Thin Lazy?

February 1st – As is usual with these bits of chatter, I tend to ask more questions than I offer answers; my main object, I guess, is to set others on a quest after they've read my gibbering, even if that quest is just to prove how big a tosser I really am… So here’s today’s offering in tosserdom. What constitutes a live recording and does it matter?

Anybody else out there got Thin Lizzy’s ‘Live and Dangerous’ album? So, what do you think; a great, powerhouse album showing the band at their live best, full of sound and fury and signifying everything, or a manipulated piece of recorded jigger-pokery that purports to be summat it aint and isn't worth diddley? 

A tenuous link to what follows it may be but nevertheless, it was on this day in 1974 that Eric Bell left Thin Lizzy through ‘alcohol problems’...given the regenerated substance abuse stories circulating a number of that particular band’s members that must have been some habit that caused him to quit…I hope and trust that all is well with him now. All that aside, I guess the fundamental question emanating from this piece of rock news is: what’s the difference between ‘live’ and ‘studio’; what constitutes chicanery? I mean, if we watch, say, Derren Brown (nothing against him, not a vendetta, just a proposition) if we watch Derren Brown do his magic, his slight of hand stuff, are we any the less entertained or excited by the fact that we know he’s pulling a fast one, that the show is there ‘for entertainment purposes only’? That what he does isn't real? I mean that stunt he pulled with the Russian roulette thing. That was done purely for telly; right? ‘Live’ it may well have purported to be…but what do we know? There’s so much manipulation in vision, yet we watch, thrilled and excited at the prospect that someone is running the risk of having their head blown off ‘live’ and on telly, knowing all along it’s not gonna happen and why: in the nicest possible way, we recognise that it’s a thrilling con and the trill is what we relish.

It’s what the street people used to do back in the 18th and 19th century in order to rob you of your snuff-box, your silk scarf, your pocket watch (my dad told me, ‘Never trust a man whose shoes are lighter than his trousers ‘cos he’ll flick his foot, your eyes are distracted and ‘boom’ you’re a wallet light’. Dads, huh?). Nowadays that sort of a hand job (now then, settle…settle…) has been turned into a leisure event, something to marvel at, be entertained by, thrilled by; to be in close proximity of something enlightening and ‘wonderful’ (in the true sense of the word).

Well, isn't that the same thing with ‘Live and Dangerous’? The fact that the album was manipulated back in the studio, licks supposedly over-dubbed to make them sharper or clearer, solos re-recorded to make them safe. Well, that’s what begged the opening question; what exactly constitutes a live album? OK, I know what the obvious answer is, but humour me for a moment. 

In a live stage environment, the mics, band, backline and drums are in place. At the front of the stage is a stack of speakers and further back in the auditorium is the sound mixing desk with an operator who manipulates the f/x and volume controls to help enhance the band’s performance; you know, echo, reverb, feedback levels etc, so that what the band plays at least bears some resemblance to the stuff we've all heard on their latest recording. 

In a recording studio environment the mics, band, backline and drums are in place. There are no speakers ‘cos we’re not having to crush the listeners with 6 billion decibels of sound, so we internalise all that volume into the recording control room which is further back from the performers and contains the sound mixing desk with an operator who manipulates the f/x and volume controls to help enhance the band’s performance; you know, echo, reverb, feedback levels etc. 

Now, with the tape switched on (shows my age dunnit?) the music the band play ‘live’ in the studio is recorded and it’s ‘live’ when they play it, yeah? So, where does the crossover happen to turn a recording from ‘live’ to ‘studio’… and, more importantly, does it matter? Is it in the electronic manipulation and if so what price, wah-wah peddles, fuzz boxes and Boss GT5’s? I mean, if the instruments were being reproduced by a clavichord or synthesiser all operated by a computer, then OK, but a guitar played by a man or woman is still a guitar played by a man or woman, aint it? Some better than others, OK, but still…they have to have a level of skill and be able to reproduce that skill over and over, in studio or on stage…so where’s the difference?

I mean, those two guys…the ones that wear suits and dark glasses…they’re cousins or summat I think…anyway, whatever, those two who do the festivals and such, big extravaganza’s, lots of lights and smoke? Well all their stuff is pre-recorded into keyboards and they mix it on stage…‘live’ – and the lots of lights and smoke are the stage equivalent of a man wearing white shoes – but, because it’s all pre-recorded, does that make it any the less a ‘live’ performance? Neither do I know of a single stage musical either on tour or in the West End at the present time that doesn't use…Chemical Brothers!!!! That’s it, The Chemical Brothers…! Phew! Got it… sorry, OK, erm… there’s not a single stage musical either on tour or in the West End at the present time that doesn't use click tracks to help the band keep time and run pre-recorded backing vocals to add beef to the gig vox; does that make the 'live' musical theatre event we see any less worthy of the name? FIIK… Depending on who you talk to, band member or engineer, ‘Live and Dangerous’ is either 75% live or 75% studio, but I’ll tell you one thing that I've never had any doubt about; in my very humble opinion it’s one of the best, most exciting, most thrilling ‘live’ albums ever recorded…so there...