.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to DestroyYouAlot.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="DestroyYouAlot:1294820"][QUOTE="Crab%20Rangoons:1288876"][QUOTE="Burnsy:1288871"]I'm feeling FIMS on this one. I'm a firm advocate of keeping recordings consistent with what you can pull off live. I dug a few of the songs I checked out but the vocals are pretty horrendous.[/QUOTE] Live and Studio are two different beasts entirely. It's certainly not invalid to desire consistency, but there are so many outliers (good and bad) that consistency is the true outlier. Live is purely performance art and entertainment is key. A sloppy band that rock the fuck out can often beat a perfectly tight band that has no stage presence (Necrophagist anyone?). The studio also gives you tools to take the basic song and arrange/orchestrate things that no 4/5 piece band could ever reproduce. In that case isn't it ok to use the maximum potential the studio setting offers to create an impeccable album even if it's impossible to reproduce it live. A right live band that puts out well crafted albums is ideal especially when they can identify and utilize the different strengths the stage and studio have to offer. This view also accepts the reality that some bands will always be awesome live and might never put out a listenable album, and that the reverse is true as well. [/QUOTE] ITT: duuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.005 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][