A few observations...

TelePaul

I was recording with a singer-songwriter duo yesterday, friends of a friend that needed to track a few covers. Knowing the songs quite well, I spent a couple of hours during the week setting up drum loops, tracking rhythm guitars, bass, and fills where necessary - all at the behest of the group. The vocalist took a few takes and both songs sounded pretty good - no problems there.

Next, the guitarist asked to record another two songs there and then. Cue the most ham-fisted, inarticulate and out-of-time playing ever committed to tape (or in my case, hard-drive). I expected the player to appreciate how poor things sounded but after playback he just said "Yeah, that sounds fine".

Now here's what I want to know: alot of you guys make a living out of recording bands, but what do you do when the guitarist cant play guitar (or the singer can't sing or the drummer can't drum)? Where do you draw the line between engineering and production roles? Do you screen potential acts before committing to track them? How is it that people who describe themselves as musicians are no better in front of a mic than the drunk guy at a party who insists on wowing you with his rendition of 'Smells like Teen Spirit'?

I think alot of people are so happy to have something recorded that how it actually sounds is a secondary concern. My project studio is pretty humble, but I work hard to surpass the limitations of my gear, room and know-how. It seems like some of the musicians I've tracked are determined to work contrary to that. It's a strange paradox.

I just left the track the way it is because I didn't have the heart to tell the guy what I really thought. But now i guess I have to 'mix' it I guess it's all for fun though, so no pressure.

Neurojazz

TelePaul wrote: »

I was recording with a singer-songwriter duo yesterday, friends of a friend that needed to track a few covers. Knowing the songs quite well, I spent a couple of hours during the week setting up drum loops, tracking rhythm guitars, bass, and fills where necessary - all at the behest of the group. The vocalist took a few takes and both songs sounded pretty good - no problems there.

Next, the guitarist asked to record another two songs there and then. Cue the most ham-fisted, inarticulate and out-of-time playing ever committed to tape (or in my case, hard-drive). I expected the player to appreciate how poor things sounded but after playback he just said "Yeah, that sounds fine".

Now here's what I want to know: alot of you guys make a living out of recording bands, but what do you do when the guitarist cant play guitar (or the singer can't sing or the drummer can't drum)? Where do you draw the line between engineering and production roles? Do you screen potential acts before committing to track them? How is it that people who describe themselves as musicians are no better in front of a mic than the drunk guy at a party who insists on wowing you with his rendition of 'Smells like Teen Spirit'?

I think alot of people are so happy to have something recorded that how it actually sounds is a secondary concern. My project studio is pretty humble, but I work hard to surpass the limitations of my gear, room and know-how. It seems like some of the musicians I've tracked are determined to work contrary to that. It's a strange paradox.

I just left the track the way it is because I didn't have the heart to tell the guy what I really thought. But now i guess I have to 'mix' it I guess it's all for fun though, so no pressure.

Take the money and run.

You've spent years being self critical and giving a flying f**k, don't let someone who isn't ruin your chances of eating that evening.

Period.

Half the time when i'd dish out production tips, people flip - so even when you do become honest with someone about big problems it won't stick... it's pretty easy to identify people who try and those that don't...

If the guy had been really struggling and insecure about it, then maybe he'd listen to guidance, as that's probably a kindred soul that beats themselves to death over little things

The only time i'm brutal with productions is when (a) i'm fiscally involved / name attached for a release (b) see a.

Robin Ball

I have come across this so much. Sometimes I'm a bit disheartened because my standards are very high, I know that these musicians cannot reach them the way they are in the studio that day.

I think that all you can really do is just record them as they are, the more you edit them the more delusional they will become. A couple of times I have made a point of not editing people just to make sure that they understood that they're playing needed improvement. it made no difference, they didn't notice anyway.

If a player doesn't realize that they are out of time and out of tune I don't think there is too much you can do. I have wasted many many hours trying to get a player to get it in time, then spend a lot of time comping afterward.

I guess it's up to the individual engineer, but for me I'm on for letting people put it in as they play it. If they are already a good band and need some tightening up then that's all good, but when they are that bad...... it isn't your responsibility, they should be prepared.

