Blending Drum Samples with Recorded Drums

[AshX]

In my opinion, Jack White is filling a niche and the increasing ease and popularity of home studios and digital recording has only furthered that niche. Musically, he most definitely isn't a technical player, vocally or guitar wise, but I think it's done on purpose. The guy can play tons of different instruments and certain tracks where he wants to be on pitch or on time he does so perfectly. As far as whether or not he's lazy for recording the way he does or playing the way he does, well, you could argue that most performers who fix everything in their DAW and quantize all the instruments so that they are perfect are also lazy. Whether or not he's any good is really in the eye of the beholder.

As far as Nirvana goes. Kurt at the end of the day was a punk rocker who loved the Beatles and added some tastes of metal, new wave, and pop into the mix. I was watching an interview or reading one with Butch Vig and he said tons of times in the studio rehearsing or recording Kurt wouldn't be able to tune his guitar and Krist would come over and tune it like it was no big deal. For the way Kurt sang, he was surprisingly on pitch most of the time. I'm sure part of that was maybe a bit of laziness, but ultimately rooted in the ideals he learned from records of bands he considered part a 'punk rock 101 class' he learned while in high school in his bedroom and at shows.

Different musicians capture a different energy. It's pretty obvious when people try to emulate artists like Cobain or White and it just sounds ridiculous. They embody not just the music they create but an attitude and a feeling. It's no bullshit and that's why even when they're out of tune or off time we still connect with their music. They're conveying an emotion and human beings aren't perfect and I think that's the beauty in all of it. So many of us are afraid to show the imperfect, sensitive, and dark sides of ourselves and it's rare you find someone like Kurt Cobain who bears his soul and isn't trying to be anyone but himself because he can't.

I totally agree a lot of it is genre specific, though. If a lot of metal that is out today was played completely raw and live, well, it probably wouldn't sound good. I love that type of stuff but also the raw punk stuff that sounds like the train could go off the rails at any second. I don't think it would kill anyone to not have every note be completely perfect. It sucks the life out of a lot of music and as Dave Grohl said, "You have to be allowed to suck. And then eventually, you suck a little less." I think that's really important for young musicians who are learning to play and young bands that maybe have this idea that you have to be fucking perfect right out of the box. And then when you see a lot of these bands live, well, you see what they can really do.

Just my two cents.

 

[Greg_L]

Since when does some dude have to be a fucking virtuoso to be credible? Fuck that. That line of thinking sucks ass and does more harm than good.

And speaking of sloppy playing, a couple of total hacks named Hendrix and Page come to mind. Sloppy as hell.

 

[ShofB]

I think when people get past all that "is it real" stuff and just view it as a "production"....it just doesn't matter. No one is going to NOT buy your music 'cus there's drum samples on the songs.

I did a session once where we tracked a snare off of my Procussion. It was an industrial track and the snare sounded totally crushing. The band leader/producer (I'm using that term loosely) got upset because the snare came from a machine. The next day they spent 8 hours or so using several different "real" snares trying to replace the Procussion snare. They couldn't come close and I bet it still bothers that fool to this day that the snare wasn't "Real". This guy was so hung up on how something was done that he couldn't hear the results.

 

[miroslav]

I have one of those Pro-cussion Emu modules.....there's some nice drum samples on there. I use to use it a lot back in my MIDI-crazy days, but not lately...though I have pulled out some of the unusual sounds off it occasionally when I needed some ear candy.

PS....that quote you used is one of my posts.......but I know sometimes it gets messed up when you try to pull a quote from a post that already has multi-quotes. This BBS doesn't handle posts with multi-quotes very well.

 

[grimtraveller]

Perhaps I'm a bit too much of a purist, but the whole "completely replace my drum sound with a sample of someone else's" strikes me as fraudulent.

I kind of know what you mean. I'm in agreement that you do what you need to to get the desired result, yet, paradoxically, the "replace the drums with samples as a default" strikes me as, well, weird.

You don't necessarily have to replace it with someone else's kit. You can sample yours

Which is why my view is paradoxically worthless. Since I began digital recording, I've used hits from the songs in question to repair mistakes or add a beat or whatever.

He asserted that "technology is the enemy of creativity."

The relationship between technology and popular music is as symbiotic as that between politics and the media. They've long driven each other. Creativity has more often than not been enhanced by the presence of technology.

Black Dog is one of the coolest guitar riffs of all time in my book.

