Tape Editing (the eagles)

[grimtraveller]

Multi-tracking was in full swing when Sinatra did the "LA is My Lady" album. The word is that the orchestra played entirely together in the same room and that he sang with them.

That was in 1984. It was still close enough to 'the old days'. I think he'd try it differently at least once if he was around now, simply based on the observation that so many of that generation do or have done. But I take your point.

 

[sweetbeats]

I suggested neither. My argument has never been that multitracking makes things or artists "better" or that it by necessity "benefits the process". For some it does. For others it doesn't.
No, what I'm saying is that multitracking and it's attendant consequences have been part of a long progression and to keep hearking back to some kind of wondrous yesteryear when "everything was nailed in one take" ignores the fact that at the very time all this was going on, there were many looking into getting away from that and hence, progress. And it wasn't because artists couldn't do it all in one go either.There have been aspects of multitracking that have been tried and not really returned to and it has brought about different ways of thinking and going about recording. For instance, a number of early Beatle records were different takes edited together. I don't have a problem with the whole "do it live with everyone there and nail it in one take" philosophy. I have a problem with the implication that anything other than this is by default an inferior way of achieving the same result.
I don't dispute the suspicion that it has dumbed things down to a large extent, I'd agree with that but equally, that is not the fault of the medium.

okay. I get you. I was reading into your supposition that Sinatra would use multitrack if it was available; that it would have been "better".

I'm still of the opinion that early multitracking brought advances in fidelity, and then at some point (generalizing) something started getting lost; the idea of fixing it in the mix and the assumption that it can't sound good unless things are isolated to death, etc. Again, generalizing but you likely understand what I'm driving at.

 

[grimtraveller]

Yeah, I do and to a large extent, I agree. I think of it as a modern human trend, going beyond the benefits sometimes and becoming monomanic about particular things. You see it in politics. You see it in community activity. You see it schools. Films are becoming like that. The computer generation and green screening have been good for the industry, but at the cost of so much actor interraction. In my opinion. Reality TV is interesting in small doses. But it's now endemic over here ! The same thing could be levelled at recording. I try to separate what's good about a function from how it can sometimes be overused.

 

[famous beagle]

I don't dispute the suspicion that it has dumbed things down to a large extent, I'd agree with that but equally, that is not the fault of the medium.

Hmmm, I'm not so sure on this. Fault of the medium? Maybe that's not the right word. Result of the medium? I think for sure.

I don't think you can deny the fact that many, many of the artists today would never have made it to a pro recording studio in the days before multi-tracking, editing, pitch correction, etc. They would have auditioned for an A&R rep (and/or he/she would have seen them live or something), and the A&R rep would have thought, "This guy (these guys) suck. They can't sing in tune, they can't play ... they just suck."

Nowadays though, bands that would otherwise suck ass can produce a quantized, pitch-perfect pop gem only as the result of a computer that would take them years of practice and refinement on their instruments in a "live-only" world.

Don't get me wrong. I agree with most of what you said: the simple fact that people were looking for ways around the limitations of live recording is evidence to something. But saying that the advances in technology is not at fault (whether right or wrong) ... I don't see what else could be at fault?

In the one-take days, musicians spent more time practicing and refining their craft (or producers looked harder for those blessed with incredible natural ability) so that they possessed the ability to record the only way they knew how: play and sing the song all the way through very well. Nowadays, people know they don't have to do that. So they don't feel the need to do the work it takes to do that.

It's tough to say because, while I agree with you that, when multi-tracking was first invented, most bands could pull it off in one take, I certainly don't agree that it's still the case today. And I'm not getting into the additional creativity of using the studio as an instrument. That's apples and oranges. I'm simply comparing a band's ability to record certain instruments/vocals live in the one-take days verses a band's ability to record those same instruments/vocals live nowadays.

Of course there are still talented and skilled musicians out there today that can pull a lot of stuff off in one take, but there are many more in the industry that cannot. And if that's not the fault of technological advances, then who/what is at fault?

