i worked as a professional sound engineer for 30 years so i consider myself to be qualified in this matter. I was watching a concert of BEYONCE live at the BBC on new years eve and think it is an insult to say it's live. There was so much coming from tape it's a joke.
As a music lover I have many DVD's of live concerts and I can't say one of them is really only live. They have all been re-worked in the studio, not just the sound but the performances of the individual musicians and singers. there are also tons of overdubs made to make things sound like the original recording. What's the point in calling it live, when t's not.
2007-01-03 03:31:05 · 12 answers · asked by curlyloxx 3 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
I agree wholeheartedly, i find it insulting that entertainers such as beyonce sing one recording of their music (which is usually written for them by someone else) then spend the rest of their career lip sync-ing that same recording in supposed "live" concerts, and these entertainers are refered to as "musical artists"! In my opinion a musical artist is someone that has musical talent i.e. writes their own songs and perhaps plays an instrument unless of course youre a singer in which case you should at least have respect enough for your fans to sing to them live as opposed to deluding them, which lets face it is whats happening.
2007-01-03 03:43:20 · answer #1 · answered by keeganvanhendrix 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree, the last time I even heard a bum note played on stage was in 1984, mind you that was the Grateful Dead so we have to make allowances I suppose.
What we are witnessing nowadays is very similar to a "karaoke" type performance. there's just too much money involved nowadays. And the audiences are totally naive because they expect the concert to sound EXACTLY like the recording so it's a "no win" situation.
What is REALLY scary is to go into your local pub and see a real band of real, imperfect people. They have to talk to each other, tune up, and even say "one two three four" before starting to play. It actually looks weird to see this nowadays. But the fact that they are actually playing in real time, and risking making a mistake in front of an audience, makes their music more enjoyable I think.
I remember we had a local pub and every week a local band would play there. One week, this guy turns up with a girl singer. They put a tape recorder on a chair, and switched it on. Then they both played along with the tape recorder!! - I can't begin to tell you how offended we all were. Less than a year later the same person is on the Old Grey whistle Test being introduced as the best new band of the year. Name- Cocteau Twins. So what do I know?
2007-01-03 03:48:23 · answer #2 · answered by Not Ecky Boy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
True to some extent. But if you listen to manufactured pop like beyonce then thats exactly what you can expect. I think everyone over 12 years old realises this, and i'm sure you do.
I used to roadie for a few bands ( no name dropping ) and gigged myself for a couple of years, and it was all live.
sure the sounds may get levelled in the studio. But the actually playing of the instruments ( in real bands ) is live for decent bands.
This would be true of Pretenders, U2, Thin Lizzy, REM, Eurythmics, PFloyd, BOC and all real bands like that.
Pop stuff like Beyonce ? Who cares, its rubbish anyway - live or tape won't make it any better.
2007-01-03 03:44:30 · answer #3 · answered by Michael H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I dont know about any others but one band who have seen a dozen times is Status Quo and they are completely LIVE! I was given thier DVD for christmas and it is exactly as the concert looked and sounded because I was there. Thay dont have costume changes, stupid sets and a load of wallies prancing around on the stage they just go out do what they do and it is FANTASTIC!!!!!! There is ONLY ONE bit of backing tape and that is Francis' echo on the "never" in Never say Never from the Heavy Traffic album. I totally understand where your coming from recent groups seem to pay too much attention on wot everything looks like rather than why you want to see them..... Their Music!
2007-01-03 06:20:20 · answer #4 · answered by Rick chick 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it's more common for a pop act to not be live because of all the producing and mixing that is required to produced a track like that. you rarely see the band or whoever's producing the music, you just hear the music and hope that the singer isn't lipsynching. one of the reasons why they would be lipsynching is because they might have to be dancing to their music, thus taking up lots of energy and thus they won't be able to sing well. another reason is probably b/c they can't reproduce what they didin the studio live.
but for rock acts like U2, it's definitely all live. you can hear them make mistakes all the time, and with bono's spontaneity at their live shows, it simply cannot be planned and scripted. sometimes they play their songs over backing tracks that they have previosuly recorded for a more textured, layered, sound, but this is the real deal, man =)
2007-01-04 13:24:29 · answer #5 · answered by inocntgrl012 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's too polished, and it loses its authenticity.
Some artists refuse to do this, but usually the big name acts have to make decisions based on sales, because the record company is tightening their grip on the artist.
What artist would want to be held in breach of contract with a big record label and their team of lawyers?
The kicker is that the majority of music fans don't know the difference, and can't really tell when all of these things are done to the DVD.
I'm a musician, and I can tell, and I chose to buy the DVD concerts where this is not done.
.
.
2007-01-03 03:36:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
To perform truely live, as like say 'The Beatles' gave some bad sounds, bad singing, bad guitaring etc. but gave a lot of edge to their live performance which makes these performances amazing to listen to again.
But if any of the artists did the same now they would get slated by everyone for not being perfect due to the high standards we expect. They are only giving what the crowds want.
Its live because they are there! but I do agree with you
2007-01-03 03:37:47 · answer #7 · answered by brian h 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i agree and disagree with u mate i have seen u2 in concert and the videos or DVDs that they sell are genuine and they are amazing live anyway so there would be no point of ripping of the fans that by the gear but i agree that there is bands out there who just want to make a buck or two and con the people that by there stuff
2007-01-04 04:25:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I honestly think, the best version of "Bomber" by Motorhead is the live version, (The studio version of that is horrendous, not as fast, not as loud!) But certain songs sound better live, others sound better in the studio
2007-01-03 03:38:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
who cares. just sit back and enjoy. an artist has to be made to sound their best, if some of the recording artiste can be classed as any good at all.
2007-01-03 05:03:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