Pete Academy Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Decades ago, singers had to nail the songs, and musicians too. No autotune. I've done recordings for people where, despite me wanting to nail a track, they have insisted there is no point, as they can fix any timing issues later. Has technology turned musicians and singers into being lazy? If you are going into a studio to record, would you think it wasn't necessary to play your part proficiently, as they can fix it later? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skej21 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 [quote name='Pete Academy' timestamp='1349811940' post='1830956'] Decades ago, singers had to nail the songs, and musicians too. No autotune. I've done recordings for people where, despite me wanting to nail a track, they have insisted there is no point, as they can fix any timing issues later. Has technology turned musicians and singers into being lazy? If you are going into a studio to record, would you think it wasn't necessary to play your part proficiently, as they can fix it later? [/quote] It sure has... I remember when jazz records had alternate takes of tracks. That'll never happen again. Instead we'll just get a cut-and-paste of all the best bits, like a 'best of' within a track. YAAAAWWNNN IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
risingson Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 It depends on how you choose to define artistic integrity and how you implement it in a studio environment. There are plenty of bands and producers out there who are interested in making real records where vocal and instrumental intricacies, artefacts and mistakes are considered to be the very thing that makes records enjoyable and individual. There will also be exceptions to the rule, where the focus on a vocal or instrumental part could be compromised if certain elements of the music are considered to be badly performed. Lastly, if there's a time frame that needs to be adhered to (and time in studios is usually money), then you need to be able to make the best with the facilities and performers you have access to. Plus all the variables in between. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blademan_98 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 It does seem a shame that we are heading in that direction at an alarming rate I personally like to play my best. If after several takes, I suppose time is money and it is cheaper to fix it later. It may not be right but sadly it is a fact of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Vincent Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Technology in the studio is useful,but to be reliant on it is self defeating,from a musicians point of view.And there's nothing quite like that "nailed it " moment when you know you've got it right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve-soar Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Tech and performance are two seperate things. Good music can use both in very creative ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTUK Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Indeed Pete...my first proper session was such a roasting that I vowed that I would never get caught like that again, so it made me work very hard working on my stuff and the lessons pretty much define my thinking today all these years later. Imagine you are an inexperienced band and the likelyhood of everyone getting their parts decent..??? and you wonder why the demo was...er.... iffy..?? Now, same type of bands cut and paste everything and put that out as their demo.... and it may be good enough for a few dates, but it isn't going to impress anyone who knows a thing or two when/if they can't cut it live. One reason why we never put out studio tapes for getting gigs for example..and when Youtube is your friend..!!! Having said that..sessions are cheaper as you can get more down in a day and the the band gets paid and leaves..and the engr/producers fixes things quicker and more easily later.... At the end of the day... I don't mind technology so much in the studio as long as the guys can do it live... I take the point that there are some tricks that are shorcuts or time-savers but I draw the line on thngs that the band couldn't do without them... in a millions years.. Maybe I'm an old git..??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiamPodmore Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 We did ours as best as we could, not much splicing of tracks done as we did things over and over again till David (The producer) thought it was a good enough. He was pretty simple and blunt at times, one point during vocal tracking Louis had finished a take and all he heard afterwards was David saying "Louis, that was completely and utterly sh*t". Nice and simple. Liam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lowdown Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Pete Academy' timestamp='1349811940' post='1830956'] Decades ago, singers had to nail the songs, and musicians too. [/quote] You still do - If you don't, you wont get asked back. [This is if you are booked/hired as a freelancer] Bands paying for their own demo's/albums/tracks is a different matter, feck up as much as you want and maybe the engineer or someone producing [if you are lucky] might try and fix things for you after, but if you have run out of booked time it will cost you. Or of course you could take the Wav files home and fix it yourself. Garry Edited October 9, 2012 by lowdown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bremen Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I