Thinking about it I just had an idea that there is some nerves about coming into the studio for some players. If they are nervous I'll do all I can to relax them but at the end of the day you can only record what they play.

As far as vetting the bands before they book.... It's all good in theory, but.... Have you got that much business that you can turn them away? Is your reputation good? Would you be concerned that they would bad mouth your facility to other bands? Dublin is a small city!

Personally I think that I may start vetting bands before they want me to mix, I want to be the best and work with the best. I am going to alienate people, piss them off but that's a risk I'm willing to take. My days of bad musicians are over, I can't hack it anymore.

Robin Ball

Neurojazz wrote: »

Take the money and run.

You've spent years being self critical and giving a flying f**k, don't let someone who isn't ruin your chances of eating that evening.

Period.

Half the time when i'd dish out production tips, people flip - so even when you do become honest with someone about big problems it won't stick... it's pretty easy to identify people who try and those that don't...

If the guy had been really struggling and insecure about it, then maybe he'd listen to guidance, as that's probably a kindred soul that beats themselves to death over little things

The only time i'm brutal with productions is when (a) i'm fiscally involved / name attached for a release (b) see a.

+1, this is a fantastic post.

DamagedTrax

take the money as its a job you've already completed but state clearly that your name not be used in relation to the recording.

personally i wouldnt take on a job where the band cant play to a workable level but sometimes you just dont know the situation until its too late.

TelePaul

Neurojazz wrote: »

Take the money and run.

You've spent years being self critical and giving a flying f**k, don't let someone who isn't ruin your chances of eating that evening.

So it's normal to be self-critical? Sometimes I loathe my guitar-playing but I'll always revisit a recording if it's not 100% perfect. That might take 20, 30 takes. As it happens, I didn't eat last night - session ran on so long with one lacklustre performance after another, though perhaps I'm taking you too literally?!

Neurojazz wrote: »

Half the time when i'd dish out production tips, people flip - so even when you do become honest with someone about big problems it won't stick... it's pretty easy to identify people who try and those that don't...

If the guy had been really struggling and insecure about it, then maybe he'd listen to guidance, as that's probably a kindred soul that beats themselves to death over little things

Great point, especially about the kindred spirits! But isn't it alarming how self-proclaimed musicians who seem keen to gig and at least supplement their income with music can't tell a good take from a bad one, or a well-recorded track from a sloppy take? I guess you don't really know how good someone is until you put them in front of a mic.

Neurojazz wrote: »

The only time i'm brutal with productions is when (a) i'm fiscally involved / name attached for a release (b) see a.

Neither of these apply in my case. But when you're giving your time away fro free, and when you don't stand to learn much from the experience - just acoustic guitars and vocals tracked in this instance - then you'd hope the results would be worthwhile.

TelePaul

DamagedTrax wrote: »

take the money as its a job you've already completed but state clearly that your name not be used in relation to the recording.

No monies, all for funsies. But still, I put hours into the two, passable songs only to have the effort be undermined by the 5 minutes spent on the sloppy takes.

DamagedTrax wrote: »

personally i wouldnt take on a job where the band cant play to a workable level but sometimes you just dont know the situation until its too late.

So do you insist on hearing the band live or at a rehearsal first?

Robin Ball

TelePaul wrote: »

No monies, all for funsies. But still, I put hours into the two, passable songs only to have the effort be undermined by the 5 minutes spent on the sloppy takes.



So do you insist on hearing the band live or at a rehearsal first?

No cash? That's gotta hurt! Doing free things has really bitten me in the ass before....

I'd say rehearsal is a good place to start if they don't already have a myspace page with some stuff on it!

TelePaul

Robin Ball wrote: »

I think that all you can really do is just record them as they are, the more you edit them the more delusional they will become. A couple of times I have made a point of not editing people just to make sure that they understood that they're playing needed improvement. it made no difference, they didn't notice anyway.

Yeah, that's a big cause for concern - if he didn't realise how bad it sounded on the day, why should he change his mind a few weeks down the road? I think it would be more apparent when the bad tunes are juxtaposed against the good but there's no guarantee.

