Author Topic: Is a "live" album really "live"?  (Read 5829 times)

rockinrayduke

  • Guest
Is a "live" album really "live"?
« on: October 19, 2008, 08:10:55 AM »
The idea that what is supposed to be a live recording may not be was touched on off topic in another thread and I thought it might be interesting. The performance you're hearing may have been overdubbed, sweetened by applause, edited and tinkered with in such a way that almost makes releasing it dishonest. I would bet that this happens on almost any so called live album, especially nowadays.

I offer 1968's "Live Yardbirds featuring Jimmy Page", released on Epic Records in a last gasp attempt to make a buck out of the band, who had recently broken up. The show was released pretty much as it was performed except for some obnoxious bullfight cheers dubbed in during and after songs. Page sued to have Epic recall the album and cease selling it, which they did. Page still keeps a heavy thumb on any release of it through his attorneys.

I've read that the first Eagles live album was heavily overdubbed after the fact. Heard the same things about the first Grand Funk live album. In the other thread I found out that Frampton Comes Alive has crowd applause from a Grand Funk concert.

Any other examples? Are there any live albums that are a true representation of an artist's show?






Dave W

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 22252
  • Got time to breathe, got time for music
    • View Profile
Re: Is a "live" album really "live"?
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2008, 08:17:37 AM »
Motörhead's "No Sleep ’til Hammersmith" was really recorded live but certainly had the crowd noises overdubbed.

godofthunder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6636
  • Keep On Rock'n !
    • View Profile
    • Johnny Smoke
Re: Is a "live" album really "live"?
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2008, 08:41:50 AM »
 The Who Live at Leeds much of JE's tracks were re done in the studio because his mike on the cabs failed.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2008, 11:23:23 AM by godofthunder »
Maker of the Badbird Bridge, "intonation without modification" for your vintage Gibson Thunderbird

Chris P.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5247
  • Warwickhoer
    • View Profile
    • The La La Lies
Re: Is a "live" album really "live"?
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2008, 09:10:44 AM »
The echo on Live at Leeds isn't on the original tapes.

One of the most famous Dutch live records, Cha Cha by Herman Brood, isn't completely live either. The band recorded it live at a studio with audience. Herman Brood himself couldn't play piano and sing at the same time yet, so some of his piano is mixed in later. They also left spaces for saxophone. Each time Herman shouts 'featuring: Bertus Borgers!', the band leaves some space and afterwards Bertus new it was time to do a sax solo. The applause was also mixed in later.

According to the book by Levon Helm an awful lot of The Last Waltz is overdubbed. Levon and Robbie weren't on speaking terms already and Levon refused to overdub his drums. Acoording to him almost everything else is re-recorded later. Of course both have a fight, so I doubt this a little. Of course there are overdubs but I think not as much as Levon is claiming.

I heard a story about the most succesfull Dutch MOR-artist Marco Borsato. He works with the finest session musicians, but an engineer spent half a year cleaning and mixing the soundtrack of a live-DVD. Every snare hit was put in  the right place by ProTools, bad sounds were replaced and so further. And the Ducth audience thinks this is live...

rockinrayduke

  • Guest
Re: Is a "live" album really "live"?
« Reply #4 on: October 19, 2008, 10:08:50 AM »
Quote
The Who Live at Leeds much of JS's tracks were re done in the studio because his mike on the cabs failed.

That is something I didn't know. My favorite live album.

Basvarken

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6884
  • hobby luthier. gibson bass nerd
    • View Profile
    • www.enkoo.nl
Re: Is a "live" album really "live"?
« Reply #5 on: October 19, 2008, 10:59:52 AM »
Two of my favorite albums are live albums that have been doctored afterwards in the studio.

One of them is Live & Dangerous by Thin Lizzy. A lot of overdubs on the backing vocals, lead vocals and bass parts and some of Gorham's guitar.
Brian Robertson ensured me he refused do any overdubs.
The audience is dubbed in too. One of the songs (I think it was Sothbound) was even done at a sound check rather than during the concert.

The dates that are stated on the sleeve are not the real concert dates.


The other Live album that is among my favorites is Strangers in the Night by UFO. This album has also been doctored with.
I'm not sure if it's true, but I believe Schenker left UFO because he didn't want to do any overdubs.

I have some of the original recordings and it makes you wonder why they bothered to do these overdubs at all...




gweimer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4085
    • View Profile
    • My BandMix Site
Re: Is a "live" album really "live"?
« Reply #6 on: October 19, 2008, 12:37:57 PM »
Quote
I'm not sure if it's true, but I believe Schenker left UFO because he didn't want to do any overdubs.

Schenker left UFO because the lifestyle was killing him.  I interviewed him on an MSG tour.  He said that he felt he wouldn't physically live if he did one more UFO tour. 
Telling tales of drunkenness and cruelty

lowend1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2581
    • View Profile
Re: Is a "live" album really "live"?
« Reply #7 on: October 19, 2008, 12:59:54 PM »
I'm at the point where I don't even care anymore, but...
Kiss Alive!, by all accounts, was almost entirely re-recorded - according to Eddie Kramer, with all the jumping around it was tough to be consistent. IIRC, only the drums and part of Ace's guitar was from the actual shows. The crowd noise was also fattened up for effect. Whatever the case, it sounds like a great live album.

