Reproducing it live

gareth · January 13, 2009, 12:36:45 PM

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.

Pedro · January 13, 2009, 12:59:21 PM

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....

Geetar · January 13, 2009, 02:38:32 PM

What he said.

Plus the occasional surprise of something being heard for the first time.

johninblack · January 13, 2009, 03:21:31 PM

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.

Philadelphia · January 14, 2009, 02:25:35 AM

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. (;-)

Dave M · January 14, 2009, 10:51:06 AM

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.

Frost*ies

Reproducing it live

gareth

Pedro

Geetar

johninblack

Philadelphia

Dave M

tomskerous

Dave M

johninblack

TonyB

johninblack

Fogeyspasm

catherine

D S

MikeEvs