live perfomances

[Stripey]

This is my perspective.

I play once a week at an internet cafe and the music we play is' date=' more or less, improvised. There are certain sections that are musically tight and constant, but on the whole, our set is unique every time we play. Recording would merely catch another version of this, yet without the drinks, chat and visuals (an hour and a half of musical wankery would also get dull).

As for recording, I love to be able to chuck in as many instruments as possible and overdub until I have some form of perfection, though most of my stuff features impro at some point. I think these would be difficult and somewhat pointless to re-create live:

[url']www.soundclick.com/plasticshit

I just approach music the way a painter might, I'm happy to spend days, weeks, months, mixing colours and building on the original sketch, painting over things I decide aren't working, accentuating highlights, refining small details, until I decide the work is "finished".

The way I see it, insisting on live performance is severely limiting in terms of creativity.

It's interesting that most people in this thread have cited self-satisfaction as the reason for playing live, and things like "having control" over a crowd.

[AKMartin]

It's interesting that most people in this thread have cited self-satisfaction as the reason for playing live, and things like "having control" over a crowd.

I can think of a few more:

- a lot of bands don't have the time or the money to invest in long-term, "good" recordings. It is very hard to recreate a good, inventive rock song in a studio environment, with precision.

- playing good music live is the mark of a talented band - a lot of bands are very entertaining to watch, which adds an extra dimension to their music. also, it puts bands under pressure to perform well, instead of having the "mask" of endless overdubs and re-takes.

- as has been said - gigs are a social experience, where a wide variety and number of people can gather specifically for the purpose of listening to music

- if a band can't perform live (lack of coordination, drunkenness, being shy, etc), they have little chance of success, with tours, gigs, festivals etc being the means to widen one's audience

AKM

[Frosty Jack]

They're not mutually exclusive though, are they? I like cds. I like gigs. Similarly, I like films. I like plays. I get different things from all of them.

I like recording cds so I can take time to get it right. Some stuff I've recorded, I've totally changed what I play, after hearing it back and trying different things.

I like playing gigs so I can hear and see the crowd reacting. Some gigs I've done, I've totally changed what I'm playing on the spur of the moment, directly because of what the crowd is doing.

Different things. Don't see where the conflict is, to be honest.

[Guest AmbientMood]

I just approach music the way a painter might' date=' I'm happy to spend days, weeks, months, mixing colours and building on the original sketch, painting over things I decide aren't working, accentuating highlights, refining small details, until I decide the work is "finished".

[/quote']

An interesting approach, though personally I tend to work in bursts where I will be totally focussed and intense on a piece for a short period of time (mainly to satisfy a guilty conscience - I'm always glad to finish).

But with regards to the original subject, why do you not feel the need to play live? I guess it totally depends on the style of music, as I previously suggested, certain music being more effective live or in recording. If yours is the latter then theres no argument, yet a jazz band could be equally perfectionist about their live show in the drawing room - rehearsing, re-working, re-arraning in total preparation for a live show experience that just cannot be as captivating on cd.

[Stripey]

I can think of a few more:

- a lot of bands don't have the time or the money to invest in long-term' date=' "good" recordings. It is very hard to recreate a good, inventive rock song in a studio environment, with precision.

- playing good music live is the mark of a talented band - a lot of bands are very entertaining to watch, which adds an extra dimension to their music. also, it puts bands under pressure to perform well, instead of having the "mask" of endless overdubs and re-takes.

- as has been said - gigs are a social experience, where a wide variety and number of people can gather specifically for the purpose of listening to music

- if a band can't perform live (lack of coordination, drunkenness, being shy, etc), they have little chance of success, with tours, gigs, festivals etc being the means to widen one's audience

AKM[/quote']

this is a typical 20th century mentality. Why is it hard to play a good rock tune in a studio environment? Overdubs and re-takes arent a "mask", they are part of the process of creating a really good recording - when i listen to a band i dont give a shit about the "skill" of the performers, what I care about is the end product, this goes back to what I said about selfish reasons for performing live.

What is music about, is it about creating a work of art, or is it about flexing an ego infront of a crowd?

[AKMartin]

Why is it hard to play a good rock tune in a studio environment?

Personally, I find it hard to recreate my individual parts without the rest of the band. Maybe it's just because I'm not very good. I'm used to playing a song while listening to and watching four other guys doing their bit, so it's harder to play when it's just me, with some headphones. Also, I think the live atmosphere lends itself more to noise and aggression, whereas the studio is a quieter, calmer atmosphere.

Overdubs and re-takes arent a "mask", they are part of the process of creating a really good recording

It costs a lot. We recorded three demo tracks of moderate quality in six hours. To be honest, I can't afford to buy my own equipment, or spend hours perfecting one track.

when i listen to a band i dont give a shit about the "skill" of the performers, what I care about is the end product,

Exactly. Good songs are a band's priority. I don't know what you're arguing with here.

