DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
Dream Theater => Dream Theater => Topic started by: TheAtliator on July 23, 2014, 12:44:04 AM
-
For this coming DVD specifically, do you wish for there to be no fix-ups in the vocal department, or would you not mind? You can take into account how well LaBrie performed on that night (if you know), or don't if that doesn't affect your position.
I'm choosing no changes at all. Mostly because what I really want out of a live DVD is a quality recording of that live performance, just like I was there, but I can watch it over and over. Also I have taken into account that (from what I know) LaBrie probably did really well that night, and there are probably a few bum notes here and there at most. Not to mention, for me it tends to distract from the listening/watching experience when I find myself constantly asking myself "Do you think that note was real?? How about that one?" because I just always tend to wonder about that stuff.
Edit: I'd like to add that I'm 100% sure the DVD will be awesome whatever is done to it, but I still find this topic to be an important and interesting one to discuss.
-
I voted for only in extreme cases, but I didn't feel like LALP sounded like it was messed with. I found Score sounded a little more fixed, although LaB definitely wasn't. In Surrounded on LALP, the last word in "now at last I'm blind" is slightly sharp and wasn't fixed.
-
I never thought that fixing the vocals up was an issue worth mentioning with DT (except for CiM, but that doesn't count anyway). It's a no brainer with live releases that the less they're tampered with, the better (although the only thing that prevents Live at Budokan from being perfect is JLB's weak performance). After LALP, a healthy mix and a good drum sound is the top priority. This one sounds miles better so I'm optimistic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_kDNZdE5is
-
Fix them. If anybody wants to see the raw product he or she can look for the great Manchester Blu Ray, bootleg, or really any other audience recording out there.
-
Do they need to be tampered with?
-
Considering how he performed when I saw him about a month before that show, I'd say there are no fixes necessary at all. I don't know how well he performed on the actual Boston show, but unless he totally flubbed some parts, I see absolutely no reason why they should be tampered with.
-
Fix them. If anybody wants to see the raw product he or she can look for the great Manchester Blu Ray, bootleg, or really any other audience recording out there.
Exactly. If I want raw un-tampered shows I'll listen to some bootlegs instead (which I never do).
-
Considering how he performed when I saw him about a month before that show, I'd say there are no fixes necessary at all. I don't know how well he performed on the actual Boston show, but unless he totally flubbed some parts, I see absolutely no reason why they should be tampered with.
According to other people who were there, he was at the top of his game with very few flubs. I know I heard he nailed the difficult part in Illumination Theory, except for "noble and brave" where his voice cracked.
-
He was thoroughly very good and powerful, and throughout trying to make the performance a bit more special than usual. He nailed most of the hard parts, but at times his voice faltered as it's normal. I'd say very few parts will need fixing, and I'm rather positive they will be fixed.
-
I voted fixing the vocals in extreme cases, maybe just a couple notes that were flubbed. Generally speaking I like live concerts to be as live as possible, but I totally understand touching up a few minor things here and there. That's a completely different mentality than some bands who fix everything to the point of essentially re-recording the show, that I am not a fan of.
From reading this thread though, it sounds like JLB was on point that night in Boston and not a lot of fixes will be needed, which is always the best case scenario!
-
I don't care either way. I accept that most live albums are touched up nowadays.
I'm choosing no changes at all. Mostly because what I really want out of a live DVD is a quality recording of that live performance, just like I was there, but I can watch it over and over. Also I have taken into account that (from what I know) LaBrie probably did really well that night, and there are probably a few bum notes here and there at most. Not to mention, for me it tends to distract from the listening/watching experience when I find myself constantly asking myself "Do you think that note was real?? How about that one?" because I just always tend to wonder about that stuff.
Doesn't that take the fun out of being a fan of music?
-
I never thought that fixing the vocals up was an issue worth mentioning with DT
This.
I voted "Only very slightly if needed." A little touching up here and there is normal, so I expect that to be the case here.
-
The expected release date for the upcoming dvd in Boston was August as James announced in Phily, wasn't it? I find it strange that there has not been an official announcement yet. I hope this bluray is not postponed for ages like Live at Luna Park. In relation to the topic, I've listened to the bootleg at the Opera House and there are some cracks in James voice throughout the concert. Nevertheless, generally speaking, the performance is solid and enjoyable. I would like the mistakes to be fixed to improve the overall experience. James' singing nowadays is impressive taking his age under consideration.
-
The expected release date for the upcoming dvd in Boston was August as James announced in Phily, wasn't it? I find it strange that there has not been an official announcement yet.
Well, August 2015 is still far off.
-
I think he was talking about an august 2014 release. When I watched him say it I thought the postproduction time would be similar to Score (recorded in april/May and released in August). Who knows....what do you all think? I'm dying to have it :) I saw them in Barcelona last January and the performance was phenomenal :)
-
I would like the appearance of the new dvd to be similar to Score's. I dind not enjoy Live at Luna Park very much in terms of visuals and camera work. James sounds stellar in my opinion but Rudess, Mangini and Myung are almost mute in some parts...
-
I'm 100% in favour of authenticity, so no tweaking whatsoever please.
-
Went with Kevin Moore
-
Given how high quality the bootleg is of the show, it will be interesting to hear the A/B comparison.
-
Fix them. If anybody wants to see the raw product he or she can look for the great Manchester Blu Ray, bootleg, or really any other audience recording out there.
Exactly. If I want raw un-tampered shows I'll listen to some bootlegs instead (which I never do).
Aaghh this post makes me crazy! (Don't read this the wrong way) Because think of it this way, it's almost like- how would you like it if the thing you wanted was only available by a one-angle audience recording? It's easy for you to say listen to the bootleg, because the bootleg doesn't have the thing that you really want to hear. But no audience recording is even close to the same thing as even a poorly-produced professional, line-in, recording.
Basically, obviously it's fair that you answer the question with "fix it up", but don't then think that the non-fix side is still getting what they want too. Because I'll tell you first hand, I really don't get what I want (in terms of fix ups) from a bunch of awesome bootlegs and one fixed up DVD.
