Are we loseing too much of ourself in the studio to achieve perfection?

Illsidgus

Illsidgus

Desiccated Member
I guess what I am asking is, have we replaced the artistry of performance with laboratory like perfection in the recording and mixing of music. Do we spend too much time trying to create a perfection that does not exist in nature by removing all human artifacts from a recording? And is this a good or bad thing to do?

Some of the recording that have had the biggest impact on me, the ones I remember with the most fondness are the ones minor imperfections in them.

**Just a note, this is not a discussion of digital vs analog!!!
 
Illsidgus said:
**Just a note, this is not a discussion of digital vs analog!!!
Click to expand...

:D

Good luck.


As I mentioned in that "other" thread..... ;).....I prefer the "imprecise/inefficient" recording process of tape/analog....but I will edit/comp in the DAW, so it's not a "VS" thing for me, it's simply using the tools in a way that works for me.
Is the editing/comping making the recording too perfect....no, I can certainly say that it isn't! :)

There are "musical/creative" imperfections that can help the prodcution....but there are also unwanted quirks/noises that don't help at all. Removing them is beneficial to the production. It's not introducing anything fake, it's just making it sound like the way you wanted it to sound in the first place.

If you like the string squeal on every note played by a guitar....leave it in....but did you really WANT that or think about it when you set up to record....?
So it's a question of intent...and then use the tools to get what you want. There's nothing special about any/every imperfect performance...and sometimes, you need to cut to the chase. I'm not one for doing 185 takes just to get it perfect "naturally".
I do a few good takes and move one....that's where the DAW editing power comes into play.
 
It seems to me that those here are people who make music. The digital tools we have simply make the process more accessible. You can never completely remove human artifacts from things made by humans. A vocal track auto tuned to within an inch of it's life is still a human voice at it's core. An EZ Drummer track still has to be manipulated to fit the song.
 
miroslav said:
If you like the string squeal on every note played by a guitar....leave it in....but did you really WANT that or think about it when you set up to record....?
So it's a question of intent...and then use the tools to get what you want. There's nothing special about any/every imperfect performance...and sometimes, you need to cut to the chase. I'm not one for doing 185 takes just to get it perfect "naturally".
Click to expand...

I agree that it is a desirable thing to correct sounds and errors that detract from presentation of the recording. A good example of what I am talking about is Nilsonn's cover of 'Without You.' A little over 2 minutes into the song when he starts singing, "Can't live" his voice quavers very slightly or more accurately he slides into the note, for a just a fraction of a second he is not in perfect control of his voice but the effect is chilling and memorable. Today it would be easily corrected in the studio and probably would be, but then it would not have been cost effective to correct a millisecond of performance. That is the kind of human artifact I am talking about.
 
Illsidgus said:
I guess what I am asking is, have we replaced the artistry of performance with laboratory like perfection in the recording and mixing of music.
Click to expand...
Who is "we"? Do all musicians who record think and behave with one mind?

There are useless wastes like Miley Cyrus who aren't in the same universe of talent and creativity as unknown artists who make a fraction of what she does.
 
Illsidgus said:
I agree that it is a desirable thing to correct sounds and errors that detract from presentation of the recording. A good example of what I am talking about is Nilsonn's cover of 'Without You.' A little over 2 minutes into the song when he starts singing, "Can't live" his voice quavers very slightly or more accurately he slides into the note, for a just a fraction of a second he is not in perfect control of his voice but the effect is chilling and memorable. Today it would be easily corrected in the studio and probably would be, but then it would not have been cost effective to correct a millisecond of performance. That is the kind of human artifact I am talking about.
Click to expand...

No....I don't get that crazy, and a lot of it as artistic decision making....does it sound better with the quiver or inperfect tune. If it sounds better in-tune....I would fix it, or do it over. If there was a perfect take but for one little slip that could not be fixed....I would leave it in and move on, though these days you CAN fix the smallest slip....so again, whatr did you want when you started the recording...with or without the slip-up? :)
Sometimes you can only fix so much of a "mistake" before you kill the feel. So it all comes back to what you want and how far you need to go to get it....but the focus is always the end result and if it meets your expectations.


brassplyer said:
There are useless wastes like Miley Cyrus who aren't in the same universe of talent and creativity as unknown artists who make a fraction of what she does.
Click to expand...

