Quote:
Originally Posted by nikolas
Can you really consider a live concert and a studio recording on a pop band/artist? Apart from the very few who can do it (Radiohead, dEUS, Moby, from what I've seen), the quality varies greatly! It's like they're making "cover" songs of their own songs, to play live!
|
Of the popular music bands I've seen live (several dozen would probably be an accurate estimate, not as much as I'd like to, but a decent start), all of the bands that I've really respected have been able to get it fairly close. Of course the little quirks, the third and fourth layers of guitars, that kind of stuff, has to be lost, but the musicianship and skill I hear on the recording is still there. I'd be very disappointed if I saw a "pop" artist at a performance and their playing was much worse than it was on the album.
Quote:
|
Either way, what we call production, post production and mastering is not something that really happens (mostly that is) in live concerts.
|
Oh, I realize that. I love studio editing, production - that kind of stuff fascinates me. But I still don't think a serious artist should use technology to give the illusion they're a more talented artist than they are. If you can't play a part for a song you write, you should practice harder - not get the computer to do it for you. There are a lot of fascinating, valid uses for technology and computers, but fudging sloppy performances is not, in my opinion, one of them.