Fixing live albums before release

[Setlist Scotty]

Thought I'd start this thread based on the discussion going on in the Rich Chycki/Back to Budokan thread, though this could apply to live albums in general. (I apologize if this has been discussed - did a search and couldn't find any threads.) So what are your thoughts?

Me personally, I don't mind some fixes, but I don't want it to be studio perfect, as I think it defeats the idea behind doing a live album in the first place. So I went with option 3.

[bosk1]

Yeah, that option probably best fits me as well.  I don't mind some touchup.  I want to hear the live performance.  But I have no problem in the band taking pride in the product and wanting it to be really, really good.  And truth be told, that often makes for more relistenability. 

[Stadler]

My problem is that I have favorites that are all of the above.   

I do know that I'd rather have a live album that is a complete show than a live album - like "Exit Stage Left" that is a compilation of live tracks out of context. 

[jingle.boy]

My problem is that I have favorites that are all of the above.   

I do know that I'd rather have a live album that is a complete show than a live album - like "Exit Stage Left" that is a compilation of live tracks out of context.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the ESL and Chaos in Motion approach.  However, things like Operation:Livecrime are ok, as it's filmed and mixed to seem like it's a single show... and the use of multiple nights was just to get the best of the best.  I'm ok with that option, or if there is only one-night filmed/recorded, fixing the major problems only.  Sure, L@Marquee is highly re-listenable, but I don't go back to it much cuz I know it's a glorified studio release.

[Samsara]

Thought I'd start this thread based on the discussion going on in the Rich Chycki/Back to Budokan thread, though this could apply to live albums in general. (I apologize if this has been discussed - did a search and couldn't find any threads.) So what are your thoughts?

Me personally, I don't mind some fixes, but I don't want it to be studio perfect, as I think it defeats the idea behind doing a live album in the first place. So I went with option 3.

I'm with you completely, Scott.

[pg1067]

I initially voted that I want it like it happened, but then I changed to the next option based on the examples given (someone'e keys going out, etc.).  My basic take is that, if stuff is bad and needs "fixing," then don't release the album at all.  I don't know if that's a fiscally practical attitude, but it's how I feel as a fan.  For example, Exit...Stage Left is not a good live album.  It just doesn't sound "live" (aside from the crowd noise at the beginning and end of each track and the occasional song introduction by Geddy).  I assume that's because there's a bunch of studio "fixing," and it doesn't help that it's "a compilation of live tracks out of context."  By contrast, All the World's a Stage is a really good live album because it sounds "live."

[King Postwhore]

That is a whole other subject.  Different from fixing live albums.  I myself prefer a rawness to live albums.

I also think the less I know the better off I am for enjoyment.

[Orbert]

Warts and all, no fixing whatsoever.  I want to hear the show exactly as it went down.

[Peter Mc]

Not sure which one to go for. The thing for me is that, above all, I want it to sound good, I want to enjoy listening to it as I always have with most DT live albums, even the official bootleg covers albums. I also want to believe that this is what it sounded like on the night. I don’t want to know it’s been fixed. For example I’d rather not know that JLB’s vocals on The Marquee album were all recorded separately in the studio (if I heard the story correctly).

Basically then, I want the illusion of it being a true document of the show but I also want it to sound really good. Not saying I want it so overly tinkered with that it doesn’t sound live anymore, but I don’t want it to sound so jarring that it’s basically a waste of money and I never listen to it. Score is a great example in that, to me, it sounds like a live album and I’ve listened to/watched it countless times. I’ve also heard people say that they were at the show and JLB did not sound as awesome on the night as he does on the album so I’m guessing things have been fixed a little but it’s never been confirmed and I already fell in love with the album before I heard about mistakes getting fixed.

Fix it to the point where it sounds good and don’t tell me about it.

I will slightly caveat all that by saying that I don’t want to be misled totally to the point where I go to see a band live and it bears no resemblance to their live releases. If you’re a shit live band, don’t release live albums.  That’s not the case with DT though, they sound incredible live (or at least they have whenever I’ve seen them) so their live albums should reflect that and if they need fixing to do that then so be it.

[Cool Chris]

Warts and all, no fixing whatsoever.  I want to hear the show exactly as it went down.

