Digital Editing or playing perfect?

[DrewPeterson7]

Why is everybody in such a hurry to hit the record button? It's things like this thread that remind me of why I always ask that question.

Amen. I like to use my "bedroom studio" as a songwriting tool, but there's a difference between sketching out a quick demo (in fact, I usually refer to these as "song sketches" - generally an intro, verse, chorus, just sort of a skeleton to make sure the song "works" that I can then sit down and flesh out a proper arrangement some other time) and sitting down to make an album.

In fact, it's actually kind of a running joke on a couple guitar sites I frequent how I'm doing such a spectacularly thorough job, um, "preparing" to record an album.

 

[noisewreck]

I use "step entry" and the "mouse". MIDI is teh great!

Well, not entirely. I do that for those obviously sequenced mechanical stuff. For things that need more human touch, oftentimes I'll practice the part until I feel comfortable with it, and then set my record markers to record the section, giving myself enough room to record it 4-5 times, back to back w/o stopping in one long stream. Then I'll keep the one iteration that was the best or at worst I can take most of it, and replace maybe a bar or so from another take/iteration. Usually the first "take" when done in this manner is a throwaway, as I just use that to get into the groove, but oftentimes the second and third end up being the keepers. I'll oftentimes also improvise a little on the subsequent repeats, just to see what happens.

[Edit]Oh, and I don't shy away from some light quantization on those parts if they need it. I have always had a tendency to be ahead of the beat ever since I remember. So, there are times, I'll nudge a whole section to sit on or behind the beat if going for a relaxed or restrained feel, while keeping the relative timings of the notes within it the same.[/Edit]

I am no purist by any stretch.

 

[miroslav]

Amen. I like to use my "bedroom studio" as a songwriting tool, but there's a difference between sketching out a quick demo (in fact, I usually refer to these as "song sketches" - generally an intro, verse, chorus, just sort of a skeleton to make sure the song "works" that I can then sit down and flesh out a proper arrangement some other time) and sitting down to make an album.

In fact, it's actually kind of a running joke on a couple guitar sites I frequent how I'm doing such a spectacularly thorough job, um, "preparing" to record an album.

Funny you posted this...as I was thinking about similar things on the way home.

YES!!!
Because it's MY studio, and when I'm working on MY stuff...it's NOT just about the final recording.
IOW...just like some bands use to do when huge studio budgets were available and they would block out months of studio time for working out ideas, recording a bit, changing stuff, recording some more...etc…I also use my studio as a composition and pre-production tool, and I'm sure MANY other guys and gals do with their home/project studios...so the lines between "scratching" out ideas and actually laying down keepers, are often blurred.

Honestly...being a writer, player AND the engineer/producer ....I actually prefer working this way, but if I'm just the engineer or producer, then I would expect the artists to have their shit together, unless they want to pay for the 75 takes and the editing that will follow (though I wouldn't even want to get into all that bullshit).

It really is different when you are working on YOUR music and also being the performer…VS…just engineering someone else’s music.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Amen. I like to use my "bedroom studio" as a songwriting tool, but there's a difference between sketching out a quick demo ...
and sitting down to make an album.

Or even a single. Oh yeah, I agree with you completely there. I'm not talking about using recording gear as part of the development process, that's an entirely different animal, and that's just fine.

I liken the actual recording to having one's portrait taken. So many people these days just jump in front of the camera without washing up, shaving or applying makeup (or both if you're my aunt Lillian ), combing their hair, etc., and then expecting to use Photoshop to make them look like a movie star. And then they come on here and want to know why their portrait looks like Gary Busse's mug shot.

G.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

Or even a single. Oh yeah, I agree with you completely there. I'm not talking about using recording gear as part of the development process, that's an entirely different animal, and that's just fine.

I liken the actual recording to having one's portrait taken. So many people these days just jump in front of the camera without washing up, shaving or applying makeup (or both if you're my aunt Lillian ), combing their hair, etc., and then expecting to use Photoshop to make them look like a movie star. And then they come on here and want to know why their portrait looks like Gary Busse's mug shot.

G.

:lol: Exactly. Whereas, if you're just trying to "document" an idea you have before you lose it, or just so you can share it with your drummer or something, it doesn't matter so much if your hair is in disarray or if you're rocking the three-day shadow or if there's a coffee stain on your sweater. It's more about the pose or the expression, and if you can just capture it then you can go back and do it for real later on, with a shave, shower, and a clean T-shirt.

 

[grimtraveller]

He never does. Except for the parts where he has to.

And when he can. Except for those times when he won't.

 

[Vinnydude]

There is a simple phrase that can sum up this entire thread here.

YOU CAN'T POLISH A TURD!!!

Basically, if somethings shit in the first place, it will NEVER be amazing.

 

[halfred]

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 aim for perfect but settle on someting like 75%. If I am satisfied with about that much of the recording then I go with it. My main criteria is how effectively the message or musical content is being conveyed. That takes precedent over technical mistakes unless the technical mistakes disrupt the flow of the music. I'm a classical pianist so with thousands of notes that you are playing there is bound to be some mistakes. It's better to concentrate on the expressive element of the music. Musicians who concentrate on playing note perfect are almost always boring with not much to say. That is an activity for good schoolboys and girls.
Editing can make your life easier and I'm all for that however I don't think it's good for your development as a musician to depend on it too much.