Robin Ball wrote: »

If a player doesn't realize that they are out of time and out of tune I don't think there is too much you can do. I have wasted many many hours trying to get a player to get it in time, then spend a lot of time comping afterward.

The great thing about recording music is that my rhythm playing has improved a hundred-fold since tracking to a click. And it's moved from being metronomic to being more articulate.

Robin Ball wrote: »

I guess it's up to the individual engineer, but for me I'm on for letting people put it in as they play it. If they are already a good band and need some tightening up then that's all good, but when they are that bad...... it isn't your responsibility, they should be prepared.

Yeah...I guess if they don't care, why should I? I do envision a certain amount of turd-polishing to be done however.

Robin Ball wrote: »

As far as vetting the bands before they book.... It's all good in theory, but.... Have you got that much business that you can turn them away? Is your reputation good? Would you be concerned that they would bad mouth your facility to other bands? Dublin is a small city!

That was all just hypothetical - I don't record for money and don't have any sort of reputation, good bad or indifferent - or at least I hope I don't! :eek:

Robin Ball wrote: »

Personally I think that I may start vetting bands before they want me to mix, I want to be the best and work with the best. I am going to alienate people, piss them off but that's a risk I'm willing to take. My days of bad musicians are over, I can't hack it anymore.

Sounds like the only way to do things, anything else and you'll drive yourself crazy! Good luck with it!

PaulBrewer

That's a crisis oft repeated in the world of the studio.

Ultimately the results are the only thing that matters.

We had a situation recently where a bands bass player was useless .... as in - useless .

We went through the recording and re-recording for a few hours and planned to comp it .

The next morning she was down tight as a drum in 20 mins played by my own fair hands.

If it was shyt we'd have got the blame - now it's fine and no blood was spilled.

Neurojazz

TelePaul wrote: »

So it's normal to be self-critical? Sometimes I loathe my guitar-playing but I'll always revisit a recording if it's not 100% perfect. That might take 20, 30 takes. As it happens, I didn't eat last night - session ran on so long with one lacklustre performance after another, though perhaps I'm taking you too literally?!

I think eventually you learn to end a track/session/work when you get to an acceptable standard. This would probably come after you get happy with the level you're at - as the self criticism doesn't ever stop, that's part of your drive.

Confidence or building it will help if you find it really bugs you that you can't pin something down fast or procrastinating about stuff... from experience, after 15 years of guitar i just put the thing down as i knew that it was time wasted with where my life was going musically - the criticism is still there but tamed with focused goals for learning in other areas.

If you start charging people, you might find that you take yourself more seriously also - that's a key thing... you make a decision that 'you're worth it' at some point, then you're surviving on your merits (or at least trying to).

TelePaul

Robin Ball wrote: »

No cash? That's gotta hurt! Doing free things has really bitten me in the ass before....

It's not so bad, music production is just a hobby that grew out of my passion for guitars and music in general. I mostly record for friends, and ,y rational is that if there's no cash then there's no expectation. That said, I put several hours into tracking the backing tracks and more into tracking them and these will still need to be mixed so...yeah. Probably selling myself a little bit short.

TelePaul

PaulBrewer wrote: »

The next morning she was down tight as a drum in 20 mins played by my own fair hands.

If it was shyt we'd have got the blame - now it's fine and no blood was spilled.

Very tempted to do something similar but I'm afraid it'd have been picked up on. Did nobody cop that it wasn't their bassist playing?

TelePaul

Neurojazz wrote: »

If you start charging people, you might find that you take yourself more seriously also - that's a key thing... you make a decision that 'you're worth it' at some point, then you're surviving on your merits (or at least trying to).

That makes sense. It's probably a long way off, but still, food for thought.

Robin Ball

Charging will get you more respect... It'll also end the "can we just do that guitar again..." or "We don't think it's finished yet!" kind of thing.

As Neuro says, you'll have more respect for yourself as well.... You might not have to charge much but it'll be a recognition from the artist that you are putting your time and talents into their project.

