Did DT completely re-record the Ronney Scott's tracks?

[rumborak]

I was just listening to the soundboard version of the medley, and I identified that guitar, bass and drums were changed for the ACOS disc. It's probably a reasonable assumption that they rerecorded the whole track for a given instrument (otherwise you couldn't match the sound). Did they ever say anything about this? Seems a bit ... weird to pass off a rerecorded track as a "live" recording.

[Setlist Scotty]

I've never done a proper A-B test between what's on ACoS and the soundboard bootleg of the entire show, but I wouldn't be surprised if some things were re-recorded. IIRC, James' vocals were redone on some (if not all) the songs - not unlike what was done for LatM. I don't recall hearing about anything else being specifically re-recorded after the fact. That said, considering the nature of the Ronnie Scotts show, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some things that were recorded that were either not up-to-snuff in terms of audio quality, or because of the fact that this was a one-off show that they were rehearsing on their off time, that there were flubs that they felt it necessary to correct.

[rumborak]

It's actually a mixture; some are flubs (e.g. JP fat-fingering a line), others are actually reasonably long sections (JM plays a standing bass line over a whole section that they changed into an ascending one for the ACOS version). Given that JLB's stuff was also rerecorded, and I do vaguely recall some DS fat-fingering that was changed, I think it's safe to say they went into the studio, used the actual live recording as guide tracks, and then rerecorded the whole thing.

[robwebster]

I think it's safe to say they went into the studio, used the actual live recording as guide tracks, and then rerecorded the whole thing.

...Is it?

I'd argue it's safe to say it's a possibility. To conclude it is just plain irresponsible. Sub-tabloid.

[rumborak]

How else would you do it? You can't just punch in a studio guitar where you have live guitar recording. The transition would be brutally obvious.

[robwebster]

What?! Sure you can! I feel like I must be misunderstanding you - if you couldn't replace studio sounds with live sounds, nobody would have ever redubbed any live guitar ever. Any slip-up would be a write-off. How do you think they fixed up Glass Moon on Score? Plus, they still owned their live rig - if they made a sound once, they can make it twice.

It's a possibility, and I'm not saying you're definitely wrong. I'm saying we can't know - we've got bugger all evidence! Fine to suggest it. I'd be a bit cautious about saying, "It's safe to conclude my first guess is exactly what went down." It's a fairly huge leap.

[bosk1]

I'd be a bit cautious about saying, "It's safe to conclude my first guess is exactly what went down." It's a fairly huge leap.

Um...you haven't read many of rumborak's posts, have you? 

[rumborak]

Have you actually listened to them A to B? I dunno, I find the differences in sound and notes so numerous that I don't consider it a "big leap" at all. Take the beginning of the medley; James' vocals simply don't exist for about half a minute. That stuff must have been completely recorded fresh.

[robwebster]

I'm not saying it's a big leap from the evidence in the audio to "Maybe they re-recorded the whole thing." I'm saying it's a humongous leap between "Maybe they re-recorded the whole thing" and "It's safe to say they re-recorded the whole thing." Historians, scientists, lexicographers - all spinning in their graves! There's even some tabloid journalists twitching. You can't just point to a theory and go, "Yes, that'll do." A guess is all it is. Possibly a good guess, maybe even a fine guess, but in lieu of any other evidence... it's nothing more.

I'm not saying you're not right, I'm saying you don't and can't know you're right. It's the opposite of safe to say they re-recorded it. It's a risk to say it, because it could yet very well be tripe.

[hefdaddy42]

The vocals were definitely re-recorded.  I've never heard about anything else, but I wouldn't be surprised.

[tweeg]

How else would you do it? You can't just punch in a studio guitar where you have live guitar recording. The transition would be brutally obvious.

It's possible that they recorded minor fixes in the club the next day, with the same setup as the night before. It wouldn't be an 'exact' match of sound, but it'd be pretty close.

[wasteland]

How else would you do it? You can't just punch in a studio guitar where you have live guitar recording. The transition would be brutally obvious.

Does this mean that they re-recorded the whole guitar track of UAGM for Score?

[rumborak]

How else would you do it? You can't just punch in a studio guitar where you have live guitar recording. The transition would be brutally obvious.

Does this mean that they re-recorded the whole guitar track of UAGM for Score?

Score was a massive recording setup for the very purpose of doing post-mixing/re-recording. And even there I wouldn't be surprised at all if they decided to just completely overdub the guitar in UAGM.

[KevShmev]

I will reiterate what I have said before: re-recording just about anything for a live release is lame.  A live performance should be just that: a live performance, warts and all.  I know that most of my favorite bands have touched up many of their live releases, so it has become one of those accepted things that many do, but that doesn't mean I think it is right.  I mean, if you are gonna re-record a bunch of the stuff for a live release, why not just record a new studio recording, dub in some crowd noise and release it like that?

[wasteland]

I will reiterate what I have said before: re-recording just about anything for a live release is lame.  A live performance should be just that: a live performance, warts and all.  I know that most of my favorite bands have touched up many of their live releases, so it has become one of those accepted things that many do, but that doesn't mean I think it is right.  I mean, if you are gonna re-record a bunch of the stuff for a live release, why not just record a new studio recording, dub in some crowd noise and release it like that?

James missed the attack of the "(carries) ooooon" note in the first Luna Park night. Would you find it ethically reproachable if they re-recorded that piece of track or used audio from the second night to patch it out?

