Once more with feeling

[Girish]

I've just joined this forum and I notice people asking what is the best mic, effects etc to buy, I've got thousands to spend on speakers etc etc. I've always believed that it doesn't matter how much money you throw at your home recording set up, if you can't play/sing with feel it's just not going to come across. All the computer/desk etc does is record what you put into it. Fair enough technology does a lot more now but at the end of the day it all comes down to the performance that is being recorded.

Anyone else agree?

 

[Steenamaroo]

For the most part, yes.
History shows that a great mic in a great room with a great performer can beat anything else.
It's matter of opinion, but that's mine.

Some of my favourite recordings are technically terrible! Take early Cohen as an example.

 

[RAMI]

Agreed that none of it matters if you have no talent or don't know how to use your tools. But it doesn't mean good equipment is a waste of money either. Shitty equipment has more of a chance of being a waste of money.

 

[bongoboy]

Funny that this should come up. A friend sent me the raw, un-mixed tracks frm Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On", one of the most amazing Motown songs ever done. I listened to each one on it's own, and if you didn't know what it was, as individuals they sounded amateurish. Thin weak drums, boomy bass, serious siblience problems, at times you hear clipping in the vocals... . but when put together an amazing song with a unique sound. Done by people with great ears and a whole bunch of heart, in what by today's standards are primitive conditions. It doesn't matter how much stuff you have. No ears, no heart, no nothing. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Armistice]

Feeling = chops.

And it actually takes a shit load more than just "I'm feeling it"...good gear and the ability to use it helps, but it takes decent material to "feel it" with as well....

A lot of this type of discussion tends to centre around simple-ish pop/rock songs - there are other types of music where I'd defy you to tell if the snare drum or rhythm guitar is being played with "feeling" or just played in time, in tune....

Simple is as simple does.

 

[grimtraveller]

Feeling = chops.



A lot of this type of discussion tends to centre around simple-ish pop/rock songs - there are other types of music where I'd defy you to tell if the snare drum or rhythm guitar is being played with "feeling" or just played in time, in tune....

So true. I would go one stage further and say that it is virtually impossible to tell whether something "has feeling" or "has no feeling".
I saw a really funny scene in this kids' programme the other day called "Victorious". In it, a new principal takes over the performing arts school around which the action centres. She bowls in saying that all the students have to re~audition and one of the bolshie students asks her who the hell she is and what does she know about performing. So the principal belts out, live I might add, this incredible verse, full of gospelly melismas and dynamic control of her voice. It really is breathtaking ! She does it effortlessly and as I've seen it a few times, it occurred to me that she could have done that with her eyes closed for take after take. And they probably all would've sounded amazing. And she may have been bored. But she has chops.
What we often hear on songs, be it vocals or instruments, and call feeling is actually chops, the reality of being so well rehearsed and versed in how to convey something musical that it can be produced on demand. The artist performing could be performing by rote and thinking about the potatoes growing in their garden for all we know. When it is an undeniable fact that so many well known vocal and instrument parts have been cobbled together from numerous takes by skilful engineering, I sometimes chuckle to myself when I hear people talk about the immense feeling in the song. Art Garfunkle sounds drenched in feeling on "Bridge over troubled water". But that is a very 'put together' vocal track.
Shouting or melismas or extended looooonnnnggggg notes are no guarantee of feeling. And sometimes, what are perceived to be dead, laconic performances indeed did have plenty of feeling.
When it comes down to it, feeling may well turn out to be more prevalent on the side of the listener than the performer.......

 

[RAMI]

Feeling = chops.

And it actually takes a shit load more than just "I'm feeling it"...good gear and the ability to use it helps, but it takes decent material to "feel it" with as well....

A lot of this type of discussion tends to centre around simple-ish pop/rock songs - there are other types of music where I'd defy you to tell if the snare drum or rhythm guitar is being played with "feeling" or just played in time, in tune....

Simple is as simple does.

