[Dixielandjazz] FW: Live vs. Studio recordings

[Jim Kashishian]

Steve wrote:
>........the overall sound (of a live recording) 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.

And, I answer:
I think you will find that the only big drawback (in sound) in a live
setting is the setting itself.  In a studio, acoustics are controlled. The
acoustics of a venue are not likely to be.  Sound engineers can tweak
virtually everything in either setup, but may be limited to what they can do
in a live situation by the acoustics.  

In the studio, the customary positioning of a jazz ensemble is in a close
circle, or positioned as though on a stage, and not using earphones if
possible.  The idea is to create a live feel for the musicians, so they can
hear each other as they do on stage.  

"Take after take" is not the norm, at least in my experience.  The chops
don't usually allow that, and the rule that the "first take is the best"
tends to be used.  Also, "punching in" (re-recording a particular track) is
rarely used, as the previously recorded instrument will most likely have
been recorded (in the distance) on another microphone, and will be heard on
the track not being re-recorded. You could end up with the re-recorded
trumpet solo with the same trumpeter's previously recorded solo being heard
on the bassman's track. So, that little recording trick becomes a no-no in
most studio jazz recordings.  

Therefore, a studio recording will normally preserve the band the way it
played as though it had been in a live situation because it really IS a live
situation....everyone honking at once!  Very, very different from each
instrument laying down his own track on his own in an empty studio (and I've
done lots & lots of that!).  Granted, audience sounds (not always a
blessing)will be missing, as is the acknowledged matter of excitement.

Steve continues:
>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".

And, I answer:
In an ideal world one would hope that all of the qualities you mention above
could be found on either type of recording. And, there is no reason not to
use multitrack equipment for our live recordings, taking advantage of the
best of both worlds...live & studio.

A good mixing engineer will not destroy the music, and can help maintain all
of those qualities mentioned above during the recording or during the
subsequent mix. Three of our CD's were recorded live...the first to two
track stereo, the other two on 8 track digital machines.

In the multitrack situation, I was only concerned with getting a hot signal
on each track (as close to zero as possible), and no mixing desk or engineer
was used.  The mikes used were a stereo microphone (SoundField with 4
recording heads) inside the grand piano, one in front of the drum kit, & one
in front of the front line.  (Just a little bragging there, as I am the only
person/studio in the world that owns three SoundFields!)  3 stereo mikes = 6
tracks.  A Neumann U87 on the bass (not the best for that purpose, but what
I had available), and the same for the vocals = 8 tracks.  The SoundFields
have their own preamps, while the Neumanns went through a Neve preamp to the
multitrack.

We recorded 14 sets over a period of 7 nites at a local club on both of the
recordings.  I wouldn't suggest that to anyone...ever!  It is absolute
murder to then listen to all of that music & try to pick the best songs for
a decent CD!!

If I ever do it again, I will select a list of possible tunes for the CD
beforehand, and then record them.  I would then possibly repeat any song
that I thought could be played better on another nite.

Anyway, to go on with the story, the 8 tracks must then be mixed down to two
track stereo, which in the case of OKOM is not that big a deal.  You got
your rhythm section to deal with as far as balance, EQ, and maybe a bit of
ambient reverb...easy peasy.  Then you have the front line which is already
mixed (remember? One mic for everyone!), and the vocals.  If the band is
balanced on stage, it will have been recorded balanced already.

Why, then, record on multitrack?  Well, it gives you that little bit of play
in post production to be able to pull up (in level)that particular solo that
is a bit hidden.  Or, be able to color a particular instrument....reverb,
EQ, compression...which are not naughty words in the proper hands (& using
proper ears).

Sorry for having gotten so technical, but someone may find it all
interesting/helpful.
I have already stated that I find our audiences prefer to purchase live
recordings, but do not go along with the argument that each type may only
contain certain qualities.

Jim