Do it...! :-)

PaulBrewer

TelePaul wrote: »

Very tempted to do something similar but I'm afraid it'd have been picked up on. Did nobody cop that it wasn't their bassist playing?

No, it's an odd day that anyone plays a part that is inherently un-reproducable.

I'm no virtuoso but can lash off a simple bass, guitar or keyboard part in no time.

If the client is paying by the hour we would of course work at it as hard as we can to get the best out of the player.
Ideally it should always be the band on the record.

If they can't cut it you have two simple options - leave kak on the track or redo it.

One might suggest a track that's made up of many different takes where each note is moved is no more 'false' that if someone else plays it.

TelePaul

PaulBrewer wrote: »

No, it's an odd day that anyone plays a part that is inherently un-reproducable.

I agree to an extent - though I suppose that this is more true for lead lines than replicating, say, an overly aggressive strumming pattern for instance...unless I lie and say I have the latest plug in by fictional software company Remedy, 'The Fixifier' which tames sloppiness and augments accuracy.

PaulBrewer wrote: »

If they can't cut it you have two simple options - leave kak on the track or redo it.

One might suggest a track that's made up of many different takes where each note is moved is no more 'false' that if someone else plays it.

True that!

DamagedTrax

TelePaul wrote: »

So do you insist on hearing the band live or at a rehearsal first?

i dont insist on it. usually you can tell by the demos but if there's something bugging me about the demo that i cant put my finger on then i would need to see them play in front of me before taking them on.

TelePaul

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i dont insist on it. usually you can tell by the demos but if there's something bugging me about the demo that i cant put my finger on then i would need to see them play in front of me before taking them on.

Sorry, I should have been clearer - you do some prep work, right? Whether it's a demo or a live performance or whatever?

PMI

Brings back my old statement:

Just because you own an instrument doesnt make you a musician or give you a right to use it

what that guy prob though was it took him 2 days to put his little track down mayeb put the original on next to it next time and let him decide again

DamagedTrax

TelePaul wrote: »

Sorry, I should have been clearer - you do some prep work, right? Whether it's a demo or a live performance or whatever?

depends on the band and what they want out of it. with the riot tapes i did the whole pre-production dealy but that was a certain situation.

every thing depends on the band's budget really. if they can afford the extra time then yes ill go thru the entire process. if they can only afford studio and mix then ill have to get busy with elastic audio and replacement software.

MilanPan!c

Can I say, as a musician/song-writer I endlessly demand honest opinions from EVERYONE I work with.

If I discovered people were being dishonest with me, to spare my feelings or avoid work I'd seriously reconsider the partnership.

DamagedTrax

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Can I say, as a musician/song-writer I endlessly demand honest opinions from EVERYONE I work with.

If I discovered people were being dishonest with me, to spare my feelings or avoid work I'd seriously reconsider the partnership.

damn.. sorry i lied chris, you are not infact the sexiest man in jamaica.

krd

TelePaul wrote: »

Next, the guitarist asked to record another two songs there and then. Cue the most ham-fisted, inarticulate and out-of-time playing ever committed to tape (or in my case, hard-drive). I expected the player to appreciate how poor things sounded but after playback he just said "Yeah, that sounds fine".

I was at a singer songwriter thing recently. And there were several people - hipsters playing woefully out of tune and even in totally different keys to the chords played - in fact the chord changes were just props to make it look like they were playing the guitar.

But the funny thing - if people like it, people like it.

TelePaul wrote: »

Now here's what I want to know: alot of you guys make a living out of recording bands, but what do you do when the guitarist cant play guitar (or the singer can't sing or the drummer can't drum)? Where do you draw the line between engineering and production roles? Do you screen potential acts before committing to track them?

I knew an American engineer who had and amazing technique. He'd record out of time singing and playing. Then chop up the wave forms, nudge guitar chops into time, and tune the vocals. He showed me how he did it - but he could do it like a machine gun. He'd been working in studios since the 70s. His end result would sound very natural.

You could always just dub your own guitar in. Who's going to know?

TelePaul wrote: »

How is it that people who describe themselves as musicians are no better in front of a mic than the drunk guy at a party who insists on wowing you with his rendition of 'Smells like Teen Spirit'?

Some of those party drunks are quite entertaining and to many ears sound better than say Dido.

I like the party drunk sound. I was looking at something on youtube last night. Leon Russell and Willie Nelson - both obviously drunk and stoned doing an onstage re-imagining of good night Irene. The band are ragged and drunk too. It's all over the place. It's fantastic, and the crowd are going wild.

Some party drunks can be close enough to being in tune most of the time. They may play in ragged time.

Listen to Astral Weeks - Van's guitar is out of tune on some of the tracks. The playing isn't exactly with military precision. The first time you hear the album it sounds a little all over the place.

TelePaul wrote: »

I think alot of people are so happy to have something recorded that how it actually sounds is a secondary concern. My project studio is pretty humble, but I work hard to surpass the limitations of my gear, room and know-how. It seems like some of the musicians I've tracked are determined to work contrary to that. It's a strange paradox.

If it sounds good to them, it may actually sound good. Not everyone wants to hear perfectly clean recordings. I haven't heard the recording - it could be really brutal.

But being in tune, in time, sounding smooth can be a over-rated

These days everything is in tune, in time and sounds smooth.

Listen to this - Leon Russell and George Harrison Beware the Darkness. The timing is off and lots of the playing is a little ropey. The piano doesn't sound that well tuned. There's a wobble on the vinyl. I still think it sounds great.

TelePaul wrote: »

I just left the track the way it is because I didn't have the heart to tell the guy what I really thought. But now i guess I have to 'mix' it I guess it's all for fun though, so no pressure.

Hey, it's a good exercise. If it's not that bad you might be able to chop the vocal into place, replace the guitar. If the guy can't tell he's out of tune or out of time, he's not going to notice what you've done.

If you can turn chickensh1t into chicken soup - you are a chef.

MilanPan!c

I gotta say, as someone that knows a bit about recording technology, I assume, maybe incorrectly that when a producer/engineer says it grand that means that, based on preproduction conversations, the take in question is AT LEAST good enough to move forward.

I think a lot of people would much prefer being told they suck, or the take sucks.

The alternative is worse: paying for crap.

PaulBrewer

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Can I say, as a musician/song-writer I endlessly demand honest opinions from EVERYONE I work with.

If I discovered people were being dishonest with me, to spare my feelings or avoid work I'd seriously reconsider the partnership.

And if you didn't find out ?

We usually agree with artists if we'll play on it or not.
A lot of guys just want it done right, if they don't play on it so what ?

Happened with The Beatles, Blur on 'Girls and Boys' etc etc and so on in the history of pop ....

Ever seen those 'additional guitar' credits on CDs .... Don't you know what that really means !?

DamagedTrax

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Ever seen those 'additional guitar' credits on CDs .... Don't you know what that really means !?

+1

but i dont think its really lying. sometimes in the studio something will slip by and it needs correcting. artists has already left or gone beyond their time and as engineer you probably should have spotted it. or sometimes in a mix you "hear" and idea and record it to see what client thinks.. sometimes they love it!

having some instrument chops is invaluable to an engineer

PaulBrewer

In fairness it's not to be encouraged ...

But if I'm in a position where I can turn 'Shyt' into 'NotShyt' it would be unfair of me to the artist, having explored all other possibilities, not to do it.

DamagedTrax

PaulBrewer wrote: »

In fairness it's not to be encouraged ...

i dunno, i quite like getting that little bit more involved with the tune. obviously its gonna differ from artist to artist but if its in keeping with the overall feel of the song and the artist likes it then you've just added to the final product.

i am of course referring to adding an extra element.. not re-playing artist mistakes (which are preferably avoided in the first place)

MilanPan!c

PaulBrewer wrote: »

And if you didn't find out ?

We usually agree with artists if we'll play on it or not.
A lot of guys just want it done right, if they don't play on it so what ?

Happened with The Beatles, Blur on 'Girls and Boys' etc etc and so on in the history of pop ....

Ever seen those 'additional guitar' credits on CDs .... Don't you know what that really means !?

Seriously, if someone played on a tune and DIDN'T ask I might be pretty pissed!