I find myself constantly asking myself "Do you think that note was real?? How about that one?" because I just always tend to wonder about that stuff.
Doesn't that take the fun out of being a fan of music?
Well, let me put it this way- Yes it does, but whose fault is that?
In other words, is it the performer's lack of performance integrity to blame, or the viewer's struggle to enjoy something that is partially lacking in performance integrity.
Same goes for watching the show with backing tracks. When I'm at the show, it takes me a minute to get past it before I can really enjoy what is happening live. Luckily, it's a very short and small struggle with DT considering how minor the fix ups and backing tracks are, and how flat out amazing the genuine parts of the show are.
-
One step I'd actually be down with would be to replace the backing tracks with dedicated recordings. So, send JP into a recording studio to record his vocals for example.
-
I think he was talking about an august 2014 release.
I don't, since there has been literally NOTHING from the band about it.
-
I find myself constantly asking myself "Do you think that note was real?? How about that one?" because I just always tend to wonder about that stuff.
Doesn't that take the fun out of being a fan of music?
Well, let me put it this way- Yes it does, but whose fault is that?
In other words, is it the performer's lack of performance integrity to blame, or the viewer's struggle to enjoy something that is partially lacking in performance integrity.
Same goes for watching the show with backing tracks. When I'm at the show, it takes me a minute to get past it before I can really enjoy what is happening live. Luckily, it's a very short and small struggle with DT considering how minor the fix ups and backing tracks are, and how flat out amazing the genuine parts of the show are.
The viewer's.
-
I think he was talking about an august 2014 release.
I don't, since there has been literally NOTHING from the band about it.
That's the peculiar part I find. LALP, despite the dragged-out release, there were announcements, videos with crying girls etc. With this one, hadn't they said something at the concert itself, we wouldn't even know about it.
-
I haven't read much about LALP, were there a lot of overdubs on that ? Was it just vocals ?
-
One step I'd actually be down with would be to replace the backing tracks with dedicated recordings. So, send JP into a recording studio to record his vocals for example.
Actually I think JP is in some of the tracks already. But either way, they did record a ton of things just for the tour because they don't use Portnoy's voice or the original hypnotherapist's voice. "Temptation" for example has been rerecorded WONDERFULLY.
And for the record, I don't mind any of the spoken words, samples, or sound effects on the track. Just the vocal and guitar harmonies (I think there are guitar harmonies) I mind.
The viewer's.
I think I read the question wrong, I guess I really shouldn't say that having to question what parts of the show are real or not takes the fun out of being a fan of music, but it certainly is a detracting factor to the specific product being viewed. And my point is that the blame is most certainly not on the viewer for feeling those effects while viewing, it is the imperfections of the product, whatever it might be.
I haven't read much about LALP, were there a lot of overdubs on that ? Was it just vocals ?
Yea there were. Of course it depends on what you call "a lot", but in certain sections of certain songs, things were rerecorded even if the original was already good. I've heard an audience recording of TROE and I actually thought the actual way it was sung was miles better than the overdub! I'd still say most of the overdubbing was that a lot of minor things were changed to be more perfect, but also all big cracks or flat notes were definitely fixed completely. However, still some songs seem completely left alone. And yes, from what I could tell, just vocals.
-
And for the record, I don't mind any of the spoken words, samples, or sound effects on the track. Just the vocal and guitar harmonies (I think there are guitar harmonies) I mind.
I would imagine that most guitar harmonies are done with a harmonizer, not pre-recorded.
-
Yea there were. Of course it depends on what you call "a lot", but in certain sections of certain songs, things were rerecorded even if the original was already good. I've heard an audience recording of TROE and I actually thought the actual way it was sung was miles better than the overdub! I'd still say most of the overdubbing was that a lot of minor things were changed to be more perfect, but also all big cracks or flat notes were definitely fixed completely. However, still some songs seem completely left alone. And yes, from what I could tell, just vocals.
Thanks, I like to know what I'm listening to but don't get around to listening to bootlegs. I'm glad to hear it's just the vocals, I wouldn't want anything more than the most egregious errors fixed especially anyone but James.
-
Considering how he performed when I saw him about a month before that show, I'd say there are no fixes necessary at all. I don't know how well he performed on the actual Boston show, but unless he totally flubbed some parts, I see absolutely no reason why they should be tampered with.
According to other people who were there, he was at the top of his game with very few flubs. I know I heard he nailed the difficult part in Illumination Theory, except for "noble and brave" where his voice cracked.
Well, if his voice cracked, I see nothing against doing a little overdub over that part. But I mean, as long as they don't mess around with it too much. I don't care if he's off by 1/4 of a semitone on the occasional song.
-
I find myself constantly asking myself "Do you think that note was real?? How about that one?" because I just always tend to wonder about that stuff.
Doesn't that take the fun out of being a fan of music?
Well, let me put it this way- Yes it does, but whose fault is that?
In other words, is it the performer's lack of performance integrity to blame, or the viewer's struggle to enjoy something that is partially lacking in performance integrity.
"Fault" doesn't even enter into the equation. There is no "fault." And for that matter, there is no such thing as "performance integrity."
-
I find myself constantly asking myself "Do you think that note was real?? How about that one?" because I just always tend to wonder about that stuff.
Doesn't that take the fun out of being a fan of music?
Well, let me put it this way- Yes it does, but whose fault is that?
In other words, is it the performer's lack of performance integrity to blame, or the viewer's struggle to enjoy something that is partially lacking in performance integrity.
"Fault" doesn't even enter into the equation. There is no "fault." And for that matter, there is no such thing as "performance integrity."
Well sure it does, if you were watching a concert and the lighting is so bad that you can't see two of the performers, you'd blame the lighting (well, technically the people responsible for the lighting) for detracting from your enjoyment of the concert. If you're watching a concert, and only half of what you're seeing is being played live, and you argue that it takes away from the energy, emotion, flow, or anything else, you would be arguing that the backing tracks (or those who are responsible for their presence) are at fault for detracting from your enjoyment of the concert.
