Is your favorite Live album really "Live"?

[Wiggus]

I was starting to post this on the "Favorite Live Album " thread, but thought it was too off-topic. Some people love live records; Jam Band fans especially. Some folk love to hear live renditions of big faves stripped down by two sincere looking guys strumming acoustics. No doubt that "Live" records (used to?) sell really well.

But, ever wonder if your favorite live album is really "Live"? In the "Fave Live CD" thread, some people mentioned live records that in part, aren't live at all. When I was a kid I wore out Kiss Alive II...played it to death (never used the tattoo's though). But now we know that much of it was re-recorded in the studio.

http://www.kissfaq.com/demstor/chap22.html

Read Eddie Kramer's comment at the link above. Eddie who? He recorded and mixed Woodstock. He recorded Hendrix, Zep, The Stones, Bowie, and a band called The Beatles. He knows a little bit about music.

"There was some live stuff, it was cut in between. But look, quite frankly, who cares. If people enjoy it, it doesn’t matter. It’s only a live set, we made it sound as live as we could. A lot of the difficulties was when they played and jumped around on the stage, nothing stayed in tune and nothing was played very accurately. It was all done for the sake of the show"

There were so many Live records in the 70's that were touched-up, probably due largely to record company's great desire for quick live releases (which had become quite a fad), their reluctance to wait for a lucid drug-free performance, and EGOS. 8-track, 16-track, 32-track recording made it even easier to do. Stevie Ray's uninspiring "Live Alive" is a notable example.

So I guess it depends why you love a live albums so much. Do you love extended jams? Do you like the higher energy? If your perception is that live recordings represent a band without all the studio trickery and muck, and that studio albums are "over-produced", you might care that it might be a lie. If you like them because it's a bands best 25 songs, then maybe you don't care.

I think I tend to fall on the "a post-recorded live album is deceitful" side. Then again, the record industry is a business (or used to be, LOL) and who wants to buy a flawed performance by your teen-glam-rock god?

What do you think? Where is the line drawn? Is it OK to chop out a bad solo? Is it heresy to re-record that crap solo? Is it fraudulent to record studio tracks and overlay crowd noises on it (like some of James Brown's Sex Machine)? Is it just common sense to trade Bob Kulick for a Spaced-Out Ace Frehley?

I can tell right now that an "Auto-Tune" debate is gonna spring out of this.

[DrumAndDestroy]

i think a live record should be true to it's form...recorded live.

though i do think mixing and mastering is ok...everything should just be heard the way it was played.


as far as jam sessions go...fuck that. i saw the foo fighters (i really like their records) but was really bored when they started doing extended jam sessions....and for that reason i don't think i'd buy any of their live discs.

[Wiggus]

but was really bored when they started doing extended jam sessions....and for that reason i don't think i'd buy any of their live discs.

Personally..."jamming" bores me to tears too.

[VENTGtr]

For the most part, ya, "live" albums should be just that. I DO think there's
some justification for some fixes, like some blare of feedback that no one's
goin' to want to listen to repeatedly. Ya, it happens, and that very well may
be part of the experience...but no one needs that.

Was trying to remember if Eric Bell was on it and happened up this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_and_Dangerous

Turns out Tony Visconti was involved. I'm sure he's still talking about
how it was him, all him, that made it a good album.

I like live albums for a few reasons. Ya, the energy, but also to hear how
it translates, Or how they choose to translate, something from the studio
to stage. Seriously, does anyone REMEMBER how bad "Surrender" was
before "Live at Budakon"? Live version, great, studio....eeesh.

Even "Frampton Comes Alive". This is one of the biggest albums ever and
I don't know if I've EVER heard any of the studio versions on the radio
(Some sense of mercy about that).

When a band has 24 people up there to perfectly reproduce every
aspect, that's meaningless. It loses something (Caveat: Shania Twain.
A crowd of people playing on stage....but you turn the sound down anyway).
Especially when they look pretty bored.

Maybe it really IS one of those things that we're better off believing was
a "magical" night (Though...that does sound sissified) where every note
was perfect (Alex Lifeson discussed how they liked to use performances
from a couple of different nights for Rush's live albums. At one point he
said "Besides, someone is going to make a mistake somewhere and it's
nice to have a fallback".). But, KNOWING about all the production, post-
show fixes definitely takes away from the whole thing. Must also mention,
though, that with the advent of YouTube, etc. there are tons of performances
to be seen that make you appreciate SOME level of good production.

I guess I'd say Pearl Jam has it down. You can walk out of their shows
with a copy of the show you just saw, any warts and all (And SERIOUSLY
fast tempos). I have their show in Seattle from a few years ago. 3 or 4 CDs
and this big, long gap of crowd-noise. One downside is sitting through their
break. Same time, I guess even THAT adds something. Mebbe from now
on they can have Bob Kulick come out to play during those interludes.

