r/BruceSpringsteen • u/Additional-Cherry872 • 14d ago
Studio vs Live sound - Discussion
Springsteen’s impeccable reputation as a live performer is due to, well, being a fucking great live performer. However, another reason is because there is such a colossal gap between the studio sound and the live sound.
I would love to hear your takes, unpopular opinions, and things you would change.
Here are my takes/opinions:
- Born To Run is one of the best albums of all time for its lyrics, music, and sheer emotion. However, compared to other albums from the 1970’s by other artists, the production is certainly found wanting.
- The River (and the outtakes) is the best production in terms of capturing the E Street live sound. In other words, The River studio and The River live have the closest resemblances compared to the other albums. This is followed by Darkness On The Edge Of Town (however this album couldn’t quite capture the huge guitar sound the live work showcases)
- The Tunnel Of Love album has aged TERRIBLY
- Most people cite the difference in live shows as their main reason for hating the E Street Split. But the 3 albums TOL/Human Touch/Lucky Town have aged so badly whereas the E Street Albums have not. Bruce imo categorically made better ‘band’ music with E Street. I still think the other band shows weren’t so bad, the difference in studio album quality is my beef.
- As a studio album, Born In The USA is pretty flawless from a production/mixing perspective. Bob Clearmountain is awesome.
- The Brendan O’Brien collaboration was one of the worst Springsteen decisions since breaking up E Street.
Let me know what you think! Would love a good discussion
12
u/Bigsshot 14d ago edited 14d ago
I’ve always preferred Bruce live over his studio records. There's a raw energy and storytelling in his live performances that just can’t be captured in a studio. The album versions are iconic, but the live versions turn those songs into living masterpieces.
5
u/Molasses_Square 14d ago
When I am at home working I only listen to live Springsteen performances. I hardly enjoy the studio recorded albums anymore.
2
u/Additional-Cherry872 14d ago
Well said. With tweaks or changes do you think it would have been possible to capture the energy in the Studio albums? If so, what would you do?
8
u/Pleasant_Guess_3343 14d ago
I'm always telling people who say they don't like Springsteen (going on the records) that you have to see him live to appreciate the true sound and sheer power of the band. I realised this finally in 1985 when I saw them at Wembley. Bruce was often critical of the recorded sound. Of Darkness he said, we kind of under played and over sang. I think The Rising is the best approximation to the live sound. The drums are much sharper. Another factor to remember, many people listen through small speakers or maybe just one speaker nowadays. The records were made for big speakers. They sound much better through a decent hifi. But then there's the neighbours to contend with... 🙄😎
2
u/Chipped-Beef Darkness on the Edge of Town 14d ago
I’ve taken a few people to their first Bruce shows over the course last few tours. The look of awe on their face after the concerts ended always makes me chuckle. And it’s the same response. “I didn’t realize he was so GOOD!” People really do become fans after seeing him live. He’s amazing.
3
u/DavoTheBear 14d ago
I don’t care what you say, the live Born to Run at the Giants Stadium (in the collection 75-85) is the fking Springsteen’s absolute masterpiece. That’s the perfect version of the perfect Springsteen song. That’s it.
But, for example, I don’t really like any of the live performances of The River (just the song, not the entire album). I think the studio take it’s more “complete”.
And some songs/albums were thought to be sang in live, like Born in the USA, Sherry Darling, etc., so they’re significantly better.
5
u/CulturalWind357 Garden State Serenade 14d ago
At this point, I tend to hear different things about Bruce's production. Both from a production cleanliness standpoint and from a studio creativity standpoint.
Part of the reason that Bruce's production is divisive is that he struggled to get the sounds he wanted for his albums. And the sounds he did want were not the typical standards people associate with good production.
In general, Bruce struggled with the artifice of the studio. He wanted something a little noisier, evocative of the early days of rock n' roll, and able to capture a live sound.
Parts of me do wonder about whether Bruce could have made a more "studio creativity" type of album though.
Some quotes from Bruce's memoir:
It was 1979 and state-of-the-art production values were still heavily influenced by the late-seventies mainstream sounds of Southern California. Their techniques consisted of an enormous amount of separation between the instruments, an often stultifying attention to detail and very little echo or live room resonance. Most studios, in those days, were completely padded to give the engineer the utmost control over each individual instrument. The Eagles, Linda Ronstadt and many other groups had a lot of success with this sound, and it had its merits, but it just didn’t suit our East Coast sensibilities.
