Writing Originals: Studio vs Live

[J. Dan]

Some of you know I spent most of my career on cover bands and have more recently been spending time on originals with a progressive metal band. I joined as they were finishing the first CD and managed to get some influence here and there. We've started the 2nd CD and it's all being written, unlike the first, with the idea of lots of keys and keys solos. We have 2 songs in the can so far minus vocals which start recording tomorrow.

 

There are a lot of various thoughts being tossed around with regards to how much to embellish on the CD. One thought is only record what you can play live. The other thought is make the CD as good as possible and then do your best live. I've approached it from both directions depending on the song. In some cases where most of the writing has happened during practice and in anticipation, I put together complex combis using all the controls to do it in practice, I just recorded the same in the studio. But other parts, I've meticulously composed and arranged at home and sent wav's to the other guys to fly in, knowing that I'll have to figure out how to condense 9 tracks down to something I can play live with 2 hands. For the most part, I think I'll be able to do that. I kind of look at it like when I play in cover bands, I have to do the impossible live based on what they did in the studio, and I always pull it off. So it's like covering songs that I actually wrote.

 

Your thoughts?

[Nathanael_I]

I think it is just as simple as whatever you decide you like. I think we care more than any audience. And we mostly care what other people think more than anything. I've asked all my kids about this. No one cares. If the songs are good and the music sounds good, it is good. They can jump around to a DJ pushing play on a laptop, they can enjoy a band playing live, or even a symphony. They would think it was very lame if someone was pretending to play a part, or just standing there not doing anything with tracks playing. But even playing to tracks doesn't faze them a bit. I think it bothers musicians of a certain age who grew up with playing as the only option (not throwing stones - just observing). Nightwish plays to tracks. The live shows are great. If you are offering to cover your own songs, who could argue with you? As my composition teacher says, "Whose name is on the page?..." whenever I ask a non-theoretical question. If you hear lots of great parts and orchestration for the album and then simplify for live, your name is at the top of the page!

[KuruPrionz]

The wonderful thing about the studio is that anything is possible.

 

The terrible thing about the studio is that anything is possible.

 

I've found myself gravitating over time from adding tracks, parts, notes etc. to subtracting them. I listen to popular music and the character of the song and the musicians is cast by what they don't play more often than the reverse.

So it is something to watch out for - the "kitchen sink" mix. That said, both Joni Mitchell and Queen set examples for making a great kitchen sink mix.

 

I've come to like it more stark. This is reflected in my live playing as well, I am not afraid of silence.

 

In the context of the above, I would say that it does not matter at all wether you choose to make a studio record or one for live performance.

 

I also agree with Nathanael_I that people in general truly don't care as long as they like it. If they don't like it, they still don't care - they just don't like it.

 

Does your band have a producer that does not have an affiliation or a good friend who has an unfortunate tendency to clearly state what they are actually thinking and feeling?

Objectivity can be tough to muster when you are creating. It tends to rear it's ugly head years later when all you can do is laugh and shake your head.

 

Do what you do!!! Make a great record and then play it like you feel it live and all will be well. Cheers, Kuru

[J. Dan]

Let me clarify that there are no, and never will be any tracks live. So when I do studio recordings, my concern is my ability to actually do it all with two hands live. Ultimately so far I've managed to pull it off. But like one of these recent symphonic orchestrations were 9 tracks. I visualized how I might do it live. Mathematically counting out and considering possible splits and layers, I think it is theoretically possible with two hands. To date, I haven't done it. So we'll see how that goes.

[stoken6]

Good thread, interesting topic.

 

Dan - has any thought been given to "transforming" the live performances so they are nothing like the CD? E.g an acoustic/slow version of a high-octane banger? That obviously changes your approach.

 

Cheers, Mike.

[J. Dan]

Yea, we do that. More though along the line of putting on a show. We did one with huge video and light production. We literally made an intro video with all the tracks but lead guitar. He came out and soloed over it and we all came in as the audio stopped.

[MAJUSCULE]

Definitely treat them separately. That's not to say you can't have songs with simple parts/programming, but try to serve the song as much as possible.

 

Get some references of the major influences you're going for on the album, both songwriting and production-wise and listen critically, both by yourself and with the band to see what you can glean.

 

I've found myself gravitating over time from adding tracks, parts, notes etc. to subtracting them. I listen to popular music and the character of the song and the musicians is cast by what they don't play more often than the reverse.

 

This is a good thing to keep in mind. You can record all kinds of layers and fun stuff and then pull things out during the editing/mixing phase to clean it up and get a nice balance between overindulging and elevating the song.

 

But yeah, definitely bring the songs to the absolute best level you can, and if that means dropping a couple parts live, then so be it. You guys probably play loud enough that the 9 symphonic parts might not all come through.

[ProfD]

Definitely record and play whatever can be reproduced with two hands and your KB rig; flying without a net (no tracks).

[Stokely]

I enjoy some albums that certainly fall into the "overproduced" category. The overproduction is one thing that I actually appreciate sometimes!

