Music: Raw or Refined?

Subject: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: Jayto
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 09:41 AM

When it comes to recording which do you prefer a raw recording or a refined recording? When is it too raw or too refined? I prefer raw to a point. I love to listen to a recording and feel as if I am sitting right there with an artist while they are playing it. I feel that when a piece of music becomes too polished it loses it's soul. The magic leaves and it is played from memory rather than the heart and soul. What is your take on this?

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: pavane
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 10:23 AM

It depends on the performer.

Some performers seem far better live, others seem better on recordings.

I never thought much of James Taylor on disc, but I was knocked out when I saw him live (1971).

Similarly, I have just been listening to a live recording of Nic Jones, which I made around 1973, and some of the songs have much more excitement than the recorded versions (Clyde Water and Warlike lads of Russia, for example)

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: terrier
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 10:53 AM

I think that can be a double edged sword. I've been to a 'live' folk night/concert and really enjoyed what I saw and heard, then I've listened to a recording of it and wondered why I enjoyed it so much. There is no way a recording can recreate what
is happening 'live'. 'Raw' or 'refined' depend on the song, the singer and who is listening. But there again, that's only my view. I enjoy orchestral music but to listen to a recording of it, be it raw or refined, completely destroys the music for me.

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: John Hardly
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 11:01 AM

I love 'em both. I can think of specific examples of each that I dearly love.

For instance, I think that the new (okay, relatively new) bands -- Old Crow Medicine Show, The Duhks, Eddie From Ohio, the disbanded but great Freighthoppers, Reeltime Travelers -- all sound great (better) the more they take advantage of a raw verve.

But I didn't agree with criticisms of Gordon Lightfoot that his recordings were overly produced. I liked his songs with or without strings.

But, then, I love Big Band music just as much as I love Jug Band music.

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: M.Ted
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 11:13 AM

I've always been amazed by the differences between "studio" albums and "live" albums, even when the the same musicians are playing (which is often not the case)--

The studio microphone hears precision, where live music is really about energy. Think about the acoustic bass--live and unamplified, It can rattle the walls in a room, but on recordings, you had to follow the bass line on guitar or piano to get it to stand out. The bass line didn't really start to become unique til the instrument became electric /electronic and the high overtones could be emphasized.

So studio recordings end up being about getting details to come across, the "energy" generally comes from simply turning the volume up. The "raw" recordings capture the energy, but you have to be able to listen through the rough edges.

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: Jayto
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 11:23 AM

I don't think Gordon Lightfoot was overproduced. I think he was the victim of his time period at times. There was a big trend to use a ton of reverb on the vocals and to have the background singers volume elevated way too much around the time he recorded most of his most well known songs. That is the only thing I think of when I think of Lightfoots recordings from the 70's that I personally would change. Even with that he still hits me like a lightening bolt and burns right through my soul everytime I hear him. I can't even mention his name without having to sing praises lol. I love all styles of music as well. What got me to thinking about this topic was a CD a friend of mine made down Nashville. He is a tremendous player I mean phenomenal top notch. I put his CD in and I about fell asleep. It was perfect every note the tone everything was absolutley perfect. The only problem was he played it too safe and it was too polished. It almost put me to sleep. My girlfriend said it sounded like bad elevator music and I can't really disagree with her. His heroes (most of whom he has recorded with) all had that same kind of feel in my view. So he accomplished what he was going for but it made me think. I have always heard that perfect is the enemy of good. In this case (and alot of others) I see the true meaning of that saying. In the pursuit of perfection all feeling was lost. It became just notes being played and lost all emotion. There was not any anticipation or excitement of "is he gonna be able to pull this off?" if you know what I mean. I know it comes down to personal taste and preference and we are different. Personality wise it is him without a doubt. He is a real kept type person. He has a quite,dry, non-adventurous type personality (he is a great guy don't get me wrong) but not a risk taker or the life of the party type personality. So it is reflected in his music. I was just wondering how many thought the same about the recordings they listen to. I love to hear the person's personality come out in thier music. I love to hear them inject thier own spirit into it and sometime the rawness allows it to shine. Not always but sometimes.

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: Mad Spaniel
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 11:24 AM

"I love Big Band music just as much as I love Jug Band music"

I love that saying must steal it and use it all the time.

