Topic: Would you fix a recording by patching from a different show?

[cd2go]

for purist/archival reasons I just wouldn't do it 

[it-goes-to-eleven]

Patch it from a different band, seed it to dime, and then we'll have an epic thread laughing at the comments?

[earmonger]

You have the same song and setup from a different night? And only one song was the problem?

Patch in the later take and annotate it clearly. People can listen to it without the problem. And purists can just skip that song. If the rest of the show was OK, why waste it?

[stevetoney]

One point nobody has commented on, why not leave the offending parts in and HIGHLIGHT the reason for the warts.  This is what I do.  If any of the dumbasses download, maybe they'll learn something and if anyone else is bothered by the warts, maybe that will help them to understand to keep their damn hands off or on a rare occasion, help you to block.  I've had random people help me block just because they wanted to help keep the recording clean for their own enjoyment later because they knew they'd be downloading it.

If you were faced with a Dick's Pick purchase and it said that there was a song patched from another show (unless it was specifically called out as being filler), would you buy it?  I wouldn't.  To me, that's would be a pretty amateur move.  And I don't really care for those early Dick's Picks where they only released a portion of the show.

[capnhook]

I've had random people help me block just because they wanted to help keep the recording clean for their own enjoyment later because they knew they'd be downloading it.

Me too.......and I just thought they liked my cologne......

[Marshall7]

I agree with Steve...to me this would be almost the same as downloading one of those bastardized DIME torrents where the "offending track(s)" have been removed.  Either do the whole thing, or don't do it at all.

[Gutbucket]

To me, that's would be a pretty amateur move.

Um no. Professional labels do this all the time pretty much as standard practice for live album releases, we are the amateurs.  A professional outfit would either patch it seamlessly, cut it, or not release it at all.. but really, what does that matter for us?

The choice depends on two things, one primary, one secondary: primary is your reason for recording, if that leaves you open to making an edit then you are left with how well you can pull it off and if whether it's worth it or not.  If you are against doing so because it corrupts the documentation, then you needn't worry about how well you can pull it off.  Others can tell you what they would do, which reflects their primary reasons for recording, and may or may not correspond to yours.  In the end, do whatever makes you feel most comfortable.

[vanark]

In the end, do whatever makes you feel most comfortable.

I agree with this even if I wouldn't do the same thing as you might.  It is your recording.

[bombdiggity]

To me, that's would be a pretty amateur move.

Um no. Professional labels do this all the time pretty much as standard practice for live album releases, we are the amateurs.  A professional outfit would either patch it seamlessly, cut it, or not release it at all.. but really, what does that matter for us?

Yup.  I've nearly finished a release for some friends/associates.  It was essentially an impromptu show (the players had never performed together as a group and several of them had not played with each other previously).  One-off show, no rehearsal, no set list, but they were playing songs (so quite a bit of it was not an all-out anything-goes improv).  As a result a few of the starts and ends were a bit "off" and some songs were more successful than others.  In the end I cleaned up the top and tail on most of the ones we're using (creating sort of a different ending on two) and edited out 16 bars on one song (there was a great take there but a bit of a memory lapse in the middle so it was either do that or lose an otherwise fine song entirely)... 

Miles' mid to late period albums (rightly or wrongly) were almost all montages.  Many live albums are edited (and most are "fixed"/"overdubbed"/"patched").  Almost no studio projects are "live" or anywhere near it. 

There's documentation (what a lot of us like to do) and production (what artists nearly all view as essential to a release).  They are very different realms.  Professional concerns (and goals) vary... 

[kingkita]

As Lenny Stubbe says warts and all upload it!

[deadheadcorey]

As Lenny Stubbe says warts and all upload it!

i agree. i will pretty much will release all of my recordings with warts and all... i never got the point of tapers hoarding their tapes. i understand if the band or management tells you not to release it, then dont.  just my .2 cents

[mpmks]

you could just do both
add the patch track as a "bonus track" to the download
the downloader then can choose which to listen to
by inserting the patch track or listen to the "warts and all version" without the patch

[stevetoney]

To me, that's would be a pretty amateur move.

Um no. Professional labels do this all the time pretty much as standard practice for live album releases, we are the amateurs.  A professional outfit would either patch it seamlessly, cut it, or not release it at all.. but really, what does that matter for us?

With the exception that I've seen you mic up a stage and you're no amateur , I agree with your comment as long as you change the context of this OPs question.  But the question asked for opinions about patching a single song from a different show into his live show recording.  If a professional outfit such as Live Phish recorded a complete show and put that show out billed as such, but patched in a single song from a different date and venue (other than providing it as filler), I'd consider that an amateur move.  (Album Title...Jimi Hendrix at Berkely except for track three which was actually Foxy Lady, but this version is from Hawaii not Berkely)  While I have plenty of live albums that are patched together and the liner notes say...recorded on tour between X and Y dates, I can't think of a single album I have that says recorded on X date, except for track Y which was from a different night.

That said, given that I used Hendrix as my example above, I'll add some context by saying that I, of course, realize that the original Hendrix Woodstock CD was released as a bastardized version that had the tracks jumbled up and some tracks were missing.  But it was a beautiful thing when the family (aka Experience Hendrix) finally released the show  almost completely intact, though I note the new version was still missing a couple of songs and that the opening track on that version which included some Hendrix banter was patched in from another source in order to make the enitre recording a complete and intact record of that historic event.

[Chimney Top]

In addition to the above options you could just leave out the offending song from the circulated source with a note in the text. 

I would patch missing parts if I had another source for something lost. 

^ This.

[lastubbe]

As Lenny Stubbe says warts and all upload it!

This!  Release it.  We are not selling this stuff or hoping for approval from anyone, trying to get a record deal etc etc.  if the arguing is so obstructive, don't include the track or fade in and out of the obstruction.

If I wanted the show I would download it warts and all.  If it were patched from another show I would never download it.  Our recordings have character.  If I want something flawless I buy the record.

Just include good notes on the chatting.  No big deal let the music fly.

I believe every recording effort should be archived and preserved publically.  No effort gone to waste.