bet there were similar conversations when multitrack recording was introduced. somewhat agree with Pete though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xilddx Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Technology is simply another option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 The studio is an instrument to be played just like any other. It's all subjective. One mans "groove" is another mans unacceptable timing imperfection. Also what's good enough for a live performance isn't always good enough for when you're going to be hearing it over and over again on a recording. Besides unless you are recording live direct to 2-track everything in the studio is fake to a degree, so quit being so precious and embrace the possibilities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 [quote name='steve-soar' timestamp='1349813169' post='1830990'] Tech and performance are two seperate things. Good music can use both in very creative ways. [/quote] Yes. A lot depends on your perspective. If you think a live performance is the most important thing then loads of multi-tracking techno-tricks etc will probably not be your thing. But if you're only interested in the end result of a piece of recorded music then surely anything goes. The photography world has similar debates about digital image processing and the use of photoshop etc. If you think a photo should be a snapshot of a moment in time then photoshopping can obviously be controversial, but if it's just the image that is important then why does it matter how it has been achieved? In other words, there is no 'good or bad'. It all depends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51m0n Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 "Its [i][b]all[/b][/i] a lie" It has been since before the days of multitracking even. Seriously, reverb chambers, slap back delay, pushing tape hard, moving chaps around in the room to get the right balance - all to make it sound 'just so'. All done before multitracking. Splicing tape, comping parts, all done since multitracking. It doesnt matter either. For one thing I dont care who is telling you otherwise 'fixing it' takes far longer than getting someone proficient to play/sing it right in the first place. Anyone wishing to put that to the test doesnt know what they are talking about. So if you can do it for real, woot! You saved yourselves a bunch of time as a band which is far better spent getting [i]great [/i]BV's sorted (the icing on any track is great BV's). ANy one getting something totally faked up to fix a bunch of stuff will end up with a nice homogenised track that they cant say is all their own work, and if they do they will bee found out when they play live. Back in the day how many bands had overdubs done by session players to fix things? That wasn't alright either, but it just goes to show how this kind of thing in one form or another has gone on forever.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilbo Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 An interesting discussion. I remember talking to some guy many years ago about the Keith Jarrett standards trio LP Still Live (a beautiful album) and commenting that, wihlst the sound of the trio is undoubtedly stunning (an ECM recording, with all that this implies), it wouldn't have even sounded like that if you stood in the room where they were recording the trio. Pretty much every recording is so close miked that what you hear is not what you woudl hear in real life. The recording process, even in a setting like Jazz where the performances are mostly live and in real time, is partly about capturing the performance but partly about using the available technology to make it sound as good (define) as it can; be that using reverbs and echos, compressors, 'live rooms', even mixing. I guess its for the individual to decide what is 'legitimate' and what is not. A lot if Dance stuff only exists in a virtual sense and can only be created using technology whereas a lot of folk or jazz stuff uses a lot less. But, then again, what is a piano if it is not a compliucated machine. Or a bass or a saxophone? It's all technology. Use it and make great music. Just don't let it undermine the wonder of a real time performance by a great player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51m0n Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Great post Bilbo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dincz Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I think I draw a line between technology used to enhance or even create an acoustic environment and technology used to hide, eliminate or even replace performance deficiencies. An objective voice in the back of my head keeps saying "if it sounds good, it is good", but the truth is I hate it. But having said that, I produced an acapella CD some years ago and didn't have a suitable recording space. Finished up making a small dead recording booth out of mattresses, recording the five singers one at a time and adding electronic reverb later. I guess I cheated but we were able to reproduce the performances in a live setting. Autotune wasn't around then - I wonder if I would have been tempted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xgsjx Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 It is indeed. Technology is good when used creatively, not so good when just used to "cheat" & try to pass off as talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisnameistaken Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) I