When I'm first creating the song, there will be a lot of cut and paste going on while I'm arranging everything.
This is why I love these discussions.
That's an interesting way of doing things. All the arranging is done in my head, on guitar or on bass. By the time I get to laying down the initial tracks, I know how all the pieces fit.
Sure you could just copy Verse 1 to create Verse 2, but the end result can sound rather sterile.
I would never know. I'd been listening to the Beatles' "I me mine" for 15 years before I read that the third verse and chorus were a re~run of the second verse and chorus and that Phil Spector did some jiggery pokery to extend the song because originally it was only about 1 1/2 minutes long {it was the last thing the Beatles as they were, recorded in a studio. John Lennon had already left the band and it was done by the other 3}.
Sometimes, after I've finished laying down the initial tracks, I've found that I've forgotten that there was supposed to be one more verse ! Or my lyric requires one more verse or a few more bars need to be in there. Thankfully, it's easy to take a previous verse or part and copy it and add it and bacause I'll use the bass drum waveform as my entry and exit point, it's really hard to spot the join. And of course, with all the noise and different things going on on top of this, sterility can be easilly avoided.
I don't necessarily disagree with that. I'm just a believer in integrity and competence. It's my own hang-up and I don't, well try not to, push it on anyone else. I like knowing that for my own stuff it's all legit. A Greg recording is all real shit really played by me in a way that I could march right out and play it live right in front of your face if I had to. For most of the stuff I listen to, I believe that to be the case as well. I like to think, hope, that I'm listening to stuff that was done in the way I like it to be done.
I basically started off recording with something approaching that view and it was my intent and the way I did it for a number of years. A couple of things stopped me in my tracks though {no pun intended}.
Firstly, I found that teaching whoever was recording with me and rehearsing the parts just took so long. Too long. That wasn't such a hassle when we had endless time on our hands but once work and parenthood entered the picture, I didn't fancy spending 7 or 8 weeks on a bass and drum part. I knew what I wanted from them because I lived with these songs in my head all the time for weeks, months and sometimes years. They didn't. They had a couple of hours {and often less} to assimilate and reproduce what I'd lived with for ages and knew almost backwards.
Secondly, 'purity and integrity' to me doesn't necessarilly equate to 'live in the studio and able to be reproduced live in it's entirety'. I dig bands that do it that way
and I dig bands that came up with complex flowery creations that could not practically be reproduced live without a huge arsenal of orchestral and electronic assistance. I was listening the other week to the great psychedelic masterpiece from Blossom Toes, 1967's "We are ever so clean". They were really pissed off with the album because they were just an English white boy R&B band that had written some songs and wanted to make a record. Their manager {Giorgio Gomelsky, the guy that managerially got the Rolling Stones and the Yardbirds initially up and running} took the tapes and added orchestras, other instruments and sound effects and as a result it seems so evocative of the hippy heaven of '67. It's very artificial in reality. Now, I love that kind of thing. So when I first started thinking about the sort of stuff I was going to record, I realized I was going to be somewhat schizophrenic because I liked so many different kinds of music and they were going to bleed into what I did. And some of what I liked simply wasn't two guitars, bass and drums rocking out, though I've pretty much always loved that too.
I love the way a classical piece can be long and complex with great instrumental interplay
and recorded live with no repair work. But I don't
know that many people ! And even if I did, I'd never be able to fit them into the spaces I record in or recorded in ! Well, not with their instruments anyway. So as a home recorder of limited ability instrumentally, wanting to fit in some friends that play things that I can't, recording in sections has become the way to go. Some of my friends can improvise but for the most part, I'll write their parts for them. When I say write, I mean hum on one track for them to learn and follow.
I like to think, hope, that I'm listening to stuff that was done in the way I like it to be done. If it wasn't just don't tell me about it.
I don't recall as a kid ever thinking about how films, TV programmes or records were actually made. I was fascinated when I began to realize how they were. A real wall to get over was Thin Lizzy's "Live & dangerous". I loved that album with a vengeance but within a few months of having it, I read a Tony Visconti interview in a book, "The record producers" in which he said that the only totally live performances on the album were that of the crowd and the drummer Brian Downey. Phil Lynott's bass and vocals were redone and Brian Robertson and Scott Gorham layered guitars to beef up the guitar sounds. Somewhat ironic because Phil Lynott used to say "My name is Phil Lynott because I lie not". Prior to that, there were evil rumours of bands not playing on their records and the existence of these shadowy figures called "session men".......That led me on the road to ruin as far as integrity of the biz went. Of course there is alot of integrity of heart, art and honesty in music recording. There's also alot of horseshit !!
The beauty is, for me at any rate, it doesn't really matter. I
do want to know how things were done. I want to know what's pure and what isn't. I want to know what trickery is afoot and at hand. And use it, if I can !
For me, recording is the art of presenting aural illusions. Blimey, even live albums are touched up !
If I had three good takes of such a piece, then I've wasted time, because I only need one..
That is exactly how I feel. Which is not to knock comping, I think it's a valid and useful and very good way of achieving the goal. I certainly have never been able to tell which pieces of which songs have been comped, even when, through interviews, I've been made aware. It's just not how I choose to record.
That said, on occasions when I've double tracked a singer, rather than use the double tracking, I've comped from the two takes of the vocal.
So these days I tend to stop as soon as I do something wrong.
That's another interesting one. For me, it depends how wrong. Sometimes I just might carry on and do either a punch in {which can be smoother} or what I call an edit, which is the same as a punch in except that the DAW doesn't automatically bring in the entry and exit points. Most of the time though, I'll just start again. But when I say start again, I don't necessarilly mean right back to the beginning.
I know it's a bit nebulous and it's really hard to put it in a way that's graspable, but I've always had this innate thing for a feeling in music. I've recorded pieces that were pretty much flawless but they lacked a certain Je ne sais quois.......whereas other times, though there may be mistakes, the 'feeling' is right so I've kept the take. It's not some magical thing, but it's hard to define. Perhaps it's just the way the guitar or bass meshes with the drums or percussion {whichever combo is being put down first}. It's hard to define but I know it as soon as I hear it.
