Jeff Wall:
>How come some acts, usually the Alt Country, Bluegrass, etc, etc, sound so
>much better live than they do on disc, and others, Big name rock, Country,
>etc sound so much better on disc than they do live.
>
>With zero experience in the studio, Is it that difficult to capture the
>spirit or energy of a live gig?
my completely non-technical take on this is that with some bands, the
energy in the room created by the connection between the performer/s and
the audience is almost visual, and seems to tangibly affect a large number
of the folks who are there. And it's not just a recipe involving drink and
rowdyness, like what seems to work so well with a live Wacos show, because
I've been the most affected by a live show at some incredibly quiet and
sober performances, like Alejandro. Of course, I like Alejandro's CDs just
fine, recorded live or in the studio, but I know you and others aren't sure
what the hype is from just listening to the recorded stuff. And heck, I
was sober for that Saturday Wacos show in Austin and still had a hell of a
good time. There is just no way a studio recording can impart that
connection. Not all of my favorite bands have that energy live - there are
definately some performers that are a waste of time and money to go see
live, yet their records kick my ass. And bluegrass music often has that
extra ingredient to the live shows of watching the fingers fly and
intricate dance of the band working together...how could just an audio
recording present that up to the listener?
bringing up the fact that a lot of current recording artists need the extra
boost given to their talent by technology in the studio is too obvious of
an argument to make, let alone one that I would want to have to defend some
of the more public alt-country bands against <g>...
meshel
n'vegas