Interestingly, it was actually John Paul Jones, the bassist, that brought that riff to the band. Jimmy Page said that he never used to bring complete songs but would bring bits and pieces and when they were recording their 4th LP, Jones brought that riff and they worked it into a song.

And I'm left wondering why we even go to all the trouble of recording real drums anymore since samples are in essence, nothing more than real drum sounds recorded digitally, same as the "real" drums! I see no rational reason to keep on doing something that no longer needs to be done.

Well, some of us enjoy real drums, enjoy playing with actual human drummers, like the live interaction and bouncing off one another and all the attendant package that comes with recording drums. The fact that something is widespread or simpler/ more convenient doesn't invalidate what came before. In a way, modernists scream freedom and choice but don't actually really believe in it. And it's often strange left field topics like this that bring that out.

I think when people get past all that "is it real" stuff and just view it as a "production"....it just doesn't matter.

I wonder........
I think there needs to be people that make noise about whether or not things in music are real because there may otherwise come a point where virtually nothing is.

I have a prejudice against singers who don't write their own songs. I still to this day, will not refer to people who do nothing but sing songs that someone else wrote, as artists. They are not artists. They are just people who sing.

I'd say that interpreting songs, whether or not you wrote them, qualifies you as an artist. An actor is an artist, even though they neither write the scripts they speak nor put the film together. When you watch ET, you remember the alien beast and the kids, not Steven Spielberg's direction !

If I'm ever responsible for writing anything like the kind of shit I heard yesterday, I want someone to take an axe and chop my fucking hands off!

I bet you wouldn't if it sold 2 million copies !
And in any case, technology will soon make it possible to record complete albums without the use of hands.....

I'll take it one step further and say that the reason the public doesn't care or know is because on the whole, they are a bunch of fucking morons and idiots! They are just the kinds of assholes that wouldn't know or care if someone replaced a drum part with a sample! LOL!

Hey, you're talking about peoples' Mums, Dads, sisters, brothers, friends, husbands, wives, loved ones etc. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're being playful because there are zillions of people the world over who use stuff every day and haven't got the slightest idea how they're made.
But if you're serious, well, don't be in Philadelphia this summer.....

Don't get me wrong...The Edge is cool....U2 is cool....but he's not much of a guitar player *when you put him next the likes of Page and White*.

He's does the whole rhythm thing real good, and makes obscene use of reverb and delays, delays, delays....
He fits U2 well, but I don't think I ever heard him do any lead lines.
Page and White can play rhythm real good too, but they can also rip them single notes.

I don't know about the last few years but in their earlier stuff {say, up to and including "The Joshua tree"} he knocks out some good lead stuff {"Another time, another place", "Tomorrow", "New Years day", "Bullet the blue sky"}.
I like the Edge and the way he turned his limitations and one effect into a strength and sound that's unmistakenly his.
It's also worth mentioning that U2 came out of the punk scene where guitar solos were generally seen as fraternizing with the enemy so a more early Who type integrated rhythm/lead style was his backdrop.

And speaking of sloppy playing, a couple of total hacks named Hendrix and Page come to mind. Sloppy as hell.

I've never noticed sloppy playing from them. In fact, the only sloppy playing I've noticed on record are on some obscure vanity pressings that I have where the timing is really bad.
On the legendary "Moon blood" by Fraction, there's a song where for about 10 seconds, the whole band just lose where they're at and the timing goes. It actually sounds really funny. The whole LP was cut live so I don't know why they just didn't retake.

 

[miroslav]

I think there needs to be people that make noise about whether or not things in music are real because there may otherwise come a point where virtually nothing is.

There should never be any open uproar over real or sampled sounds. I think that is a personal choice that each person can make as needed per production, and it shouldn't be used as some "proof" of production value.
Having someone looking down on other's work because it may have "non-real" elements, and passing judgement....that's not how you look at any art.
It's like saying to Picasso that his pictures don't look like the real thing, therefore they aren't valid.....

Recording is not "real"...it's a captured sample of audio, yours or someone else's...analog or digital.
If someone wants to be a stickler for "real"...then you only get that from 100% live performance...and then, does that even count if the keyboard player is using a synth patch...????

C'mon...let's all get real. Just make music, it doesn't matter HOW you do it.

 

[Greg_L]

I've never noticed sloppy playing from them.

Check again. Page's lead break in "Heartbreaker" is absolutely horrendous. Hendrix banged, bent, and noised his way into history. I respect their contributions to big loud guitar playing in the early days of big loud guitar sounds, but I have to laugh at some of the shit they still get away with simply because they're legends. And it's not even that I care about players being super precise and surgical with their performances. Sloppy is fine with me. I just don't see those two mongos as the guitar superheros that everyone else does.

