Different acoustics and the lack of studio hardware to enhance and alter the sound.
2007-04-08 11:25:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
there are a lot of ways to modify a person's voice when recording in a studio. For the most part, it's the acoustics in the studio. it's all the best quality made to be sure the singer sounds the best they can. when they're live, it is a large, sometimes open area where the sound is emitted through amplifiers that don't always give the best sound. plus, the singer could be tired and out of breath, things like that.
sometimes they're just fake. lol
2007-04-08 11:28:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Partly, there is a lot of post-processsing and studio effects involved in the studio recording, also lots of overdubbing, different equipment and such, Live, they use the same settings all the way through, the microphones are different, the ambience of the location affects the sound, so do the people, the speakers are not your home stereo, etc. But as for the voice, it is mainly a very different type of microphone, a very different environment from the studio, and way fewer effects on the vocals (compression, equilization, reverb/delay - the first to come to mind).
2007-04-08 11:27:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I believe that a live performance really shows the true talent of a band. A band that goes out there and does the same thing as their album shows they don't have as much creative talent, the talent it takes to tastefully improvise on a song. They have some talent but it takes them time and thought in the studio. The truly talented awesome musicians, like you said, transform their music...it sounds similar but its different, and awesome because they improvised on their work and made it different while still keeping the same rhythm and general feeling of the original song. Jimmy Page's ridiculous Stairway solos John Bonham's RETARDED 30 min drum solos on Moby Dick Jimi Hendrix, Eddie Van Halen, Stevie Ray Vaughn all these names are as huge as they are because they not only put out great records but when people went to see them they blew the house away...people spent money to pay and see multiple shows just to see what these greats did next, because no show was the same as the next
2016-04-01 04:04:51
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I heard Styx play live. The group created an image of being perfect singers. If you listen to the song Crystal Ball from the album you would believe it to be true. Live their backing singing is crap. James Young is the worst backing vocalist of all time. His high notes are hard on the ears, shrill, and awful. At one point in concert Dennis Deyoung looked pissed at James Young bad vocals. I maybe right. They go down in music history as the group that fooled people into thinking they were singing masters. They're 3 part harmonies live are like three wolves howling at a dog barking in the distance. Out of tune.
2016-08-27 18:48:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
all music is recorded using tracks and in a professional studio they have unlimited tracks to work with each track consists of different sounds played in sync sometimes up to a hundred times just for the vocals are guitar riff drums bass ext. in my studio i can play unlimited tracks but i try not to becouse of this reason when i play live it doesent sound the same the other reason it sounds deferent is becouse theres most likely a lot of noise and instruments played on the recording that they cant play live. sounds are also played backwards and forward with different effects for the exact same take to give the song a defferent fill personally i like to hear a band live when it sounds deferent its like hearing a your favorite band play a new song but its not
2007-04-16 11:30:36
·
answer #6
·
answered by threat 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because so many bands really just suck when they perform. It has been enhanced by the magic of the studio where they get to do it over and over again until they like it. then when they play live the truth is shown.
I used to get so dissapointed when a band i really ike was on saturday Night Live and They sounded nothing like the band I heard on the radio.
listen to better bands. Most bands that you have just heard of on the Radio or MTV really suck alot. Go see concerts and find your favorite band that way. The radio is a big dissapointment.
2007-04-16 07:59:39
·
answer #7
·
answered by J G 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
when in the studio bands have so many "tools" at their disposal. they can have any type of effect added to their voice or instruments. Also there engeneering and post production so that the record sounds better. While performing live most of the "tools" that are available in a studio are not available to the artists.
2007-04-16 10:19:45
·
answer #8
·
answered by mrkramer5 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
because in the studio it's done over & over & over in a closed environment 1 instrument at a time & live there are many elements of noise & it's done 1 time. If the band is good the Cd & live show should sound relatively the same.
2007-04-14 12:09:06
·
answer #9
·
answered by Dayna B 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because, what you hear on their CD's are edited in a recording studio.
When they play live and they sound like what they sound on their CD's, that might mean that they are lip singing. But some bands can just normally sing good on CD's & Live.
But other wise they enhance their voice in a studio to make it sound good and when they are live they sing as good as they can.
2007-04-08 11:28:42
·
answer #10
·
answered by Smiley face 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
When bands sing in a studio, their voices get altered so they sound better. When they sing live, there's no one to mess with their voice, so the audience hears what the band actually sounds like without alteration. Remember the whole Ashlee Simpson controversy? She sounded awful singing live and blamed it on bronchitis. o_O
2007-04-08 11:27:02
·
answer #11
·
answered by B² 2
·
1⤊
1⤋