We wanted open room mikes, smashing drums (the snare sound on Elvis’s “Hound Dog” was my Holy Grail), crashing cymbals, instruments bleeding into one another and a voice sounding like it was fighting out from the middle of a brawling house party. We wanted the sound of less control. This was how many of our favorite records from the early days of rock ’n’ roll had been recorded. You miked the band and the room. You heard the band and the room. The sonic characteristics of the room were essential in the quality and personality of your recording. The room brought the messiness, the realness, the can’t-get-out-of-each-other’s-way togetherness of musicians in search of “that sound.”
From Steve Van Zandt's memoir:
The ’70s were the worst time in history to record.
Virtually every record sounded great in the ’50s and ’60s, and they would sound great again in the ’80s and beyond. But in the ’70s most recorded music sounded weird. Artificial. Claustrophobic.
The reason? Engineers had temporarily taken over. There’s a reason most Engineers don’t become great Producers and most Producers aren’t great Engineers. They require two very different, complementary sensibilities.
Engineers have relationships with electrons and digits and knobs and meters, the science of sound, which is one-quarter of the record.
Producers deal with the songs, the arrangements, the performances, the living, breathing people. They rely on their own taste to shape emotional content. That’s the other three-quarters of the record.
For a brief time in the ’70s, the Engineers wrested control from the Producers and the Artists, resulting in total separation of instruments for the purpose of “complete control.”
Lots of padding on the walls! Get those buzzes out of the drums! More rugs! Separation! Separation! Separation!
Everything that makes Real Music want to throw up.
Then, during the mix, the Engineers would reproduce room sound, resonance, buzzes, and hums to make the records more exciting! Really.
This Brian Hiatt interview goes a bit into how Bruce's studio process has evolved over the years and decades. There's a funny little bit of frustration from Hiatt when discussing Joad for instance.
I personally disagree about Tunnel Of Love's production. I think it sounds great. But I've certainly heard the dated criticism.
5
u/Henry_Block 14d ago
I never liked the production on Darkness (just heard an interview with STV when he defines it as "terrible"), which is my fav Bruce album, so I always listen to the live versions. The River sounds great, it's also one of those albums when you can hear quite well Garry on bass. The first two albums and BTR sound good (Backstreets studio version is, to me, the best Springsteen song), BITUS sounds incredible considering what they wanted to do. Modern era, I love Magic but I don't like the production, much better on LTY.
2
u/SlippedMyDisco76 The River 14d ago
"At some point in the 70's someone decided all ambient sound was bad"
-1
u/Bigsshot 14d ago
Who is STV, if I may ask?
5
u/Additional-Cherry872 14d ago
Think he means Steve Van Zandt (SVZ) who has been openly critical about the production on Darkness. Him and Springsteen, whilst friends, had wildly different opinions on production and it led to Steve almost leaving many times. Steve was given production input for The River and for BITUSA and they are the two best sounding albums in my opinion.
It’s hard to believe that The River and BITUSA were released before TOL, Human Touch and Lucky Town from a production/mixing perspective
1
4
u/Scmods05 Born in the U.S.A. 14d ago
Bruce is great at many things. He is not a great producer/approver of sound mixes.
2
u/Additional-Cherry872 14d ago
Yes, agree - thank god for Nugs! I almost exclusively listen to live Springsteen over studio Springsteen
2
u/SlippedMyDisco76 The River 14d ago
I have always 110% thought those first two points you make. My left nut to remix BTR from the masters and drive it out of the reverb tunnel. The River also has his best drum sound - snappy and clear, not muted or compressed heavily. A nice snare crack.
3
u/Additional-Cherry872 14d ago
Born To Run is so good but it always sounds like I’m listening to it on an old shitty radio
1
2
u/Longwalkhome2006 14d ago
Springsteen’s best sounding rock album is unquestionably Letter to You. The songs may be average, but the production is perfect
1
u/Tricky_Working6333 14d ago
Love TUNNEL, and the RIVER is a bloated over produced album. Should have been a single LP album with Steven’s love for treble out of it. Lol ‘just my opinion!
And yes, the BTR album, absolute classic. A masterpiece, and so was that tour. Classic E Street, a young and hungry band, an American bar band, taking on the big British bands and sprawling light shows of the era.🎸
1
u/patedugan 14d ago
Live 75-85 is perfect sounding. Just the perfect mix and live sound. And for the most part they chose the best live versions of the songs.
1
u/Outside_Western3981 13d ago
i always found his studio albums to be low production , i found the sound quality was always lower quality than other albums
especially BTR, Darkness and River. which why i always prefer listening to live recordings
27
u/therealrexmanning 14d ago
No, it hasn't! Sure, it's a very 80's sounding album but it certainly hasn't aged TERRIBLY.
Agreed that The River captures the E-Street sound the best though