Yeah. For a band that doesn't have an obvious "avenue" to a "Greatest Hits vol. 1" and then "Greatest Hits vol. 2" like Eagles or whoever, the live album summing up a period of the band made sense.
Yeah. For a band that doesn't have an obvious "avenue" to a "Greatest Hits vol. 1" and then "Greatest Hits vol. 2" like Eagles or whoever, the live album summing up a period of the band made sense.
They released about as many as their record company was going to let them do back then, and probably as many as they wanted to. As I said at the beginning of this thread, live albums were viewed in some quarters as being exploitative, getting your fans to pay for music that they already owned. And there were also those who said that a live album was a sign that you were "losing it", creatively speaking, i.e. you had to put out a live album because you were "running short on new song ideas" or whatever. I think the Rush guys even admitted that they did the first couple live albums, at least, because they felt like they needed to "recharge" and not have to worry getting another LP's worth of material together right away.Originally Posted by Scott Bails
So there was no way Mercury or whichever label was going to let anyone, circa 1980 or whatever, put out a live album off every tour. I think the reason they're able to do it now has more to do with the presence of the home video market, and that Rush does something interestingly, visually speaking, on each tour, so you shoot a show or two to represent that on the home video market. If it was just about putting out a live album every couple years, I don't think they could do it.
A live album can't be "exploitative" because no one makes somebody by an album. In the 1970s, bands were often putting out an album every year, so I doubt a new live album even every two years would sell well. King Crimson had two live albums in the 70s as did Yes but Rush only had one. I don't think anyone was worried those bands were running out of creativity then.
I think the real reasons have been mentioned: custom, expensive to get high quality and the slow rise of high quality and relativity inexpensive home entertainment systems.
Exactly.
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
as for Exit Stage Left, it's my least favorite live album. it sounds like the recording device was out in the lobby.
also hated that each song faded in & out which took away the continuity affect of a live show.
as i stated originally, i hope the original shows are released on anniversary issues of PW & MP.
PW 40th anniversary is less then a year away. it's not like their busy doing anything these days.
Have you been living under a rock? Geddy Lee has the #1 book in the "instruments" category!
I am very much looking forward to those releases to see what we get as bonus material. I was really happy to get the full Hammersmith show with A Farewell to Kings. Hell, I'd buy any tour up through Vapor Trails.
I just watched the Time Stand Still documentary. The music sounded incredible but damn, those vocals really grate when Geddy strains on older songs. I put off buying that R40 CD/DVD despite great curiosity about the staging of that tour and the set list. I guess I'll stream it and see if I can stomach the vox enough to buy it. It seems that my cutting off point for thoroughly enjoying the audio of a Rush show is the Vapor Trails tour. When you saw them live, it was harder to notice Ged's efforts to sing the old songs because the show was so damn loud, but listening at home it's another story.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart
Well, you're really kinda missing the point. First of all, there are ravenous, foaming at the mouth fanboys who will buy anything. That's what we're talking about here, exploiting the fanboys' willingness to buy anything, no matter how low rent, cheap, or whatever. Alan Douglas exploited Hendrix fanboys with many of the posthumous things he put out during the 70's-early 90's. Noel Redding once even joked that it wouldn't surprise him if an album came out of them belching and farting in the studio. Or maybe he wasn't joking, maybe he seriously believed that Douglas would release such a record, if such recordings actually existed.
As far as "running out of ideas", whether or not anyone actually was isn't the point. The point is one might look at a live album, which typically consists of new recordings of previously released material (obviously not always, but again, that's not he point), and say "Why do you need to put out all these songs a second time?!"
My point was, in some quarters, live albums were viewed as being things that were done to "make a quick buck". And at one time, they kinda were, at least so far as "rock n roll" and "pop" music were concerned. Some of them weren't even real live albums, sometimes they just put the band in the studio, had them run through a bunch of songs really quick, slap a lot of reverb and crowd noise on it (be sure to pot up the crowd noise as the band launches into a "hit"), and pass it off as a live record.
But records like Live/Dead, Live At Leeds, Live At Fillmore East, Made In Japan, and Space Ritual demonstrated that live albums could be about more than "making a quick buck". Sure, turkeys like Robert Christgau and J.D. Considine still thought they were about ripping off the record buyer, but who cares what those nudniks think?!
I think the real reasons have been mentioned: custom, expensive to get high quality and the slow rise of high quality and relativity inexpensive home entertainment systems.
YOu lost me here. What were you trying to say with that last sentence?
Conditions were different then. it those days you made money off of your albums and the tours promoted them.
It's the other way around now and it's less time consuming and takes less effort to record a live album than a studio record.
It works for Rush because they've always defined themselves as a live band.
It started out that way until they left Mercury which responded with the Chronicles double CD.
Then the Greatest Hits floodgates opened resulting in Retrospective I and II (essentially Chronicles split in two,) The Spirit Of Radio (Chronicles distilled to one CD) Gold (Chronicles mostly put back together), Time Stand Still (Euro version of Greatest Hits) Icon (One song from each of their Mercury albums) Icon 2 (Second disc compiles live tracks taken from the 4 Mercury live albums)
Atlantic also issued Retrospective III (From the Atlantic Albums Presto through Snakes And Arrows and Working Men (live compilation from the Vapor Trails, R30 and Snakes and Arrows Tours.
