Overdubbing in Bluegrass recordings

[Jeff Budz]

I heard a rumor that "many" Bluegrass bands overdub the vocals after recording the instrumentals. Any truth to that or does everyone usually record in one pass. I suspect that some of the more modern groups overdub (akus, dusters, c-sky...) but it would be interesting to know for sure.

[Ivan Kelsall]

I'm pretty sure that when i listen to some Bluegrass 'lead' singers who are also talented instrumentalists, that when i hear them singing & also hear complex Guitar / Mandolin etc. playing going on,that they're not doing both at the same time.It would be interesting to see (hear),if they sing & play their songs the same way 'live'. It's not a crime to over-dub,but it seems a tad 'not truly'
the way it should sound. I'd much prefer a version of songs the way they'd do them 'live',
Ivan

[eadg145]

I imagine there is a good deal of multitracking on studio recordings. That being said, I saw Molly Tuttle last weekend burning off some HOT picking while singing "White Freight Liner.". If I'd only heard a recording I never would have believed she was playing those lines while singing.
So I guess it depends on the artist, and their familiarity and comfort with the tune.

[Shelby Eicher]

It depends on the group and the recording. Adam Steffey said with Alison they started with a click track and built it one or two instruments at a time. There have been many times that I have over dubbed tracks and when I did the J J Cale cuts we were all in the same room tracking together.

[Scotti Adams]

Its not uncommon to record a rythm/click track first then building the vocals and breaks around that.

[Jeff Budz]

To me, overdubbing in bluegrass goes against the "spirit" of the music in the same way overdubbing in jazz would. You could sit there on protocols and edit a bunch of takes into a perfect "super break", but it wouldn't be real. One thing I know from watching the masters is that they can do it for real, so why layer the tracks a few at a time instead of playing live?

The reason why I asked the question was because my band is putting together a recording, and we are having trouble isolating the vocals and instruments. One of the guys suggested we record the instruments then overdub the vocals but I was afraid the bluegrass police wouldn't allow it. I guess the polar opposite is to record the whole band with a stereo pair and let the mix fall where it falls. I believe this how punch brothers albums are recorded.

[banjoboy]

Overdubbing has been going on since the birth of multi-track recording decades ago. Nothing wrong with doing it. When a band/artist records an album, they want to put their best foot forward. They want to make sure that everything is in tune and in time. Some bands are so good that they can probably pull off recording live with little or no mistakes. I'm not sure if Ricky Skaggs records live or overdubs, but if you go to any of his concerts, it sounds like you are listening to his recordings...not that he's lip-syncing, his group is just that good. Anyway, imagine you are recording live and you have just taken the best mandolin break of your life, and the vocalist starts singing and forgets the words. AAAAGGGH!!!! Now you have to do the whole thing all over. Many recordings nowadays aren't even done at the same time/recording studio. One musician may record his/her tracks at one studio and send the files to another musician in another city, who then records their tracks and sends it on to another musician. So I don't think there is an issue with overdubbing. If it's an issue, perhaps the bluegrass police should take a donut break and keep their two cents to themselves.

[mandolirius]

I think you're making way too much out of this. Where did you get the idea that recording bluegrass is any different from other forms of music. And BTW, there are no bluegrass police, just a bunch of people with opinions.

[Jeff Budz]

Its just that I got this feeling in my gut that it's not the right/genuine thing to do. With overdubbing you lose some of the interplay be
and the click track seems inorganic. Until recently it never occurred to me that many/ most bluegrass albums are recorded this way.

In my mind I kind of put bluegrass on a pedestal with jazz and classical as the highest forms of music, and hold it to a higher standard than I do rock, pop & r&b. Who would want to listen to a symphony that was overdubbed one instrument at a time to a click track?

[fredfrank]

Another way to do this, is to record a scratch track, or a guide with the whole band playing into one track, and then layer in each instrument playing along with the scratch track. Add the vocals, and then you can toss the scratch track. Now the feel of the tune should emulate the way your band does it live. Now you have perfectly isolated tracks that you can mix to make it sound as balanced as you'd like.

[JeffD]

Its just that I got this feeling in my gut that it's not the right/genuine thing to do. With overdubbing you lose some of the interplay be
and the click track seems inorganic. Until recently it never occurred to me that many/ most bluegrass albums are recorded this way.

The more I have watched the process of recording and editing, the more sure I am that every single piece of recorded music has been overdubbed, fixed, digitally transmogrofied, or in other major ways departed from a live accoustic performance captured in a recording.

The very fact that everyone has their own microphone, so that the natural dynamics of an accoustic performance, that would have been determined by the distance from the listener and the assertiveness of the player, is gone. Frank Zappa called it the sound from nowhere. There is nowhere on stage that the sound you hear in the recording could have happened, as the individual volumes have been adjusted and mixed.

So, the recording is the show. It is not a recording of a show, it IS the show.

With that in mind, my requirements are much more easily identified. I like recorded music to sound as authentic and spontaneous as possible. Mr. Engineer, I don't care what you have to do to simulate authenticity and spontenaity, just make it sound that way. If I want the sound of a live accoustic performance I will go to a live accoustic performance.

[Mandolin Mick]

So what if the Bluegrass Police don't like it! The goal is to get the best recording that you can in the studio. Early Bluegrass recordings have the bands around 1 microphone, but so was the Beatles first album. I don't think anybody wishes the Beatles would've continued that, and neither should anybody care if Bluegrass bands overdub the vocals. Just my opinion ... ;)

[mandolirius]

Its just that I got this feeling in my gut that it's not the right/genuine thing to do. With overdubbing you lose some of the interplay be
and the click track seems inorganic. Until recently it never occurred to me that many/ most bluegrass albums are recorded this way.

In my mind I kind of put bluegrass on a pedestal with jazz and classical as the highest forms of music, and hold it to a higher standard than I do rock, pop & r&b. Who would want to listen to a symphony that was overdubbed one instrument at a time to a click track?

It doesn't need to be as extreme as one instrument at a time to a click track. Getting what you want down in a recording isn't always easy and the benefit of isolated tracks is that you don't have to lose something you really like because it has a flaw that can't be overlooked. Recording live off the floor is wonderful (I'm about to do just that) but you really need to be well-rehearsed and confident you can get in two or three takes. It all starts going south after that.

[neil argonaut]

I don't really care for "authenticity" in the recording method just for the sake of it, but if recording live is the easiest and best way to get a recording which sounds together as a band then it would be the best option. I also wonder whether it's always best to record to a click track if a band is good timing wise anyway, because so many great recordings subtly speed up or slow down, and to me it's small things like this that can make a difference to making things sound good and not generic or soulless.

If, as it seems from your post, the problem is more with isolating the instruments than with getting a take where everyone is happy with their playing, then I would tend to think it'll be less effort to sort out your recording problems than to get the same live, together band feel with individually recorded tracks. Why is the lack of isolation causing a problem? A bit of bleed between tracks can help a recording seem together, and should still allow you to change individual instrument levels fairly independently, but if it is proving problematic, I would research miking techniques and sound isolation methods before jumping to record it seperately.

