Sam Spoons wrote: Arpangel wrote:
Sam Spoons wrote:I wonder if it's more to do with the performance, new bands are often intimidated and a little reserved in the studio? I know I was when a mate with a decent small pro studio offered to record a demo of my covers band. He did get a decent enough performance out of us but it wasn't as exciting as us playing to an audience.
I think this is terrible actually, if a new band feels intimidated in any recording situation or studio it's not their fault, it's the studio.
It's up to the studio, engineers etc to make them feel as relaxed and creative as possible, if this isn't that case then they're in the wrong place.
No it's not, it's just that inexperienced bands are bound to be tense in a new situation (i.e. the studio). A good studio will certainly do their best to get a good performance but, as Watchmaker says :-.
Watchmaker wrote:Playing live and studio recording are two distinct disciplines with different objectives and feedback loops. Sure a "song" is a common element, but draw the Venn diagram in your mind as there are a great many important distinctions.
I know we're all different, but for me, there is no difference at all, between studio or live performances, I'm still giving a performance, the audience is just different, or just me!
I know there are works that are created in the studio, and the feedback processes are crucial to those things, in that environment, but surely, you must know what you want to a certain extent, as a band, I guess that's why some bands choose certain studios, in preference to others.
I still stand by the traditional commercial studio set up, it's a great leveler, and it gives you the opportunity to get useful feedback, but there is a school of thought that thinks exactly the opposite is true, and critical isolation and home studios can yield far more original results.