I mean, don't get me wrong, a note hear or there.. no biggie, in theory... but what if I wanted some dissonance and you "fixed" it?

In my case I'd hear it, immediately, and want answers... and if you couldn't get it back the way I played it, what then?

A big argument, you don't get paid/I don't want the track?

I'm not a ass, or an idiot, but common sense says ask the client before you start playing on their track!

This actually happened on the WL thing (wonky amp issue) and we worked together to find a solution... and we're all happy... if DT had just tried to re-record a guitar, not only would I probably notice, but I'd also not be particularly happy... the flip side is that I'm sure some of the elements have been hacked to **** and re-assembled, but for some reason (hahaha) I'm cool with that... but not replaying... maybe it's just a conceptual thing, but I'd def NOT be happy to find out a guitar I recorded was scratch and replaced with no notice...

...and I would probably NOT mind if something HAD to be re-recorded, by an engineer/producer/etc., if I was told about it in advance.

It's about trust and about making sure the client gets what they want!

DamagedTrax

MilanPan!c wrote: »

It's about trust and about making sure the client gets what they want!

exactly... thats all it boils down to.

having said that its not uncommon (when big label money is involved) for a session musician to be called in and the artists never told of it.

MilanPan!c

DamagedTrax wrote: »

exactly... thats all it boils down to.

having said that its not uncommon (when big label money is involved) for a session musician to be called in and the artists never told of it.

I completely believe that.

You lose a lot of control in those situations... which is cool by me...

krd

Paul, who played on Blur's Boys and Girls appart from the band?


Something I was reading about a while back - drum replacement. Drum replacement is so common nowadays, that it's supposedly being done on everything.

What's the point in bothering to record a drummer if you're only going to go in an replace each individual hit? Why not just program the drums in the first place?

I've known for years the American radio company Clear channel have asked record companies to change the drums on recordings. Or even ad or remove bits. In the US, I heard versions of Enya songs on the radio with added rock drums and hi-hats.

DamagedTrax

who played on Blur's Boys and Girls appart from the band?

stephen street did some extra stuff on it.

Something I was reading about a while back - drum replacement. Drum replacement is so common nowadays, that it's supposedly being done on everything.

What's the point in bothering to record a drummer if you're only going to go in an replace each individual hit? Why not just program the drums in the first place?

i think you're under the wrong impression as to what drum replacement is. you still use the performance of the drummer but you solidifiy his hits with samples taken from his kit (or elsewhere). it helps keep the dynamics in check and saves you having to compress too hard (especially on snare/kick)

drum replacement has absolutly nothing to do with replacing the artist performance.. its just like changing a preset sound on a synth (or adding the same synth line with a differant patch to thicken things up a bit)

PaulBrewer

krd wrote: »

Paul, who played on Blur's Boys and Girls appart from the band?


Something I was reading about a while back - drum replacement. Drum replacement is so common nowadays, that it's supposedly being done on everything.

What's the point in bothering to record a drummer if you're only going to go in an replace each individual hit? Why not just program the drums in the first place?

I've known for years the American radio company Clear channel have asked record companies to change the drums on recordings. Or even ad or remove bits. In the US, I heard versions of Enya songs on the radio with added rock drums and hi-hats.

A lot of the Blur track is machines - I believe the drummer just played cymbals.

One can just trigger Drum ambiences as well as the actual individual instruments. Also one doesn't necessarily not use the individual tones, but augment them.

PaulBrewer

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I mean, don't get me wrong, a note hear or there.. no biggie, in theory... but what if I wanted some dissonance and you "fixed" it?

In my case I'd hear it, immediately, and want answers... and if you couldn't get it back the way I played it, what then?

I leave no trails ....;)

MilanPan!c

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I leave no trails ....;)

I'm not the average punter

Years ago I knew those Weezer lads pretty well and when I'd ask them about some very specific Ocasek stuff they weren't even aware of what I was talking about... and when I did point it out they had NO IDEA what was going on in their own tunes...

But I did.