So in DT's case, all I'm saying is that you can't blame me, the viewer, for being increasingly disconnected from the emotion with each touch up (or backing track, depending on what we're talking about).
As for integrity, I mean it quite literally (I'm not just throwing that word around). Just as you would say a house that is built with proper support has structural integrity, a live band whose sound is built by lively-performed instruments has performance integrity. The emotion portrayed by the music could just as easily crumble as a house could without structural integrity.
-
Do you hope the vocals on the new DVD will not be tampered with?
Hopes and dreams.. But not gonna happen with this one, vocals are always tampered with. :lol I do however find it an interesting subject..
I hope it's tampered with in the usual way. Like balancing out the midtones so not to rely on the varying monitor output levels. Taking a direct recording is not necessarily the best way to get the best out of James' voice. Some of the amplifiers might pick up the higher range on the waveform that doesn't exactly represent the output you hear in realtime through the monitors, so with subtle amounts of compression you can reduce any of the sharper high range feedback, and bring out the lower tones.
And then there's waveform correction which is a different game. This is normally really subtle, and so long as it's as subtle as it's been on studio albums/most live albums then it'll only enhance the experience. It only starts to sound fake when you flatline the pitch correction or stretch a note further than it should. Or have a lazy sound engineer. (CiM)
-
I find myself constantly asking myself "Do you think that note was real?? How about that one?" because I just always tend to wonder about that stuff.
Doesn't that take the fun out of being a fan of music?
Well, let me put it this way- Yes it does, but whose fault is that?
In other words, is it the performer's lack of performance integrity to blame, or the viewer's struggle to enjoy something that is partially lacking in performance integrity.
"Fault" doesn't even enter into the equation. There is no "fault." And for that matter, there is no such thing as "performance integrity."
Well sure it does, if you were watching a concert and the lighting is so bad that you can't see two of the performers, you'd blame the lighting (well, technically the people responsible for the lighting) for detracting from your enjoyment of the concert. If you're watching a concert, and only half of what you're seeing is being played live, and you argue that it takes away from the energy, emotion, flow, or anything else, you would be arguing that the backing tracks (or those who are responsible for their presence) are at fault for detracting from your enjoyment of the concert.
So in DT's case, all I'm saying is that you can't blame me, the viewer, for being increasingly disconnected from the emotion with each touch up (or backing track, depending on what we're talking about).
As for integrity, I mean it quite literally (I'm not just throwing that word around). Just as you would say a house that is built with proper support has structural integrity, a live band whose sound is built by lively-performed instruments has performance integrity. The emotion portrayed by the music could just as easily crumble as a house could without structural integrity.
Sorry for double post, just wanted to make a separate comment regarding this discussion about performance integrity versus perception of the viewer. I believe the viewer is completely responsible for how they feel about the experience. It's a little absurd to be any other way right? Think about it, you can find reasons or excuses to blame for the experience not being how you imagined, but that's what you get for bringing in those sort of expectations. You can completely choose how you feel about it, so I think it's up to you whether you enjoy the experience or not, not the performer to live up to any ones specific expectations. I'm fairly sure they're already trying to give it their all so anything short of perfection is probably just a point of view, if the performers are doing the best they can.
I guess to clarify what I'm saying by your examples, the integrity of a house can only be so strong. At a certain point, you have to essentially take it on faith that the builders and structural engineers did their job properly and did the best they could so you can comfortably be in the house without the fear of it crumbling. I believe DT already have their own performance integrity, and it's up to the viewer to believe or not believe in that. You don't have to match them, but you are responsible for how emotionally disconnected or connected you feel about the show surely, fubs and all as they're part of it too.
-
Whoa whoa whoa, first of all, when I say "tampered with" I am most certainly not referring to EQ or reverb effects and such. That's just part of mixing/ mastering. Yes technically you could call that "tampering", but I'm pretty sure no one here is referring to that (right?). I only mean re-recording or tuning any section of vocals. Sorry for the misunderstanding, if there is one!
Point #2, I'm actually really surprised people would disagree with me on this!
Firstly, it has absolutely nothing to do with expectations. If someone makes a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, adds ketchup into it, and serves it to you, it does not taste terrible because you didn't expect the ketchup. It tastes terrible because ketchup goes terrible in peanut butter and jelly.
Secondly, it's preposterous to say that you have total control over whether something you're experiencing is pleasurable or not. The only thing you have control over is your preconceived notions and your attitude. Beyond that, it's left up to the traits of the experience itself and your natural opinions of those traits. Whether you are served that sandwich hoping for it to be delicious, really wanting to like it, or expecting it to be terrible, either way it's gonna suck.
Also, if you say "I believe DT already have their own performance integrity" you don't really understand the meaning of the word, because integrity is entirely objective (The house will either fall over or it won't). Maybe what you mean to say is that what DT consider integrated is in disagreement with what I would consider integrated. In that case, then we'd have a discussion because we could debate which definition is actually true.
-
Well, if we're talking about integrity, then DT lost it when they released Live at the Marquee.
-
Whoa whoa whoa, first of all, when I say "tampered with" I am most certainly not referring to EQ or reverb effects and such. That's just part of mixing/ mastering. Yes technically you could call that "tampering", but I'm pretty sure no one here is referring to that (right?). I only mean re-recording or tuning any section of vocals. Sorry for the misunderstanding, if there is one!
Point #2, I'm actually really surprised people would disagree with me on this!
Firstly, it has absolutely nothing to do with expectations. If someone makes a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, adds ketchup into it, and serves it to you, it does not taste terrible because you didn't expect the ketchup. It tastes terrible because ketchup goes terrible in peanut butter and jelly.
