68.164.169.207
In Reply to: RE: I believe that “live” is the root of all audio comparisons, whether we realize it or not. posted by Robert C. Lang on April 16, 2008 at 15:40:59
and my band being one of them, - who NEVER attempted to recreate the "live" experience in the studio.
Partly because the "live" experience in rock is so pathetic, - as far sound, and hence recording goes.
There were a few, like Frank Zappa, Joe Jackson, Crowded House, etc.. who were able to achieve "good sound" live.
But even some classical concert and opera that I've been to, - in SF, - has had ARFUL sound. I wouldn't want that crap on any recording; or at least, I'd separate out the performance from the recording.
In the studio, we were never interested in even approaching "live." We were concerned with writing songs, and if the song called for an Oboe, Glockenspiel, or smashing a bottle against a wall, - we did it! I remember recording our singer's voice on one song where I used a cheapo flanger footpedal barely turned on, on low speed. Plugged his microphone into a cheapo Fender guitar amplifier, turned it up to 11 and put it in another room from the microphone that actually went into the board. This created a great, old time radio speaker/broadcast box effect. In my opinion, it was perfect for the song. But, no way could something like that be duplicated live.
For someone like Brian Eno, Peter Gabriel, Steely Dan, Future Sounds of London, Prodigy, etc. They consider themselves studio bands, AND live bands, - who "do it differently" live.
A studio recording often doesn't have the goal of being a facsimile of a live performance.
I know that you think that you know what I said, but do you realize that what I said was not what I meant?
Follow Ups: