Recording ethics

D

dkerwood

Member
Ok, I'm not sure if this discussion fits here, but I don't know where else it might fit, so here we go.

What are your thoughts about a band having someone who ISN'T in the band record some parts to cover for errors made by a band member?

My real world example- I've been recording on my lonesome for years. I've meticulously learned to play everything necessary to record all of my own music, and the biggest advantage is that I know my own music inside and out and can compose from all angles (from all instruments' POV).

Well, now I'm finally in a band that's ready to record. We've done a few tracks, and it's becoming increasingly apparent that a few of the band members haven't made the leap from live musicians to studio musicians. You can cover inconsistent playing live with a great stage show and enthusiasm... but when you hit the studio, those inconsistencies start to pile up.

So here's my question, on two levels. If on the album it says "John Doe, bass", is it wrong if someone else recorded or overdubbed or sampled or generally hacked and spliced the bass track together and still billed it as "John Doe"? I know it's DONE all the time. I just want to know if you think it's ethical.

Second level, more close to home. If I go through and overdub some drums or some bass, should I tell the band members what I've done? Or should I chalk it up to the editing process? I'm talking about anything from sampling a dry crash or snare or kick to overdubbing entire sections of songs. I'm just not sure that these guys have the time or patience to keep slamming through it to get the "perfect take".

Let the discussion begin.
 
You haven't read the Mixerman Diaries, I take it? :D

But really, this kind of thing is done all the time. Paul McCartney played drums on a couple of songs on the White Album, after all. As long as people in the band are cool with it, it's really not a big deal.

Replacing tracks without the rest of the band's consent is a different matter, IMO, even if no one notices. I'm mainly a drummer, but I've recorded guitar parts that were credited to someone else and I didn't mind. It was the end result that mattered, not my vanity.
 
I'd kind of go with what Mad says. If you use a different musician, you should state it, unless EVERYONE agrees with what is happening. Some people just want to play. They will lend their services, expecting nothing. If they are cool with it, it is their choice.
Personally, I would mention said people as "additional guitar by.." or something like that. it shows someone helped out. But, just my personal opinion.
 
it might not be totally ethical... but who's it gonna hurt? (if they never find out)

:angel: (i hope that is a smiley face)
 
There's no payment involved. It's just home studio recording, and I'm trying to get it as tight as possible.

What I don't want to do is play something that's not able to be duplicated by one of my band members. For example, I play the drums a lot heavier and more deliberately than my drummer does. It's just that once I hit record, his playing is a little hesitant and awkward. Without that live energy, the playing energy goes through the floor. My bassist does the same, although to a lesser degree.

I'm doing everything that I can so that this can be THEM playing. I've crossfaded between as many as three or four takes to get a solid take... I've dictated bass lines, I've suggested drum riffs...

The end result is that now I'm trying to mix down, and I still can't get that "perfect take" from the six or seven "ok" takes.

What makes it worse is that my bassist hasn't even finished recording yet. She absolutely hates spending time recording, and won't do it for more than a half hour at a time. I've managed to get her to record 2 songs' worth of bass, and 3 songs' worth of backup vocals... but that still leaves me a little short. She works a lot, and when she's off work, she refuses to spend her "day off" in studio.

Personally, I'm not a fan of recording either. I'd rather be onstage than in studio any day... but I'd also like to get this recording finished so that we can have a little something to give our fans. So what should I do? I'm already planning on including one track that I recorded a couple of years ago (all me), and maybe even a track that's just me solo with an acoustic guitar...

Should I just record her bass part without her consent?
 
It all depends on the relationship you have with the rest of the guys.

For me, I write all the songs, record all the parts, they seem to be cool with it.

On the other hand, we were in a studio over a weekend. Our bassist at the time, laid down all the tracks, then had to leave. We listened back, and it sounded like ass, so the Drummer re-did all his parts. When he came back the next day, he was pretty pissed, and looked pretty sad too. That was hard to take, but his takes were just not good. I like to think he got over it.

