Confessions of an (almost) reformed purist . .. and philisophical questions

nate_dennis

nate_dennis

Well-known member
When I first started getting interested in recording I bought a cassette portastudio. I got interested in them because (at first) i thought they'd be cheap and I could get started right away. So, as I learned more I started to become much more interested in them because they limited the options of "cheating." No ctrl+alt+del fixes. No auto-tune. No cut/copy/paste. Just "truth."

Now that I'm starting to get back into recording (or at least planning my grand re-entrance) I realize I cannot afford to maintain an analog studio. So with reluctance I started researching digital systems. It had to be hands-on. It had to give me access to outboard gear (though now I'm even questioning that!)

See, my revolt was less against digital (I hate admitting that my ears aren't "golden"...records I thought were done on tape i.e. "Oh My God Charlie Darwin" by The Low Anthem were actually recorded digitally) and more against over-indulgent pop "recordings" with quantization, autotune, no real instruments, just computers doing all the work. I realized that I can still work in (what I consider to be) an honest way while using a computer. This was a very heady realization.

The first recordings were live music illusions. They let rich people hear "live" music without an orchestra. Then multi-tracking came out and they let the band record increadibly complicated "live" music. A further illusion. Samplers let people who never recorded create the illusion that they recorded a beat. It's all just smoke and mirrors.

So this brings me to my philisophical questions on recording. I truly don't know how many "real" recordings feature drum augmentation/replacement. But I imagine a ton. Now, if most of the drums were recorded with mics, in a room, by a person . . . is it still "real" if the producer/engineer replaces the snare with a sample? I don't know. Now, I'm not saying it would ever be "wrong." But, let's say I write a piano piece. Let's say I capture this piece using a MIDI controller controlling one of NI's amazing grand piano VSTi instruments. Did I record the song? Again this isn't "right vs. wrong" just ....is it still recording? I never put a mic infront of an instrument No sound waves were ever created or captured (excepet those that moved through my headphones as I performed.)

Why am I ok with using a string program since I'll never have access to a real orchestra, but not a drum program? (clearly you can't answer that for me.) I desperately want hardware compressors and reverbs etc . . . but the hardware verbs are still digital . . . so what's the difference between that and a plugin?

So yeah. The last few weeks have really opened up a can of worms for me. This really has no purpose other than to spark discussion. So . .. . uh . . . discuss. :confused:
 
I don't get the whole purist thing anyway.There was a time when multitracking wasn't even possible and all you had was one mic picking up everything.It sounded awful compared to modern technology.Just think of old films from the black and white era.The audio was horrible and the hell with that new fangled technicolor crap.

Million dollar studios changed formats years ago.Some offer both analog and digital recording but the analog they use is still top of the line.There's nothing pure about a an old Tascam 4 track cassette recorder.Use whatever tools are at your disposal and if it sounds great in the end who cares.
 
I prefer to make (and listen to) recordings made with real instruments, but I can't always access the ones I want, so I have to make do with what I do have (virtual ones). I still sleep OK. :)
 
Using a MIDI keyboard to record a piece through a virtual piano still requires you to be able to play the piece, or even if you are just inputing the notes and quantizing you still have to have some talent or understanding of how that piece works. Using VST plugins and getting good results still takes just as many years of practice and development of your ear as using the real hardware. I have heard tons of recordings done by amateurs using every digital trick in the book and still sound like shit. At the end of either session (digital or analogue, virtual or real instruments) the talent will still make something good and the hacks will still be hacks. I could write a book on my pc and use a word processor with grammar and spelling correction and come off like an english major but my story will still suck because I'm not a writer.
 
Even with all the digital technology, there is still a lot of hard work involved in making a record. It's not as though "the computer is doing all the work", regardless of what uninformed people may say.

There hasn't really been a "real" recording since Les Paul and Mary Ford changed all the rules in 1951, and music consumers broke ranks with traditional realism in droves. So anyone who thinks they're a "purist" because they shun certain technologies is fooling themselves.
 
diggy_dude said:
Even with all the digital technology, there is still a lot of hard work involved in making a record. It's not as though "the computer is doing all the work", regardless of what uninformed people may say.

There hasn't really been a "real" recording since Les Paul and Mary Ford changed all the rules in 1951, and music consumers broke ranks with traditional realism in droves. So anyone who thinks they're a "purist" because they shun certain technologies is fooling themselves.
Click to expand...



True this as well!
 
I completely agree. You do need skill. You do need passion. That was my point. I was being stupid. The end rant in the most recent Tape Op talks about that a lot. How you need more than just a computer and interface to make a record.

My main question really, was....if you don't use any real instruments, is it still recording? Just some thoughts. Thanks for all the comments.

Oh, and by the way, how do you have less than 30 posts and get banned from the cave?
 
nate_dennis said:
if you don't use any real instruments, is it still recording? Just some thoughts. Thanks for all the comments.
Click to expand...

Most programs are "real" instruments. The Trilian bass program I have, used thousands of recordings to make the bass samples and program. They even explain the studio gear, and the recording technique (cool for learning) The Steinberg Grand 3, is recordings of a real Bosendorfer piano with 5000.00 dollar Neumann's etc etc.

I personly cant come close to making that sound and as someone mentioned you still have to be able to play your parts.
I feel the same way about reverb, I have a program that simulates a Los Angeles studio state of the art recording room. If you've got the time, space and money, I'm all for DIY. As of now I dont.
 
PDP said:
I personly cant come close to making that sound and as someone mentioned you still have to be able to play your parts.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. You can fake the technique and intonation of a real player with an insane amount of tedious manual MIDI data editing. But still, it's a lot of work. Possibly even more work than just learning to play the instrument. :laughings:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top