Live Performances, Different Recordings

Subject: RE: Live Performances, Different Recordings
From: Jack Campin
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 07:46 PM

People who record themselves pretty near exactly as they sound live:

Bruce Molsky
Adam MacNaughtan

Who else?

Subject: RE: Live Performances, Different Recordings
From: Phil Cooper
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 07:27 PM

I like recording with other musicians. I look at it as if we're playing what we do, but have some extra voices/instruments to embellish things. I agree that recordings are different than live performance. I did a bare bones recording of ballads a couple years back. When I talked about adding other instruments my life partner, Susan, pointed out that in this case we didn't want anything to get in the way of the words. It worked very well I thought. On the other hand, when I'm selling CD's at shows people tend to want the instrumental projects that have some extra people on them.

Subject: RE: Live Performances, Different Recordings
From: Anne Lister
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 01:29 PM

My own feeling, for what it's worth, is that when people listen to a CD more than a few times it's good to have some other melodic lines and harmonies to keep it interesting. I'm not only selling CDs to people who have seen me live, I'm also selling them to people who might never see my performances, and so a bare bones approach isn't necessarily the best one for everyone.
I have produced a live recording, in response to requests, but haven't so far had the money to invest in multiple copies to take it round with me to clubs - and of course the limitation is that that's a reflection of what I was playing when I recorded it but my repertoire changes as I write new stuff. So at the moment it's only potential bookers and individual orders that get to hear the live album.
And recording with other musicians is a wonderfully enriching experience, as well - it can get lonely, trucking round on your own!

Subject: RE: Live Performances, Different Recordings
From: GUEST
Date: 03 Jun 10 - 08:42 AM

I believe in 'What you hear and see is what you get to hear' if you you are hoping to shift cd based on a performance

In the buff, raw and recognisable !!

A true and accurate representation.

bye

Subject: RE: Live Performances, Different Recordings
From: stallion
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 07:33 PM

OK our first cd was a "live" recording in a studio the second, one due out soon, is the same, with the mistakes left in, most were one take, some had a second attempt and one had three attempts the only difference is our mate Rob who recorded us sings with us on some of the tracks but it doesn't essentially change the sound so what you hear is what you get. I think we probably recorded thirty songs in three 2 1/2 hr sessions, dunno how long Rob spent with it after but he sent us a copy a couple of days later, some people spend weeks! Anyway I understand how unforgiving recorded sound is and also one has to be as near perfect and interesting as possible if you are producing a cd to listen to, that isn't our aim, we produce a cd to sing along with, in the car or whilst cooking, I put it on in the kitchen whilst I am working and sing along with it to find new harmonies, therapy!

Subject: RE: Live Performances, Different Recordings
From: Alan Day
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 05:18 PM

I much prefer simple arrangements against the multi track compilations.
I can understand why some enjoy the multi tracking and on an album it does provide variety, but a straightforward performance as played live on stage is more enjoyable for my taste.
Al

Subject: RE: Live Performances, Different Recordings
From: John P
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 04:16 PM

I played in a duet for many years and we recorded four albums. We each played two or three instruments on most of the tracks. We only brought in extra people three or four times. The rest was us playing with ourselves . . .

The only reason was because we liked it and wanted to -- it gave us more creative scope than the duet could. I've always thought that performance and recording are two separate art forms.

Subject: RE: Live Performances, Different Recordings
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 04:09 AM

Previos thread on the same subject: Why do folkies rearrange it for the CD?

Subject: Live Performances, Different Recordings
From: GUEST,andrew
Date: 02 Jun 10 - 03:37 AM

I've just been indulging in a bit of nostalgia, and listening to some old recordings, and it's got me thinking.
I used to go to folk clubs in England in the early 70s.

I saw some singers in folk clubs, liked their songs, and then bought their records.
In all cases I was disappointed in what I heard, not that the albums were not good, mostly they were, but because in all cases extra musicians had been brought in for the recordings. I had heard these singers perform alone with just their guitars, and that was what I wanted to hear when I bought their records.

I understand the reasons for this, hoping to get airplay etc. and   thinking radio stations maybe just wouldn't play tracks that were just one voice and a guitar.
But then it could work the other way round too. Someone who bought the recording, and then went to see the artist in a folk club.

The same thing doesn't happen so much for a band, as they usually play live together, and then record with the same line
up.

What do others think?
Does this still happen?
For me more sound is not necessarily better. Maybe that's why I now direct A Cappella choirs!