The dreaded fake 'live' album....

Errr...what's your source on that one?

 

The second Paul Revere and The Raiders album (some of the performances were later released "clean" on "In The Beginning").

 

Errr...what's your source on that one?

Listen to it.

 

I've been listening to Seconds Out a lot, and to my ears it doesn't sound like a studio recording. Sure, it sounds pretty much "perfect" and very up-close, and there might be some overdubs and polishing going on afterwards - but a studio recording? Nick Davis sais in the booklet of the Live Box Set that there was some editing going on, like putting together parts from different nights, especially on Supper's Ready. But i'm not sure how they could had persuased Bill Bruford to come and play again a year after he left...

 

Not a studio recording.

 

I've never read a single article/interview with ELP members saying that 'Pictures' was a STUDIO performance.

These are notes taken from the box set 'From the Beginning':

GREG LAKE: We recorded "Pictures At An Exhibition" in concert twice. The first time was at the Lyceum in London in December 1970, a concert which was filmed, but the sound qualitity wasn't great and so we decided to attempt to record it again in the spring of the following year.

CARL PALMER: (...) We decided to record it again, this time using Eddie as engineer at a concert at Newcastle City Hall.

KEITH EMERSON: When we recorded "Pictures" on the second occasion we were determined to get it right. We arrived at the venue in the morning and ran through the piece several times to ensure that everybody knew what they were doing. I think that ground work paid off and we were happy with the finished result.

 

I think there might be a confusion between recording the Wall ALBUM and the Wall LIVE album

On the Wall STUDIO album some of the solos (including the milestone 'Comfortably Numb') were indeed mixed from various takes to create a single masterpiece.

But on the Wall LIVE album, as it can be read on the great "Comfortably Numb: A History of The Wall" book, page 246:

A decision was also made not to do any overdubs for the album. Guthrie declared, "no one's coming in to play anything again. Everything you hear will be absolutely live. If there's a horribly bad chord somewhere, I suppose I can always steal it from another night."

And on page 247 there's a complete detailed song-by-song source from the Earls Court 1980 & 1981 performances taken from the live album.

Only Don't Leave Me Know was one part from one night (August 7, 1980) and the second part from another (June 17, 1981). All the others (except Run Like Hell intro, which is also from another night) are complete takes from one night each.

So basically there was minimal editing on the album. Ironically, the biggest edits are found on what's NOT included in the album. Most of Roger between songs intros are cut, as well some band warm up between songs and Rick's keyboard outtro on some songs.

It's a great live album, but to me they could've released the June 17, 1981 performance in full and Voila.

 

I'm not gonna debate you here. Spend some time recording bands live as well as in the studio as I have and you'll be able
to identify a studio recording from a live recording. Much of Springsteen's The River is recorded "live" in the studio but
you don't have him stating that that album is a live album. Carpet Crawlers on Seconds Out isn't live with overdubs, it's
so damn perfect it's them in the studio with the crowd faded in and out at its start and finish. A lot's been said about
Seconds Out, ELP's Pictures At An Exhibition (gee, how the hell did Keith Emerson get a pipe organ out of a
nice sounding church and on stage with ELP, with it sounding oh-so perfectly...?) and many other "live"
albums yet when you really listen to such albums you realize there's been some big fibs told to us over the years. Fake
live albums were a norm back in the '60s and '70s as stated in this post, and many people in this post are caught in denial
when a beloved release of theirs is mentioned. I'm boldly standing up to what you've been sold over the years and telling
you to believe your ears and not the liner notes of any given title.

Go back and listen closer to the two given titles here and you'll really realize the obvious misnomer, and you will realize
fully that both albums are 75-80-85% studio recorded with crowd noise very craftly "cut & pasted," mixed in, faded in and
out, and I'll be out here awaiting your "holy sh!t, you know, you might be right, I never really thought about it" exclamation.

 

I'm not too keen (knowledgeable) with Pink Floyd live, so I can't really comment on them and won't venture out and attempt to
******** anyone here on them. Genesis, ELP, The Who, The Doors and a few others I do know a lot about....

 

Well, Newcastle City Hall DID HAVE a pipe organ.
And that organ was used for the "Pictures" intro

There's no reason to believe that "Pictures" wasn't a live performance.
ELP were at their peak of their performances between 1971 and 1974

 

Pictures at an Exhibition wasn't a typical "best of" live album, it was a set of material they hadn't previously recorded. If they wanted to do it in the studio there was nothing stopping them -- why would they do it in the studio and pretend it was live?