[Charlieshafer]

The use of multi-track recording has also opened up a whole new range of collaborative recordings. It's a snap, and done all the time, to record a few tracks in the us, email them to the UK, or wherever, add a few more, do a little mastering, send the tracks on to somewhere else, add a little more, then send them all back to the home base for final mastering. Saves gas!

[GTison]

"I heard a rumor"
that Tony Rice spent untold hours of studio time overdubbing just trying to get ONE break to sound as perfect as he wanted it. ( 20 years ago)

[Tom Mullen]

If you listen closely to many of the current artists' recordings, you will hear a mandolin rhythm all the way through the song, even when the mandolin is playing the lead break. I asked a former bandmember of DL&QS how they recorded their songs, and all the instrument rhythm were recorded at the same time. The instrument breaks were recorded separately, and the vocals were done as a group. This was several years ago, so I don't know if it is the same today.

[Willie Poole]

When The Bluegrass Album Band recorded they played about 20 songs and took whatever came out, no re- takes or overdubs, they didn`t use a song if it had any flaws, so what you heard on those albums was exactly what they played in the studio as if they were on stage.....My band has made two CD`s and both are non-overdubs, in fact one was a live show just burned onto a CD and all of the audience noise was blanked out along with the talking between songs....On TV they showed AKUS doing a recording session and they were all in the same huge room but with partitions seperating them and they wore head phones and they made those recordings in one take but they practiced each song for a long time before trying record it....Which is what I do with my band, get it so it is second nature and try not to think while you are recording, just do it....

Willie

[Tune]

I guess the polar opposite is to record the whole band with a stereo pair and let the mix fall where it falls. I believe this how punch brothers albums are recorded.

From a maths perspective, the chances of everything being played perfectly in a single take by all performers (no tuning problems, no broken strings, etc.) are less than if multiple tracks are recorded and mastered into combined tracks.

As to The Punch Bros., it is perhaps of interest that Thile credits himself as the sole performer for all of the songs on the Deceiver album; probably some overdubbing involved (obviously for songs multiple voice instances are heard).

[Fretbear]

It can come down to practicality; if you have a tight rehearsed band that performs regularly, it would be most efficient to just mike them nicely and let it roll. If there is a problem, take II. If two guys want to record something (everything) and they are both singers and multi-instrumentalists, then they have to throw down a scratch track with a click, and use it as a template for the feel.

[Tom Mullen]

Me??? it takes me several takes to get ONE mandolin break right, and a whole buncha fixes to get the vocals right. I ain't 40 anymore.......that's MY excuse! LOL

[Ivan Kelsall]

I really don't care if a CD uses 'overdubbing' at all,but as Jeff Budz suggests,you loose some of the sponteneity of a 'live' recording.
Ultimately, ask yourself this - would you prefer to listen to a 'perfect' CD, or a 'live' performance, 'warts & and all' ?. I certainly know what i prefer & a mistake or two on a 'live' recording,well, who's perfect ?. Sometimes the perfection of recordings comes over as being more than a bit 'clinical',& for me,in a Bluegrass starved UK, LIVE is IT !!. Maybe if i got to hear far more live Bluegrass,i'd get along better with the overdubbed studio variety,
Ivan:(~:>

[Jeff Budz]

Thanks for all the advise, seems like we should be fine to do some overdubbing if we need to. The biggest problem with "live" style recording is getting enough separation on the vocal/instrument for someone who plays and sings at the same time. Instead is singing into a typical large condenser mic something more directional would be prefered, such as Shure Beta87. I'm pretty sure my 58's and 57'sfrom the live kit wouldn't sound good for the recording.

Another thing about overdubbing is that you fixate on getting that perfect take, and everything takes so long. If you can get a good sound going live you can live with minor mistakes a little easier.

Tune, I know CT overdubbed everything on Deceiver; it is a prime example of what can happen of someone just overdubs to the click... A little disjointed. I was specifically talking about the Punch Brothes albums where they recorded live with a stereo pair.

[Spruce]

Everyone who has posted is dead-on right... ;)

There are literally dozens of ways to record a bluegrass band, and it will vary according to the band...
That's "production", and are probably the most important and critical decisions that will be made in terms of getting satisfying results to tape (or whatever you use)...
It's huge how important those decisions are.....

[Scotti Adams]

My father and I just went into the studio "Live"....2 mics....

[mandobassman]

It's unrealistic to think that modern bluegrass bands don't overdub. Many of the classic bands of the past recorded in one take because they didn't have the money to pay for studio time to do multiple takes. Nowadays, most projects are financially backed by a record company and they expect the best product to be produced with no mistakes. An overwhelming number of bluegrass bands will record rhythm tracks followed by vocals and then back-up fills. In the hands of a skilled, experienced mixer, it should sound seamless. With a not so skilled mixer, it can be a mess. I have recorded both with and without a click track. I personally prefer without. All to often it sounds lifeless and mechanical with a click. Live music has natural surges in rhythm and is what makes it sound live. If you listen to Josh Williams' "lonesome Highway" album, there is a instrumental called "Golden Pond Getaway". The tune speeds up significantly by the time it gets to the end. It doesn't bother me though, because it sounds so energetic. I think click tracking can take that away. But it all depends on the musicians playing. Many modern players are used to click tracks and can still provide the energy to make it sound good. The final result of any recording depends on everyone involved to make it sound realistic.

[mandolino maximus]

"Bluegrass Smash Hits, vol.1" by Mashville Brigade was also a one-take recording at The Station Inn without a crowd. Nice "live" result without crowd sounds. Knowledge of the one-take enhances my appreciation of the skills. Studio/live hybrid?

I once stood outside a concert hall while Sir George Solti and the Chicago Symphony Orchestra recorded a Mahler symphony. Not overdubbing / not at all a one-take affair. But the brutality was live and also produced a nice "live" result.

[JeffD]

I really don't care if a CD uses 'overdubbing' at all,but as Jeff Budz suggests,you loose some of the sponteneity of a 'live' recording.(~:>

Yea, as I say, Mr. Engineer make it sound spontaneous.

[JeffD]

I remember hearing a classic story about the Hollywood film of the Broadway musical "Show Boat". For the film William Warfield sang the song central to the whole musical, "Ol' Man River". He sang the whole thing, on camera, in one take, perfectly. Everyone was amazed.

"To the amazement of the film technicians he recorded it in a single take that was flawless! They listened to the playback several times and could find no reason to 'try it again'!"


Warfield was an accomplished baritone, but had never done movies before, and, according to the story, didn't know you get a second chance. So he had prepared as he would for the stage. He was supposed to have said something to the effect that "you paid me to learn the song and sing it, thats what I did."

[John McGann]

I was at a mastering session once, and walked in on an engineer with a classical score...an orchestral piece being edited for a major label. On a 2 page score, there were about 30 red circles in various places...I asked him if those were all the edits, and he told me "you would not believe how many edits can happen in a two second piece of music"....

It's not just pop music, or bluegrass for that matter.

