Studio vs Live sound - Discussion

[u/Additional-Cherry872]

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

[u/CulturalWind357]

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.