Oh The Moral Implications,..

[kcearl]

so you get what he means then

 

[John Willett]

When recording, the most important thing is the music has passion - that the performer has adrenaline going and putting heart and soul into the performance.

The recording is to try and capture this passion.

Only if you do this will the song have any chance of being listened to again and again.

Although I voted no.2 (punch in) - what you really need to do when you do a punch-in is to go back a while and really get into the performance again - as soon as you concentrate on playing "notes" rather than playing "music", you have lost it and the passion is gone. It may end up being note perfect, but if the passion is gone the track will only be listened to once ot twice and never again - get the passion and it will be played again and again and again .....

 

[Captain Ego]

Doesn't it depend on what your audience expects? If you are playing live and it sounds like nothing like your demo, then you fooled someone into thinking you were good, right? If you are just doing it to simplify the recording process then more power to ya. I have a sampler but I don't loop my own guitar parts with it, just because it's a pain in the bum when I can just play it a second time for a second verse. When you think about it, any recording that isn't just a play-through start to finish is kind of cheating, but not really. If you want to just create an audio recording that sounds cool, technology opens up a load of possibilities for a single person to make all sorts of noise all by himself (look at NIN for instance). If you want people to think you are the worlds fastest guitarist and use studio tricks, gazillion overdubs, loads of editing, etc to fake that you are better than you are, only to disappoint when it comes time to deliver live, (ahem Dragonforce) then you are lying to your listeners. I have no problem with studio tricks but really it depends on the intention. If you write some music that nobody could possibly play without 4 extra limbs, then be honest about it, yeah it's a sequencer. If it's just a drum part or bassline that you could play, but just prefer letting the computer do it for simplicity, then no harm no foul.

 

[Sonixx]

Hum, me thinks the OP is over analyzing this.

 

[benherron.rrr]

so you get what he means then

I get what you mean, I tend to do guitar lines start to finish but I was wondering if I should try to tighten up my bass since I can barely play or try and try till I get it real

I know how you feel, maybe a little differently but w/e. It comes down to the fact that I always say im a musician when someone asks, not an engineer nor a producer, and even when I mention the fact that I am those things they always come last. (not that I dont love those jobs) As a musician I find a moral obligation to play every part in fully, becuase it some how feels like I have cheated myself if I don't. Its not that I care about what other people think, its the fact when Im mixing a track, when I listen to a track I KNOW! that I didn't really do it. But like I said that only really bothers me with guitars, vocals ad piano, because those are my crafts, and I want to get considerably better at them. Which playing a part and editing it untill the cows come home wont make me a better musician, It will sound great, but I know that the musician side of me didn't fullfill its task, that way I personally feel cheated by it.

If you want to get better at bass, then pick up a bass and play it, like myself use recording yourself as a teaching method, belive me it feels great when you nail that part! But dont be affraid of editing bits together, quantizing bits and pieces, but use it as a tool, try not to rely on it. I spent along time trying to achive perfection, but imperfection is better.

 

[Greg_L]

I'm morally opposed to reading threads like this.

 

[moresound]

I'm morally opposed to reading threads like this.

This explains so much.

 

[joeym]

Oh man, not this topic again...!
Just do what the song needs and that's all.

 

[stevieb]

I'm morally opposed to reading threads like this.

Then, you must be facing your own moral conundrum right now, haveing read it. Man, I feel for you (Chaka Kahn taught me how to do that.) Of course, if you see this, and/or moresound's comment, the cycle just starts all over again. What a situation to put yourself in.

 

[guitaristic]

I'm morally opposed to reading threads like this.

I agree...this thread is pointless.

 

[VomitHatSteve]

Just do what's best for your song and your style.

If your music sounds it's best comped, edited, and auto-tuned, then that's what you do. But if your music sounds best as a single, raw take, do that.

Heck! Try both, and post it in the mp3 clinic! Then we'll tell you to comp and fix everything.

 

[Lt. Bob]

the term concept of 'is it moral' has no connection to creating music.
Music is not moral or immoral ... it only is.

Whatever works for you is fine ..... I'm not gonna say it's moral because i think that makes as much sense as saying 'will my truck's engine run on moral?" It makes no sense.

Ultimately the ONLY thing that matters is the end result. If it's a great song, it's a great song no matter how you achieved it.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

the term concept of 'is it moral' has no connection to creating music.
Music is not moral or immoral ... it only is.

Music may be just music, but it doesn't come into existence on its own, it's created by human beings (for now, mostly ). And what acts the humans who create it execute to create that music is subject to moral judgment. Here's two words to consider:

Milli Vanilli

All jokes and judgment on the quality of their "work" aside, negative moral judgments were unanimously made against their false representation, irrespective of the music itself.

And while a bit of a gray subject without unaninous agreement, what Don Kirshner did with the creation of the Monkees and the original practice of overdubbing their vocals over instrument tracks actually played by session musicians and/or ghost bands has been largely frowned upon by the musical community (if not by the public).

In both of these cases, however, there was a common denominator. The controversy was not so much about the method in which the music was created, but in how the credit for the product was attributed in public.

So the question in this case would be, how much of the work in the recording was actually done by the OP? If he assembled and edited the loops, and the loops were of his creation (on both sides of the glass), then I don't see much of a dilemma.

But I think anyone who wants to sleep well every night should make every effort to give credit to whomever deserves it when contributing in some way to the making of or the content of a recording.

That may not have a relevance to the music itself, which of course not being a conscious living entity, has no morality or immorality in and of itself, but it does have a bearing on the moral fiber of the artist taking credit for it.