So, if you think Photoshop is bad... ;)

[mandopete]

I once heard from a recording engineer that Michael Jackson dubbed in about every other note for the vocal tracks on Thriller. I don't think it's so much of a case of the style of the music, but the process the artist likes to use and how they will get to the finished project. In the end either can sound great (or not).

[stratman62]

"Nowadays, most projects are financially backed by a record company and they expect the best product to be produced with no mistakes."

In reality, practically every band out there today are doing cd's, some in professional studio's, some at home, record company's are getting very tight with their dollar. I would say that it depends on how and where you are recording and how much money you are going to invest.

[Spruce]

I was at a mastering session once, and walked in on an engineer with a classical score...an orchestral piece being edited for a major label. On a 2 page score, there were about 30 red circles in various places...I asked him if those were all the edits, and he told me "you would not believe how many edits can happen in a two second piece of music"....

It's not just pop music, or bluegrass for that matter.


Pop on that first David Grisman Quintet LP sometime and have a listen for edits...
Lots of razor blades used on that little project... ;)

[John McGann]

Pop on that first David Grisman Quintet LP sometime and have a listen for edits...
Lots of razor blades used on that little project... ;)

Of course, having seen them live on that 1st tour, I'd counter with "so what!" ;) Killer bands are killer bands.

[Spruce]

Of course, having seen them live on that 1st tour, I'd counter with "so what!"

Yep.
Same with the orchestra whose mastering session you walked in on...
But it's very interesting to see how the process unfolds...

I used to love to cut tape, but you'd better keep your mind on your work... ;)

[Wolfboy]

the recording is the show. It is not a recording of a show, it IS the show.

With that in mind, my requirements are much more easily identified. I like recorded music to sound as authentic and spontaneous as possible. Mr. Engineer, I don't care what you have to do to simulate authenticity and spontenaity, just make it sound that way

Beautifully said.

Bill Wolf, a mastering engineer I have the greatest respect for, once told me his philosophy on recording: he said that by its nature it's all about creating an illusion, given that hearing music through speakers is not, and physically cannot be, the same aural sensation as hearing it played live. That being the case, the art of recording is the art of creating the best possible illusion of the live sound, through speakers, as opposed to trying to exactly reproduce the live sound itself, since by definition that can't be done. Therefore, whatever techniques are necessary to create the best possible illusion are there to be taken advantage of – there's nothing more "pure" about a non-overdubbed, unedited, unprocessed recording in and of itself. All that matters is the final product. (I asked him his opinion of a certain record label who take great pride in recording everything direct to a stereo pair with no overdubbing, mixing, EQ, compression, reverb or any other post-production signal alteration – he laughed and said "They put out the worst-sounding stuff I've ever heard!")

I've recorded just about every way at one time or another, from direct to two mics in a concert hall with no further tweaking (which frankly resulted in recordings that sounded distant and harsh, in my opinion, despite their being on an "audiophile" classical label), to overdubbing all the instruments one at a time (of course I have to do it that way when I'm playing all the instruments! - and even then I only use a click track if I have to, to keep it all together). If I'm recording with an ensemble, from duo on up, I do prefer to play together in the studio as much as possible for the "group vibe", and without a click track in that scenario to allow for the natural ebb and flow of rhythm that Neil and mandobassman have mentioned. But there are no hard-and-fast rules – I've done ensemble tracks with everybody recording their parts at different times in different studios because of scheduling conflicts, and I feel confident that nobody could distinguish those tracks from ones where everybody played together live. The great classical pianist Glenn Gould once said the number of edits on a recording were of no more relevance than the number of stagehands backstage at a play or the number of revisions involved in writing a book, and I would say the same about overdubs.

On the other hand, sometimes it does go down the old-fashioned way just fine – when my erstwhile duo partner Michel Sikiotakis and I were recording our CD The Irish Girl, we recorded a six-and-half-minute set of tunes on flute and guitar, playing together in the same small room, and nailed it on the first take. Afterwards I said "You want to do another one?" and he thought about it, smiled, and said "Not really." Neither did I, and it's on the CD like that – the only take, and not one edit. Again: there are no rules!

[Schlegel]

to me, a recording is an artifact. It's not inauthentic, because it is what you make it. Was Sgt. Pepper "inauthentic" just because the Beatles couldn't play it live? They made it knowing they could never duplicate it on stage.

[Ivan Kelsall]

A recorded performance & a 'live' performance of any piece of music are very often 2 very different products - obviously !. As i said in my last post i've no objection at all with 'overdubbs' on a recording,but the mere fact that you can very often tell when it IS overdubbed,detracts from a recording for me. Somehow i feel as if i'm being fed something that's not real. In a complex recording such as 'Sergeant Pepper' mentioned above & in many other 'pop' music recordings,i can accept it,but overdubbing for what's very often just a 4 or 5 piece acoustic band,it doesn't seem right somehow,why should they need it ?. It's the same way when 'guest' musicians are added to a particular song or instrumental,when you hear the main band perform it 'live',usually those instruments and or voices are missing - so why add them in the first place ?. If i was in a recording band ( i wish i was in ANY band !!) ,i wouldn't wish to record anything i couldn't reproduce on stage in a live performance - but that's my personal view,others may differ,
Ivan

[JMOSS99]

I heard a rumor that "many" Bluegrass bands overdub the vocals after recording the instrumentals. Any truth to that or does everyone usually record in one pass. I suspect that some of the more modern groups overdub (akus, dusters, c-sky...) but it would be interesting to know for sure.

Well, as Kenny Baker once said, "Some of the boys need to do that, but I generally get it in the first take" YEAH RIGHT!
I saw some of his "first takes" before. Try 6 hours of playing non-stop to get something he liked.

1) A live show is live and full of performance excitement.

2) A recording (LP, CD, etc) is a canvas on which you can add sounds like colors to create a musical concept such as a song or instrumental. Like painting you can mix to create new colors, then listen to see if you like them. Many of those Bluegrass Police mentioned won't listen to the live shows I have on tape of Monroe, Jimmy Martin, Reno & Smiley, etc... because they hate the rough (live) sounds on these tapes. When it comes to recording, the last thing I want is the sound of the instrument as it would sound in my living room. What a let-down. This is like suggesting to a great painter that they might want to just take a picture with a camera instead.

Can you imagine?
Hey Rembrandt, I just got a camera. You can go home now!

Noooo, I want an intense sound that clearly jumps out of the speakers. I like the recording domain and work with it to offer depth, width, and dynamics. Over dubbing or punching sounds so 20th century. This is the digital world now.

Most important is to give each instrument it's own space, making sure that the instruments don't walk over or mask each other. This is done in any of a number of ways that do not involve dubbing, but mixing. Musicians wanting to mix their own recordings should read up on how the ear works. This can be done by studying papers on ear damage.

The ear/brain connection works to produce "information" for the person to create a reality from, that will allow that person to survive in a world of moving objects. The ear compresses, suggests direction, simplifies, and has a limited bandwidth. The album mix should play to these to get the sound concept across to the listener that the musician wants. The final product is the sound as it is perceived by the brain and it's impact on the listener. This includes the ears and the body
(as in the concept of "Thump" popular in rock).

