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

[fsulloway]

To make a long story short as possible,I have a Tedeschi Trucks show where I was the only taper. Local folks always ask me about the recording but I never released it. Some folks on my isle kept walking past and grabbing the mic stand to steady themselves. When I asked them not to to this, they started arguing with me and it is captured perfectly as I was running head high. This happened more than once. FTR, the shortest distance for them to exit was the opposite direction of me. Anyway, Tedeschi Trucks played here again a few months ago and the major disruption happened during a song that they played again this year. I probably couldn't fix them all but def the major 30 sec one. I ran the exact same gear from the exact same location so should I patch the offending parts and release the show or just say forget it? Of course I'd note the patch.

[vanark]

I definitely would not patch from a different show.  It is not related to this performance.

There are three choices as I see it:

1. Not release the show at all and chalk it up to one of those things.
2. Release with the arguing included.  If you believe this puts you in a bad light (arguing with another patron?), then see #1.
3. Cut out the parts with the arguing (fade out/in).  If you believe this makes the listening unacceptable, then see #1.  If this is the only source, I'm not sure it is much different than battery issues/cable issues, etc.

[fsulloway]

I think you're right. I'm just tired of people asking me where the show is I guess and was hoping to solve that. I'll just mark it down as one of those things.

[Gutbucket]

I don't have any moral opposition to doing so as long as it's well noted, both the time when it happens and the date of the other performance.  But then an optimal listening experience is more important to me than a strictly accurate documentation of an event.  The problem I see is a practical one- I'd expect differences in rhythm, tuning, feel and tone may make the patch a rather obvious one which draws undue attention to itself and may do more harm than it's worth, but that's all speculation.  Doesn't hurt to play around with it to see how well it works before making a decision one way or the other, IMO.

[acidjack]

I definitely would not patch from a different show.  It is not related to this performance.

There are three choices as I see it:

1. Not release the show at all and chalk it up to one of those things.
2. Release with the arguing included.  If you believe this puts you in a bad light (arguing with another patron?), then see #1.
3. Cut out the parts with the arguing (fade out/in).  If you believe this makes the listening unacceptable, then see #1.  If this is the only source, I'm not sure it is much different than battery issues/cable issues, etc.

agree w/ all this.  And I'd say unless, in the cold light of day, you think you were being a jerk, I'd just release it with the arguing and note it in the notes.

[twatts (pants are so over-rated...)]

I definitely would not patch from a different show.  It is not related to this performance.

There are three choices as I see it:

1. Not release the show at all and chalk it up to one of those things.
2. Release with the arguing included.  If you believe this puts you in a bad light (arguing with another patron?), then see #1.
3. Cut out the parts with the arguing (fade out/in).  If you believe this makes the listening unacceptable, then see #1.  If this is the only source, I'm not sure it is much different than battery issues/cable issues, etc.

agree w/ all this.  And I'd say unless, in the cold light of day, you think you were being a jerk, I'd just release it with the arguing and note it in the notes.

This...

[bombdiggity]

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. 

Never really thought too much about the horse's arse factor other than one odd instance.  Some morons were continuously yapping all over the music (and therefore the source).  Unfortunately they were some of the "promoters" and/or their hangers-on.  The chief jackass (who to his credit was not up front yapping) insisted he get a copy of the recording (after first trying to shut me down and convince the artist not to let me record).  I put him off a long time on the copy but he would not give up so finally I isolated the one channel of the four mics I recorded with that his pals had ruined the worse with their idiotic droning and sent him a two-channel mono set of that...  I regret sending anything but ultimately had to do that or risk further to-do with the artist.  Anyway if their conversations were so momentous they might as well hear them as clearly as possible...   Great show but such a lousy experience with enough distractions that I don't think I'll relisten (and I won't circulate since that was part of the argument with the "promoter" - if it does circulate it'll be him that did it). 

[fsulloway]

I don't think I come off as a jerk by any means. I held my tongue for quite a while actually. It wasn't until I was concerned about my gear safety that I got into it.  One of the husbands has since apologized for his drunk wife. IMO, the amount, length and volume of it all is too much to overcome to enjoy the show. There was only one extended conversation but 3-4  instances of noise from them grabbing the stand or speaking to me. I've just decided I'll just let it go and chalk it up to one that didn't work out. Thanks for all your opinions.