AKM

[Guest AmbientMood]

I just approach music the way a painter might' date=' I'm happy to spend days, weeks, months, mixing colours and building on the original sketch, painting over things I decide aren't working, accentuating highlights, refining small details, until I decide the work is "finished".

[/quote']

An interesting approach, though personally I tend to work in bursts where I will be totally focussed and intense on a piece for a short period of time (mainly to satisfy a guilty conscience - I'm always glad to finish).

But with regards to the original subject, why do you not feel the need to play live? I guess it totally depends on the style of music, as I previously suggested, certain music being more effective live or in recording. If yours is the latter then theres no argument, yet a jazz band could be equally perfectionist about their live show in the drawing room - rehearsing, re-working, re-arraning in total preparation for a live show experience that just cannot be as captivating on cd.

The way I see it' date=' insisting on live performance is severely limiting in terms of creativity.

[/quote']

Again relating to my impro band: the music we make under the cynical, pressurising gaze of an audience is technically and musically superior to what we make sitting in the soundproof studio - fucking up every other note

It's interesting that most people in this thread have cited self-satisfaction as the reason for playing live' date=' and things like "having control" over a crowd.[/quote']

Agreed, I'm sick of wasting time watching poor quality acts satisfying their own selfish desires at my expense. Most local bands I've seen sound better on cd, mainly because the stop button is within reach.

[Stripey]

An interesting approach' date=' though personally I tend to work in bursts where I will be totally focussed and intense on a piece for a short period of time (mainly to satisfy a guilty conscience - I'm always glad to finish).

But with regards to the original subject, why do you not feel the need to play live? I guess it totally depends on the style of music, as I previously suggested, certain music being more effective live or in recording. If yours is the latter then theres no argument, yet a jazz band could be equally perfectionist about their live show in the drawing room - rehearsing, re-working, re-arraning in total preparation for a live show experience that just cannot be as captivating on cd.[/quote']

I don't feel the need to play live because I don't think it's important, I would rather spend my time creating offline recordings, because there is so much more scope for creativity.

What pisses me off about bands in aberdeen is that they are all focused on playing live, their recordings mostly sound like shit, and are totally bland and unintelligent. I can count on 1 hand the number of local artists who have great recordings and genuine creativity.The rest are just kids with no creative vision beyond the 20th century rock paradigm.

[Afro Droid]

As opposed to the 19th century paradigm?

[Stripey]

As opposed to the 19th century paradigm?

well, lets face facts, 4 piece rock is dead, except to a few stragglers in rural communities like aberdeen and the dying throes of it in the pop charts.

[Guest AmbientMood]

well' date=' lets face facts, 4 piece rock is dead.[/quote']

Commercially? Not quite..

[Mick Maverik]

Personally I think you need a balance between the two. I agree that recording music offline offers a far wider scope of possibilities, but I still don't see why you shouldn't play live. Music started off as a live experience, and you could argue that we've moved on since then, but I definately think a good live performance will captivate a listener more-so than the best of recordings. Some of my own song ideas can quite easily be re-created in a live environment, but others with a greater range of textures, will be better suited to a studio recording only (unless the basic idea can be produced live, minus the finer details). I think you need to the right balance between artistic endeavour and self endulgence. To me, music is as much about having a laugh as being intelligent and creative.

Andy

[Stripey]

Commercially? Not quite..

talking in commercial terms, crazy frog outsold coldplay, so that really says it all as far as what is in the charts.

I couldn't care less about commercial value of my artistic product, most of the kids who are into rock and it's subgenre's have been sold a lie.

[psydoll]

well' date=' lets face facts, 4 piece rock is dead, except to a few stragglers in rural communities like aberdeen and the dying throes of it in the pop charts.[/quote']

Maybe to you it is but if you're only just getting into rock music as a growing teenager or if you still have a distinct passion for the things that you've loved musically [which includes a lot of '4-piece rock' for myself] then there's still absolute shedloads of stuff to get excited about.

I've never really understood this 'rock is dead' thing. Not even when Billy Corgan said it

[Guest Page 99]

talking in commercial terms' date=' crazy frog outsold coldplay, so that really says it all as far as what is in the charts.

I couldn't care less about commercial value of my artistic product, most of the kids who are into rock and it's subgenre's have been sold a lie.[/quote']

What lie is this may I ask?

[Guest AmbientMood]

talking in commercial terms' date=' crazy frog outsold coldplay[/quote']

Hehe, now crazy frog, he's with you on this one, he would never do a live show - devalue his artistic credibility 'n that.

[Stripey]

rock is dead because it has reached the end of its lifetime as an innovative form of music. It's sonically bland, uninteresting, and not atall creative, and it belongs in the 1990s.

The reason most of the local bands here are boring and uninspiring to any discerning listener outside of aberdeen, is because they are essentially a bunch of rural fuckwits trying to emulate the rock bands they grew up listening to in their sheltered environment, people who have extremely narrow taste in music and ultimately no creative talents. I think this is why there is so much emphasis on live performance in this city, and so many poor recordings.

[Guest Page 99]

What an ecouraging statement there.