Yeah...but she strips down to panties and a cut-off top when she sings and does her music vids... :D

Commercial music is so very image oriented these days, like so much is in the media... that it's hard for just a talented musician to break out.
Man...you can sing really great, but if you're a fat, ugly chick....you ain't gonna make it anywhere easily.
Well, maybe as a blues singer. :p
 
Illsidgus said:
Are we losing too much of ourself in the studio to achieve perfection?
Click to expand...
Yes and no.
But that's not necessarily a modern thing. There have long been perfectionists that irritated the more, shall we say, intuitive, spontaneous musicians.
Bear in mind also that as home recorders, we do our thing in a variety of different spheres and guises.
I once explained to my drummer friend that I wanted my stuff to be neither slick nor slack. In other words, I wanted a certain amount of spontaneity but I didn't want sloppiness and there are certain things I'm just not going to tolerate. For instance, he had this habit at the end of a take of tinging the hi hat or ride and it used to drive me up the wall because I couldn't edit it out when I wanted a good decay. My other drumming mate would move about on his stool and you'd hear it on the recording. So I got into making big, obvious "don't hit the hats ! Don't make any noise" signs at the end of takes with my hands and facial expressions.
I also think it's part of a learning process. Sometimes, laughter at the end of a take is appropriate. But not on every song ! So as time goes by, one learns what to let go.
In terms of the actual singing or playing, I want useful performances not sloppy anything goes raffifia. The studio tools are a vital part of getting that. But whatever wonderful tools I might have at my disposal to correct the odd fluff once in a while, I want good performances. I've had arguments with friends for not giving me that, I've had near fallouts because of it. Put the effort in !
While I know that I could just get a chorus of backing vocals sung once then pasted to the other choruses, it wouldn't even occur to me to try it because it's easier and more satisfying to sing all of the choruses and treble track them at different speeds for a juicy effect.
No, I like editing sometimes, I like experimenting, but perfection doesn't interest me. I was enthralled by and influenced by all the studio stories I used to {and still do} read about.
 
It's all about what best serves the song. Some music benefits from precision and perfection; some benefits from some sense of looseness and a few mistakes.
 
First of all, technology (wathever it is) as to be seen strictly as a mean...not an end. It is not because a Daw allow us to put everything on the grid that we should do it! It's sometimes like if we became slaves of the technology.

So, here is some of my guidelines in the studio:
-Musicians have to be ready as if they were giving the most important show of their lives. Preparation, Preparation, Preparation!
-If I know I'll have to edit more than at 3 places a take, we'll redo it, simple as that!
-I'm going for a PERFORMANCE, not a comp. track.
-I never use auto-tune to correct wrong notes....never!

Anyway, part of why we love these old records, is that because our ears naturally "love" little off-tempo/tune. Everything on the grid and it suddenly just right in your face, less (no) dimension, less natural depth-of-field, even a thinner sound.

Without being nostalgic, we still love and praise the sound of these old 4-tracks Beatles records. That said, is the "Perfection" concept an appropriate one in an artistic context? Don't think so.

But It doesn't mean we should leave something too much off and unpleasant. Technology is here to help us doing this job quickly than ever, then to go back asap to the the thing that really matters: TRUE ART.
 
I will admit that sometimes I think that the process has eclipsed what the focus what in the past. Although the process is a lot faster now with albums being pumped out in far less time. So it's a double edged sword. From a business perspective it's very good to have high and fast output. The more you turn over the more you can make.

Of course, that's what autotune (etc) and editing tools have done. Over time that creates complacent musicians. I haven't had a session in so long where the singer didn't expect processing and autotune. And here as the engineer I'm thinking, "Ya know, if you could just fuckin sing it right we'd be done already. Now I gotta sit and go through each fuckin syllable to make you sound like you can actually sing, which you can't". Same with drummers. Thank god for Group editing in Cubase, though. Although, I must admit, this last record I did was the first one ever that I used the group editing and quantising feature. I have always just done multiple takes of drums and then comped them by taking the best of each part. I would then fix something if it really bothered me. Quantising them saved me a lot of time and I'm really not hearing any artifacts as I listen to it now. It sounds fine. The best part was getting all the loops and things to sync with the live drums.

But I digress.

If you can fix things without making it obvious and it enhances the song then you're the artist at some weird, technological level. That's a real skill. On the other hand, it may mean you'll have to work with some really lazy musicians.

