Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

Is Modern Music over Produced?


IanHenry

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Some bands are better live, as the stage is their element. KISS is better live. Pantera was better live (before Phil Anselmo became a junkie). Most metal bands (esp. bands like Motorhead, Anthrax, etc) are better live. SRV was better live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even close....... IMO they were pretty bad live, to the point they stopped playing live because they couldn't reproduce what they were doing on their albums.

 

The only bands IMO that sound great live are country bands

 

Hmmmm [confused]:rolleyes: Well, given the conditions, they played in, and the "sound systems"

(or, more accurately, lack thereof) as they were then, I think they were pretty damn good, "Live!"

If they had the Sound Systems, and technology, that most "garage" bands have now, they would

have been "Awesome" live! I think we have to keep things in proper context/perspective, that way...IMHO.

The Beatles themselves, said their BEST performances, in terms of energy, and "tightness," were in Hamburg!

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even close....... IMO they were pretty bad live, to the point they stopped playing live because they couldn't reproduce what they were doing on their albums.

 

The only bands IMO that sound great live are country bands

 

I think like charlie said, equipment has a huge impact. I saw The Kills and Dead Weather at the House of Blues and WOW were they incredible. Kills was better live by FAR.

 

Having said that, country artists, and I'm not talking BS pop country, have the luxury of choosing a genre that is less demanding of technology IF the venue is small. All bands need great sytems if they're at a stadium, but less is more in small venues and no genre is better suited for "less is more" than country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Izzy...

 

I tend to agree with Duane for a cupla reasons.

 

Actually a lotta country bands do play pretty big venues. Every now and then, for example, I end up taking pix of bands on Main Street in Deadwood, S.D., which really is a deep gulch in the mountains. You may need binoculars to see the figures on the stage, but the sound system allows them to be heard 4-5 blocks away without acoustic gliches that might arise because of the old brick and stone buildings.

 

More or less traditional country concepts tend to be more toward "clean" sound, is what I think makes the difference. In a sense, it's closer to jazz, and so is bluegrass.

 

A lotta electric blues ditto.

 

Bottom line is that usually the above are bands being recorded doing what it is when they play on stage; also there's perhaps a tendency for certain sorts of band to play better when they see and react to each other.

 

The problem also really seems to arise when, as you noted, there's a lotta additional electronic additions and when a repetition of a studio-operated electronic sound is attempted by rock type outfits that just doesn't work.

 

I think "we" could see this coming as the Beatles, Stones and others started getting into adding material to their studio work that wasn't really created then and there as in a live performance. If a studio picks up what a band does by itself on stage, that's a world of difference from doing remix after remix for a "sound" that isn't really what the band is - nor is the final product.

 

In short, yeah, a lotta modern music is over-produced.

 

m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, don't forget, most bands, back in "The Beatles" early days (especially),

recorded "live!" Without a lot, if any, overdubs...and what overdubbing there

was, was simply added to the original "all band" performance. So, with that in

mind, I think a lot of Rock back then was pretty "tight," and good "live,"

provided you could here it, over all the screaming! [tongue][biggrin]

 

Garth Brooks once commented that he was astounded, how good The Beatles were,

"Live," since they couldn't hear one another, not only because of screaming,

but no (real) monitors, either, to speak of. And, every venue was different,

with a different "sound system" and acoustics. Modern systems, can account

and compensate, for all that. Not so, back in those days!

 

CB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you listen to the Beatles early recording, they sound (to my ears) how recorded music should sound, clean & clear, you can hear the instruments and the voices of the singers without the character being destroyed in the pursuit of "perfection".

On the subject of band reproducing the recorded sound live, some bands have failed because they managed to do that, one notable case is the 70/80's band Sad Café, who were exceptional live, but didn't gain the success they deserved (particularly in the U.S) for just that reason. Check them out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0yDShhHmd4& feature=youtu.be

You will have to excuse the poor quality video, it is quite old

 

Regards,

Ian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not even close....... IMO they were pretty bad live, to the point they stopped playing live because they couldn't reproduce what they were doing on their albums.

 

The only bands IMO that sound great live are country bands

 

Au contraire mon ami... [biggrin]

 

I have recordings of them live at the BBC

 

And it is universally agreed they sound exactly like their studio albums of the time... [thumbup]

 

Their stadium performances with less than excellent equipment and screaming girls are a completely different issue...

 

V

 

:-({|=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...