Jeff Wall wrote:
>
> 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.
If it is a relatively unknown act live, you tend to overlook slop. On
record, slop is disturbing unless it is part of the act. Live, you get
this big undifferentiated sound in which almost anything can be put
across if enough energy goes into it. A record is a much smaller sound
(unless you have a massive system cranked, and even then the dynamic
range of a record is about half that of the human ear) and the
instruments are separated from each other sonically, more distinct. Bad
stuff is more apparent. Bad singing is less forgiveable. Bad playing
grates. In person, you may be sucked into the magic of live music
(literally) but a record requires you to focus, pay attention, and you
hear everything.
Big name acts may sound better on CD because they actually cram more
energy into their recordings than they muster onstage. Also I think when
you go to see a big name act, you already have this expectation based on
how great the record sounded, and no live band can ever sound as "good"
as a well-produced hit record. Live mixes are not usually as good as
studio mixes. think of the stones- their live shows usually more or less
sucked compared to the best of their records.
>
> Is it that difficult to capture the
> spirit or energy of a live gig?
I think it is extremely difficult, one of the hardest things to try to
do. Really, making a record is in a way a "trick" in the same way that
making a film is a "trick"- you are going all around the block in order
to arrive at something that sounds and feels real, but never was except
for the moment of transcription itself. The whole is an assembly of
parts, and it is the producer's and engineer's job to be expert enough
to fool your ear into believing it is real. It almost never is. I happen
to love live studio recording- the kind where the band assembles in the
studio and plays the song together, like all the greatest country songs
were cut, and all 50s and 60s rock was cut (up to about 67), but even
then if you walked into the studio during the session it would not sound
like a band in there, only in the control room monitors does the final
magic take place.
>
> Do the artists even make money on recordings anymore?
Most artists at most levels use the whole recording budget to make the
record, but if they are lucky they also pay themselves during the
process, so they at least don't lose money.
Traditionally, the money is in touring once you reach the $5,000-$10,000
and above level. You only make money on record sales if you have massive
hits. Touring at the $500-$1000 a night level is not very much fun
unless you are in your twenties, single-ish, and ready for anything. On
the other hand, this is why I am 48 and look 84.
--
Joe Gracey
President-For-Life, Jackalope Records
http://www.kimmierhodes.com