 

[grimtraveller]

The fault is not with the advances, but in the way people appropriate them. A case in point ~ pitch correction. An invention that is supposed to help correct the odd note here and there that might be off in an otherwise great performance. The potential may be there to do other things but that is not part of the intent. It's people that decide how to use any tool. A hammer can be used to knock nails into wood or smash someone's skull. The hammer itself is neutral and even though the potential exists for destruction and mayhem, that is not the intent of the inventor. That's my point, that much of our observations on this and related topics are more to do with how people have used the tools rather than the tools themselves. Or at least, that's what I detect.
I don't disagree that many bands and singers today may struggle with a live, one take, recording. But many struggled with that back in the 50s and 60s which is precisely why so often, hardened, seasoned session musicians and singers were brought in to sing and play the parts that went out as the name of the artist. Even expert jazzers would sometimes struggle.
One of the things I found enthralling in reading up on the history of producers and studio technology over the years is the way things happened outside of the intent of the creators of various tools. For example, consoles weren't really intended to take direct feeds from instruments. Things were often discovered by accident. Guitar amps weren't originally intended to be pushed with every setting full. Feedback was frowned on, etc, etc.

 

[sweetbeats]

Yeah I think that's what I'm really getting at and I think "result" is appropriate, and I have a hunch from won't disagree with you.

If there was some way to quantitatively compare the average abilities of artists today vs. artists of yesteryear (pre multitrack?) I think we'd see something of a decline. I think there is still tremendous talent today, and I don't think multitracking is evil or anything. It was the beginning of a trend that has evolved into the processing tools available today and those tools, like you said, have made it possible for some to excel when they otherwise wouldn't have made the cut. Then there are those of us that can't make the cut even WITH the tools.

Is it wrong that technology has let in the lesser talented? Hey, I don't care. If I did care I'd be nothing less than a hypocritical eletist.

My burden is simply that, at least in my experience, many today don't even KNOW that things used to be done live. There is an element of disconnect with the pre-multitrack methods and I feel that in certain circumstances it is worth bringing that element into the process but people are brainwashed that the right way or only way or PROFESSIONAL way to do things is to multitrack each part independently, and I think that for a band that CAN pull off a great single-take live performance its better to do that rather than piece it together. I still track them to separate tracks but I'm not "multitracking" in the sense of recording each part separately for a chronological standpoint. I think in those cases it is worth the hassle and fight to be able to arrange the best isolation as needed and arrange for the gear that can capture the number of tracks in one pass otherwise the live vibe gets missed, and my point is that some folks don't even consider that it is worth doing it that way, even that it is WRONG to do it that way; that there is nothing to gain by one method or lose by another.

 

[grimtraveller]

I don't have a problem with the whole "do it live with everyone there and nail it in one take" philosophy. I have a problem with the implication that anything other than this is by default an inferior way of achieving the same result.

but people are brainwashed that the right way or only way or PROFESSIONAL way to do things is to multitrack each part independently, and I think that for a band that CAN pull off a great single-take live performance its better to do that rather than piece it together. I still track them to separate tracks but I'm not "multitracking" in the sense of recording each part separately for a chronological standpoint. I think in those cases it is worth the hassle and fight to be able to arrange the best isolation as needed and arrange for the gear that can capture the number of tracks in one pass otherwise the live vibe gets missed, and my point is that some folks don't even consider that it is worth doing it that way, even that it is WRONG to do it that way; that there is nothing to gain by one method or lose by another.

I'm as much against both camps that insist that their way is the only way worthy.
I would also add that there is an element here that's very pertinent to the home recorder. In many instances, most tracking has to be done separately, track by track, performance by performance.
But I just think of some of the great songs and albums of the past that owe their very existence to multitracking and not capturing the whole event in one go. So many great pieces...........and when played live in concert, just weren't the same.

 

[Chilljam]

Recent albums by popular bands that have been recorded 'live' in one room all playing together to tape and with only a few overdubs:

Red Hot Chili Peppers - Californication (1999)
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Stadium Arcadium (2006)
Red Hot Chili Peppers - I'm With You (2011)
Radiohead - In Rainbows (2007)
John Frusciante - The Will To Death (2004)
Ryan Adams and the Cardinals - Cold Roses (2005)
Ryan Adams and the Cardinals - Jacksonville City Nights (2005)
Ryan Adams and the Cardinals - Cardinology (2008) (apparently didn't even use headphones for monitoring to capture 'true' live feel)
Ryan Adams - Ashes & Fire (2011)
Foo Fighters - Wasting Light (2010)
Arcade Fire - Funeral (2004)
Arcade Fire - The Suburbs (2010)
Cass McCombs - Wit's End (2011)

That's just off the top of my head and only albums I have heard, enjoyed (except Foo Fighters) and happen to know a bit about the recording process.