Secondly, it's preposterous to say that you have total control over whether something you're experiencing is pleasurable or not. The only thing you have control over is your preconceived notions and your attitude. Beyond that, it's left up to the traits of the experience itself and your natural opinions of those traits. Whether you are served that sandwich hoping for it to be delicious, really wanting to like it, or expecting it to be terrible, either way it's gonna suck.
Also, if you say "I believe DT already have their own performance integrity" you don't really understand the meaning of the word, because integrity is entirely objective (The house will either fall over or it won't). Maybe what you mean to say is that what DT consider integrated is in disagreement with what I would consider integrated. In that case, then we'd have a discussion because we could debate which definition is actually true.
Except they would serve a different peanut butter than the one you ordered. Besides that, I hate to break it to you, most lives albums, and by most I'd venture about 95% get touched up. It's been documented for decades. It never crosses my mind anymore.
-
You aren't breaking anything to me, I already know that. It has nothing to do with me liking it.
Ok so yea of course I purposely used an exaggerated examples. Let's say they serve me peanut butter that I don't like. It's now the peanut butter's fault that the 10/10 grade goes down to 8 or 9/10. And by the way, that still goes for whether I dislike the peanut butter for an objective reason (it's expired) or for a subjective reason (it's too crunchy).
-
All DT live releases have seen some kind of modification, to varying degrees. The most massive one I'm aware of are the Ronnie Scotts tracks on ACOS, where they rerecorded long stretches of instruments and vocals.
-
That's one thing that is so good about the official bootlegs. Also, I was pretty sure LSNY Metropolis 2000 had no overdubs? They even said something about that in regards to the vocals in the commentary.
-
Given some of the vocals on LSFNY ... no, it wasn't overdubbed.
-
That's one thing that is so good about the official bootlegs. Also, I was pretty sure LSNY Metropolis 2000 had no overdubs? They even said something about that in regards to the vocals in the commentary.
Yep, that's what they said. And I believe Score didn't have any overdubs either. In fact, I thought it did, until a bunch of people here on the forums insisted that it did not.
-
Of course Score has been modified. JP's guitar didn't work at the start, that was all recorded afterwards.
-
Of course Score has been modified. JP's guitar didn't work at the start, that was all recorded afterwards.
I meant specifically vocals. Didn't know that about JP's guitar.
-
I know for a fact Score's vocals were touched up at least a little. The only audience-shot footage I've seen from Score is about 5 30 second videos, and just with that I've heard about 6 or 7 notes that were different from how they sound on the DVD. One of which wasn't even a mistake or anything, just an unnecessary change to make it slightly more like the studio version.
-
This assumption that the backing track is a big part of what we are hearing live is just that: an assumption. It has no basis in reality. I think of a backing track with DT as being them filling out the edges with this here and that there, but almost everything you are hearing is being played and sang by the five guys on stage. It's silly to suggest otherwise.
-
Um.. I know pretty much exactly what is being played by the backing track every single time I hear it. Maybe you're referring to someone else, but I also never said that it was a big part of what we're hearing either. It's very small part of it, but what is part of the backing track is no "assumption" when James LaBrie's voice times 4 is coming out of the speakers and no one is at a microphone :lol
-
I find myself constantly asking myself "Do you think that note was real?? How about that one?" because I just always tend to wonder about that stuff.
Doesn't that take the fun out of being a fan of music?
Well, let me put it this way- Yes it does, but whose fault is that?
In other words, is it the performer's lack of performance integrity to blame, or the viewer's struggle to enjoy something that is partially lacking in performance integrity.
"Fault" doesn't even enter into the equation. There is no "fault." And for that matter, there is no such thing as "performance integrity."
Well sure it does, if you were watching a concert and the lighting is so bad that you can't see two of the performers, you'd blame the lighting (well, technically the people responsible for the lighting) for detracting from your enjoyment of the concert. If you're watching a concert, and only half of what you're seeing is being played live, and you argue that it takes away from the energy, emotion, flow, or anything else, you would be arguing that the backing tracks (or those who are responsible for their presence) are at fault for detracting from your enjoyment of the concert.
So in DT's case, all I'm saying is that you can't blame me, the viewer, for being increasingly disconnected from the emotion with each touch up (or backing track, depending on what we're talking about).
As for integrity, I mean it quite literally (I'm not just throwing that word around). Just as you would say a house that is built with proper support has structural integrity, a live band whose sound is built by lively-performed instruments has performance integrity. The emotion portrayed by the music could just as easily crumble as a house could without structural integrity.
I agree.
DT are known to be these virtuous masterminds, and I am a little disappointed to learn recently that they use backing tracks and click tracks. Not the end of the world, and plenty of bands doing it, but for a band so known for being such great players, it does make the whole live product less impressive.
It's strange to me that so many prog metal bands do this, despite being considered virtuoso players. To any other virtuoso genre or fanbase, playing with a click and using backing tracks automatically takes you down a level.
Of course, we all know DT could do without the click and piped in vocals if they wanted, because they did for several years, so I'm not sure what gives. I guess it's for the stage show? It's cool they have such a nice production, but I'd still just love to see them jam out from time to time.
-
That's one thing that is so good about the official bootlegs. Also, I was pretty sure LSNY Metropolis 2000 had no overdubs? They even said something about that in regards to the vocals in the commentary.
If LSFNY is touched up, I'd hate to hear the original. :lol
Even though most of the official bootlegs are thoroughly live (and couldn't have been changed if they wanted to, being soundboard mixdowns), some of the official bootlegs sound more touched up than their regular live releases imo.
I'm not convinced any of the vocals on the TNOTB bootleg are live. Judging from the Osaka performance of that album, JLB sang admirably well, but not near that well. Not that I am bothered by this at all, because it still had a live feel to it, and I was still amazed at the time that JLB was capable of such vocals, live or studio.
Some of the Uncovered vocals don't sound live to me either. Again though, this doesn't bother me if it is indeed the case. I'm not a stickler for completely live vocals on a live release.
