Kevin and Martin

harrisdevot said:
I get your point. Maybe I'm not well informed on allt he technical possibilities, but I've always thought that a producer couldn't really change the sound of a live recording, his job consisting mainly in mixing the tracks (and doing the overdubs) ; this is a big part of the job, but my guess is the guitar sound, for example, cannot be really altered at that point. In fact, I can't that big difference between Live after Death and A Real Live/Dead one. I would say the first one, although produced by a fantastic producer, sounds horrible, except for the fourth (Hammersmith) side, and that the later two are really decent.
Click to expand...
Guitar sounds can be altered with equalization and stuff. It makes a big difference.
 
harrisdevot said:
In fact, I can't that big difference between Live after Death and A Real Live/Dead one. I would say the first one, although produced by a fantastic producer, sounds horrible, except for the fourth (Hammersmith) side, and that the later two are really decent.
Click to expand...

That is a controversial opinion if I ever have read one! "Live after death" is one of the greatest live albums of all time with a great sound (OK, there are some minor overdubs here and there and the sound of the crowd is not as natural as it should; Bruce sounds better on the Hammersmith tracks than on the Long Beach songs though), while "A real live one" and "A real dead one" sound terrible. Anyway, each to their own.
 
I didn't mean to be controversial. I've always dislked Bruce'singing on the Long Beach recordings. Listening to the fourth side, I've always wondered why they didn't choose these tapes. Anyway, I've never been a big fan of live albums.
 
Although I agree side 4 is the one where the band sounds best, I personally think "Live after death" is a fantastic package, from the cover to the pictures and the general feel and sound of the recordings. A classic and defining live album of a classic era of the band.

That being said, I think most of the 80s songs have improved played by the current line-up of the band. "Flight 666" does include some impressive performances.
 
There's a difference in having a metal magic show and having metal with magic in the show!
 
There's no doubt about who the artists prefer. By having them play together and getting enough parts to edit, the need to record a part 100 times until it is precisely right is gone. You never reach that sort of perfection, and you don't need to from the musician's side - but there's a hell of an editing job left. Hearing Bruce brag about how he recorded "The Talisman" in an hour (Sweden Rock Magazine, nr something), followed by Shirley complaining it was a nightmare to comp on his studio diary definitely gives an idea of where the workload lies.

I must admit that I'm not familiar with work of Martin Birch outside of Iron Maiden, while I know Kevin Shirley also produced the excellent Bag of Bones by Europe and What If... by Mr. Big as well as working extensively with Joe Bonamassa and Black Country Communion.

My favourite production is A Matter of Life and Death. Everything just sounds right, both the live-feeling is captured and the audio quality of a well produced album is there. Dance of Death is worth noting only because of the story of how it was mastered... (Steve wanted a copy for his car, Kevin quickly made a master with some old digital desk and burnt it on a CD, followed by Steve coming in the next day having decided that precise copy was the final master.)

I'm not a fan of the the production of the old albums except for Somewhere in Time while I like all Shirley produced. So I guess you have your answer there.
 
LAD is a perfect example of why they should not record at the end of a tour! Why do they do this? Hammersmith was closer to the beginning and should have used the whole recording before Bruce wore out. He sounded wore out on RIR too but it was a much better live sound. LAD had a great set list but crap recording for most of the songs.
 
I love Shirley's productions, but as already mentioned: they have yet to stand the test of time. They tend to sound a bit dry to me sometimes, and I especially thought Final Frontier could stand some more reverb or a touch more echo or space or what have you in the sound. My fave album sound-wise is Seventh Son. THAT album sound like it could have been recorded in 1988, 1888, or 2088 and it'd be the same.
 
^ Somewhere in Time is by far the most 80's sounding thing they did in my ears. It sounded like they took a time machine somewhere in time (excuse the pun), recorded an album and brought it back
 
chaosapiant said:
I love Shirley's productions, but as already mentioned: they have yet to stand the test of time. They tend to sound a bit dry to me sometimes, and I especially thought Final Frontier could stand some more reverb or a touch more echo or space or what have you in the sound. My fave album sound-wise is Seventh Son. THAT album sound like it could have been recorded in 1988, 1888, or 2088 and it'd be the same.
Click to expand...
I don't know if I can agree with that. It sounds very 80's to me. An example of a more timeless recording would be something like Piece of Mind or Powerslave or even one of the 2 90s albums with Bruce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top