Do you loop verse and chorus parts in your songs?

M

marc32123

New member
I know songs are basically just repeats from verse to verse, chorus to chorus. Basically, verse one and verse two and chorus one and chorus two are the same exact in almost every song other than the lyrics in the verse change obviously from verse to verse. Sometimes people may add another part or two, but other than that they are the same exact instruments, chords, etc.

I am wondering, do you or do any famous artists loops parts? Like instead of playing all the instrument parts over in verse 2, could I just loop in the instrument section from verse 1, and than add the new vocals? Do any famous songs do this?
 
in short ...yes, it's even in classical music, they use comps of the best takes and copy and paste, don't be afraid of doing it.
 
I loop and copy/paste a lot when I want to quickly put a song structure together. But I generally go through and play each part all the way through for a final take.
 
No. I actually play and encourage others to play/perform everything that's recorded. If you can do it once, you can do it again, and I'm not interested in saving every microsecond of time. But I've come to realize that I'm a weirdo compared to the DAW tricksters in here.
 
My arrangements are fairly simple, so I always play the instrument parts all the way through. The odd time I might comp a piece if the timing is off.
Vocals are the same - but a bit more comping is done there. I once copied a set of backups from one chorus to another (like 2 tracks) because I forgot to record that part lol and had already turned off my equipment.
 
I play everything all the way through. I do loop back vocals, though. I'm not going to sing a 4 part doubled harmony (8 tracks) for every chorus.

But I won't copy and paste lead vocals, even if it's sung the same way. I like to think there's SOME detectable difference even if I'm singing the exact same part.
 
Most of my stuff is not complicated enough to perform that I have to worry about doing it more than once in a song. And like RAMI.........I think you do need to have some sort of difference between each part........even if only slight.
 
Yes, and no. Sometimes I get great takes, other times I patch, still others, I sit and loop a section of the song till I hear what I want. Depends on how "mature" the song is. i.e. did I just write it and am looking for improvement, or is this a 5 year old song that I'm just putting down?
Most of the answers here make a lot of sense to me and I follow a lot of this advice. Record straight through is always best. Redoing 8 part harmonies for each chorus would be odd.
Putting a tune together with loops is also viable if you're planning to come back later and re-record...especially if you haven't gotten it down tight yet.
Also, it's not just the wizardry of the DAW that makes looping and piecemeal recording a happy spot for some. There have always been "punch ins" and "out-takes" and a lot of stuff has been done in odd ways...i.e. I'm Not In Love (vocal looping), or Pyromania (recording guitars one note at a time), just to name a few.
 
BroKen_H said:
Yes, and no. Sometimes I get great takes, other times I patch, still others, I sit and loop a section of the song till I hear what I want. Depends on how "mature" the song is. i.e. did I just write it and am looking for improvement, or is this a 5 year old song that I'm just putting down?
Most of the answers here make a lot of sense to me and I follow a lot of this advice. Record straight through is always best. Redoing 8 part harmonies for each chorus would be odd.
Putting a tune together with loops is also viable if you're planning to come back later and re-record...especially if you haven't gotten it down tight yet.
Also, it's not just the wizardry of the DAW that makes looping and piecemeal recording a happy spot for some. There have always been "punch ins" and "out-takes" and a lot of stuff has been done in odd ways...i.e. I'm Not In Love (vocal looping), or Pyromania (recording guitars one note at a time), just to name a few.
Click to expand...
True, there are extremes and good examples of doing it different ways. I like to try and present a song like it's a "band" performance, even if I'm the whole band. So, the way I hit a bass note in chorus 3 will hopefully be slightly different than how I hit it in chorus 1. I actually will change lines for every verse and chorus, especially on bass.

My scratch tracks are a different story. When I'm first putting a song together, it's the messiest, most out of tune clusterfuck you've ever heard. The only thing I make sure is good is the timing. But we're talking bad pops at the beginning and end of each part because of just copying and pasting to slap them together. Once I have the whole 3 minute and whatever seconds together from beginning to end, I start replacing tracks.
 
No, the band I'm working with now actually plays the songs through. There's no grid to edit to so I don't paste in more than a short bit.
 
I still track everything to tape...and I always record every track all the way through, from start to finish. So I have all the parts for the whole song from start to finish, and no real need or desire to record just "one chorus" and then copy it wherever it's needed.
Sure, you can sneak a copy in here and there, but only do it if you really have no choice, for whatever reason.

