Rehearsed, perfect, studio, and polished vs raw, live, few mistakes, more feeling

[DieselDaisy]

I'm more on the polished side. Give me stuff like Muse and Radiohead over shit like Snakepit and modern (or classic for that matter) AC-DC any day.

Diesel, you're a moron if you think AFD was recorded live. The thing that sets it above the other Nobody puts baby in a corner of the era is that it actually has production values.

Appetite's basic tracks (two rhythm guitars, bass and drums) were recorded live together at Rumbo studios, so no, you are the moron. Also, you mention Snakepit and DC (I assume to make some rhetorical Axl-fandom inspired point about 'cheesy rock') but fail to mention Elvis, Chuck, early Beatles/Stones and Neil Young.

[bacardimayne]

I'm more on the polished side. Give me stuff like Muse and Radiohead over shit like Snakepit and modern (or classic for that matter) AC-DC any day.

Diesel, you're a moron if you think AFD was recorded live. The thing that sets it above the other Nobody puts baby in a corner of the era is that it actually has production values.

Appetite's basic tracks (two rhythm guitars, bass and drums) were recorded live together at Rumbo studios, so no, you are the moron. Also, you mention Snakepit and DC (I assume to make some rhetorical Axl-fandom inspired point about 'cheesy rock') but fail to mention Elvis, Chuck, early Beatles/Stones and Neil Young.

Those bands/artists all existed in a time when "raw" was pretty much the only option, or at least the norm for rock. I'd argue that a lot of their stuff would have sounded better with some extra production, but let's not go down that road and leave it at us never agreeing on anything.

As for AFD, you're trying to tell me that songs like Rocket Queen and SCOM were recorded live, together, in one take, save for some light overdubs afterwards? Compare the rough demos of the songs to the final mix and you'll understand why that's bullshit.

Edited December 8, 2013 by bacardimayne

[DieselDaisy]

I'm more on the polished side. Give me stuff like Muse and Radiohead over shit like Snakepit and modern (or classic for that matter) AC-DC any day.

Diesel, you're a moron if you think AFD was recorded live. The thing that sets it above the other Nobody puts baby in a corner of the era is that it actually has production values.

Appetite's basic tracks (two rhythm guitars, bass and drums) were recorded live together at Rumbo studios, so no, you are the moron. Also, you mention Snakepit and DC (I assume to make some rhetorical Axl-fandom inspired point about 'cheesy rock') but fail to mention Elvis, Chuck, early Beatles/Stones and Neil Young.

Those bands/artists all existed in a time when "raw" was pretty much the only option, or at least the norm for rock. I'd argue that a lot of their stuff would have sounded better with some extra production, but let's not go down that road and leave it at us never agreeing on anything.

As for AFD, you're trying to tell me that songs like Rocket Queen and SCOM were recorded live, together, in one take, save for some light overdubs afterwards? Compare the rough demos of the songs to the final mix and you'll understand why that's bullshit.

I did not say 'one take' - do not misquote me. My point is, Appetite's basic tracks were recorded together at Rumbo. Every interview on the subject from a bandmember supports this fact.

[wasted]

I dont agree that all the best was recorded raw. Theres still stuff like ELO or Faith No More that wasnt. I think the best in rock is freewheeling abandon so raw is the best bet, to keep in the spirit of it.

I always felt AFD more polished than UYI.

[DieselDaisy]

I always felt AFD more polished than UYI.

You must be joking? Illusion, the same album with about six million overdubs (e.g. Coma), movie sample, orchestration (November Rain) and an electronic song (My World)!

[bacardimayne]

I agree with Wasted. AFD always sounds clean. There's never any overlap of sounds, never any muddy, bloated sound. That's the definition of "polished" to me. The production on AFD is near-perfect. UYIs are a cluttered mess. Overproduced.

[DieselDaisy]

I think we are interpreting the original question from different angles. You seem to be coming at it from the aspect of, whether a production has flaws (or not). Appetite is of course perfect because, it is raw. Illusion is cack because it is, overproduced.

[bacardimayne]

I just have a hard time believing that it was all recorded together when everything sounds so isolated. Axl's vocals are perfect, clearly not the result of live takes with the band. Each guitar note is completely isolated to its own channel with absolutely no overlap. Compare that to other sleazerock records from the 70s and 80s where everything sounds muddy and shoved together and you should understand my hesitance to believe it.

[DieselDaisy]

But I never said Axl's vocals were recorded live - you are completely misinterpreting my point and do not seem to know much about Appetite!

The times are a little speculative but from what we know, Appetite For Destruction was recorded in two stages. Firstly, there were the basic tracks - two rhythm guitars, bass guitar and drums; these were recorded at Rumbo studios over a month long period (about, December 1986 until January 1987). Secondly there were the overdubs - Axl's vocals, the backing vocals, Slash's lead guitar and anything else (e.g. the synth in Paradise City); these overdubs were recorded in Take 1 Studio, (about January - May 1987).

[bacardimayne]

So the lead and rhythm were recorded separately? That makes more sense.

[DieselDaisy]

Yes. Unless there is a break in the rhythm, you are actually listening to three guitars while listening to a guitar solo: Slash's rhythm, Izzy's rhythm and Slash's lead.

[bacardimayne]

Yes. Unless there is a break in the rhythm, you are actually listening to three guitars while listening to a guitar solo: Slash's rhythm, Izzy's rhythm and Slash's lead.

So outside of the solos and little overdubs here and there, the dueling guitars that dominate the album were recorded live at the same time?

[DieselDaisy]

Yes, the two rhythms along with Duff and Adler. Personally I think the two rhythms really blend together, Slash and Izzy; it has that Stonesy feel. Slash is panned down one channel and Izzy, the other. I cannot remember which side is which but if you listen to it on headphones it is easy to work out who is who.

[Johnny Drama]

Izzy in the left. Whether it's AFD, UYI or even Ghost its Izzy in the left just as Slash is in the right on anything he's on.

[username]

Completely depends on the artist. With Pink Floyd I love the polished complex studio stuff. Queen works very well all polished and clean as well. But with most hard rock I really prefer the raw edge. Sort of AFD. And with some artist I just prefer the small live mistakes. Take the guest-version of Halestorm's Here's To Us (with Slash and Myles). I just LOVE how Lzzy's voice just doesn't seem to reach one note by accident towards the end. Or the Brussels Affair album by the Stones where Mick and Keith are both a bit off on Happy. It's just so unperfectly perfect.

The Beatles actually managed to balance polished and raw perfectly on some records. It's a great line if you can walk it.

I'd love a rawer production on CD too. But that also suffers from having too much going on at once. Too much layering and everything as once. Those two problems shouldn't be mixed up.

[axlslash]

I want professional but real sounding live. Take Springsteen and the E Street Band. They give no fucks about sticking to the setlist, and often pull out tunes they've never played live before or haven't played in decades because a fan holds up a sign. It's hardly "raw" though. There's never a stray note, the band is always right with Bruce, and you'd never know how spontaneous the stuff is just going on "rehearsdness" or how polished it sounds.