Miscellaneous - February 2011: Those Wonderful Wizards of Oz: Live or Studio

  by Lisa Torem

published: 21 / 1 / 2011

intro

In 'Rock Salt Row' Lisa Torem talks with Alligator Records' founder and owner/producer Bruce Iglauer about whether live or studio recordings work better

Two Writers Season One Historic Moment LISA “Making a record is like building a ship in a bottle. Playing live music is like being in a rowboat in the ocean.” This quote is by famed Grateful Dead singer Jerry Garcia who detested creating album tracks in the recording studio and felt stymied and shackled by the suggestions of studio producers. I’m not exactly sure what Garcia meant in this quote; the better to taunt you with, I suppose, but I do get the impression he had some issues. It is the beginning of a brand new year, and since I have the rare opportunity this month to spar with an actual industry pro, and more specifically the founder and owner/producer of Chicago-based Alligator Records, Bruce Iglauer, I wanted to raise the question of whether it is better to record live or in the studio, and furthermore, consider whether that decision depends upon the individual artist, song or which set of circumstances we’re serving up. Garcia, it seems, felt the answer was to have a crew record a live performance, rather than go to the studio and hope digital fairy dust would brush away obvious flaws. Apparently Cream recorded albums that utilised both strategies on the same album. So does that work - dubbing studio parts onto basic live tracks? Then again, can a live concert render an exciting unblemished recording or is that ideal akin to balancing on a high-wire without a net? I have mixed feelings. I first heard Robin Trower about 2 a.m., after having slugged several Coronas down the hatch at a local hillbilly bar. I had meant to review 'RT@RO.O8' later that week, but I threw it in to have a quick listen. (No, mom, I wasn’t drunk driving, I just wanted to hear something on a better system than I had at home.) The British guitarist was performing “live” ‘Bridge of Sighs’ which, contrary to popular belief, he did not name after the architectural wonder in Venice – the song was after a race horse. Initially, I thought it would be a typical three- minute track, but I’m glad it wasn’t. It took the musician half a year to come up with the infectious opening riff before he could move on to the brilliant turnaround, but, man, it was worth it. Admittedly, I detected traces of Hendrix, another of my favorite virtuosos, and well into the piece I found myself entranced and then spell bound by the suspense the former Procol Harum, prog-rockist manufactured. Often that suspense was created by an eerie whoosh of silence, and other times by the precision of his fret work, the ache of bended, singular, high-pitched notes and finally a random harmonic. I thought that the occasional hoot from an appreciative fan would be distracting, but it wasn’t. In fact, the cries from the audience made me feel warm all over, like I was being lovingly lowered into the crowd’s mosh pit. Oddly enough, that performance turned out to be in the Midwestern state of Michigan, not terribly far from ‘Sweet Home Chicago.’ The other songs on the double disc were gratifying, but nothing held a candle to this one. So, is it the song that matters? Jimi Hendrix used guitar-amplified feedback to his advantage in the studio. He experimented with “stereophonic phasing” effects and 'The Band of Gypsys' LP was the sole official completely “live” album that the initially Seattle-based musician released in his lifetime. Perhaps we can blame it on the truculent times, but Hendrix certainly didn’t have it easy performing live. Festival performance casualties arose because of wretched weather, stolen instruments, tear-gassed mobs, exhausted band members and excessive drugs and liquor use. One of his guitar strings snapped during an otherwise memorable rendition of ‘Red House’ during a live Woodstock taping. Of course, despite any of these setbacks, his epic and wonderfully improvised American anthem, ‘The Star Spangled Banner’, in 1969 earned the man unparalleled acclaim. But, Hendrix seemed perfectly happy playing with indoor toys such as the Wah-Wah and thereby settling into a semblance of studio sanity. If we want to go way back in the time machine there is Alberta Hunter. When the Chicago-raised singer, shocked by the fact that her pianist was struck dead by a stray bullet, fled to New York she landed a deal with Black Swan Records as their first blues vocalist in 1921. Singing tunes like ‘Texas Moaner Blues’ and ‘Nobody Knows You When You’re Down and Out’, Hunter developed a reputation as a fantastic live performer. Remarkably, after forging a second career in nursing, she resumed recording at 81 years old, but