Jim Moss

[AlanN]

The whole process of recording, over-dubbing, mixing, etc. is something I know little about and would defer to the experts, to the firm I would hire to do all that. It takes a skilled hand, for sure. And if done wrong, can be dreadful. I always wondered about a certain tune on Grisman's Rounder Record, from 1976. Waiting on Vassar has a spot in it, during the vamp part where the rhythm stops and various instruments play through the spaces. I had a cassette tape of that record for years and thought it was the cassette playing tricks, but then I put on the album and heard the same thing: a faint bleed of another instrument during a Vassar fiddle line. That sounds like an over-dub/mix flub (to me) that made it into the final product.

[swampstomper]

As a listener / amateur musician and not a recording artist, I have no problems with any way the artist gets their recorded message across. But there is something about a one-cut, live-in-studio effort that keeps me coming back when more "perfect" recordings stay out of the rotation. A perfect example is the Lilly Brothers & Don Stover recordings for Event in 1957-8, reissued by County. The sponteneity, the drive, the urgency of a live show (straight from many nights at Hillbilly Ranch) push that record along in a way I doubt any overdubbing could improve. So a few lines are flubbed, a few notes are not spot on, so what? And I like the analogy with jazz... bluegrass is ensemble music where (we hope) musicians listen to and feed off each other. Even if the piece is rehearsed, each performance (including in the studio) is different. Listen to the musicians respond to Charlie Christian's amazing ideas in those mid-30's Benny Goodman sextet sessions... the best example is Blues in B which is obviously a sponteanous, let-the-tape roll recording.

[M.Marmot]

Can you imagine?
Hey Rembrandt, I just got a camera. You can go home now!


Jim Moss

Or, in keeping with the theme of the thread,

'Hey Vermeer, were you using that danged Camera Obscura while painting?'

[Willie Poole]

I have talked to many people at our gigs and about 90% of them say they prefer live music compared to recorded music because it is so much more realistic....So that being the case I think I`ll record the next CD with a few mistakes and see if they like that any better....Of cousre we play four hours live without any mistakes....YEAH RIGHT....

Ivan, maybe you will have to start your own band....

Willie

[Ivan Kelsall]

From Willie - "Ivan, maybe you will have to start your own band....". Thanks for the 'vote of confidence'. I don't know of one Banjo player,Guitar player etc.who plays Bluegrass within 50 miles (at least) of me - now if i could only learn how to play my Banjo,Guitar & Mandolin all at the same time,well i'd certainly be onto something - no 'overdubbs' required either !!,:grin:
Going back to the main question,one of my favourite Bill Monroe CD's,is the "Live recordings 1956 - 1969. Off the record Vol.1".Ok,the recordings aren't 'studio quality',but the sense of atmosherein the recordings is worth the lack of sound quality. I've often wondered why bands don't film their recording sessions & release a DVD as well as a CD. Bands 'do it live' on stage,so why not on CD & DVD ?.For me,forget the overdubbs,lets have realism,& again as i said before,'warts & all'.
Here's a clip of the new 'Flamekeeper' line-up, filmed during a radio broadcast - would i buy a DVD of a whole album filmed in this way ?,you bet your next Loar !!!,
http://youtu.be/gKyR8fw4s8k

Ivan:whistling:

[Willie Poole]

Most of the videos I have seen of bands require quite a few cameras and and an engineer to monitor and select which shot that will be used...If you only use one camera it will just be stationary and no close ups of each picker when he takes his breaks etc...

It could be done but I hope if they do that it isn`t like the videos that they show of the country artists, a lot of shots that aren`t even part of the song or performance.....

My brother did a recording where he played all of the instruments and overdubbed them all...Little Roy has also done at least one where he is playing all of the instruments....Not realistic in the least but good listening....

Willie

[SternART]

Quote Originally Posted by Spruce View Post
Pop on that first David Grisman Quintet LP sometime and have a listen for edits...
Lots of razor blades used on that little project...


Of course, having seen them live on that 1st tour, I'd counter with "so what!" ;) Killer bands are killer bands.

And now most of Grisman's recordings are live to two track, mixed in real time.
He has come full circle on this one. They play at such a high level, the organic
flow just gives it more soul.

I tend to agree.....but can also appreciate the art and skill of a great audio engineer. Some pros really know their equipment, both vintage and state of the art, and how to get the 'right' sound for the project.

Interesting to me is the use of vintage microphones, tube preamps, high quality wires, and analog tape machines.......just going to digital at the last step. The warmer sound seems well suited to acoustic music. Even the mastering process, like HDCD has an effect on the way a project sounds........and of course larger bit rates, etc.

[Spruce]

And now most of Grisman's recordings are live to two track....

Two track tape, I'm sure....
And I'll bet razor blades are still part of the game... ;)

[SternART]

I think they mostly go for organic takes these days.......they play at such a high level.
They do several takes on tunes, and even the ones that don't make the CD are often
stellar performances. In fact with some historic material on the Acoustic Oasis, you can
download entire sessions now....even with some talk between tracks...it gives you an idea
how they work.

[Spruce]

Nice.
Do you happen to know what the 2-track is?
That old Studer perhaps??

[mandopete]

I think they mostly go for organic takes these days.......

;)

[JMOSS99]

I think they mostly go for organic takes these days...

So...
I have this bridge you might be interested in.
You can keep all the money you collect from the people crossing it.

Man...
First define Organic for me. It reminds me of my girl friends and their use of the word LOVE. When I ask them to define it to me, they can't. I won't talk about how other people record and mix who are still alive. "live to two track, mixed in real time", what the heck does that really mean? It reminds me of that old Firesign Theater line, "this car comes with FULLY air-conditioned air, from our newly equipped air-conditioned... Factory".

That is the thing, if you can't tell if someone edited or processed, what do you care? You can't tell!

What are you looking for in a recording anyway? Heck, you are probably listening to it on an mp3 in the first place... on a set of "ear buds". Are you kidding? What a place to start from! Try running a distortion meter on these two items sometime.

So what is it you look for in a recording these days? What turns you off in a recording?
What is the meaning of the word LOVE?
As Monroe would say, "Boy Boy Boy".