Ask them for royalty points. lol

Cheers :)
 
Etienne P said:
Anyway, part of why we love these old records, is that because our ears naturally "love" little off-tempo/tune.
Click to expand...
I have 2 ways of looking at this. The first is that I never even notice the off tempo or out of tuneness, much less love it. There have been a couple of amusing threads in the past here where I've mentioned that people repeatedly say Jimmy Page's guitar work with Led Zeppelin is pretty sloppy at times and I've replied that I hadn't noticed in 30+ years of digging Zeppelin and people have gone on to point out which songs and where the slop occurs and I say 'I still can't hear it ' and I cant ! Where reviewers have pointed out mistakes or sloppiness in songs I know, I just don't hear it.
Where I do notice it, it's amusing or downright annoying. Mainly the latter. It would have to be for me to actually notice it. On one of the tracks by Fraction on the "Moonblood" album, there's a point where the band gets all excited and the drummer goes really badly out of time and the rest of the band does too. For about 15 seconds, what was a good tight intensely building piece descends into mush. It's actually quite funny but it wrecks the song. I'm amazed that it got through and even though the whole album was recorded live, I'm fascinated that they didn't re~track it.
Etienne P said:
Without being nostalgic, we still love and praise the sound of these old 4-tracks Beatles records
Click to expand...
I love the songs.
Fact is, after 1968 during the White album, you can easily distinguish between what Beatles songs were done on 2 track, which ones were done on 4 track, which ones were done on 2 four tracks slaved together to make a 7 track, which ones were edited together from 2 or 3 different takes, which ones were bounced down etc.....And how can we distinguish ? Because it is a matter of record and the group members, their producers, engineers and tape operators have been interviewed about it ad nauseum for the best part of 40+ years and hundreds of writers have written about it.
But the reality is it's the songs, not the limitations that produced them that I love. The stories behind the songs and the limitations are a separate interest and apply to bands whose music I don't like as well as those who have recorded digitally.
Etienne P said:
is the "Perfection" concept an appropriate one in an artistic context? Don't think so.
Click to expand...
From the day recording began, there were perfectionists. Even before recording existed, there were perfectionists. And the tools have long existed to indulge an artist or producer's concept of perfection.
And therein lies the key¬>perfection is in the eye and ear of the perfectionist.
Etienne P said:
Everything on the grid and it suddenly just right in your face, less (no) dimension, less natural depth-of-field, even a thinner sound.
Click to expand...
Sometimes.
Etienne P said:
Technology is here to help us doing this job quickly than ever, then to go back asap to the the thing that really matters: TRUE ART.
Click to expand...
Current technology is the logical conclusion to which all recording technology has been aiming for nearly 100 years.
Along the way though, many a time people have had to confront the reality of the saying "be careful what you wish for......"
 
grimtraveller said:
I have 2 ways of looking at this. The first is that I never even notice the off tempo or out of tuneness, much less love it. There have been a couple of amusing threads in the past here where I've mentioned that people repeatedly say Jimmy Page's guitar work with Led Zeppelin is pretty sloppy at times and I've replied that I hadn't noticed in 30+ years of digging Zeppelin and people have gone on to point out which songs and where the slop occurs and I say 'I still can't hear it ' and I cant ! Where reviewers have pointed out mistakes or sloppiness in songs I know, I just don't hear it."
Click to expand...

What I was really meaning is not something we hear as not "thight" or flamming. It's more the subtle off timing and tuning that we get as a result when we are not seeking perfection. Ever put all drums track to grid? In theory, it should be perfectly in phase and in time....but there is always something missing. This particular phase relationship that was making the original drum sound. It is the same for a band performance. If Led Zep had played their bed tracks until perfection and edit it to death....it would have changed the whole vibe!
 
Etienne P said:
What I was really meaning is not something we hear as not "thight" or flamming. It's more the subtle off timing and tuning that we get as a result when we are not seeking perfection. Ever put all drums track to grid? In theory, it should be perfectly in phase and in time....but there is always something missing. This particular phase relationship that was making the original drum sound. It is the same for a band performance. If Led Zep had played their bed tracks until perfection and edit it to death....it would have changed the whole vibe!
Click to expand...
I think we ascribe more credit to what we supposedly hear 'subtly' than is really there. How do we know if it's it's there if it's meant to be subtle and not consciously perceived ?
Also, what is perfect playing ? Even where people have stated that they hated the people they were playing with, I've not noticed that in any vibe. I honestly can't see any difference in a 3rd take or a 53rd take. Earlier, you mentioned the Beatles. Did you know that "I will" took 67 takes to perfect ? Did you know they spent a month on "Strawberry fields forever" ? "Happiness is a warm gun" took 15 hours and 95 takes to get right. "Not guilty" took 102 takes.
Who said romance was dead ? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top