trolleyfinger
03-27-2004, 04:52 PM
I've been following MM since mid 2000. I've seen them about 12 times now. I have recorded many shows and I have lots of others that others recorded. I wanted to give away my kitten:
I agree that a concert recording should be complete. Hearing a great track or two from a show might make you think, "If that song sounded as good as it did...how did the rest of the show sound?" Some live recordings get a "make-over" once back at the studio. Fuck-ups can be edited out and, in some cases, completely re-done. These are about the only two things that would influence my decision to buy BVBRA or not.
That being said...
Right now, there are only a few ways to get a great live recording and all of them have their own downfalls. I find that one of the preferred methods is to patch right into the soundboard. It helps cut down on excessive crowd chatter/noise and it helps isolate the instruments so that all of them may be heard. There are downsides: the mix coming out of the board may be un-even. The vocals and drums are louder than the guitar and base or vice versa. Whatever the case...you are at the mercy of the soundperson's mix. A lot of people only like soundboard recordings.
A second way to record the show is by using external microphone(s) and recorder. The quality on these recordings can vary widely. Some are great...others are awful. One should never underestimate a high quality audience recording. The crowd is your biggest obstacle here. Excessive talking, shouting, singing along, moshing, etc. are all things that can ruin an otherwise good recording. The most important thing to do when recording from the audience is to use high quality gear and get those mics above the crowd. Some people enjoy making recordings by putting the mics and gear onstage with the band. Not all bands or situations allow for stage recording.
A third (and one of the best amateur recording techniques) way to record the show is to combine the soundboard with an audience recording. This is usually called a MATRIX and can be done 2 ways:
1. Have a mixer at the show. Set up your audience gear (mics, pre-amp, a/d, mic stand, etc) by the soundboard. Run a feed from the soundboard and a feed from your audience rig into the mixer at the same time. Adjust the amounts (80% soundboard 20% audience...the amounts here are random and can be different). (if you've ever heard mm 3/5/02 eugene or 2/2/02 portland...these recordings were done using the above methods)
**preferred method**
2. Take one recording that was done from the soundboard and one done from the audience and mix them after the show.
NOW...
the whole point of all this is to let people know how different a professional recording can be. It possible, but highly doubtful, that the live show being offered at mmbootlegs.com was simply a recording straight from the soundboard. What is more probable is that the recording was done using multi-tracking. While I don't know the fine details...the basics are simple. Instead of taking a mix from the soundboard and recording it, each individual instrument/sound effect is recorded seperately. This is ideal for later adjustments in mixing. Each track can be adjusted for the finished recording. Part of the reason this is so good is the difference between songs. Some are quiet and others are loud. It's best to be able to have them all at the same, relative level.
So don't just write off the show because it's not complete. It should be one of the best sounding live recordings of the mouse. (best refers only to sound quality...not performance or material).
Then only thing that would lead me to not want to purchase BVBRA is if the recording was "touched up" after the show. ex: Issac flubs the intro to Dramamine. Later in the studio, the flub is taken out and a new track (one that is done in the studio after the concert) is inserted. This would be a false representation for me. I want to hear it as it happened...fuck ups and all.
Did anyone read this book I just wrote?
I agree that a concert recording should be complete. Hearing a great track or two from a show might make you think, "If that song sounded as good as it did...how did the rest of the show sound?" Some live recordings get a "make-over" once back at the studio. Fuck-ups can be edited out and, in some cases, completely re-done. These are about the only two things that would influence my decision to buy BVBRA or not.
That being said...
Right now, there are only a few ways to get a great live recording and all of them have their own downfalls. I find that one of the preferred methods is to patch right into the soundboard. It helps cut down on excessive crowd chatter/noise and it helps isolate the instruments so that all of them may be heard. There are downsides: the mix coming out of the board may be un-even. The vocals and drums are louder than the guitar and base or vice versa. Whatever the case...you are at the mercy of the soundperson's mix. A lot of people only like soundboard recordings.
A second way to record the show is by using external microphone(s) and recorder. The quality on these recordings can vary widely. Some are great...others are awful. One should never underestimate a high quality audience recording. The crowd is your biggest obstacle here. Excessive talking, shouting, singing along, moshing, etc. are all things that can ruin an otherwise good recording. The most important thing to do when recording from the audience is to use high quality gear and get those mics above the crowd. Some people enjoy making recordings by putting the mics and gear onstage with the band. Not all bands or situations allow for stage recording.
A third (and one of the best amateur recording techniques) way to record the show is to combine the soundboard with an audience recording. This is usually called a MATRIX and can be done 2 ways:
1. Have a mixer at the show. Set up your audience gear (mics, pre-amp, a/d, mic stand, etc) by the soundboard. Run a feed from the soundboard and a feed from your audience rig into the mixer at the same time. Adjust the amounts (80% soundboard 20% audience...the amounts here are random and can be different). (if you've ever heard mm 3/5/02 eugene or 2/2/02 portland...these recordings were done using the above methods)
**preferred method**
2. Take one recording that was done from the soundboard and one done from the audience and mix them after the show.
NOW...
the whole point of all this is to let people know how different a professional recording can be. It possible, but highly doubtful, that the live show being offered at mmbootlegs.com was simply a recording straight from the soundboard. What is more probable is that the recording was done using multi-tracking. While I don't know the fine details...the basics are simple. Instead of taking a mix from the soundboard and recording it, each individual instrument/sound effect is recorded seperately. This is ideal for later adjustments in mixing. Each track can be adjusted for the finished recording. Part of the reason this is so good is the difference between songs. Some are quiet and others are loud. It's best to be able to have them all at the same, relative level.
So don't just write off the show because it's not complete. It should be one of the best sounding live recordings of the mouse. (best refers only to sound quality...not performance or material).
Then only thing that would lead me to not want to purchase BVBRA is if the recording was "touched up" after the show. ex: Issac flubs the intro to Dramamine. Later in the studio, the flub is taken out and a new track (one that is done in the studio after the concert) is inserted. This would be a false representation for me. I want to hear it as it happened...fuck ups and all.
Did anyone read this book I just wrote?