[Ivan Kelsall]

Q - "So what is it you look for in a recording these days ?" A- Realism !.
Q - "What turns you off in a recording?" A - Lack of realism !.
Also, personally, i've never listened to an MP3 on 'earbuds'.All my listening is done either on high quality 'Altec Lansing' speakers attached to my PC, or a very high end Hi-Fi system which uses BBC Radio broadcast 'monitoring quality' speakers.
Getting back to the main point on this subject,the type of overdubbing that i really dislike is the 'unrealistic' sort where the musician/singer is singing & also playing highly complex instrumental parts at the same time - it doesn't happen on stage like that,so why record something so unrealistic ?. I can quite comfortably listen to 'said musician/singer' first 'sing' & then 'play',that's the way it's normally done.
As i said before,i can accept 'overdubbing' (we usually have no choice),but for me it's not necessary & it's not 'real',
Ivan

[JMOSS99]

Q - "So what is it you look for in a recording these days ?" A- Realism !.
Q - "What turns you off in a recording?" A - Lack of realism!. Ivan

Ok, define realism. Is it just keeping the guitar player/singer from playing complex breaks as they sing? Don Reno could do that on stage no problem. What about effects? Is using a digital reverb/effects processor a lack of realism? What about Parametric EQ's to bring out the richness of an instrument, or to keep the guitar out of the way in the mix? What about compressor/limiters? With cutting tape as mentioned before, I don't see the difference in that and bouncing tracks to get a great track. I am afraid of cutting tape myself. The thought just gives me the willies. If you are not ok on digital effects processors for ambience, then what about chambers, rooms of all sizes with speakers and mics at opposite ends, plate reverbs? If you don't like compressors then what about over driving the mic pre-amp or the tape? Same effect if done right. What about the mic choice? Woooo there is a big one. Do you pick a mic on it's specs or do you find a mic that makes you sound great? (Think about the instrument you bought and the strings... and the picks... ) This purest stuff starts to weigh you down after a while.

How about this, you are recording someone who nails the first half of a break so good you see God for a moment, but blows the second half. On the next take they nail the second half of the break and blow the first half. You have two amazing half breaks. Do you take one of the two, keep trying for a complete break (at $150/hr), or do you just bounce the two breaks together to get the best of both breaks? This is how it generally happens.

Same thing for vocal harmonies, only if you are going to try this on harmonies you had better had recorded the backup tracks first or you will have a heck of a time blending the edits with the instrumental dynamics being different from take to take and isolation what it is. Joe Stuart once told me that a band he was in, back when everthing was done live to disk, did 150 takes before getting the one they liked. Is that a good idea?

I am just saying that there are tradeoffs to be made, always. The issues are Budget, Moods, Physical Positions, Health, Stress, Fatigue, and on and on... Sometimes songs are created in the recording studio. They get developed in the sessions, with one person adding something that gets added to and so on. Then on stage they recreate what they developed in the studio.

So to me, Realism is like Organic, something that is fun to talk about, but in the end completely avoids the many pathways to completing an audio painting on a canvas such as a CD.

For myself, I don't want to hear wimpy recordings. I don't want to hear recordings that start out fast and slow down, unless that is the intention of the performers. I don't want to hear mud, the sound of many instruments walking all over each other with a frequency lump in the middle band. I don't want to hear a recording that sounds like the band was in the other room. I want to hear the best performance in the best audio context with each instrument in it's own space. I don't want the audio to start out loud and get faint, or the other way around. If a musician plays these great breaks on stage and gets worried in the studio with a bunch of musicians watching them... counting the $ going by, I would like to see the two half breaks put together and move on. I want to hear great performances, maybe with the musicians reaching... and I want to hear it clear, clean... and punchy.

Other than that... I don't really have an opinion on the subject. :-)
Jim Moss

[Spruce]

(at $150/hr)

You win...

[thejamdolinplayer]

When my band recorded our cd's we recorded all the instruments, breaks and lead vocals on one cut. Then we went back in and recorded the harmonies later because that was our weak point and we knew we wouldn't nail it on one take especially since a lot of the songs we had only played a couple of times.

I read an article once somewhere thats Tim O'Brien will lay down a perfect vocal track the first time through every time and also the same with Skaggs and his band. You get a different sound when you record a "live" style cd, then you do if you over-dub everything, I also think its a matter of getting it "right" not necessarily getting it "perfect".

As posted already there have been many times I played a killer break and the vocalist messed up so we had to redo the whole track. With that said sometimes I find myself playing something"safe" when I know I'm not supposed to mess up because we are trying to get it right one time through, overdubbing allows you to dig a little and maybe create some new licks that you would not have played if you were doing a one time.

When I record myself I play a scratch track that I don't worry about getting perfect as far as words or key goes but I worry about it keeping time, this is where a drum machine or click track comes in handy. I then go back and over-dub everything simply because I cant play all the instruments at once. :grin:

[Ivan Kelsall]

"Ok, define realism " - If i'm listening to a live band, that's REAL. If the performance i'm listening to is recorded & transferred to disc.the music is 'realistic' in that it's a true rendition of the original performance with nothing added & nothing taken away (performance wise). Who mentioned on stage 'effects' - not me !. The OP was regarding 'overdubbing on recordings',not 'effects' on stage, in the studio, or elsewhere.
As an example,i was listening to Ricky Skaggs' "Live at the Charleston Music Hall" CD yesterday.At one point he introduces a new song by the late Harley Allen that he'd received a couple of weeks previous.As he hadn't had chance to learn the song, he tells the audience that he'd have to 'read the words from the page',he than says (to himself i'm sure), " hey !, it's a live album,get over it". That's 'realism' & something i'd rather have a million times over than one 'studio concocted,non-realistic' performance. Thankfully though,in Bluegrass music,most recording engineers/artistes deliver a good product,with the minimum of 'overdubbs'.
I think that what our fellow member above is refering to are 'edits' made to a 'take' in order to correct or remove errors.That's fine,everybody does that. The 'overdubbs' i'm refering to are the 'unrealisms' that are added to a recordings,something the bands would find hard, if not impossible to reproduce live on stage. Why should bands offer us an 'unrealistic representation' of themselves
in recordings.They might indeed sound good ( i've never inferred that they wouldn't - just un-real),
but what a disappointment (for some),to see & hear a 'lesser' performance when they do it 'live',;)

Ivan~:>

[JMOSS99]

I have heard similar to this from HIFI people in the 1970s. They were more concerned that you can hear exactly what the room sounded like with the musicians in it then they were with the audio painting on the canvas part. These HIFI buffs would rather place a single mic in the middle of a living room and record that direct to disk, then take that home and play it through their $10,000 speakers to hear the chairs squeak, then to listen to the musical concepts being played. They wanted to hear the burps and f-a-r-t-s (technical term) as Mitch Mitchel once put it. I guess I can see where this would be considered "Organic". Hey, some people collect stamps and bottle tops. However, for me... I can hear burps down at the local bar and sometimes even from my cat. I don't need to seek it out on CDs.

Now, as you might know, MOST live albums are over dubbed with studio tracks and then re-mixed with edits to clean up the performances. Most are. So, for the live show sound, I go to the live tapes from the 1950s and 1960s that I am sure we all have, not an album form a contemporary artist. It is my belief that most people want to hear what I want to hear, the best performance and mix possible. They could care less if the musician over-dubbed anything. They wouldn't know a punch if they heard one. In fact, in the movie GIGI and in GILDA there are some really clear audio inconsistencies, but those movies are classics.

If someone wants to see the live sound of a band I am producing, they should go see the band live. The live show has the interaction of the audience with the band and the band with each other. A studio project on the other hand, is a chance to achieve something much greater then simply a live performance. It is a chance to do something much bigger which compliments the musicians by extending their control over their environment. Albums are a musical/audio fantasy to take you away from reality. Musicians can do more than perform live. They can paint with sound... if they don't limit themselves. They can produce greater and more difficult musical presentations then just having a mic up in a room to record a performance. This Organic thing starts to sound like a contest of some kind where you have self imposed limitations that you have to live with, like auto racing.

