advertisement


Emotion or Player Proficiency

G

gaspode

Member
I'v read a few of the comments here - various guitar sounds, classical recomentations, 3 albums, etc. - and it got me back to thinking about the different methods of valuing music.

My friends who are musicians tend to value those performances that are technically proficient - not always, but often.

I'm not a musician & all I care about is that it communicates with me emotionally. However that is the ultimate 'subjective' choice. Even from day to day I will connect with different music.

My experience of most of the classical recordings I have tried (not that many I'll admit) is that they tend towards accuracy over feeling. One reason I try to listen to the BBC Proms on the radio is because the live performance tends to speak to me. In fact I've found live performances by local orchestras or pub bands often mean more to me than top name performers 'going through the motions'.

So the point I wanted to come to is this - in my view studios & performers are increasingly encouraged to work towards technical accuracy rather than immediacy. I think this is killing music (especially classical).

Lets have more flawed performances with a live feel to them!

[OK guys n galls, now tell me what I've missed]
 
Hi gaspode

I couldn't agree more. It's the emotion invoking stuff that really touches the heart and most of the time it's live.

The one I will always remember was a massive steel drum and brass section on a makeshift stage at Alexandra Palace. I can't remember what the occassion was but they were just jamming to fill time. I has tears down my face from the sheer beauty of it.

AFAIK, White Stripes record their albums straight off, one take, warts an' all and they sound bloody good with the warts.

Mick
 
I remember seeing a program on TV ( Howard Goodall's "Big Bangs" IIRC ) where it was stated that a digitally mastered classical recording has more "cuts" in it than any other kind of recording.

He basically said that the finished article could have individual notes selected from over any number of takes.

Every other note, apart from the selected note, in the take could have been "bum" but the selected note is "perfect"

Talk about accuracy over emotion!
 
Yes - I remember that particular 'Big Bang' episode. I recall thinking that with that approach to recording music, someone had really missed the point. Technical perfection is all good and certainly admirable, but is not what tends to draw me into a performance. To manufacture recorded music in such a way would surely result in an 'anesthestised' end product.

I can't help but think this approach is driven by some sort of desire to produce the definitive recording of a piece; however, this appears to discount individual interpretation over the quest for the perfect note.
 
While strongly against the perfectionist approach often taken with classical music as outlined above, I think that to some degree, technical excellence is an important part of being a complete musician.

A lack of technical proficiency can lead to an artist struggling with the more technical aspects of a piece, to the exclusion of the emotional content -- often this can come across as a "technically excellent" performance which has something missing. The reason something was missing was because the artist wasn't up to it technically, so was unable to release him/her self to the task of expressing properly.

The truly excellent performer will simply handle the technical aspects, thus allowing themselves mental space to really feel the music. In this case therefore, technical competence = confidence = comfort, and the music emerges unscathed. Example: The Crusaders' "Rural Revival". They're all old, and they know their stuff backwards. They're all real experts, but all you notice is that everything just happens right, and it stirs you because they understand what they're doing, and they have great taste. There is a world of difference between this and a bunch of "experts" just going through the motions in a bored manner.

Best;

Mark
 
A live performance is a 'one-off', and technical mistakes can be tolerated without detracting from the enjoyment of the performance as a whole.

But a recording will probably be listened to over and over again. Mistakes that are not apparent or important on first hearing, become distracting from the enjoyment of the piece as you become more familiar. That's why so few 'live' ablums seem to work; you get pissed-off with the 'coughs' and 'banter' quite quickly.

So a good recording needs to be technically good and musically engaging; whereas a good concert just needs to press the right buttons.
 
I think this is the problem for me. Too many producers believe as you do Patrick. And for you it may well be true that those imperfections get in the way of the music. For me, I've recorded live performances from broadcasts, complete with coughs & other 'noises off' and still enjoyed repeated listening.

Far too many of the studio recording get left, ignored by me because they don't engage me.

I think many live rock bank albums (and indeed many live performances) suffer from the introduction of a professional sound engineer who believes good = loud. So I'd have to agree that there are more examples of poor live recordings than good ones.
 
