Why aren't more albums recorded live in studio?

On a separate note, that Okkervil River album last year sounded like some of it could've been recorded live in studio, no?

I think about this a lot, especially for rock bands who are just soooo much better live.

But the point is that when you listen to a record it is just not the same as a live experience. You are meant to have a distance between the listener and the musician. It's that why people don't want perfection (or a tape recording).

Lo-Fi aesthetics to thread as well.

A recent album that has been recorded live in the studio (very successfully I think) is the self titled The Unit AMA release. What makes it even more impressive is the fact that as each of the tracks segues into the next one, what you have is a whole album recorded in real-time, in one take.

'Cuz they don't have to be. It's an approach, sure, but it's only one of many...

Appeals to certain rock 'n' roll bands (Baroness recently recorded their "First" and "Second" EPs live in SINGLE, UNBROKEN TAKES), but mainly to those obsessed with questions of authenticity.

Others enjoy the wider production palette offered by other recording strategies: futurists, experimentalists, pop craftsmen, sonic daydreamers, would-be hitmakers, etc.

I think all this has shifted the focus of bands away from being able to play things right, as a unit, most of the time (since if you're recording an album live in the studio, if any one person fucks up at all, that take's no good), and toward playing around with arrangement and production, which not recording things live has really ennabled. It's also made a lot of indie rock possible, since after all Dylan's albums were all recorded with professional musicians, and that's really the only way you can record an album live in the studio.

I do kinda love that first Frank Black & the Catholics album, though.

I hear you-- I guess I was actually thinking of recording live in studio in terms of efficiency even more than it might lead to a better-sounding record or capture performances. If you're a straight rock band and your production needs are minimal, you can record five or six parts at once and theoretically cut your time in the studio. But maybe it doesn't work that way? I was just listening to that Dylan record and thinking: How might this sound better? If they'd had 32 tracks and months to tweak everything I don't think they could have improved it. It would have sounded different, but not better, so why spend all the time editing? Even if they spent a day or two in the studio for rehersals and a number of takes it still seems like it would go faster.

I, of course, disagree with you that it worked for Dylan, since those records quite frankly make me sleepy. But I think it's a technique that works really well in a really specific situation, which in the kind of scenarios you're invisioning, would necessarily require an expensive studio and expensive session musicians. My experience in the studio has definitely been one of, "Wow, I had no idea I made mistakes with such frequency until now."

I think this does work for like Lightning Bolt and other noise bands, but at the same time I think I would like noise records more if they were recorded a bit more carefully. But that's me.

Yeah, overdubs really help Keane and Coldplay sound different. wtf?!

You only think this because you're familiar with the album as released.

If you'd spent 30 years listening to and loving some mythical Sgt. Pepper's-style version of the album, with tons of production fuckery, and were now suddenly confronted with a bare-bones live-to-tape recording, you might be saying, "yeah, it's cool and everything, but I'm glad they did so much MORE with it. That's what made it GREAT."

Y'know?

xpost, yeah and then stood behind them with a RUDDY GRAET STICK!!!

You didn't say "better" though, you said "unique", and modern mainstream rock bands who overdub and compress to hell end up sounding very very flat and very very similar.

xpost OK, but honestly Nick, you really think Coldplay/Keane/whoever would sound MORE unique if they didn't overdub? I don't see how you can make that arugment. Also, we're not talking about mastering, dude.

The moral of the story is that all technical-studio factors aside, you have to be really goddamned GOOD to record thus. Most musicians who cut records are not that good.

http://www.bobsboots.com/cds/cd-j03.html

as far as doing vox live in the studio, unless you're in a place where you can isolate the vox, it's pretty hard to do, so much cymbal and guitar bleed thru the vocal mic if yr a loud band and it's smaller studio.

I think this does work for like Lightning Bolt and other noise bands, but at the same time I think I would like noise records more if they were recorded a bit more carefully. But that's me.

-- Eppy (epp...), June 27th, 2006.

Amazing, I disagree with every single point made here. Well, I'm in no position to comment on whether Dylan makes you sleepy, but really, who gives a fuck whether you make mistakes or not except you and your ego? The question you should be asking is "okay I made a few mistakes but does this thing rock?" That's all that matters. Excitng records often have loads of errors, they quite often contain wavering tempos, occasionally the bass player hits a bum note, the singer goes flat in the third verse and the drummer fucks up a fill or two. Who gives a shit? If your band's not good enough to record live go to the rehearsal room and play gigs until you are. All the overdubbing in the world ain't gonna help otherwise. A 'straight ahead rock band' should be able to record an awesome record in a great sounding room, (not necessarily a studio), with a few quality mics and preamps,some basic recording equipment and a person who knows how to use it, providing you've got great songs and you play 'em with passion and you don't nitpick over what you record. And it'll work out cheaper than overdubbing and recording separately, a take will use five minutes of your time, if it's no good try again, still no good try a different song and come back to it later. Bang it out and play it to your friends, they ain't gonna go "awesome dude, except I never want to hear it again cause the guitarist hit a bum note in the solo and it sounds suspiciously like a bit of bass leaking through the overhead drum mics." By the way, I'm certainly no fan of U2 but Bono records his vocals in the control room with a hand held 58 in front of the monitors at full volume, but oh my god, you mean there's leakage in his mic??!!! How can they sell millions of records?