Personally seeing a live act is a totally different thing for me as i have no time at home to sit down and just listen to CD's but rather they are a constant source of joy as i work. When i go and see someone live i really get to listen properly.

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: dwditty
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 11:31 AM

To me, it all depends. Personally, I don't think I have ever played a song twice the same way...in no small part because I am lazy and lack the discipline to memorize note for note, phrase by phrase. The thrill for me with live music is, for one particular time, it is the only time the movement of those particular air molecules will happen as it does, in that particular room, with that particular audience (you get the point). It is absolutely unique, even if it is played "just like the record." But there are times when that one time event actually raises the hairs on the back of my neck.

Now as far as transferring that to a recording, I think it can happen with any kind of music - raw or refined. Take classical music, for example. The idea is, it seems to me, to play all the right notes at the right time, as written. Why then are some performances/recordings better than others? That is the magic of the music in the moment, I think. Of course, after repeated listening, that magic seems to dissipate somewhat, even if the piece remains a favorite.

If I find just one magical music moment in a CD, I am pleased with my purchase. SOmetimes it is a snippet of a song...other times it is a whole song...or even a whole CD. SOmetimes it is in a refined recording. Sometimes (ok, for me, even more often) it is in a raw recording.

In either case, I typically like recordings that capture the true sound and feel of the performance (be it live or studio), rather than enhanced through recording techniques. But that is just me.

dw

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: olddude
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 11:47 AM

For me it is Raw absolutely. There is nothing more disappointing then to hear a recording, go to the live concert only to find it has been tweeked so much it doesn't sound like the recorded version at all. It is great to hear a recording and then hear it live and it is even more exciting.

I remember in the late 60's hearing Dylan on his albums, then live. Every time I heard any of the songs afterwords it just reminded me of being there

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: Goose Gander
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 11:50 AM

I prefer a clear, simple recording with just a little bit of overdrive on vocals (as when recorded through a tube microphone). An idealized version of something that still could be reproduced in a live setting.

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: GUEST,Phil B
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 12:10 PM

I'm reminded that Frank Zappa recorded every concert he ever played and used to strip the recordings back to basic rhythmn section then start to rerecord over the live tracks. His reasoning was that the energy of the live show brought out the best in his drummers and bass players and gave his songs and tunes tremendous vitality. In the studio he would also put a mic in front of his electric guitar to pick up string squeaks, pick noise and overall handling noises which give his playing greater presence and dynamics. I always keep room mics running in the studio to mix in to whatever I'm recording. Sometimes its appropriate, sometimes not. As the guy who taught me much about sound recording said. 'If you havn't got it, you can't delete it'.

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 12:12 PM

Back in the folk-boom sixties, there was a popular phrase, "Ragged But Right." I believe some artist even used it as an album title. The idea is that an unpolished performance style is preferable to a too-careful emphasis on precision, and that musical performance should, first and foremost, be a vehicle for human expression.

Of course, the "but right" part is an admission that everything "ragged" is not necessarily good ~ the trick is to relax one's standards of musical precision only as a way to allow brilliance of a higher order to come shining through.

Very often, a musical phrase featuring a note or two that is sharp or flat or mis-timed (when measured by conventional standards) is a superbly eloquent bit of personal expression.

From the listener's/audience's point of view, this element of musical appeal is more accessible in live performance than from recordings, but that does not mean that recording can't convey any degree of personal warmth, intensity, etc. It's just that it's more difficult for recordings to convey such subtle and mysterious elements than for live appearances.

From the performer's perspective, one needs to realize that allowing one's heart and soul to be revealed is more important than obsessing upon speed of fingering, purity of tone, etc. Simple enough ~ especially when compared to the recording engineer's response to this question, which is much trickier.

Even though the act of listening to a record cannot compare to the experience of live performance, a certain limited degree of that ragged-but-right "magic" can be captured and played back, and every recording should try to convey such meta-musical communication to the greatest extent possible.

How? I dunno; I'm an audio-tech illiterate...

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 12:14 PM

As a radio host, I think that a studio recording should represent the vision of the artist - much like a painting or a book is the final product of a creative experience in those mediums.   Unlike a painter, a musician or storyteller has the opportunity to share their art in an alternate different format - live and raw.

