Digital Editing or playing perfect?

[HomeNoiseRecord]

Which do you guys do or prefer to use most often?
Although my DAW skills dont yet let me to cut out bum notes and fix tiny problems with my songs (i use it mainly to mix) i understand its possible occasionally.
Or do you prefer to record over and over again until its perfect?

Just wonderin'

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Better players prefer to play better. Worse players prefer to rely upon editing.

G.

 

[RAMI]

....and then there's somewhere in between.

How about playing as well as you can and punching in occasionally. I'm all for perfect first takes and all that. But realistically, I'm not going to scrap an otherwise good performance if there are a few little parts that simply need to be punched in and played better (or differently).

 

[Chili]

For me, desireable to get the part right when tracking. Most of the time, that doesn't happen because I'm not a good musician. I edit a lot. what's funny about me is I'll practice a part until I can run through it 3 or 4 times with no flubs. As soon as I hit record I will make a mistake.

Editing is pretty easy once you learn the little shortcuts and tricks in your DAW.

 

[gecko zzed]

Yes to this:

I'm not going to scrap an otherwise good performance if there are a few little parts that simply need to be punched in and played better (or differently).

And this is not unique to Chili:

What's funny about me is I'll practice a part until I can run through it 3 or 4 times with no flubs. As soon as I hit record I will make a mistake.

Red Light Fever strikes yet again!!

The other thought is to learn to live with your imperfections. You are what you are, and there's nothing wrong with your reordings reflecting that.

 

[miroslav]

Play it perfect...and then edit to make it even better.

 

[pure.fusion]

Which do you guys do or prefer to use most often?
Although my DAW skills dont yet let me to cut out bum notes and fix tiny problems with my songs (i use it mainly to mix) i understand its possible occasionally.
Or do you prefer to record over and over again until its perfect?

Just wonderin'

I see it as a time vs talent issue.

I'm not a professional guitarist, but I've been playing fo 20 years. When I want to record something, I can either learn and practice the part, then record it as the perfect final result.

Or I can play something that produces a "minimum standard"; something that will lend itself to being edited into what you *would have* played if you did the practice and created the final result.

One takes more time, and improves you as a player. The other takes less time and improves your editing skills.

If I didn't work the day job, I'd see myself on the side of "learn it and play it" - there'd be no excuse then!

Cheers,
FM

 

[HomeNoiseRecord]

yeh iv kindagot into the habit of recording things before iv fully learnt them and ending up with a substandard result.....my mixiings getting better tho, haha

 

[grimtraveller]

Better players prefer to play better. Worse players prefer to rely upon editing.

G.

originally posted by RAMI

....and then there's somewhere in between.

The somewhere in between is kind of where I'm at. It's probably where I've always been without necessarilly realizing it. I wouldn't say that I rely on editing but since moving into digitalia, it's become a useful ally and like Britain with the US of A, I have no intention of jeopardizing the relationship ! But it's also good to try and get it perfect and I'm more used to that. But I won't scrap a take that has the right feel and some off the wall bits that can't be repeated for the sake of a few fluffs. In my analog days, this was more of a problem and I got used to leaving in mistakes

originally posted by gecko zzed

The other thought is to learn to live with your imperfections. You are what you are, and there's nothing wrong with your recordings reflecting that.

and adding bits here and there so that the errors didn't seem like they were. But there are so many different ways of recording and I'm simply no longer a purist [or a particularly good musician !]. I can't get a full band in my little space and rehearse them fully etc, etc. And if some little bit goes wrong, I ain't waiting six months for whichever person to come back and redo the part - though I have had to do that loads of times and still do ! I like recording and much that goes with it, but at the end of the day, it's the song that matters and that's what I'll listen to. It's like a meal; it's the eating it that matters and the taste, not how hot the oil was or how the onions were cut.

 

[M1Fanatic]

I hate splicing tape, so a punch over a raggety part works for me, but I try to be as prepared as I can be, but mistakes do happen even to the pros.

There are mistakes, and then there is crappy playing.

 

[Terry Wetzel]

For me It depends on..

several things. (1).I prefer to play it perfectly. Unfortunately I'm not perfect as a musician or a person! Who is? So, I play it over and over until I can accept that it's as good as it's gonna get. (2). Who is it for? If it's intended for a record company it should be as good as you can produce but, then again, If little has changed over the years with record label A & R men, they will only listen to a few seconds and make their decision to call you or throw it in the trash! So, at least try for better than average. (3). There's nothing wrong with punching in. It's S.O.P. in this business. I do however personally draw the line with pitch correction and vocal harmony software. These are great gizmos but they are still artificial inhancements that present a false representation of actual talent! Where do we stop? Who can say?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I don't think anybody advocates that a take has to be perfect and that there should never-ever be punches or other editing. In fact, sometimes "perfect takes" are those that are not technically perfect.

It's a matter of quantity and intent.

Personally I think that if a player isn't capable of getting a keeper take - it doesn't have to be technically perfect, but at least one good enough to use - in three takes, then they are either just having a bad day or not yet ready to record and should go back and practice some more. Either way they should come back and try it again another day.

