I think it's hard to come up with general rules here. The studio can be a
pretty dead place, but there have been some mighty fine, spirited,
*exciting* studio albums made. Recording with minimal overdubbing can
sometimes result in a livelier album, but on the other hand, the Lonesome
River Band's Carrying The Tradition is plenty lively and soulful, and it is
almost all overdubs; hardly any of the original rhythm tracks made it into
the final product.
> One of the differences I think, lies in budget. When you can spend an hour
> trying to get one lick from a rhythm guitar just right on one bar on one
> song, and you cut that lick 12 times until the producer is satisfied, that
> seems to me to make for a sonically perfect and emotionally dead record.
> Just sucks the life right out.
See above. Besides, while this sounds good, and may be the modus operandi
in some circumstances, Nashville studios rarely spend an hour trying to get
one lick from anybody, never mind the rhythm guitarist; the guys who do most
of the work there don't *need* an hour to get a lick right, which is why
they're in such demand. A lot more of that stuff than you'd think is cut in
pretty short order, which is how they're able to work multiple sessions in a
day.
> Do the artists even make money on recordings anymore? Or is the gig the
> good money and the records sold at the record table just the gravy?
Dunno much about outside of bluegrass, but record table money in bluegrass
is a lot more than gravy; it can be half the take or more. Big bluegrass
acts can do $1200 and up at the table.
Jon Weisberger Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger/
