Do any of you actually record like this (comping performances^100)

[nate_dennis]

@nate_dennis, I'm with you 99% of the way. I don't see learning how to play as unrealistic. It wasn't unrealistic 50 years ago when sides were cut direct to disc and entire performances by 10 or 12 or more musicians. . .That said, though, there is that 1% exception. The Mobys and Alan Parsons' and Brian Enos and the like out there for whom the studio control room is in itself an instrument. Not for making slug non-musicians sound like they can play the guitar, but for doing things with sound that a guitar (or other instrument) is incapable of. I do consider that legitimate musical creation and recording.

No sir, you agree with me 100%. Moby, Eno, those guys are truly tallented. I enjoy that music. I'm not a "purist" for certain instruments. I just whole heartedly believe that music and art are integral to a society and the tactics described in the OP are disheartening at best and disgusting at worst. That isn't art. That's assembly line completion of a mechanical process.

 

[miroslav]

I'm just wondering how the guy deals with a live gig, assuming that at some point he is going to play out...though maybe not?

Maybe he CAN play straight through the takes in one shot...but he's just one of those TOTALLY ANAL types who has to have every single note sound like it was cut with a precision laser.

I would love to know how much time it takes him to do one complete lenghty solo in that manner.

 

[YorkshireTrippe]

I'm just wondering how the guy deals with a live gig

He puts this little example we've seen here on a CD...and mimes.

Welcome to the pop industry

 

[grimtraveller]

What if instead of speeding up a solo, we slowed it down, so it lasted 639 years?

That's me !

 

[DrewPeterson7]

I'm glad to see I'm not in the minority here.

I'm not opposed to punching in - if I have a pretty good take but I blow one or two notes, then if the rest of the take is good enough I might just fix those mistakes with a couple quick edits rather than tossing the whole thing.

Similarly, I guess if push came to shove I'm not adverse to fixing intonation issues - I don't do much with harmonized guitar (most of my stuff higher up on the neck is single note lines), but I do understand that if you're playing third-based harmonies, say, high on the neck, some notes are just going to sound a little sour regardless of how in tune your guitar is, and if replacing those notes with ones from a guitar tuned slightly differently to compensate makes for a better sounding harmonized melody line, then have at it (in my experience it's not an issue lower on the neck on wound strings because due to all the overtones, nothing sounds as "sweet" as a higher harmony - compare a C major diad inverted, open E and C on the 3rd fret of the A, to the same interval played with an E on the G string, 9th fret, and C on the B, 13th.

But when you're comping together performances note by note because the artist can't play the part cleanly enough otherwise, then yes, I find something fundamentally wrong with the picture. If they can't play it, why are they trying to make an album?

 

[grimtraveller]

I can see where you are coming from, but...

Recording a guitar solo one note at a time is not related to recording the whole thing at once. Even if it requires multiple takes to get through the whole thing correctly IMO. At what point should the line be drawn? When music is completely composed and made by machine (as in the book 1984)? What constitutes being a "musician" or "performing artist" these days? I don't know, but using auto-tune will get you close. I am not some Neo-Luddite who is against technology, but that picture rubs me the wrong way. Music should have a human element to it. The method shown in that picture is just one more step that takes a bit of the human element out of it IMO.

As you said, a good recording is the desired end result. Many musicians and recording engineers can prove that chopping everything up into one note bits is not required to make a good recording.

BTW, I'm not trying to be confrontational.

Personally, I agree with you. The thought of putting together entire pieces one or two notes at a time fills me with a horror that it has taken me nearly 50 years to even begin to contemplate......The general tenor of the folk that have so far replied has been one of disdain and though I think if someone wants to use the technology that way, good luck to 'em, it's not for me. When I heard about Mutt Lange's way all those years ago, I thought "Que paso ?" and I feel that now. But at the same time, I am also conscious that artifice has been part of recorded music from when Les Paul first multitracked, maybe even before and many of the recordings we've all loved over the years have been to a greater or lesser extent bedfellows with artifice. Glen made what I thought was a fantastic point on another thread about the perspective of mixing/panning drums being 'much of a muchness' because however you did it, it was an artificial soundscape being created. I'm intrigued that little was said about that but why his point so struck me was that we argue so much about authenticity but actually, we create something that could be called artificial.......where is the line drawn ? Imagine we'd loved this guy's music and then later found out how it was made.
Sometimes, the circumstances one is in determine some of the approaches that will be taken. So I don't condemn it out of hand. But it is, in my opinion, extreme.
Incidentally, I didn't think you were being confrontational at all. I think you make much sense. It is interesting though, if you look at artists that have been around for a few albums, you'll often find that they varied their approach on different albums, sometimes 'progressing', sometimes going back to basics. The buying punter rarely cares ! But we do.

 

[Sound & Vision]

Personally, I agree with you. The thought of putting together entire pieces one or two notes at a time fills me with a horror that it has taken me nearly 50 years to even begin to contemplate......The general tenor of the folk that have so far replied has been one of disdain and though I think if someone wants to use the technology that way, good luck to 'em, it's not for me. When I heard about Mutt Lange's way all those years ago, I thought "Que paso ?" and I feel that now. But at the same time, I am also conscious that artifice has been part of recorded music from when Les Paul first multitracked, maybe even before and many of the recordings we've all loved over the years have been to a greater or lesser extent bedfellows with artifice. Glen made what I thought was a fantastic point on another thread about the perspective of mixing/panning drums being 'much of a muchness' because however you did it, it was an artificial soundscape being created. I'm intrigued that little was said about that but why his point so struck me was that we argue so much about authenticity but actually, we create something that could be called artificial.......where is the line drawn ? Imagine we'd loved this guy's music and then later found out how it was made.
Sometimes, the circumstances one is in determine some of the approaches that will be taken. So I don't condemn it out of hand. But it is, in my opinion, extreme.
Incidentally, I didn't think you were being confrontational at all. I think you make much sense. It is interesting though, if you look at artists that have been around for a few albums, you'll often find that they varied their approach on different albums, sometimes 'progressing', sometimes going back to basics. The buying punter rarely cares ! But we do.

Very good points. It is such a gray area as you said with the drum example. Kind of like the subject of ethics...what is right and what is wrong? No one can say definitively but everyone has their opinions.