It doesn't matter to me that there are bands that can't play their song well enough from beginning to end, when there are plenty of bands and artists that can and IMO having the best sounding music in history. If you listen to these records you may/may not like them but there is no doubt that the artists are very talented and the recording is top notch.

 

[famous beagle]

Recent albums by popular bands that have been recorded 'live' in one room all playing together to tape and with only a few overdubs:

Red Hot Chili Peppers - Californication (1999)
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Stadium Arcadium (2006)
Red Hot Chili Peppers - I'm With You (2011)
Radiohead - In Rainbows (2007)
John Frusciante - The Will To Death (2004)
Ryan Adams and the Cardinals - Cold Roses (2005)
Ryan Adams and the Cardinals - Jacksonville City Nights (2005)
Ryan Adams and the Cardinals - Cardinology (2008) (apparently didn't even use headphones for monitoring to capture 'true' live feel)
Ryan Adams - Ashes & Fire (2011)
Foo Fighters - Wasting Light (2010)
Arcade Fire - Funeral (2004)
Arcade Fire - The Suburbs (2010)
Cass McCombs - Wit's End (2011)

That's just off the top of my head and only albums I have heard, enjoyed (except Foo Fighters) and happen to know a bit about the recording process.

It doesn't matter to me that there are bands that can't play their song well enough from beginning to end, when there are plenty of bands and artists that can and IMO having the best sounding music in history. If you listen to these records you may/may not like them but there is no doubt that the artists are very talented and the recording is top notch.

If you've ever heard/seen RHCP live, it makes it very hard to believe that Anthony Kiedis recorded his vocals live. A great songwriter/poet he may be, but singing (on key at least) is not his strong suit.

 

[zorf]

Hey, the whole idea of recording is artificial.
That"s fine. It is it's own thing.
I just can't get over the collosal effort the eagles went through to get the drum tracks as described in
The original post in this thread.
I mean those drum parts have got to be simplest ever
I can see maybe letting a sax player just blow over changes for a couple of hours and then splicing
Together a solo, but the drums on eagles songs?

 

[Chilljam]

If you've ever heard/seen RHCP live, it makes it very hard to believe that Anthony Kiedis recorded his vocals live. A great songwriter/poet he may be, but singing (on key at least) is not his strong suit.

I have seen them live a couple of times, but I see what you mean.

In their case I was actually meant that the band recorded everything live in one room straight to tape then Anthony would overdub the vocals but actually....

JIM SCOTT: Recording Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californications

A snippet from this...
"...We recorded all four of them at the same time, which is basically the sound of the album. John did guitar overdubs, maybe two or three on some of the songs, but in the world of overdubs that's not a lot...."

"...Flea, John and Chad were about 10 feet away from each other in a pretty small circle, and Anthony was just a few more feet away in his booth, easily visible through the glass. They could see each other all the time..."

Regardless, the strong suit of Red Hot Chili Peppers is the bands timing and rhythm being super tight.

 

[grimtraveller]

Hey, the whole idea of recording is artificial.

I totally agree with this. It is artificial and steeped in artifice, which is partly why, in a real but sometimes sad sense, anything goes and the way it started {recording a live performance} is not the way it continued.

I just can't get over the collosal effort the eagles went through to get the drum tracks as described in the original post in this thread.
I mean those drum parts have got to be simplest ever.
I can see maybe letting a sax player just blow over changes for a couple of hours and then splicing together a solo, but the drums on eagles songs?

Funnilly enough, despite my comments on Zorf's earlier post, I'm totally with him on this. I too am incredulous at what it took to get down drum tracks to songs that weren't exactly progressive rock or jazz fusion complex ! My thing is that it could be done and the tools that allowed it were part of the progression and development of the technology and the making of records.
The actual actions I find ridiculous. It's like driving from London to Dover, ferrying across the channel, swinging down the length of France into Spain, sailing across to Morocco and driving to Egypt then across the Sahara before swinging east to finally, after a few more countries heading to Nairobi in Kenya just to hand your Auntie a birthday card when you could've just posted it !

 

[SteveM]

The Eagles are superb live from what I've seen of the Youtube clips.