 

[miroslav]

Yeah....Page can be real sloppy, and so was Hendrix....but like Jack White, they knew how to make it work for them...and they focused on the emotion and delivery instead of meticulous playing note for note...and then there's the tone.

Page is still one of my favorite lead players.

 

[Greg_L]

and then there's the tone.
.

Marshalls!

 

[Farview]

I think there needs to be people that make noise about whether or not things in music are real because there may otherwise come a point where virtually nothing is.I'd say that interpreting songs, whether or not you wrote them, qualifies you as an artist.

Who is going to define what is real? If a song needs a sound that either doesn't exist in reality or you simply don't have access to, what do you do?

Most kick drums really don't sound anything like they do on most albums. The mic doesn't have flat response, there is a ton of EQ and compression being used, the decay is shortened by a gate, etc... How real is that? At what point will the reality police show up and take away your keyboard and mouse?

What about a Rhodes piano? Is that real because it exists as its own thing, or is it not real because it is trying to be a piano?

Aren't we trying to make music? Songs don't care what you use to make them, just like they don't care what you play them back on, or what you are doing while you are listening. Getting caught up in methodology will make you lose sight of the actual goal...making music.

 

[Greg_L]

Most kick drums really don't sound anything like they do on most albums. .

This much is very true.

 

[grimtraveller]

There should never be any open uproar over real or sampled sounds. I think that is a personal choice that each person can make as needed per production, and it shouldn't be used as some "proof" of production value.
Having someone looking down on other's work because it may have "non-real" elements, and passing judgement....that's not how you look at any art.
It's like saying to Picasso that his pictures don't look like the real thing, therefore they aren't valid.....

Recording is not "real"...it's a captured sample of audio, yours or someone else's...analog or digital.
If someone wants to be a stickler for "real"...then you only get that from 100% live performance...and then, does that even count if the keyboard player is using a synth patch...????

C'mon...let's all get real. Just make music, it doesn't matter HOW you do it.

Who is going to define what is real? If a song needs a sound that either doesn't exist in reality or you simply don't have access to, what do you do?

Most kick drums really don't sound anything like they do on most albums. The mic doesn't have flat response, there is a ton of EQ and compression being used, the decay is shortened by a gate, etc... How real is that? At what point will the reality police show up and take away your keyboard and mouse?

What about a Rhodes piano? Is that real because it exists as its own thing, or is it not real because it is trying to be a piano?

Aren't we trying to make music? Songs don't care what you use to make them, just like they don't care what you play them back on, or what you are doing while you are listening. Getting caught up in methodology will make you lose sight of the actual goal...making music.

If you've ever read anything I've posted on this subject over the years, you'd note that I don't disagree with anything that either of you have brought up. I've made the same points many times in many threads and arguments and will continue to do so because it's what I happen to think.
But I also follow things through to logical conclusions. I think it's a good thing that people do moan about 'real' instruments losing out in time to sampled ones because it may {of course, it may not !} inspire people in the future to keep on with actual instruments. Ideally, having both in abundant supply would be great. It's just that I can forsee a day when the only means of making music will be via sampled sounds and I don't think that would be a good thing. Just a personal thought.
My comment wasn't a "looking down on peoples' production values" thing at all. I've freely stated many times here that virtual instruments were a Godsend for someone like me who wanted to make music with the kind of instruments I wanted to use but didn't know how to play and was unlikely to meet players of those instruments in the kind of abundance that I'd desire. I already stated in the thread that I've used digital technology for repairing drum parts. And it's often great fun and highly satisfying ~ when it comes off ! I use sampling technology all the time and for the home recorder it's brilliant.
Just a quick comment on methodology ~ this site wouldn't exist if we didn't have an interest in methodology.

Check again. Page's lead break in "Heartbreaker" is absolutely horrendous. Hendrix banged, bent, and noised his way into history. I respect their contributions to big loud guitar playing in the early days of big loud guitar sounds, but I have to laugh at some of the shit they still get away with simply because they're legends. And it's not even that I care about players being super precise and surgical with their performances. Sloppy is fine with me. I just don't see those two mongos as the guitar superheros that everyone else does.