I'd better go pack my band in right now, as acording to you we have no hope at all of ever creating somthing interesting which will reach out towards other people outwith this city...

same goes for everyone who works hard at what they do in their respective bands.

[soundian]

talking in commercial terms' date=' crazy frog outsold coldplay, so that really says it all as far as what is in the charts.

.[/quote']

In the singles chart. Who buys singles? Kids. Who are the only group of people on the planet who like the crazy frog?. Kids.

No artistic argument there.

I was really hoping you'd changed, but you just can't resist calling Aberdonians thick, stupid, retarded etc can you? Just because a lot of people hold different values to you they must be ignorant morons?

As for live versus recorded, after thousands, maybe tens of thousands of years playing live I don't think us inferior ape-like beings are going to give up live music just yet, especially not just to please you.

[Jim Stax]

In the singles chart. Who buys singles? Kids. Who are the only group of people on the planet who like the crazy frog?. Kids.

No artistic argument there.

I was really hoping you'd changed' date=' but you just can't resist calling Aberdonians thick, stupid, retarded etc can you? Just because a lot of people hold different values to you they must be ignorant morons?

As for live versus recorded, after thousands, maybe tens of thousands of years playing live I don't think us inferior ape-like beings are going to give up live music just yet, especially not just to please you.[/quote']

I am now dissapointed that there is no canned applause available at the end of the post!

[Steve Temple]

Step aside people! I, as ever, have the answer, and it has nothing to do with fun on the part of the peformers (why are we talking as if they're the focus of what we're doing here?): Music - whether it be popular or classical - is at its most potent in a live context precisely because the audience has come with the purpose of experiencing it. You may listen to a recording while doing something else: reading, making your bed, washing dishes, talking. Does anyone put on a CD and sit down on an upright chair and stare at the wall for an hour? I actually used to, before I realised there is nothing I listen to that is worth such attention, and destractions were always unavoidable.

At a concert you can both concentrate on the music and experience the show and the crowd. Furthermore, Gridlock, you talk as if pop music (by this I mean anything that is not classical. Fuck you and your childish sub-categories) only exists as the sound on a CD. This is to take it too seriously as an artistic product. It is a social concept because of the mass-market possibilities of both the recording and the live performance. If you treat it as a private pleasure, well I can only laugh at you

[Stripey]

As for live versus recorded' date=' after thousands, maybe tens of thousands of years playing live I don't think us inferior ape-like beings are going to give up live music just yet, especially not just to please you.[/quote']

I'm not suggesting anyone give up playing live, just that bands could pay more attention to producing more interesting/better recordings instead of treating them as being of secondary importance.

[Alex]

There's only one real point in playing live. It's to turn up all the amplifiers and scream cupping the mike capsule in your hand. If the levels aren't sounding right on stage, the only thing to do is adjust your amp settings.

[Steve Temple]

I'm not suggesting anyone give up playing live' date=' just that bands could pay more attention to producing more interesting/better recordings instead of treating them as being of secondary importance.[/quote']

I'd go the other way and ask why people make recordings, but since that practice is expected of bands, I'd agree that they should make every effort to record something that couldn't be reproduced live, by making full use of the recording techniques and technology available

[flossie suvara]

I find it interesting that what started out as a simple statement questioning the merits of playing live against recording, with no mention of genre, eventually came round to focus specifically on one style of music, namely "rock".

I think that in the majority of styles of music, be it classical, folk, country, jazz or rock, it's not the interaction with the crowd that is the most important, but the interaction with the other people with whom you are playing. Regardless of whether or not you have an audience, playing with other people is still playing live. An excellent example of this is the many folk sessions which occur in various pubs in Aberdeen (Globe, Prince of Wales, Blue Lamp) - all the people there are playing live. Some are beginners, some are extremely talented, some are inbetween and the majority have little or no interest in recording anything. They play live because they enjoy the whole experience of interacting and sharing with other musicians to create an end result.

This isn't to say that the same interaction cannot be done in the studio, but a studio is a completely different environment - you normally have limited time (due to budgetary constraints) and you tend to have already a fixed idea about what has to be done.

Playing live in front of an audience when your band is fully rehearsed, your songs are good and the crowd are really enjoying themselves is, in my opinion, the pinnacle of musical enjoyment - again because of the sharing element. Everyone in the venue is part of the experience. The crowd are excited, the band feed off this excitement, producing adrenalin, which fuels their own playing and creativitiy, which in turn restokes the crowd and so on. So I don't feel that playing live can ever be described as "selfish" - people may have put selfish reasons for wanting to do it, but it still boils down to a shared experience.

Individual artists - be they singer/songwriters, solo instrumentalists or electronic/computer aided musicians do have the ultimate control over what they ultimately produce, and can spend vast amounts of time honing and polishing their finished work. Once complete, the work is truly theirs - no-one else has had any input and when it is released/played they can sit back and say "That's mine - no-one elses". A band of whatever genre who record something have to sit back and say "That's ours".....

Which is more selfish?

Regards

Flossie