Uh, you don't want that. So let's just leave it be.
Demos vs Studio recordings
- Thread starter Nola
- Start date
Uh, you don't want that. So let's just leave it be.
CMolena
Active member
Fine, your call.
But anyways, I absolutely prefer raw and demos instead of the final polished versions. I always find them more appealing and real.
Truthbomb.
Neils a good example of going for what can't be captured on any media. listen to the studio version compared to this live Cinnamon girl. No comparison...........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uw18eQxsT_M
jimmys69
MOODerator
Well, it was captured by a form of media... Just sayin...
Plus the level of production and tools available to record this live version are way further advanced than what was used in the studio recorded version. To be clear, I am not arguing the point that live is more honest or better. I would rather hear a live performance than a studio recording myself. But that does not mean I want it to sound like shit either.
Last edited:
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I say it still all comes down to personal tastes.
I love Neil Young, especially the early stuff he did...but there are people who hate Neil Young, so no matter how "good raw" his music is, people will say it sucks simply because their tastes lie elsewhere.
Likewise, take a very produced studio recording...like say, something from Alan Parsons, who did pure studio production work, no live "band" was ever involved...I love that stuff too, but some people hate it, therefore they will say it sucks.
While we are at it...you can pull up some intense Metal or Punk...and modern Metal is very produced, and some hate it, some love it...while classic Punk is very un-produced and some hate it and some love it.
This notion that demo grade (or what a lot of folks like to call "lo-fi") is going to sound better more times than not, compared to very produced stuff...or vice-versa...is unfounded and based entirely on music preferences.
Sure, there is stuff that's ugly-over-produced, but then these days the net is quite overloaded with demo-grade music that for the most part sounds like, well...home-demos. I think the folks who never mange to or even try to extend beyond their home-demo quality, tend to become more enamored with demo grade and lo-fi music over time...kind of a self-serving, subjective perspective.
There are so many highly produced fantastic albums out there...just like one can also find many that have that raw, un-produced sound...but don't get fooled...'cuz very often, that "raw, un-produced sound" came out of a studio that spent a good deal of time producing it.
Last edited:
gecko zzed
Grumpy Mod
In the end, this is what it all distills to.
Arguments about which is better amount to nothing more than an expression of personal taste and a justification for it. No-one's personal taste trumps anyone else's, and is not an arbiter of 'goodness'.
Someone likes natural, raw recordings? Fine. Someone likes well-crafted, polished recordings? Fine. Someone likes lo-fi recordings? Still fine. I like all, but selectively. It depends on the artist and whether they have something that engage my brain.
fat_fleet
Swollen Member
Well, it was captured by a form of media... Just sayin...
Plus the level of production and tools available to record this live version are way further advanced than what was used in the studio recorded version.
Right? Plus 22 years of playing and rehearsing the song, and a different guitar player. Many factors here other than just 'studio vs live'.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
I never really understood that. How did he godfather grunge? Besides the dirty never-bathed homeless hippie look?
jimmys69
MOODerator
I gotta say I never understood where the hell that came from either. Maybe Eddie V just had a hard on for him? IDK...
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
See...and just to show how tastes differ...
...I thought he sucked more when he was doing CSNY, and I think CSN are just a bunch of guys who never got past 1969 in their music careers.I do like some solo stuff Stills did...but overall, Neil Young IMO was/is the definitive talent in that bunch.
AFA the "godfather of grunge"...yeah, I think it has to do with the whole sloppy playing thing, but IMO, for NY, that wasn't a style 'cuz he and his bands couldn't/can't actually play....like it was for so many grunge bands.
Maybe it really was the lumberjack clothing style that appealed to all the NW guys...though did they wear anything different up there even before the grunge scene?
Farview
Well-known member
It is a taste thing. I really can't stand listening to anything he does. Some of the songs are alright when they are played by someone (anyone) else.
Some of the grunge bands could actually play, they were just copping the feel of the sloppiness. I did pick up on the fact that NY really couldn't.
They probably did dress up like that anyway, but prior to grunge, you couldn't get up on stage looking like that.Maybe it really was the lumberjack clothing style that appealed to all the NW guys...though did they wear anything different up there even before the grunge scene?
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
Well...I agree it's a taste thing, and I would differ on the second point.
It's like saying...Joe Cocker can't sing 'cuz of the way he mumbles and grumbles through a lot of his vocals.
Point is...NY has outlasted so many others, and not by simply doing "Cinnamon Girl" or what have you, for 50 years, over and over. So there's more there than just the perceived sloppy playing and the grungy look.
It's not much different than how some guitar players talk about Jimmy Page, cuz he's sloppy at times...but the guy laid down the foundations of Rock as we know it.
Actually...NY and JP are my two favorite guitar players...and they both play sloppy!
IMO...they each have 10 times more attitude and way better tone in their playing than many of the perfect shredders out there.
And to bring it back home...both have substantial live and studio work under their belts.
I see in this thread a bit of personal bias being shown. Including a bit of borderline hatred.
I can see not being fond of an artist but to speak in a very derogitive way about them, that I cannot see.
For me, after many years of working in the music biz, I can honestly say my tastes and affinity for many genres has increased.
I dont prefer certain artists, but at the same time can apreciate what they have done and achieved.
I dont get the artist bashing, but thats just me.
Back to the topic. If done well, raw or produced are both good.
Some artists and bands however, do much better as perfomers if you record and capture them as a band.
I think as they mature, not as players, but as "recording artists", it is easier to capture that raw "live" vibe even when mutitracking without the rest of the band acting as an artistic support group.
I can see not being fond of an artist but to speak in a very derogitive way about them, that I cannot see.
For me, after many years of working in the music biz, I can honestly say my tastes and affinity for many genres has increased.
I dont prefer certain artists, but at the same time can apreciate what they have done and achieved.
I dont get the artist bashing, but thats just me.
Back to the topic. If done well, raw or produced are both good.
Some artists and bands however, do much better as perfomers if you record and capture them as a band.
I think as they mature, not as players, but as "recording artists", it is easier to capture that raw "live" vibe even when mutitracking without the rest of the band acting as an artistic support group.
Last edited:
4
4tracker
Guest
I'd love to hear Neil Young do Powder Finger with Joe Cocker on vocals.
A lot of American Underground bands from the late 80s/early 90s cited Neil Young as an influence. I think that's where the label came from.
A lot of American Underground bands from the late 80s/early 90s cited Neil Young as an influence. I think that's where the label came from.