I don't believe in superheroes. Either I dig a song and by extension, the players on it or I don't. And I guess if you hear enough of a person's work, you are able to form some kind of notion as to what they're like and whether you like them.
But I've often said that I don't notice sloppy, or at least what other people refer to as sloppy. For example, the solo you mention, "Heartbreaker". I first heard it in 1980 and I loved the song from the kick off. I've always loved the solo and thought it was a great one, even though the first part was dubbed onto the main bit. To me, it's just a great song that I never get tired of hearing. It's a song that gets progressively louder and the bass in it has seriously rumbled every set of speakers and phones I've heard it on and shaken walls in places I've lived in from Enugu to Hendon to Bounds Green to Islington to Perivale to Kingsbury and on many a long drive !
I do like noisy guitars with heavy bass and wild drums......covering the sloppiness !

 

[grimtraveller]

Most kick drums really don't sound anything like they do on most albums.

Alot of drums don't sound on record the way they do when you stand next to them or are in the same room or hall as them !

 

[miroslav]

I think that if you are true to your music, your productions, your goals....no matter what you use, it is always "real".

Digital recording has allowed more people to create, without having to bring in real instruments and players for every little thing. Sure....if I want tympani on a song, it would be great to bring in the real thing and have someone talented play them for me, but I can also just pull up a tympani sample and get the sound.
I don't think the production is any less valid because of that.

I do agree with you that it's also important to maintain contact with "real" instruments too *when possible*....but I don't think that not doing automatically devalues a given production.
Recording shouldn't focus on maintaining specific norms and SOPs. It's about the end-product.
If it's truly going to sound better with real tympani, and using them would be obvious and noticeable in the end-product VS using samples....then use the real thing.

 

[AshX]

I think that if you are true to your music, your productions, your goals....no matter what you use, it is always "real".

Digital recording has allowed more people to create, without having to bring in real instruments and players for every little thing. Sure....if I want tympani on a song, it would be great to bring in the real thing and have someone talented play them for me, but I can also just pull up a tympani sample and get the sound.
I don't think the production is any less valid because of that.

I do agree with you that it's also important to maintain contact with "real" instruments too *when possible*....but I don't think that not doing automatically devalues a given production.
Recording shouldn't focus on maintaining specific norms and SOPs. It's about the end-product.
If it's truly going to sound better with real tympani, and using them would be obvious and noticeable in the end-product VS using samples....then use the real thing.

I totally agree. I guess you also have to weigh the importance of each instrument in each particular song and mix. If you're a rock band, then I don't think using a synthesized string quartet versus a real one is going to make a huge deal. A recording of an orchestra that was purely synthesized, well, you may have issues there. Same thing goes with the timpani concept.

I have to admit prior to Jimmy blending samples to my drum track, I was vehemently against using samples in order to maintain an 'organic' kit sound. 40 tracks of other instruments later and the drums just weren't cutting through the mix, some of that because of errors in recording by the studio engineers who tracked parts of the kit, others just natural limitations of the kit. As someone brought to my attention, even Nirvana's Nevermind had sampled drum sounds blended along with other mixing "tricks" to obtain that huge drum sound. Most of that is obviously Dave Grohl's drumming, but if you compare that to In Utero, although I like the drum sound for that particular album, it pales in comparison. Someone like Jack White and the White Stripes, well, all the instruments are going for that retro garage rock sound and they compliment each other. But, as I realized by the end of this experiment here on HR, that ultimately drum samples were required to do the song justice. Just hearing the instrumental tracks with the sampled drums blended is like hearing a different song. There's more power to it and because the drums are more present and driving, the other instruments sit more comfortably and ultimately the message of the song is delivered more effectively.

If sampling or using virtual instruments is going to serve the song and convey the emotion you are trying to convey, then why the hell not? Should I not put a string section in my song because I don't have an orchestra on call to record this 30 second bridge because it's 'fake'? If something is going to add to your song and you can do it in a believable way that serves the song but it's a synthetic or programmed instrument, then to not use it is just like shooting yourself in the foot. Once you let go of all the bullshit from purists and the old guard who are desperately holding on to whatever is left of the old industry, it's actually pretty freeing. I'm sure as hell glad I did!

It seems like everyone is trying to pigeon holed artists these days. How dare anyone do something different! Stay in your little box and dance, puppet! That's sure as hell how it feels sometimes. It's shocking when either on YouTube or a music news website when a new band does something different, people go as far as to post death threats. I mean geez, if you don't like the song then don't listen to it. The same goes for VI's and samples. To each their own. Different strokes for different folks. As long as you're proud of what you created and satisfied, then who really gives a fuck?