 

exactly. the band recorded a studio version in the 90's though

 

Newcastle City Hall was selected as a recording venue because of the pipe organ. I guess they could have used Royal Albert Hall, but Keith Emerson was banned from the venue for life. And oh, Carl Palmer played the drum roll so that Keith could run up to the pipe organ from his Hammond.

It's clear that there was some editing done on Pictures and some copy-and-pasted extra cheers on one or two places, no doubt about that. But once again, it sounds like a live album with the ambience pretty much mixed out (unlike on Welcome Back My Friends...). Check the hiss levels on The Sage.

 

Especially as it is far from perfect. The sound quality is stunning, but Greg Lake's vocals are a bit rough in places. And he sings off-mic in places. Ok, they might have used some parts from the afternoon rehearsals but it's not something one might call a "polished" or "fixed". It's pretty ragged performance, actually. And the edits are audible and a bit clumsy.

 

I accept that there isn't much tweaking on the Wall Live (though that's still 2 songs that do comprise bits from different performances that they have admitted), but I am not remotely confused!

Delicate Sound of Thunder, both audio only and the VHS / Laserdisc release was widely said to be extensively overdubbed and re recorded in parts(see Schaffner's book for a description of parts being repeatedly filmed, and Wikipedia: "Although David Gilmour stated around the time of its release and on a radio interview in 1992 that the album contained no studio overdubbing whatsoever, he embellished the tracks during mixing with some extra acoustic guitar on "Comfortably Numb", according to engineer Buford Jones. In addition, some harmonies were replaced by studio re-takes: Richard Wright re-did his vocal on "Us and Them" and Sam Brown replaced Rachel Fury's part in "Comfortably Numb".")

If replacing a key backing vocal with a different singer who never even went on that tour isn't fake, then I don't know what is! The sad thing is that Rachel Fury's vocal on the Venice performance, that was broadcast live and widely bootlegged, was perfectly fine.

If you compare the audio and video releases of Pulse, there has definitely been a bit of polishing of the audio release (Wikipedia:"Unlike Delicate Sound of Thunder, David Gilmour and producer James Guthrie have stated that no parts of the songs were re-recorded in the studio (James Guthrie confirmed this in an interview with Pink Floyd fanzine Brain Damage). However, the band and Guthrie fixed songs that had bad notes (as heard on some bootlegs) by lifting solos and corrected vocal lines from other performances as the band recorded most of the European leg." )

 

Pink Floyd always fixed their live recordings. On Live at Pompeii, at least some of the vocal and guitars were re-recorded afterwards. And if i remember correctly, the vocals of the live disc of Ummagumma were re-recorded too.

 

I've found this a very interesting thread. I was dragged in by the title, but I've been quite surprised at how "fake" seems to upset people so much and also what different people regard as fake.

I like live albums, I always have... but reading this thread, I've realised that I've never regarded them in the same light as many other people seem to. I'm thinking mainly here about live albums that were released as official albums, and regarded as part of the artist's cannon.

I personally have no problem at all with WHATEVER post-processing occurred - AS LONG AS the thing in my hands sounds good and enables me to suspend disbelief and put myself "there" while listening to it. So, yeah, I have problems with obviously canned or mismatching audience noises... if it doesn't sound "real" then I can't get into it and therefore won't enjoy it. Also, if I can hear 5 of the lead-singer harmonising with his/herself I feel a bit "well that isn't possible, is it?" and it spoils the imaginary gig in my head... (unless I know the artist used tape in live performances - eg the start of "Songs From The Wood", I'm ok with that).

I realise now that many might disagree, but I've always accepted that a live album is a "production" just the same as the studio albums around it - it's a product designed to be listened to over and over again. It's a product designed to generate/enhance mood and emotion - that's why we buy music. If it's not put together right, then it won't do the job as well. So I've always assumed that they will do whatever they can to get the best sounding and most representative set of sounds.

The very fact that a band records more than one show seems to give it away for me. Eg, I'm on Wishbone Ash's Live Dates II - they announced "we're recording this tour for a live album" ... we just assumed they were going to cherry-pick the best bits.

BUT I do understand how many folks feel about "fake". I too have that instinctive feeling of "a live album's a testament to the artist's ability to put on a good show"... (But it isn't really! it's a bluddy record that has to be good enough to sell! ). I suppose, the following journey I went through earlier sums up my position quite well:

I was really surprised in this thread to read about Queen's Live Killers - this was news to me.

At the time my understanding was that there'd been quite big arguments in the band over it, re overdubs or not. One story I read or heard (can't remember) was that they came close to breaking up over it. So I'd always assumed that it was a pretty "honest" recording - certainly sounds like it to me. Then I start reading in this thread about how it isn't... My first reaction was OMIGOD!! The b@stards... they've conned me all these years .