It just depends... you record 10 songs across a month, NO ONE KNOWS what happened on a LOT of tunes... shorter sessions are much easier to keep track of.

krd

DamagedTrax wrote: »

stephen street did some extra stuff on it.


I think you're under the wrong impression as to what drum replacement is. you still use the performance of the drummer but you solidifiy his hits with samples taken from his kit (or elsewhere). it helps keep the dynamics in check and saves you having to compress too hard (especially on snare/kick)

drum replacement has absolutly nothing to do with replacing the artist performance.. its just like changing a preset sound on a synth (or adding the same synth line with a differant patch to thicken things up a bit)

Stephen Street, is credited for playing on all those records, same with Morrisey, and the Cranberries. It's not unusual to have things like strings and brass added by non-band remembers.

Boys and Girls is bass, guitar, drum machine, some synths.

Augmenting drums has been around a while. I have heard of complete removal of original drum tracks using drum replacement.

To be honest I think looped, sampled and programmed drums sound much better than many real drummers playing the whole way through a track.

If I was being recorded - playing acoustic guitar. I would want someone else to do my parts. BUT to play the identical rhythms, to sound like me without the flubbs. I can play. But I never play neatly. If I'm in front of someone playing it doesn't look like I'm making mistakes - record it and you hear the scratchiness. I would prefer if someone could neatly replicate what I've played. If I tried to hard to be neat - it would just sound flat. For the purpose of recording multiple comps and looping would also work. A loop of natural sounding guitar playing looped sounds better than to me anyway - than if it's whole track of pristinely play guitar.

Each strum on a acoustic guitar can sound unique - across a recording if the strums change too much it sounds really sloppy. A looped sloppy bar sounds neat and rhythmic.

There is such a thing as being too neat. And if you think everything should be neat and spot on all the time, why don't you just program it. Use the robots to play like robots and the people to play like people.

TelePaul

krd wrote: »

There is such a thing as being too neat.

I would rather too neat then wildly out of time any day of the week. That's something else I've been known to complain about - people cut a sloppy recording and pass it off with something like "Oh I want it to sound rough" or "I really wanted that scrappy sound".

krd

PaulBrewer wrote: »

A lot of the Blur track is machines - I believe the drummer just played cymbals.

One can just trigger Drum ambiences as well as the actual individual instruments. Also one doesn't necessarily not use the individual tones, but augment them.

There's nothing really dishonest about using a drum machine - it's only a pity more people won't. If a drummer is trying really hard to sound like a drum machine - just use a drum machine. If you want to sound very tight - use a drum machine - want to sound lose - you can still use a drum machine. But if the drummer or the band aren't trying for a loose rough sound for the drums they should just go for a drum machine - pre-create the drum track, get the rhythm track recorded in a few minutes.

Girls and boys is obviously a drum machine.

The strokes Hard to Explain is a drum machine. I think it's even a ropey old drum machine like an 808 - or another one of those Roland machines.

krd

TelePaul wrote: »

I would rather too neat then wildly out of time any day of the week. That's something else I've been known to complain about - people cut a sloppy recording and pass it off with something like "Oh I want it to sound rough" or "I really wanted that scrappy sound".

No there are people who want stuff to sound rough. Not talking about going wildly out of time.

Really obvious bum notes, are a different story.

People want rough sounding recordings - People went for the libertines because they sounded rough. No one said "Ah, if only they could have recorded the same songs without so much scratchiness". Pete Doherty's last solo album's biggest criticism by the music press was it was too neat.

The libertines stood out - where everyone else was auto-tuning and fixing their time and every off not and scratch they sounded refreshing.

DamagedTrax

rough as the libertines sounded it was still stylised to be rough.

there's a world of differance between a good engineer knowing how to record in a rough fashion and just a plain bad recording.

TelePaul

DamagedTrax wrote: »

rough as the libertines sounded it was still stylised to be rough.

there's a world of differance between a good engineer knowing how to record in a rough fashion and just a plain bad recording.

+1 here. People I've talked to prior to recording seem hell-bent on going out of their way to ensure a take sounds like hammered ****.

TelePaul

krd wrote: »

No there are people who want stuff to sound rough. Not talking about going wildly out of time.

