Demos vs Studio recordings

Nola

Nola

Well-known member
hi i feel this will be controversial, but i'm real curious so i want to ask the question. i hope this is the right forum if not can a mod move it to where it fits?

i listen to a lot of music and a lot of times i find myself more attracted to "raw" recordings/demos by the same band. they will go in the studio and make a real album of those same demos, but i usually don't like it as much as the demo.

can anyone explain the phenomena? all i could come up with is that i like raw performances because they sound authentic? i'm not sure. i'm wondering if anyone else has preferences for demos and maybe more shoddy recordings, and if they can explain why they like them. i was also thinking how there's this local bum in my town who walks around with a guitar and plays it on the corner, and he sounds great. but if i recorded him and posted the recording on the forum people would say "that's an awful recording and only a demo". but i feel like if they heard him on the corner they'd think he was awesome. i'm just wondering what the heck happens between him being awesome sounding and raw playing tunes on the corner and then recording that and presenting it as a finished product.

i'm not smart enough to know this stuff. i hope it doesn't create big argument and instead we figure out an answer.
 
Only something similar, with the bands I've recorded often there is something cool in the roughs -mostly unprocessed, very raw. Then the transition, cleaning and fitting things out, making sound like a record'.
There have been a few times where I was asked to back track.. That no, we decided we liked it closer to the roots'..

I've used this Otis Rush album as a gold mine of good samplings of refs for mix/production values and insights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx3oefo8YNw&list=PLNOYzhH-GslqdioFLzVVoNNOs__YzgdPr
Accordingly, it's been said it is not a fave' (as opposed to others from him) in some blues circles as being 'too far in that direction.
 
Last edited:
Nola said:
i'm just wondering what the heck happens between him being awesome sounding and raw playing tunes on the corner and then recording that and presenting it as a finished product.
Click to expand...

Live performances can at times be more compelling, more exciting...warts and all...because you are hearing it as it happens, and you will never hear that exact same performance again. Even if the performer plays it again, it will be different.

Studio work often goes for a more polished product...and because you ARE able to hear the recording over and over...those warts can become annoying, so you re-record them and polish some more...but then, if what appealed to you was the raw performance...warts and all....you find yourself feeling like you've lost the essence of what you originally had.

Bottom line...it's not that one approach is better than the other...it's about what the artist is after with the recording.
It's not supposed to be an accidental process. IOW..if you want raw, then record in that manner. If you want a more produced, more polished product, then record in that manner.
Sometimes lucky accidents can drive a recording session...but it's much better to have a plan and work it than it is to wait for happy accidents.

AFA why you like some stuff more or less...it all comes down to what you are drawn toward.
There is certain music that sound good raw...there is also stuff that really just sounds crappy when it's raw....and same applies for full productions. It's possible to over-produce something to where it's perfect but bland and boring.
Again...at the end of the day, the people doing the performing and the recording need to work toward whatever goal they have,
 
miroslav said:
Studio work often goes for a more polished product...and because you ARE able to hear the recording over and over...those warts can become annoying
Click to expand...

that's a pretty good theory. what is the guy on the corner doesn't have warts, though?
or what if you go on youtube and watch live performances over and over -- would that negate that live performances are never the same and would it then fall into the same emotional response as a studio recording? I feel like it does.

but then there are some raw demos i've heard that never get old, even though they have warts. i dunno, i think you're on the right track, though. maybe it's something that can't be explained and sometimes there is just magic on a demo.
 
I've had similar experiences, and I find that many of the records I absolutely love would likely have scathing comments if brought here to the MP3 Clinic.

I don't record near as often as I'd like to (that's changing come 2016), but I'm going to start being much more open to recording alternate versions to my fully produced tracks. For example, I've got an experimental track I started recording a couple of weeks ago. The lyrics, chords, and structure have all been written for about three years...it was originally written for my band which has recently decided to call it quits. I'm trying to keep a very open mind about the arrangement, and I'm in no real rush to finish it. But, I've already decided that I'm going to record a simple raw live recording w/ just acoustic and my voice...Mainly because I really like the version I've been playing by myself, and although I'm excited to hear it in its polished glory, I still want to have a stripped down version as well. My point is, don't be afraid to record multiple versions of the same tune if you like them all :)
 
It's always going to come down to what your expectations are as a performer, engineer/producer and listener.
Hate to say it...not everyone has the bar raised at the same level.

Sure, there is magic sometimes in raw performances...but honestly (and this is my opinion) I've heard too many "raw" recordings where people praised the "magic" and all I heard was crappy performances recorded poorly.

I mean..magic doesn't happen just because it's raw, live...etc.
There is a growing, probably YouTube driven trend, where everything that gets posted is "magic" to someone...and the attitude is that because you recorded it, it must be magic....but frankly, on a more pro level, most of that stuff would be dismissed as mediocre demos.

I think too often (and I've done it too) when we record we feel magic more than we hear it.
IOW...it appears special to us, because we are the ones making it happen.
I've got old tunes that were done many years ago that still have a special meaning to me...and I enjoy them with all their warts....but realistically, they are shit.