[rumborak]

I think there's a difference between a small touch-up and a massive rerecording of sections as with Ronney Scott's. For example, there was nothing wrong with JM's standing bass line in the medley; nonetheless they rerecorded it with something different. I agree with KevShmev that that crosses the line to no longer being a live recording. Also, what's wrong with just leaving James' mistake in there? It's live, that's what happens at live concerts. Which is why we go to them.

[Perpetual Change]

I always thought the "unofficial" bootleg was just a different night or show on the same tour, lol.

[TheAtliator]

Isn't the whole reason of having a two night shoot to be able to choose another recording of some of the songs? If they don't like the small mistake James made, they should just use tSCO from the second night. If they choose to use the first night in its entirety, well that's their choice and they should leave it the way it happened IMO

[wasteland]

Also, what's wrong with just leaving James' mistake in there? It's live, that's what happens at live concerts. Which is why we go to them.

I'm merely speaking for myself here. When I want to feel the raw power of the live performance, I go and select one of the hundreds bootlegs that are out there or in my HDs. When I'm listening to an official live release, on the other hand, I look for something different, I look for the perfect or emblematic performance, and it would be bothersome to hear a missed note at the climax of what is supposed to be the ultimate peak of the evolutionary path of the song spanning a whole tour.

Of course I completely get your point, and I'm struggling with the other side of me wishing to agree with you, but ultimately that's how I feel. I think it was for the best that James ultimately dropped the idea of re-recording the vocals for the entire Budokan show, even though that risulted in a vocally sub-par (considering the rest of the tour) live release. It would have been a major altering of the given performance. On the other hand, I'm perfectly fine with what they did on Score's vocals, which was supposed to be just minor adjustments . Similarly, I wouldn't mind if they bleached that stain away of the otherwise exceptional vocal performance at Luna Park. So, yeah, I think my stance can be ultimately summarized by those two examples.

[CrimsonSunrise]

I will reiterate what I have said before: re-recording just about anything for a live release is lame.  A live performance should be just that: a live performance, warts and all.  I know that most of my favorite bands have touched up many of their live releases, so it has become one of those accepted things that many do, but that doesn't mean I think it is right.  I mean, if you are gonna re-record a bunch of the stuff for a live release, why not just record a new studio recording, dub in some crowd noise and release it like that?

I'm with you 100%.  Live is live, not too be dubbed over.  Cleaning up sound quality or level issues sure...but not re-recording

[Big Hath]

interesting thread.  I have always thought to myself that the band sounds awfully good on ACOS for it to be a completely live recording.  Turns out it may not have been at all. 

[ytserush]

Not sure.

Nine times out of ten, I reach for the whole gig anyway so that's the one I'm used to.

[gm5k]

How else would you do it? You can't just punch in a studio guitar where you have live guitar recording. The transition would be brutally obvious.

Not true.  Audio engineers can be quite good at what they do.  They're close mic'ing JP's cabs at live shows with dynamic microphones(dynamics don't pick up very much surrounding noise)  Very easy to replicate in studio especially since JP's signal chain isn't too convoluted.  I would say punch-ins are a definite possibility.  Don't know for sure, though 

[KevShmev]

I will reiterate what I have said before: re-recording just about anything for a live release is lame.  A live performance should be just that: a live performance, warts and all.  I know that most of my favorite bands have touched up many of their live releases, so it has become one of those accepted things that many do, but that doesn't mean I think it is right.  I mean, if you are gonna re-record a bunch of the stuff for a live release, why not just record a new studio recording, dub in some crowd noise and release it like that?

James missed the attack of the "(carries) ooooon" note in the first Luna Park night. Would you find it ethically reproachable if they re-recorded that piece of track or used audio from the second night to patch it out?

I think it is poor, yes.  And, again, I say that while acknowledging that many bands do it.

Also, what's wrong with just leaving James' mistake in there? It's live, that's what happens at live concerts. Which is why we go to them.

I'm merely speaking for myself here. When I want to feel the raw power of the live performance, I go and select one of the hundreds bootlegs that are out there or in my HDs. When I'm listening to an official live release, on the other hand, I look for something different, I look for the perfect or emblematic performance, and it would be bothersome to hear a missed note at the climax of what is supposed to be the ultimate peak of the evolutionary path of the song spanning a whole tour.

Then listen to the studio versions.

[BlobVanDam]

It wouldn't surprise me at all if JLB's vocals were completely redubbed, given that it was a low point for him, but DT have never struck me as a band to completely redo instrument tracks. While they have fixed some flubs on their live releases (such as JM's bass in the instrumedley, or JP's guitar in UAGM), they've also left in some decent flubs too, so they generally only fix things when it's major enough to warrant it.
That said, I haven't heard the raw version at all and never done an A-B comparison. But there are usually spots to do a punch-in, and you'd be surprised how easy it is to cover these things up in a full mix, especially for bass.

Generally speaking, I personally don't mind some touch ups in the studio. I'm a perfectionist for perfect performances, and for that reason I almost always favour studio recordings. But the purpose of a live album to me is to hear a representation of what the band sounds like live, and a touch up here or there doesn't take away from the live energy and appeal to me.
If they're touching it up in a way that doesn't represent what it sounds like live, then I'm against it, such as adding anything extra, or doing things in a way they couldn't pull off live. But if they pulled it off live 99% of the time but flubbed it on the one night they recorded it, or they recorded it as a one off, then I'm fine with a touch up here or there.

[wasteland]

I'm surprised to agree with Blob 

[BlobVanDam]

It's probably because it makes no mention of an opinion on any actual song or album.

[?]

I'm surprised to agree with Blob 

Me too!