So true. I would go one stage further and say that it is virtually impossible to tell whether something "has feeling" or "has no feeling".
I saw a really funny scene in this kids' programme the other day called "Victorious". In it, a new principal takes over the performing arts school around which the action centres. She bowls in saying that all the students have to re~audition and one of the bolshie students asks her who the hell she is and what does she know about performing. So the principal belts out, live I might add, this incredible verse, full of gospelly melismas and dynamic control of her voice. It really is breathtaking ! She does it effortlessly and as I've seen it a few times, it occurred to me that she could have done that with her eyes closed for take after take. And they probably all would've sounded amazing. And she may have been bored. But she has chops.
What we often hear on songs, be it vocals or instruments, and call feeling is actually chops, the reality of being so well rehearsed and versed in how to convey something musical that it can be produced on demand. The artist performing could be performing by rote and thinking about the potatoes growing in their garden for all we know. When it is an undeniable fact that so many well known vocal and instrument parts have been cobbled together from numerous takes by skilful engineering, I sometimes chuckle to myself when I hear people talk about the immense feeling in the song. Art Garfunkle sounds drenched in feeling on "Bridge over troubled water". But that is a very 'put together' vocal track.
Shouting or melismas or extended looooonnnnggggg notes are no guarantee of feeling. And sometimes, what are perceived to be dead, laconic performances indeed did have plenty of feeling.
When it comes down to it, feeling may well turn out to be more prevalent on the side of the listener than the performer.......

2 great posts. I agree with both of them.

That's why I laugh at the whole "we want to record the whole band live without a click track to get the right "vibe" or "feel" thing. You're basically saying you don't have the chops/experience/talent to perform your job properly.

 

[grimtraveller]

All the computer/desk etc does is record what you put into it. Fair enough technology does a lot more now but at the end of the day it all comes down to the performance that is being recorded.

That's true. But let's face it, the overwhelming majority of recordings are not live "everyone in the room together bashing it out in gloriously rehearsed technicolour" and neither have they been for half a century nearly. The very fact that so much is done separately puts the whole 'feeling' argument on a different footing.

Some of my favourite recordings are technically terrible ! Take early Cohen as an example.

Something that I've noticed over the last thirty years or so is what I felt in the 80s to be this obsession that people I know have with things being "technically pristine" rather than just enjoying the music. It really gathered pace when CDs first came out. I noticed that my friends {and some that were not my friends !} that were semi audiophiles would go on and on about the quality of this and how technically that was poor.....I never noticed. I just dug the music !

A friend sent me the raw, un-mixed tracks frm Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On", one of the most amazing Motown songs ever done. I listened to each one on it's own, and if you didn't know what it was, as individuals they sounded amateurish. Thin weak drums, boomy bass, serious siblience problems, at times you hear clipping in the vocals... . but when put together an amazing song with a unique sound. Done by people with great ears and a whole bunch of heart, in what by today's standards are primitive conditions.

I find this slightly contradictory. On the one hand, you point out the raw tracks are amateurish and the drums are weak & thin and the bass is boomy and the vocalist esses his way around the song when he's not controlling his volume and distorting the recording......so was it music played with great heart but really amateurishly by people who actually weren't cutting it ? Someone being mischievous could conclude that actually, the reason the song sounds amazing is not because it was played with great heart but rather, because the engineer took it away and worked their studio wizardry on it.

 

[gecko zzed]

Some of my favourite recordings are technically terrible! Take early Cohen as an example.

Many of my favourite recordings, particularly from the late 1960s, early 1970s, are likewise technically terrible. But it's the material that moves me, not the technical-terribleness, and I would much rather have that material recorded without the terribleness.

One of the things that I think happens is that some people reverse, or attribute incorrectly, cause and effect, i.e. it is the technical imperfection that makes the material great. Or even further, that technical imperfection is an indicator of emotional genuineness. They then go on to discount the value of technical perfection, sometimes even scorning it in their pursuit of lo-fi, as if, somehow, lo-fi will transform their dross into gold. Perhaps it will, but the danger here is that it is the path to the worship of mediocrity.