But then I read up on it and discovered that most of it is cutting and pasting from different shows to create what they felt were decent play-it-at-home representations of live performances of each song... My reaction was then "Oh... so it didn't really happen like I've been imagining all these years when listening?" - I felt momentarily sad... but then I realised it doesn't change my view of the thing - it's a live album that I love and always have, and I've still got my imaginary gig in my head when I listen to it. Sure, they could have possibly made a better album if they hadn't done the listening/chopping themselves (I suspect there would have been less edits!!). But it's a pretty darn cool album.

Finally... I found myself wondering how many edits are allowed before it's "fake". I was equally surprised recently to discover that one of the tracks on the Allman's Fillmore East is made up from two performances. Hearing the two performances on the complete recordings, I can hear why - both are "ok", but the first half of one is spot on, and the second half of the other is sublime... I salute the genius of the guy (Tom Dowd, I assume) that spotted it and realised he could cut the tapes up and make a single performance... and guess what? My favourite live version of that song is still the cut and paste version!!

 

Well said, Andrew, well said. My POV was to fill others here in vs offend their perceptions or reality. And, you did give another great
way of thinking with your last comment regarding the Allmans' Fillmore release and a great acknowledgement to Dowd or whomever
deserving credit for their talented ears as applied to the final product we knew for years in the Live From The Fillmore and then the
subsequent release of the recent Complete Fillmore shows.

Great sparring out here. Let's keep it up..

 

I said on a previous post that I have absolutely no problem listening to "live" albums that have been polished; I have lost count of the number of times I have listened to the Floyd albums or In Concert by The Doors; Paul Rothschild's intention of creating the perfect Doors gig works 100% for me, every time. In the case of the Floyd, though, when you get to see live broadcasts or hear soundboard tapes they have little need of such studio tinkering.

Another couple of examples: Doesn't the release of Live at Hull by The Who feature Entwistle's bass from another show because the bass wasn't properly recorded on the night? Has anyone mentioned Roger Water's 1990 The Wall show from Berlin? Due to various technical failures and a complete car crash of a performance of Mother, The Thin Ice and Mother were re recorded after the show had finished and the audience had gone. I still have a recording of the live broadcast, and the first 10-15 minutes were not good.

And this isn't particularly an example of musical tinkering, but if you watch the DVD of A Show of Hands by Rush, on some songs they have used video from different nights as Alex Lifeson's guitar changes colour mid song a few times. Similarly, Road Movie by REM sports mid song changes in both Mike Mills's suit and Michael Stipe's attire. Whether the audio has been tweaked is anyone's guess!

 

Absolutely Live is very good in my opinion. Alive She Cried crosses the line for me. Light My Fire was virtually rebuilt from so many different sources it's funny. And of course, John Sebastian didn't play harmonica on Little Red Rooster.

Yes. But...i must admit it doesn't sound very good at all.

 

The difference is, that in cases of Allman Brothers, The Who and The Doors, the editing work has been very well documented - and it's quite easy to make an A/B test especially in the cases of The Doors and Allman's. In case of Seconds Out by Genesis it's a lot harder, especially as the circulating bootlegs from those Paris 1977 shows all sound pretty much the same. The reason why i asked for a source was because you pointed out that it was de facto a studio album. I don't mind about live albums being fixed. But i do like facts.

 

I have copies of the original tapes so they are not lost. I have no complaint with the vocals being re-recorded for two
examples: "Bertha" from Skull & Roses and "Cumberland Blues" from Europe '72. The instrumental tracks have remained
untouched.

 

Just listening to music on shuffle on computer and a couple of House of Lords Live in Uk tracks came on. Album was recorded in Nottingham in a venue to which the best of my knowledge holds no more than a thousand people - it sounds like there are about 40,000.

 

No offense, buddy, but you come off sounding like an arrogant know it all. I don't know how many live tapes you've heard from Genesis' 1977 tour, but I've got all the available circulating ones -audience and soundboard- as well as Seconds Out, and though I'm not a professional sound engineer like you claim to be to my ears I can tell ya Seconds Out is NOT heavily overdubbed, if it's overdubbed at all. Edited, sure; tracks pieced together from different performances, yeah, why not? The sound of the album pretty much matches the sound on the soundboard recordings and the best audience tapes from the tour; Genesis' sound crew mixing the house sound obviously knew their stuff- not only that but the band's performances would basically make any after the fact overdubbing redundant. Not only that, but Steve Hackett quit while they were doing the mixing...you think he would have been bothered to do any overdubs given his frame of mind at the time?

Well, which is it, then? With all respect, it sounds like you're only here to stir s--t up...

 

Rust Never Sleeps is very much fake but a pleasure to listen to nonetheless.