It occurred to me, after the last post was published that I had made a statement that needs some serious clarification, before someone misunderstands what I was thinking and takes exception to it: That an album made in few takes is a poor album.
Of course, I realize this is not always the case, and was generally speaking of the type of multi-layered production that I make, and of which most popular music consists. There are many highly talented solo performers and small ensembles that, once the technical aspects are set-up for a fine recording, can go ahead & in a few takes each can make a series of magical tracks that can become a great album.
Not to suggest that this is an "easy method" either, since behind those few takes lie many, many hours of arrangement & rehearsal.
Also there are those "happy convergences" where everything seems to fall into place to produce something special. I'm thinking now of Norah Jones first album, which was actually supposed to be the "demo tracks" for that album...but when they got everything together to make "the real thing", they found there was no way to capture the expressions and sense of intimacy of the "demo"...so they published it, and the rest is....well, you know.
I know of several similar stories, and I don't believe that "failure to re-capture" has anything to do with lack of talent or engineering skill. A recording has many subtle features which are deeply connected to the time, place & mood and can't be reproduced at will. I read a story (the artist & tune elude me right now) where the singer/writer made a reference track for his recording while he had a bad cold. When the tracks were done, and he attempted to make a polished final vocal for it, try as he might, he could not reproduce the feel of that reference track. It was put out that way and became a big hit.
Something similar has happened to me on at least one of my tunes for the next album. I made a reference track in one take, went back and cleaned up a couple of "screwy" lines where I forgot the lyrics or some such; but later when I went to make a final track, I could not top it despite using all the same technical settings, etc. There are a few really small "burbles" (as I might say), but the charm of that performance overwhelms any small flaws in the delivery.
Finally, in addressing this topic, is another potentially unanswered criticism...."What about a LIVE album...where a great performance by a band is captured on a recording and published?". Putting aside the many instances these days where bands go back to the studio and "fix" live albums before putting them out, all I can say is this: live performance and recording very often have two different goals. While both share the idea of "putting the tune in its best light", the excitement and connectivity with a live audience, and achieving the same thing thru a more tightly controlled process are usually not that compatible.
So many bands have tried to put that "live excitement" into a studio album, that it has almost become a cliche...sometimes successful, sometimes not. But if you listen carefully to a truly unretouched LIVE album, you will seldom hear the technical mastery that can be achieved in a studio. I think to most listeners it won't be that obvious, but to those in the industry, the technical flaws in that "great" live recording are obvious and many. I think its a tribute to the high levels of skill by both artists and engineers that the vast majority of fans don't find these obvious.
No comments:
Post a Comment