1 (edited by Glen Winfrey 2006-05-15 21:00:26)

Topic: Studio vs. Live?

Hey everyone, I would like to get your opinion on a controversial subject, which I've had numerous conversations with friends, JB fans / friends and a few others. It always seems to turn into a "friendly" heated discussion. While a studio version of a CD is different than a live show... with overlays, added instruments, background vocals.... mix and master remix, and most... if not all, is a positive approach to achieve the sound the musician(s) want. When is enough to much? Please be assured I am not talking about Joe! I think Joe uses a perfect blend that compliments his CD's. I've been lucky enough to witness 4 - 5 live Joe shows back to back, and even though the set list didn't change... he never played any of the songs the same way. Makes the hair on my neck stick up every live show! I think I’m up to 45 shows to date, but really quit counting. On the other hand, I've also witnessed live shows from other bands that the only way you could recognize some songs were by there lyrics. Z Z Top is one band that comes to mind (don’t get me wrong … again) who I grew up with(ZZ Top along with Johnny & Edger Winter). I saw ZZ Top at the Summit in Houston years back with Aerosmith, and they sounded awful, while Aerosmith sounded awesome. I think that too much smoke and mirrors were added to that ZZ Top CD, and just gave a disappointing live show in my view. I think the album was Eliminator, and used lots of drum kits, synthesizers etc. Could have just been the album I guess. I still love those Delta type blues from Billy Gibbons who also is a great guitar soloist… with those distinctive extended, discursive lines. Yes, ZZ Top is still one of my favorite bands…. Guess its my Texas heritage, and the love of Blues / Rock! Between Austin & Beaumont... must have see ZZ Top at least a hundred times since the early 70's! The bottom line is: in my opinion a live show should be different than a studio CD, but not to the point of being unrecognizable live, with smoke and mirrors. What do you think?
Ps… Jim, my secret is I’ve cut my hair... twice since Galveston…lol…!
Last edited by Glen Winfrey (Today 14:37:39)

***   "... I don't want you to play me a riff that's going to impress Joe Satriani; give me a riff that makes a kid want to go out and buy a guitar and learn to play ..."   ***             Ozzy Osbourne

Re: Studio vs. Live?

Glen Winfrey wrote:

.........Makes the hair on my neck sick up very live show!

What is the meaning of this?


Just kidding.......I know what its like to mess up while typing big_smile

PC

“A friend is someone that will help you move............a TRUE friend will help you move the bodies." -- anon

Re: Studio vs. Live?

OK.... it's fixed! Reminds me of Jim being "sisth" in line to talk to Joe on the forum .... way back when. Sorry Jim.... : )

Thanks pc

***   "... I don't want you to play me a riff that's going to impress Joe Satriani; give me a riff that makes a kid want to go out and buy a guitar and learn to play ..."   ***             Ozzy Osbourne

Re: Studio vs. Live?

Glen,
Did you say controversy? smile Concerning Joe, I actually like him better live. I'll listen to his songs live and then I'll have trouble listening to the studio versions afterwards. Like "Mountain Time". I love that song live. Don't care for the studio version. Same thing with the first album ANDY. I thought the album was good until I heard ANDY live. What a difference. Though one band that I thought was a letdown in concert was Zeppelin. At least the vocals. Anybody ever hear Plant sing as good in concert as he did on the studio version of "Whole Lotta Love"? If you wanna see a band that sounds exactly the same live as they do in the studio; go see Rush.

Re: Studio vs. Live?

I understand and agree with what you're saying.  Some bands, like Joe, are what you call "Jam Bands" in my book, and the live performances are usually long, jammin, extended versions of their songs and their live shows soon become your favorites.  Black Crowes, Gov't Mule, and Blues Traveler, certainly come to mind !  But there are some bands that, like you say, add so much in the studio that it can't be duplicated live without a lot of help.  Most of the bands I have seen seem to realize what they can pull off live.

Re: Studio vs. Live?

The one time I saw ZZ Top, a couple of years ago, they blew me away. From the playing to the presentation, they were excellent. Billy's vocals have gotten a bit rougher, but they've aged very well. They were very stripped down, and the MTV stuff they did was helped a lot by that. There was still some synthesizer backing tracks to Legs, but that song is made by the synths anyway. But still, they were extremely good. They jammed a lot, and it was fun.

That being said, I love it when a band jams out a bit, like if a 4 minute song gets pushed to 9 or 10 minutes. But at the same time, you get a band up there that is really tight-sounding, and they don't jam, but still sound good, that's a good live act too. Skynyrd was known for playing it very close to the record, but they had it down so good that it wasn't a bad thing. They still sounded really good. Kenny Wayne Shepherd's a lot in the same way (regardless of your feelings for Kenny). His playing is very close to the record, a lot of the time, but he still nails it, Noah Hunt always sings well live, and it's always a well-done show. So, basically, if you can pull it off live, whether you're a jammer or not, just as long as you can pull it off live.

