I'll try keep this short.
Just wanted to have a discussion about recording an album and re-producing it live. There was sort of a mention in another thread about reproducing the craziness of Frost in a live context, and it just got me thinking...
I'm about to start recording synth parts for my own band's album soon. I've been massively inspired by the production of the Frost albums, in terms of the layers and the way everything is put together with no consideration for reproducing it live.
I like that sort of reckless approach but i'm worried that i'll dig the hole too deep for myself when it comes time to program and then perform the stuff live.
I even want to spill it over into the vocal production, but I know that will be even harder to reproduce.
Going deeper, do we even need to replicate everything at a microcosmic scale in a live show? The stuff is usually played intolerably loud, and the environment is one that encourages drinking copious amounts of booze...
Do you think people really notice? Where do you draw the line?
And that said, why are some parts like the acoustic guitar intro of EIMA played as samples on the keyboard?
I do kind of tend to go backwards and forwards with my point of view on this. I'm not really sure how to approach my own stuff... whenever I present a whacky production idea to the band, I always get asked "but how will we reproduce that live?", and I gotta ask myself if I really care.
I am definitely a producer and a composer before a performer. And I think something in the way bands present themselves live has to really change. I always remember someone saying that painters don't have to perform live to justify their art. Why do musicians?
Going off on a tangent anyway. I'll stop it here!
This is open for anyone's input of course, but i'd particularly like to know if Jem has any sort of philosophy with this, or if it's just a "fuck it, i'll deal with it later" type-approach all the time?
I'm pushing my luck but if TBE happens to read this i'd love his input too, he always seems to have some interesting points on this sort of subject.
Sorry for the massive post/rant! Just up late at night drinking red wine, thinking and listening to Peter Gabriel. :)
I don't have experience I can point to on this, except from the punter's view point.
For me, artists have two things to prove by playing live; 1) they can actually play/sing the stuff and 2) they can entertain you with stuff you may have heard a gazillion times before.
Of course, Frost* tick both boxes (the second one twice!).
To satisfy requirement 1) I guess something close to the CD sound is expected. To satisfy 2) some degree of invention/variation/arrangement is required.
Some bands seem to stick at meeting requirement 1) night after night.
Others take the risks and vary the set and the pieces.
I've had a few chats with fellow Frost*ies about this and I think we concluded that bands that do recitals of the CD work are still worth seeing but probably only once. Bands that vary the styles and the pieces will get the likes of me to catch as many shows as possible.
So, vaguely remembering the question(!) I wonder if having it so that it is hard to recreate when playing live might force you (or whoever) to achieve a new/different (and maybe better?) version?
Just my view of course....
What he said.
Plus the occasional surprise of something being heard for the first time.
To turn this round the other way completely, Hyperventilate live, It's progressed so far from the CD version could the "new" version be made to work on cd properly recorded & produced?
From my point of view as long as the main elements are there in the live performance it doesn't really matter.
I guess it ultimately comes down to your bandmates, do they want to do the songs exactly the same gig after gig or is there room to improvise slightly. If the former I think you will have problems convincing them that your approach will work. I personally would have no problem with it.
I've seen bands who manage to replicate nearly everything without having to use pre-recorded tracks live. I've seen bands who've used pre-recorded music live. I've seen bands who didn't manage to replicate the studio versions and who didn't use pre-recorded tracks live. And I've seen EXCELLENT performances by bands of all three categories.
For the person attending the gig, I think what it ultimately comes down to is what works for the musicians themselves. Because if they're comfortable with the way they do things - be it perfection, entertainment or something else - it comes across to the audience. It really does. So, from the point of view of someone who's a frequent audience member at gigs I say it doesn't matter as long as you feel you're doing something "right".
But yes, it is interesting to hear songs "develop" over time and a bit of change or improvisation is always interesting, even if it doesn't always turn out great.
The point of view of the musician is not quite my thing, so I'll leave that to the others. (;-)
Isnt it all about the quality of the songs ?
If the songs are strong enough, then a stripped down production will sound just as good as a fully blown one, and be easier to reproduce live, why make things harder for yourself ?
Having said that, there's a lot of fun to be had in losing yourself in production, layering instruments/sounds, multiple takes etc.
All the better if you can do both of course ...
When playing live, a lot of the production would be lost by the quality and volume of the PA ... I've always thought that as long as you can play a good version of a song with real conviction, a punter would be happy.
At the risk of mentioning my favourite Australian postrel again, on the recent Kylie tour Sarah deCourcy basically took the songs as a starting point and pretty much began again with them when creating the live versions. As a result there's all sort of interesting mashup-style stuff that creeps in. And quite often the live version is much more energetic and fun as a result.
Compare album version of 'Heartbeat Rock'
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hKLYWocHmbw (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=hKLYWocHmbw) (fan video)
with the live one (and see K do the splits!):
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=J27p__c0W9g (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=J27p__c0W9g)
Quote from: "tomskerous"..... with the live one (and see K do the splits!):
Kylie doing the splits ? :shock: ..... there is a god after all !
I'm off to watch it ... see you all next week :D
Quote from: "Dave M"... I've always thought that as long as you can play a good version of a song with real conviction, a punter would be happy.