/rant

 

[grimtraveller]

Ever since Les Paul began experimenting with 'sound on sound' recording and engineers discovered they could overdub by using more than one machine {thus driving the creation of multitrackers that provided an increasing number of tracks which in turn revolutionized songwriting and elevated recording to an art form}, recorded music has been about creating aural illusions and imaginary soundscapes. And personally, I'm glad.
The purists who hanker for the old days aren't always in the real world but I don't dismiss altogether where they're coming from because I can understand why they say some of what they do and I'm glad they do, to some extent. Over the last year I had some run ins with certain bods in the analogue forum and I found some of their approach to be so closed minded. It was infuriating.
Yet, I understood.....I concluded that you needed those kind of voices to keep certain flames alive. I guess variety {of approach and technique} is important. Well it is to me, anyway.

Digital recording has allowed more people to create, without having to bring in real instruments and players for every little thing.

If I knew players of actual instruments that I like and they were willing and available, I'd use them in a flash. They'd be all I'd use. But you know, some of the people I know that do play saxes, flutes, recorders and various keyboards, who are willing to and do play on some of my bits aren't always around when I'm hot to trot so I will continue to use sampled instruments. Thank you, Charlie Watts !

Should I not put a string section in my song because I don't have an orchestra on call to record this 30 second bridge because it's 'fake'?

If you did have unlimited access to the orchestra and they were up for it whenever you wanted them, would you use the orchestra or the samples ? That's not a trick question or anything. I'd use the actual instruments.
But at the same time, I've found it to be great fun and creatively satisfying to put myself in the mind of the player of whatever particular instrument I happen to be 'playing' and doing it myself.
I do, however, love input and contributions from others so I guess I'm fortunate; the balance is just about right.

 

[miroslav]

If I knew players of actual instruments that I like and they were willing and available, I'd use them in a flash.

So would I.
I think most folks would.

These days, I can't my drummer buddy to come over to do some tracks...he's always busy when I'm free and vice versa...so I use my drum sampler until he can.

 

[ibleedburgundy]

Who is going to define what is real? If a song needs a sound that either doesn't exist in reality or you simply don't have access to, what do you do?

Most kick drums really don't sound anything like they do on most albums. The mic doesn't have flat response, there is a ton of EQ and compression being used, the decay is shortened by a gate, etc... How real is that? At what point will the reality police show up and take away your keyboard and mouse?

What about a Rhodes piano? Is that real because it exists as its own thing, or is it not real because it is trying to be a piano?

Aren't we trying to make music? Songs don't care what you use to make them, just like they don't care what you play them back on, or what you are doing while you are listening. Getting caught up in methodology will make you lose sight of the actual goal...making music.

It's clearly all subjective. I agree with you that results matter. We will each do what we think is right. Someone else's recordings are going to sound better than mine, and conversely mine may be more true to the sounds that I spent hours upon hours dialing in. It's a grey area. Gates aren't natural but on a recording they don't necessarily sound unnatural once all the tracks are put together. To me, home recordings rarely have the depth and definition of a live sound. That's what I'm after so if compression or limiting or reverb or delay or gates or stereo wideners get me there, I'm all for it.

 

[miroslav]

To me, home recordings rarely have the depth and definition of a live sound.

I think that's the result of a couple things...lack of exceptional, professionally built rooms...and maybe knowing how to get depth and definition.
There's an obsession with "booths" and close-mic recording techniques with much of the home-rec world (though in some cases, there's little option for anything else in small, home-rec environments)....
....followed by excessive use if processing and FX to then get what's not there to begin with.

 

[Farview]

It's clearly all subjective. I agree with you that results matter. We will each do what we think is right. Someone else's recordings are going to sound better than mine, and conversely mine may be more true to the sounds that I spent hours upon hours dialing in. It's a grey area. Gates aren't natural but on a recording they don't necessarily sound unnatural once all the tracks are put together. To me, home recordings rarely have the depth and definition of a live sound. That's what I'm after so if compression or limiting or reverb or delay or gates or stereo wideners get me there, I'm all for it.

Even though I obviously went overboard attempting to be entertaining while making my point, there are obviously times when the synthetic version of a sound is the more appropriate sound for the production.

Would "The Final Countdown" sound he same if it were actual trumpets playing the beginning? Would anything Painter did even work if the drums were recorded using the Glyn Johns method?

I could go on and on. Some, maybe most, of these decisions were not compromises because getting the real instrument was impossible, they meant to use the sounds they did because that was the texture they were going for.