Oh, and for the record, I'm watching the Zeppelin dvd right now, and in my opinion, Plant just sings it different, not necessarily better or worse. Just from watching this dvd they smoked onstage. Page can sometimes be very sloppy, Plant sometimes becomes overindulgent, but somehow they make it work to where you're blown away. I guess they use the old blues rule: you don't have to necessarily hit the right notes, just the emotional ones.

"And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make"

My ReverbNation page for Dees & Friends - check us out!
www.reverbnation.com/deesfriends

Re: Studio vs. Live?

There is always going to be a difference for sure between live and studio.  I have heard some new bands put out cd's and it doesn't sound anything like them.  Either the producer puts too much effect in or the mix just doesn't come out right.  When it comes to someone like Joe, both are works of art.  The studio versions seem to put in what would be great to have each and every night but reality sets in with a three piece band.  I would much prefer seeing Joe or any other band live because you get sooooo much more.  With Joe you get longer songs, interaction with the crowd, the look on other people faces seeing Joe the first time, etc...  and the hair standing up!!!  We saw ZZ a couple of years ago and they were way better then when we saw them about 5 or 6 years ago when they were doing all that fuzzy guitar stuff.  Anyways, good topic Glen...

Music is good for the Soul...

Re: Studio vs. Live?

Hey GW,

I think you still need to check your editing..........and remember thats how some of these recordings get so "over-produced".........its just edited and edited until it is totally sterile.

Cheers lol

PC

“A friend is someone that will help you move............a TRUE friend will help you move the bodies." -- anon

Re: Studio vs. Live?

OK..... got me!

pcornell wrote:

Hey GW,

I think you still need to check your editing..........and remember thats how some of these recordings get so "over-produced".........its just edited and edited until it is totally sterile.

Cheers lol

PC

***   "... I don't want you to play me a riff that's going to impress Joe Satriani; give me a riff that makes a kid want to go out and buy a guitar and learn to play ..."   ***             Ozzy Osbourne

Re: Studio vs. Live?

Glen Winfrey wrote:

Makes the hair on my neck stick up very live show!

Does it always do that at "very" live show??????


lol

PC

“A friend is someone that will help you move............a TRUE friend will help you move the bodies." -- anon

Re: Studio vs. Live?

Sorry as my eyes deceived me… once again!!!  lol

Wish we could find some friends who wanted to move out west to the left coast…. I hear Vegas is nice in the winter... !

pcornell wrote:
Glen Winfrey wrote:

Makes the hair on my neck stick up very live show!

Does it always do that at "very" live show??????


lol

PC

***   "... I don't want you to play me a riff that's going to impress Joe Satriani; give me a riff that makes a kid want to go out and buy a guitar and learn to play ..."   ***             Ozzy Osbourne

Re: Studio vs. Live?

I like either.  These days there really does NOT have to be a difference beween the studio and stage, or at least a big difference.  There can be by choice, but as it has always been, the end result live ultimately rests in the artists ability.  But it used to be quite the norm to have lousy live mixes! Examples abound, one being the Beach Boys, who were incredible in the studio because of Brian Wilson's incredible vision. But when he disappeared from the stage, the result was often nowhere near that which was recorded...not that the others weren't very talented-they were,but didn't seem to keep it gelled onstage...now his touring band now is absolutely stunningly incredible (see them to believe me) now because he steers the entire thing and commands like he did in the studio. Led Zeppelin live recordings...Yet the Allman Brothers could pull it off either way, with their live shows to this day being among the best...the Dead, American Beauty and Workingman's Dead to me are gorgeous studio masterpieces, but I dunno maybe it's just me but I honestly thought Dan Healy didn't know what the hell he was doing live...

Rock On & Keep the Faith,
Rocket

"He still doesn't charge for mistakes! wink"
http://jbonamassa.com/tour-dates/
"Everybody wants ta get inta the act!"
“Now, this isn’t your ordinary party crowd, here.  I mean, there are professionals in here.”

Re: Studio vs. Live?

Glen Winfrey wrote:

Sorry as my eyes deceived me… once again!!!  lol

Wish we could find some friends who wanted to move out west to the left coast…. I hear Vegas is nice in the winter... !

pcornell wrote:
Glen Winfrey wrote:

Makes the hair on my neck stick up very live show!

Does it always do that at "very" live show??????


lol

PC

Make sure they're packed before you are...........that way you know they are serious.....! roll

PC

“A friend is someone that will help you move............a TRUE friend will help you move the bodies." -- anon

Re: Studio vs. Live?

If a band sounds just like the record live you might as well stay at home and play the record. My main men Steve Stills and Steve Miller have always done different arrangements of the hits live. Keeps me coming back for more.

The Police much better live than recorded although still like my Zennatta Mondatta. Supertramp. was it live or was it Memorex? They did pull off the just like the record sound. Fleetwood Mac always rocked more live. ZZ Top is one of those bands that can smoke one night and stink the next. I’ll take my chances with them though.

Sting another like the record artist now but early on was a whole other show. Bring on The Night was a bunch of songs done nothing like the record. Very cool. Bob Dylan you better be familiar with the lyrics because you aren’t going to know the song till he sings it. Unfortunately understanding them is a part of the challenge.