I remember seeing the Eagles and being very disappointed that their live show soundec exactly like their studio recordings - nearly note for note. I enjoy the live experience of watching the music being created, not replicated.

There is something to be said for BOTH "raw" and "refined" with each having their place and purpose.

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: pdq
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 12:26 PM

"Ragged But Right." was the name of an album by the Greebriar Boys, essential a folk group that could do bluegrass when they wanted. One of the truly great records of the entire Folk Revival. It did not make CD format intact, but was broken up and mixed into several re-issues and (I believe) some songs were left out even then. Get the original LP and do a copy, in order, and see how good it was.

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: Mark Ross
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 01:07 PM

My favorite recordings are still the ones that Moe Asch did in the '40's. Woody Guthrie, Leadbelly, Cisco Houston, Sonny Terry, Brownie McGhee, Pete Seeger, whoever would crowd into the studio.
Moe would turn on the machine, pay everyone 10 bucks, and figure out what went on whose album later. The sheer verve and vitality of those sessions beats the hell out of stuff that comes out of the studios these days.

"We prefer a rude vigor to a polished banality"
Jack Conroy, as quoted by Utah Phillips.
Utah also liked to quote Oscar Wilde, "Perfection is Nature's greatest bore."

Mark Ross

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: M.Ted
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 01:25 PM

You neglected to mention, PG, that "Ragged But Right" is an old ragtime song, recorded, but not written by Riley Puckett, and later to become something of a signature song for George Jones. And, since his name is being bantered about ,let's not forget the Jerry Garcia version--

A lot of people picked up a lot from the Greenbriar Boys, pdq--here's the only clip I could findGreenbriar Boys--Roll On Buddy That other banjo player looks familiar, but I can't place him:-)

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 01:47 PM

Thanks, Ted. The main reason that I "neglected to mention" that is that I didn't know, or at least didn't remember.

I feel particularly abashed at being so visibly unaware of anything recorded by Jerry G.

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: GUEST,Russ
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 05:01 PM

It seems to me that the danger is that the "more" you add to the basic music, the more generic the result will sound.

The distinction between raw and polished is not particularly important to me. I like both. The distiction between music that sounds generic and music that doesn't sound generic is very important to me.

I'll listen to some old recordings and think, "yeah, that's the year everybody discovered the digeridoo."

Russ (Permanent GUEST)

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: fat B****rd
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 05:26 PM

Lots of variables but in 1959 Ray Charles was recorded live in Atlanta with one mic suspeneded near the stage. Maybe it was a particularly good night but I find the "rawness" wonderful. By the same token I can listen to crystal clear recordings of Bach's Cello concertos and love them too.

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: GUEST,TJ in San Diego
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 05:37 PM

In the early 1960's, during Seattle's world's fair, a lot of great musicians came to town. It was often possible to get into a venue early, grab a seat right by the stage and spend the evening feeling like you were a part of the performance. I listened to a lot of live jazz back then, along with folk music. The soul of jazz being improvisation, the recording of it yields only a "snapshot" in time. Each time you hear it, it is exactly the same. It's the same with folk, classical or any other genre. No two live performances are ever exactly alike. When I can't be at a live performance, I can enjoy recordings, and often do just that. But there is nothing like being there in person, whether you prefer rough or polished.

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: M.Ted
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 05:39 PM

I like music that's really good, and music that's really bad, it's the stuff in the middle I don't much care for.

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: GUEST,bankley
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 06:21 PM

forget about about perfect... what's wrong with excellent ?

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: Arkie
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 07:06 PM

I like a raw sound, but not too raw. But where does one draw the line? After Jayto mentioned Reverend Peyton I was able to listen to an album and really liked the group. They stuck to the basics. A half dozen studio musicians would not improve on the recording. Back in the late 50s or early 60s whenever "strings" were inserted in country music, it did not bother me all that much, but when I listen to any of those recordings today, I cannot help but think how much better they would be without the orchestra. I get the feeling that there are music producers who pad the music in recordings hoping to suck in a wider audience. That does not always show off the artist or the song in its best light.