Re UFO's SITN - Probably Schenker's best work - If it was recorded in a bathroom stall it would still be amazing.
If you can't be an athlete, be an athletic supporter

Freuds_Cat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
    • View Profile
Re: Is a "live" album really "live"?
« Reply #8 on: October 19, 2008, 07:00:44 PM »
Heard the same things about the first Grand Funk live album.


Not sure about this. I have the original double LP release of this album. As far as you can believe liner notes (or Terry Knight for that matter) They make the point that the recording was unadulterated. Sure sounds clean to me. One of, if not "the" most raw sounding classic rock albums of all time IMHO.

Cant say the same for the David Tedds remastered to CD version of the same album.
Digresion our specialty!

Chris P.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5247
  • Warwickhoer
    • View Profile
    • The La La Lies
Re: Is a "live" album really "live"?
« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2008, 11:40:23 PM »
I can't remeber which band it was, but a friend once made me listen to a live album of a not very well known band. When he pointed soe thongs out it was also clear to me, the adience were sheering in a loop! Some certain shouts came back after every couple of seconds:)

TBird1958

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6568
  • "you know the rule, No boots,No glam!"
    • View Profile
    • www.thenastyhabits.com
Re: Is a "live" album really "live"?
« Reply #10 on: October 20, 2008, 12:25:38 AM »

 I'm kinda surprised Scott didn't mention this but I'm pretty sure that Slade ALIVE is just that - It's very raw sounding no polish here, in my book the best real "live" album. Somewhere in my modest household I have a Polydor promo copy of it, Jimmy Lea and his Gibson at their best  ;D
Resident T Bird playing Drag Queen www.thenastyhabits.com  "Impülsivê", the new lush fragrance as worn by the unbelievable Fräulein Rômmélle! Traces of black patent leather, Panzer grease, mahogany and model train oil mingle and combust to one sheer sensation ...

godofthunder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6636
  • Keep On Rock'n !
    • View Profile
    • Johnny Smoke
Re: Is a "live" album really "live"?
« Reply #11 on: October 20, 2008, 02:16:33 AM »
I'm kinda surprised Scott didn't mention this but I'm pretty sure that Slade ALIVE is just that - It's very raw sounding no polish here, in my book the best real "live" album. Somewhere in my modest household I have a Polydor promo copy of it, Jimmy Lea and his Gibson at their best  ;D
I am not myself right at the moment, still reeling from the lay off and my mind is just full of ideas for the future. Slade Alive is a excellent real live album. Lets not forget Mott The Hoople Live ,talk about raw live rock and roll ! One of my all time favorites and still in along with Slade Alive in heavy rotationin my cd player.
Maker of the Badbird Bridge, "intonation without modification" for your vintage Gibson Thunderbird

rockinrayduke

  • Guest
Re: Is a "live" album really "live"?
« Reply #12 on: October 20, 2008, 03:13:51 AM »
I agree about Slade Alive, has to be real. Get Down and Get With It my favorite cut.

uwe

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 21476
  • Enabler ...
    • View Profile
Re: Is a "live" album really "live"?
« Reply #13 on: October 20, 2008, 03:15:52 AM »
The first Grand Funk album wasn't doctored at all, Don Brewer said, in fact the band only found out after its release that live albums of other bands were often doctored. And then followed suit on their mid seventies Caught in the Act which is doctored.

Schenker has always denied that he left UFO because of a guitar solo and it probably wasn't as simple as that. But Ron Nevison is on record for saying that it was Michael who - ever the perfectionist - wanted to rerecord a solo on Strangers in the Night and that Nevison would not let him because he liked the original.  Two tracks were recorded live in the studio though with audience applause added.

The Eagles Live outing is hugely doctored, especially as regards the vocals. Some of them were dubbed in a studio on the East Coast, others on the West Coast - Frey and Henley couldn't bear to even see each other back then. When Timothy B. Schmidt was asked in an interview whether The Eagles' backing vocals were always live because they are so pitch-perfect, he laughed and said: "Let's put it this way: The Eagles take great care that everything always sounds right!"

Judas Priest's Unleashed in the East is usually called "Unleashed in the Studio" among insiders and the later Live album from the Turbo tour sounds incredibly doctored in my ears too.

I think the first Grand Funk album certainly sounds honest as does the Slade one. Deep Purple's Made in Japan is utterly undoctored, songs that weren't good enough just weren't used (they left off the Black Night encore because it sounded too knackered, later CD releases saw it reinstated and guess what: It does sound knackered!) , but the Mk III line up's Made in Europe is cut and paste as is much of Rainbow's On Stage. Deep Purple's eighties "Nobody is Perfect" is at least honest as it credits Child in Time to a North American and a European location - the song starts one place and ends in another, spliced together in the middle.  

These days, I'm cynical of live albums and especially DVDs. DVD soundtracks of "live" concerts are often so heavily doctored that they begin to look mimed (as they probably are!), Whitesnake's Live DVD from two years ago is just laughable in that respect with a totally overblown studio sound that has nothing to do with how a rock band sounds live.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2008, 11:08:36 AM by uwe »
We've taken too much for granted ... and all the time it had grown ...
From techno seeds we first planted ... evolved a mind of its own ...

godofthunder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6636
  • Keep On Rock'n !
    • View Profile
    • Johnny Smoke
Re: Is a "live" album really "live"?
« Reply #14 on: October 20, 2008, 04:02:00 AM »
 Have to agree DP's Made In Japan is awsome.
Maker of the Badbird Bridge, "intonation without modification" for your vintage Gibson Thunderbird