[Dixielandjazz] Live vs. Studio Recording was live vs Recorded

[Stephen G Barbone]

> "Jim Kashishian" <jim at kashprod.com>
>
> I don't really like to discuss "live vs. recorded", as I agree that  
> they are
> two different animals.  When you see a band live, you do exactly  
> that...you
> see the band + you hear the band, PLUS you drink in all the  
> ambience.  You
> can't get all of that even when watching/listening to a DVD or a live
> performance on TV in your home.  You are in your home, so you're not  
> "jazzed
> up" (pun intented) like you would be if you were out.  To go out,  
> you get
> dressed up, maybe go to dinner, have some wine maybe, and by the  
> time you
> get to the performance part....you are, hopefully, in the mood.
>
> At home, with a CD, there are distractions, and you had none of that  
> "going
> out" preparation.  Also, we are hearing from people on this subject  
> (on
> djml) who are remembering going out during their youth, and  
> comparing that
> to listening situations in their homes now, 50 years on!  Nothing is  
> the
> same, so a comparison is invalid.
>
> On to recording:  I prefer our band on our 3 live recordings (done  
> in clubs)
> over our first, which was done in a studio.  Having said that, there  
> are a
> number of tunes we do that I would like to record in the studio now,  
> and
> maybe mix those songs with others done live.  A little of both  
> worlds sort
> of thing.
>
> I daresay, though, that even when a band is recorded live, they know  
> they
> are being recorded, and they will play a bit differently than on a  
> normal
> nite, taking less chances perhaps.  This is just natural, as any  
> musician is
> aware that it is "going down for history", and we take care to play  
> "very
> well", which can often lower the "heat" of the normal sound of the  
> band.
> Our band is made up of recording session musicians, and even we  
> experience
> that, so this rule will have to apply to most.
>
> It's really all down to personal preferences anyway, so is a bit  
> silly to
> try to compare.  Commercially speaking, I do find that the audience,  
> when
> buying a CD, are particularly interested when you say "a live  
> recording", as
> they hopefully are taking home something similar to what they just  
> heard.

Well stated.

I would add that 50 year old memories of hearing bands like Condon  
live, compared to hearing Condon on record now are more accurate then  
you might think. Especially when remembering not only hearing Condon  
live back then, but buying Condon studio recorded records back then  
and being disappointed, with those records, back then. And later  
giving most of them away to young musicians who wanted to lear how to  
play OKOM.

I also suspect that most jazz musicians who were around 50 years ago  
and heard Condon live in his joint with Davison, Brunies, McGarity,  
Cutshall, Hall, Russell, Butterfield, Schroeder, Wettling and about 30  
other greats, will have identical memories. And, I suspect that most  
of those musicians no longer listen to those records anywhere near the  
amount of time that non-playing fans do, if at all. Unless they are  
into re-creation, or wish to hear a tune on a special occasion or for  
a research purpose.

Same holds true of my own experiences today. Regarding recording  
today, I am pretty sure, that most other performing jazz musicians  
tend to get much more energized by a live audience which puts the band  
into a groove. We smile at each other and nod in our agreement that we  
are really cooking and the instruments seem to play themselves.

Our audience here also seems to prefer "live" recordings, if we ever  
record again, it will be live, in performance. Meanwhile, I just keep  
replicating our "live" CD.

Cheers,
Steve Barbone
www.myspace.com/barbonestreetjazzband