I know for a fact Score's vocals were touched up at least a little. The only audience-shot footage I've seen from Score is about 5 30 second videos, and just with that I've heard about 6 or 7 notes that were different from how they sound on the DVD. One of which wasn't even a mistake or anything, just an unnecessary change to make it slightly more like the studio version.
Yep, Score had a few little dubs, but the vast majority of it was still live just with just a bit of pitch correction, which is all standard. JLB did a fantastic job on that show and tour, so not much was necessary.
-
Oh yea I'm not referring to the cover albums, those might be touched. Also Another Day on the Christmas release was tuned (not very slickly).
Yep, Score had a few little dubs, but the vast majority of it was still live just with just a bit of pitch correction, which is all standard. JLB did a fantastic job on that show and tour, so not much was necessary.
Ah, see yea that's where they get ya. The pitch correction. A little pitch correction throughout is actually most definitely not a minor change. Maybe it wasn't throughout, though, you didn't use that word.
-
Oh yea I'm not referring to the cover albums, those might be touched. Also Another Day on the Christmas release was tuned (not very slickly).
Yep, Score had a few little dubs, but the vast majority of it was still live just with just a bit of pitch correction, which is all standard. JLB did a fantastic job on that show and tour, so not much was necessary.
Ah, see yea that's where they get ya. The pitch correction. A little pitch correction throughout is actually most definitely not a minor change. Maybe it wasn't throughout, though, you didn't use that word.
Unless it's applied heavily, I consider pitch correction a minor change, since almost every single album and live album of the past decade uses it. It would be naive to think otherwise. And it's still using the original live vocal, rather than dubbing it to achieve the same result.
I think it was probably used on all of Score, but it only needed to be used lightly because the original vocal was so damn good. I recall TSCO and IWBY being the more obvious examples, while other parts I could tell mostly by comparison with the bootlegs.
It's not a matter of needing it, it just makes it sound that little bit nicer when done properly, as was definitely the case here.
I'm not sure about LALP. I only listened to it once, but it sounded very live to me, in a good way. :tup
-
Oh I know, it's used on EVERYTHING now and I HATE it. I can hear it in everything and it just sounds SO BAD to me. It actually changes the tone of a singer which is just terrible. And yes, as far as I can tell, all the fix ups on LALP sound like overdubs rather than tuning. So at least it sounds good to me even if it's not totally live.
-
I'm not convinced any of the vocals on the TNOTB bootleg are live. Judging from the Osaka performance of that album, JLB sang admirably well, but not near that well. Not that I am bothered by this at all, because it still had a live feel to it, and I was still amazed at the time that JLB was capable of such vocals, live or studio.
You can't compare the NOTB bootleg with the Osaka performance, since the former was recorded in 2002 and the latter happened in 2004. Still, I know for a fact that parts of NOTB have been re-recorded. Take the ending note of Children Of The Damned: it sounds nothing like a scream James would do in 2002 (on the unofficial bootleg of the performance, in fact, the scream is much grittier, higher pitched and with no vibrato), but rather like something that belongs to his post-restyling technique, that is to say from 2003 onwards.
-
I'm not convinced any of the vocals on the TNOTB bootleg are live. Judging from the Osaka performance of that album, JLB sang admirably well, but not near that well. Not that I am bothered by this at all, because it still had a live feel to it, and I was still amazed at the time that JLB was capable of such vocals, live or studio.
You can't compare the NOTB bootleg with the Osaka performance, since the former was recorded in 2002 and the latter happened in 2004. Still, I know for a fact that parts of NOTB have been re-recorded. Take the ending note of Children Of The Damned: it sounds nothing like a scream James would do in 2002 (on the unofficial bootleg of the performance, in fact, the scream is much grittier, higher pitched and with no vibrato), but rather like something that belongs to his post-restyling technique, that is to say from 2003 onwards.
I forgot/didn't realize the two performances were a few years apart, so it's much less believable for a JLB circa 2002 performance than it would be for a 2004 performance. The SDOIT tour was a lower point for JLB's voice before he got the new vocal coach and improved his health, and started to improve noticeably from the ToT tour onwards, as you've noted.
Oh I know, it's used on EVERYTHING now and I HATE it. I can hear it in everything and it just sounds SO BAD to me. It actually changes the tone of a singer which is just terrible. And yes, as far as I can tell, all the fix ups on LALP sound like overdubs rather than tuning. So at least it sounds good to me even if it's not totally live.
Believe me, I hate it when it's overdone (such as on BTS which totally kills that song for me), but when it's done lightly, I have no problem with it at all. The vocals on Score and LALP are both great to me, so whatever approach they use, I'm sure I'll be happy with the vocals on the upcoming live album. :)
-
Firstly, it has absolutely nothing to do with expectations. If someone makes a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, adds ketchup into it, and serves it to you, it does not taste terrible because you didn't expect the ketchup. It tastes terrible because ketchup goes terrible in peanut butter and jelly.
I like your analogy, but I think it may have faltered here because some people may actually like ketchup with their peanut butter and jelly. :corn
-
DT are known to be these virtuous masterminds, and I am a little disappointed to learn recently that they use backing tracks and click tracks. Not the end of the world, and plenty of bands doing it, but for a band so known for being such great players, it does make the whole live product less impressive.
It's strange to me that so many prog metal bands do this, despite being considered virtuoso players. To any other virtuoso genre or fanbase, playing with a click and using backing tracks automatically takes you down a level.
As a guitarist who has played live many times without click and many times with click, I'd say it takes a better, tighter musician to play with a click than it does to not.
So actually, I'd say the opposite; I find it incredibly impressive that DT can manage to play their incredibly complex music with a set click track night in and night out. Whether you like the idea is personal preference, but it's impressive nonetheless.
-
This assumption that the backing track is a big part of what we are hearing live is just that: an assumption. It has no basis in reality.
I think it all depends on what you consider "big". It's definitely present enough that in a recent video, when James held the microphone to the audience so they sing, you clearly heard James' voice still singing, because they had used the regular vocal track to fill in the chorus, but had mixed it so high into the performance that it sounded he was still singing. That's not everybody's cup of tea.
