Live versus Recorded, Not the Holy Grail

Hmmm. I agree, but coming from a different direction. Living out in the sticks, I seldom get to live performances anymore. However, a couple of friends of mine said they were driving down to LA (2 hrs) Wednesday night to hear Andre Watts in recital, and I simply couldn't pass that up. Of course, the recital was sublime, but I really can't say that the experience so far exceeded my everyday enjoyment of music on my home system as to render that experience invalid. Anymore, I listen to music almost as a meditation after a hard day's work. I find that I sleep better after a great evening's listening and that having appropriate music programming readily available greatly enhances my life. I actually found the audience noises at the recital extremely distracting, and sitting upright with knees bent was a little confining. Then, there is the multi-tasking I usually engage in at night. I have had my share of performing, growing up with a violin under my chin, so its not that I assume that music appears de novo in shrink wrapped plastic. At this stage in my life, what I want from a music listening experience is well provided by reproduced music in my living room, while dressing up and acting civil in a public venue is an altogether different thing.

Sorry Pat, I am sure this response has nothing to do with what you intended for this thread, but I have had a niggling feeling about the experience of the recital I attended two nights ago falling slightly short of what I had hoped for. Seeing your heading gave me a chance to vent that slight disappointment.

Norman

Pat and Norman,
you're not that far apart, and this is an interesting thread !

On this year's "High End" in Munich, there were three (!) companies doing the boring old "live versus recorded" thing again, one of them being B&W with a considerable amount of effort.

I didn't even stay and wait for the results. Why ? Cause I couldn't care less.

Good studio productions (out of good studios - like the Avatar studios in New York) produce music suitable for home consumption. And that's fine. Sometimes, live recordings sound good at home. And if they do, it's mostly for the atmosphere (dishes, applause, coughing, natural reverbs) and not for the super natural capture of the instruments.

Before I'm misunderstood: I LOVE quite a lot of live recordings, but NOT because they beam me into the original venue, but because they create another (possibly a different) illusion of the original concert, which carries similar emotions. Not, because it sounds "the same".

cheers
Stefan

I'd broadly agree with you, Pat. Particularly if you are very familar with the artist's recordings, it can be a let down hearing all the glitches of a live show. But I think what we mean is that we want to experience that thrill, that connection you get at a live performance, when we listen to a cd, rather than an artificial sound-stage or a sterile hi-fi sound that's had the passion erased from it by some guy using Pro Tools.

Like you say, live can suck, but it can also be fantastic !

Regards,
Brian

IMHO: There is not a general rule here. Each medium offers great potential, and I think it depends on the original recording and production. I have heard live recordings which offer the thrill of no second take, the excitement of the immediate and the intimate (most early jazz stuff, Get yer ya's ya's out, early live Tom Waits, talking heads, keith jarrett), on the other hand there's Portishead Live in New York (an interesting experiment to see if it could be done, and not unengaging, but nowhere near as exciting (stunning?) as the studio versions), anything Pink Floyd, and much other 'highly produced' stuff. Then again, maybe it's just the Laphroaig!

I just like whichever version is the most moving or exciting. I prefer the studio Dark Side to the live (on Pulse), but think live versions of King Crimson material from 1974 beat the studio versions on Larks, Starless etc.

Allman Brothers Live at Fillmore East or at Atlanta International as an example of where "live" far exceeds "studio." Whether these constitute hi-fi is another question.

I think this is an interesting topic, but the quality of a recording is also a reflection on the band, studio or engineer and what they want to achieve. Most pop music is mixed to sound good on anything other than hi-fidelity equipment. A horrible example from my record collection is the Be Good Tanya's "Blue Horse." The first track sounds great in the car and horrible at home - where the harmonisation of the three female voices just sounds awful.

Other, less mainstream recordings in all genres, mix to the studio monitors and not for mp3 or radio / boom box reproduction. Here you are probably right in saying that we hear what the artistes want us to hear. Mind you, live performance gives an artist an opportunity to redefine their "standards" as they evolve musically - think Miles Davis and the way he revisited his back catalogue. often this reworking is only available on "live" or bootleg recordings.

For classical recordings sound engineers / producers, in searching for the "right" performance, will mix and match different sessions. More often than not, you might not notice but sometimes you do. Orchestras and soloists all behave differently, studio vs. live, atmospherics, conductor ... Live performances (think BBC Radio 3) just flow so much better even if there are occasional hiccoughs. Mind you, not everything touted as live is a genune single performance - most performances on disc can be a pic and mix of a series of shows.

Not easy is it

I guess it could be that live, you do have to compromise on the technical side of things, but all being well, you get the synergy/groove of the band/artist playing as one. In a studio environment, you will get much more control over all the individual sounds, tones, etc, but may end up missing out on the vibe, due to recording too much stuff individually, using click track for "perfect timing", too much gadgetry.
I think it depends on the act, the engineer, & type of music as well. It should be fairly easy to record a jazz quartet, chamber music, etc "live" in a studio. All you are missing then is the influence of the occasion, & the audience.
Sgt. pepper was never played live(at the time) because they could create it in a studio, but not recreate it live, due to lack of technology.I for one, am happy that it exists though.