 

[grimtraveller]

I'm calm. I just don't like when what I say gets twisted around. But, no I'm calm.

I understood you man. Except the bits I couldn't figure out !

 

[grimtraveller]

Editing can make your life easier and I'm all for that. However I don't think it's good for your development as a musician to depend on it too much.

In all seriousness this is the key here. Editing, in my mind, should be a tool that can sometimes be used rather than a 'given' without which no recording can proceed.

 

[RAMI]

There is a simple phrase that can sum up this entire thread here.

YOU CAN'T POLISH A TURD!!!

Basically, if somethings shit in the first place, it will NEVER be amazing.

"You can't polish a turd!!!!".....Gee....never heard that one before.

And what exactly does that have to do with the topic of editing or performing the part????

 

[DrewPeterson7]

"You can't polish a turd!!!!".....Gee....never heard that one before.

And what exactly does that have to do with the topic of editing or performing the part????

Shh, careful, man, or you might actually make him read the thread!

 

[Vinnydude]

What i'm saying is perform it right in the first place.

 

[grimtraveller]

There is a simple phrase that can sum up this entire thread here.

YOU CAN'T POLISH A TURD!!!

Basically, if somethings shit in the first place, it will NEVER be amazing.

I'm guessing that many involved in recording, at whatever level, would agree that that should be the case. But by the very nature of the technology that has existed since the early 60s at least, that can't be true. Coz though gadgets exist for certain effects and enhancements of something good that already exists, human beings just ain't like that. We tend to explore the full range of whatever - both the good and the bad. We enhance, we do some good things......and we cheat if there is an advantage to be gained. And in the process, we polish turds to the extent that many simply won't know that that's what it formerly was. The very fact that it has been lamented how fake it is to put together, note by note, a piece, demonstrates that not only is turd polishing more than possible, it happens now and has been happening since the recording studio became more than simply a place where a live performance {without editing of any kind} was captured onto tape. It may not happen most of the time. But it happens.
Now I appreciate that that isn't what we've been talking about but it is connected and I guess I'm beginning to react to this notion that you can't polish a..........well, you know. You can. Of course things should be right at source. But our tools can both enhance and manipulate.

 

[halfred]

"You can't polish a turd!!!!".....Gee....never heard that one before.

And what exactly does that have to do with the topic of editing or performing the part????

Anyway, you certainly can polish a turd, as today's music industry has amply demonstrated.

 

[Greg_L]

I just read a Greg post in another thread where he said the exact same thing to someone. I knew it looked familiar when I typed it.



Don't you see what's happening here? I've become Gerg. I'm Gerg!!!!

That's the spirit!

 

[miroslav]

Editing can make your life easier and I'm all for that however I don't think it's good for your development as a musician to depend on it too much.

While I get what you're saying...here's another approach to use with editing.

Whenever you've burned out all your ideas for new/interesting lead lines (and we all hit that from time to time)...set up your backing tracks to loop, and then just free-riff away against them...do a few tracks worth.

Then, sit down and play through the tracks and listen for interesting sections/parts/runs...and then cut, paste and comp them to create a complete lead track. You are free to mix them up any way you like and that works with the music and rhythm.

Guaranteed you will come up with a cool lead that you might not ever come up with if you just played through your usual repertoire of riffs.
Then sit down and learn it and then you can play/record a complete take so it has that natural flow, rather than using the comped track.
It's actually a lot of fun and interesting how certain riffs that come together via editing, can sound really good...and unique...and that CAN actually help you develop as a musician.

I've done that a few times when I found myslef just repeating my usual stuff...but then for other songs, the music just tends to "pull" out things from your playing that you don't expect.
In any case...editing can be a tool to help you develop your playing imagination.

 

[halfred]

While I get what you're saying...here's another approach to use with editing.

Whenever you've burned out all your ideas for new/interesting lead lines (and we all hit that from time to time)...set up your backing tracks to loop, and then just free-riff away against them...do a few tracks worth.

Then, sit down and play through the tracks and listen for interesting sections/parts/runs...and then cut, paste and comp them to create a complete lead track. You are free to mix them up any way you like and that works with the music and rhythm.

Guaranteed you will come up with a cool lead that you might not ever come up with if you just played through your usual repertoire of riffs.
Then sit down and learn it and then you can play/record a complete take so it has that natural flow, rather than using the comped track.
It's actually a lot of fun and interesting how certain riffs that come together via editing, can sound really good...and unique...and that CAN actually help you develop as a musician.

I've done that a few times when I found myslef just repeating my usual stuff...but then for other songs, the music just tends to "pull" out things from your playing that you don't expect.
In any case...editing can be a tool to help you develop your playing imagination.

AGREED. I taught myself how to cut, copy and paste on Audacity--- stringing together my best playing and loving it!

 

[grimtraveller]

In any case...editing can be a tool to help you develop your playing imagination.

Yeah, that's how I look at it. I don't know why, but since I was teenager and got into reading about the Beatles and the Stones and other artists, the history and development of production has been an interest and there have simply been soooooo many developments along the way. Some could be seen as negative, but it's all about how these tools are used. And besides, that's all a matter of opinion. Artifice has been part of music production from the moment Lester Paul figured that he could make better records by multitracking and set about trying to work out how it could be done.
There are so many ways of recording and mixing and I note that many if not most artists that have made a number of albums rarely stick to just one method forever and a day. People may revert after a while but essentially, we move through variations......