How is live jazz better than the recorded kind?

[xricci]

Can you give examples?

[Coypu]

more spontanious,
you get the "magical" live feeling, it is easier to be emotional in a live enveironment where the sound is bigger, the interaction with crowd and band etc. It better than sitting at home for sure.

Apart from that, it doesn't matter so much for me. I'm not really a big fan of improvisation so the bands I listen to mainly plays the album version anyway.

[3pointdeli]

live is better because you use more of your senses at a concert than you do in front of your stereo.

[markvi]

live jazz is more interesting because you actually see how the musicians interact. if you're not familiar with how jazz is often put together in a performance, go to a live performance and watch how the musicians communicate with gestures, eye contact, vocal cues. watching the entire process in addition to the listening part is fascinating. quite often you'll hear discussions about how a particular composition will be played, who will be doing what. watching reactions are fun. best of all, despite all the claims of the electronics people-live sound can't be beat. and lastly, attending live performances supports jazz financially. if musicians can't earn a living doing performances as well a recordings, they may have to stop playing. also, it's a helluva lot of fun!

[groovinhigher]

I would also add that is why live event recordings are among my favorites to do and to listen too... when you can feel the spontaneity, the energy, the interplay and reaction of the other musicians and the audience to an inspired moment, that is addicting. I also have many incredible studio recordings that I enjoy, but for me, there will always be a special place for live performances and live performance recordings. Unfortunately, some critics seem to be so biased to "studio" recordings and completely unable to understand proper recording techniques to capture a true live experience, i.e. not just close mic'ing like in a typical studio recording, but in addition, mixing in a proper balance of depth via additional mics scientifically placed at appropriate spots in the venue as well as close mic'ing on stage, and then careful and painstaking mixing and mastering by top professionals well recoginized in the industry to stay true to an incredible performance, to audiophiles desires, and the live sound experience.

I personally have had some critics, particulary great musicians like Dan Jacobs and others, absolutely love and appreciate this type of recording technique and the results produced, and some others I won't mention who just don't get it.

Live jazz is the bread and butter and steak and lobster of a musical experience, and while studio recordings do have a place, unfortunately not every gets or understands what makes a great live recording. Studio recordings, while allowing the opportunity for doing it over and over, punching in, trying different mic's and settings, etc, and producing a flawless CD, find it hard to capture that "in the moment inspiration and energy of a band getting off and high with the crowd, that you get to experience on some live gigs".

I agree with anothers view, and advocacy, supporting live jazz is both fun, and a way to insure these great players keep playing, and keep recording, be it live or in the studio. Both have a place, but live always has a special place in my heart!

Some of my favorite CD's are live performances, Maynard with the NY Phil in 1959 on Titans, or at the Newport Jazz Festival, Lionel Hampton at The Monterey Jazz Festival ( an underground tape, lol ), numerous Stan Kenton live CD's, etc...

Seeing it live, has always been an inspiring thing for any serious jazz fan and musician. I remember in the 70's, while growing up in Garden Grove CA ( near Disney Land ) the summers they would have all the great big bands live, usually for five nights straight, three sets a night, i.e. Buddy Rich, Woody Herman, Count Basie, Lionel Hampton, Louie Bellson, Harry James, Maynard Ferguson, Stan Kenton, wow!!!

My buddies and I lived there all summer, just soaking it in, that was what made me want to be a musician. Seeing these guys wail, the energy, the interplay, the audience reaction and the musicians feeding off it, WOW!!!

I guess that is why I have always loved live performances and spent so much time and effort to capture that properly on a CD, with the sound quality, and depth of sound, as well as the close mic'ing properly mixed in, to feel as though you are there!!!

I love that experience and love to share that with others. Well, enough of my passion, lol... Take care you guys, great topic!!!

Go see a live gig!!! Keep swingin'!

www.groovinhigher.com

[Old Pa]

Live jazz and recorded jazz are different. Jazz as a genre has existed since the invention of recording and has been influenced accordingly. I would personally rather be at a live jazz performance rather than listen to a recording of it. The experience, interactions, and "real time" nature of a live performance deserves to be personally witnessed. When it is not possible to have attended, or in the case of historic live performances that have been recorded, the recorded form must suffice if the performance is to be experienced at all.

Conversely, IMHO there are studio productions of jazz that utilized the qualities and characteristics of the studio to obtain the musician's desired effect. These are best enjoyed through quality hi-fi playback. Having a good loudspeaker or headphone based hi-fi system also has countless other merits and rewards.

The two forms are simply different.

[groovinhigher]

Good points Old PA. Well said.

