Jan 25, 2003 11:56 am i think each has its perks. i love to compose and dabble with digital audio, but i feel playing live has the greatest effort to reward ratio. it's spontaneous, fun, and thrills the heck out of your audience!
Playing live or recording - which do you prefer?
Posted on Jan 25, 2003 10:05 am
Bruno
The Quiet Minded
Member Since: Jan 01, 2003
This is just an stupid survey that came to my mind. what do you enjoy the most, playing live or recording?
I go with playing live!
[ Back to Top ]
Jan 25, 2003 11:56 am i think each has its perks. i love to compose and dabble with digital audio, but i feel playing live has the greatest effort to reward ratio. it's spontaneous, fun, and thrills the heck out of your audience!
Jan 25, 2003 12:25 pm I much prefer performing, but my current lifestyle just doesn't allow anymore, I had years of fun playing live, getting free drinks and all the perks that go with playing live...but, now it just doesn't fit...
Jan 26, 2003 03:13 pm I have to say that I also loved performing live.I did so for ten years or so.Theres no feeling in the world that compares to a hopped up crowd gettin off on your music.However as is with dB,
the whole lifestyle has changed.But it is now for me,just as gratifyng to create.I think the best part of recording music for me is,that as you write,practice and then record the song you`ve written,it always ends up totally differant than you expect.At least it usually is with me.The song I have in the members music section under rock(shameless plug!!!!)started out as a complete acoustic tune for exsample.
Jan 26, 2003 10:00 pm I haven't played live in two years, except for the occasional church service, but from what I remember, I never once had to worry about my compressor pumpin', or my hard drive crashing, or my soundfont not loading, or stuttering audio, or dropouts, or any of that stuff!!! So, If I had my druthers, I'd play live any day. On the other side, I don't know where all of you live, but here in Ohio, the bar scene is pathetic. Do you guys remember when you used to actually make enough money to go out for coffee after the gig, and even throw a few bucks in the gas tank and buy a set of strings the next day? Those days are over in this area. It's all you can do to get a bar owner to pay $400 for a 4 or 5 piece band, and even then you have to haggle with the guy to get your cash. What a hassle!
Ed
Jan 27, 2003 05:00 am playin live is good and fun, and the only real way to get your music to the masses, but I rather enjoy recording. I like waking up in the morning, getting a pot of coffee goin, lockin myself in my studio and just making new tunes. I do some of my best thinking when I'm recording, and not just about music either. that's just me though
Jan 27, 2003 09:54 am Guitar Ed, I play live in bars and pubs in North West England and the money is similar to where you are. But it certainly covers expenses such as petrol, strings and booze, though obviously not big items such as a new guitar or amp. Anyway, the way I look at it, at the playing in bars level you don't really do it for money just for fun. After all, if it was for money, there are far easier ways of earning more money in a shorter time (like collecting glasses in the bar!!)
Anyway, I play live in a covers band (that's how come we get paid - if we did only original material noone would pay us even THAT small amount!), but I also record my own stuff. I enjoy the audience feedback for live and 'get off' on the buzz of playing live.
But I also love creating something, from the germ of an idea through to a finished recorded song.
If I was forced to drop one, I would drop the live work, as at the end of the day we are playing covers of other people's songs and only getting plaudits for copying someone else's work. It must be the best feeling to be in a band playing your own original songs and the audience are getting off on that - must be just an amazing feeling.
The home recorded stuff is all my own - so I find it more satisfying (when it goes well). Thuogh I'm sure we've all been in a position where we thought a track was superb, only to listen again in a couple of months and think 'Yuk!!!
Jan 27, 2003 01:33 pm I played live from the time I was 9 untill I was almost 30, so I guess I have had my fill. I did enjoyit though. But now I prefer the solitude and the peace that the studio offer's. I would rather sit here and listen to my kid's beat on each other, then listen to musician's wine at practice. I still get to meet plenty of strange and interesting people here, but I can control who comes and goes, unlike band practice were there was a new batch of wierdo's every other week. So I will pick recording as my fav now.
Jan 27, 2003 01:39 pm I tend to agree with Noize at this stage of my life. I have had more damn fun the last few weeks just sitting in his studio making this film score we are still working on than I have had in a long time, plus we do it at our convenience...which is super cool...
That said, live is more for the younger folks or peeps without children and other outside responsibilities...not always, but it sure is easier that way.
I love my kids, I love my full-time job so I am very happy just creating and recording...I am to tired to do the live thing anymore ;-)
Jan 27, 2003 02:07 pm If I could throw in my two cents... Personally, I look at performing live and recording as two very distinctly different things. Many seem consider performing as a way to get what they've recorded to a bigger audience or they consider recording a way to document what they've perfomed. I disagree with this philosophy.
I think that a record is a "stand-alone" work of art that is entirely separate from a performance from the same artist. Likewise, a performance is also a separate artistic work. I enjoy both equally, but for very different reasons. Performing gives me that adrenaline rush that can only be gotten from a room full of people getting off on what I'm doing. Still, when I've made a record that I'm really proud of, there's a whole other sense of satisfaction for me.
I'm finding that more and more artists are beinning to look at things this way (or I'm just starting to realize that they've been doing it all along). And that being the case, it appears to me that some artists focus more on one or the other. There was a time when I thought if a band wasn't so great live, then it was a direct reflection of their quality as an artist. Now, I think that a great record is a great record, even if the live show is mediocre at best.
I think I'm getting way off topic here, but this is a conversation I've been having a lot recently with some of my music-obsessed friends. What I've come to realize is that in most cases, it's close to imposible for a band to have a great live show unless they have at least one great record. The act of making that record requires a band to develop themselves as an artist and provides them with the material necessary to really blow minds when they get on stage.
Besides, I personally own a hell of a lot more CDs than ticket stubs to shows I've been to. And at the same time, a few of those ticket stubs would have been worth trading hundreds of the CDs for!
|
Related Forum Topics: |
If you would like to participate in the forum discussions, feel free to register for your free membership.