her discography was considered by some “a weak imitation of the real thing.” “Blues means what milk does to a baby. Blues is what the spirit is to the minister. We sing the blues because our hearts have been hurt, our souls have been disturbed,” she once exclaimed. But, Hunter’s recordings never quite captured the vibrance of her charismatic self. Songwriter Willie Dixon had this to say about the effect of the blues; “The Blues are the true facts of life expressed in words and song, inspiration, feeling and understanding.” Unfortunately, members of Led Zeppelin might have very well violated the man’s capacity for understanding. In 1985, Dixon sued the group for crediting ‘Whole Lotta Love’ to their members. He claimed that they pinched lyrics from Dixon’s ‘You Need Love’ which was recorded by Muddy Waters as a single for Chess in ’62. Exhibit A: ‘Whole Lotta Love’ (Led Zeppelin) “You need coolin’, baby/I’m not foolin’/I’m gonna send ya back to schoolin’/Way down inside, honey, you need it/I’m gonna give you my love…” Exhibit B ‘You Need Love’ (Willie Dixon) “I ain’t foolin’/Ya need schoolin’/Baby you know you need coolin’/Baby, way down inside/Woman you need love…” Guess who won? So, Bruce, does the expression, “if you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the fire” come to mind? How do you feel about studio versus live recording based on your own experience or that of others? BRUCE I think my answer to your lengthy thoughts will be a short one. The goals of studio and live recording are somewhat different. I love live records because I’m a blues guy and I always enjoy live performances because of the spontaneity and immediacy. But the studio is a wonderful tool. First, it gives you a chance to re-perform a song until you get the perfect take. Multi-track recording gives you a chance to fix anything that’s flubbed (except drums) because each instrument and voice is isolated, or to add additional parts (for example, multiple rhythm guitar or keyboard or percussion or vocal parts that would only be possible live with additional players and singers). In addition, we often assemble studio backing bands which aren’t the same as the live touring band. The reality is that some of the best musicians don’t want to tour, or the band leader may not be able to afford them for live gigs. But in the studio, they may be able to make the music that the band leader envisions better than the road band, or may be able to create parts that enhance the song more than what the touring musicians play. For rock and pop recordings, the studio often becomes a very big part of the creation of the music. To use an obvious example, the backwards tape effects on later Beatles records would have been very difficult to perform live (easier now with some of the gear that’s available). Jimi Hendrix layered multiple guitar parts that he couldn’t have done in a live show. And of course these days many vocals are tuned up to pitch as more as more pop stars can’t seem too really sing. All of these things can be difficult live. In making live albums, you, however, basically live with what happens, warts and all. This can lead to some really exciting records, but also sometimes to some sloppiness that not everyone wants to hear. When I record live, I try to have two or three full shows that we cut, using the same set list, to get multiple takes of each song. The idea is to get un-sloppy performances that also have feeling. From a commercial point of view, radio is not eager to play live records, even by established stars. And print media doesn’t review them as often. They are generally perceived as “filler” between “real” albums. As a label, we generally have options for multiple albums by an artist. Our contracts specify that live albums cannot be used to fulfill options without prior discussion and approval by us, because we generally expect they won’t sell as well as studio albums. Of course there are many great blues albums that have been cut live, and some rock of rock’s classic artists, like Peter Frampton, Cheap Trick and Deep Purple, have cut popular live albums. But the number of them that get on radio is very small. As far as Led Zeppelin’s use of Willie Dixon’s songs (for which they credited themselves as writers), I find that inexcusable. There are many standard verses in blues that come through the tradition and are buried in the mists of time. But these songs are composed and if Willie hadn’t sued them, Zepp would have pocketed literally millions of dollars they didn’t deserve. LISA Thanks, Bruce, for showing us both sides as you have. I have to admit it’s pretty cool to just lay back and listen to a jam after the artists and producers sweat, sweeten and tighten up the sound. Ah, well, maybe I should resolve to not be such a lazy bum this year…