But can it ever get to a point where the warts are so bad, fixing them is the lesser of two bad options?

[Orbert]

No.  If you fuck up that badly, don't release that performance.  Record two or three nights, and pick the best one.  That's the only exception, I guess.  The songs don't all have to come from the same night, but each song must be unaltered.  Blend the audience noise so that the illusion of it being a concert is preserved.

If you record two or three nights and you fuck up the same song every time so badly that you're embarassed to release it on a live album, then don't release it on a live album.  Apparently you went 0-for-3 trying to play the damned song right.

Speaking of audience noise, there seems to be another trend, which is "sweetening" the audience sounds.  Fuck that.  It's distracting.  Put a couple of mikes out there to pick up audience ambiance.  Don't add fake crowd noise, that's just stupid.  For God's sake, bands were able to do this 40 years ago, why can't they do it now?

[Zydar]

I really don't mind if they fix up some stuff. If I wanted a completely untouched warts and all recording from a concert, I might as well listen to some audience bootleg or something (which I never do).

I don't want to pay for an inferior and flawed product, is what I'm saying 

[MirrorMask]

Excellent and well thought options, but I have a hard time picking just one. I'd say something like "Record a single show, fix the unlucky stuff like rigs going down or the singer missing a line because an  over zealous fan threw a shirt on stage, and keep the rest". There are good live albums both from a single show and from multiple ones, but I prefer a single show, to relive the precise experience (especially if I have been there).

[ReaperKK]

I went with the second option of fixing mistakes that were out of the control of the band, such as guitars going out, keys stopped working, strings breaking. Although sometimes even that stuff can be left in if played right, take "Trains' from Porcupine Tree on Arriving Somewhere DVD where Steve Wilson breaks a string, they left it in and it sounded good and brought humor to the show.

I am torn about editing parts. I remember growing up and listening to comfortably number on the PULSE album and was blown away how great the solo is, but then I heard the unedited version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlX1WcLu-wY skip to the 7:10 mark. I've heard other nights from that tour and they were great just didn't click on that night on that song for him. What do you do in that situation? The Pulse album was a collection of live tracks from multiple nights but I'm assuming the video recording was a one shot deal.

[Stadler]

But again, while I agree with most things here, there's this:

Option 1:  The Dead's "Dave's Picks" sets are AWESOME. Mike's "clam" on Genesis Live! and Phil's voice crack on "Fountain..." from 3SL are now a part of the piece for me.  Made In Japan (Purple). 
Option 2:  I really like some of the live Lamb material from Gabriel that has him basically re-recording a good part of his vocal because of his costume issues; "Unleashed In The East" from Priest is legendary, even though Halford recorded his vocals on a porch somewhere because he was sick during the tour.
Option 3: Led Zeppelin's "The Song Remains The Same" is an essential live document, but there are so many edits that there is a whole website dedicated to it.   "Pulse" and "Dedicated Sound Of Thunder" are both examples here too.
Option 4: All The World's A Stage.
Option 5: Too many to count, but Kiss Alive! maybe?   Cheap Trick "At Budokan".

[KevShmev]

Warts and all, no fixing whatsoever.  I want to hear the show exactly as it went down.

This. It’s not a true live record if you have to fix anything.

[ChuckSteak]

I don't really care. That are some albums with a lot of fixing and edits that I love and some with no edits at all that I love too. But if I really had to choose, I would rather have it without fixing.

[The Curious Orange]

I'd rather have a "warts and all" live album. If mistakes happen, leave 'em in. If it's a real mess, then release another night. Marillion's "Family" live album has a wonderful moment where Steve Hogarth tries and fails to hit the high notes at the end of "Afraid of Sunlight". I have enormous respect for the band for leaving that in, it would have been so easy to correct it.

But I get that some bands want their live albums to be perfect. They don't want to come across to new and potential fans in a bad light. I'm OK with tinkering, so long as it's not noticeable. Older live albums often had some real clunky edits, modern technology makes the tinkering less obvious.

Then there's the other end of the spectrum - the excessive audience noise on the recent Yes featuring ARW set. Why? Why would you do that? I'm also aware of "live" albums that were recorded in the studio with canned applause added - again, why??