 

I have only played originals a few times, always with the person that wrote them. As with some covers, I like the approach that you take the instrumentation you have and do the best to can...distill those 10 synth parts down to 1 or 2 that capture the essence. And I've heard some tremendous versions of songs (to me) that were greatly changed/simplified to work live. Good writing shines through. Even some 80s stuff that you wouldn't expect with all the crazy synth parts and effected guitars and drum effects. The lead singer for Mr. Mister playing and singing Kyrie on an acoustic, I wouldn't have thought that would work but I love that version. Take on Me acoustic same thing.

 

Unfortunately the last guy I played with had some really great originals but he was dead-set on making the live versions sound exactly the same...so if that project had continued, he was going to run tracks. I would have bowed out at that point as that is a personal line for me, but that's certainly an alternative for people who want their cake and eat it too

[Outkaster]

I'm only ever concerned on what bands can do live. That's where the proof is. I like studio music also but it's kind of a facade for a lot of music. How many times have people gone to see an act live and been let down.

[SamuelBLupowitz]

I always love the challenge of "how much of a studio arrangement can I reproduce live," but I definitely think of them as different animals. For my original bands, I've arranged and recorded the occasional string section or horn chart for a track -- then the challenge becomes whether to a) cover the part (i.e., Mellotron strings), b) ignore the part (it's just icing for the record, but it's like a double-tracked vocal -- no one will miss it live), or c) rethink the part for the regular instrumentation (those harmonized guitar leads were great on the record; I can use a synth and an organ to fill out that section instead of just playing electric piano).

 

It's all about personal enjoyment, I think, at least for me. It is, of course, easy to go overboard in the studio, so I try not to go out of my way to come up with extra stuff, but if I'm hearing an idea for one of our songs that hasn't been part of the live arrangement, the studio is a great time to try it out. If it sticks, you find a way to work it into your live performance, and that's how the songs evolve.

 

The thing I love about this is there's no right or wrong -- it's all about setting up deliberate limitations, challenges, and/or opportunities for yourself to let your creativity (and chops) flourish!

[Docbop]

I think it's good your going thru that thought process now, too many bands don't understand the difference between live and recording. It's different not only in arrangement, but live sound is fuller than what mic', mic' pre, console, DAW capture. In the studio you might have layers and layers of tracks low in the mix to fill out the sound that the volume and room ambience live would do naturally. To me this is a lot of the job of the producer and working with the band going out playing trying out the material or playing in a large rehearsal space and inviting some friends to check it out. Also give a change to do some basic recording so you can get an idea of how the material works live vs studio. One big act I worked for was odd in the fact they actually made money off their first album because their producer spent a month or so rehearsing them, timing songs and working on arrangement till the songs were worked out how they would be recorded in the studio. So they got into the studio and didn't take long to lay down the tracks and overdubs and it also made mixing faster too. working this way laying down extra tracks in studio you know they are only for filler in the mix.

 

As I said it good your thinking about live vs studio and it will help a lot in arranging before the studio and in the studio.

[Stokely]

I'm only ever concerned on what bands can do live. That's where the proof is. I like studio music also but it's kind of a facade for a lot of music. How many times have people gone to see an act live and been let down.

 

These days? Probably not often. Because you get to hear all the tracks from the studio recording! Of course, that IS what lets me down, but I'm that old guy yelling at kids to get off my driveway with their skateboards....

[AnotherScott]

So it's like covering songs that I actually wrote.

Easier, because nobody cares if it doesn't sound like the album. ;-) In fact I like when original bands make significant changes in their live versions. Which also brings me to...

 

How many times have people gone to see an act live and been let down.

I'd much rather a band do a new interesting version of a song for the live show, rather than a doomed attempt at duplication of a studio version.

 

[CowboyNQ]

I kind of look at it like when I play in cover bands, I have to do the impossible live based on what they did in the studio, and I always pull it off. So it's like covering songs that I actually wrote.

It's been close to 25 years since I've recorded any original music, but this is definitely the mindset I would run with. I'm sure there are many times when you've had to make decisions as a covers artist about which bits to play, which bits to approximate and which bits to completely leave out. And as you'd know, even with really well-known smash-hit type songs, if you can recreate a particular motif the audience walks away with the illusion you've faithfully reproduced the original.

 

Easier, because nobody cares if it doesn't sound like the album. ;-) In fact I like when original bands make significant changes in their live versions.

I think this is correct too. It's YOUR music so you have the freedom to slice and dice it any way you want.

 

I always use Pink Floyd as an example when having this sort of conversation with people. Pre-"The Wall" they were fearless improvisers on stage as there was no way they were going to be able to accurately re-create their studio albums in a live setting given the personnel and technology limitations they were operating with at the time. Plus that's just what they'd always done, they were very into going off into extended jams and musical tangents. And I don't believe Rick Wright played anything the same way twice, ever. But the average Pink Floyd tribute will get lynched if they don't play a reference version of a song the audience can identify with, as they sell tickets on that overt premise.

 

The audience applies a different set of rules to an original artist - which to me seems fair enough.