I think the former is oft-cited to excuse the latter! Maybe I just attract bad musicians!

PaulBrewer

krd wrote: »

Pete Doherty's last solo album's biggest criticism by the music press was it was too neat.

I think Pete's moment had passed at that stage - 'neat' or not.

(Another Street/Townshend job too)

MilanPan!c

It's pretty obvious, or it should be, when crap is a stylistic choice, vs "the best they could do/afford"

Guided By Voices records sound AMAZING and AWFUL at the same time... some of my fave recordings of the 1990s... but it's a style...

MilanPan!c

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I think Pete's moment had passed at that stage - 'neat' or not.

(Another Street/Townshend job too)

Shotter's Nation is class and is only about 3 years old... not the biggest fan (or much of a fan really), but that's a VERY good record. And an amazingly interesting mix of tight and loose.

krd

TelePaul wrote: »

I think the former is oft-cited to excuse the latter! Maybe I just attract bad musicians!

There are bad musicians out there. Then there are plenty who can stay in time. It's a crucial thing for rhythm sections not to drift all over the place.

Without going into detail - you know the difference between musicians drifting in tempo as part of the music and then drummers not able to keep solid time. Or guitar players or bass players who make a change or barrel in with a solo half a bar too early.

Then there are also people around who can barely play, who call themselves musicians. Or think they can play; bass players doing runs that are clearly in another key to the song.

I can play piano - but I'm badly out of practice (my piano is somewhere else)- I could play piano parts but I couldn't do a straight take without a flub. I'm not going to pretend I can play otherwise. With a few months serious practice I could get up to speed. I could possibly get something ready if I had several days intensive practice. Same with the bass or guitar. Then some stuff I could play more or less flawlessly.

Vocals - I have a philosophy for singing . I can sing in tune all the time. If I was doing a vocal session, I'd do loads of comping. Not that bits would be out of tune - but just that they wouldn't sound right. Might decide to change a lyric. try a few different approaches. Throw in some falsettos. Some vocal stylings. Change the feel and the mood.

In fact my philosophy for recording vocals would be like making film. Shoot a lot of footage then edit. Hopefully you have enough to edit something good. If it works it works - if it fails it may not fail that badly. If a vocal take is pristine but with no great character then you absolutely have failed.

The technology is there to be used. Music production shouldn't be like making a Dogma 95 film.

Like comping vocals - if you're putting your edit together - wouldn't it be great to have several varying takes to pick from. That way, you hear a bit that's a little lack lustre - on another take it's got more life. Just comp it in.

Which would be worse - to leave a bad bit in out of some artistic honesty.


Comping is a far lesser sin than auto tuning.

krd

PaulBrewer wrote: »

I think Pete's moment had passed at that stage - 'neat' or not.

(Another Street/Townshend job too)

I think it only ever 'worked' as the Libertines.

Stephen Street's production is always really recognisable.

No one buys a Pete Doherty record to hear him hit all the notes. It's more exciting when it sounds like he's falling to pieces.

krd

MilanPan!c wrote: »

It's pretty obvious, or it should be, when crap is a stylistic choice, vs "the best they could do/afford"

Guided By Voices records sound AMAZING and AWFUL at the same time... some of my fave recordings of the 1990s... but it's a style...

It depends on what you think is awful.

Rick Ashley had very smooth production. To many ears it sounds really really AWFUL.

I could happily listen to libertines record. A full girls aloud record would have me tearing out my eyes - though I really like some of the stuff on their records - it's a chore to listen to them. Pristine pop is largely tedious.

MilanPan!c

krd wrote: »

It depends on what you think is awful.

Rick Ashley had very smooth production. To many ears it sounds really really AWFUL.

I could happily listen to libertines record. A full girls aloud record would have me tearing out my eyes - though I really like some of the stuff on their records - it's a chore to listen to them. Pristine pop is largely tedious.

Yeeeees... But GBV regularly used the condenser mics on boomboxes to record lead vocals or release only half takes of songs... But... They also cleverly hid their studio recordings in mess...

They're producer was often given the credit:

"Lovingly ****ed with by..."