Recordings: Live versus not

[Matt G]

Okay, since I recently benefited from the bankruptcy of Tweeter and picked up a pair of Polk Audio LSi9's and a Polk Audio powered subwoofer, I have been going through a lot of my CD collection. In doing so, something that always seems to hold true: A good "live" recording is always superior (IMHO) to a "rehearsed" or studio recording.

Examples:

Shosatakovich 7 with Bernstein/CSO
Copland's Third Symphony Bernstein/NYPO
Chuck Mangione Live at the Hollywood Bowl
etc.

When I have heard a piece that has been recorded under "sterile" conditions, it always seems to lack that last 1%. The Shostakovich 7 with Bernstein is simply unbelievable, and the Copland is flawless. On the other hand, I have heard note perfect good recordings, but they often don't contain that sparkle.

Also, I don't remember who was discussion it in an article (IIRC it was either Bud Herseth or Arnold Jacobs) discussing how when the guys for the radio broadcast would share their recordings, they always sounded better than the studio environment efforts. I took a recording techniques class in college with a pretty solid recording engineer with significant orchestral recording experience, and his remarks often coincided with this idea. The teacher would pretty much mic a full orchestra with between two to four microphones. Just like the broadcast guys.

So while the technical side of the situation varies from recording to recording, it still seems like that doesn't cover all of the variables. It seems like the adrenaline and human factor do account for something.

So in your (TNFJ) various perspectives, do you prefer the "live" stuff or the "studio" stuff?

[TubaRay]

I would have to agree with your comments. From my own personal experience, when doing a "studio" recording, I am more interested in avoiding mistakes than I am in producing a great performance. Although this is a very subtle difference, it seems to have its effect on me. I fully realize I am not, nor ever have been, in the same league as Jacobs or Herseth. Live performances don't produce documented proof of my shortcoming, unless they are recorded. Studio recordings are for the specific purpose of documenting.

[dwerden]

I would agree that live recordings are usually best. Part of the reason is stated above - the natural energy when one plays before living, breathing audience. My own experience is that I don't play as well in a studio setting. I need an audience to draw a bit more music out of me. Music is partly communication, and that part needs to be a conversation more than a lecture. A player will react to the energy of the audience, and that produces a better performance.

But part of it is also the sound quality. Often, studio recordings are more closely mic'd. This gives the engineer much more control and makes for easier editing if needed. But for my taste, I really like a natural "hall" sound in the recording. With all the wonderful electronics we have now, I don't think they can really reproduce a good hall's sound as part of a studio recording.

[tubashaman2]

.

[MartyNeilan]

In addition to the "excitement" of a live performance, I have one word to add:
Microphones.

An x-y mic setup, or maybe a well placed 4 mic setup, usually works best for orchestra and is what the radio guys often use. The studios that try to spot mic everybody and then "mix" the recording usually come up with something far from lifelike. This may work great for guitar and drums, but not for musicians who have spent their whole life learning to balance and blend.

[lgb&dtuba]

But in a live recording there's always the chance that the guy hacking up a lung in the 5th row will distract the tuba player from his count, causing a missed entrance and it will become an historical recording. One that can be discussed for years on TubeNet. E.g., "What tuba was x using when he blew his entrance to the Bydlo?"

Jim "It's a beautiful night for a concert." Wagner

[dwerden]

The post above reminded me...

I do have some mixed feelings about not being able to edit out unfortunate events, whether they are from the audience or the musicians. It's nice to produce a clean recording.

But I still feel there is an energy that comes from the audience AND there is a certain satisfaction/education gained from hearing just what level of perfection can be obtained from a live recording. There are recordings of players doing Moto Perpetuo with no breaks, for example. Knowing that the recording was edited to allow the player to breath normally while still producing an end product that is seamless creates a little bit of an empty feeling within me. That's one of the reasons that my interest in those Steven Mead recordings where he plays all the parts in the ensemble is a little tempered. It's not real, although it is still cool in its own way.

