No more live

Well, I actually have to agree. The most incredible example of this is the last (and long delayed) Guns'n'Roses album: actually it's not bad at all, with nice hooks and fine playing, but it sounds so f*ckingly processed and artificial that it's impossible not to feel at least some disgust. Sure, it's slick as hell, but sometimes even an untrained ear will notice that there is something wrong: too many layered instruments, some blatant use of a vocoder to help Axl in the most difficult passages, heavy ProTools editing. And yes, no ambiance unless you call ambiance the effects added digitally.

Personally I am not a fan of 100% "live" music: I understand that for some genres the synthetic feel is actually a bonus. Being a raving fan of Depeche Mode, I love the sound of their albums, their electronic artificial sound and the fact that they ASSEMBLE their songs rather than PLAY them in studio (although it must be said that they often use tricks like the reverb of a real recording room to have a less "synthetic" feel). At least, anyway, they still manage to sound great live too: quite simply, they adopt a different (but not less effective) style for live concerts. So, great very polished albums, and great energetic live shows (the last one I saw in Manchester was stunning, and I plan to see them in Milan in June).

The last drop is that even bands from genres that used to call for a "live in studio" approach are going backwards. Take for example metal: if there was a genre of great musicianship, that is metal. In metal, especially the more "progressive" variants, you really must know how to play, you have to learn impeccable timing. Today, many metal bands have forgotten this and resort to technical wizardry to assemble their records. Take Metallica and compare "Master of puppets" with their latest "Death Magnetic": apart from the obvious difference in creativity and songwriting, "Death Magnetic" sounds slicker... but emptier (well, actually it's also one of the lousiest mastering jobs ever heard, with such a nauseating dynamic compression and clipping that it's unbearable to listen unless you have a cheap boombox of a stereo). And of course, live they now suck.
Staying with metal, also Dream Theater's most recent albums show this "digital trickery"/cut&paste studio assembly. But at least they sound good, and they still can play very well in a live concert too (well, apart from LaBrie's voice... which in studio recordings is helped ENORMOUSLY by studio techniques).

On the other hand, I was enormously surprised to hear Opeth (stunning band!) live: they play with the same virtuoso intensity, precision and fantastic interplay that they show on the studio albums. At least some metal bands still do it "the way they used to".  


Edited by Lucabeer - 03 Feb 2009 at 8:08am

"Few people now seem to be able to play their instruments skillfully and with inspiration.  Folks who are second-rate guitarists now record their own drum tracks, because they can edit this and loop that little part they accidential played correctly. ProTwells has made matters worse. Now even Joe Blow can lie on his back in his bathtub at home and record a rock album."


Mmmmmm... Dragonforce, anyone?

Actually the comparison you should make is between how Dragonforce sound in the albums (annoying cartoon sound, totally empty music... but an incredible speed and technique - at least if one is naive enough to think that they were actually playing that stuff), and how they sound live. Yes, because live they clearly show that in the albums then can mantain that speed and prowess only thanks to digital cut&paste.

I got to know this band "thanks" to the Guitar Hero III game, where their song is so ridiculously hard to play even with the toy guitar of the PlayStation... And as a matter of fact, even the guitar player of the band failed miserably when asked to play the song in the game (which should be easier than the real thing)!