Studio vs Live question

[DVJENS]

Gotta admit...I have never been in a studio recording session, nor have I ever played live other than with my buddies and my basement jam sessions. I am just a weekend warrior that loves to play around with bass and no real aspirations or dreams of being a pro at this point in my life. But I'm wondering something...I go to lots of live shows of major bands. Mostly older, classic stuff that I can hum the bass line to in my sleep. And I pay attention to how closely they adhere to the recorded bass line. I had, at one point, been working on Boston's bassline in Amanda and when I saw them play it live a while ago, it was nothing like the intricate bass parts that are in the recorded versions. I don't mean to say it was bad or sounded wrong. In many ways the live version fit in the pocket of the song better - at least live. But I find Boston to be quite difficult to emulate quite frankly and was surprised at how much of the original bassline was left out of the live version.

So to those of you who play professionally. Are there some bass parts that are just too difficult to pull off in a live situation? Or perhaps is it a conscious decision by really good bass players to keep it simpler because it fits better in a live situation. I'm asking as someone who has spent a lot of time learning classic songs note for note out of a tab book. But sometimes it ends up feeling wooden and scripted. When I just sit there by myself with no real intent of following along note for note with the song and just let myself wander a bit over chord progressions, I am sometimes surprised with the things that just come out of nowhere and sound kind've good in the context of the song. I'm sure there are some bass parts, runs and fills that are so iconic it wouldnt' be wise to change at all. I mean John Deacon opening Another One Bites the Dust in any other way that what was recorded would be pretty tough to stomach. Same with Roger Water's Money. Things like that need to be played note for note. But other than that do good players use the original recording as a starting point? Is that what good bass players do in live settings? Or do they try to adhere to the original bass lines. Or are there some parts that are just too hard to do live? Just curious...the more live music I listen to the more I notice it. I saw Whitesnake last week and just loved Mike Devine's tone and take on some classic Whitesnake songs. I was paying attention and there were a lot of differences from the album version. Of course, then there's Geddy Lee. I saw them a few weeks ago and couldn't believe what that guy could pull off live. But then he belongs to some super-species that I will never be part of so I have my sites set a bit more realistically. Just curious. Thanks in advance for the advice.

 

[MalcolmAmos]

............. Is that what good bass players do in live settings? Or do they try to adhere to the original bass lines. Or are there some parts that are just too hard to do live? Just curious...the more live music I listen to the more I notice it. I saw Whitesnake last week and just loved Mike Devine's tone and take on some classic Whitesnake songs. I was paying attention and there were a lot of differences from the album version. Of course, then there's Geddy Lee. I saw them a few weeks ago and couldn't believe what that guy could pull off live. But then he belongs to some super-species that I will never be part of so I have my sites set a bit more realistically. Just curious. Thanks in advance for the advice.

I do not think being too hard has anything to do with it. Studio work, as I understand it, is more exact. Live work is free to flow with the room.

My understanding of studio work and live work - they are not the same. Studio work may take up-teen do-overs before they are ready to release it. Live music is live, what you hear is what just got played. The studio drummer may or may not even be with the band.

Understand I'm not a pro, just another guy that likes to play bass. Very little money changes hands and we do a lot of playing if they feed us. Everybody has a day job. This post deals with live music not being played the same each time. Note for note may happen, but, if not we do not beat ourselves around the head and face.

In the Praise band I'm in we will practice a song on Wednesday and Sunday morning and then when we play it for Sunday's service, 9 times out of 10, it's not going to be note for note what we did in practice. Each performance is a little different. In Praise if the lead vocalist feels an extra chorus is needed, yep, we play an extra chorus. Most of the music I play I have no idea what the original bass line was. How we fit with each other is IMO more important than note for note with what the original artist played. ------ I do know there is a group that feels it must be note for note... Some of us are a little more relaxed and I dare say have more fun...

In the Country band where I play rhythm guitar I've not played from sheet music in years, it's all jamming. We've been playing the same ole 50 songs for over 15 years; Loy calls the song and the key and off we go. What you get today is what we did today... Live music is free to move with the flow.

I think this also happens with the pros. Studio and live are two different things. I've never been in a studio and suspect live is a lot more fun.

 

[Dogbertday]

Recordings are like photographs in that they represent a moment in time. IE: That's how Boston played Amanda on a specific time and in a specific place.

There's also many recordings where studio is simpler than live. Steve Miller's take the money and run is a good example of this.

 

[Mushroo]

For a lot of bands (especially classic rock/pop) it is not the same players on the record.