Originally posted by Patrick Dixon
...a recording will probably be listened to over and over again. Mistakes that are not apparent or important on first hearing, become distracting from the enjoyment of the piece as you become more familiar.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's a very good point, which I hadn't thought of. Perhaps I'm incredibly lucky, but none of our live albums seem to contain any bloopers! They're probably full of them, in fact, but if we don't notice then it's irrelevant. To be fair, this is clearly much more of an issue in the classical milieu which tends to consist mostly of cover versions aimed at an audience who will often have an opinion as to what the original notes were. Contrasting this situation with our copy of King Crimson's "Earthbound", where the music is (shall we say) "loosely structured" and the differences are strongly apparent.

Having said that, the famous cock-up at the beginning of "Smoke on the Water" from "Made in Japan" could easily have been edited out without IMHO affecting the piece to any great extent. Hats off to those in charge for not doing this.

Other terrific live performances which appear not to have been over-edited and as a bonus manage excellent recording quality: (off the front of my brain, not definitive):

Stanley Clark & Friends: Live at the Greek
Eva Cassidy: Live at Blues Alley
Luther Allison: Live in Chicago
Supertramp: Live
Billy Cobham's Glass Menagerie: Smokin'
Hugh Masakela: Hope

Best;

Mark
 
Mark

Just listened to Made In Japan(Vinyl and CD). I couldn’t here any cock up at the start of Smoke On the Water. I know what you mean but I doubt it is a cock up.

Gaspode

I had originally agreed with your thoughts on your post, I too find recorded live music has that certain something studio recordings lack.
However listening to Made In Japan has made me realise you can have both emotion and technical proficiency. IMO Made In Japan is the greatest live rock record ever recorded and the playing is technically proficient to say the least.

The worst live album I have ever heard is Focus at the Rainbow. It’s not the mistakes that Jan Akkerman makes that spoil it. It’s the fact he is not playing in time with the rest of the band.
 
OK just to clarify my arguement - I don't think that all live performances are good, recorded or not. I do think that too many recorded performances are engineered to death. This applies to both rock/pop and to classical stuff.

My main concern in this is that I understand that sales of recorded classical music are continuing to drop. In my opinion it is at least partly because the performances fail to provide an emotional 'hook'.

The other element that was in my mind is that because emotional engagement is such a subjective thing, one persons moving performance will be anothers damp squib. Hence the topic on here about big names that never did it for some people.
 
I think the point is - is it supposed to sound that way? It's rather dispiriting to hear a musician reach for something and fail.

Good music making is like good business, you suceed by focusing on exploiting what you do best. Look at those DIY bands who could barely paly but did grroovy things with atmosphere and texture.

If you've good ideas but can't play in time you can still go all ambient or funky syncopation.
 
There are some technically very proficient guitarists playing in pubs and clubs up and down the land who will never achieve 'stardom' (be that a good thing or not?)

Some of these technically proficient players can leave one cold, whereas BB King playing 5 notes and pulling faces, grabs my attention.

Neil Young can't sing to save his life and is a pretty average guitarist; but sure as hell does it for me. That one note solo at the end of 'Southern Man' just works perfectly to express his anger.

As for technically proficient Opera singers - I have to leave the area!


The fascinating enigma of music.
 
As for technically proficient Opera singers - I have to leave the area!
Click to expand...

Callas is a prime example of emotion over technical perfection IMHO - and her recordings never fail to grab my attention and draw me in.
 
Originally posted by fatcat
I couldn’t here any cock up at the start of Smoke On the Water. I know what you mean but I doubt it is a cock up.
Click to expand...

I'm quite sure Richie Blackmore would back you up on this. I'm less certain that the rest of them would!

I too find recorded live music has that certain something studio recordings lack. However listening to Made In Japan has made me realise you can have both emotion and technical proficiency. IMO Made In Japan is the greatest live rock record ever recorded and the playing is technically proficient to say the least.
Click to expand...

Agree in spades.

The worst live album I have ever heard is Focus at the Rainbow. It’s not the mistakes that Jan Akkerman makes that spoil it. It’s the fact he is not playing in time with the rest of the band.
Click to expand...

