[Dixielandjazz] Live vs. Studio recordings

[Stephen G Barbone]

> GWW174 at aol.com (Gordon of Northridge) wrote
>
> I have always contended that bands recorded live in concert are more  
> exciting
> and 'electrified' and it somehow comes across in the recording.... I  
> can
> listen to just about any CD and tell if it was a 'studio job' or  a  
> 'live in
> concert' job....Have asked several pro musicians if they have an  
> explanation.  One
> theme keeps coming up is that they are striving for 'perfection' in  
> the studio
> jobs.... trying to get it down 'perfect' with as few takes (less  
> studio time)
> as possible....and the band leader wants that 'perfect CD' as  
> representation
> of his band.........whereas on a live concert everyone is  more  
> focused in
> having fun and entertaining an audience...... that sure comes  
> through on the
> performance/recording.
>
> Would love to read some discussion on this
>
> Attention band leaders.... would love to spend my CD money on those  
> live
> concert CD's even though to your ears they may not be exactly  
> "perfect"....let's
> not forget that afterall is said and done..... IT'S JAZZ


Gordon, send me your snail mail address and I'll send you a "Live"  
concert recording (2003) of Barbone Street in concert at West Chester  
University. Some good stuff, some mistakes. But plenty of energy, and  
on the spot composing by soloists. (Single track recording done by  
music school students there)

Why are"live" recordings better as far as I'm concerned?

1. The early recordings (all studio) were limited to 3 minutes. No way  
to get complete song or soloist's renditions in that time frame. What  
was on record at that time, was not the way the band would normally  
play in performance. (according to jazz historians)

2. The early studio recordings (probably most made before 1950) were  
made in the early morning, after the musician's regular gigs.  
Basically because as "working" musicians, they did not have the luxury  
of scheduling recording session on off days. The result is that we  
hear sleep deprived musicians,  with more than a few drinks, or  
bennies in them, playing at less than their best.

3) Like it or not, musicians are egotistical. We are making love to  
the audience. If there is no audience, we are making love to  
ourselves. Kenny Davern put it into perspective in an oft repeated  
quote: "For me (Davern) recording in studio is masturbatory." This  
leads to #4 below.

4) Musicians feed off the energy that the audience imparts. We play  
better when the crowd responds. We are more inventive, we challenge  
ourselves etc. We love the effect audience energy has on our brains.  
BTW, that's why some musicians will play for very low wages, or even  
pay to play. (Spend their money to travel 100 miles to play free)
We could just as easily play as often as we want in rehearsals in a  
garage and be better off financially for it , but we crave audience  
validation.

Basically it is a trade off. For me, the music (which includes energy)  
on a live recording is more communicative, but the overall sound is  
usually not as good as that of a studio recording where the musicians  
can do take after take to achieve perfection and the sound engineers  
can tweak virtually everything.

Since we all hear differently, I think some listeners focus on the  
sound quality of the music and soloists; tone, separation, clarity  
etc., and others focus on the content of the music,  inventiveness,  
energy etc. I think those is the latter camp prefer "live".

Cheers,
Steve Barbone
www.myspace.com/barbonestreetjazzband