The conundrum of live performances of classic records
hermes1
109 Posts
This is a thread to discuss why I find the performances of classic records so wanting in real life. I am specifically referring to the verocai and axelrod performances that have happened in the last couple years but this could apply to many of the classic records that I love that were recorded in the 60s and 70s. First off, this is not meant to disparage the hard work of those who made these performances happen, its amazing and i am grateful that they did this.
however, my issue has to do with the actual sonic quality of the performances. i guess my gripe is why is it that a live performance of the verocai and axelrod recordings sounds so clean and borderline "world muzak" live ? dont the musicians understand that the reason why these records became so big and crossed over was due to the raw heavy drums and the gritty symphonic quality of the original product ? i mean if i had heard the verocai and axelrod recordings from the way they are performed live now i would have never been into those records.
has anyone else not noticed this ? i feel like its the big elephant in the room that none of my collector friends wants to talk about because the happiness of seeing those records performed live outweighs the fact that the drums, the vocals and many of the parts just lack the verve and soul of those original pieces.
another question of mine is that is it possible to have musicians and equipment that would recreate as closely as possible without sounding like some muzak version of the og ? you know what im talking about, those bright poppy studio musician sounding drums with no real depth, the hollow string sections and the vocals that really fail to rise ones emotional state like the original did.
btw,. i know this is soul strut and i expect some snarky comments but would really appreciate some sober objective response to my question. bottom line is that the verocai and axelrod records mean alot to me,hence my strong response to the live "sonic" quality of these performances.
here are some live videos to get an idea of what im talking about.
however, my issue has to do with the actual sonic quality of the performances. i guess my gripe is why is it that a live performance of the verocai and axelrod recordings sounds so clean and borderline "world muzak" live ? dont the musicians understand that the reason why these records became so big and crossed over was due to the raw heavy drums and the gritty symphonic quality of the original product ? i mean if i had heard the verocai and axelrod recordings from the way they are performed live now i would have never been into those records.
has anyone else not noticed this ? i feel like its the big elephant in the room that none of my collector friends wants to talk about because the happiness of seeing those records performed live outweighs the fact that the drums, the vocals and many of the parts just lack the verve and soul of those original pieces.
another question of mine is that is it possible to have musicians and equipment that would recreate as closely as possible without sounding like some muzak version of the og ? you know what im talking about, those bright poppy studio musician sounding drums with no real depth, the hollow string sections and the vocals that really fail to rise ones emotional state like the original did.
btw,. i know this is soul strut and i expect some snarky comments but would really appreciate some sober objective response to my question. bottom line is that the verocai and axelrod records mean alot to me,hence my strong response to the live "sonic" quality of these performances.
here are some live videos to get an idea of what im talking about.
Comments
steely dan still uses a rhodes in concert and without one it would just be weird sounding and thin. then again, dudes like stevie wonder proabbly haven;t touched the keys of a rhodes piano in 25 years and probably for good reason. alot of those anologue instruments are clunky, the action isn;t always so hot, and the range of sounds available may be more limited.
also, i think its sort of about who is the artist is now even if they are reinterpreting their older material.
essentially, i am not sure what i think about this but i guess if you want absolute fidenlity to an original then just put on the record and turn out the lights.....
The sonic limitations of that time are what most of us love, but best believe if they had pro tools back then (or an SSL 9000 etc. etc.) everyone would have used it. I'm just thankful it was documented at all.
face + melt
http://music.vtechphones.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/14-flying-to-la-128kps.mp3
So you are saying Verocai and Axelrod could not recreate the sonic experience of the OG record even if they wanted to ? Or are you saying that even if they wanted to it would cost too much money ? Also, how is it not realistic to want to recreate the very record that brought you back from the dead 30 years later ? Remember, my point is that if we had heard the Verocai and Axelrod recordings with those instruments that are shown on the youtubes above no one would be creaming over those records. If anything, most of us would call it passable "contemp jazz" brazilian and symphonic music. My suspicion is that Verocai and Axelrod dont realize that much of the "soul" for lack of a better term is lost in the live performance when they have these "studio sounding" instruments and players
I'm a sound fetishist, I cant stand the weakness of the non-manipulated real sound of bands.
Thats the reason why I listen to Rap music, it is made out of samples, and when it is performed live the main sound comes of a record, sounding the way it should sound.
BUT
What people like me have to understand is that for most other people it is not about the sound, for them it is about composition.
Thats why kids can listen to bad sounding mp3s on their mobile phones, without any bass, it doesnt matter to them.
And for most non HipHop musicians I met it is the same. Bob James told me he cant understand why everybody sampled the cowbells from Mardi Gras. He said to me "Why arent these people take a cowbell by themselfs and replay the pattern and record it ??".