The Dead couldn’t sound just like the record if they wanted. American Beauty and Workingman’s Dead are two classic albums I would prefer to listen to them than take my chances seeing if they would do one or two live off of it.

I liked Joe’s record but seeing him live is what got me hook line and sinker.

jim m

Re: Studio vs. Live?

All kidding aside - I think the CD's set the level of expectation from the average fan. Most don't know or care why it doesn't sound the same. If the soundman is off at a live show the vast majority of the concert goers would not even realize it or just think it was the sound of the show live.

Some people CANNOT replicate their sound live without prerecorded backing (Britney Spears). By the way, you have to admit that's quite a stretch to make a Britney Spears reference on Joe's board in a thread speaking of live music.........

I also heard a live recording from Bad Company recently that I didn't care for. It all sounded the same with the exception of Paul Rogers.......he decided to change the emphasis of the words in the songs. Same words, just came at different points in the songs. I was expecting to be able to sing along (in my head), and I didn't like it. It's not like he changed it to be more emphatic, its almost as if he was saying "I've sung this crap a zillion times and I think I'll get all the words to this verse out as soon as I can........"

Joe's never sounds the exact same live, but I never feel that way. The recorded versions are great, but the live versions leave you with the feeling that you just got off a rollercoaster.

You either need to be true to your recorded music or take it to another level.


PS - there you go Glen, I'm sure you can find something in there to pick at me about lol


PC

“A friend is someone that will help you move............a TRUE friend will help you move the bodies." -- anon

16 (edited by Glen Winfrey 2006-05-16 10:25:37)

Re: Studio vs. Live?

Thanks Phil, Jim, Jane, David, Brett, Deezer, David A. & Rocket and anyone I may have left out, for your input. I think everyone for the most part feels like I do (no Frampton intended)! I think Live vs. Studio should be different, if the artist chooses to do so. The thing about Joe is, he does not need the smoke and mirrors, or gimmicks to woo the fans at a live show. Like Robert Johnson, Clapton and a very small circle other guitarist… Joe can play anything he wants, the way he wants. Mountain Time is a good example, and I prefer the slower, more bluesy rendition. You may like the faster version. Joe has mastered his playing which most guitarist could only dream of. Ever hear any two Boston songs that didn’t sound similar? I like Boston, but in a different way. I’ve always thought what really makes Joe stand out is the fact he can go out night after night, and play what he feels, not just what he knows how to play. Isn't that the true meaning of blues? As an analogy, Joe reminds me of the great retired Pitcher… Nolan Ryan (there goes my Texas heritage again) who could throw a 104 mph fast ball, just daring the batter to catch up with it…. Then the next pitch would be a 75 mph change up… having the batter swing, with the ball six feet in front of the plate. Most pitchers can only dream of, and physically can not do this, and never will. Like Joe, it’s a God given talent. Thanks Phil & Jim for letting me have a little fun with the humor in my posts, and you and your families will always be part of Audi’s and my life. We have met some of the best people through Joe’s ring of fans, that will be lifetime friends, and isn’t that what life is really all about? I guess Joe does more than rock our socks off….Cheers,GW
Last edited by Glen Winfrey (Today 09:19:00)

***   "... I don't want you to play me a riff that's going to impress Joe Satriani; give me a riff that makes a kid want to go out and buy a guitar and learn to play ..."   ***             Ozzy Osbourne

Re: Studio vs. Live?

I think that a 3 piece band such as ZZ-Top or Joe, or even a 4 piece will always sound different live simply because there are missing players onstage( no rhythm guitar for example). Skynyrd and The Allman Bros. and the Eagles can give a much more close to the recorded version  because they have every track covered onstage. I personally like the live stuff because that is when you really see what the band is about, as opposed to a recording that has been mixed and parts played until they were perfect. As far as Joe playing songs different every night, I don't think that is necessarily true, I think he stays pretty close to his live presentation night in and night out. The band does come off as a jam band, but the jam is pretty similar every night. I like that about them, as opposed to the black crowes for example, with Joe you know what you are gonna get, with them it's anybody's guess.

"You jump in front of my car when you.. you know all the time.. ninety miles an hour girl is the.. speed I drive.. "

Re: Studio vs. Live?

I love Joe's studio work almost as much as I do the live stuff.

There's just a different feel to most of the song when you've seen them performed in person. However, I do think Joe's method of recording allows for his spontaneity to shine through. There's a realness that is present on the studio work generally absent with most performers. The clean sound, the uncomplicated recording style, the lack of overly produced numbers means that Joe gives as good in the studio as he does live.

That said, there is a big jump on the way certain songs are performed live compared to the studio tracks. "Mountain Time" is the perfect example of this. But this isn't unique to Joe. Every band does this. In fact, I'd go so far as to say we would HATE seeing a band take the stage and perform each and every song exactly as it was done on an album. Where's the fun in that? Where's the special touch? That spontaneous outburst of passion in their music?

Give me two versions - live and studio - of most songs any day. Sure as hell beats canned, lip-synched nothing from wannabes.

The blues isn't about a look or a specific sound, the blues is something deep within. But the sound doesn't hurt things, you know? ~ Ben Hernandez