Re: Live At Leeds

[Hugh Garsden <hughg@speech.su.oz.au>]

>Hi,
>	Carl:
>
>          "Live At Leeds" is an usual (but excellent)
>          recording-
...
>Well, I don't think they did overdubs as such. But I know they added some echo. I
>believe they've done the same thing to the San Francisco show in '71. How does
>one add echo? I don't know? But of course it is possible that some additional talk
>was unintentionally added suring this process.
>
>I've also wondered if they tried to make the album sound worse than it did just
>to fit the bootleg concept?, ie that they added talk and noise etc. 
>
>Well maybe that's a bit far fetched.
>
>- Svante

I thought it was recorded and mixed in a fairly unsophisticated way such that
stage noise was not eliminated. They didn't bother. Hence you can hear the
clicks of microphones being taken off and put on their stands, etc. From the
sound of it, I think what they recorded was the same as what was going to the
P.A., whereas these days they set other mikes to get a more ambient sound
(audience noise etc), fool around with the mix, and process the shit out of
the raw tapes. What you are hearing on Live at Leeds is a very direct-to-tape
recording, which is pretty rare. It isn't necessary to add talk/noise etc.,
that is really what you get. 

Re: echo. Even in those days (!!) there were gadgets to add echo, both live
and at the mixing stage. "I can see for miles" was recording using an echo
chamber, giving genuine acoustic echo. These days it is all electronic.


Not that I want to sound like an expert or anything ...


	Hugh Garsden
	University of Sydney