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

  • Thread starter Thread starter DrewPeterson7
  • Start date Start date
Not a chance! Those guitar tracks are rediculous. At that point is less human than a Casio reading a midi file.

And as a player who works for what little speed I have, I'm especially bugged by the notion of recording chunks at half speed and then speeding it up to realtime.
 
Holy S&%$....:eek:

That is ridiculous! There is no musicianship in that heap of a mix. Its just a bunch of over produced, one-note-at-a-time punch ins. If that is how you have to record a song, then I don't know what to say...to each his own I guess.

That typifies why I dislike most "modern" radio music. The motivation to make everything perfect makes it sound more like unrealistic crap with no character. That's just my opinion of course.:) Most of the buying public either accepts it or loves it.

Punch ins are one thing, but that is a whole 'nother level of stupid IMO.
 
that's a TRUE reflection of the band, huh?

good thing this is the only band out there who recorded their album like this. ;)

s
 
What the hell? Just sample your guitar and create some midi tracks. That way you can say you played it and get really really tight!


F.S.
 
I like the cut & paste approach myself, it's not unusual for me to do 20 edits per track or so.
 
When Mutt Lange was producing Def Leppard back in the 80s he had a similar way of tracking. I remember seeing a documentary about 15 years ago in which Joe Elliot described how their songs came together bit by bit, recording two or three notes at a time or something to that effect and I was struck then by how tedious it must have been. But age has mellowed me somewhat and I feel if someone wants to go that way, heck, it's their life and time ! It's just one way among many and a kind of extreme version of what many of us do to a much lesser extent.
 
grimtraveller said:
When Mutt Lange was producing Def Leppard back in the 80s he had a similar way of tracking. I remember seeing a documentary about 15 years ago in which Joe Elliot described how their songs came together bit by bit, recording two or three notes at a time or something to that effect and I was struck then by how tedious it must have been. But age has mellowed me somewhat and I feel if someone wants to go that way, heck, it's their life and time ! It's just one way among many and a kind of extreme version of what many of us do to a much lesser extent.
Click to expand...

true...

there is a reason it's called 'cutting and pasting'... no, kiddies; it's not a term pro tools invented. haha. just now it's far more efficient. just what we need... more efficiency.
 
I think there comes a point where it's just easier to use a sampled guitar. There are easier ways to do the same thing. I'm not saying anything for or against it, but that seems way too time consuming for me.
 
WhiteStrat said:
And as a player who works for what little speed I have, I'm especially bugged by the notion of recording chunks at half speed and then speeding it up to realtime.
Click to expand...
I'm going to pipe up and make a defence for chunks and half speed recording. More solos, vocals and lines than many of us imagine are 'put together' from multiple performances and edited together and to me that's just the first cousin of recording in chunks. If the end result, a good recording that people can enjoy, is what matters, then it stands to reason that there will, with the technology available, be quite a few different ways to get there. It is one of the great truths of popular music's recorded history that the technology available always altered the way artists recorded and by extension, the way they created. It is also an observable fact that people subverted intended ways and did things that "weren't supposed to be" like recording backwards or distortion. And they were frowned upon initially. Now they're just normal.
As for half speeding, I've always found it really important. I used to have a Zoom MRS1266 and it was a fantastic recorder but I sold it because there was no varispeeding on it which I found really limiting. It was my chief criteria when looking for a digital recording machine and I was surprized that relatively few had it. There are are only a couple of instruments that I play but when the multitrack is slowed down, I can play quite a few other things. Same with my friends, few of whom are fast players. I always joke that I can make them sound amazing.....And when it comes to backing vocals, recording in different keys, sped up or slowed down, going high or low, really tests one's voice and can make 3 people recorded 3 or 4 times, sound like a huge choir. So going at half speed is also a creative tool, used to bring about some interesting effects and alter soundscapes, if that's what is required.
I must stress that these are just tricks and tools to be used when it is deemed necesary and are not the be all and end all or the way everyone should go. I respect all those that work at their craft/passion and remain musicians. Music however, evolves. Not always to my liking, but I could say that about England, football and the world.
 
grimtraveller said:
I'm going to pipe up and make a defence for chunks and half speed recording. More solos, vocals and lines than many of us imagine are 'put together' from multiple performances and edited together and to me that's just the first cousin of recording in chunks. If the end result, a good recording that people can enjoy, is what matters, then it stands to reason that there will, with the technology available, be quite a few different ways to get there.
Click to expand...

