WHY are iTunes live recordings so much better than studio - of the same songs??

[lifelyrics]

I've purchased several iTunes exclusive "live" recordings, and I ALWAYS prefer these over what was done in the studio. Has anyone else noticed this? Does anyone know what the fundamental differences are??

For instance, "Make You Feel My Love" - Adele
"Love Song" - Sara Bareilles
"Push" - Sarah McLachlan
etc.

 

[Massive Master]

Groove. I love live recordings. Almost always more "feel" to them. If they're a good artist, they're getting the audience into it, then they feed off the audience.

The recordings are very much "play it safe" also. Some of the best recordings I've ever made were live to two-track.

 

[lifelyrics]

Thnx - but SERIOUSLY, I posted here, hoping for some tips!!

I'm listening to stuff I like. I know it's not the norm. Probably not that marketable, but it's what I like. As I go into this phase of my life, where I'm trying to chronicle the songs that came from my heart, and my experience in life, I want it to be a sound I LIKE! I'm hoping for some tips, in this forum, of recording techniques, where I can convey, in my recordings, the "feeling", as you said, that is in my heart.

Of the examples I gave, ADELE's iTune exclusive recordings are obviously live, but Sarah, and Sara's sound like an intimate setting, where just the musicians gelled together, and it was recorded. Does ANYONE know what I'm talking about??

Does anyone have some input for me, as far as what I might to to achieve a heartfelt recording with a decent quality?

Here's another, possibly Lame example: My girls (daughters) got me into watching American Idol this last season. I really liked Kris Allen. I bought some of his stuff, and was SO disappointed, because I liked the little quirky things he did in his live performance, and the simplicity of his own accompaniment. The studio versions were, IMHO, completely overdone. They did away with all the intimacy of what he offered on stage.

Any comments??

 

[Myriad_Rocker]

It is what it is, man. There's no secret. If you want that sound, you have to do it that way. Live recording with great musicians. Not to mention an engineer that knows what they're doing.

 

[oretez]

Unfortunately there is no list of 'tips' that get you the 'sound' to which you are responding.

There are some exercises some general approaches that might help, but there is no box with an undocumented magic blue button that gets you there.

'Live' and 'recorded' are not quite the same beast. There is some overlap of skill set and the physics of the pressure waves remains consistent, but much of modern commercial recording industry evolved to control, limit if not tame, the non linear chaotic elements that defined music prior to 1920. So frequently pursuit of 'live' recording (perhaps an oxymoron) pursues an approach of breaking all the hard won rules (but attempting to eschew 'fashion' without violating the physics is tougher then it sounds)

So? Biggest 'tip' is same as answer about how to get to Carnegie Hall: practice. Play guitar until your fingers bleed then play some more.

If you want to pursue a 'live' sound you have to get the mics out of the near field and we moved mics into the near field purely to control a huge number of uncontrollable, expensive to manage variables. If you are a guitar player (as one example) and are trying for a detailed nuanced recording of all the subtle interactions among your mental state, the guitar strings, the guitar resonating chamber and the room (and acoustic guitars are an intimate instrument designed to interact with 3D ambient space) and are trying to accomplish this (recording) in a typical parallel surface residence you are going to have perhaps insurmountable issues.

Anything I (or any other poster) might say about strategies for pursuing 'live' sound recordings are hampered by the fact that your definition of what you want to achieve (is by definition) not merely subjective but almost impossible to describe in succinct meaningful ways. Commercial recording evolved the way it did because it was pursuing reproducible results. It might not be the 'only' solution to reproducible, but generally speaking 'live' and reproducible are at opposite ends of a dialectic arc.

After moving the mics out of the near field the next 'tip' is to not use technology (at least initially) to 'control' or 'limit' any of the things you find unattractive in the recording. Instead attempt to correct, adjust 'manually' . . . There is a school of thought that, that approach bleeds the life, the immediacy out of a performance & it can. Which is why you try to pursue material that 1. By itself is strong enough to withstand repeated onslaught; 2. That after 'you' have attacked it for the two thousandth time you can still bring some immediacy and emotion to the performance.

Final 'tip' of this is you pretty much, as part of the 'training' have to listen to a lot of live (not recordings of) music. Initially you have to shut down discrimination filters and just listen to everything. Fairly quickly you'll be able to start filtering those elements that are not going to help you define and refine your goal. There are a lot of things billed as live that aren't, a lot of performers whose strengths have nothing to do with live music . . . Nor am I counting shed shows or anything where $100 gets you a seat in the 2nd balcony. You need to be able to detect the mistakes, the adjustments, the performers sweat. Inspiration can come from unlikely sources. At a time when I was performing, touring with a group that can most easily, at this historic distance, be described as an Allman Brothers clone (that we weren't isn't point of this but that we were appealing to a market that permitted primarily instrumental, with eclectic rhythmic experimentation and extended individual and group improvisation) I was quite literally blown away by a Rose Maddox performance in a club that was part of a bowling alley. I got there because the bowling alley was next door to a Laundromat (clean clothes on the road has always been a major headache). That performance helped me to refine my approach in ways I have yet to exhaust (a lot of years later).

To summarize first batch of tips:

You have to define, refine you subjective interpretation of what you mean in ways that allow you to pursue the goal. Baby steps. Typically when we do this, the process itself 'breaks' ability to achieve the goal: i.e. modern commercial recording. But it is like any other part of music: one is unlikely to sound like Leo Kotke (at his best) the first time one picks up a guitar. If one's goal is to sound like Leo Kotke it's unlikely one gets there without a lot of incremental steps. Defining and refining those incremental steps becomes the process of defining the goal . . . Recursive but that's music. You define what you mean by playing live by playing live, listening to playback and gradually refining what you do.

Generally speaking to learn to play live it helps to listen to live . . . Limiting one's options to only the 'known' quantities tends to be counter productive in this

Get your mics out of the near field and don't default to readily available technological 'fixes' for the ensuing issues.

Practice. Then practice some more. When a stranger detects emotional resonance in a piece you have just finished practicing thirty or forty times you are almost home.

 

[lifelyrics]

I like it - thanks for taking the time for me!

The things you said put a smile on my face. Not because I completely understand everything, but because You struck a chord (pardon the pun) with me on several points you made. I'm listening to everything differently already. Instead of just enjoying what I hear, my mind if full of questions "How can I get a simple, pure sound like that?" "why is that song so overdone? - I can't even hear the details I want to hear because it's so jammed with processing and effects" "why do I like this recording so much more than it's studio counterpart?"
(incidentally, I went back and looked through my iTunes library and found that many of the iTune exclusives I prefer are not billed as "live", but rather, "acoustic" - another clue for me. )

I have found that recording my own songs is an integral part of the musical development for that song. I hear it, and feel there should be more emphasis here or there - something needs to be sharpened, etc. I go back to the drawing board where it's lacking, and refine it. I've already been doing that for a few years. Then I want to record it again - but better (better playing -piano, by the way, tweaking harmonies, etc.)

So, thank you for helping me on this journey. My goals are simple. I want something to hand down to my kids, and maybe even hand out to some of my friends. I want to produce something I can feel good about. It's cool to have so many willing participants in my quest for what I'm looking for, musically speaking.