Spot on, probably one of the really good points about a lot of "prog" audiences being musicians is that they realize all too well the limitations. I wonder what the average percentage of muso's of the average prog audience is. Has this ever been tested?
Quote from: "johninblack"I wonder what the average percentage of muso's of the average prog audience is. Has this ever been tested?
Why don't we?
Surely there's MOST of the people who were at the Peel gig on here!
Who is a musician out of those who went?
I'll start :)
Musician = 1
Non Musician = 0
Quote from: "TonyB"Quote from: "johninblack"Musician = 1
Non Musician = 0
Musician = 2 Although not a very good one in my case.
Non Musician = 0
Didn't go to the Peel but CRS if i can be included and son (Started Guitar Last Month)
Musician = 4
Non Musician = 0
Self and husband (both musicians, but he's classical rather than rawk) went to CRS, and I went to the Peel with another musician friend, so that coulnts as 3
Musician = 7
Non-musician = 0
Musician = 8 (allegedly ;) )
Non-musician = 0
Musician = 8
Non-musician = 1
I might own a guitar but I gave up trying to play it long ago
*raises hand*
Musicians: 9
Partick Thistle: 1
Never been to the Peel, don't like to swim :)
I do something with sticks and hitting round objects.
Musician = 10
Non-musician = 1
Musician = 10
Non musician (and proud) =2
Musician = 11
Quote from: "Bokkie"Never been to the Peel, don't like to swim :)
I do something with sticks and hitting round objects.
Musician = 10
Non-musician = 1
Shouldn't that be :-
Musician = 9
Non-musician = 1
Snooker player = 1
;)
Hah, thanks for the responses people.
And apologies for the poorly worded original post.
I should have clarified that my point was less about reproducing existing music live, and more about the fact that i'm about to record and put together an album and I don't know how to approach it, and if I should care about live reproducing at this point.
And I figured i'd ask here, because if any band throws that caution to the wind, it's Frost. Not that they don't pull it off well, but from the videos i've seen (live ones and some of the old geek reports), it seems that there's a definite discipline and a struggle to get the live music to a decent enough level to represent the album music.
If that makes any sense.
I couldn't do it without the half a gigabyte of sample RAM in my Fantom, put it that way. ;)
Musician = 12
I used to sing in my own band.
Don't know whether that counts, but what the hell
Musician = 13
Quote from: "gareth"Hah, thanks for the responses people.
And apologies for the poorly worded original post.
I should have clarified that my point was less about reproducing existing music live, and more about the fact that i'm about to record and put together an album and I don't know how to approach it, and if I should care about live reproducing at this point.
And I figured i'd ask here, because if any band throws that caution to the wind, it's Frost. Not that they don't pull it off well, but from the videos i've seen (live ones and some of the old geek reports), it seems that there's a definite discipline and a struggle to get the live music to a decent enough level to represent the album music.
If that makes any sense.
It's a head-breaker for sure, but after some contemplating i will say this; It depends on the attitude of the other members of your band. If there are any questions raising regarding your input and the way you want to record it and assuming that is the primary topic of the discussion, i fear that a life reproduction would be difficult.
If the attitude of your fellow members would be something like this:" That sounds F**king great, let's do it" and the questions about live reproduction is secondary, then i think you could put a f**king awesome show on.
(sorry about my language)
Quote from: "Jem"I couldn't do it without the half a gigabyte of sample RAM in my Fantom, put it that way. ;)
Mind you, if the stuff wasn't so bloody complex and textured in the first place you might not even need that. Bring back the S950 I say!
Musician = 14... :)
Quote from: "gareth"Hah, thanks for the responses people.
And apologies for the poorly worded original post.
I should have clarified that my point was less about reproducing existing music live, and more about the fact that i'm about to record and put together an album and I don't know how to approach it, and if I should care about live reproducing at this point.
And I figured i'd ask here, because if any band throws that caution to the wind, it's Frost. Not that they don't pull it off well, but from the videos i've seen (live ones and some of the old geek reports), it seems that there's a definite discipline and a struggle to get the live music to a decent enough level to represent the album music.
If that makes any sense.
Nah man, your original post wasn't worded poorly at all. I completely understood what you were trying to discuss, even though your question may have been a bit all over the place.
Either way, I can honestly say my band has fallen into the pit of having layer after layer and trying to re-do it live. Obviously some parts may not make it to the live version of the song, but you just have to include the most important layers, the layers that matter. You can only take something out if it doesn't make the part sound empty.
See THAT was poorly worded :lol: but what I'm trying to get at is that when we do it, now that we've learned our lesson with writing music, we basically try to make the live version as close to the album recording as possible. If something can't be done for whatever reason (too many layers) than there must be a replacement that is equally as sonically interesting as the other part. The goal is to just keep your song from sounding 'empty' (if that makes any sense).
Hope that was helpful. If not, let me know, I'd love to discuss this further.
I play keyboards (although nowhere near the level of our great leader) in an electronic duo playing material that is a mix of NIN and Depeche Mode, so I suppose that makes me a muso.
Musician=15
Heh, I was going to go with hockey...
I'm in Australia, so no Frosty-gigs for me. But if there were, I'd be a musician, and I'd be at them :)