To polish or not to polish our live promo audio material?

[vinidajackal]

 

Our band needs feedback - we are a Journey tribute band and would like to know which type of LIVE video works best in your opinion for promotional purposes (internet and press kits)?

 

item 1:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P27stUvsHsw

item 2:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC9IMXqyMhY

 

The first was a mult-track audio recording taken of our live performance, post-processed for EQ, compression and effects (no digital editing of notes to correct any mistakes!), and synched to the video.  It was mixed in a professional setup much like a big national band would do for a live CD release.

The 2nd is a more raw video w/audio taken straight on camera, with no post processing of the audio.

Would love to hear opinions - which AUDIO method (raw or polished; pls disregard video differences) sells our band better to the average public and to promoters?  thx!!

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

that was 7 1/2 minutes I'll never get back

[blue2blue]

---

Rudolf von Hagenwil wrote:

that was 7 1/2 minutes I'll never get back

---

 

 You put in 7 and a half minutes and all you can offer is a gratuitous insult? 

[blue2blue]

---

vinidajackal wrote:

 

Our band needs feedback - we are a Journey tribute band and would like to know which type of LIVE video works best in your opinion for promotional purposes (internet and press kits)?

 

 

item 1:  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P27stUvsHsw

 

item 2: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WC9IMXqyMhY

 

 

 

The first was a mult-track audio recording taken of our live performance, post-processed for EQ, compression and effects (no digital editing of notes to correct any mistakes!), and synched to the video.  It was mixed in a professional setup much like a big national band would do for a live CD release.

 

The 2nd is a more raw video w/audio taken straight on camera, with no post processing of the audio.

 

Would love to hear opinions - which AUDIO method (raw or polished; pls disregard video differences) sells our band better to the average public and to promoters?  thx!!

---

 

OK.

I'm afraid it's kinder-to-be-cruel time. 

The second,  through-shot vid looks better in some ways. Even without intercutting, etc. The camera work for the first vid is largely pretty questionable. It's shakey, but worse, there's a real tendency for the camera(s) to focus on the front line's midsections or be in the wrong place at the right time.  I see   more belt buckles than faces of musicians, as it were. Also, the stage lighting work is annoying. I would suggest going with a full stage flood and skipping the moving spot -- a lot of the time it's on the wrong player, seems like, and it seems like people keep moving in and out of it during their spots. 

The audio mix on the first one is, indeed, better mixed and balanced, but it's nonetheless pretty 'distant' sounding. And is there a bunch of added in reverb? Understood the playing is all real,  but it sounds sort of 'removed' in a way that might make some folks think it's actually lip synced.

 

I guess I'd go with the first, as it makes the band sound a lot fulller -- since you can hear the intruments in a reasonable balance, unlike the second which was getting a poor mix between the PA and the instruments/amps on stage (but sounded considerably more like 'the real thing').

 

 

[vinidajackal]

 

thank you Blue2blue for taking the time to listen and respond, as opposed to taking the time to be useless.

 

I was mainly just asking about the audio part - the vid was just getting anybody we could to do it.  Since it is a small venue with obviously bigger reverb and delays, it makes it sound a bit unreal or removed.   But was trying to get a bigger sound more like the real Journey

.  If I add room sound from theh video cameras audio it detracts a lot from the polished sound so it's definitely a tradeoff.   One other band member prefers the raw sound which I abhor for reasons partly that you mention.