[Dixielandjazz] Live vs. Studio

[Steve Barbone]

"Jim Kashishian" <jim at kashprod.com>

> Why does it have to be "live vs studio"?  Why can't there just be good
> studio recordings or bad ones, and good or bad live recordings?

Some ask why? Others ask why not? Just a point of view.
> 
> Quote SB:
> And if they (musicians) are not being recorded, they will create even more,
> because no one is keeping score.
> 
> Ok, so a musician gets all choked up in the recording studio 'cause he knows
> it's all going down, but the same musician on a stage doesn't sweat the fact
> that there are engineers out there recording him live?  Doesn't make sense.

It wouldn't make sense if we are talking about musicians who get choked up
with a tape rolling. But I didn't say, or infer that.
> 
> I can tell you that the same guy/gal that sweats the tape rolling in the
> studio will sweat the tape rolling out there with the live audience.

Perhaps so, but the audience interaction tends to diminish the sweat, even
to a choker. And to the non choker, the audience certainly affects
performance.  
 
> Quote SB:
> In studio, I think most of them are apt to play it safe because they want
> to avoid the errors. So they play their most comfortable patterns.
> 
> Again, the same effect is there during the live recording...he knows he's
> being recorded! 
> Ok, so the audience might excite your frightened musician a bit, but it's
> not going to clear his mind that "Ohmygod, this is being recorded!"

Maybe, maybe not to a "frightened" musician, but the rest of us, I think,
prefer playing live because we expect positive feedback from the audience.
 
> Quote SB:
> I will never forget discussing live vs. studio with Kenny Davern......
> 
> Oops!  Name dropping!  :>  Why not listen to those of us that are having
> this conversation in the present...people who are actually involved in the
> recording process?  Why quote some discussion from (probably) ages ago?

Please forgive my discussing what a topflight jazz musician said. I thought
that the information was useful. If you don't, well that's OK too. But then,
if past information is going to be so easily dismissed, we'd better destroy
all our old records of those dead guys, and quit learning about our craft
from the old guys. Like history? Who needs it?
> 
> Quote SB:
> Same goes for "patched" records where different intros, or perhaps
> different parts of two different performances are patched together. If I
> learn about it, I feel cheated. Basically because IMO records are like
> history. They are specific events that occurred at specific times. If
> altered, the history is faked and/or the record a fraud.
 
> You're placing way too much importance on the majority of recordings.  And,
> why would you "learn about it" if the whole purpose of good post prod is to
> do it so it won't be heard.

I, for one, learned about one such event of this chat list just a digest or
two ago. 
 
> I daresay many of your cherished recordings are frauds under such strict
> rules, as even many older recordings will have been spliced (tape cutting &
> splicing in parts), not to mention ambience changes, etc.  The general
> public just doesn't know about it.

I agree. It is kind of sad however. As well as the very reason that I
believe live music, in performance, is the best way to hear it.
 
> What's the big deal anyway?

No big deal. It's kind of like a good copy of a Picasso. Most people,
including me, would not know the difference, proven by the amount of
fraudulent art in museums all over the world where experts have been fooled.
But once outed, the work is still a fraud. Like I said originally, if we are
looking for perfect music, the computer is the answer. Lets all quit playing
music and turn it over to the computer experts. After all, why not use the
technology to its fullest?

Cheers,
Steve Barbone