 

[pravus]

I think it has to do with the goals of the individual player and the band collectively. Studio work is a completely different animal than live work the way it is usually done these days. Multi-track and especially digital recording opened up a whole new world of capabilities in terms of composing a single performance. It is extremely easy to record pieces that would be very difficult to play as a soloist in a live setting. Therefore as an artist that does both you would be put into a position where compromises must be made.

Different bands handle this different ways. I watched a Foo Fighters concert and was a little amazed to find it a bit sloppy. It wasn't bad and the crowd loved it but it wasn't "CD quality". I would argue that they focus on crowd experience rather than correctness. Contrast that with Megadeth. I literally thought a CD was playing until I looked at the television and noticed it was a live concert. That's a band that is heavily focused on recreating the studio experience on stage. Nine Inch Nails goes an entirely different direction. Trent Reznor defines a different sound for his live shows and considers his touring band to be a completely separate entity from his studio band even if the artists are the same. He focuses primarily on providing an artistic representation of his albums.

Then there's also the point brought up above about arranged music. A lot of pop music is written by one person, performed in a studio by another, marketed as the work of yet another artist and is then performed live by a revolving group of musicians who are all allowed their own minor arrangements. So what is the "real" version of the song? Do we care if it's pop? ;D

 

[DVJENS]

All very interesting. Thanks for the responses. I've learned a lot. I go see all kinds of music...everything from hip hop to classic metal. The one thing I've noticed is that the guys (or gals) in "classic" rock bands that have blues undertones tend to wing it from show to show a bit more and not adhere so much to the recording. I guess that sort've goes with the territory. The more technical stuff I would agree with - it is more true to the recording. I saw Megadeth live a couple years ago and just as you said, I could have sworn I was listening to the cd. Also saw Stryper sort've on a lark...and was very surprised at their musicianship. And it was note for note from their albums for two straight hours! Rush was very technical and again, seemed to be very true to the recording. I've seen dozens of old classic rockers - and some of them several times. And it seems to change with the mood they are in at least in their basslines. The funny thing is, just like one of you said, sometimes it seems a bit sloppy when compared to the record but no one cares. I've never heard one of these guys and felt cheated that I wasn't listening to the record. It was live and it had feeling and it fit the moment. I had never heard of this Mike Devin fellow but enjoyed the crap out of listening to him. Just complemented the band so well and I didn't care in the slightest if he was doing his own thing aside from the original recording. As an aside.. because of him and all the other good bassists I have seen come through that play almost entirely with a pick, I am going to stop feeling ashamed that I like playing almost entirely with a pick. I've finally decided that bass is about groove and tempo and sound and complementing the band and I just can do that better and I sound better playing with a pick so I'm going to stop denying who I am...lol. Thanks again. Pretty much confirmed what I was thinking but thanks for the thoughtful responses.

 

[Moe Monsarrat]

Playing live and playing studio sessions are two different things altogether. The size of the venue also can sort of dictate how much to play. When I play festivals or other very large events it's best to keep things simple because the giant sound system and those running it tend to blur the bass notes in a vast space. Not to mention notes bouncing back off a distant wall. You try playing something intricate and it sounds jumbled. In a club you can do whatever you want and are capable of. In recording sessions you have to be very careful to play exactly the right thing to Support The Song. That could mean playing more notes but it usually means playing less. You must play your absolute best with (in most cases) no one there to energize you like at a gig. Little things that don't seem to matter in a live gig situation become huge issues in the studio. Stuff like note duration, string choices and noises, plucking hand position and even which finger to pluck with are crucial. Playing with a click is also a must which is very different than most drummers. A whole lot of sessions I play on start with just me and a click tracking. Then everybody else comes in one at a time. You must have a track that is cut on the grid as a foundation and bass seems to be the instrument chosen to do that. It's paramount to try to pare down your parts to the bone in most cases. I was told that the great Duck Dunn would record a bass part and then listen to it. On the second take ( usually the keeper) he would not play but about half the notes he played on the 1st take. On the other hand, there's Jamerson!

 

[Johnny Crab]

^^^^^^^^^^^^ Moe covered most all of it.

Note that if you are used-to playing with full-range cabinets(i.e. ACME's or PA only or in-ears) and/or studio-grade headphones where you hear EXACTLY what you play, this will help a lot because you hear details that can be lost or not heard in a "traditional" bass rig. As mentioned above, in the studio EVERYTHING you do will get heard and recorded quite clearly including any timing issues or finger noise. The engineer can "fix" or "cover up" some of that but it is best to have things right from the start.