Agree to an extent (I really love that album, so I'm very biased!). I saw them live on that tour, and they produced much better perfomances than the Rainbow one. He's spot on in some tracks though, particularly "Focus II" (last track first side) where he gives a hint to future directions. I swear you can hear the whole band grinning -- actually come to think of it, being able to hear this is what it's all about, classical, rock, live, studio, whatever.

Originally posted by gaspode
I do think that too many recorded performances are engineered to death. This applies to both rock/pop and to classical stuff.
Click to expand...

I completely agree, but much of this I suspect is down to cost. My wife borrowed a Seal CD the other day, and it sounded like a terrific singer doing his best with a load of backing tracks produced by a someone with a Mac and a copy of GarageBand. The last Joan Armatrading album was the same. Because of the way many of those notes are produced (samples or other species of fake), much of the music can only be assembled with the aid of computers and other nonsense, which often leads to idiotic comedy bass and hackneyed rhythms with far too many "sounds like" rim shots. Doing it this way of course reduces the head count of real musicians involved, which cuts the expenses, so quality artists like this end up with an album which finds its way swiftly to the 5 quid clear-out racks. It's subliminal -- people don't buy it because they don't like it. Most of them would be hard pushed however, to say exactly why.

At the other end of the scale, there are those who manage a excellent live feel even in the studio. The aforementioned Crusaders album, and also "I Smell Smoke" by the (IMHO) incomparable Michael Burks, are good examples of this. Unsurprisingly, they both credit real musicians, and just a single studio each. Street selling prices are consistently over 15 quid (more in HMV, of course!).

Best;

Mark
 
Thought about this for days.... I dunno! Just a lot of thoughts in diverse directions. I love to hear a real virtuoso perform musical somersaults, but I'm probably even more moved by a performance from the heart.

The Stones are still one of the biggest bands in the world. There isn't a virtuoso among them, yet they get a lot of people going.
( But not me, I lost interest about 1970)

Kate Rusby has such a disarming and simple way with a song that she makes me melt.

Django Reinhardt and Hendrix both did things with a guitar that should have been impossible.

Eva Cassidy was both technically and emotionally proficient. Thing is, she didn't do anything radical, so , despite her talent, she's probably confined to the easy listening racks for ever

Jaqueline Du Pre, was lauded by all and sundry but I find her performances lack emotional and physical power compared to others.

Reg Presley's Troggs were a joke when I was a lad, but Wild Thing, and Love is All Around have been recorded by major artists.

Clapton was, and remains, one of the most over-rated guitarists in history.

Playing all the right notes, in the right order, at the right time, doesn't guarantee a performance.

From watching many live performances lately, I'd say you have first to understand the emotion of the song and second, have enough technical capability to convey it.

G' night!!!!

All those who detected that I was inebriated when I wrote this, are automatically qualified to buy me a very expensive drink next time!
 
Interesting debate with some very good points. My classical collection is a bit limited, so forgive me that I can’t back up what I’m about to say with specific examples.

It occurs to me that the musicians in any good orchestra should be excellent technicians of their craft; there is enough competition to keep standards high. But it is the conductor who is responsible for injecting emotion in to the performance.

Isn't a recording is a snapshot of his/her interpretation of that piece of music, and shouldn’t that reflect how effectively that vision has been communicated? I would have thought it would also show how well the dynamic between conductor and orchestra work. Did they all enjoy the collaborative process?

Of course an overzealous producer or recording engineer could destroy that fragile state – so should we also be looking at which studios and producers allow the emotion to make it to the final recording?

All the best

Frosty
 
Of course an overzealous producer or recording engineer could destroy that fragile state – so should we also be looking at which studios and producers allow the emotion to make it to the final recording?

All the best

Frosty [/B][/QUOTE]

Not classical but an exmple of how (IMHO) the producer can add value without wrecking the process, peter gabriel on Play Live admitted to "cheating" but made a a point of leaving the human errors in the final recording , makes for an excellent album that can be listened to without the concerns referred to earlier marring the experience.

Darren
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top