but prefer their studio sound.
Some live performance can be messy (Metallica anyone?)
 
Getting musicians to rehearse is a luxury. Recording in a real studio with enough room and equipment to record everyone playing live together is another luxury. Try it for yourself. Put a band together and get them to rehearse enough music for a typical CD (say 50 minutes) and then record the band playing together LIVE, mix, master and release it. Then feel free to report back on how it went and let me hear the results.
 
Getting musicians to rehearse is a luxury.
Unless they are good, dedicated musicians who want to make cool records. Going to the studio unrehearsed might sound punk rock, but in my experience it's a recipe for wasting money.

Recording in a real studio with enough room and equipment to record everyone playing live together is another luxury.
Here in the bay area there are plenty of really good studios with great rooms and gear, plus talented engineers who can usually create isolation without actually using that much space or separate rooms. The rates tend to be in the few hundred dollar per day range, which a dedicated band can put together.

Try it for yourself.
This is fantastic advice.

Put a band together and get them to rehearse enough music for a typical CD (say 50 minutes) and then record the band playing together LIVE, mix, master and release it. Then feel free to report back on how it went and let me hear the results.
Nobody here is denying that doing it the sterile way isn't more efficient and doesn't produce cleaner, more perfect tracks in general. What this thread is pointing out is that if you go to the trouble and record a real performance where each musician is really listening and playing off the inspirations of the other, it can create a sound/vibe that you can't duplicate by putting the works together in pieces in effort to achieve the "perfect" representation of the song.

The airbrushed, photoshopped and "perfected" image of a model on a magazine cover is maybe technically superior if you're using that magazine editor's measuring criteria... But at the same time, I think a lot of people might also find comparable "beauty"(hard to define in the first place) in the natural form of the same model.
 
Nobody here is denying that doing it the sterile way isn't more efficient and doesn't produce cleaner, more perfect tracks in general. What this thread is pointing out is that if you go to the trouble and record a real performance where each musician is really listening and playing off the inspirations of the other, it can create a sound/vibe that you can't duplicate by putting the works together in pieces in effort to achieve the "perfect" representation of the song.
I agree completely. I was just suggesting that actually doing it, is another thing completely. Unless you have an endless stash of cash, you're going to end up very frustrated and disappointed. If the music is very simple and/or you have great charts and great musicians who can read well, you should be fine. However, if the music requires a bit more facility, you're going to need many hours of rehearsals, and you'll have to pay the musicians to rehearse. A decent recording studio with decent engineer will cost a minimum of $50 per hour. Then factor in the time to mix, master, manufacture... It all adds up.

If you have a well rehearsed band and everyone is pitching in, you're laughing. In that case you should definitely record live, and then punch in or correct any glaring flubs. Not only should it result in a better recording, but you'll actually save a lot of time too.

Then again, pretty much everything you hear on TV or the radio is completely void of real instruments and the singing is tweaked to death with Melodyne and similar tools. Pretty pathetic really.
 
Pretty much everything you hear on TV or the radio is completely void of real instruments and the singing is tweaked to death with Melodyne and similar tools. Pretty pathetic really.

This.

I remember an edition of Logic my mate had which had a Killers track that had been produced with this software so you could strip back to source. The turd polisher earned his money with this.

Studio engineering used to be an art form on both the engineers and the artists.

Sadly live recording has fallen foul of the cancer that is autotune. Toto's falling in between live sounds like robots singing it. I saw them a week before it was recorded and it didn't see a need for it.

As for 70s live albums I think Monsieur Zappa hit the nail on the head with Sheik Yerbouti with the tongue in cheek recorded live. The only one I can think is truly live is Made in Japan, the rest were overdubbed heavily like Live and Dangerous.
 
I also in the camp of most my favourite albums were recorded live. I also know that they often record several shows and pick the best performances.

The music is better know, the interpretations have matured through cooperation, the whole energy, dynamics, communication in the moment. It's a whole different thing.

Tower of Power mostly record live, but they're tight, play more shows together
than almost anybody etc....


As mentioned, the need to beat detective and pitch correct everything... I dunno
.. It doesn't really add anything. If if was that bad on should really just rehearse more before going to the studio.

I don't mind add tracks and working that way. It's a way to experiement and fine tune an idea that will inspire many greater live performances in the future. I know this will be what I mostly do in the future. Because of time, money and my teaching gig I'll do it mostly spradically and by myself, but the record isn't the final say. Why would people go to shows? Unless they think Justin is really hot, of course. lol
 
The sad thing is that very few live albums are actually live. Most are either fixed in the studio in post, or downright recorded in the studio with "live" elements added in for effect.

I made a recording once, sounded plain, nothing special. Then I added some background audience sound. The recording came to life, sounded much more exciting. And the audience sound is just noise, not musical at all.
 
I made a recording once, sounded plain, nothing special. Then I added some background audience sound. The recording came to life, sounded much more exciting. And the audience sound is just noise, not musical at all.

I can't tell. Are you inferring that the live "energy" is accomplished with a recording of an audience? Must disagree if so! If anything the audience is an annoyance I wish we could better filter out in a lot of live performances.

Often venues will offer to give a recording of your performance from the board and I usually tell them to turn off any crowd mics entirely if they're there.
 
Back
Top