I think you have to ask yourself what you want out of it, if its just for good times, let everyone do thier thing, if its the real deal, do it right.

Some guys are Robert Smith, and others are the rest of the Cure.
 
I don't see any problem with one guy doing multiple things over other members. But I'm also a strong believer that individual people bring different things / playing styles to the table. I write all the songs in my band, and most of the parts, but I still like to have the other guys playing along because it sounds more interesting than the one-guy-doing everything.
 
My thoughts:


Go for it. You're the producer. You do whatever you have to do make your sound happen. Simple. You don't need to tell anyone anything unless either a) you are legally required to or b) you simply just want to.

Forget about relationships and who would be offended.


If these are your songs, and you are the one in charge of the project, be it financial, creativly, legally, whatever...then you have the explict right to hire anyone you want to perform however you want.

Professionally, you would have him/her fill out a release form specifically stating the reasons to be hired and how his credit/payment are to be handled.

This is standard procedure to avoid legal disputes later on.



For example,

The last time I met up with the last producer I worked for, he was caught in a legal bind not too different from this kind of thing.

He was producing a young singer in order to get him ready to sell a deal for Sony. To make the young singer appeal even more, he hired a seperate and talented nobody rapper to do backing parts for his songs.

The rapper got paid for his gig and that was it. However, at the time of negotiating the singer to Sony, the rapper's asshole/**** manager decided he "diserved" to be a part of this deal. The release form he signed *specifically* stated that he was only going to be given credit as a studio musician and NOTHING...MORE. No capital from record sales, no side deals...nothing. He simply got payed for his 16 bars and no more.

So legally, the producer had the upper hand in this situation. To this day, Sony rejected the singer as a result of bad management and disputes resulting in things like that.

His studio lost 10 grand for that, plus all the man hours it took to put the demo together.

So you can see how serious hiring a studio musician can get. It's no big deal when it's local, but you throw in a big buyer and suddenly everyone "diserves" credit.


On top of that, this is the part most musicians do not want to hear:


Music is a business. Not a charity or just a "fun" thing to do. Eventually, if you don't make money off of your music, somebody else will.
 
Last edited:
I think that if they are all your songs, and the full focus of the band is you, then you can do what you want.

If the band members you plan to replace the tracks of have an idea that they should be on the recording, then you need to be honest with them about what you are seeking out of this.

I have seen this happen before. MANY bands have broken up over stuff like this. If you are going to be honest about what you think of their playing in the studio, you also have to be prepared for the fallout of doing so.

Some guys might be offended. Others might agree that you can do their parts better, and encourage you to pursue what is best for the recording. Most likely, it will be a little bit of both.

I have been on sessions where a members part was redone by somebody else, and they weren't told. If they thought it sounded different, we told them that we edited and/or reamped their parts in the DAW. :) They never found out either. I have been on sessions where they DID find out, and there was a BIG fallout in the band over it. Hell, I have produced bands and redid parts for them with the full blessing of the player(s) involved! I didn't get "credit" on the CD though. ;)

What you should do is track everybody doing their parts the best that they can. Save their parts. Then, do the parts that you think need to be redone. Mix them both. Approach the members who's parts you redid and see what they think. If anything, you might need to release something with THEM on it, and maybe keep your versions in wait. You never know if these people will quit the band soon anyway.

You have to find out where everybody stands on the issue, then weight that against the possible fallout of doing what you want to do.

*hint* Musicians tend to have VERY fragile egos. Tread lightly!
 