[DWBass]

As a musician, I can further expand on the subject. In the studio, you are in a controlled environment. Where you must play a composition exactly as written as well as rehearsed and to the letter. In a live setting, you can sway away from the original and there is so much more room for improvisation and interaction with the other musicians. There is also more energy when you are looking at and are performing in front of an audience knowing that they are enjoying the music!

[markvi]

also the microphone in the studio becomes a scary object at times. every time i recorded as we got near the end of a cut i became increasingly nervous about making that critical mistake that requires another take. somehow in live performance, the microphone is a much more friendly object. i think the overall quality of a recording is adversely affected by the extra caution required in a studio.

[Pharaohrock]

Live carries an atmosphere with it, although studio records can be incredibly effective precisely because there is no atmosphere. They seem like they came out of a vacuum, and with a powerful statement like A Love Supreme, you almost want that detachment from reality. You don't want social things intruding on it....the artist speaking to the audience, drinks clinking, etc...... you want it just to be able to exist on its own terms. I know I much prefer the studio edition to the live one...

[Joel]

I never liked politics, especially when it becomes involved with the my music.

Studio albums are at times influenced by it, the corporate suits and financial wiz would always try to inflect their opinion to the artists.

They often say, "Its too edgy" or "its not gonna get any airplay because its too complex"....and I'm referring to Contemporary Jazz, because of that "influence" in the studio recording, the album comes out as "smooth as water snooze jazz", when the album could have been a straight ahead/contemporary/fusion type of exciting cjazz.

Live albums or concerts breaks those barriers,full of improvs and energized performances, however the studio album usually would still sound better, recordingwise.

[markvi]

as a musician, i perform much better in front of an enthusiastic audience. in fact, even if i'm playing a venue that is not particularly friendly to jazz if i see that i am connecting with only one or two people, i perform better. when the entire crowd is into the music, i feed off of that and so does everyone else in the group and the performance reflects that. that feeling has never been duplicated in a studio, even when the group feels it has performed very well. i've also been in the audience and watched groups just give back the vibes that the audience feeds them. the best example i can give of the exuberance of a live performance is paul gonsalves incredible tenor solo at newport '56. with encouragement from the crowd gonsalves and the ellington band performed above and beyond all expectations and that performance once again solidified the ellington orchestra's status as a great band and they emerged from that one performance with his reputation not only reestablished, but enhanced.

[Dr. J.]

Originally posted by DWBass
> As a musician, I can further expand on the subject. In the studio, you are in a controlled environment. Where you must play a composition exactly as written as well as rehearsed and to the letter.

With all due respect, I don't believe that's always the case. It certainly wasn't when I watched a quartet recording recently. They knew what tunes they were going to play, and in what key, and the order of the solos, but after that basic stuff it was as improvised as any live performance.

Having said that, I agree with everyone else who has a preference for live jazz. The energy can be incomparable (it can also be drained off by a rude, inattentive crowd). One of the things that makes "live" so exciting is the unpredictability: not knowing if the players will be "on," or what magic moment (or train wreck) will occur. It's a brave thing, making unscripted music with no chance for electronic fixes. It's part of why I admire jazz musicians so much.

[DWBass]

Originally posted by Dr. J.
Originally posted by DWBass
> As a musician, I can further expand on the subject. In the studio, you are in a controlled environment. Where you must play a composition exactly as written as well as rehearsed and to the letter.

With all due respect, I don't believe that's always the case. It certainly wasn't when I watched a quartet recording recently. They knew what tunes they were going to play, and in what key, and the order of the solos, but after that basic stuff it was as improvised as any live performance. I have worked sessions where the band leader or producer wanted me to play to the letter and whatever I did make a mistake on, had me punch in! It's true that some situations allow for improv but I'm talking in general. Listen to Spyro Gyra's studio cd's and then listen to say, Road Scholars. Big difference. I'm only speaking from my own experiences and observations.

[Dr. J.]

Originally posted by DWBass

> I have worked sessions where the band leader or producer wanted me to play to the letter and whatever I did make a mistake on, had me punch in!

Ouch..

> It's true that some situations allow for improv but I'm talking in general. Listen to Spyro Gyra's studio cd's and then listen to say, Road Scholars. Big difference. I'm only speaking from my own experiences and observations.

Me too. I'm also willing to accept the differences. Without them, our conversations wouldn't be nearly as interesting. !