It's very hard to be both objective and subjective at the same time....
 
miroslav said:
I think too often (and I've done it too) when we record we feel magic more than we hear it.
IOW...it appears special to us, because we are the ones making it happen.
I've got old tunes that were done many years ago that still have a special meaning to me...and I enjoy them with all their warts....but realistically, they are shit.

It's very hard to be both objective and subjective at the same time....
Click to expand...

i think that's true
 
Last edited:
Arcit Monkeys - first albums vs latest music. Listen to the new stuff first and the old stuff isn't polished at all, listen to the old stuff on its own and its great.

Great performances are more important than a polished recording perhaps?
 
Neil Young and Crazy Horse albums - that's the way NY wanted it - 'live' and raw, many times almost unrehearsed.
 
Eat cheese from homogenized and pasteurized milk then the same sort of cheese from raw milk. The difference is startling and, like music, is how it used to be before too much technology and regulation created bureaucracy/taste arbiters & studio "perfectionists".
NY & Nick Lowe have the same sensitivities regarding "bash it out".
 
What I don't like about demo's is that it's become so easy for bands to record and release mediocre stuff. In the past bands often existed for years before they had the chance to record and release an album. Nowadays very young bands start releasing demo's and EPs, which kind of dilutes their discographies.
 
Many of my favourite albums combine the best of both worlds... the "live feeling" of real people playing a tune together while still having a great sound with proper mic placements, mix tecniques, etc. For instance the first albums by Happy Mondays or The Stooges, most Stones while they were still amazing, many an album by The Brian Jonestown Massacre or Can, the first two Mazzy Star, etc.. The first two mentioned was produced by John Cale and as for the Stooges album I've read somewhere that his main reason to work as a producer for them was knowing that most other people would polish their sound too much to suit their style. However most of these records sound more or less live but still have some dubs and studio tricks that does good things to the final product.

On the other hand albums like My Bloody Valentine's "Loveless" or Sgt. Peppers-era Beatles was the resoult of endless studio experimentation and I certainly don't find them lacking anything in vibe. On the contrary.

It really depends on the music. But recording a band live and getting a great recording takes serious engineering skills and ideally a great studio with decent isolation and good mics. Especially for vocals. Even Mick Jagger in his hey day rarely performed as well live as in the studio.
I'm rambling but what I'm trying to say is that it's essential that the band and producer/engineer have a good chemistry and if that's in place they can make great and "live sounding" recordings no matter which method used. If the song and performance is there of course. But in the world of exaggerated editing, "fix it in the mi" and turd polising that often goes with DAW recording these things get lost way too often.
 
I really think that it is situational expectation. If you are listening to a guy on a street corner, you don't expect any sort of professionalism, so you are surprised a bit by any level of it. Put the same performance on a cd, now it is being compared with other things on cd, like the beatles...

If it is a live performance, you also sort of listen with your eyes. Being there adds to the experience. Seeing it adds to the experience.

Find a dvd or vhs with a live performance on it that you think is good. Now, record the audio from it and play it in your car the next day. It wont sound like you thought it did when you were watching it.
 
Nola said:
i listen to a lot of music and a lot of times i find myself more attracted to "raw" recordings/demos by the same band. .
Click to expand...

I agree. I think it's because the demo is more the band, and the finished product is more some jackass producer putting too much of his own spin all over it.
 
LeadPaint said:
What I don't like about demo's is that it's become so easy for bands to record and release mediocre stuff. In the past bands often existed for years before they had the chance to record and release an album. Nowadays very young bands start releasing demo's and EPs, which kind of dilutes their discographies.
Click to expand...

This too. The worst thing IMO about home recording is most people suck at it but it doesn't stop them from flooding the cosmos with their shit garbage. This whole lo-fi thing is annoying to me. A lot of people hide behind that label when they really just suck at recording.
 
Greg_L said:
This too. The worst thing IMO about home recording is most people suck at it but it doesn't stop them from flooding the cosmos with their shit garbage. This whole lo-fi thing is annoying to me. A lot of people hide behind that label when they really just suck at recording.
Click to expand...

Sucking at recording is a totally subjective thing IMO. It goes along with what tastes you have. Its hard for me to say someone "sucks" because I dont know the background of all recordings I hear all the time.

I mean, listen to The Sonics recordings...they are all fucked up and unconventional souding to recording "standards" but they totally owns polished and "proper" recordings everyone praises so much.
 
CMolena said:
Sucking at recording is a totally subjective thing IMO. It goes along with what tastes you have. Its hard for me to say someone "sucks" because I dont know the background of all recordings I hear all the time.

I mean, listen to The Sonics recordings...they are all fucked up and unconventional souding to recording "standards" but they totally owns polished and "proper" recordings everyone praises so much.
Click to expand...

Lol. This is exactly my point. It's not about any "standards" or "proper" recordings. It's about people being bad at recording and trying to justify it by claiming that they don't want good recordings. It's a pretty common defense mechanism.
 
Greg_L said:
Lol. This is exactly my point. It's not about any "standards" or "proper" recordings. It's about people being bad at recording and trying to justify it by claiming that they don't want good recordings. It's a pretty common defense mechanism.
Click to expand...

Haha, I know. Now define what is a bad recording, please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top