RyanHubris said:
I don't see any problem with one guy doing multiple things over other members. But I'm also a strong believer that individual people bring different things / playing styles to the table. I write all the songs in my band, and most of the parts, but I still like to have the other guys playing along because it sounds more interesting than the one-guy-doing everything.
Click to expand...
This is my philosophy as well. When my drummer is ON, he's great. He tears me apart when it comes to groove, IMHO. He's still getting back into the swing of things, but he's been playing with us almost for a year. We've played with some national acts. We've rocked out some big festivals in stadiums and all that jazz (before the current drummer)... but we don't have a decent recording. And I'm not going to shell out buco money to go to a pro studio just yet until we're COMPLETELY solid.

I'm going to try to do this without cheating and rerecording "their" parts. I did write the tunes, but I never wanted it to be "The Dkerwood Band", even though it does sometimes get billed that way... and I've lost band members in the past because of that.

I'm just tired of recording and want to have a nice demo that we can send out to get more LIVE gigs.

Plus, I'm used to doing it all myself - no learning curve - I can write a new song, and then half an hour later, I can have a recording of it. I guess this is a game of compromise.
 
dkerwood said:
it's becoming increasingly apparent that a few of the band members haven't made the leap from live musicians to studio musicians.
Click to expand...

Trust me: if you can't cut it in the studio you sure as hell cannot cut it live.

dkerwood said:
You can cover inconsistent playing live with a great stage show and enthusiasm...
Click to expand...

No you can't. Don't believe me? Try recording one a show and listen to the playback.

dkerwood said:
If on the album it says "John Doe, bass", is it wrong if someone else recorded or overdubbed or sampled or generally hacked and spliced the bass track together and still billed it as "John Doe"?
Click to expand...

Movie actors seldom perform their stunts or employ body doubles for nude scenes--is that unethical?

Also, what's the difference between doing a thousand and one punch-ins to get it "right", spending weeks mixing and editing and other techniques to make a marginal musician sound good and hiring a good musician to ghost play the parts? Neither one is an honest representation of "John Doe, bass" as a player.

Making records isn't about having an honest representation of the players, but to present the songs in the best light possible.

Also, as an engineer your reputation is on the line with the audio quality of the album. If I were doing a big album I'll be damned if I'm going to let some bozo's that can barely play their own songs screw up my reputation. Plus, and trust me on this, the band won't thank you for letting the world know how marginal they are as musicians.

dkerwood said:
Second level, more close to home. If I go through and overdub some drums or some bass, should I tell the band members what I've done?
Click to expand...

Only if you want them to undo all your changes and sound like crap. It sounds moronic but that's how it goes... people don't want to be replaced, so it's just easier if you let the morons think they played on the album. What does it hurt?

dkerwood said:
I'm just not sure that these guys have the time or patience to keep slamming through it to get the "perfect take".
Click to expand...

In the immortal words of Devo: "Crack that whip!"

Tell them to put a sock in it, change their maxipad, and play. They're supposed to be musicians so sit down, STFU and *play*. Explain to them if they practiced more they wouldn't be in this mess; or you could always lie and say "oh, all the big bands take this long too--that's why it takes a year to make a major label album and why it sounds so good." If they're being real snatches about it let them record whatever BS and then re-record it. Screw 'em if they are being pansies.
 
dkerwood said:
Personally, I'm not a fan of recording either. I'd rather be onstage than in studio any day... but I'd also like to get this recording finished so that we can have a little something to give our fans. So what should I do?
Click to expand...

Go to a recording studio! Pronto!
 
Cloneboy Studio said:
Trust me: if you can't cut it in the studio you sure as hell cannot cut it live.



No you can't. Don't believe me? Try recording one a show and listen to the playback.



Movie actors seldom perform their stunts or employ body doubles for nude scenes--is that unethical?

Also, what's the difference between doing a thousand and one punch-ins to get it "right", spending weeks mixing and editing and other techniques to make a marginal musician sound good and hiring a good musician to ghost play the parts? Neither one is an honest representation of "John Doe, bass" as a player.

Making records isn't about having an honest representation of the players, but to present the songs in the best light possible.