[gabegabrielsky]

I think live jazz and recorded jazz are entirely different, though related, experiences. One is not better than the other. They are just different. At one level, jazz would probably not exist were it not for recording. Jazz and recording technology grew up together. It is still impossible to notate some of the more subtle aspects of a jazz performance using standard European notation techniques. Thus precisely because it can't be accurately notated, recording becomes an essential medium to transmit the tradition.

Of course there is nothing that can replace the sponteneousness of a live performance. But sometimes spontaneousness can be inspired and sometimes not. Recording, especially live recording, gives us the opportunity to permanently capture the best moments in jazz. Also, recording gives us the opportunity to study the intricacies and subtlties of jazz. I can tell really great jazz recordings because they are the ones in which I hear something new even after playing them 100 times or more.

One of the more interesting experiences is to get a recording of a concert or club date which you attended and compare the recording to your memories of the event. Sometimes our memories turn out to be superior to recordings of the event and sometimes the opposite is the case, something that was not all that impressive heard live turns out to be a classic.

[Tenorman]

Live Jazz is (hopefully) an atmosphere. The whole experience of going out, getting in among a crowd of like minded people and then the show starts and you hear something you have never heard before.

The points about the sound are also valid. No domestic Hi-Fi will reproduce a live performance exactly as was.

So yes recorded is second best, but then we can't all have best all of the time ;)

[shawn·m]

Forgive me if I repeat something someone else already said. I intentionally skipped reading replies to get my thoughts down (and on an older thread at that!).

From a listener’s perspective, I’d say the appeal of live music has to do with being there at the very moment of creation –and understanding the moment will never come again. Removing yourself from your home to have a listen also does away with all those mundane domestic distractions that get in the way. Add also that I’ve heard musicians do stuff live that I’ve never heard on any of their records.

Given the chance I’ll try and catch the very first show when some name-band comes to town. They’re tired, they’re pissed off, then they fuck up but the recoveries are worth the price of admission all by themselves. You don’t get that from recordings.

Still, I’ll not part with my CD collection anytime soon.

[jaz_zak]

No loudspeaker can ever duplicate the sound of a live performance where the accoustics of the environment dictate a different "live" sound in evey venue not to mention the interaction between the audiance and musicians.

[Bev Stapleton]

I agree with the 'they're just different' line.

I also suspect that our perception of the quality of the music can be affected by just being there, the sense of occasion, who we are with, what we're drinking!

I can think of concerts I've attended which have later been broadcast or released and not sounded nearly as affecting.

I'm just grateful to be able to do both.

[gabegabrielsky]

So what's better, a recording of a great band or a medocre band live? I think it depends on your mood and energy level. Unfortunately many (nearly all IMHO) the greats are gone so the only way we have to hear them is on record. Live recordings run from barely listenable to superb. People tried to record virtually every note that Bird ever blew, and in many instances those recordings are gastly. Give me a commercial recording any day.

[Muskrat]

You get to go away from home for several hours, perhaps paying a baby sitter. You get to support parking lot owners and parking lot attendants, who may not damage your car. You get to pay a cover charge that's at least the price of an album, plus (often enough) at least a minimum food and beverage charge.

You get to sit in front of/behind someone who is talking through most of the set; perhaps using his or her cell phone to make an important call. You get to wait for the act to set up and get around to beginning, and you get to hear through a sound system that's poorly balanced, too loud, or both. The headliner may be using his or her regular band, or a pick-up outfit of unpredictable quality and who may be unfamiliar with the repertoire. The music in that case can be truly spontaneous, i.e., unrehearsed. Meandering or boring solos that might be edited out of the recorded version stand in their full glory in live performances. The headliner may be drunk, stoned, or just plain surly, and give a below-par performance.

Then, there are those glorious moments where everything comes together and you forget all of those bad experiences...

[edrowland]

I don't know how many times I've done this. When attending events at the Ottawa Jazz Festival, I make a point of buying CDs by artists that have caught my attention while I'm there. Consistently, I seem to be disappointed by the CDs.

Part of this, I'm sure, is that artists who perform at the Ottawa Jazz Festival are developing artists. In some cases, CDs are a year old or more, and may not reflect development that's happened recently, or may not reflect particularly good dynamics between current members of the band.

There does seem to be a pattern though.

Very often I find the music on the CDs to be too "perfect". The music sounds over-engineered: the sound is just too pretty for my taste. The most obvious example of this is drums, which are often heavily compressed on studio albums during mastering. Technically, it is impressive when the drums seem to float in just the right place; but some of the raw energy and dynamics of a live performance are lost in the process. I'm not an expert on audio engineering, but I suspect that this is an artifact of engineers who are more familiar with mixing music from other genres. This seems to be a flaw that's found more often on the CDs of minor artists than on the CDs of major artists. I suspect that there are good jazz audio engineers in the studio and bad, just as the are good and bad sound engineers on mixing boards. (I can personally vouch for the existence of the latter).

