Highly produced vs. minimally produced.

Straight, or Produced??

  • Straight recording, little production. More like a good photograph.

  • Highly produced. Arguably more like a painting.


Results are only viewable after voting.
See, I love Floyd and Zeppelin and their highly produced records, but they pulled it off live. Floyd did the work required to make the live performances full and lush, and Page pared down the multiple guitar tracks to arrangements that worked live with one guitar. Contrast that to Green Day needing to bring in another guitarist to back up BJA on the American Idiot Tour:facepalm:.

I'm never inclined to defend Green Day, but I will always defend artists recording music that they can't pull off live, for whatever reason.

It's awesome when they can nail it, but if they can't, I don't hold it against them.
 
I'm never inclined to defend Green Day, but I will always defend artists recording music that they can't pull off live, for whatever reason.

It's awesome when they can nail it, but if they can't, I don't hold it against them.

But what about when they don't even try?

It's my major issue with the Beatles worshipers.
 
production? pfft...phonograph recordings are were it's at
200px-EdisonPhonograph.jpg


I don't have a clear preference either way as long at the production fits the music. Though when it's too crude or too over produced that it starts to detract from the music, then no beuno.
 
So what if they don't?

I always prefer a live performance over a studio track. If you can't or won't, I will judge accordingly. As the listener, I have that right. I completely understand that some songs are difficult or impossible to reproduce live with only the band 'members', but I expect a working band to tour.
 
Ok, well, thanks for not playing. I guess. :wink:

Can some other fence sitter get in and play?

Obviously I'm just busting your nuts...kind of

I like to think that I like things barebones, but then I'll listen to latter-era Beatles and it's so amazing and I love every little nuance.

I'll go seen John Hammond Jr playing solo live with just his voice, acoustics, and occasional harmonica and I'm floored, but then I'll put on some Steely Dan and absolutely love it.

It really is about the music, and who's performing it. But a pure human voice live with non-processed acoustic instruments...that can be the best, e.g. Nickel Creek or the Punch Bros. Or just a band playing live and forgoing the production, like Ben Harper and the Innocent Criminals...fucking amazing. With Ben the production is relatively bare to begin with, but live it's just a great board mix (balance) with six killer musicians playing songs I love...it's so hard to beat. Then there's Peter Gabriel on record or live with lots of layers and extra musicians to recreate the recording (likely some sequencers as well) and he sings and I'm floating. But SRV and Double Trouble with Reese...four piece melting my face.

But jazz, I prefer pure. The musicians playing together captured live to tape or whatever recording interface, but that's still the standard for the genre. Similar with bluegrass, classical, blues, "jam bands", and others.

Then there's progressive music, and despite complexity and the prominent use of multitracking to layer and/or correct parts, it's often just the musicians. Yes would sometimes add a harmony or rhythm guitar part, with the latter being low enough in the mix that when you would see them live you didn't really miss the part. They would record parts separately and arrange them and then record them again live...production was relatively bare for the bombast often associated with the genre.

I would generally say I prefer the straight recording, but I could also rattle off and listen to hundreds of highly produced albums disproving an perceived preference. I do like the musicians to be able to play the music recorded, as it have the ability to sing and play. I do not, however, require to reproduce recorded versions live. If they do it's cool, but it's often cooler still when they do something different, be it subtle or drastic.
 
What is live? Baby don't hurt me.



Anyway Macca has performed live a lot of those "impossible to play" Beatles songs in recent years.
 
Now, I am focusing to what sort of recording you would prefer to listen to, and why. Not necessarily a judgment on a band on whether they can recreate their work at a concert. Though I suppose that can go into your decision about what you prefer to listen to. But beyond that as a part of one's preference for type of recording, not that relevant.
 
Now, I am focusing to what sort of recording you would prefer to listen to, and why. Not necessarily a judgment on a band on whether they can recreate their work at a concert. Though I suppose that can go into your decision about what you prefer to listen to. But beyond that as a part of one's preference for type of recording, not that relevant.

Noted. Ignored, but noted.:grin:
 
as a part of one's preference for type of recording, not that relevant.
This is incorrect. It goes back to a depends on the band thing. Some bands I would prefer to hear raw, others I prefer highly produced.

Lets take Townes Van Zandt for an example. He is the epitome of the songwriters songwriter. His first album 'For the sake of the song' was full of these well written songs that shined when it was just Townes and his guitar in a bar. The first album was horribly overproduced to the detriment of the album and his exposure to a wider audience. The public was unimpressed because it sounded like so many other corp country songs of the time, and his fans were confused and dismayed. And it doesn't take the heavy hand of a Phil Spector to overproduce, just adding extra elements that are superfluous and do not add to the song (especially on an album titled "for the sake of the song":embarrassed:)


Produced to pablum, it loses most of the emotion meant to be conveyed



Raw and personal


Some might say they sound about the same, but they would be wrong.

I could type a similar but reversed example for Floyd or Zep highlighting the multi layered production over a raw boot but I'll spare you.
 
This is incorrect. It goes back to a depends on the band thing. Some bands I would prefer to hear raw, others I prefer highly produced.

Lets take Townes Van Zandt for an example. He is the epitome of the songwriters songwriter. His first album 'For the sake of the song' was full of these well written songs that shined when it was just Townes and his guitar in a bar. The first album was horribly overproduced to the detriment of the album and his exposure to a wider audience. The public was unimpressed because it sounded like so many other corp country songs of the time, and his fans were confused and dismayed. And it doesn't take the heavy hand of a Phil Spector to overproduce, just adding extra elements that are superfluous and do not add to the song (especially on an album titled "for the sake of the song":embarrassed:)


Produced to pablum, it loses most of the emotion meant to be conveyed



Raw and personal


Some might say they sound about the same, but they would be wrong.

I could type a similar but reversed example for Floyd or Zep highlighting the multi layered production over a raw boot but I'll spare you.

Not incorrect. I said it was irrelevant beyond the effect on one's preference. You state the above as a part of your preference. Besides that, based on your post, you generally prefer less produced.
 
Personally I like both. If I had to choose I would have to say the produced stuff. I've seen many shows (Rush & Boston in particular) where you had to have a shit ton of rackmount gear on the backline to sound right. And I've seen a bunch of 'crossover' shows where a band gets paired with say... a big orchestra. (think Boston Pops big) And I have been to a couple shows where the principal(s) come out and play for the audience alone with just an acoustic guitar. Pat Benatar & Neil Giraldo come to mind for that one. Those two had a full band with 4 others in behind 'em. About a half hour into the show, the lights went out between songs. Pat & Neil came out and said that they would finish up because the rest of the band was sick with the flu. They played for 2 hrs. Fantastic.
 
Back
Top