Author Topic: Studio vs Live, etc  (Read 1762 times)

kosmo vinyl

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 14974
    • Hi-Fi Pop
Studio vs Live, etc
« on: September 24, 2010, 05:50:31 pm »
In order not to clutter up the Freefest thread and to wind up sweetcell up some more  ;)

I do as fact feel that more artists should be forced to stand around a single mic and record live.  Far too manufactured artists....  Or at least go the analog route ala Sharon Jones and the Dap-kings, Ghetto Recorders.  I just got a album with the phrase "No computers were used in the recording of this record", awesome if you ask me.  It may have several attempts to capture the perfect take, but no real musician should be autotuned or everything pieced together to get a prefect tack.

To imply that electronic music can't be preformed because it wasn't recorded "live" is silly.  A song is a song and it can still be learned by other musicians to be re-created live.  Drag out the keyboards, sequencers, drum machines, etc.  I've seen Carl Craig do his music live with two extra keyboardists one playing an Fender Rhodes piano and a saxophonist.  Dan Bell (DBX)  recreated his songs with a variety of on stage equipment.

To further make my point, one needs to checkout Christian Prommer Drumlesson, where he along with "traditional" instrumentation (drums, guitars, percussion, keyboards) recreates dance and electronic music tracks.

And if you want to take even farther, one of the most amazing tracks I've heard of late is the Brassroot  New Orleans inspired horn band take on Inner City's "Good Life".  They also do a pretty killer take on "Seven Nation Army",  that bass line done on tuba is tops.

Bottom line is most electronic acts must be too lazy to put the effort into live reproduction and just cash the big check for twiddling some knobs or DJing...
T.Rex

walkonby

  • Guest
Re: Studio vs Live, etc
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2010, 05:59:35 pm »
bippy boppy bloop music sounds great live . . . under the influence of jelly brained transference, which is what most kids who listen to it live are going through.  arguement dead.

chaz

  • Member
  • Posts: 5111
  • este lugar es una mierda
Re: Studio vs Live, etc
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2010, 06:06:32 pm »
I'm with you on the death of auto-tune, the clearly superior sound of analog recordings, as well as the beauty of an honest-to-god in-the-room document of a live performance.  But things like pro-tools and other DAW's (many of them free), usb audio inputs for $100, the list goes on an on....all these things have brought high quality recording to the masses who previously could not afford such things.  And this is a good thing.

Analog still kills it though.  Nothing sounds better than a genuine plate reverb.  A lot of that stuff is hard to reproduce in the digital domain...


Sir HC

  • Member
  • Posts: 4059
Re: Studio vs Live, etc
« Reply #3 on: September 26, 2010, 12:37:17 pm »
Chromeo were using an old school voice box a la Joe Walsh instead of a vocoder or autotune.

I respected them for that.

Chemical Brothers and Crystal Method are usually tweaking synths on stage when they play.  The Orb used to have a live drummer and bassist and be mixing it all on stage.

It can be done.