It is the SOUND.
For people like me it is the composition AND the sound which makes a great record. A great composition can be destroyed when its presented in weak sound.
Now here comes the problem.
WHAT is weak sound ??
Ask a guy who is audiophile and he will probably tell you how weak and destroyed the stuff sounds we listen to.
So hermes1 can the sound be recreated live ??
1.
Yes it could, but first you need people who are aware of this "problem". And like I showed you, most people do not care like us.
2.
It will never 100% be like the sound we know ffrom the studio recording, but it would be no problem to let it sound shitty like it should be.
So I cosign hermes1 and I cosign Gabe Roth with everything he wrote in this article, especialy what he wrote in the Intro:
For those who want to digg deeper into the sound of funk I recommend both articles of Gabe Roth regarding the recording of Funk.
Article 1: How to play Funk (The one shown above)
http://westtownrecording.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/shitty11.pdf
Article 2: How to record Funk
http://westtownrecording.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/shitty2.pdf
Peace
P.S.
By the way, there are great recordings of live concerts which sound very well shitty !!!
But I guess finding a whole orchestra consisting of 60s70s sound purists with vintage equipment would be close to impossible.
If these performances were a regular thing (ie a tour) I would like to think that more time would have gone into recreating the sound better. However, the players they use are not cheap, and when it appears to be a one off performance, you are lucky to get a few rehearsals and then its showtime. Remember, the promoters/producers of these shows arent doing it for 'the love', they are there to make money.
Regarding equipment. Yes, that shit makes a huge difference. I'm not saying the bass player needs an original 1965 Fender 'P Bass', but using flatwound strings, a foam mute, and a B15 amp would not hurt either.
One other example of a live recording not working is the Galt MacDermot 'Live in Nashville' (featuring Pretty Purdie and Bad Bascomb). That combination sounds sick right? but the end result is the biggest smooth jamz phat funk turd fest you can possibly imagine. They might has well hired Les Claypool and Chad Smith to do that shit. But again, the reason behind the show in the first place is not to make some wonderful homage to a classic LP, it is to get paid.
People do stuff for reasons other than money, too, you know.
yeah, but lets be real. They would have done it right otherwise.
But lets just say the producers weren't just 'in it for money'. They made the mistake of hiring players who obviously were. Think anyone on that stage had heard an Axelrod LP before the show?
And as far as doing this for money...just how much of a profit do you think they're making? I doubt there's a huge market for semi-obscure artists from other countries who recorded in their prime 40 years ago. Not to mention flying them out, hiring musicians etc. etc. I can tell you that Miguel Atwood Ferguson is not in this for a paycheck. There was heavy financial sponsorship from VTech to make this happen (read: social branding ala :scion:).
So that is the clean polished sound you are referring to. Its was edited, mixed and mastered, just like a studio recorded release. And this is how most labels want it. I prefer gritty more "live" recordings like a 2 track off the board, but for any release now and days its just doing what the gear and technique have led us to. Those old recordings are just dated gear and recording techniques, which are favorable to us, aren't really preferred by commercial mixes.
It is the SOUND.
For people like me it is the composition AND the sound which makes a great record. A great composition can be destroyed when its presented in weak sound.
Now here comes the problem.
WHAT is weak sound ??
Ask a guy who is audiophile and he will probably tell you how weak and destroyed the stuff sounds we listen to.
So hermes1 can the sound be recreated live ??
1.
Yes it could, but first you need people who are aware of this ???problem???. And like I showed you, most people do not care like us."
I totally co-sign this and that was my suspicion to begin with. Most people don't care to hear the raw warm density that is exhibited in those old recordings, however, I dont understand why considering it is the SOUND that makes that album special. It's not "silly" to want to recreate the very reason that made those concerts happen in the first place. I guarantee you that if that Verocai album had been made with professional studio musicians and with the current super compressed sound techniques that make everything sound "clean", "polished" and "soulless", people on this board would call that record a contemp brazilian jazz terd.
Also, seems that some bands do go out of their way according to discoche to keep that warm analog sound intact so obviously it can be recreated to a degree. I personally dont want it to be "exactly" the same as those recordings, I know thats impossible and unrealistic but a little closer to the recordings is all I'm asking. Lets be real here, watch that Axelrod video, its like they went to the completely other side of the spectrum with bright contemp jazz guitar, drums that sound like they could be off a Kenny G or Dave Koz record.