[Marshall7]

While I'm definitely in the "no" camp as far as patching in, as a collector of TTB shows, including multi-sources when available, I would hope you would release it as is.  I would rather have it with flaws than not have it at all.

[vwmule]

I wouldn't use a different show. What about fading that section out and fading back in?

[John Willett]

OK .....

I would say the most important thing is to have an enjoyable recording.

So - either patch or remove, or both.  But document the patch.

I have patched a piano recital I recorded once - same piano, same mics, same pianist - totally different venue.

I patched about half a dozen notes from one performance to the other where the pianist made a mistake - you cannot hear the patch at all and it sounds like one continuous performance.

I have to add, that I was employed by the pianist (it was a paying gig) and all was done on the instructions of my client and neither of us could hear the edit at all.

[anr]

Agree with Gutbucket.  Go for it. 

[Sloan Simpson]

I would patch it, or do anything else I needed to make it an enjoyable listen. Reality is all an illusion anyway 

[capnhook]

...so finally I isolated the one channel of the four mics I recorded with that his pals had ruined the worse with their idiotic droning and sent him a two-channel mono set of that...(...if it does circulate it'll be him that did it).

 

[adrianf74]

It's been said and said again in this thread... you basically have a choice of shelving it, releasing it as is, or doing something with the offending track (fading out and back in or dropping it altogether).   If it's a critical show where no other copy exists, I'd say do the last option.  If it's a run of the mill show, with nothing notable going on compared to others from the tour, chalk it up to experience and shelve it.

I've had to do this in cases where I've recorded an artist with permission, and most recently, with board access.  The chattiness of the room made it impossible to do anything with the recording (and the stage mics pick it up clear as day); we then had a group of idiots up at the front yelling right by the front PA next to the omni mics we ran on-stage and then the hypers were back by the board surrounded by friends of the openining act who weren't there for the headliner but insited on yapping.  Suffice to say, the sources of crap = crap. 

You win some, you lose some.  In this case, I'm willing to bet that it's just one of those shows just gets stored away; I just did that with the above-mentioned 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.

[Hypnocracy]

I'm a warts an all kind of taper....to a point...equipment issues have stopped me from releasing a show...there was this one time in the Rain at Buckeye Lake...Involved the crowd almost taking away my poncho...

I like the Warts and all with the Patched Bonus Tracks. Best of both worlds

[yousef]

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.

Didn't they mix down the musicians other than the core trio too, though? If this is true, it's a pretty crappy move.

I've only listened to the most recent mix on the DVD via TV speakers so I can't say from memory if this is true but I've certainly seen a lot of people comment on it online...

[stevetoney]

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.

Didn't they mix down the musicians other than the core trio too, though? If this is true, it's a pretty crappy move.

I've only listened to the most recent mix on the DVD via TV speakers so I can't say from memory if this is true but I've certainly seen a lot of people comment on it online...

Something like that.  When the subject of bastardized recordings comes up, the Hendrix Woodstock is what I immediately think of since it's been bastardized every way possible.  Since obviously the highlight of that performance was Jimi, I tended to not be as cynical about the latest release as the purists, but yeah Experience Hendrix isn't innocent when it comes to messing around with Jimi's art.

[rjp]

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...

Frank Zappa certainly did some overdubbing on live tracks; The Purple Lagoon/Approximate on the Zappa in New York album has a fair bit of it, mentioned in the liner notes.

I like the idea of patched bonus tracks, but do whatever you feel is best.

[anode]

My vote goes to the patched bonus track idea. With the "original" track with warts or fade in/out depending on how offending the warts are.

Some time ago I went to see some friends play on a trip back to my home town. Still had a shirt rigged for lo-pro from a concert I'd taped couple of days before, so I impromptu put that on. Old friends from back in the days kept coming up to me greeting me on the top of their lungs directly into the mics.... The song that was worst affected was the best version of a song they played twice, so I cut and spliced. Admittedly this was nowhere near a professional recording (or even skilled amateur  ) and the whole thing was thick with ambience of the properly liquored audience.  The 20 second fade out in the middle of the song rendered it a track I would not enjoy listening to. Too much of a disruption. I do enjoy listening to the spliced version though.

