[Dixielandjazz] Getting out more - Was Why Listen To Live Music
barbonestreet at earthlink.net
Thu Nov 1 14:32:30 PDT 2007
"Robert S. Ringwald" <robert at ringwald.com>
Steve Barbone wrote
>I am somewhat abashed that peer musicians either do not agree, or have not
>experienced the Zen of what you say. Perhaps they need to get out more also.
>Bob then wrote:
> Steve, I presume that you are referring to the current thread of editing
No, wrong presumption. Not al all referring to that thread. Just saying IMO,
live music is more exciting than recorded and/or computerized music and that
fans/bands don't get out much to hear/play it these days for one reason or
> If so, no one who has participated in the current discussion has indicated
> that a recorded session in a studio is musically better than a live
> performance onstage. That is certainly not what I have said and I don't
> believe that Kash said it either.
> So, I don't think that any of us should "Get out more."
See above, not referring to that subject or you or Kash. The "get out more"
quote does not apply to either of you. Those who don't get out much, both
fans and bands, know who they are.
> What we are saying, and apparently you have missed the point, is that with a
> little editing, in a studio or live performance, the recording can be
Didn't miss the point. I heard your opinions and respected them. It is how
much editing that is the question. Even on my own CDs, while we do not edit
musical mistakes out, we have edited Musician's expletives out. Like the
time one of us inadvertently knocked over a glass of Gin in the middle of a
take and said M F quite audibly. Naturally, that was deleted since some very
young people would have heard it, given our fan base.
> Perhaps it might not even involve fixing a note. It just may be balancing
> the band better, adding reverb or doing something to get rid of some of the
> room echo.
I quite agree. In fact I love the re-dos of classic jazz records that
improve the sound quality. I have no problem with that as long as they don't
edit out the musical errors and/or make the band sound like something it
> There are many things that can be done to a recording to make it for better
Agree with that.
> And, yes, fixing a note can be one of them.
That's where we differ. Personally, I would do another take rather than
alter what was played. Basically because I believe the band should sound
like what it actually played at the time. IMO too many bands, not yours or
Kash's, sound much better on records because they alter what they played to
something they could never do live, in real time performance. That's what I
object to and it is a personal choice, nothing more. I'll give you fixing
one note, but then what about 2, or 3, or 25, etc.
My CDs are one take, for the most part. Rarely a retake. We do not edit
mistakes out. That's just the way I feel about it. I want folks who see us
live to hear a band that sounds better than what we've recorded in studio.
Not the other way around. And I think most of the classic bands, Armstrong,
Goodman, Shaw, Webb, Condon, Murphy, Watters, et al, all sounded better live
than on record. (Guessing on Webb because I never saw him live)
Like Jack Maheu said of the Condon records. (Sudhalter's Book, page 299)
"The records? Yeah, some of them capture it a bit - but you should have
heard what it sounded it live. You wouldn't have believed your ears. It was
the most emotionally powerful kind of jazz I've ever heard. But that's gone
now." Those of us who saw that band and some of the others live, know
exactly what he is talking about.
All I was saying to Nancie and others on the list who read my post is that
fans and bands should get out more to hear, and/or play, live music as
opposed to listening to canned music or computer music. It was not about the
points you brought up. (answered here only because of your presumption)
There are 30,000,000 people in the USA over 65. What an opportunity to be
heard live, for those bands that play music these people adore.
More information about the Dixielandjazz