-
Okay, but was likely a random occurrence, one where JLB would normally sing and you'd hear his live vocal mostly, while the backing track would fill up the sound underneath him, but since he decided to let the audience sing that line or whatever, all you heard was the backing track. If that happens once or twice in a 3-hour show, it is really a big deal?
-
Okay, but was likely a random occurrence, one where JLB would normally sing and you'd hear his live vocal mostly, while the backing track would fill up the sound underneath him, but since he decided to let the audience sing that line or whatever, all you heard was the backing track. If that happens once or twice in a 3-hour show, it is really a big deal?
No.
I mean, if it was a total vocal track, and he was out there lip-synching, it would be a big deal. But that isn't what's happening.
JLB is really singing.
JP is really playing.
JM is really playing.
JR is really playing.
MM is really playing.
-
Just FYI, it's not the end of the world for me either. I think it's just lamentable in the grander scheme of things, that DT has switched to this external reliance (clicks, backing tracks) in their shows. They're still great shows, mind you, just a bit less personal.
-
I know what you're saying.
-
Do I hope that vocals on the new DVD will not be tampered with?
Honestly: I don't care. I was at the concert they filmed in Boston. LaBrie's performance was quite good that night.* May have been a couple of clams in there somewhere, but I do not specifically remember any OMG WFT LOL moments in his performance, except for his sometimes awkward-sounding banter between songs.
* His performance was good but it wasn't especially special good
-
Why does Labrie oversingwhen the concert is recorded for a live dvd release? I've listened to plenty of bootlegs from this tour and he sounds way better than in Boston. His voice seemed forced at the Opera House. What do you guys think? He may feel the pressure and it compromises his vocal performance...
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzgI_lw0j6I
Oh my...! That's what I call a solid and spectacular performance from James in this current tour. His performance in Boston was not like that, I'm afraid.
-
I don't know dude, I think the Boston gig was better. In that video there he is off-pitch a ton and his screams sound really forced.
-
The mic antics are cool though :biggrin:
Most of these videos of cool vocal parts that are being posted around... don't sound all that cool to me? Dunno, I just have a problem with phone videos.
-
Whoa whoa whoa, first of all, when I say "tampered with" I am most certainly not referring to EQ or reverb effects and such. That's just part of mixing/ mastering. Yes technically you could call that "tampering", but I'm pretty sure no one here is referring to that (right?). I only mean re-recording or tuning any section of vocals. Sorry for the misunderstanding, if there is one!
Fair enough, I didn't realise it was completely assumed because a lot of people have been mentioning a completely authentic live experience, and I guess I was just trying to say it's never quite like that anyway because there are normally necessary changes to make when considering live playback.
Point #2, I'm actually really surprised people would disagree with me on this!
Haha, I appreciate where you were coming from with the lighting example, I don't so much disagree but rather believed there was a connection between your expectations and the effect on your experience. And although it's a fair example, if the lighting crew screw up and that detracts from your experience, that's probably something you can't control because you had expectations that the lights would be working properly and thought nothing of it until it went wrong. It's a little bit different if your preconceived idea about the backing tracks or whatever, that you brought into that experience, was holding you back from enjoying the show because it'd be easier to enjoy it if you had few or no expectations about the effect the backing tracks will have your experience right? If they catch you off guard or if you formulate that they're not enjoyable while you're there well that is different. I only emphasised this point because I have a different experience regarding the backing tracks because they don't bother me and I think they enhance the show.
Firstly, it has absolutely nothing to do with expectations. If someone makes a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, adds ketchup into it, and serves it to you, it does not taste terrible because you didn't expect the ketchup. It tastes terrible because ketchup goes terrible in peanut butter and jelly.
Okay. But, doesn't this whole scenario involve a preconception about the ketchup tasting terrible with peanut butter and jelly? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to sell people on this sandwich, because I have my own, probably similar expectations about what that would be like, but if some one told me that it was a rainbow and fairy sandwich and I didn't know what those things tasted like together, hey, I don't know what my experience would be like. But I certainly don't know for sure if it would be terrible... Unless I had a preconceived notion that those things don't go well together.
Secondly, it's preposterous to say that you have total control over whether something you're experiencing is pleasurable or not. The only thing you have control over is your preconceived notions and your attitude. Beyond that, it's left up to the traits of the experience itself and your natural opinions of those traits. Whether you are served that sandwich hoping for it to be delicious, really wanting to like it, or expecting it to be terrible, either way it's gonna suck.
Also, if you say "I believe DT already have their own performance integrity" you don't really understand the meaning of the word, because integrity is entirely objective (The house will either fall over or it won't). Maybe what you mean to say is that what DT consider integrated is in disagreement with what I would consider integrated. In that case, then we'd have a discussion because we could debate which definition is actually true.
Alright. Let me correct myself if I ever worded it that we have total control over how we experience something, I was trying to say we're responsible for how we feel about something, and it's possible to change how you feel about anything; (and so, have at least some control over how you feel about something you're actively experiencing) IF you change your definition of what it means to you (preconceptions, expectations?). And I do agree that we have total control over the preconceived notions that we bring into it, which was the the point I was trying to make. Meaning it has everything to do with expectations.
And I think it would be fair to assume that DTs integrity is objectively different from their, yours or my conception of it. I would proclaim that we can not determine which one is 'true' though because the answers would be relative.
-
I know for a fact Score's vocals were touched up at least a little. The only audience-shot footage I've seen from Score is about 5 30 second videos, and just with that I've heard about 6 or 7 notes that were different from how they sound on the DVD. One of which wasn't even a mistake or anything, just an unnecessary change to make it slightly more like the studio version.
Okay, well, if they're changing things unnecessarily, ESPECIALLY to make them sound more like the studio version, then I definitely do NOT want to see those types of changes.
-
This assumption that the backing track is a big part of what we are hearing live is just that: an assumption. It has no basis in reality.