So I see it this way, musicians are competing all the time. They compete with their performances and they compete with their recordings. If a band wants to include the burps and f-a-r-t-s in the competition, let them. One thing about albums, they never go away. A performance is over the minute the band walks off the stage. The audience is left with the excitement. An album will represent you f..o..r..e..v..e..rrrrr.

Jim Moss

[JeffD]

[QUOTE=Jmoss;991337]Now, as you might know, MOST live albums are over dubbed....

If not all...

Lets just say, if you assume they all are, you won't be wrong enough times to matter. Guaranteed, even if its not overdubbed, there is stuff there that is a manipulation of "real". As soon as one uses a mixer, things are not "real" as the individual volumes are adjusted to the point where there is no physical place where it would have sounded like that accoustically.


If someone wants to see the live sound of a band I am producing, they should go see the band live.

Yes, yes. Absolutely.

[Wolfboy]

Interesting aesthetic/philosophical discussion going on here.

It sounds like what Ivan is objecting to is recordings that purport to be performance documents of groups that regularly perform live, containing additional musical elements that wouldn't or couldn't be part of the group's live performances (random example off the top of my head: Hot Rize albums where Tim O'Brien can be heard playing fiddle backup behind his own lead vocal and rhythm mandolin), on the grounds that a performance document should sound like what one would (at least theoretically) hear in a live performance. In other words, his objection is on moral/philosophical grounds more than musical/aesthetic ones: "an audio portrait of a band that plays live should sound like that band playing live, nothing more, nothing less." An arbitrary rule, IMO, but perhaps understandable if one is a fan of a given band's live show and wants to relive it at home.

Logically, it seems to me that a recording that is obviously non-reproducible live - for example, one on which one musician plays most or all of the instruments via multitracking (some of my favorite albums fall into that category, and I've done several myself) - should be exempt from that objection, on the grounds that such recordings don't make any claims to being reproducible live and nobody expects them to be. A recording like that is sui generis, a thing unto itself, not an audio portrait of anything that exists in the outside world.

Returning, then, to the subject of group recordings as audio portraits, the other questions that this thread has raised appear to be: even assuming a band makes a recording containing no elements that aren't part of the live performance, a) is it somehow less honest to record parts separately than to record everything all at once, and b) is it somehow less honest to fix mistakes, using either separate tracks or edits? My own personal opinion, stated before, is no, neither of those is any less honest or "real", in and of itself. It's not necessary to do it that way - nothing wrong with cutting everything live! - but if a group chooses to record parts separately, for whatever reason, and/or to fix sonic or musical imperfections, I don't see any reason why it should in any way influence the listener's experience of the final product. Musicians that are experienced with that sort of thing can make just as good, just as energetic, just as live- and spontaneous-sounding recordings as if they'd done it all live.

Again: a live performance and a recording are two different things, facing two different sets of expectations from their audiences, and therefore operating according to two different sets of rules. Even in the case of "a true rendition of the original performance with nothing added & nothing taken away (performance wise)" (Ivan’s words) - yes, even in the case of a live concert recording, as Jmoss and JeffD point out - the differences are more subtle, and sometimes somewhat deceptive, but they're still there. As soon as the music is recorded, it immediately, by definition, becomes a different animal than a live performance. As I said before, I agree with Bill Wolf's philosophy that recording is the art of creating an illusion, because it's impossible to re-create the exact same reality in a different medium. The choice whether to aim for the illusion of a "true rendition of the original performance" or a more musically ambitious illusion is the artists', but it's going to be an illusion either way. Nothing but a live performance is a live performance.

[Mike Bunting]

Long as I can hear the music, I'm happy.

[Ivan Kelsall]

From Robin Bullock - "....containing additional musical elements that wouldn't or couldn't be part of the group's live performances..." . Absolutely !. I was actually thinking of Sierra Hull's CD "Secrets",where on many tracks, her Mandolin playing can be heard behind her vocals & she's playing some really complex stuff. I'm in no way saying that it 'can't be done live',just that in 48 years of watching Bluegrass bands,i've never seen it done on any instrument - one before the other yes,but not both together. Neither am i saying that it detracts from the 'overall' sound,simply that it's very likely not the way she'd perform it 'live' - so why do it ?. It does make me wonder how many folk are disappointed with a band's 'live' performance against their recorded offerings,when the recordings can be 'boosted' to make them sound 'better'. Most times when 'goods' are presented as being something they're not by being artificially enhanced,it's called deception !,
Ivan

[neil argonaut]

It does make me wonder how many folk are disappointed with a band's 'live' performance against their recorded offerings,when the recordings can be 'boosted' to make them sound 'better'.

I imagine for the majority of the audience, it won't be noticed or folk will even think it sounds better than on record, due to a combination of seeing the band in front of you and being hyped up in a crowd all enjoying it.

[Mandolin Mick]

Let me approach the subject of the live sound from a different angle ...

The old Bluegrass men generally sang and played around one microphone.

In the early `60's The Beatles sang through the house PA system with no monitors!!! :disbelief:

This was the MO of the bands back then because that's all they had to work with at the time!!!

I think the changes made in recording techniques and live amplification have been for the better. Although, some people will tell you that they spend half the time in the studio fighting the technology ...

However, if you want that old sound, listen to the old recordings. And if you want that sound for your band, you can record it that way.

[JeffD]

"Ok, define realism " - If i'm listening to a live band, that's REAL.

Except that it is through microphones and a mixer and speakers on stage.

That is why I love house concerts and chamber music. Though the caliber of people I can get to come to my house is not as amazing as what you can get on stage.

[Spruce]

Now, as you might know, MOST live albums are over dubbed with studio tracks and then re-mixed with edits to clean up the performances. Most are.

One reason I love good bootleg recordings...
The Del McCoury soundboards are especially consistant and good, with just the one (later two) mics, and a stereo room mic...
The one with Steve Earle in Sweden is stunning, and rivals any "legit" live recording out there...




In the early `60's The Beatles sang through the house PA system with no monitors!!! :disbelief:


"House PA"?
The Beatles played stadiums with no monitors....
Now that I think about it, I don't think they ever played a gig with monitors...

[Mandolin Mick]

They sang through the little speakers that public announcements are made, not a PA system the way we think of it.

They did start using monitors in `66. That's why I said early `60's.

[Spruce]

They did start using monitors in `66. That's why I said early `60's.

Actually '65...
I would have lost that bet... ;)

Here's (http://www.examiner.com/av-systems-in-atlanta/the-beatles-first-use-of-concert-stage-monitors) the story....
But I think that was a rare event, Beatle/monitor-wise...
All that touring from '63-65 in large halls (The Hollywood Bowl, for cryin' out loud) was monitor-less...
Yikes!

[Mandolin Mick]

Well, what I meant was they first used monitors regularly on the `66 US Tour, but first used them in Atlanta in `65. In fact, I'm pretty sure that was the first time that monitors were ever used, another thing that the Beatles pioneered!

