Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: MS: Recording Artists, Not Performers
Linkin Park Live Forums > Headquarters > Newswire
Conscience
Mike recently updated his blog with an lenghty article explaining what he thinks is the difference between 'Recording Artisits' and 'Performers'. He expresses his view about the current state of the music industry and also cites their own example :

"My own band has had to deal with these same issues in one way or another in the past. We grew up recording on a computer, at the specific point in time when home recording software became accessible to the average kid. When we met a record executive for the first time, we had played no shows. At that moment, we realized that we needed to start playing live and practicing our new songs, so we could eventually bring them to a stage. It would be years before anyone had ever heard of Linkin Park. We were lucky enough to get through worst of our awkward live mistakes while we were still a baby band, unsigned, without a million people coming to our first show to see what all the hype was about, and by the time “In The End” hit the mainstream, we had probably played 150-200 shows together and worked a lot of the kinks out."

The article is a very good read and can be read here in its entirety.

Staff Edit: Not really newsworthy, but it deserves to be read. Thoughts?
Sheldor
Totally agree with what Mike is saying.
Great blog post.
Chesterchaz
Makes sense to me, interesting read. Their live performance is one of the things that made LP big, and it's the reason a became a "'fan" and not just a "listener", Chester ftw!
AudioNick
This is probably once of the best posts I have ever read. I agree totally with what is said there.
SpikeMinoda
nice post by Mike biggrin.gif really love him for things like this wink.gif
arbiter
How very true and interesting article. There is a huge difference between the two.

Bands i never became a fan of till i saw them live:
1. Alice in Chains (strong performers especially William Duvall wub.gif They are like one of the few bands who sound better than their album live.)

2. Paper Tongues (the singer Aswan North has phenomenal vocal range and tone that i would buy a whole album with him singing the songs acoustic just so i can hear his awesome vocals.)

3. Linkin Park (i was a big listener so to speak but i never was fan crazy till i saw them perform live. And at that concert, Chester was sick. A detail i didn't know till after. Yet i still thought they were great and made me like several of their songs i wasn't really that into on the album.)

Band i used to like but lost my love at least any enthusiasm to ever see them live again after seeing them once:
1. My Chemical Romance (Gerard is awesome but their live performance could use a lot of polish and finesse. Wasn't that impressed.


Bennington_Hahn
Read this topic on LPAssociation, but I'll re-post here what i said there...

As much as I'd like to disagree that a sucessfull band is determined by the music on their albums, but Mike is right.
I saw a band recently at a pub. At first I wasnt sure I'd like them. Not my style, my least favourite genre, but as soon as they started playing I was transfixed. They had so much power ane energy in their playing, no matter what genre they where, they where GOOD. They kept their audiences attention, which i think if the most important thing you can do as a performing artisit.

My band certainly has alot to work on with our live front. We have the orginalitly, style and great songs, but our next step is to see if they work in a live setting, otherwise we might as just stick to doing studio stuff.

LP is a perfect example of this kinda thing working out. They started out writing & recording songs on their computors,but then they had to learn the tricks of the trade that made them as sucesssfull as they are today.
Derbyster
great post and so true that live concerts make a "standard" fan to a big one.
i was one of those transforming fans after Riga 2008 live, which was AWESOME obv:D
LinkinParkHotspur
I agree with his overall argument and point. I disagree with some of his individual points though. I agree that we are in an age where we have the lost the performer. There are way too many bands that rely on all sorts of effects in order to replicate their sound when they play live. And some of them still sound bad live even then. Rather than blaming the technology though, I would prefer to blame the people who use it. You always have control of what you do in the studio. You don't have to use auto-tune or samples from a drum machine and I know plenty of people/bands who don't.

Saying that the tools to record are as cheap as free and that anyone can make a quality recording is a bit of an exaggeration. And creating a quality recording in Garageband is not always ideal. Garageband has many limitations. It depends on what you want to do though. It depends on what your definition is of a "quality recording" which is completely subjective. Generally though, to make a quality recording, you need a good studio mic, instruments, a good computer, and some sort of mixer/studio interface. And those things can be expensive. You can always download better software but you can't download hardware. It's not something that anyone can afford. It's not as cheap and easy as he makes it sound. It takes money and it takes time to learn a new program. I agree with him though that most bands don't have a problem doing this and they tend to struggle more with their live performances.
Conscience
A really mindblowing and in-depth peice of amazing literary work. Loved it.

Hey btw can anyone tell me howz my sig?? I made it completely by myself in paint. It's my name - Anjum.
Geki
This was a really good read...My dream is to be in a band someday. This kind of schooled me a bit.
Papelbon
QUOTE (Anjum_Agony.In.Disguise @ May 7 2010, 03:48 PM) *
A really mindblowing and in-depth peice of amazing literary work. Loved it.

Hey btw can anyone tell me howz my sig?? I made it completely by myself in paint. It's my name - Anjum.

Its a bit big for my taste, but then again, mines a bit big too..

BOT: If you are going to start a band, but only wanna be a studio artist, whats the point? No ones going to know who you are, and therefore wont buy your album. Learn how to play out, otherwise its just a hobby.

Thats all under the assumption that you wanna make money and do this as your job, if its just a hobby, save your money and just play in the garage, basement, etc...
immortalsoul
Good read!

Yes, nowadays there are many artists that only focus on studio recording or composing stuff that is being played in movies, games, etc. Nothing wrong with that! But if you really want to be taken for serious as a band, or if you really want to "make" it, you have to go out and play your asses off... There's nothing better than a stunning and hypnotizing live performance, if you ask me! Of course playing live and performing is a learning process, and while starting out not everybody has that performing qualities or the emanation and attitude needed to be received well onstage. But one can learn (and learn from mistakes), and there will always be extraordinary performers out there who manage to really capture the audience AND deliver badass recordings.
Qwerty18
Really interesting post.

I've always been thinking it's a bit sad that performers bands are becoming more rare nowadays. Not that I've something against "protools-users" and artists working a lot on computers, but music is way more authentic/honnest/natural/...when it comes from a jamming session. Moreover, in my opinion, performing live in front of a crowd, seeing people turning crazy while listening at your music is the best part of being a musician. I can't imagine how some artists can have a career without this aspect of their job.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.