I think it all depends on what you consider "big". It's definitely present enough that in a recent video, when James held the microphone to the audience so they sing, you clearly heard James' voice still singing, because they had used the regular vocal track to fill in the chorus, but had mixed it so high into the performance that it sounded he was still singing. That's not everybody's cup of tea.
Yeah, it's definitely a point of view thing. I guess, for me, based on my previous posts, I'm curious why someone would want to let it effect their experience. I respect that people have preferences, but I still like to know why it bothers them so much. :lol Which I think is a question that relates to the source of these differences between our experiences. And most of the opinions on the matter, tend to stem from a certain expectation about the presentation, or a preconception on the way things 'should be done' for the performance to be 'real', authentic, entertaining or whatevs.
Just FYI, it's not the end of the world for me either. I think it's just lamentable in the grander scheme of things, that DT has switched to this external reliance (clicks, backing tracks) in their shows. They're still great shows, mind you, just a bit less personal.
I appreciate this. I guess it could be considered unfortunate that DT can't present shows to the same level without external reliance. But at this point it's all what ifs and maybes because this is the way DT present their shows atm, and it's not like there are alternative performances where they're lacking these features for us to get upset about, because they always use them now, until that happens it's a bit of a non issue. I mean, they already have heavy external reliance on electric guitars and keyboards with very specific presets that if the right preparations weren't made, could potentially be far more of a detraction from the experience than relying on clicks or backing tracks because most of us have a much higher expectation about the way we think the music should sound.
Of course, I'm still only exploring possibilities on why this bothers some individuals to the point where they feel the experience is being cheapened in some way. Perhaps similarly; some people hate electric guitars because acoustic guitars are the only 'real' authentic sound. As if the technique or musicianship of an electric guitar player is comparatively not as skillful (just as a notion for why someone might believe this to be true). Same deal with digital keyboard patches and 'real' pianos. So, is there a point where the details effect the listener's experience? Certainly, but it's got to be highly connected to the listeners/viewers beliefs, perspectives, personal definitions that they bring into the equation.
-
I'll say this, I think the golden days of vocal delivery are somewhat over for James, and any official live release will need some editing. He's still standing his ground after 20 years (and impressively so), but I think it's also kinda obvious that he is the weakest link in their performances at this point.
-
Whoa whoa whoa, first of all, when I say "tampered with" I am most certainly not referring to EQ or reverb effects and such. That's just part of mixing/ mastering. Yes technically you could call that "tampering", but I'm pretty sure no one here is referring to that (right?). I only mean re-recording or tuning any section of vocals. Sorry for the misunderstanding, if there is one!
Fair enough, I didn't realise it was completely assumed because a lot of people have been mentioning a completely authentic live experience, and I guess I was just trying to say it's never quite like that anyway because there are normally necessary changes to make when considering live playback.
Point #2, I'm actually really surprised people would disagree with me on this!
Haha, I appreciate where you were coming from with the lighting example, I don't so much disagree but rather believed there was a connection between your expectations and the effect on your experience. And although it's a fair example, if the lighting crew screw up and that detracts from your experience, that's probably something you can't control because you had expectations that the lights would be working properly and thought nothing of it until it went wrong. It's a little bit different if your preconceived idea about the backing tracks or whatever, that you brought into that experience, was holding you back from enjoying the show because it'd be easier to enjoy it if you had few or no expectations about the effect the backing tracks will have your experience right? If they catch you off guard or if you formulate that they're not enjoyable while you're there well that is different. I only emphasised this point because I have a different experience regarding the backing tracks because they don't bother me and I think they enhance the show.
Firstly, it has absolutely nothing to do with expectations. If someone makes a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, adds ketchup into it, and serves it to you, it does not taste terrible because you didn't expect the ketchup. It tastes terrible because ketchup goes terrible in peanut butter and jelly.
Okay. But, doesn't this whole scenario involve a preconception about the ketchup tasting terrible with peanut butter and jelly? Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to sell people on this sandwich, because I have my own, probably similar expectations about what that would be like, but if some one told me that it was a rainbow and fairy sandwich and I didn't know what those things tasted like together, hey, I don't know what my experience would be like. But I certainly don't know for sure if it would be terrible... Unless I had a preconceived notion that those things don't go well together.
Secondly, it's preposterous to say that you have total control over whether something you're experiencing is pleasurable or not. The only thing you have control over is your preconceived notions and your attitude. Beyond that, it's left up to the traits of the experience itself and your natural opinions of those traits. Whether you are served that sandwich hoping for it to be delicious, really wanting to like it, or expecting it to be terrible, either way it's gonna suck.
Also, if you say "I believe DT already have their own performance integrity" you don't really understand the meaning of the word, because integrity is entirely objective (The house will either fall over or it won't). Maybe what you mean to say is that what DT consider integrated is in disagreement with what I would consider integrated. In that case, then we'd have a discussion because we could debate which definition is actually true.
Alright. Let me correct myself if I ever worded it that we have total control over how we experience something, I was trying to say we're responsible for how we feel about something, and it's possible to change how you feel about anything; (and so, have at least some control over how you feel about something you're actively experiencing) IF you change your definition of what it means to you (preconceptions, expectations?). And I do agree that we have total control over the preconceived notions that we bring into it, which was the the point I was trying to make. Meaning it has everything to do with expectations.
And I think it would be fair to assume that DTs integrity is objectively different from their, yours or my conception of it. I would proclaim that we can not determine which one is 'true' though because the answers would be relative.
Thanks for carrying on this conversation! About the preconceived notions/ expectations- what I'm trying to say is that even if someone said I'll make you a sandwich and it'll be a surprise what's on it, it's still gonna be bad once you bight into it. I can go to the concert expecting the backing tracks to be good, bad, or not even expecting there to be backing tracks, and either way their presence will disconnect me from the emotion a little; detracting from the experience.
