[Dixielandjazz] Studio or live

Sat, 9 Nov 2002 14:08:01 EST

--part1_51.271a3476.2afeb711_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 11/9/02 11:02:10 AM Central Standard Time, 
barbonestreet@earthlink.net writes:

> Just an opinion, but for me, performing live, or recording live
> performances is where jazz music really is. I can only imagine what it
> must have been like to hear King Oliver or Louis Armstrong in the 1920s
> live. As good as the records are, and as grateful as I am to hear them,
> I believe that in live performance, they must have been even better.
> 
> Cheers,
> Steve Barbone

   I will agree to disagree with you, steve.  I have found from my experience 
that studio recordings, in the main, come off better than live recordings.  
Of, course, all of this is a variable.

   Louis Armstrong's best recordings were done in the studio ( with three 
exceptions, the Town Hall concert, the Symphony Hall concert and 'Ambassador 
Satch ').  Armstrong's creativity came to life in the studio where he could 
get away from doing a 'show.'  Away from the fans, musicians and hangers-on.  
The same goes for most top jazz musicians.

  I found in doing live recordings that musicians tend to freeze up, not 
wanting to play any clams and this makes it difficult to do a decent show.  
The ideal scene for live recordings is to be able to record over a series of 
nights so that the band gets comftorable with it and tends to forget about 
it.  Then select the best from those recordings.

  I was on a live recording once for George Buck.  Nice new club, and the 
place was packed. Buck had his engineer there recording.  It was a special 
evening with fantastic audience response. The leader, the dynamic Rev. Gary 
Miller is on, Charlie Hooks, Laurie Seaman, Spider Ridgeway, Craig Hodnett 
and Nick Opperman were superb and everything came off just beautifully.  We 
got over to Buck's house the next day to listen to the tapes.  We are all 
sitting there and the engineer starts the tapes...and nothing. and...nothing. 
 The engineer stops and restarts tape, fast forwards, goes to the next 
tape...and nothing.  Not one note of the entire evening got recorded.  George 
Buck muttered something about marijuana and went upstairs to bed...the only 
time I have seen him so angry.  We redid the live recording and it came off 
ok but it didn't have the magic that the original night had.

So, I think that some live recordings will come off exceptionally well but 
Studio recordings are where you can take some time and you don't have to do a 
show.

Jim Beebe

--part1_51.271a3476.2afeb711_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>In a message dated 11/9/02 11:02:10 AM Central Standard Time, barbonestreet@earthlink.net writes: 
 
 
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Just an opinion, but for me, performing live, or recording live 
performances is where jazz music really is. I can only imagine what it 
must have been like to hear King Oliver or Louis Armstrong in the 1920s 
live. As good as the records are, and as grateful as I am to hear them, 
I believe that in live performance, they must have been even better. 
 
Cheers, 
Steve Barbone</BLOCKQUOTE> 
 
&nbsp;&nbsp; I will agree to disagree with you, steve.&nbsp; I have found from my experience that studio recordings, in the main, come off better than live recordings.&nbsp; Of, course, all of this is a variable. 
 
&nbsp;&nbsp; Louis Armstrong's best recordings were done in the studio ( with three exceptions, the Town Hall concert, the Symphony Hall concert and 'Ambassador Satch ').&nbsp; Armstrong's creativity came to life in the studio where he could get away from doing a 'show.'&nbsp; Away from the fans, musicians and hangers-on.&nbsp; The same goes for most top jazz musicians. 
 
&nbsp; I found in doing live recordings that musicians tend to freeze up, not wanting to play any clams and this makes it difficult to do a decent show.&nbsp; The ideal scene for live recordings is to be able to record over a series of nights so that the band gets comftorable with it and tends to forget about it.&nbsp; Then select the best from those recordings. 
 
&nbsp; I was on a live recording once for George Buck.&nbsp; Nice new club, and the place was packed. Buck had his engineer there recording.&nbsp; It was a special evening with fantastic audience response. The leader, the dynamic Rev. Gary Miller is on, Charlie Hooks, Laurie Seaman, Spider Ridgeway, Craig Hodnett and Nick Opperman were superb and everything came off just beautifully.&nbsp; We got over to Buck's house the next day to listen to the tapes.&nbsp; We are all sitting there and the engineer starts the tapes...and nothing. and...nothing.&nbsp; The engineer stops and restarts tape, fast forwards, goes to the next tape...and nothing.&nbsp; Not one note of the entire evening got recorded.&nbsp; George Buck muttered something about marijuana and went upstairs to bed...the only time I have seen him so angry.&nbsp; We redid the live recording and it came off ok but it didn't have the magic that the original night had. 
 
So, I think that some live recordings will come off exceptionally well but Studio recordings are where you can take some time and you don't have to do a show. 
 
Jim Beebe</HTML>

--part1_51.271a3476.2afeb711_boundary--