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.:)
 
Wouldn't you just love to hear that band live? ;) :rolleyes:

G.
 
I do usually three takes of most tracks...on occasion maybe 5 takes...but I just play them straight through and then comp one track from those 3 (or 5 ) takes...so yeah, I'll have cut/paste edits all over the place at times....

...but to punch in 1-2 notes at a time...at half-speed...that's just a lot of jerking off.
I even hate doing the comps...but the reality is that there is some truth to having your tracks be as clean and tight as possible if you're aiming for a pro/polished product.

Granted...the usual response is "practice until you can play everything perfectly"...but that's not always totally realistic.
I mean...sure, you can get to that point...but when tracking, it's easy to "smudge" things that would NOT be noticeable during a single live performance, but when you have it recorded and people can play it over and over...then, even the smaller "smudges" start to stand out.
So...you do a few solid takes and then cut/past/comp the absolute best elements from each take...and there's no shame in doing that, since all the takes are yours and are generally solid takes.
It's not the same as punching in single notes or editing totally crappy takes until they sound good.
 
What if instead of speeding up a solo, we slowed it down, so it lasted 639 years?
 
Then it would sound like Neil Young was playing... :D


I love Neil...he can really hang some notes forever! :cool:
 
For me personally, I record takes. If I fuck up a take, I do it again. If I'm playing a figer-picking part and I flub one chord, but the rest of the song is a beautiful take, ok, I may comp that one chord. But i much prefer using entire takes. Music is art. Art represents humanity (either as it is, or as it is imagined by the artisist.) Humanity is flawed. Therefor, art is flawed. If it is perfect, it is not art. It cannot be art.

The problem here is . . . the grading scale. No, not grading as in "A+" or "C-" but rather a continuously changing scale from black all the way to white. It used to be that all music was only heard live. Now, from that point is it unartistic to record? No, probably not. But it all used to be tracked completely live. Well, what about small edits here or there? The use of echo chambers? Echo units? What about a mellotron? It's an instrument . . . but it's also almost a sampler. My point is . . . it's always moving a little bit further from reality. How far away do we get before we quite calling it music and start calling it a digital represtation of music? I don't have that answer. But for me, the vibe, the feel, the groove is far more important that if I missed a note in a very empassioned solo.

So, I think, more importantly than asking "Is this a viable way to record?" or "Does anyone else record this way?" The question really should be "Are we, as a culture, really to the point we care so little for our arts that we purchase and promote this type of material?" If the answer is "no." Then do everything you can to push for more "realistic" art. If it is "yes" then, by all means, play your songs one note at a time and then wonder why our kids don't know how to read or write very well at all. .... (Hint: it's cause they don't have much to read or write about.)


Ani DiFranco said:
People used to make records, as in a record of an event ... now everything is cross marketing, it's about sunglasses and shoes.
Click to expand...




















sorry, rant is over now
 
mshilarious said:
What if instead of speeding up a solo, we slowed it down, so it lasted 639 years?
Click to expand...
Ugh, just what this world needs, another Phish.

@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, complete with full showcase solos, handoffs and improvs were recorded in full takes, there is zero reason outside of laziness or impatience why it should be any different with a simple 4- or 5-piece combo playing almost solely rhythm parts with no real leads.

The problem is the music is no longer the focus. It used to be that the music was the reason to make the recording. Now the recording is the focus and the music is just an excuse to make a recording. "Performance" now means not the ability to perform as a musician, but rather to pretend to be just enough of one so that some magical engineer can come along with his digita pixie dust and make you sound like the same androgenous robot that everyone else sounds like.

Talent has become meaningless. All that matters is that you get your crap on meSpace so you can be as k3wl that the idiot next door who can't play his instrument either.

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. But using a computer to make a musician out of a Taco Bell employee? No. Sorry. that's just cheating.

G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top