[mikeyd23]

I'd say Option 3

[Cool Chris]

I'd rather have a "warts and all" live album. If mistakes happen, leave 'em in. If it's a real mess, then release another night. Marillion's "Family" live album has a wonderful moment where Steve Hogarth tries and fails to hit the high notes at the end of "Afraid of Sunlight".

But it also matters how the end result plays out. If, using your example, he misses the note but the line still comes our reasonably well, then that is different than missing a note and sounding like a strangled cat in doing so. (Now as the Marillion singer sounds like a strangled cat anyway, this is not the best example...). Just trying to say there is a gray area between a missed note and a butchered vocal line, just as there is between a flub in guitar solo, and completely butchering it.

If you record two or three nights and you fuck up the same song every time so badly that you're embarassed to release it on a live album, then don't release it on a live album.  Apparently you went 0-for-3 trying to play the damned song right.

Good point. So what do you when that song you keep butchering is Iron Maiden if you are Iron Maiden, or hell even Comfortably Numb if you are David Gilmour. You play that song at every damn show, you can't just leave it off the live CD/DVD.

Don't add fake crowd noise, that's just stupid.  For God's sake, bands were able to do this 40 years ago, why can't they do it now?

I thought they have ben adding/tweaking audience noise for decades?

[Grappler]

I think it's truly a case by case basis.  Slayer's Decade of Aggression is a full-on, "this is a live representation of us, take it or leave it" with no changes.  But Halford's Live Insurrection took a few rare songs played only in soundcheck (The One You Love to Hate, with Bruce Dickinson for one) and added some crowd noise to it.  It was a live performance by the band, just not in front of the live audience.  I don't think you can discredit a double live album from Halford for saying "hey, we played these two songs in soundcheck and used some studio magic to give them to you in addition to the other 20+ songs"

[Ben_Jamin]

If a band messes up bad, like the music stops bad, that's fine for a DVD where you are watching the show, as is, live. They waste time on a cd when you're listening. Which is why Alice In Chains left out Layne singing the wrong lyrics on the cd but left it on the DVD, from their Unplugged show. I'm sure Steven Wilson left him breaking his string off of the cd from Arriving Somewhere.

So for me, I'd rather the dvd/blu-ray be uncut, and raw. The live cd, I don't mind a few minor touchups. Its more easier to pick up fixes on dvds/blu-rays because sometimes it doesn't look right to what I'm hearing. While on cd, its not unless you were there, or you found out somehow its been tampered with.

[Stadler]

I think it's truly a case by case basis.  Slayer's Decade of Aggression is a full-on, "this is a live representation of us, take it or leave it" with no changes.  But Halford's Live Insurrection took a few rare songs played only in soundcheck (The One You Love to Hate, with Bruce Dickinson for one) and added some crowd noise to it.  It was a live performance by the band, just not in front of the live audience.  I don't think you can discredit a double live album from Halford for saying "hey, we played these two songs in soundcheck and used some studio magic to give them to you in addition to the other 20+ songs"

About a quarter of Kiss Alive II is from soundcheck. 

[Orbert]

If a band messes up bad, like the music stops bad, that's fine for a DVD where you are watching the show, as is, live. They waste time on a cd when you're listening. Which is why Alice In Chains left out Layne singing the wrong lyrics on the cd but left it on the DVD, from their Unplugged show. I'm sure Steven Wilson left him breaking his string off of the cd from Arriving Somewhere.

So for me, I'd rather the dvd/blu-ray be uncut, and raw. The live cd, I don't mind a few minor touchups. Its more easier to pick up fixes on dvds/blu-rays because sometimes it doesn't look right to what I'm hearing. While on cd, its not unless you were there, or you found out somehow its been tampered with.

That's an interesting distinction, and one I hadn't really considered.  The CD is all about the listening experience, whereas the DVD/BR is more immersive by virtue of the video content.  I suppose in that sense, the video is more of a "you are there" thing, and I would thus be more tolerant of screw-ups, because those can and do happen.  But I wouldn't want to listen to the results of that screw-up every time, and I tend to listen to live albums much more often than I have time to watch concert videos.