Still, it's better than the Emerson Lake And Palmer compilations.....
The band is done and they aren't really giving it a lot of thought. The label is the major force behind the anniversary reissues now.
The Permanent Waves reissue is going to have the 75 minute St. Louis show as a bonus and Moving Pictures is probably going to be packaged with Exit...Stage Left and hopefully will see the digital debut of Vital Signs which was the New World Man B-side.
I really hope I'm wrong though because those scenarios aren't very imaginative, but based on the previous three attempts it seems pretty likely to me.
It isn't possible to exploit someone if there is no coercion. By your definition, Rush exploited its fans by putting out any record after the first album because there were fans who would have bought any album from them.
Everyone knows a live recording of a song sounds very different from what was on the studio album - except for Rush, of course.and say "Why do you need to put out all these songs a second time?!"
Can you name a few live albums like that? I'm curious who did that. I bet The Beatles and The Partridge Family! Am I right?Some of them weren't even real live albums, sometimes they just put the band in the studio, had them run through a bunch of songs really quick, slap a lot of reverb and crowd noise on it (be sure to pot up the crowd noise as the band launches into a "hit"), and pass it off as a live record.
It is only ripping off the buyer if the buyer is misled as to what he is buying. ARW recently put in audience applause on its live album, but I could look up reviews that told me this. Why wouldn't someone in the 70s read reviews before buying? You know, take a peak at the magazine rack.Sure, turkeys like Robert Christgau and J.D. Considine still thought they were about ripping off the record buyer, but who cares what those nudniks think?!
1. Custom can be powerful in how companies do things in any industry.YOu lost me here. What were you trying to say with that last sentence?
2. It was too expensive at first for many bands to get a good live sound (based on what I've read here.)
3. It wasn't until the late 1990s and especially the 2000s when many fans had excellent entertainment systems as technology improved, while prices fell, where the demand for good (cheaper to make) live DVDs and CDs would substantially increase.
Well then, Exploito LPs and Blaxploitation flicks were misnamed by those in the 60s & 70s. You arrived too late to the scene young man, you could have straightened them out!
Ah, the golden days of those Ronco "soundalike" discs. At least the K-Tel records had the actual hits.
The "Live from the Rabbit Hole" bonus performance on Time Stand Still is pretty fun. Geddy's vox are still fine and they are as tight as always. I'd like more of that.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart
I had a couple of those records when I was little, though they weren't on Ronco.
As for live albums that are actually studio recordings, the one I can think of off the top of my head is Chuck Berry On Stage. As I understand it, the album consists of the regular, already released studio versions of the respective songs, with crowd noise and an emcee intro tossed in to simulate an actual live recording.
I assumed it must have been the 50s or early 60s. So that is one (1) pseudo live album. I doubt they tried this very often.
From what I understand, the band were able to pick the songs for the Retrospective CDs-definitely for III.
REALLY hoping we get the full St. Louis show, that would be tremendous (what a setlist!).... but if I were to bet I'd say you're probably spot on. These anniversary reissues have been such a disappointment overall, imo.
Uh, no. They had one official live album and it's all live. They were a real band who could really play live, believe it or not.
"The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone!"
Chuck Berry is a real musician who could play live, too.Uh, no. They had one official live album and it's all live. They were a real band who could really play live, believe it or not.
It's not matter of being "a real band who could really play". It's a matter of a shifty record company executive deciding it would be cheaper to take a bunch of studio tracks, add a bit of reverb, crowd noise, and an emcee intro, and make it sound like a live album. I'm sure Leonard and Phillip Chess couldn't have been the only ones who did it.Uh, no. They had one official live album and it's all live. They were a real band who could really play live, believe it or not.
Oh, and a more recent example would be that "live" Danzig track that was such a big hit in the mid 90's, Mother or whatever it was called. I read an interview with John Christ, who was Danzig's guitarist at the time, and he said that they simply took the studio track and did what I just described. They let him overdub a new solo, because he was unhappy with his playing on the original track, but it wasn't at all a live track, as they made it seem.
And another I just thought of was the Duke Ellington At Newport album, recorded at the 1956 Newport Festival. This is widely regarded as one of the greatest of all jazz records, which served to revive Ellington's career and popularity which lasted until his death in 1974. Well, it turns out half of the original album was recorded in the studio. The actual live recording of the full performance wasn't released until 1999.
There was a "live" Yardbirds LP that was some of the performance from Blow Up, combined with other tracks. If I remember right, the producer added the sound effects of a cocktail bar, with glasses clinking and people carrying on conversations. Page and Beck sued the responsible parties into oblivion. Page has said there were no recordings of a live show with both him and Beck trading leads and it was a goddamn shame.
I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart
No need for quotes around live since it was a live album.
Wiki: Although a live album, Epic Records overdubbed crowd noises from bullfights and other sound effects onto the original tracks against the band's wishes, in part because the live recordings were considered lacking in sound quality. This was a result of the general inexperience of the engineers in recording live rock music. For example, only a single microphone was deployed for the drums, hung above the kit. This resulted in the loss of much of the lower-range percussion in the recording.
Yeah, I get that. But, the comment lumped them in with the Partridge Family, so there's that.
"The White Zone is for loading and unloading only. If you got to load or unload go to the White Zone!"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks