Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
GMC Forum _ Bands and Guitarists _ All Modern Recordings And Dvd
Posted by: OrganisedConfusion Mar 20 2008, 01:38 PM
I have many complaints in this area and wondered if others felt the same way. I was watching the new Muse DVD yesterday and I thought it was awful. I was there and loved every second of it but the DVD makes me sick. The camera doesn't stay still for 2 seconds and it keeps jumping around everywhere and never stays in the same place for an interesting section. Back in the old days the camera used to fix on the guitarist for a solo or shoot to the bassist for a cool fill and generally stay on the vocalist singing. This doesn;t happen anymore. If they are going to do this then they have to give people more control of the camera angles.
Also new music is too perfect. It is recorded and every slight mistake is erased and some bands record at 50% speed and others change each note they play wrong with the click of a button and yeah the CD sounds spotless but is that what people want? What happened to the good old days of having a raw sounding album that was recorded with no big editing. Before you could record at 50% speed and speed it up. And compression on some of these albums is ridiculous.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Posted by: rokchik Mar 20 2008, 02:17 PM
I have to agree with you about bands putting out "perfect" albums. In most cases it doesn't translate well to the live show because their playing and sound is basically manufactured in the studio.
This is why for me the true test of a band is the live playing. Anyone can sound great in the studio but it's really something when you sound great live. I've talked about the band "The Tragically Hip" a lot on GMC but they are a prime example of bands who are great live..... they are actually better live then on CD in my opinion.
Posted by: OrganisedConfusion Mar 20 2008, 02:18 PM
It's why in the current music situation I'd much prefer to be known as one of the best live bands than best recording artist.
Posted by: rokchik Mar 20 2008, 02:29 PM
Completely agree with you there. Live playing is where the talent is in my opinion. And I don't mean those lip syncing wannabes who spend more money on choreography and lights to put on a "show". I mean the ones who go out there, miss a note, break a string, and lose their voice cause they are playing so hard for their fans.
Posted by: tonymiro Mar 20 2008, 02:38 PM
From memory - the producer Steve Lilliwhite was asked to re-record and re-edit a hit record he had from years ago (Pogues' Fairytale of New York). On the original you can hear the Shane talking very quietly at some point. Steve did the job played the new version and announced that he preferred the original, warts and all, as it had more warmth and feel.
Cheers,
Tony
Posted by: OrganisedConfusion Mar 20 2008, 02:41 PM
It has to be the way. That is what gives a lot of songs their beauty. If Kill Em' All sounded like St Anger would it have been half as good? It was the raw edge behind it that made it what it was.
Posted by: rokchik Mar 20 2008, 02:44 PM
Cheers,
Tony
So if it ain't broke don't fix it
Fairytale in New York is an amazing song too. In any version.
Posted by: MickeM Mar 20 2008, 03:00 PM
Guilty as charged!
I'm recording presently, has to be good and I'm laying five (five!!!) takes on the guitar only. Two pairs of the sound I want as the end result panned hard L and R, two over distorted panned less and a clean in the middle.
And no copy paste it's new takes for each.
And I the result is so much more full than a stereo recording with only two guitars.
Two tracks panned L and R would give;
LxxxR where x is empty
LLxRR is a lot better, I lower the mid ones a bit
and the clean guitar in the middle gives support to the rest of the tracks.
So I rather listen to a perfect recording but the real deal will be obvious when a band play live. So Live albums has their charm of course. I'd honestly be disappointed if I bought a CD that was not properly mixed and mastered. Like the ones I have from Savatage which pretty much sound as they were recorded inside a carton box.
Posted by: OrganisedConfusion Mar 20 2008, 03:05 PM
I love those recordings. If you listen to the album Scream Bloody Gore by Death it sounds like it was recorded in a dungeon and because of it I love it even more. Things can be overproduced I think. Some people really want things to be perfect. It's like when I go and see a band live and they'll make a mistake that is noticeable. I then hear a DVD they release of the show and all the errors have been edited out and replaced in the studio. Why not keep it in as part of the performance? I want to hear what happened not what should have happened.
Posted by: Trond Vold Mar 20 2008, 04:51 PM
I completely agree with you.. Everything has a tendency to sound overly polished nowadays.
Some of my all time favourite albums sounds like they were recorded in a windy forest with a 4-track.
Albums like Mayhem - De Mysteriis dom Sathanas, early Death (as mentioned above), early My Dying Bride and similar..
They capture a certain energy and atmosphere that no plugin or hardware can possibly recreate.
Posted by: Nemanja Mar 20 2008, 05:26 PM
I agree that some of the recordings are better with live energy and mistakes...like in the old days...but even the bands that we are talking a bout would record the same way(flawless) if they are recording now...that is the picture and the style of that time...But I don't agree that recording is easy and that the band who sound bad live could perform great in the studio....studio is whole diferent story...and it takes other skills to perform good...one of them is to sound good live.... in my opinion that is....
but I agree old songs should not be re recorded...kills the memory and energy of the song
Posted by: OrganisedConfusion Mar 20 2008, 05:57 PM
but I agree old songs should not be re recorded...kills the memory and energy of the song
Even Cher can sound good in the studio
You can pitch shift any note now to make it right and it sounds perfect and record it 50% slower to get rid of mistakes. It is too easy. Even I can sound good in the studio
Posted by: Nemanja Mar 20 2008, 06:00 PM
You can pitch shift any note now to make it right and it sounds perfect and record it 50% slower to get rid of mistakes. It is too easy. Even I can sound good in the studio well if you say so....
Posted by: The Uncreator Mar 20 2008, 06:46 PM
Also new music is too perfect. It is recorded and every slight mistake is erased and some bands record at 50% speed and others change each note they play wrong with the click of a button and yeah the CD sounds spotless but is that what people want? What happened to the good old days of having a raw sounding album that was recorded with no big editing. Before you could record at 50% speed and speed it up. And compression on some of these albums is ridiculous.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Man, i hate that. When there is an excellent solo and the camera is on the guy in the crowd screaming, Really gets to me.
As for the new music being to perfect, Doesnt bother me as much but i can see where your coming from, One of the reason i love the delta blues is that old, unproduced, raw and dirty sound of the vocals and guitars.
Posted by: SinoMan Mar 20 2008, 06:51 PM
The camera angles on DVDs sometimes suck, but I really don't mind perfect recordings. In fact, mistakes in a studio recording bother me. Why make studio albums if they're gonna contain mistakes?
Posted by: MickeM Mar 20 2008, 07:23 PM
my bad, I must be tired for some reason ;-)Yes, absolutely for live recordings. If there's an error, keep it, if someone in the audience shouts, keep it etc. I reconed we talked recordings in general. Silly me.
Posted by: Toni Suominen Mar 20 2008, 10:33 PM
I've noticed the sucky camera angles on DVD's too, it's really annoying 
Posted by: SinoMan Mar 20 2008, 10:36 PM
Yes, absolutely for live recordings. If there's an error, keep it, if someone in the audience shouts, keep it etc.
...
I don't know why, but I just hate live recordings(for listening, that is). Who wants to hear the audience shouting in the best part of the song? And who wants to be listening to a mistake over and over again? Makes no sense to me.
But that's just me.
Posted by: blindwillie Mar 21 2008, 11:55 AM
Also new music is too perfect. It is recorded and every slight mistake is erased and some bands record at 50% speed and others change each note they play wrong with the click of a button and yeah the CD sounds spotless but is that what people want? What happened to the good old days of having a raw sounding album that was recorded with no big editing. Before you could record at 50% speed and speed it up. And compression on some of these albums is ridiculous.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
I fully agree with you.
I HATE the jumping cameras and fast cuts.
Same with the overmixed/overproduced albums.
Posted by: blindwillie Mar 21 2008, 11:59 AM
But that's just me.
Agree on this too
I love watching/listening to live music but I don't like to listen on live recorings.
Lousy sound, crowds screaming.
Which might be contradicting what I just said in the other post
Posted by: OrganisedConfusion Mar 21 2008, 12:29 PM
I don't mind a live show having a good sound and have the audience mixed fairly low and raised for certain sections of singing that is important but to change some mistakes they may of made is ridiculous as it changes the experience especially for people that are there. I love watching a live show and smiling when I realise they are human and yet on DVD there are no errors. I mean like if you watch the Alice In Chains Unplugged DVD he messes up and sings the wrong verse and he has a laugh and jokes with the crowd and they start the song again but it's real. The Death DVD is unedited. Great sound and visuals but the mistakes are left in and I for one love it.
Posted by: SinoMan Mar 21 2008, 01:04 PM
Yeah, DVDs are good with mistakes. But CDs with mistakes suck for me.
Posted by: OrganisedConfusion Mar 21 2008, 01:05 PM
I don't want a CD with mistakes but I also don't particularly want a CD with no mistakes by a band that can't actually play the song that quick say.
Posted by: SinoMan Mar 21 2008, 01:12 PM
Like Dragonforce?
Posted by: OrganisedConfusion Mar 21 2008, 01:16 PM
Exactly lol. They are overproduced and can't even play the stuff live because they haven't had to learn it at that speed for the recording process
Posted by: Goliath Mar 21 2008, 06:06 PM
Even if their live playing is not the most accurate, they are still one of the best live bands out there because of their energy and stage presence, Sam is always doing something entertaining on stage. . I feel like their sound NEEDS to be really polished in the studio since they have such a "Nintendo metal" type of sound, and in my opinion, it doesn't bother me. I really like DragonForce more for their energy than their musicianship. They create music that is still uplifting and aggressive, rather than the more common dark/angry aggression.
Posted by: SinoMan Mar 21 2008, 08:46 PM
+1
Posted by: Gabriel Leopardi Mar 21 2008, 08:58 PM
Nice topic. That's the reason why I enjoy a lot listening to Led Zeppelin and Jimi Hendrix recordings and also why I respect a lot to the 80's rock singers like for example Bruce Dickinson or Bon Jovi. Auto tune didn't exist. 
Posted by: tonymiro Mar 21 2008, 10:44 PM
V good point Gabe - take away Antares/Melodyne etc and what would we have left? Both are too often over used.
I haven't an issue with most modern recordings but some are too processed and too manufactured...
On occasion, maybe from the other side of the fence, additional studio help is good. The ability to tidy up a bit on an other wise great take is a god send. Studio time - particularly if you have additional musicians, is expensive so if you can tidy up after the fact - well it can be the difference between a take and nothing.
Cheers,
Tony
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)