Also, 48 volts dropped the engineer knowledge and he agrees that he prefers the warmer recordings live and that it can be done without having to to fly back in a Delorean to 1972 to achieve it. It's the labels and the mainstream public that dictate the clean polished sound that we hear which is a shame in my opinion, considering it was NOT those labels and that mainstream audience that made those records cross over . It was the people on this board and of a similar ilk that made those records achieve the prestige that they have today.
As far as the promoters are concerned, I know their best intentions are in place and I am grateful that they put this all together regardless.
Fastforward to 2010 and the musical propositions that were so bizarre for studio cats who, in '69, were primarily doing either R&B or pop-rock sessions (the rhythm section) or presumably a lot of TV-score/'light classical'/loungey 'jazz' stuff (the orchestra) are no longer so beyond the ken for contemporary studio players. As a graduate of what used to be North Texas State (the 'Berklee of the South'), I think a lot of this comes down to the music-school ethos by which studio musicians today are largely guys that would rather be playing jazz but take these gigs cos they're more common, better-paying, and fun -- and as jazz-trained players, they already familiar with extended harmonies, large-group dynamics, etc., so they're never compelled to pull it out of their asses the way Roberts/Kaye/Palmer were. The case of the recent recordings of someone like John McLaughlin is a similar one, I think: he's technically a better player than he was in '71, but I'm still much more interested in the first Mahavishnu records and his work with Miles than anything he's done since, because he was stretching back then.
Not only am I grateful that I was at the first Verocai LA show. I think everybody who was there felt an importance. You could see it on Verocai's face how grateful he was to have people appreciate his work. I believe I read that, that show was the first time the material has ever been played in front of a Live audience, ever.
Were you at the Verocai show?
Are you dissapointed that it doesn't sound like your mp3s?
Give me a fucking break man. boo-hoo.
Really? Really!
Think about the logic here: Let's take some obscure artist that millions of people never heard of, and replay there whole album live. Because it will make us Millionares!
wow..
- spidey
Hey Maldorrur,
This was an excellent and insightful post. I enjoyed reading it.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
Thanks, holmes. I should add as well that the music school/studio musician thing really does tend to iron out somebody's eccentricities, which is why I quit: my teacher at university was a really excellent player and a decent human being, but his stated objective was to get me "to the point where you can play something exactly the same 100 times out of 100," which is so distant from what interests me. Take a kid who's been shedding James Brown licks for 15 years and he's inevitably not going to be as interesting as Jabo or Stubblefield, because the way they got down came from their eccentricities and making do with whatever was at hand.
You get a roomfull of jazzers (which is the level you may need to play through the more complex stuff in one take and therfore not chew up $tudio Time) and they are never going to play it the same way twice. It's what used to drive the pickier Motown producers mad too. Jamerson would always sneak something in, Val Simpson would nearly always hear it and make him re-do it. Cat and mouse.
I love playing jazz because it's about picking up on, and injecting in, feel, dependent on what the rest of the band is doing. No two gigs the same. The tune head and chord sheet is about as restrictive as it should get. If you go to a gig holding the sound of the record as the goal of the band, it's the wrong approach. As a listener, you should get something creative, live, which is beyond what the record can offer.
Sometimes it floats your boat, sometimes not, but appreciate that something creative is being done right in front of you.
My 2p.
Ya notice how bands like the dap kings keep that authentic sound? Look at their equipment...its old, the drums only have an overhead, and kick mic'd...they know whats up. "Pro" players and sound dudes...dont have a clue on what music sounded like 40-odd years ago.
Maybe for rock and arena stuff they mic the whole kit, but most NYC jazz engineers just keep it simple, kick, snare, overhead. I very rarely see toms mic'd or bottom snare. In the live sound arena, the mics have pretty much are the same joints they were using 30 years ago. 58's, 57's, 414's-these are all mics that are tried and tested. Daptones have a sound. Gritty and funky. Its the way Gabe mixes. Someone can achieve this all in the box with protools, if that is their style. I mean look at the new Black Keys record. I thought that was all done analog and on tape, but turns out everything was ITB.
Its hard to generalize all engineers cause of what you see at a rock show or a festival. These things need more reinforcement due to how large the stage is, distance to audience. A good engineer will only mic what isn't loud enough acoustically. Small venues don't really even need the drums in the mix, just real subtly for definition. Same with guitar and bass amps. But when you are playing a show in front of 25,000 people, with satellite mixes, everything needs to be mic'd.
But seriously trying to compare a studio recording to a live show is apples and oranges. Live shows provide energy and a mood that is shared with a group of people. There is an atmosphere. You cant get things like stage presence, improvised playing and vibe, off a record that someone spent a week mixing the snare drum. I hope the live show doesn't sound exactly like the record cause that would be pretty fucking boring.