cmh blog 02 2006

I decided back in the fall that I would consider making field recordings of live concerts. This seemed like an innocuous little project, but it has turned out to be much more involved than I had expected. This is because there were negotiations involved in getting permissions, and then a significant amount of clean-up work to be done on the sound. Finally, the bands need to give their all-clear with respect to their performance after hearing the finished product.

Now I’ve listened to live recordings of myself, and I’m sure that those of you who have of yourselves will remember the experience of focusing on all the little slips and inconsistencies in your performance and in the recording itself.

In and around this hangs the question, why not just play the studio tracks that bands have slaved over, rather than the live tracks with their warts and problems. In other words, why make field recordings at all? I was recently asked this fairly directly by one of the band members who also happens to record and produce great studio recordings, and so I spent about 5 hours today writing a response. I surprised myself by the number of things I had to say on this topic. So here’s a note (slightly edited given that none of you have heard the recording in question) from me to James and Ian on field recordings.

Hi James and Ian,

Thanks for your kind emails about the recording.

I’ve learned a huge amount in doing this project so far. The single-point stereo recording technique that I continue to be attracted to is brutally true to the space. My previous single-point recording was made at the Carsonby hall, a wonderful small wooden space that sounds so cozy that it enhances the sound of just about anything — even Sacred Harp! An ambient recording in that space gains as much from the room as from the singers. A stereo recording in the National Library is a different beast altogether. (In the future I would like to try tapping the house board and doing my own recording mix.)

Here’s the thing: I agree with everything you two have pointed out regarding the sound, but I don’t believe the problems overwhelm the enjoyment of listening to the recording. Although I would certainly love to have a recording that avoids some of the problems, I think there are many good reasons why this recording is worth putting on the air. James has brought up the important question of what a live field recording hopes to achieve, and what listeners will get from this kind of thing as opposed to simply airing a cut from the studio CD. I’m going to try to answer that question now.

I have the greatest of respect for the studio process, and for James’ recordings in particular. I love putting on great studio albums and your CD is a particular favourite. I don’t say this to be ingratiating, but because I want to go on and say that a great live recording can be as enjoyable — even if the studio album has better sound. At the risk of sounding like a separatist, I think live field recordings are in a different category from studio material… not better, not worse, just different.

To me, the watchword of the studio album process is ‘control’. It’s like a painting. The players and producer have in mind the result they want and the name of the game is to translate this vision to tape. You’ve spent your time arranging the material to your satisfaction, determining the sound you want and now you want to present this arrangement to the world. It can be refined over time to bring it into line with the vision. It can be a masterpiece.

A good field recording is never a masterpiece, even if it sounds great. The watchword is ‘document’ rather than ‘control’. It’s more like photography than painting. The best live field recordings can capture the essence of a live performance, which is the personality of the players coming out through the music in the kind of effortless groove that comes from jamming in front of an audience. And the sound of the audience on the recording makes the listener a part of that audience and brings them into the performance itself. You can become part of the event when you hear a live recording, and this allows you to form an emotional connection with the players that is different from the passive listener role that you are in when listening to a studio recording.

When I appreciate a studio recording I appreciate and enjoy focusing on the music and arrangements. When I listen to a live recording (or attend a concert) I gain appreciation for the band and the players as well as the tunes. Part of that rapport comes from (as James suggests) the amiable, informative and entertaining stage talk that is directed at the audience. I think this is where that sense of immediacy comes from too. The stage talk lends an insight into why the performer cares about the particular piece of music, and from this we gain insight into the performer themselves. So when James says that MFTG listeners would approach the recording differently (from his own personal emotional reaction) I am not sure I agree. (I hope I am not putting words in his mouth here.) In any case, I think that an acceptable field recording can make you wish you’d been there in a way that a studio recording isn’t focused on.

The last point I want to address is the question of how the recording will stand up next to produced material. I think there’s two aspects of that: imperfections in live material, and hearing the recordings side by side with studio quality tracks.

I think there is a charm to a live performance that includes little slips, inaccuracies, audience noise and, yes, ambient room sound. I know from listening to recordings of my own vocal trio (which is in stasis right now) how there is a tendency to focus in on those little slips and inadequacies. I hope that you and the band will fight this tendency because I can tell you from having it on around the house that it is an enjoyable record of a very enjoyable concert — the audience applause alone is testament to that.

In terms of its radio context, the good news is that the room sound which at first seems strange also serves to immediately clue the listener in to the fact that this recording is apart from the other material we tend to broadcast. It sounds like a field recording, so people will respond to it as such. Having said that, so far I have not played live material without accompanying it with comments about how and when it was recorded. I see no reason why we would not keep setting up the recordings in this manner (if for no other reason than to let people know that they can’t go out and buy a copy).

With the information that it’s a live field recording of a performance I think that live recordings will stand up quite nicely in MFTG sets. I think that our listeners turn on the radio because they want to learn more about the music. This means that they want to hear new bands and new studio albums, but they also want to learn more about the players they already know. I think the kind of connection that listeners can get from a live recording can go a long way to bringing them into things they may not be familiar with, and also tightening their connection to the local players and scene. I hope that ultimately people feel like they wished they’d been there and that encourages them to get out there and go to traditional music concerts.

If all these reasons weren’t enough, I think field recordings are important also for their documentary aspect. There is a rich tradition of field recordings in the folk community, and there is no reason that today’s performers shouldn’t be documented in this way. Of course, the purpose of this recording on my part is for MFTG and I am no Alan Lomax but you all have copies of this recording and the copyright is yours to share now or in the future should you wish to do so.

This is a tricky email because I want to stand up for the process and the idea of doing field recordings, but — philosophical views about field recordings aside — I don’t want you to feel pressured by me to release this particular field recording unless you’re comfortable with it. Of course I hope that you’ll agree that I can use it, but I will understand and chalk it up to experience if you ultimately decide that it is something you want to keep for yourselves.

Let me know either way.

Cheers,
Colin