[DMFJ03]

I don't mind "A" jam session. It is always cool to see what happens when a band tries something a little different, but not all damn night long. Look - we know you can play, but quit having ten minute self indulgent prog wank sessions each song.

As far as live goes - I agree with the majority of the votes so far. If it is to be recorded live, then do it live. Don't go back and fix errors, or add parts that were missing. I would rather it be looped in the background than post production.

I really enjoy Slipknot's Live 9.0 CD because they recorded every show and then picked the best versions of each song and tried to blend it together. It states in the booklet that it is bits and peices of this show, and that show. They didn't try to hide the fact that it was a live compilation record. I don't know how much of it is honest, but I know there is a lot of honesty there. If you are fan, and know the songs, you can hear things out of place in a couple of songs. I think that is cool. That's what live is.

I don't know.

As long as you like it - who cares?

[VENTGtr]

Ya, that's a pretty cool way to do an album. The Joe Jackson album
Wiggus mentioned was done similarly, though I think in one night,
Jackson Browne did and album of all new material in concert.

More recently, Flickerstick recorded their last album on a sound
stage in Atlanta with a hundred or so people from their fan club
sitting in the room. Basically, a live album of never-before heard
songs. They were self-financing and it was the best option they
came up with for something different.

Have to be REALLY well-rehearsed to do that kind of thing. Even
then, things happen. When Alice In Chains did their "Unplugged"
album, I read an interview with Cantrell where he said they played,
one tune, to various stages of completion a dozen or more times
before finally getting a useable version. And they were, obviously,
all great players.

[PanzerFaust]

Normally I also hate when a band does an extended live version... except for one instance.... When AC/DC chugs that "D" for about an hour during Bad Boy Boogie while Angus does his striptease....
Does that make me gay?.. hehe..

Rhetorical question Farley... means I already know, or don't wanna know the answer.... (Mr Woodcock)

[bassist_25]

I know that I've touched upon this here before, but you'd be surprised with how many times you buy a studio album, and it's not even always the actual official band members playing. It's common for producers to hire "ghost musicians," who are studio aces to come in and lay down a part, uncreditted. You don't need a degree from Berklee to play rock music, and frankly, some of the superstars just plain suck at their chosen instruments. Some can't even play their parts correctly. Speaking of Kiss, many of their records from the 70s have ghost musicians because Ace and Peter were too coked up to play their parts.

As far as jamming goes - I can dig it if the musicians have something important to say. If it's just pentatonic bullshit over a three chord vamp for 20 minutes, then no thank you! Someone with the musicality of Miles Davis can improvise amazing things. Unfortunately, it's rare that I hear a non-jazz oriented musician able to endlessly improvise and keep things interesting.

[Killjingle]

the next time we play Morgueasm live I will add pentatonic bullshit in your honor Paul! LOL

[bassist_25]

the next time we play Morgueasm live I will add pentatonic bullshit in your honor Paul! LOL

LOL

Well, there's nothing instrinsically wrong with pentatonics; they are the melodic staple of rock music. Actually, I've always envied a lot of bass players who can get a lot of mileage out of pentatonics (Jeff Clapper comes to mind). I've always had to be more modal and chromatic in my playing.

I just hate endless pentatonic noodling.

[HurricaneBob]

Some bands play it the same every night, some dont.
I'd go crazy if we had to do, i love a band to stretch its legs.
Jamming for some bands is good for the soul, the whole brotherhood and esp of the ones involved is therapy and reaches a level only the ones on stage truly feel.

I hope we all reach that someday....

[Colton]

If the canes jammed out one four hour long song for the night, I'd probably love the hell out of it.

I cant say that for alot of other bands..

[daveb]

"The Eagles Live" LP has been documented as being "live" in name only. Countless vocal and instrumental fixes supposed to be on that one.

[Wiggus]

Some bands play it the same every night, some don't.
I'd go crazy if we had to

I agree with Felix on this. Having played in blues, bluegrass and alt-rock bands, I find I need a little room for self expression. The Alt band did things the same every night...got boring real fast, but the money was good so I consoled myself by buying great gear that I still have.

Blues bands are a specialty. The whole form is sort of based around soloing now, and everyone has one or two songs a night with a slow build in it. But, in those cases I don't call it jamming. They are heading somewhere and trying to take the crowd along as well. It's either well done or it's not.

The Nighthawks "Live in Europe" has an 11 minute version on "Black Night". Normally, way to long for my tastes. But Wenner and Thackey both take beautiful, building solos that really work. And the crowds right with them. But if I had to listen to Buddy Guy play five 10 minute long songs in a row again, I'd go Stone Crazy.

Half of being a good musician is knowing when NOT to play.