do find a lot of modern records a bit boring to the ear, but if there's a silver lining it's that live music by comparison sounds even more exciting. The hard part of course is getting people to gigs. Edited October 10, 2012 by thisnameistaken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheddatom Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 It's just an option. Maybe it's being over-used these days, but not on my computer. We listen to everything, leave the "mistakes" we like, and edit the ones we don't. As a drummer in a couple of bands, i'm very very greatful for the option. Imagine you're recording live as a band, everyone nails it except the drummer missed his snare on one beat... If you couldn't replace that one hit you'd be gutted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilbo Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I guess there is also the thing about effects etc being used to enahnce what is there rather than to cover up for what isn't e.g. autotune. The problem with things like autotune is that you can hear it and it comprmises the product. Like theatre/film, the best examples are the one's where you can't see the 'acting' happening (my wife loves Miss Marple and I have always been impressed by Joan Hickson's acting in that she doesn't actually [i]look[/i] like she is acting, unlike, say, Geraldine McEwan or Julia McKenzie). In my entirely subjective opinion, if you are listening to a recording and 'hearing' all the bells and whistles, its probably not a good recording. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_b Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Technological tricks have always been used in the studio. Many numbers from Sgt Pepper onwards are a jigsaw of performance glued together. Willie Weeks’ famous bass solo on Donny Hathaway's live album was recorded at a gig months after the main track was recorded, and they were spliced together in the studio. Can you hear the join? I can't. I love the technology that's in my amp and speakers. IMO, generally, these days bass players sound much better than they did 40 years ago. It’s a shame that the public don’t play records any more. Now the sound of [i]that[/i] technology is far better than what has replaced it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeystrange Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 A friend of mine recently got fed up of this kind of thing and converted his studio to analogue. We recorded some b-sides for our last single there on 2" tape and had a lot more fun than recording to a computer. It demands a lot more of you than digital recording but somehow it's more relaxed having to play a full take faultlessly than it is when you're sat staring at a computer screen for most of the day watching different coloured blocks being moved exactly into time. Obviously the timing can never be 100% perfect, like you can make it on a computer, but IMO that's a lot of the reason that music sounds so sterile these days. When every single instrument is exactly on the beat it just doesn't sound human. Tape isn't perfect but unless you're way off the beat it's not noticeable. Records we fine like that for years anyway! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crez5150 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 [quote name='joeystrange' timestamp='1349860478' post='1831318'] A friend of mine recently got fed up of this kind of thing and converted his studio to analogue. We recorded some b-sides for our last single there on 2" tape and had a lot more fun than recording to a computer. It demands a lot more of you than digital recording but somehow it's more relaxed having to play a full take faultlessly than it is when you're sat staring at a computer screen for most of the day watching different coloured blocks being moved exactly into time. Obviously the timing can never be 100% perfect, like you can make it on a computer, but IMO that's a lot of the reason that music sounds so sterile these days. When every single instrument is exactly on the beat it just doesn't sound human. Tape isn't perfect but unless you're way off the beat it's not noticeable. Records we fine like that for years anyway! [/quote] It doesn't have to be Sterile.... a lot of that is down to the engineer... not the technology. You can still track a recording in one take with digital technology.... it's just that people don't and in studio's time is money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51m0n Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) Autotune like everything else can be used properly, or misused for effect. I absolutely guarantee to everyone here that used properly (ie to tidy up subtle issues with a singer who is a bit pitchy) and used on the notes that are sung not the intakes of breath, you cant hear it. Not a chance. The algorythms are really clever, just the built in ones in Reaper are incredible, [b][i]if you use them well[/i][/b]. Of course doing things 'properly' with autotune involves time, and effort editing the tracks, which takes me back to where I said if you want a great sound and you can lay it down for real you are quids in every which way. The problem is that when there isnt the time and money and talent then autotune is just slapped on the whole track the artifacts are very obvious and horrible, and they are highly distracting, yet at the same time in certain genres this is a production element now, that is it is expected (thank you Cher and even more so TPain). Edited October 10, 2012 by 51m0n Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.