Some of my favorite non-audience recordings are back from the days of direct-to-disc recordings. These were special projects where multiple LP cutting lathes were set up to record right to a disc, which would be used to create the stamping masters. It eliminated the tape process entirely. They also went to great pains to simplify the mic setup, usually using just a couple stereo mics. Even the Harry James big band sets were done with just 2 mics out in front. Because the recording lathe could not be stopped once it began, players had to record the entire side of the LP with no edits and NO BREAKS. Hearing the L.A. Phil or the Cleveland Orchestra do this is exciting in a slightly different way compared to a live audience recording. As a musician, I know I am listening to a "real" thing! Granted they could throw away a bad side (at great expense) and re-do the whole thing, but when listening I know they played that 20-minute stretch exactly as I heard it. So in a way they were live (no edits or stop/starts) and in a way they were a studio recording (no audience).

[rocksanddirt]

generally speaking I like 'live' recordings better, but that's not to say some 'studio' efforts are at all inferior.

What I find really cuts down on the musical experience, is something that has been overly produced, by which I mean the musical spontineity has been edited out in the post recording efforts. Such as most recent pop/nashville country music that I hear, just sounds dead, no matter how fired up the artist's voice is. Compared to the studio efforts of say...the BeeGee's from the Saturday Night Fever era, pure studio pop....but the music has punch that's not due to post processing, but cleanly capturing the professionals hired to be the band.

[Rick Denney]

TelArc was the first label to simplify microphone setups after they had gotten so over-engineered during the 60's. They usually used a three-mike setup, one for right channel, one for left, and one pointed at the rear of the space to allow them to mix (real) room acoustics into those channels. That lets them put the mikes close enough to fill the dynamic range of the recording medium without have to over-amplify it, and still give the engineer some control over the room effects. It was more like the way RCA recorded stage music in the 50's and before, though not necessarily stereo, of course. Live performances use few mikes mostly out of necessity, but that doesn't preclude using simpler mikes in the studio, too. I agree with Dave that tubas really benefit from real room acoustics, not post-processing. We learned that the hard way when we tried to record the TubaMeisters back in the day.

At the time they started doing that, it was quite common for studio recordings to be grossly over-engineered.

As to the original question, I think it hinges on the specific performance. I suspect live recordings do well because only the really great live performances get distributed. But when I listen over and over again to a work over the years, I eventually get tired of hearing the same clams.

It also depends on whether I'm listening to a composer or a performer. Sometimes I want to hear the composer, and sometimes I'm more interested in the performer.

And studio recording makes some things possible. I read a book once about the Decca recording of the Wagner ring cycle back in the 60's. They used some of the truly great Wagnerian singers for that recording, but some of those singers were past the age when they could deliver the performance in a live staging of the operas. The author described how they had avoided one singer who they thought was past it, but then auditioned him when the singer they selected turned out to be unsuitable. They realized that in 20-minute sessions, the older singer could still earn his world-class reputation. I'll take that recording any day over the various live recordings from Bayreuth, etc., especially when it's Wagner I want to hear.

Rick "who prefers to hear live performances in person" Denney

[jonesbrass]

I like live or one-take studio recording. There is far more to music than being note perfect and "clean", IMHO. The magic a good engineer can work on a less-than-perfect initial product in the studio is staggering. I like all the warts, occasional mistakes, etc. That's reality. Perfect recordings can be nice, but they set the bar unrealistically high on the technical aspect, and low on the communication aspect of music. The note-perfect age of studio recording is exactly why pros are using beta blockers and such now to calm nerves and allow them a better chance at "note perfect" all the time. I believe it's also why many people don't value a live performance anymore. Why pay $50 for a live performance that might have mistakes in it, when I can buy a CD for $16 or download a note-perfect performance for much less and listen to it anytime I want? YMMV.

[Wyvern]

It depends! If it is a work I know well, love and I already have several recordings of it (say a Mahler symphony), then I would be inclined toward a live recording because what I am looking for is that special 'extra' in the performance which a live concert is more likely to give. I will not just be listening to that one performance of the work, so the odd slip, or cough will not over annoy.

However, if the music is something different which I do not already have 'in my library' then I would prefer a more perfect studio performance as a reference.

[mdc2d]

I love the famous live recordings as mentioned in previous posts (i.e. Shosty 7/Berstein-CSO, Copland 3/Bernstein-NYP). I also understand the ability to edit out distracting things (audience noise, missed entrances, etc.) I think the iTunes "Resound" concept is fantastic for that reason. They edit together the live takes of a concert...for example Mahler 6-CSO. That recording was put together from the four or so live performances the orchestra did that weekend. Thus getting the benefit of editing out major problems, but the excitement of live recordings.