That said...a lot of Pop/R&B makes use of loops...and even if they are obvious, it doesn't seem to have any real negative impact from the listener's perspective. I mean, I've never heard people complain, "Hey, did you hear that new tune...it sucks that they just copied the first chorus and used it 3 times."...or anything like that. :D
 
I don't copy and paste. Everything I record is a unique recording. But I make fairly heavy use of punch in's. For some reason I view copy and paste as cheating, but punch in's are perfectly fine. Just me.
 
All the way through and its usually to tape. Currently I only spend time recording the band Im in. No two verses are the same, same with the Choruses.
 
Greg_L said:
Listeners of pop and R&B aren't exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer.
Click to expand...


I agree, and I never thought they were...:D...I'm just saying that I have never, ever heard anyone say anything negative or voicing any concerns about a song having some kind of "trickery" (as you keep calling it)...no matter what style of music or listener demographic. Listening is usually a more global perspective for most, even for the people here who record.

I mean...most people just don't really listen to music in some analytical fashion with all kinds of moral/ethical considerations and judgements running through their heads about how the songs were recorded the whole time they are listening.

I'm not saying that as recordists we should not care about what we do and how we do it...just saying that as listeners, it's not really ever about that. I've never hated on a good song like... just 'cuz I could tell that the Snare drum was probably sampled or electronically altered instead of the actual/live/room Snare...etc...etc. :)

I think we get a little too carried away with those judgements here....but I get it, it's the nature of the audio forums to do so.
 
miroslav said:
I agree, and I never thought they were...:D...I'm just saying that I have never, ever heard anyone say anything negative or voicing any concerns about a song having some kind of "trickery" (as you keep calling it)...no matter what style of music or listener demographic. Listening is usually a more global perspective for most, even for the people here who record.

I mean...most people just don't really listen to music in some analytical fashion with all kinds of moral/ethical considerations and judgements running through their heads about how the songs were recorded the whole time they are listening.

I'm not saying that as recordists we should not care about what we do and how we do it...just saying that as listeners, it's not really ever about that. I've never hated on a good song like... just 'cuz I could tell that the Snare drum was probably sampled or electronically altered instead of the actual/live/room Snare...etc...etc. :)

I think we get a little too carried away with those judgements here....but I get it, it's the nature of the audio forums to do so.
Click to expand...

No, I don't think we do. I wish more people would stand up for realism and less for fakery. But it's not headed that way. I know I'm fighting a losing battle. But I'm still gonna fight it because I don't like this "it's all good!" mentality. You might happily ingest whatever is fed to you, but I don't. And I don't record that way either. I don't care what listeners think. I care about what I, and others, record.
 
When are the lead ins and lead outs of any piece of music recorded with real instruments conducive to chop and flop editing?

You play things different ways in different sections that are musically the same, and a chorus leading into a bridge is different than a chorus leading into a verse and a chorus leading into an end.

Seriously, for a 2 to 3 to 4 minute song, are you saving any time anyway? Only time I'd ever do this is if I had absolutely no alternative, and I can't imagine that situation arising.

I can see if you're programming stuff that you could do it... especially if everything is programmed, but you might need to think about what it is you're creating, IMO.

I program drums, but although I may cut and paste basic patterns, I then go in and alter the shit out of them because I'm trying to create a sense of things going somewhere and repetitive drum patterns where each verse or chorus is exactly the same don't help the cause.
 
If you go back a bit in time....the guys who were recording then would think that the way we record today is all "fakery/trickery". You know...we're doing it track by track, with overdubs, all kinds of audio adjustments, and then using the computer to turn it into a complete "band" sound...etc.

I just don't buy this thing where...a "one-pass" track that actually took 34 passes to capture...is any more "real" than some guy capturing 95% of it in a true single pass...and then maybe punching in the missing 5%.
C'mon now...who's kidding who about what's "real". :D
What are we to do...provide video tape evidence of our recording process, as though it would give us some extra points if we can show we didn't do punch-ins even for that 5%...??? :)

To remove all of the so-called modern, computer assisted "fakery/trickery"...record with just mics/pres straight to a 2-track recorder...DONE...no audio adjustments, no overdubs, no edits, no assembling of tracks in order to "fake" a complete performance...
...but that's just not "realistic" in today's world...is it?

Anyway... my real point was about the listeners not noticing or worrying about that stuff. They just listen to the end-product and decide on that if they like it or not.
 
Jesus...Is this not the 3,864th time you guys have this conversation? :eek:

...and I'm just talking about this month. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top