For me, the point of "Live" is that it generally has an "immediacy" or passion that doesn't always come over on a studio CD.
In terms of rock/pop/country music, I know that recently seeing Keith Urban, fellow Aussies Sam Hawksley and The Borderers live, they really came "alive" even if the sound quality wasn't 100%.
It's about conveying the passion in the music, that's why I like Naim.
To me, they get closest to the live experience in delivering, pure, passionate, music.

Live classical music is great in an un-amplified environment where you can hear the instuments as they should sound. The passion etc. is also conveyed, even with the odd cough etc. from the audience.

You're absolutely right as far as I'm concerned. Bands heavily amplified, by (relatively) cheap electronics, in their live shows have a sound only a madman would want to replicate in his own home.

A different matter is that of, for instance, an unaccompanied solo voice/instrument. There's something impressive about a solo voice recording souding as it would if the person were singing in front of you. This is what I believe people are referring to when they seek the grail of a "live" sound from their hifi.

Jonathan

quote:

Originally posted by blythe:
It's about conveying the passion in the music, that's why I like Naim.
To me, they get closest to the live experience in delivering, pure, passionate, music.

.

I couldn't agree more.

I listen to classical music almost exclusively. I moved back to Chicago 11 years ago expecting to hit B.L.U.E.S. a lot, but at my age, I just can't stay up as late as one has to for blues at a venue like B.L.U.E.S.

Every time I went to that joint (when I was younger) I was appalled by the sound system and uplifted by the musc. (And then there was the time Little Walter hit on my wife....)

Every time at B.L.U.E.S. - not necessarily other places - live beat recorded by miles. The 2 times I heard Muddy Waters (Cellar Door in DC and South Shore Country Club in Chicago), there was no comparison - records are just a very pale reflection of Muddy and his band live. 2 of the 3 times I heard Buffy Ste.-Marie were better than her records.

But for orchestral music and opera, most of the time I find records are better than the live performances. At least that's how I've responded since I bought an ARO in particular and Naim equipment in general. Before I had Naim equipment, I couldn't listen to my hifi for days after i went to a concert.

But the exceptions go a long way to making life worthwhile. Last night's CSO pension concert (Brahms 2nd Symphony and Piano Concerto) provided exactly what a live performance can do - great music making that touches one's heart. Last week's DePaul University orchestra (yup, students except for 2 or 3 ringers) concert was special, too.

So I'm going to attend live performances as long as I can in the hope of hearing the special magic that live musicians playing music can provide in a way no studio performance can.

I just hope I can retire and change my circadian rythms so I can hear some live blues!

Regards.

Phil
(Smiling, remembering top concerts I attended)

Hi Phil

I don't disagree with you, keep music live and go to as many concerts as you can. My initial point is that in many genres, one will never get close to the real sound in a live event due to technical sound reinforcement issues. (I have done a few concerts where I was a sound engineer and you should see some of the compromises that are made)

I can fully appreciate your experience at the CSO as I was lucky to get to a concert there when I was in Chicago 2 years ago. (DB conducting a Bruckner Symphony)

Just to reflect on the point you made about the wondeful live experience at the orchestra, what you feel is nothing compared to actually playing in the orchestra!! 5-6 years ago, I took to playing Frenceh horn and after a few years practice & lessons I joined a local volunteer orchestra who play to a reasonable standard. There are many times during concerts when the hair is standing up on my neck!

Regards P

Pat,

You are right.

I can't say that I appreciate many of the sound engineering tricks that appear on records, but live is a very different experience from recorded, and it's not possible to reproduce the live experience yet. And, of course, some recordings can be done only in a studio.

Sgt Pepper can't be done live, and we'd be worse off without it. Karajan's recorded dynamics can't be done live, and we'd be better off without those recordings. IMO, that is.

But your point that live is not a holy grail is well-taken.

I guess, in retrospect, I meant to say this: 1) Yes, sometimes a recorded performance is definitive - as long as we keep in mind that not all sound engineering helps the music; and 2) some live performances offer things that are simply too hard to capture in rcordings - so let's be grateful we have both experiences available.

I'm with you in thinking that listening isn't as satisfying as playing. When I retire, I plan to take voice lessons and join an amateur chorus.

BTW, I too played a fiddle when I was a child - but I never practiced, so I was lousy at it. If I had only known then what I know now!

Regards.

Phil

quote:

live versions of King Crimson material from 1974 beat the studio versions on Larks, Starless etc.

Much of the contant of the "studio" albums of this era of KC were live and not studio recordings - Trio, We'll Let You Know, Providence, Starless, Fracture.....

David