So basically- "if your preconceived idea about the backing tracks or whatever, that you brought into that experience, was holding you back from enjoying the show because it'd be easier to enjoy it if you had few or no expectations about the effect the backing tracks will have your experience right?" Not in this case because the backing tracks will detract whether I have preconceived notions or not. However, if I went in to the show expecting to see Octavarium, and left disappointed that I didn't, then yes the preconceived notion would have held me back from enjoying the experience fully. That is why you should really never go in with preconceived notions unless it's something you've already done before (in which case I'm not sure would even still be called a preconceived notion).
-
I know for a fact Score's vocals were touched up at least a little. The only audience-shot footage I've seen from Score is about 5 30 second videos, and just with that I've heard about 6 or 7 notes that were different from how they sound on the DVD. One of which wasn't even a mistake or anything, just an unnecessary change to make it slightly more like the studio version.
Okay, well, if they're changing things unnecessarily, ESPECIALLY to make them sound more like the studio version, then I definitely do NOT want to see those types of changes.
At certain parts I'd say they definitely are, at least to me. The part in Score I heard was the word "told" in "I was told if you dream of the next world" which was just hit as one note but on the DVD you hear "TOoold" (two notes) just like the album. Just one other example is that the "Haaaaand" in "Shaman take my haaand" originally had big vibrato and they re-recorded it without vibrato. And I think I already mentioned that they changed something in TROAE where I actually like the way it is in the audience recording WAAY more than I do on the DVD.
-
At certain parts I'd say they definitely are, at least to me. The part in Score I heard was the word "told" in "I was told if you dream of the next world" which was just hit as one note but on the DVD you hear "TOoold" (two notes) just like the album. Just one other example is that the "Haaaaand" in "Shaman take my haaand" originally had big vibrato and they re-recorded it without vibrato. And I think I already mentioned that they changed something in TROAE where I actually like the way it is in the audience recording WAAY more than I do on the DVD.
Okay, you're the one who started the topic by saying you want no changes at all for the new DVD. You're not helping your case, dude. :lol
-
I hope they erase the vocals completely.
All the best DT sections are instrumental; imagine if they were instrumental all the time!!!
-
I hope they erase the vocals completely.
All the best DT sections are instrumental; imagine if they were instrumental all the time!!!
lol
-
If there are a few off-key moments or screw-ups, just fix them. I've heard a lot of fans praise James in the concert threads this year, so there probably isn't a whole lot of stuff that needs to be edited. I understand why some people want no overdubs, but fixing live albums in the studio has been normal ever since the 70s (maybe even before that). But as Marco said on the first page, there are always bootlegs if you want to hear recordings that are 100% live.
-
I hope they erase the vocals completely.
All the best DT sections are instrumental; imagine if they were instrumental all the time!!!
Well, if Portnoy would have had it his way...
-
Please... don't start that.
-
I hope they erase the vocals completely.
All the best DT sections are instrumental; imagine if they were instrumental all the time!!!
I know this was a joke post, but for BCSL, for which an instrumental-only version exists, this is actually not too far-fetched. There's quite a few sections on that album where just instrumental works better than with vocals.
-
If DT were an all-instrumental band, they wouldn't have even half the number of fans they have now :P
-
I hope they erase the vocals completely.
All the best DT sections are instrumental; imagine if they were instrumental all the time!!!
I know this was a joke post, but for BCSL, for which an instrumental-only version exists, this is actually not too far-fetched. There's quite a few sections on that album where just instrumental works better than with vocals.
For me, that would work better because of the questionable lyric choices, not because of James himself.
-
I hope they erase the vocals completely.
All the best DT sections are instrumental; imagine if they were instrumental all the time!!!
I know this was a joke post, but for BCSL, for which an instrumental-only version exists, this is actually not too far-fetched. There's quite a few sections on that album where just instrumental works better than with vocals.
But that version also didn't have any solos.
-
I hope they erase the vocals completely.
All the best DT sections are instrumental; imagine if they were instrumental all the time!!!
I know this was a joke post, but for BCSL, for which an instrumental-only version exists, this is actually not too far-fetched. There's quite a few sections on that album where just instrumental works better than with vocals.
But that version also didn't have any solos.
Forgot about that.
-
Forgot about that.
Although I'm sure there are people out there who'd say that AROP benefited from that as well. ::)
And then, of course, there are the stems, so people can mix it any way they like.
-
Well, I'm not a fan of AROP in any way, so even though I'm not crazy about the Bebot solo, I don't necessarily think the song would be improved by removing it, or replacing it with a different solo. May as well leave it in there.
-
Most of the time I don't like DT lyrics, so I'd rather just hear the songs instrumentally (which is why I'm signed up anyway), but that's only true of recent albums. I would still want to hear everything from images and words with lyrics.
-
I hope they erase the vocals completely.
All the best DT sections are instrumental; imagine if they were instrumental all the time!!!
I know this was a joke post, but for BCSL, for which an instrumental-only version exists, this is actually not too far-fetched. There's quite a few sections on that album where just instrumental works better than with vocals.
For me, that would work better because of the questionable lyric choices, not because of James himself.
Interestingly, I'm actually not making a statement about James at all. I would say his singing is one of his best on BCSL.
It's just that when you listen to BCSL instrumental, you notice how "complete" the tunes are without the vocals. And I think that was a function of how they used to write their albums, with the music completely written and tracked, and then James would fly in.
-
Interestingly, I'm actually not making a statement about James at all.
MP on the other hand.
-
Please... don't start that.
Ugh, this.
-
I'm choosing no changes at all. Mostly because what I really want out of a live DVD is a quality recording of that live performance, just like I was there, but I can watch it over and over. Also I have taken into account that (from what I know) LaBrie probably did really well that night, and there are probably a few bum notes here and there at most. Not to mention, for me it tends to distract from the listening/watching experience when I find myself constantly asking myself "Do you think that note was real?? How about that one?" because I just always tend to wonder about that stuff.
Edit: I'd like to add that I'm 100% sure the DVD will be awesome whatever is done to it, but I still find this topic to be an important and interesting one to discuss.
Can't agree more!