13-01-2012, 12:41
I think this has always been a problem.
I would imagine almost every live recording is touched up in some way, even if it's only in the mixing stage. Re-recording to some extent seems to be an industry standard, presumably to offer the consumer what the industry thinks the public wants. Thin Lizzy's live album Live & Dangerous - very highly regarded - is a notorious case where very little of the original live recording survived onto the album.
In my experience, completely untouched live recordings are pretty rare, to the point that artists seem to give an indication that there's no over-dubbing, if that's the case.
Whether or not anyone regards this as fraudulent is really down to the individual.
Don't forget that recording technology is always improving, so this may explain why more modern "live" recordings can sound very good...
It doesn't really worry me, but I can understand that it would bother some people.
I would imagine almost every live recording is touched up in some way, even if it's only in the mixing stage. Re-recording to some extent seems to be an industry standard, presumably to offer the consumer what the industry thinks the public wants. Thin Lizzy's live album Live & Dangerous - very highly regarded - is a notorious case where very little of the original live recording survived onto the album.
In my experience, completely untouched live recordings are pretty rare, to the point that artists seem to give an indication that there's no over-dubbing, if that's the case.
Whether or not anyone regards this as fraudulent is really down to the individual.
Don't forget that recording technology is always improving, so this may explain why more modern "live" recordings can sound very good...
It doesn't really worry me, but I can understand that it would bother some people.
"Writing about music is like dancing about architecture"
Unknown
Unknown