 

[smili]

Trying to record the base tracks w/ most of band or full band helps with the "feel" that you mention. I think a song loses something when each track is put down one at a time. I wonder if the propensity to redo and edit individual tracks one at a time over and over hurts the overall feel that you mention? I like good sounding stuff, but I admit to liking old recordings - warts and all.

 

[grimtraveller]

That's why I laugh at the whole "we want to record the whole band live without a click track to get the right "vibe" or "feel" thing. You're basically saying you don't have the chops/experience/talent to perform your job properly.

Trying to record the base tracks w/ most of band or full band helps with the "feel" that you mention.

Again, I feel somewhat paradoxically about this because I can see both sides of the equation. I've felt them.
There have been times when I've done a session with someone, either playing or singing and it's just felt right. The feeling was right, it was there. However, this has nothing to do with any communicable feeling that is somehow magically transmitted to any listeners. It's just an intangible thing that I feel. More often than not, the feeling isn't felt by those I'm playing with. I know what I'm looking for. I think sometimes bands know what they're looking for and them alone and that's what they describe as the vibe or the feel. It's mistaken to think a click will kill that though.

and I would much rather have that material recorded without the terribleness.

I've rarely thought about it. For me, the recording is the recording. A good example is "I am the walrus". I love that song and all that goes with it. But because of the limitations of EMI's studio equipment in 1967, the innovative live mixing in of the BBC radio play that weaves in and out is done so at the cost of the bass being heard clearly in the latter part. But I don't care. I love the song !

One of the things that I think happens is that some people attribute incorrectly, cause and effect, i.e. it is the technical imperfection that makes the material great. Or even further, that technical imperfection is an indicator of emotional genuineness. They then go on to discount the value of technical perfection, sometimes even scorning it in their pursuit of lo-fi, as if, somehow, lo-fi will transform their dross into gold. Perhaps it will, but the danger here is that it is the path to the worship of mediocrity.

That's a valuable point. Interestingly, many artists from the 60s and 70s were wholly dissatisfied with the way their records ended up sounding. I've long made the point that what we have today exists purely because many artists, engineers and producers were frustrated by the limitations and flaws that were inherent in studio technology 'back in the day'. Developers took note and acted accordingly in much the same way Jim Marshall listened to Pete Townshend saying he needed louder amps and got his team to come up with them.

I think a song loses something when each track is put down one at a time.

I don't. Most of the time one can't tell. I think that the real thing here is that so many people simply can't enjoy music without attatching some kind of agenda to it.

I wonder if the propensity to redo and edit individual tracks one at a time over and over hurts the overall feel that you mention?

It's not as if this is something new. Things like parallel compression are decades old. Lots of bands would redo their parts. Engineers have long mucked about with tracks. Overdubbing began in the 1940s. Constant messing about can hurt a recording ~ as can a band playing together and not getting it right.

 

[RAMI]

I wonder if the propensity to redo and edit individual tracks one at a time over and over hurts the overall feel that you mention?.

Possibly. But who's redo-ing and editing anything over and over? If a track needs to be edited over and over it obviously wasn't tracked properly, either sound or performance-wise. If you can't get a "feel" playing your own individual track, you 've got to work on that. It's not as if multi-tracking was only invented in the last 10 years....or 20....or 30.

 

[Steenamaroo]

Something that I've noticed over the last thirty years or so is what I felt in the 80s to be this obsession that people I know have with things being "technically pristine" rather than just enjoying the music. It really gathered pace when CDs first came out. I noticed that my friends {and some that were not my friends !} that were semi audiophiles would go on and on about the quality of this and how technically that was poor.....I never noticed. I just dug the music !

Many of my favourite recordings, particularly from the late 1960s, early 1970s, are likewise technically terrible. But it's the material that moves me, not the technical-terribleness, and I would much rather have that material recorded without the terribleness.