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: bankley
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 07:07 PM

for examaple... and in refererence to Jayto's Nashville produced friend... in 2004, Loretta Lynn teamed up with Jack White to try out some musical ideas that would be new to each of them... Jack got some of his former bandmates together, rehearsed then went in the studio and lay down the tracks, mostly in one day... the next session involved Loretta coming in the studio and singing every song twice , again in one day.... well, this unorthodox approach, esp in N-Ville and given Miss Lynn's history.. was a knock-out which also resulted in a Grammy for best country album, and another for best vocal collaboration (Jack can sing too)....

so instead of polishing the life out of the project, they went for the Song and the Performance.... still sounds fine and is full of vitality.... and that to me is excellence...

a lot of good comments on this topic...

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 07:43 PM

Can't get to raw fir me... Bad, yeah, but not too raw...

Might of fact I think my CD is purdy raw...

B~

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: Escapee
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 11:18 PM

My favorite example of this dilemma is " Suite: Judy Blue Eyes ". On the CSN studio recording, it's detailed and focussed and beautiful, and on the Woodstock album it's vital and exciting. It's all those things on both versions in varying proportions and I love to hear either one.
I tend to lean toward the raw side, but it can vary. I love stuff from Woody Guthrie recorded in a style I would never tolerate from Seiji Ozawa.

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: Phil Cooper
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 12:27 AM

Ragged but right is fine. Ragged, but ragged is not. I prefer the live sound. However I've seen some engineers/producers not do an artist proper service by telling them that the first take represents what they are, and not going further, if there were a better performance there. Off pitch harmony, on the best written of songs, is not going to get you airplay, or gigs.

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: M.Ted
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 01:48 AM

I seem to remember that Judy Blue Eyes was a big problem for the band, because they created the vocal parts in the studio and never learned them--they actually had to learn the song from the recording, and they apparently added considerably to the live recordings afterwards, in order to get an acceptable sound.

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:09 PM

Back in the late 70s when I was young I felt that most of the popular rock bands had become way to polished, too concerned with "production values". I won't mention any names because I don't want to step on anybody's toes but I'm not talking about disco. I'm talking about mainstream rock bands, mostly SoCal based. These bands were made up of proficient technical musicians but I felt they had no soul. I used to say if you polish off the rough edges is it still rock? I started to gravitate toward Punk Rock, much to the chagrin of my friends at the time. I don't mean I pierced myself all over and wore a mohawk. I never fully embraced the whole punk scene and I was aware that most of these musicians did not have the technical skills of the mainstrem rockers but I felt they were bringing the energy level back. If there is any term that should not be used to describe Rock&Roll it is laid back. I think that was actually much of the original impetus of Punk Rock in the first place, a reaction to complacent mellowing of rock music in the '70s.

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: M.Ted
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:44 PM

You and a million other people felt that way, NeilD--it was true then, and is probably more true today--If you stripped away the production values from most of the popular music today, you wouldn't find anything underneath at all.

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:55 PM

M Ted,
    So absolutely true. I never thought about it in that light but maybe what I was reacting to then was the beginning of a long descent into the wasteland that is popular music today. I know that the term "production values" came to be dirty words in my vocabulary.

Subject: RE: Music: Raw or Refined?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 03:57 PM

Live acts that do nothing more than duplicate the sound they made on record are disappointing enough. Live acts that CANNOT POSSIBLY sound anywheres near as good as their recordings are even worse.

But good musicians/entertainers can provide satisfying music whether or not they can sound exactly the same live on stage as they once sounded in a studio recording.

Those of us "of a certain age" ~ baby boomers, that is ~ have any number of musical hereos with whom we've grown up and grown old, er, I mean older. Some are still out on the road making appearances, and are finding it increasingly difficult to produce the sounds they made as youngsters (especially upper-register vocals).

I recently rented Martin Scorcese's film of a relatively-recent Rolling Stones concert. In the very first song, Mick quite obviously has to drop down a full octave on some very prominent notes/words. I found this to be briefly distracting, but all things considered the performance as a whole was completely effective. The boys in the band were giving it their all, creating highly dynamic and appealing music and fully "in the moment," even if they sounded somewhat different from the way we first heard the song.

(I didn't notice this phenomenon throughout the whole show. Maybe Mick just needed to warm up a bit.)