Andy Rooney said:Computers make it easier to do a lot of things, but most of the things they make it easier to do don't need to be done.
Does anyone else here feel that when you cut and paste a song to death to get those "Perfect" tracks that it some how sucks the life out of the recording, leaving a sterile/nudered song?
Depends on how bad it was without cutting and pasteing.
there are ZERO mistakes.. mechanically perfect.
What a GREAT quote!Ani Difranco said, in a song . . . "People used to make records, as in a record of an event, the event of people making music in a room. . ."
what we're talking about here is not the validity of sequenced, MIDI'd or programmed music
There's an easy way to break one's self of that habit; go and record one or two cuts in someone else's studio where one has to pay cash for their time. One either learns very quickly to live with minor imperfections or practice harder before they even step in front of the mics.Whenever tracking I stop at any minor imperfection and re-track from the beginning. This ends up persisting for hours for a single guitar track.
There's an easy way to break one's self of that habit; go and record one or two cuts in someone else's studio where they have to pay cash for their time. One either learns very quickly to live with minor imperfections or practice harder before they even step in front of the mics.Whenever tracking I stop at any minor imperfection and re-track from the beginning. This ends up persisting for hours for a single guitar track.
I don't know.... cut and paste... multiple takes..... punch in, punch out... comping.... what's the difference??
If I sing the second chorus better than the first, then I'm probably going to copy it over to the first. If I totally blow out the first verse (which I always do), I'm going to do more takes until I get it right. If I flub a guitar lick I'll probably leave it, unless it's really bad, then I punch in. (For some reason, I hate punching in and would rather leave a mediocre performance than go through the trouble... I don't know why that is... )
peace.
Ani Difranco said, in a song . . . "People used to make records, as in a record of an event, the event of people making music in a room. . ." Yeah, music today is only "music" by definition. Rarely is art made anymore. I'm recording on tape, partly as a way to force myself out of the "ctrl+alt+delete" music mentality. The best we can do now is make music with integrity and hope that the world catches on.
This is, of course, true. For example, One of the two songs that didn't have any obvious errors is/was all about the artisanship of the title artist (for the record, the cut was Jake Shimabukuro playing his virtuoso version of "While My Guitar Gently Weeps"), where the whole idea is the excellence of the musicianship itself. You just don't let mistakes slip through for that kind of recording. Then again, I'm sure there was not a whole lot of editing involved, either. While it's possible perhaps that different verses may have been from different takes. I'd be willing to place a substantial bet that it was a straight-through take, even if it was take #3.Like many other topics, the obvious answer is that it depends on the type of music and the preference of the musician.
Agreed. It's not a question of whether editing to fix mistakes is bad; very little of what hits our ears these days is a straight-through take like the artisan recordings often are, and like practically all recordings were before the Vietnam War.I have no problem with a cut here, paste there, and even less issues with punching in/out little trouble places.
better yet, write something you can actually perform.
Sounds like you need to pony up for a second harmonica, ChiliHa... if I did that, all my songs would be C F G.