I have a very hard time believing this. Source please.

I'm a big fan of "live" sounding studio recordings. Daniel Lanois would is another producer who makes very vibrant, alive sounding recordings, (i.e. you can hear the room). And that from a guy who uses SM-57s and nothing else (correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that from a few different sources - perhaps this applies only to his solo recordings).

One of my favorite examples of a "live in the studio" recording is "I Want You" by Elvis Costello off of Blood & Chocolate. At the end of the song, where the band simmers down and Elvis is up on the mic and you can hear his epiglottus and the whole nine years, THE ENTIRE BAND is being picked up by the vocal mic. Organ, bass, guitar. It sounds fucking amazing.

Lots of roots/americana is recorded live, with minimal overdubs.

And I'm all for isolation, overdubs, layering as long as the goof is kept to a minimum (Auto Tune, etc.).

I'm a big fan of "live" sounding studio recordings. Daniel Lanois would is another producer who makes very vibrant, alive sounding recordings, (i.e. you can hear the room). And that from a guy who uses SM-57s and nothing else (correct me if I'm wrong, but I've heard that from a few different sources - perhaps this applies only to his solo recordings).

One of my favorite examples of a "live in the studio" recording is "I Want You" by Elvis Costello off of Blood & Chocolate. At the end of the song, where the band simmers down and Elvis is up on the mic and you can hear his epiglottus and the whole nine yards, THE ENTIRE BAND is being picked up by the vocal mic. Organ, bass, guitar. It sounds fucking amazing.

Lots of roots/americana is recorded live, with minimal overdubs.

And I'm all for isolation, overdubs, layering as long as the goof is kept to a minimum (Auto Tune, etc.).

http://www.bobsboots.com/cds/cd-j03.html"

Thanks 1f, but you built my hopes up there. I have that set, and it's an astonishing document alright, but it's not a Complete Blonde On Blonde Sessions. I can dream though.

http://www.bobsboots.com/cds/cd-j03.html"

Thanks 1f, but you built my hopes up there. I have that set, and it's an astonishing document alright, but it's not a Complete Blonde On Blonde Sessions. I can dream though.

It's dead as a punchline now, amirite?

It comes down to an aethetic choice, and I think it is difficult to say that one approach is superior to another. Live works well for some bands and produced works for others.

I do feel that many bands (and producers) have a tendency to squeeze the life out of their recordings because digital technology has a tendency to push them in that bad direction. But I'm all for studio trickery and overdubbing when it works.

It seems that a live sound is valued much more in the US than in the UK or elsewhere. Do others on here find this to be true?

There are a few people on the fringes of Indie Rock that like to reproduce the sounds of yesteryear, but that has very little appeal to a wider audience.

In all seriousness though, there's a level of virtuousity that the session guys had back in the day, as Eppy and others pointed out, that boggles the mind. Reference the old Elvis recordings--holycrap! Such a long way to get to where we are, when even classical virtuoso's edit and splice their work.

"I only had one 888 interface, so I only had eight inputs for that entire recording. I put three mics on the drums, plus one each for the guitars and bass, making six in total, together with one for Julian and one room mic. I also had Julian singing through a really small and crappy keyboard amp, so that the boys could hear it and maybe some of that din would get in the room mic and add some mysterious element.

"With most of the bands that I'd recorded up to that point, I'd maybe recorded the drums and bass together so that I could put more mics on other things, but I was also very inspired by my friend Moses from Berlin. One of the things that he'd shown me was the old-fashioned technique that he'd learned at Hansa Studios, where you use very few mics, but they're the right mics with the right placement, so you get a very warm, classic sound that appeals to people. I thought, 'Well, why not try it?'

Hooker 'n' Heat
Cowboy Junkies, Trinity Sessions
Steve Earle & Del McCoury Band, The Mountain
Emm Gryner, Girl Versions
Nirvana, Unplugged (really the same thing as live-in-studio)

Also, wasn't a lot of Sleater-Kinney's The Woods supposedly live-in-studio?

I am playing side 4 of Todd Rundgren's "Something/Anything?" constantly these days, and wondering a) is this really one take or just the illusion of such and b) what other albums have at least one side that is recorded in the studio but played straight through? Thanks in advance...

Don't have a good answer offhand but an interesting question.