One of the things that I think happens is that some people reverse, or attribute incorrectly, cause and effect, i.e. it is the technical imperfection that makes the material great. Or even further, that technical imperfection is an indicator of emotional genuineness. They then go on to discount the value of technical perfection, sometimes even scorning it in their pursuit of lo-fi, as if, somehow, lo-fi will transform their dross into gold. Perhaps it will, but the danger here is that it is the path to the worship of mediocrity.

I don't know if it came across, but I don't care one jot that the recordings are technically poor.

My point was that I just love those performances.

It carries over into how I record too. I mean, sure, I take advantage of digital and cut a good take from many bits,
but I avoid dropping a singer in for a word or short phrase.
I'd rather comp a good take from several full attempts, because that way the mood/volume/power etc is consistent.

 

[goodstudios]

Ok, i've got just two cents, may as well throw it in. We all like haveing that "vib" and being "in the grove" ..... I find that a good click helps get us and keep us there. lol Many times the grove is finding the right bpm.... and then playing that particular song at the same rate each time... thus not falling "out of the grove". And I too have wondered "are we missing something by not doing it live?"... so we experimented... see https://vimeo.com/55952396 and then... check out the same song at Good4U - ReverbNation I don't know, maybe it's just me... but I don't think we lost anything by working at the tracts seperately. Feedback????

 

[SloppyJo]

I don't see how overdubbing takes away the "feeling" of music. If it's music that's largely precomposed, or interaction between the musicians is at a minimum (like a lot of pop music) than I don't think it really matters.

But if done well, and given the chops of the musicians, you can potentially recreate a stellar performance that never happened.

On the other hand, you wouldn't record a jazz quartet individually building the song around a recorded bass line or whatever because the live "in the moment" interaction between the musicians and the musicianship in the band is a big part of what jazz is all about.

 

[Steenamaroo]

If you drop a singer in to replace a few words or a line in the middle of a big chorus, it's rare that they're good enough to just turn that on.

I get them to build into it.

 

[smili]

I don't. Most of the time one can't tell. I think that the real thing here is that so many people simply can't enjoy music without attatching some kind of agenda to it.

I guess your mind is made up. When I've recorded with the entire band live I generally like the feel better than when single tracking. No agenda there, but something noticeable is there. Obviously your mileage may vary. Maybe it doesn't do anything for you.

 

[grimtraveller]

I don't know if it came across, but I don't care one jot that the recordings are technically poor.

My point was that I just love those performances.

It came across loud and clear.

I guess your mind is made up. When I've recorded with the entire band live I generally like the feel better than when single tracking. No agenda there, but something noticeable is there. Obviously your mileage may vary. Maybe it doesn't do anything for you.

Earlier, I said I was kind of paradoxical about this

Again, I feel somewhat paradoxically about this because I can see both sides of the equation. I've felt them.

and I am. In life there are quite alot of things that are neither black nor white ~ but neither are they grey. They are both black and white. If you are making an inflexible rule about a band tracking together always being better and having the vibe over performances recorded separately, then I can only assume that you cannot like much of the popular music across the genres that has been recorded over the last 45~50 years because the whole together thing across most genres doesn't compare with it's counterpart in terms of regularity.
From that point of view, what I'm saying is that it's impossible much of the time to tell.
However, I also agreed with you {hence the paradox}. I prefer the overall feel when I track with whoever is playing drums because we bounce off each other live. It's a different discipline to bounce off an already recorded piece that can't react to you. But as I stated earlier, I don't believe that the rightness of feel one gets by tracking a band together is naturally communicable to the listener. Especially when you consider that vocals are almost always not cut live.

 

[smili]

I was thinking about this thread the other night, and I was thinking about some songs where a drummer came in and put a the final drum track on after the original was done to a click/drum machine. I liked the product and you're right - like you said - I might not have noticed the difference if I didn't know, but at the same time it's not the same feel as the cases where it all went down at once - and I wonder how the recording would've been with that drum track done at the same time as the tracking. It's very hard to put the finger on what it is, but I do think it's something that I like. Unlike many, I have a tendency to like live performances despite that they usually don't sound as good. It's tough to say what it is.