[twoodruff]

To make a long story short as possible,I have a Tedeschi Trucks show where I was the only taper. Local folks always ask me about the recording but I never released it. Some folks on my isle kept walking past and grabbing the mic stand to steady themselves. When I asked them not to to this, they started arguing with me and it is captured perfectly as I was running head high. This happened more than once. FTR, the shortest distance for them to exit was the opposite direction of me. Anyway, Tedeschi Trucks played here again a few months ago and the major disruption happened during a song that they played again this year. I probably couldn't fix them all but def the major 30 sec one. I ran the exact same gear from the exact same location so should I patch the offending parts and release the show or just say forget it? Of course I'd note the patch.

I assume this is Frank. Anyways, do you really care? I would not patch simply because it is too much work.

[fsulloway]

yeah Trey, it's Frank. You're right, I don't care anymore. I've got too much other stuff to do. 

[page]

Anyways, do you really care? I would not patch simply because it is too much work.

As I get older, I adopt this attitude more and more. If I can fake it easily enough and it's something I have to turn in, sure, but otherwise I'll skip it and say "oh, that song didn't happen that night, you were just trashed."

At the core is the illusion vs document debate. I look at it more as an "effort/ROI" question.

[Gutbucket]

At the core is the illusion vs document debate. I look at it more as an "effort/ROI" question.

That right there is a straight up unearthing of a more essential truth! I may have to update [edit] I've temporarily updated my TS signature to display that quote. 

[cashandkerouac]

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.

+1

[Chimney Top]

Another possibility would be to search youtube for a video of the track and patch with the audio, but I would fade in/fade out if it's really that bad.

[willndmb]

Late for the party but I wouldn't patch a different show and I would release it
Put in the note something about how some people are jerks and the stand isn't a handrail

[fmaderjr]

But then an optimal listening experience is more important to me than a strictly accurate documentation of an event. 

Why do so few people besides myself seem to feel this way? Of course if I were uploading the recording for sharing I don't suppose I'd do it.

Whenever I've had to do this, however, there's usually been a slightly noticeable change in ambiance during the patch. If there is an almost identical section in the same song at the same show, I prefer to edit that in if possible.

[page]

But then an optimal listening experience is more important to me than a strictly accurate documentation of an event. 

Why do so few people besides myself seem to feel this way?

Some people are uncomfortable with either creating illusions or partaking in the consumption of them. I was for years, and to a degree I still am (for example, I've gotten better at creating them), but it's a process to come to terms with. Whether it's a philosophical fear of the unknown or just a reaction to inability to accomplish a task or accept it, I don't know. millage will vary, just my 2 cents.

[guitard]

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.

I can't think of too many right off the top of my head, but it seems like I've heard that a lot of the live albums that came out back in the day were patched together from various sources - and that was never revealed at the time.

Kiss' 1975 "Alive" comes to mind.  Thin Lizzy's 1978 "Alive and Dangerous" is another.  I'm sure there are lots of others.

[earmonger]

Not to mention the "live" albums with post-facto vocals and fixes. Forgive me if I don't exactly believe "Eagles Live."

If your notes point out which song was replaced I really don't see the harm. You could always included the messed-up original track as a bonus.

[dunebug81]

OK .....

I would say the most important thing is to have an enjoyable recording.

So - either patch or remove, or both.  But document the patch.

I have patched a piano recital I recorded once - same piano, same mics, same pianist - totally different venue.

I patched about half a dozen notes from one performance to the other where the pianist made a mistake - you cannot hear the patch at all and it sounds like one continuous performance.

I did the same thing to a NIN show years ago.  The Summer 06 tour Trent just came out and started signing, he was dressed in black and looked like a stage hand.  So the first show of that tour I saw I missed about 30-40 seconds of the beginning of the song.  I knew what to look for on the other 3 shows I saw and started to record on time but the one show bugged me so I just took the first minute or so from another show and did some soundforge magic and I can't even tell where the shows changed.  It was a soft intro so it was a pretty easy thing to fix. 

As for the OP i say just send it out as is.  It sounds like you're talking about replacing entire songs and not just a few seconds of the start of the song like in my case.