I have a friend who was at the Axelrod performance, and he said that the sound in the concert hall was very different from what you hear on that DVD/CD. As 48 Volts mentioned, that is mixed and cleaned up and yes, pretty sterile. However, in person it was much more organic and full sounding apparently. I would have loved to have been there. You can take issue with some of the individual performers (I hate the guitarists soloing personally) but that is a different thing, the point is that the live sound, at least of that performance, can't really be done justice by a DVD or especially a youtube clip.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
I was at the Axelrod show that was recorded for the DVD/CD. Much as I love the albums, the whole buzz of that performance was in hearing those songs performed by a full orchestra, in front of an appreciative and enthusiastic audience and in a venue pretty much purpose-built for orchestras. I'm not interested, and nor have I ever been interested, in hearing a live performance that attempts to replicate what's on the record. If that's supposed to be the ultimate objective of a live performance, then why bother? Just stay at home and listen to the record. I happen to think this recent trend for bands/performers playing entire albums end-to-end is an interesting one, not least because, in an overwhelming majority of cases, quite a lot of the material will have never before been played live. There are often specific logistical reasons for this, and its these logistical challenges that are a big part of what makes these events attractive, above and beyond the "VH1 Classic Albums" nostalgia aspect.
I remember when one of the stock cliches every band would come out with in interviews was "we really want to capture our live sound on record". Yep, in a dead room with no audience and none of the energy and adrenaline that's actually generated during a live show. Good luck with that. Thing is, it works the other way as well. Whether or not the technology exists to exactly replicate the sound of "Holy Thursday" in a live situation is beside the point - in any event, Carol Kaye has arthritis and has retired, and Earl Palmer's in the bone orchard. The two mediums aren't the same, and aren't meant to be the same, and if the main thing you want from a live show is that it sounds exactly like the record, then you may be missing the actual point.
Hey all, pretty interesting discussion if uninformed some of the time.
Here are some thoughts on both the Axelrod and the Verocai as someone who was there,
who was involved in the post and the the pre-production on both shows. I also directed the Verocai.
1 The Axelrod Show was commission by The Royal Festival Hall and they hired "The Orchestra" to play the music. David had two days of rehersal with them and despite him being really sick with the flu, he was happy with their performance. On the night it went well - people seemed really happy to be there, to have witnessed all that music perforned live for the first time (with the exception of Tensity). David mixed the performance himself. He insisted on it. Personally I have less problems with the sound of it than the quality of the performance. But what can you do. Earl Palmer, Carol Kaye, Howard Roberts, Joe Sample arent easily replaced with cats from London or from anywhere. The sound quality issue is more to do with instruments, micing, and the whole process of separation that happens in a dead audio environment like Capital Studio A. Axelrod live in 1972 would never have sounded like his RFH concert but it also wouldnt have sounded like the studio recordings.... technology changes, recording methods change.
2 The Verocai show was put together by us at Mochilla. Arthur was delighted to be involved and again insisted on mixing it himself. What part of that can you argue about. I fetishise recordings as much as the next guy but if Arthur Verocai wants to mix are you gonna say no? The musicians involved were the highest quality cats from Brasil (10 total) mixed with the highest quality cats from here (LA). I think the performance was incredible. All your complaining about "world music" is unfounded and idiotic sounding. This was a good performance period. The sound of the mix again isnt exactly the way I would have done it but it was mixed by Arthur in a top quality studio in Rio and who am I to argue with him. The same him that wrote the damned album.
Some points to remember.
1 You have demo ears! You are used to the record. You will notice the difference between the record and the live recording but you will assume this is a mistake. It may not be. Arthur and Axelrod weren't trying to recreate the records they were doing good shows and then making good records from those shows. The title of this thread is misleading here I think.
2 Yes drums sounded different in 1972 but film looked different too. How come none of you have problems with that?? I think in general close micing and digital recording has compromised these recordings but considering the complications of doing it old school style (see Soul Power if you need to know) this is a necessary compromise. Im not sure I buy the whole Daptone argument. I like how their records sound but is sound more important than song? Daptone as indeed a growing group of newer producers Quantic is another example use tape. Tape is great as film is but it has limitations too. And tape does not make great music. Great musicians do.
We could have done the whole thing straight to 4 track tape. We recorded SFMD this way in Cedar Falls Iowa as an experiment - what was funny about that was there were times when a baby crying or people coughing was louder than the strings, one flub on the trombone and the whole song is botched...So these are all compromises - creative compromises. Done with care and consideration and reverence for the artists and their art (read the original record).
