Recording preference

Music Lane

It's all about the music, dude! Sit down, relax and listen to some tunes.

208.170.180.88

Some of the earlier disscussions on tempo and performance vs. sound got me to thinking. This question is not particularly aimed at classical or orchestral music, I am thinking in terms of popular music, but there is some cross-over. In general, which do you prefer (given a reasonable recording of either); a recording of a live performance or, a studio recording?
The studio allows for the artist(s), producers, engineers and such, to tinker, repeat, overdub, etc. until they get just what they want, free from any (or at least most) mistakes. Live performances have to deal with the acoustics of the room or hall, crowd noises from screams to the caughing and other forms of respiratory distress during the quiet passages.
The perfection of a studio recording is one thing, but the energy that is conveyed in a live recording rarely seems to be equaled in the studio. Many times I prefer a live recording, warts and all, over a studio record or cd. This is especially true if I hear an artist or song live for the first time. I once heard Steeleye Span do the song "White Man" about the colonization of Austrailia. It was played with a lot of passion and illustrated the anger and disgust they felt about what happened. A little while later, I got the lp and the song was disappointing in that all the passion was missing. The words were the same, but the energy was gone. The same is true of an all woman band I had heard, Pele Juju. Lot's of fun and energy in the music (cute lead singer didn't hurt either), the record booth at the festival was sold out of the live cd (others thinking the same way I assume) and settled for a cassette of another record. I like it, but every time I hear it, I miss what I saw live. The band Tempest, sort of a Celtic rock band, was yet another case. Live, they had the area around the dance stage in a cloud of dust, and may have been one of the hits of the festival that year. Again, the cd I bought did not convey that energy. I saw Chris Smither once and he described how he recorded his cd "Another Way to Find You", with a live audience in the studio to give him some feedback while playing. He stated that he tends to play a little faster with people in front of him. It is still one of my favorite cds of his. I think the feedback from the audience can affect the performance, and while it may not always be perfect, it is unique.
On the other side. Once you (or I) hear a song, maybe over and over because you really like it, and then hear it done slightly different when done live, you wish they would play it the way it was on the record.
Does this carry over to classical as well? Or does an orchestra under the reigns of a conductor maintain the same tempo or energy level in the concert hall with a live audience as in the studio or when recording alone? Does a conductor get caught up in the moment during a live performance and change his/her pace, approach, or whatever you want to call it? I can see something like this happening with a smaller group such as a string quartet more than with an orchestra.
Which to I prefer? It depends. I like the passion and energy in the music and am disappointed when one of the other does not deliver. BTW, few artists really come through in the studio the way they do on stage, (CAUTION, this may be percieved by some as a survey question! Sorry.) Any performers that come to mind?
Neil

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Western Glow Tube Service

Topic - Recording preference - Neil E. 12:38:08 03/11/00 (3)

Re: Recording preference - Rob 15:23:34 03/12/00 (0)

Re: Recording preference - Jorge F 13:06:14 03/11/00 (1)

Re: Recording preference - Rob 15:28:54 03/12/00 (0)

You can not post to an archived thread.