[Ivan Kelsall]

From JeffD -"Except that it is through microphones and a mixer and speakers on stage.". It's the 'performance & the performers' i'm speaking of when i mean 'real',no degree of techno-whatever can alter that fact,
Ivan

[JMOSS99]

I learned to use the multi track studio at a studio used by Santana, and other rock and pop bands. I was able to learn from Producer/Engineers who worked with bands like the Cars, Blondie, Led Z, Santana, and lots of other styles. I learned to take the approach "Every Hole A Slot, Every Resistor A Pot". I try to have a vision of an audio painting and go for that with very few limits. Sometimes I use tape effects like flanging or reverse reverb where you record a track on 24 track, then turn the tape over and play that track through a reverb chamber then back onto a free track. Then reverse the tape again and mix it into the sound. Sounds great in the right place. Sounds great on fiddles on the right vocal. For non-Bluegrass you can do anything that sounds good. Punch holes in spray painted speakers, spin mics, anything you can think of that sounds cool.

For Bluegrass, I want the recordings to sound like Bluegrass, not something else. Still, I want to work with what I have before me. And I always compare the final mix to tracks off of Back in Black, for punch.

I don't see a reason to limit my projects, which are hard enough as it is, by imposing a pointless set of standards just for the so called Bluegrass Police.

An example,
in 1997 I produced my Sleeping Lady album and Bob Black's Banjoy album in the same 22 day period at the same studio using many of the same musicians.

This means that I was not so concerned with recording my final breaks as I was with getting the tracks done properly with solid documentation. I only recorded reference fiddle tracks from the control room (notice the U47 near the console in the top photo in link below). Sometimes those tracks were really good and I kept them, but I went about it with the idea that I had to get all the other tracks done correctly and in an orderly way so I could understand the tracks later on, then I could re-cut my tracks later.

Dealing with a studio full of musicians for 22 days is not easy. I mean, the food issues alone are massive. In that situation musicians can get moody... Very Moody! After a point it is like dealing with a bunch of bipolar people who are setting each other off. This was most true when they had to sit around waiting for the engineer to work out some technical issue in the control room. It was my job to keep the musicians upbeat. These are creative people, they don't want to be sitting around waiting for a techie to work out the patch bay. And they can turn on you!
http://www.candlewater.com/studio/

So, when I finally got around to finishing the Sleeping Lady album in late 1999 I found that the track Turkey in the Straw was recorded with us playing slower than I wanted. (Sometimes you lose your references in the studio environment) I had listened to Flatt & Scruggs on WSM at 5:45 am tapes for so long with this arrangement where they switched off on the second part, that I wanted to record a similar arrangement, only faster. Here it is 1999 and Bob Black is not around anymore to re-cut the track. Frank Wakefield was around all the time as we were touring a lot then. So, I got resourceful.

I took Bob's (slow) banjo break and made it the intro to the song, then Frank and I re-cut the song at the desired speed. Frank even twin'ed part of Bob's intro. The result was exactly what I wanted.

Now, talking about unnatural mandolin breaks, I felt that in the final part of the song, I wanted to continue the build-up that started with the slow intro, into the main part of the song, to the end. So, I had Frank record multiple rhythm mandolin tracks for the last part of the song. When mixing, behind the final fiddle parts, I took the different mandolin tracks and panned them hard left and hard right to create this intense rhythm sound that reminded me of a train. This was on ether side of the last fiddle breaks. I have seen this technique is used in Rock a lot. I like how the track turned out, it's fun, people dig it. It was my album, my concept, the cut rocks, end of story.

Jim Moss

[ralph johansson]

I just read a column by a well-known guitarist expressing his frustration with overdubbing a guitar part. All the time he had to conform to what was already there, and no one would react to his inventions, in other words there was no interaction.
He also noted his increasing obsession with detail and exaggerated self-criticism. He likened the procedure to dancing with a statue.

Maybe overdubbing explains the sterility that I often sense in contemporary Bluegrss.

[JMOSS99]

I just read a column by a well-known...
He also noted his increasing obsession with detail and exaggerated self-criticism. He likened the procedure to dancing with a statue. Maybe overdubbing explains the sterility that I often sense in contemporary Bluegrass.

Well, since you mentioned it, I can play or record Country, Rock, Swing, just about anything, but when you get to Bluegrass it is a little different. Most albums are sold to non-musicians in the other forms of music. Get to Bluegrass and about 10% of the albums are sold to other Bluegrass musicians. If you play a venue as one of these other bands, the audiences just dig the music. They tell you how good you are. With Bluegrass, those folks exist too, in fact about 90% of the audience is like that. However, there will always be some male musician who will walk up to you and tell you that what you played is "not how he would have done it". Really? Did I ask?
I saw a guy tell Keith Little that back in the 1970s.

The thing you need to remember is that his kind only represent 10% or less of your audience. So forget about them. Be nice though. So you just have to believe in what you hear and know what you want to do, and go for it.

That said...
It is just this attitude that will make you overdub. "I hear it, I hear it... If I could... One more time!" Musicians will overdub in an attempt to record what they hear in their head. It is for this reason you have a producer. The producer will be the guy who has the budget and schedule in mind... and will either prompt you to try again or leave as it. It is always good to give a recording some time before coming back to mix it. Time mellows wine and music. I would always send Kenny Baker my album rough mixes to comment on what he heard. That was the only person who I would do that with. He was my mentor and I trusted him. Still, I remember a few times when we didn't agree and I went with my gut feeling. He didn't get "Dark Was The Night, Cold Was The Ground". That cut got me a killer album review in BU. Most the time Kenny was right on and it helped me see things I had missed. Sometimes it is good to have someone hear the mix before you are done with it.

I have heard 24 track tapes of great sounding rock songs, songs you have heard on the radio... Only to find that when you get in there deep and pull the tracks apart, you would think you were listening to cats fighting. Yet, in the mix they sound great.

Jim Moss

[killerstiver]

I think you're making way too much out of this. Where did you get the idea that recording bluegrass is any different from other forms of music. And BTW, there are no bluegrass police, just a bunch of people with opinions.

Haha AMEN!

[killerstiver]

I think musicians (whether it be bluegrass or death metal) should do whatever they want to do! Without having to worry about critics... If it sounds good, DO IT.

[mrbook]

When a band I was in made a CD a couple years ago, we wanted to record together for the "live" feel. The studio was a bit small in size to get a good separation between vocals and instruments, so we played every song instrumentally just as we normally performing it - the singer mouthed the woods (at least I did) to keep their place. There was bleed-though to each instrument mic, but that didn't bother us. After the instrument tracks were done, I recorded my vocals (one take each), while the others came back a week later.

When we listened to the final result later, I missed one 16th-note in a guitar break, and the engineer copied and pasted the proper note in the recording. I think couple other did the same. The result was a CD that sounded just like us when we play live. Recording is different than playing live, and you have to do things differently. I would do an overdub ona recording to play two different instruments, knowing it would be different than playing live.

The practice is more common outside of bluegrass. I saw an interview with a country "star" who was doing a "live" album. He said, we have the concert recording, and we just have to do the overdubs." What's that all about?