Lastly look this music for the most part has never been experienced live. As the cat who was at the Verocai concert pointed out (above) this was a very special and wonderful thing. Both Verocai and Axe are studio cats, they never really heard the applause of a 2000 people theatre. That we recorded that and made a film from it is what is important here. We need your support to do these things, I am happy to debate the pros and cons of how we do it but the whys should be obvious.
And for the record you could never do these shows for the money. Thats a joke.
thanks to Soulstrut and all of you for your time and interest....
If you want to see the Verocai for yourself go here www.mochilla.com/timeless
2 Yes drums sounded different in 1972 but film looked different too. How come none of you have problems with that??
Uhh, because the discussion was about SOUND, not film? I have yet to see Scorcese try to perform Taxi Driver live on film. Although I'm sure it wouldn't look as good if he went digital.
Comments
I remember when one of the stock cliches every band would come out with in interviews was "we really want to capture our live sound on record". Yep, in a dead room with no audience and none of the energy and adrenaline that's actually generated during a live show. Good luck with that. Thing is, it works the other way as well. Whether or not the technology exists to exactly replicate the sound of "Holy Thursday" in a live situation is beside the point - in any event, Carol Kaye has arthritis and has retired, and Earl Palmer's in the bone orchard. The two mediums aren't the same, and aren't meant to be the same, and if the main thing you want from a live show is that it sounds exactly like the record, then you may be missing the actual point.
Here are some thoughts on both the Axelrod and the Verocai as someone who was there,
who was involved in the post and the the pre-production on both shows. I also directed the Verocai.
1 The Axelrod Show was commission by The Royal Festival Hall and they hired "The Orchestra" to play the music. David had two days of rehersal with them and despite him being really sick with the flu, he was happy with their performance. On the night it went well - people seemed really happy to be there, to have witnessed all that music perforned live for the first time (with the exception of Tensity). David mixed the performance himself. He insisted on it. Personally I have less problems with the sound of it than the quality of the performance. But what can you do. Earl Palmer, Carol Kaye, Howard Roberts, Joe Sample arent easily replaced with cats from London or from anywhere. The sound quality issue is more to do with instruments, micing, and the whole process of separation that happens in a dead audio environment like Capital Studio A. Axelrod live in 1972 would never have sounded like his RFH concert but it also wouldnt have sounded like the studio recordings.... technology changes, recording methods change.
2 The Verocai show was put together by us at Mochilla. Arthur was delighted to be involved and again insisted on mixing it himself. What part of that can you argue about. I fetishise recordings as much as the next guy but if Arthur Verocai wants to mix are you gonna say no? The musicians involved were the highest quality cats from Brasil (10 total) mixed with the highest quality cats from here (LA). I think the performance was incredible. All your complaining about "world music" is unfounded and idiotic sounding. This was a good performance period. The sound of the mix again isnt exactly the way I would have done it but it was mixed by Arthur in a top quality studio in Rio and who am I to argue with him. The same him that wrote the damned album.
Some points to remember.
1 You have demo ears! You are used to the record. You will notice the difference between the record and the live recording but you will assume this is a mistake. It may not be. Arthur and Axelrod weren't trying to recreate the records they were doing good shows and then making good records from those shows. The title of this thread is misleading here I think.
2 Yes drums sounded different in 1972 but film looked different too. How come none of you have problems with that?? I think in general close micing and digital recording has compromised these recordings but considering the complications of doing it old school style (see Soul Power if you need to know) this is a necessary compromise. Im not sure I buy the whole Daptone argument. I like how their records sound but is sound more important than song? Daptone as indeed a growing group of newer producers Quantic is another example use tape. Tape is great as film is but it has limitations too. And tape does not make great music. Great musicians do.
We could have done the whole thing straight to 4 track tape. We recorded SFMD this way in Cedar Falls Iowa as an experiment - what was funny about that was there were times when a baby crying or people coughing was louder than the strings, one flub on the trombone and the whole song is botched...So these are all compromises - creative compromises. Done with care and consideration and reverence for the artists and their art (read the original record).
Lastly look this music for the most part has never been experienced live. As the cat who was at the Verocai concert pointed out (above) this was a very special and wonderful thing. Both Verocai and Axe are studio cats, they never really heard the applause of a 2000 people theatre. That we recorded that and made a film from it is what is important here. We need your support to do these things, I am happy to debate the pros and cons of how we do it but the whys should be obvious.
And for the record you could never do these shows for the money. Thats a joke.
thanks to Soulstrut and all of you for your time and interest....
If you want to see the Verocai for yourself go here www.mochilla.com/timeless
b+
Uhh, because the discussion was about SOUND, not film? I have yet to see Scorcese try to perform Taxi Driver live on film. Although I'm sure it wouldn't look as good if he went digital.