The other thing that seems to be missing on these CDs is that the music often seems to lack the edge of live performance. There are no mistakes, but there's no risk-taking either. I've performed but never really recorded; but I can easily imagine that the pressure to get it right in the studio will produce less risk-taking.

The price of that is high. Jazz takes place on the "edge" (choose your favorite edge). I was taught that if you're butt isn't out there hanging over the edge, then you're not doing it right. If you're not in that place, then the magic doesn't happen. The real magic of jazz happens in those breathtaking moments when music seems to flow spontaneously from a mysterious place; and the best and most consistent way to bring about the magic is to flirt with disaster.

[Midnight Blue]

Speaking as someone who has a partner who (in the beginning anyway) didn't like 'Jazz' music, seeing the musicians live suddenly made the music make sense to her in a way that the recording couldn't.

There were probably a few reasons for this, but the main one is INTERACTION - it's all there in front of you - the musical decisions, the communication and interelation of instruments that go together to make up the performance as a whole. As someone who previously had witnessed only live music as basically a replication of recorded music, the live excitement of unique, on-the-spot playing opened up a whole new way of appreciating music.

If you could get more people to live jazz performances then we'd have an awful lot more jazz fans. For people who wouldn't sit through a listening of an old big band LP recording, put the same people in front of the same band live and the reaction will probably be totally different.

[Dan Jacobs]

I agree with Rich Wetzel on this point. In the March 05 issue of Jazz Improv magazine, I was interviewed on this and other subjects. As I said in that magazine, I'm always trying to capture the "live" feeling in a recording even if in a studio setting for this specific purpose. The audience, in my opinion, is a member of the band. They can contribute to the overall performance with their feedback and enthusiasm or detract from it by their disinterest and neglect.

So, how can you capture the feeling of having the audience there when you're in a studio setting? Many ways have been tried in attempts to accomplish this but here a method that has worked for me in over 30 albums that I have produced and/or played on.

CLARIFY YOUR PURPOSE and SIMPLIFY YOUR WAY OF ACCOMPLISHING IT.

Decide what it is that you're trying to do. Write it down or clarify it in some significant manner. Then figure out how to best accomplish that purpose with the least number of intervening steps. Don't skip any important ones but knock off the extraneous ones so you have your attention on doing what is necessary to accomplish the goal.

Make sure everyone involved in the recording is on the same page as you are with regard to what you're trying to do. Even visitors can influence the overall feel of the session, for good or bad. Beginning a recording with a purpose like "to record a hit and make a lot of money" is only very superfically workable. In the long run it will create more problems for you. Your greatest asset is your own unique musical voice. Find a way to get that marketable and the money will find you.

Finally, stay completely in the moment, not stuck in the past recalling some great recording you did last year or in the future, thinking of how successful you're going to be.

Create spontaneously in the moment and you'll have some possiblity of capturing that elusive magic of the live performance with the controlled environment of the studio. - Dan Jacobs, trumpet/producer

[Fran]

Unfortunately it's often not.

[Lee Gato]

The advantages of live of been mentioned already in this thread, though I would emphasize two points: 1. Nothing can beat hearing the actual sound waves coming straight from an instrument. 2. Solos tend to be longer and build in even greater intensity to those moments of even greater creativity than was expected.

On the other hand, there's a "down to the essence" quality that I enjoy in a lot of recordings.

[Fojazz]

From a listener’s perspective, I’d say the appeal of live music has to do with being there at the very moment of creation –and understanding the moment will never come again. Removing yourself from your home to have a listen also does away with all those mundane domestic distractions that get in the way.

I agree with this 100%. I have a really hard time with free improv or other really "outside" music on records. I just can't get into it. But I can enjoy that stuff live, because I'm there in the same room as the musicians, feeling (and feeding into) the exact same atmosphere they're experiencing at that moment, and there's nothing to distract from that immediate experience.

The same is true of any form of jazz, but I really start to feel the difference when there's less anchorage in the music.

[gabegabrielsky]

"There were probably a few reasons for this, but the main one is INTERACTION - it's all there in front of you - the musical decisions, the communication and interelation of instruments that go together to make up the performance as a whole."

This also probably explains why jazz was much more popular when it was a dance music as then the interaction was much more participatory. Dancers weren't just passively listening, but actively participating and literally contributing to the music with their bodies.