[Paul Kotapish]

Plenty of folk and bluegrass artists who are going for the feel and full-bleed of a live performance will record a half dozen takes (or more) and splice them as needed to capture the best of the performances into a more-perfect whole. Not entirely pure, but it goes a long way toward getting that live feel and it solves many performance-flub issues without recording in layers.

As noted earlier, this is how almost all symphonic and chamber music has been handled for many years now.

[Paul Kotapish]

I saw an interview with a country "star" who was doing a "live" album. He said, we have the concert recording, and we just have to do the overdubs." What's that all about?

The practice of sweetening and flat out fixing live recordings is more common than you might expect. I was talking with one of the Grateful Dead's front-of-house engineers about the great Europe 72 sessions, and noted that their vocals--never the Dead's long suit--were particularly strong on the original three-LP release. I guess this is old news, but all of the vocals were redone back in Marin after the tour. They set up the "Wall" and played the instrumental tracks so that they'd have bleed into the vocal mics, and redid all of the lead and harmony vocals after the fact. I haven't heard the other shows recently released with the box set, but I'm guessing the contrast will be quite noticeable.

The Band's legendary Last Waltz sessions were similarly tweaked in the studio after the big night, which led to a number of hassles for editing the film. Apparently Rick Danko redid most of his bass parts in the studio, and he never played them twice the same way. The editors had to cut away from him whenever what he was doing on the film diverged significantly from what he laid down later in the studio.

"Live" albums by Zappa, Eagles, the Rolling Stones, Genesis and many others have a similar story. The rumor is that the only thing live on the Phil Ochs Live recording is the last chord of each song and the audience's response, and the Eagle guys joked that at least the kick drum parts were actually from the live shows.

[Spruce]

The practice of sweetening and flat out fixing live recordings is more common than you might expect.

Crosby Steals the Cash's "Four Way Street"... :disbelief:

[JeffD]

As an example,i was listening to Ricky Skaggs' [I]"Live at the Charleston Music Hall" CD yesterday.At one point he introduces a new song by the late Harley Allen that he'd received a couple of weeks previous.As he hadn't had chance to learn the song, he tells the audience that he'd have to 'read the words from the page',he than says (to himself i'm sure), " hey !, it's a live album,get over it".

Yea. He practiced that quip off line how many times, to get it right on the recording? :)

[JeffD]

I have heard, and don't doubt, that the audience response to many a "recorded live" album, has been enhanced and sweetened.

The recording is its own product. It doesn't point to a different product. It is not a recording of a show, it is a show. And the live show is a show, its own product. The two have similarities, but are separate products. And you purchase one because you want that one. A recording may remind you of the concert you attended, but it is no more the concert than is the tee shirt you purchased at the concert, which was also only to remind you of the concert. And a concert may remind you of an album you have played, but its not the album.

[JMOSS99]

Last night after I had gone to bed, before I fell off to sleep, the time when your mind wonders to times long gone, a thought came back to me. It was about an experience at Kenny Baker's house long ago. I could remember it vividly just as though it was happening in front of me again. We were in his living room facing the front yard. Kenny was going on about running into Skaggs at some studio where they were talking about the break on Thank God I'm a Country Boy. Apparently, Skaggs had cut the fiddle part on that. Kenny was telling me a lot of things, but the upshot was about how he felt it was recorded. There was a lot of chatter that built up to this, but he said that he had come to the conclusion that the fiddle break was recorded at a different speed then the song, that the tape machine had been altered for the fiddle. In other words, that to get those notes out of that key, that he would have had to slow the tape down.

I remember this, like I said, vividly. I had never gave it two thoughts and just went on with more important things which I was there for. I might have this on tape somewhere as I recorded a lot when I was at Baker's in those days. Sometimes I would just let the recorder run. Also, I am not a big fan of that song or of that singer. To me, Thank God I'm a Country Boy was a good reason to stop listening to AM radio at the time. That song was like a brain worm. By then I was listening exclusively to old Bluegrass live show tapes which I had collected.

However, in this thread, it does bring up the kind of studio cheating that seems to be of concern here. Someone should pull out that recording or look it up on the web and see if there is anything to this. What I gathered was that the song might have been in B or something and the open notes were in A position... or something like that.

Jim Moss

[Rex Hart]

The story about Ricky's fiddle on "I'm Just a Country Boy" reminds me of the Lennon vocal track on "Strawberry Fields".....recorded in a different key then slowed down to fit the key of the song. I think one of the most important things in recording bluegrass is the seperation of instruments, done by both panning and correct EQ so that you don't have frequency fighting for the same band width. After all, the instruments in a jam are coming at you from different directions so recreate it live. This is true in both studio and live recordings. The best live recording I have ever heard was Springsteen's triple album back in 85' or so. Max's drums just thundered! Recently I heard a live recording of JD and the New South in Japan (the 00044 band). It was great except for Ricky's vocal was mixed way too loud and he talked so much that it is almost unlistenable. In that case, the recording could have benefitted greatly with an overdub or re-mix. Mick, I believe the Beatles had monitors way back in 62'. The Cavern had concrete walls and floor so I am sure they got a lot of slapback:)

[JMOSS99]

The story about Ricky's fiddle on "I'm Just a Country Boy" reminds me of the Lennon vocal track on "Strawberry Fields".....recorded in a different key then slowed down to fit the key of the song.

Yeah, only Strawberry Fields was two completely different tracks in 2 different keys, that were cut together halfway though the song. One half had to be slowed down to match the other, but the vocals were not at a different key from the backup. I remember George Martin talking about that in an interview once.

Jim Moss

[JMOSS99]

I take it back. I think you are right about Strawberry Fields. The song I was thinking about, I think, is A Day In The Life where it starts the second part with "Woke Up, Got Out Of Bed, Pulled A Comb Across My Head". I can't remember the first part now. At any rate, one of the songs were cut together from two different recordings in two different keys.

I can't help it. I have been playing fiddle too long.
Jim Moss

[Rex Hart]

Jim, I believe your original post was correct. I think that Strawberry Fields was indeed recorded in two different keys and then the second part was slowed down to match the first parts' original key. I find it interesting that there are other people on here that enjoy both Beatles and WSM. Great music is great music no matter the genre.

[JeffD]

One of my favorites in the classical world is the Organ Symphony, by Saint-Seans. I especially love to go hear it live. Most recordings of it (I only know of one exception, but I haven't looked in a long time) record the symphony and the organ separately and glue them together in production. You miss the interaction between them, in both directions, that you get on stage. The live concert can make you (ok, maybe just me) cry, a recording rarely does.

The piece is wonderful, in my mind, because the musical drama is entirely about these two huge forces in music, the orchestra and the organ coming together, and how they can share the same sonic space without annihilating each other. (Sort of like one of those Japanese anime movies where the whole plot is the battle between two ulitmate forces.)

In a live performance, you can feel the tension as everyone dreads, or heralds, the coming of the organ. In many recorded versions the excitement just isn't there. The music is right, everything is right, but, its hard to describe, the drama is flat.

If you have never heard this piece please do. And for a first hearing, get a live version. If it doesn't knock your socks off, you were probably barefoot.