[kj] It's a Boxing Day miracle!

[Paul Rangecroft]

Hi Peter.

No, I think studio albums are different. The point of a studio album is for
the band/artist to get the music as close to how they want it to sound as
possible.

If there is a point to live albums then it must be to capture something of
the essence of the gig. Bootlegs are usually terrible quality (I had to
reassure my ex, who had heard lots of bootlegs but had never been to a
show, that they really didn't sound that bad live before she went to her
first concert!) and I can't get to that many dates on a tour so I want live
albums to be authentic but sound good. I don't mind amplifying crowd noises
or editing out any little mistakes but I don't see the justification for
anything beyond that.

If I want to hear the best possible version of a song I'll just listen to
the studio version. Live albums should put you in the crowd, not convince
you that the band were much better on the night than they actually were.

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 10:56 PM, Peter Moltesen <sneakypete at uwclub.net>wrote:


>

>

> Should live albums be genuinely live, or should they sound as good as

> possible?

>

>

>

> Should studio albums be recorded with the band playing straight through in

> the studio without overdubs too?

>

> I’ve not got a problem with overdubbed live albums – if the end result

> justifies the means does it really matter?

>

> If I want to know what a band sounds like live I’ll go and see them and /

> or listen to bootlegs

>

> Peter

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://four.pairlist.net/pipermail/gathering/attachments/20111228/3c31c9b0/attachment.html>