Also, as an engineer your reputation is on the line with the audio quality of the album. If I were doing a big album I'll be damned if I'm going to let some bozo's that can barely play their own songs screw up my reputation. Plus, and trust me on this, the band won't thank you for letting the world know how marginal they are as musicians.



Only if you want them to undo all your changes and sound like crap. It sounds moronic but that's how it goes... people don't want to be replaced, so it's just easier if you let the morons think they played on the album. What does it hurt?



In the immortal words of Devo: "Crack that whip!"

Tell them to put a sock in it, change their maxipad, and play. They're supposed to be musicians so sit down, STFU and *play*. Explain to them if they practiced more they wouldn't be in this mess; or you could always lie and say "oh, all the big bands take this long too--that's why it takes a year to make a major label album and why it sounds so good." If they're being real snatches about it let them record whatever BS and then re-record it. Screw 'em if they are being pansies.
Click to expand...

You are fired man! :mad:

I am serious. With your attitude, I would never hire you to produce! Not ever close. You seem to be oblivious to the "real world" of playing in unsigned bands!
 
Ford Van said:
You are fired man! :mad:

I am serious. With your attitude, I would never hire you to produce! Not ever close. You seem to be oblivious to the "real world" of playing in unsigned bands!
Click to expand...

i agree with you dude. cloneboy, having never met you or anything, i can't really say what you are like, but the vibes you're giving off with that post suggest that you're more of a businessman than an artist.
 
olfunk said:
i agree with you dude. cloneboy, having never met you or anything, i can't really say what you are like, but the vibes you're giving off with that post suggest that you're more of a businessman than an artist.
Click to expand...

It is even worse than that! That kind of attitude seldomly produces repeat customers. Nor does it it endear musicians to your "skills".

It also seldomly produces the desired result when we are talking local unsigned bands.

It is ALWAYS better to let the musician realize what is best for their situation. There is FAR more to recording than the end product!
 
olfunk said:
i agree with you dude. cloneboy, having never met you or anything, i can't really say what you are like, but the vibes you're giving off with that post suggest that you're more of a businessman than an artist, and that all your "facts" about music being a business and the suchlike only exist because you believe them. i personally believe that music is an art, a form of expression. there is a music business, which is a vehicle for people to get their art/expressions heard, but just because there is a music business, does not mean that music is a business.
Click to expand...

ROFL.

The naivety in here is amazing. Just keep believing that Bon Jovi, Green Day and so forth are playing on their own albums.... yeah.

Bottom line when **HIRED** to produce an album to sound good using under-the-table session musicians is one of the ways to accomplish that goal. Maybe if the musicians in question didn't suck ass they could be playing on their own record.

My point is this:

What's the difference between editing, punch-ins, sample replacement, compiling multiple takes and otherwise assembling a piece of music because the artist cannot play it very good and having a session musician play it?

NEITHER is representative of the artist's true ability.

Duh.

Duh.

Duh.

Duh.

Moral of the story: IF YOU WANNA PLAY ON YOUR OWN ALBUM, DON'T SUCK.
 
Ford Van said:
Nor does it it endear musicians to your "skills".
Click to expand...

I have plenty of clients.

Ford Van said:
It also seldomly produces the desired result when we are talking local unsigned bands.
Click to expand...

Yeah but local unsigned bands never have the kinds of budgets that really allow you to hire session musicians or whatnot. Since nobody is really going to hear the album anyway I'll let the band play on it--for better or for worse.

However, I've had *****MANY****** unsigned local bands approach me about replacing a member of the band's performance by another musician, myself, themselves.... anyone but the musician that played it.

One time there was nothing wrong with the part! I think they just did it to be dicks....

Ford Van said:
It is ALWAYS better to let the musician realize what is best for their situation. There is FAR more to recording than the end product!
Click to expand...

I agree, but sometimes it is in your clients best interests to replace their parts--they just don't want to know about it (or worse--to let anyone ELSE know about it). Especially when you are talking about major label clients.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top