Jump to content

Studio better than Live? Myth or reality?


icantquityoubabe

Recommended Posts

Back in the 70s many of the people that listened to music often said that studio was pretty much always better than live. For obvious reasons, mixing and sound dubbing advantages. Does anyone think it is still true? Steely Dan for some reason or other was always known as a "studio band". But I heard recently they were playing at a local casino and this kind of shocked me. They were made up of Becker and Fagan pretty much as I knew. Any thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The big quesion is when did they start to play live. They refused to back in the 70s -were always known as the "studio band". Did you see them with the original members. I believe their names are Walter Becker and Dan Fagan.

They were a full band for the first 3 albums and toured to support them before going studio only from Katy Lied onwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always preferred studio to live performances in general, but that's just my opinion. In fact, I generally don't like live performances at all, but my two favorite-favorite bands happen to be phenomenal live--and actually do a better job with some songs live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never knew this. Do you believe Becker and Fagain are still together and active? They are teh main men and the true making of Steely Dan right? I heard the band played a gig at turning stone casino between Syacuse and Utica NY a few months ago. But Foreigner is also playing and calling themselves Foreigner. I dont care how good they may be, they are not really Foreigner without Lou Grahm in my opiniion. Like the Stones without Jagger. Who is going ot buy that? Van Halen seemed to pull it off but I never was a fan of theirs anyway.

Fagan(vocals and keyboards) and Becker(bass) have always been the core of the group and the main songwritters. Not exactly sure who plays with them live these days but from Katy Lied onwards the studio albums were recorded with session musicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hardly an either-or. If you take Led Zeppelin as an example, they could be out of this world live, but the theory that their essence was the live playing, while partly irrefutable (I never saw them live) and partly even convincing, still overlooks the very real studio wizardry of the band and of Jimmy Page in particular. The production of the albums very much forms part and parcel of what Page is about as an artist, as does his magnificent layering of guitars on many of the songs. And one thing you can't accuse him of is downplaying the others in the studio.

Jimi Hendrix was such a phenomenal live player, but same thing here - I'll listen to both. The studio versions, after all, are well thought out, and often have some qualities that it's hard or even impossible to reproduce live.

If you take a very different example, such as Genesis at the height of their progressive rock phase in the 70's, what they did basically was to compose, a bit similar to the classical masters. Even the solos would have to be pretty similar to the studio versions ('Supper's Ready' for instance: Tony Banks makes minimal changes to his solo, which was composed as part of the song's build-up). They were fantastic live players, and when you listen to them live a different quality comes to the fore, plus some parts will sound different for various reasons. In the end: it's worth hearing both.

Edit: And, oh, let me add: Steely Dan were fantastic - I love Aja, and not hearing live versions of the songs doesn't take anything away from them I'd think.

The Beatles - their best albums came after the decision to stop touring. We may not have any live versions, but the albums remain brilliant - Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, Abbey Road, The White Album.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...