Live Music: the main deal now?

[Scafeets]

There's a big difference between live performance and recording. I've heard too many rookie bands go in the studio and try to capture their live sound, only to be disapointed.

 

As so many great bands have demonstrated, there is a different talent to bringing a recording to life. Some bands can do both -- some are only good at one., But the bands that have a great live act and try to replicate it in the studio (instead of making a good record) often end up making a crappy recording.

[daddymack]

There's a big difference between live performance and recording. I've heard too many rookie bands go in the studio and try to capture their live sound, only to be disapointed. As so many great bands have demonstrated, there is a different talent to bringing a recording to life. Some bands can do both -- some are only good at one., But the bands that have a great live act and try to replicate it in the studio (instead of making a good record) often end up making a crappy recording.

 

True..and, many bands go into the studio without a real clue as to what they are doing. Some get lucky and have a great producer/engineer team who make it work, and some...well, wind up with 'a crappy recording'...

[Synonym Music]

 

I had a doctor once complain because I billed him 550 dollars for a six hour job (the irony didn't escape me!). I told him that I spent 25 years learning to do what I do skillfully and efficiently, and amassing the tools to do it, and that he wasn't paying me for what I do, he was paying me for what I know . That ended the discussion.

 

Oh the irony.

 

 

 

 

 

I think of recording as capturing the best take possible. If you can't get a good take, you're simply screwed, there is no way to make someone sing well or fix a chord. As for people being able to play in real time, the big reveal always comes on stage as everyone here has mentioned. Maybe they suck on average; maybe they cooked a up a few studio-only ideas and suck at rearranging; maybe they're good at one or the other. You get a poor singer up to the mic though and it shows every time, and you have to mix it lower when stations would prefer it even louder.

[flutegirl]

I don't know, there are differing schools of thought on this. I tend to look at recording not as a replication of a live performance, but as a performance medium all in itself. It's the difference between watercolors and oil paintings to me. I like to hear bands pull off great sonic tapestries on records, but then do something with considerably different arrangements live, at least on some of their songs.

 

That is an excellent point...I like analogies

[The Real MC]

Live music is going downhill where I live.

 

Some of it is due to the exodus of manufacturing and engineering jobs, and to the "salary depression" with companies squeezing out high earners and replacing them with noobs earning 1/3 the salary for the same work. The result is less disposable income to go around.

 

Some of it is home entertainment. Fifteen years ago we didn't have the netizen, we didn't have DVDs and home entertainment systems, etc. It is more convenient for people to stay home.

 

Fuel prices. Another squeeze on disposable income.

 

Crackdown on DWI has scared people away from clubs. Fewer patrons means the club hires fewer bands.

 

Diverse taste in music. Not everyone wants to hear blues or hard rock in a club, and most musicians have too much pride to play stupid songs like Old Time Rock-n-Taking Care Of Friends in Low Places.

 

I retired the clubbing scene because I'm tired of late nights. With fuel prices going up and my gig cut stagnant, it's not worth playing out anymore.

[Phantasm]

 

if they like it they will still buy it is an absolute load of {censored}e. if that was true then downloading and file sharing would be none existant. why would you download or copy a cd you don't like? if we do a gig and sell cd's after it, whats more likely to happen, everyone who wants a cd will shell out £10 of their beer money for the night on it. or one of them wil buy it and all their friends will go: hey man can you get me a copy of that?.....

 

 

I buy everything I like.

 

I find most things through downloading.

 

I downloaded the most without buying in college. In that case, I didn't have the money to begin with so even if i wanted it, I wasn't going to buy it.

 

However, some bands that I did like in college I actually bought the new CD's when they came out.

 

Pre-mp3 and during college I had about 80-100 CD's. Post-mp3 and post-college, I've got 600+ CDs, all legit and store-purchased.

[playlikedanko]

I think anybody interested in this issue (or with a financial stake in it) should probably read The Long Tail by Chris Anderson (editor for Wired magazine). He analyzes how the internet is changing consumption patterns, particularily in regards to the entertainment industry.

 

His conclusion? The era of "hits" is on its way out.

 

The term "long tail" refers to the consumption patterns for online sites such as Rhapsody and iTunes. Essentially, it means that these sites make roughly the same amount of sales by selling less tracks from a greater amount of artists as they do from selling big hits from fewer artists.

 

Why did record companies focus on producing "hits" in the first place? Limited shelf space. Record stores could only hold a finite amount of records; therefore of course they wanted to stock up on bigger hits with broader appeal.

 

With the internet, we now have unlimited shelf space. There is no opportunity cost in iTunes stocking an indie band over a major pop act. In fact, it's more beneficial to iTunes to stock as much as possible.

 

Thus, rather than an era of hits, we're looking at an era of niches. The records industry will soon be in the business of selling less of more, which becomes feasible with the unlimited shelf space of the internet.

 

The current record companies are outmoded dinosaurs, they'll all be gone soon enough. Believe or not, a majority of people actually would rather listen to music they prefer (and consider quality), rather than the manufactured "hits" force-fed down their throats. Before, people didn't have the resources to truly explore their personal tastes like they do now. Most people you see probably have pretty radically different tastes in music, but there are plenty of like-minded souls out there, and they all have roughly the same access to their niche tastes.

 

EDIT: The Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Tail

[playlikedanko]

One point I'd like to make about the "death" of live music:

 

Since the internet boom, I've witnessed one kind of guitar rock really take off: the jam band scene. (Ironically, this pretty much coincides with the death of Jerry Garcia)

 

The jam band scene has produced so many successful concert festivals recently. Not just Bonnaroo, but the Allgood Festival, Summer Camp, Wakaroosa, etc. The bands themselves seem to be doing quite well also. At the traditionally "alternative" festival Lollapalooza festival last year, I counted more jam bands present than any other conventional rock genre.

 

The reason, I think, has to do with their reputations as live performers combined with the internet. They are known for something that cannot be experienced over the internet. Nearly all of these bands offer their live performances for free on either their own websites or on archive.net. It's all just promotion for the main commodity, their live show.

 

While lower-tier live bands may be struggling, as well as more studio-oriented bands of all tiers, it seems the mid-to-high level live-oriented bands are doing pretty well. Not just the heavy hitters in the jam scene, but also more regionally popular acts like Ekoostik Hookah seem to be doing pretty well. And I think the internet may be the prime reason for that.