[cramx3]

Option #2

Id rather things be as is, but I also don't really want a major fuck up on the live release such as the example given.  Also, some live albums are great that were in options 3 and 4 so it's not like I wont enjoy a live release thats taken from multiple nights or that were heavily fixed, but for my personal preference, I'd like less fixing and more of the raw music from the single show.

[TAC]

Option #2

Id rather things be as is, but I also don't really want a major fuck up on the live release such as the example given.  Also, some live albums are great that were in options 3 and 4 so it's not like I wont enjoy a live release thats taken from multiple nights or that were heavily fixed, but for my personal preference, I'd like less fixing and more of the raw music from the single show.

Yup, I picked #2 as well.

[El Barto]

Speaking of audience noise, there seems to be another trend, which is "sweetening" the audience sounds.  Fuck that.  It's distracting.  Put a couple of mikes out there to pick up audience ambiance.  Don't add fake crowd noise, that's just stupid.  For God's sake, bands were able to do this 40 years ago, why can't they do it now?

Seems to me they were much worse about it 40 years ago. Has anybody done it worse than Unleashed in the East? I've pretty much come to accept that if a live album has anything Japanese it its title it's going to have fake crowd noise in it.

[Adami]

I think, ultimately, it matters if you're concerned more with respecting a principled band or being able to listen to the album over and over.

This doesn't apply to minor mess ups, but more to ones that get in the way.

We might respect the band that releases a "warts and all" album, but how often would we want to listen to that album? I'd suspect not terribly often.

Like I said, this is more about big mistakes, rather than human error ones. Not every singer needs to be perfect 100% of the time, but if LaBrie went for that F# and hit a very strong E, I sure know that that live version will be quickly out of my rotation. You know?

[TAC]

Nothing is worse for piped in crowd noise than BTFW.

[Stadler]

Speaking of audience noise, there seems to be another trend, which is "sweetening" the audience sounds.  Fuck that.  It's distracting.  Put a couple of mikes out there to pick up audience ambiance.  Don't add fake crowd noise, that's just stupid.  For God's sake, bands were able to do this 40 years ago, why can't they do it now?

Seems to me they were much worse about it 40 years ago. Has anybody done it worse than Unleashed in the East? I've pretty much come to accept that if a live album has anything Japanese it its title it's going to have fake crowd noise in it.

Even though it's their biggest moment, listening to Cheap Trick (mainly Rick and Bun E.) talk now about the added crowd noise on the original Budokan and the Budokan Complete, I almost feel sorry for them.   A little.  Not really.  But still.   

[Orbert]

I guess I'm just spoiled.  My very first album was a live album, Chicago at Carnegie Hall, which is known for being 100% live.  No overdubs, no editing, no audience sweetening.  And it sounds fucking fantastic.  1971.  Another early one in my collection was Emerson Lake & Palmer's Welcome Back, My Friends... which also is 100% live.  1974.  Sound quality is not as great, but it sounds like you're sitting in the audience, which to me is the point.

My buddies were into Kiss and Rush and more "normal" rock bands and their live albums had the crowd screaming the entire time, while the band is trying to talk, between songs, during the songs, basically all the time.  I started to feel like okay, I must be really boring because if I were there, I'd rather everyone sit down and shut the fuck up so I could hear the concert, which is kinda the whole point, right?  I found out later that Kiss and Rush and everyone else added all kinds of shit to their live albums and edited the hell out of them.  Maybe I'm still the boring one, but I'd rather just hear the concert, and yeah, apparently I prefer bands that can actually play their songs live and not need to edit them or add a bunch of fake crowd noise to make it seem more exciting.

[ErHaO]

I prefer patched up over riddled with mistakes, as long as the final product is representative for the band/tour. But for any professional artist, I assume a show won't be riddled with mistakes. But if a vocalist in particular is sick, I'd rather have it be listenable than a horrible mess.

Overall, my preferred method of fixing is probably recording several nights and picking the best material from those. I can deal with slight mistakes. Hell, sometimes they add to the charm depending on the type of music. But overall, I prefer them doing some studio magic when necessary.

In general, one take that is good enough for release is offcourse the best, but unfortunately there have been many examples where patching up was required, including several releases by the band this forum is tied to.

[ytserush]

If it's a major train wreck and they document how and what they fixed then I wouldn't have a problem with it.

More than a few of those and the slope starts getting slippery....