I also know that many folks consider that a harsh view to take. I get that. But I'm using that here just as a starting example to make this point: there's a difference between editing someone who *can* make an unedited "keeper" take but just hasn't quite hit it yet, and editing someone who could not make a keeper take if you gave them a full day and all night of takes to do it. Editing the first guy is OK. The second guy is simply hitting the red button too early and should walk away even if their performances could be "fixed" in editing.

Now, we may not all agree on the three take rule as the line in the sand, but the line needs to be drawn somewhere. It really just boils down to the fact that one can pretty much tell if the guy (or gal) can actually play their part or not, if they're ready or not. If they can play and are ready, there's nothing wrong with a little editing to help them out with some honest issues. If they simply can't play the part well enough to actually have it stick to tape after a reasonable amount of time, then they should hold off on the recording altogether and not lean on editing to make it sound like thy can actually play.

G.

 

[Todzilla]

Play it perfect is always preferred.

However, I find that's often elusive. I do get a bit weary of my bandmates expecting me to work miracles in post-production. I'll bet for every hour they spend tracking, I spend 8 hours comping, splicing and fixing.

 

[miroslav]

Now, we may not all agree on the three take rule as the line in the sand....

IMO...it needs to be there for a number of reasons.

It keeps the player honest.
Keeps the session moving along.
Makes the editing that much easier/faster.

On very rare occasion I've done 5 takes when it was one of those days, but then I paid the price during editing by having to slog through that many....
...though usually it's 3 drum takes, 3 L. guitar takes, & 3 L. vocal takes...and much of the other tracks are done in one or two takes if there isn't a lot of intricacy/complexity to them, like if they are more basic rhythm/chord parts...etc.

Most times for me it isn't about technical perfection and being able to play/sing the parts correctly...
…but rather it's about going for very minor tonal nuances of a performance...
…and that might need more than one take, but then those takes are easily spliced together as there isn’t really a need to “fix” any bad playing/singing.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

IMO...it needs to be there for a number of reasons.

It keeps the player honest.
Keeps the session moving along.
Makes the editing that much easier/faster.

On very rare occasion I've done 5 takes when it was one of those days, but then I paid the price during editing by having to slog through that many....

It certainly helps when you know the artist in front of the mic. When it's someone that I know, I can usually tell if that fourth or fifth take are worth spending the time on or not.

If I know that the guy* is simply not going to accidentally and suddenly become a better player in the next take or two, or if I know that he's one of those guys who tends to lose the magic when forced to do a shitload of re-takes without a break (a lot of perfectly good musicians are like that), then I probably won't bother going more than three takes. OTOH, if I know from experience the guy has a better take in him, I might stretch it an extra take or two, but with some kind of direction or inspiration to try and coax that better performance out of him. But by take 5, I don't care who it is, it's past time to move on.

When I don't know the artist, I'll tend to cut it off at three no matter what. If there's a take that's pretty good but has one or two fixable errors, then yeah, I'll fix them in editing. If the three takes all suck wind, however, I'm not going to try and Frankenstein edit them into a workable piece, I'll tell the artist to come back when they're ready to record (or replace them if they're a session player).

*I say guy, because if it's a gal, the number of takes I'll give them in front of the glass is directly proportional to how hot she is . Unless of course she's just awful, in which case I don't care how she looks, she's outta there.

G.

 

[miroslav]

*I say guy, because if it's a gal, the number of takes I'll give them in front of the glass is directly proportional to how hot she is . Unless of course she's just awful, in which case I don't care how she looks, she's outta there.

So sexist...but so true!

That was great....now take some slow, deep breaths...and let’s do one or two more to be safe.

Or you call them over for something....JUST so you can then watch them walk away!!!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Well, I like to ask then to sing from the diaphragm, but if they're not that bright, I usually wind up on the receiving end of a major slap in the face.

G.

 

[joeym]

I think it depends on whether you're recording in a commercial studio or just recording at home. In the commercial studio you're paying, so you better be prepared or it will cost you. At home, you can take all the time you want, hell, even review parts the next day or next week.....
In the end, one should do what the song asks him to do. It's the end result that matters.

 

[saads]

*I say guy, because if it's a gal, the number of takes I'll give them in front of the glass is directly proportional to how hot she is . Unless of course she's just awful, in which case I don't care how she looks, she's outta there.

G.

If she's hot but awful i'll get on the other side of the glass and give her some 'pointers'

 

[dintymoore]

Which do you guys do or prefer to use most often?
Although my DAW skills dont yet let me to cut out bum notes and fix tiny problems with my songs (i use it mainly to mix) i understand its possible occasionally.
Or do you prefer to record over and over again until its perfect?

Just wonderin'

You could say that it doesn't matter because no one will ever know. You just don't want the part to feel awkward, and it can if you edit forever.

I do both, and always accept feel over accuracy, but what matters is if the song, in the end, works.

Look how much editing they do in films - film for a day, edit for 3 months.

It also depends on the genre - you wouldn't edit a bebop tune but pop songs tend to want to sound glitch-free.

It's like doing bodywork on a car - if you need too much it's better to start over and get a new one!