G.

 

[Lt. Bob]

well, you've substituted a different issue for the original one. I went back and looked and he didn't say a word about acreditation of music sources and didn't even talk about using outside sources ...... .

Your moral objections have to do with the proper acknowledgement of anyone that might have contributed to the music. That's really an issue that's not directly connected to the making of music and is one that also doesn't really have any connection to the OP's original question which was, 'Is it immoral to use studio trickery in the process of making music?'
Clearly it is not ..... at one time absolutely none of the very instruments we use today existed. So could an old time acoustic guitarist claim it was immoral to use an amplified ax? Well he could claim it but he'd be full of crap.
Same thing with synths and on and on to the many tricks we have available today.
Is it immoral to use multi tracking? Back in the day a band had to play as a group in a single pass to record a song.
Socould multi tracking be immoral?

While your comments about the morality of screwing over contributers as far as giving them proper credit is true ..... it has nothing to do with the actual process of creating music.
That relates to the business of selling music which is an entirely different thing. Music itself is neither moral or immoral ....... ever.

As for Millie Vanilli ........ I always thought it was bullshit that their grammy got yanked. The award was for the song itself ...... if it was that good a song then it was that good a song regardless of who did it.

As for the Monkees ..... anyone that really feels there was something wrong with them singing over session musicians' tracks is being silly.
Frank Sinatra never played a note on his records ..... I don't even know if he could play anything. Probably but it doesn't matter ..... he used session men for all his records.
So did ...... oh, pretty much every big time singer ever until we got to the era where we had groups like the Beatles.
Nothing immoral about it .......... a perfectly acceptable way to create music ....... always has been.

 

[diggy_dude]

If you didn't fix it by quantization or whatever, it would get fixed elsewhere in the production chain. Who's to say that fix would be any more or less a cheat than quantization?

The bottom line is, you're making a permanent record of a song, not a live performance. Technology has been used to perfect recordings since the dawn of recording. You'll get plenty of opportunity to play it all the way through, warts and all, at live gigs. Just be sure to practice so you can play it before you book the gigs.

 

[guitaristic]

I feel like the OP is blurring the line between tracks and playing live stuff. Dude, if you loop the bass, and IT SOUNDS GOOD, who freakin' cares about the "moral implications"? Who cares if you can't do a whole song on the bass? Sheesh.

If it sounds good and you're happy with it, do that.

Musical purist

 

[benherron.rrr]

Anyone ever heard the saying "fix it in the mix", Is that a do or a don't, I forget

 

[Dark Imagery]

I tend to have recording anxiety. I can play a part perfectly during rehearsal, then when the red button is on I'll mess up the simplest thing! Used to I wanted to play through every part perfectly so that when I listened back my ego got masturbated knowing I flawlessy played my songs. I would get extremely discouraged and waste alot of time starting over everytime I messed up. It took the fun out of recording! I've since given myself an attitude adjustment. I realized that I'm trying to release something professional. That's alot to swallow. Now I sit at my computer and relax. I play through the whole song. If I mess up I just laugh at myself and continue playing instead of getting pissed. I then listen back and punch in over my errors. I'm happier knowing that I've then captured a perfect performace. Punching in is so easy to do well on DAW's. It's brought the fun back into recording. HOWEVER, I won't cheat and use little tricks to record something that I couldn't play if you asked me to. For example, slowing a song to half speed and playing the part an octave lower only to speed it up an appear to be a better guitar player than Jeff Loomis. Or getting a sample of my kick drum only to paste it on a grid to get that machine gun double bass part. If I couldn't make it through the part on my own, I'd drink another red bull and try again.

 

[Lt. Bob]

I'd like to amend my earlier declaration that "music itself is neither moral or immoral ....... ever".

I do think it could be possible for lyrics to be immoral.

If they can do harm then I think you might could make the argument that they're immoral.

But the music itself ....... I don't see it.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

well, you've substituted a different issue for the original one. I went back and looked and he didn't say a word about acreditation of music sources and didn't even talk about using outside sources ...... .

Nor did I claim he did. What I said was that there *is* a connection between music and moraliy, but that connection is in the accreditation of it, and that I saw "no dilemma" there in what the OP was doing, so therefore *no* moral issue there.

Your moral objections

I made nor moral judgments one way or the other, let alone any objections. I described where moral objections were made by many others, and why, and again, said I saw no such reasons for objections in the OP's situation.

But if you must know, as for Milli Vanilli; I have to disagree. Grammys aren't given to songs, they are given to people. The song isn't up there accepting the Grammy or taking credit for itself, the artists is. And it is assumed that the artist earned that Grammy.

Now, they use the acceptance speech to (among other things) acknowledge those that helped them, sometimes even saying something like, "this is really all of ours, and not just mine" or something like that. But when you get jackasses like MV who pretend that they earned it all themselves and take the credit themselves, that automatically disqualifies them as anything but chiselers unless or until they make up for it in some proper measure, IMHO. That did not EARN that Grammy.

The thing about morality, though, is that it's best defined in first person terms. It's not for me or you to decide what is moral for a third person. We can make personal ethical judgments, and we do all the time, just like we have for MV, but it really just comes down between MV and their conscience.

And the exact same is true for the OP. Based upon his description, I don't think he's done anything wrong, personally. But he has doubt; otherwise he would have never posed the question. And if he personally has doubt, then I think that's something he should think about twice himself, instead of asking us for absolution. There is no doubt in morality.

G.