Recording gigs/shows - what to do with the recordings?

Hey there, been recording lots of live shows on a Zoom H2 recorder - got loads saved on my hard drive now.

Anyone have any tips on the most straightforward ways to prepare/clean up/edit/split tracks afterwards? Are there any all-in-one applications that are recommendable for adding the wav file, normalizing the volume levels, adjusting the EQ, then adding track increments? Was hoping to find a way to do this as neatly as possible, i.e. not have folders full of unsorted split tracks out of sequence, etc.? Is it best to keep hold of the original raw file?

if you're running windows, audacity is a good audio editing program

definitely keep the original raw file, if you fk something up or get a better audio editing program later you'll be sorry you didn't

use audacity to break up the show into individual tracks

don't EQ them unless these are just for your personal use, my experience has been that unless people have a lot of experience and pro equipment their EQ efforts usually make things sound worse rather than better

if you have any appreciation for yr recordings as historical artifacts, convert to flac and upload here: http://www.dimeadozen.org/

not have folders full of unsorted split tracks out of sequence

put each show in its own folder, number the tracks in the file name 01.wav, 02.wav, 03.wav

I have an H2 but haven't recorded any live shows with it yet. How do you like the sound quality? Any recording tips?

It's a mac I'm on. I'm not a dedicated bootlegger, I like the convenience of the built-in mic and find the quality to be surprisingly good, though the more dedicated may not agree. The wide-stereo field option offered with the rear speakers can be really benificial if the H2 isn't positioned too far off-center. I've found the built-in mic has brought brilliant results for small gigs, perhaps even achieving better results closer to the stage, rather than sound-desk/back of room? Did this for Luke Haines the other week - it was sticking out of my bag on the floor and for such a crude set-up, the result was impressive.

I'm yet to try it with a good stereo mic - currently too much hassle for me being on the go playing gigs, having to worry about an extra mic stand on top of my other gear, etc - though presumably this would overcome these clarity issues in a larger hall.

if you have any appreciation for yr recordings as historical artifacts, convert to flac and upload here: http://www.dimeadozen.org

I'm a great fan of Dimeadozen myself (ratio 3.2!), but it should be said that it's not at all clear that what they do is legal. Yes they are very careful to exclude anything that has been commercially released, but that doesn't actually get them out of the woods as far as infringement of copyright is concerned. Under the Berne Convention the author of an artistic work has the exclusive right to authorise a reproduction of that work, and any sound or visual recording is considered a reproduction. Whether it's commercially available is neither here nor there.

Dime does take down recordings of artists who request them to do so, but that doesn't really help their case either.

it may not be technically legal but it's not immoral

since the 60s, show tapers have preserved a rich history of live music

sites like dime take the monetary reward out of the equation, so "bootlegging" is no longer an issue

laws should support the rights of artists, not strangle the flow of information, and if dime will remove recordings at an artist's request, I don't see the problem

plus dime administrators & users are pretty vigilant about removing concerts (even specific tracks from concerts) that have an official release

The key issue here is not monetary reward, it's consent. It's not really anyone's place to second-guess the artist by deciding what is or is not immoral and by uploading shows to Dime without their prior consent. And the rights of the artist are served by the copyright laws. That's the whole point of them.

Sorry for turning this thread into one about the ethics of uploading live shows btw.

and like I said, whether or not something has an official release is really neither here nor there

Plus, people who record live shows should think about the position held by Robert Fripp. For him, the very act of taping a live show without his consent, let alone distributing it, is a violation. Fripp has often said he can sense when someone in the audience is taping the show. Something feels wrong to him, he gets this sense that someone is taking something that doesn't belong to them. As a result, his performance suffers. That feeling doesn't arise when a show is being taped with his knowledge. Consent is the key.

Why not just record every show then.

There's a Mac version of Audacity, works as well as the P.C. version.

I worked for years in intellectual property rights so I understand the legal basis for it. and I'm a musician who played a gig a few weeks ago that somebody recorded and uploaded to a forum. it wasn't the best performance and I'd rather that it wasn't captured for posterity but it's part of the deal. you play music out, somebody's gonna record it. fripp needs to get a grip.

if I was a respectful fan and I knew how he felt about it, no, I wouldn't record his shows. but recording a show is like taking a photo of an historical event. governments ban photojournalists from taking photos of events "under their control" but it's not right, and I'll support any "outlaw" journalist taking pictures of public events.

my main objection to bootlegging has always been the commercial aspect of it: scumbags selling crapping recordings, ripping off fans and the artists. it's one aspect of the music business that the internet has had a positive effect imo.

A gig is not a public event. It's a performance that is, or should be, under the control of the artist. I refer you to my comment upthread about the Berne Convention. A gig is a work of art which falls under copyright laws.

tbh none of the painters, writers, etc i know would say "don't take a picture of the stuff in my studio - copyright, man" or "don't you dare email that on"

he gets this sense that someone is taking something that doesn't belong to them

Doesn't it? He is performing for the audience, no? There is another question here: who owns the experience?

A gig is not a public event. It's a performance that is, or should be, under the control of the artist. I refer you to my comment upthread about the Berne Convention. A gig is a work of art which falls under copyright laws.

But this isn't just about the legality of the situation - there is that philosophical question of ownership.

the berne convention actually states that any work not fixed in material form by the owner - ie. a live performance - may or may not be under copyright, depending on what the country in which it happens has decided

tbh while i do think international copyright law is rather shakily constructed and could do with a ground-up rethink - the original berne convention took place less than a decade after the invention of the phonograph cylinder - i have no problem with the statement that dimeadozen is of dubious legality

robert fripp is a twat though

man, i just think that so much incredible music has been captured for future generations by people recording/sharing gigs. dubious legality, maybe, but I think it's actually doing a service. there's the argument that the first published Shakespeare was essentially a bootleg. Maybe it wasn't legal, but thank god someone thought that writing all of it down and preserving it was worth the dubious legality.

Fripp has often said he can sense when someone in the audience is taping the show.

i say call mythbusters and let's put this to the test

lol @ fripp on mythbusters

just curious, if paultma had posted that he shot a video of a band and I told him to put it up on youtube, would ppl be pointing out youtube's dubious legality and invoking the berne convention?

well I should be the one to answer that I guess as I was the one who first mentioned copyright issues

I almost certainly would not have said those things in respect of youtube, no. but you gotta start somewhere and personally I am a lot more interested in dimeadozen than I am in youtube. just cos I don't get fired up about youtube doesn't mean I can't get fired up about dime. (and I say that as a heavy dime user myself)

I guess I'm taking issue with dime getting branded as this shadowy illegal enterprise when its practices are not substantively different than what a billion dollar company openly engages in.

youtube operates on a much greater scale, and for profit. dime's a bunch of music nerds with a heavy interest in historical preservation swapping flac files.

youtube videos are embedded all over ilx without comment. one mention of dimeadozen and board lawyers start crawling out of the woodwork.

what gives?