smoking guns Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 His outro vocals to rocket queen are amazing. Overdub or not. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
combos Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 (edited) Okay, that's one, but the fact remains that most albums that are released as live, while mostly live are still sweetened in the studio. Nirvana's Unplugged is unique for the reason that it really is 100% 1-take live. The point is that you're acting like a purist about it, but you can only name 1 album that is 100% live. There is really not much evidence to support your argument- unless Nirvana Unplugged is the only "live" album that you've ever liked. Personally I appreciate albums like Weld, Live Rust, Live on Two Legs, and Live Era. I just don't see the point in being unnecessarily self-righteous about it. If they add some backing vocals or accompaniments it doesn't mean that you still can't/don't/won't capture the essence of the performance. A lot of times it makes it better. If you want 100% live 100% of the time then go to the shows. Nirvana Unplugged is awesome, but it is the exception that proves the rule. Your assertions to the contrary only serve to prove the larger point."Filmed on Nov. 18, 1993, at a studio in Manhattan, the band’s Unplugged session was unusual for being recorded entirely live to tape; most guests relied on multiple takes. Remembers former Nirvana publicist Jim Merlis: “The press [at the shoot] had been at the Stone Temple Pilots’ Unplugged, and I believe they did every song, like, three or four times, and it was really boring. I was worried it could really, really go wrong.”As I said, when I was young and didn't know better, I thought live records meant, you know, that they were live! When I found out otherwise, I stopped buying them and I stopped listening to the ones I had owned. If you're into albums that simulate live performances, that's cool. But I'm not. If I want live, I'll download a really high end bootleg or go to youtube and experience a true live performance. If I want a studio recording, I'll throw on a studio recording. It's just my preference. Edited September 3, 2014 by combos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Dude Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 (edited) Okay, that's one, but the fact remains that most albums that are released as live, while mostly live are still sweetened in the studio. Nirvana's Unplugged is unique for the reason that it really is 100% 1-take live. The point is that you're acting like a purist about it, but you can only name 1 album that is 100% live. There is really not much evidence to support your argument- unless Nirvana Unplugged is the only "live" album that you've ever liked. Personally I appreciate albums like Weld, Live Rust, Live on Two Legs, and Live Era. I just don't see the point in being unnecessarily self-righteous about it. If they add some backing vocals or accompaniments it doesn't mean that you still can't/don't/won't capture the essence of the performance. A lot of times it makes it better. If you want 100% live 100% of the time then go to the shows. Nirvana Unplugged is awesome, but it is the exception that proves the rule. Your assertions to the contrary only serve to prove the larger point."Filmed on Nov. 18, 1993, at a studio in Manhattan, the band’s Unplugged session was unusual for being recorded entirely live to tape; most guests relied on multiple takes. Remembers former Nirvana publicist Jim Merlis: “The press [at the shoot] had been at the Stone Temple Pilots’ Unplugged, and I believe they did every song, like, three or four times, and it was really boring. I was worried it could really, really go wrong.”As I said, when I was young and didn't know better, I thought live records meant, you know, that they were live! When I found out otherwise, I stopped buying them and I stopped listening to the ones I had owned. If you're into albums that simulate live performances, that's cool. But I'm not. If I want live, I'll download a really high end bootleg or go to youtube and experience a true live performance. If I want a studio recording, I'll throw on a studio recording. It's just my preference. I get where you're coming from, I do- its just unrealistic and unnecessarily self-righteous. I appreciate the warts and all approach, but its exceedingly rare. Most people just want the music they listen to to sound good- whether its a show, a studio release, or a live record. So what if a band overdubs a few vocals or cleans up a bit of their instrumental passages. It doesn't change the fact that everything else is live. What about when bands add a live passage to their studio records? Does that somehow compromise the integrity of that album- because it wasn't done entirely in the studio? Is it dishonest for Neil Young to release one-take studio albums? Should he have called Greendale "Live from My Barn"?I do think sometimes bands get carried away by sweetening their live records...and lose the spirit of a performance. Kiss "Alive" immediately comes to mind. Some would argue Axl and/or Slash did that on Live Era. I personally don't think so. I think they captured the essence of the Illusion era touring band. The primary crticism I think you could make about Live Era is that there is very little representation of the AFD era band. Maybe that is due to a lack of quality soundboards, I don't know. I think it would have been cool if they did 1 disc from that era and another from the Illusion era.Anyhow, if you ever get bored of listening to Nirvana Unplugged- I have a couple of buddies who play in a band and they usually record their shows. The band sucks and the music sounds like crap, but you'll probably like it because its 100% live. I kid, I kid. I do understand your point of view. I'm just presenting mine. Edited September 3, 2014 by Mr. Dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broskirose Posted September 3, 2014 Share Posted September 3, 2014 .....I believe the Vocals for You Could Be Mine on Live ERA have been recorded by Rose in 1999 on top of a live proformance from Tokyo 1992. Go listen for youself and judge. I know its nothing important, just thought i'd throw it out there. It's my first thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealmylife Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Van halen live right here right now also completely studio. Sammy Hagar did all his vocals in one session and the van halen brother redid practically everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvH Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Van halen live right here right now also completely studio. Sammy Hagar did all his vocals in one session and the van halen brother redid practically everythingYeah, and this albul is still a piece of shit. Unbelievable that we still don't have any official classic vh live document even if there's plenty of amazing bootlegs (Largo...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealmylife Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Van halen live right here right now also completely studio. Sammy Hagar did all his vocals in one session and the van halen brother redid practically everythingYeah, and this albul is still a piece of shit. Unbelievable that we still don't have any official classic vh live document even if there's plenty of amazing bootlegs (Largo...)There's no decent Roth era Van Halen pro shots, I think Largo and the rest are awful quality There's live without a new for the Hagar years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts