Pro Tools - Is It Too Much Of A Crutch

[akg414]

After posting a question about Pro Tools and Mackie boards, I've just been thinking about the two platforms.

Are there possible hidden "dangers" lurking in the vast amount of so-called "tools" we have today.

Disclaimer: I AM a Pro Tools HD2 studio owner. I've used 4-tracks, ADATS, Cubase, Pro-Tools LE and now the big mama system.

BUT....

Does having a system like Pro Tools, that is supposed to make recording "better", actually make us worse at our craft?

Does automatic "recall" of a session really limit the number of times we must rely on our skills?

Does the ability to change anyhing-at-anytime only make us more indecisive?

Does the fact that these tools have solved all these so-called "problems", make us "rusty" in the problem-solving area?

Are these systems - sample-accurate, metromically-perfect, random-access, non-linear approach really sucking the life out of our songs as well as the "romance" of the recording process?

I know there are COUNTLESS great things that are offered by these systems, but was music (and the art of recording for that matter) suffering or not enjoyable?

What are your thoughts?

[JohnDavisNYC]

in some ways yes, in some ways no....

i HATE what 'in the box' has done for mixing... before I had a console I was forced to mix in the box, and I found it claustrophobic and tiring and made me question everything and rarely call it finished...

and I have seen this happen to tons of people... musicians who all of a sudden think that they are engineers, and 'just need a little help with this mix I've been working on for 4 months...' WHAT THE FUCK? a mix used to be something that you DID. it was an act, not a state of limbo you stay in until after the arwork is finished and the mastering deadline is tomorrow.

BUT, my non-old school asshole self really likes electronic music too, and there is soo much great IDM and jungle and stuff out there because of technological advancements... and I think that music has been a very important musical genre that has changed the face of all genres.

anyway, the problem with digital workstations is that you can obsess over details and make something 'perfect' and mix it continuously for 2 years, but if it was just a good song and captured well, it would take extra effort to make a BAD mix...

BUUUT, these tools CAN make our job as engineers easier. instead of having a really shitty 2 day EP with my name on it, I can pitch correct the bad singer, edit the sloppy fills, and comp the solo to make the band sound better than they are... and then, the tools only make me look better and the band sound better.

but then maybe if we didn't do that, there would be less crappy bands out there, if they had the pressure of the analog days of having to be able to play and sing, they would spend less time shopping for tight jeans and hair product and more time practicing and studying.


I am going to be so grumpy when I get older.

john

[akg414]

in some ways yes, in some ways no....

i HATE what 'in the box' has done for mixing... before I had a console I was forced to mix in the box, and I found it claustrophobic and tiring and made me question everything and rarely call it finished...

and I have seen this happen to tons of people... musicians who all of a sudden think that they are engineers, and 'just need a little help with this mix I've been working on for 4 months...' WHAT THE FUCK? a mix used to be something that you DID. it was an act, not a state of limbo you stay in until after the arwork is finished and the mastering deadline is tomorrow.

BUT, my non-old school asshole self really likes electronic music too, and there is soo much great IDM and jungle and stuff out there because of technological advancements... and I think that music has been a very important musical genre that has changed the face of all genres.

anyway, the problem with digital workstations is that you can obsess over details and make something 'perfect' and mix it continuously for 2 years, but if it was just a good song and captured well, it would take extra effort to make a BAD mix...

BUUUT, these tools CAN make our job as engineers easier. instead of having a really shitty 2 day EP with my name on it, I can pitch correct the bad singer, edit the sloppy fills, and comp the solo to make the band sound better than they are... and then, the tools only make me look better and the band sound better.

but then maybe if we didn't do that, there would be less crappy bands out there, if they had the pressure of the analog days of having to be able to play and sing, they would spend less time shopping for tight jeans and hair product and more time practicing and studying.


I am going to be so grumpy when I get older.

john

LOL!!! I agree with everything you said. I was almost disagreeing with the whole "tools make us sound better and the band sound better" - and then you came full circle around with "but maybe then, it makes for so many crap bands out there today"

One complete "RPM" for you John!

I've been going in circles about this for a long time now.

I have to say, I'm starting to lean towards the "old" way. Using a Mackie board and a couple ADATs, some outboard gear - and away we go!

I think it might bring back some of the (dare I say) "fun" in recording?

Mackie boards are DIRT cheap - and I recently got an ADAT with 22 (yes ONLY 22) hours on it - and for how much? $62 was the winning bid. With shipping, under $100.

Do you remember when ADATs were around $2,800? And MAckie boards were $3K ?

Good stuff...

[LifeGoesOff]

I don't really think of it as a crutch. I think of it in terms of getting the material from A to B...simply a tool to capture the moment. I don't use it to fix things, and I rarely edit (my own projects that is, the day job is rap/pop engineer where fixing is practically the norm). I spend time getting things to sound the way I want them, and if someone played something half-assed or wrong, they can play it again.

I've been a PT user for about 5 years now and I've gotten very used to it. Last year I bought a copy of Logic Pro and I really can't stand it. There are simply TOO many options.

There really is nothing better than working your way through a mix on a console.

[DupleMeter]

I think it all depends on how you use (or abuse) the technology. With every tool you can do good or cause harm. A hammer is a great tool but can also be used to cause great harm.

Keep in mind, I've used everything from 4-track cassette to 8, 16 & 24 track reel-to-reel (tascam, fostex, studer, otari) and then ADATs and DTRS machines. Pro Tools (TDM & LE) and now Digital Performer. So I've "been there, done that" and while I may wax nostalgic for the "good old days", when I really think about it I think recording technology has gone in a good direction. Whether or not it's always used with the best discretion is another topic

I like the fact that I can work almost anywhere with a laptop & a small interface - and since I do a lot of location recording I like that I no longer need 250 lbs. of equipment...that's a life saver.

I still have a lot of old recorders (reel-to-reel, ADAT & DTRS, even an old 4-track) and I would get rid of them if I didn't have so many tapes around that I (eventually) want to transfer to DAW. I mean, tape only lasts for so long and making copies in the analog realm is always a generation loss. I have no want to go back to them and use them in production, but they're fun to have around. I mean, a big tape machine just gives off a cool "vibe".

[chris harris]

too many people in the recording community listen to music with their ethics rather than their ears. When I listen to an album, I don't care if the band is "not really that good". I either enjoy a recording or I don't. I can enjoy a recording and not give two shits about whether or not they can actually pull it off live.

and, when I'm watching some band live, I don't care if they recorded their whole album in one take to analog 2 track. I'm there to see that performance.

I think this is an interesting topic. And, I agree with most of what has been said. But, I'm not ready to take responsibility for making bands shitty just because I do everything I can to get them a good recording of their songs. That's what I do as a recording engineer. We are not the guardians of musicianship. Labels and consumers are supposed to do that. They're not... but, that doesn't mean that the responsibility falls back to us.

I don't make bands audition before booking time. And, I try to get the best possible results from every project.

[GooberNumber9]

I think for tracking and editing there are so many obvious advantages to Pro Tools that I wouldn't want to have to be without it, at least as an option.

I do agree that it can be very seductive to pull out every possible trick when it comes to mix time. If I could afford to build a rig to mix OTB, I definitely would. As it stands, I just try to discipline myself to keep the mix process as simple, fun, and spontaneous as possible.

Todd Wilcox

[@?,*???&?]

After posting a question about Pro Tools and Mackie boards, I've just been thinking about the two platforms.

Are there possible hidden "dangers" lurking in the vast amount of so-called "tools" we have today.

Disclaimer: I AM a Pro Tools HD2 studio owner. I've used 4-tracks, ADATS, Cubase, Pro-Tools LE and now the big mama system.

BUT....

Does having a system like Pro Tools, that is supposed to make recording "better", actually make us worse at our craft?

No, the sync electronics on an analog tape machine already destroyed our craft back in the early 60's.

[JGriffin]

No, the sync electronics on an analog tape machine already destroyed our craft back in the early 60's.

Thank you! I've been saying that --much less eloquently-- for a long time in response to stuff like this.

[lapsteel]

Pro tools has its advantages and disadvantages. The best thing is the ease of use. It is easy to have a song done realitively quickly. This is also one of its greatest disadvantages. It really makes it easy to ruin a song. You can easily take all the spontaneity out of a song by cutting out every little mistake, using too much processing, or even adding too many instruments.


The saddest thing about pro tools and the music industry is how many bands out there sound the same, especially coming from the majors. I did a little experiment listening to my Sirius by putting it on the top 40 station. There was a song by one band then the next song on sounded like the same band, but saddly it wasn't. The recordings sounded the same, the vocals sounded the same, the only thing different was the names. Whoever is releasing this crap needs to stop.

[playonbrother]

this is a topic that i'm dealing with right at this moment. i started out recording right as protools hit the scene so i remember mixing one section at a time with 3 or 4 people making moves on the console that we rehearsed many times over. print that section to tape and rehearse the next section and splice it all together. of course when we finally went to print the section, someone more often or not would f a move up. not that it ruined the mix but it gave it that human touch. now it's so easy to make things too perfect. i've been using protools since the mid 90's and it is really great for editing and capturing moments quickly or not really having to worry about running out of tape but i've been in nightmare situations with protools. our last studio album had a million stems that were taken into the mastering house and the stems were mastered instead of just mastering the two track. so of course since we had stems, if cats weren't happy with a guitar part or whatever it was easy to just play it over again while we were in mastering. i wanted nothing to do with this because i knew that if you give yourself that many options, the shit will never get done and it took months just to get it out of the mastering house!!! in the end, it really all depends on the approach you take. i've been rethinking my studio here. i plan on getting a sidecar situation happening and do a lot of processing in the box but go split out to the console and use some outboard gear and print to tape. i like the idea of the final mix being the final mix. of course i can always still print stems but i really want to take all that i've learned in the box and apply it to my old school ways. of course, this may change a few months or a few years from now but i don't want my recordings to sound exactly the same down the road either. and so the fun continues....

al

[Dan Phelps]

I think of Pro Tools and Tape as storage mediums. Like difference between, say, painting on Yak Hide or on Canvas.

Ok, so that is a stupid example, but I don't think Pro Tools is in any way to blame for a decline in engineering skills or an increase in bad music. It's an issue with the user and not the tools. You get out of it what you put into it, sort of thing.

I think there are advantages to working both mediums in that they will effect how you approach the music. Going to analog, you might work harder to get the perfect take with the band, or to nail the solo, or be slightly less picky when comping the vocal. The pressures and limitations effect the process, and the sound can be particularly inspiring.

On the flip side, going to hard disk, I would say that there is a freedom that comes from knowing that nothing is ever lost, a nearly unlimited number of takes, etc., which might lead to some truely inspired and unfettered playing. It's also great how easy it is to edit and hear an idea in a short amount of time..."what if the pre-chorus were half as long?"

I think it was Socrates who said "you can't polish a turd," and that saying has never been more true. An rhythm correct, pitch correct turd triggering a bunch of drum samples still smells like a turd.

[joel hamilton]

The thing that drives me crazy is the whole concept of "perfect" being something that is measured with the eyes, and not the ears and the soul.

When people talk about "perfect" they seem to always be talking about pitch ad time quantizing... forcing things into the inexperienced parameters just because that is the simplest version of "perfect" to strive for.

I have mixed things that people edited for days and days, to make the stuff "perfect" before getting to the mix... it is all lined up, by eye... like basically you dont even need headphones or speakers to do this sort of "work."
In my opinion:

Inexperience craves "perfection" of this type.

Experience craves artistic engagement... emotional engagement... and none of that can be slipped or copied or quantized or autotuned...

To say that options are crippling is a cop out. WOuld you rather have three colors on your pallette? do you have to put every single color in your painting? what about if you take a picture? Do you feel stifled by not being able to get every single person in NYC in your picture at once? or do you choose a specific moment, and amplify its emotional impact with all the parameters you can choose from, and manipulate, to tell a story ? to make it more engaging than "real life." ?

And to touch on the totally weird notion that overdubbing somehow "killed our craft" or whatever...

Would Star Wars have been a better movie if it was shot in real time? no edits? no multiple takes? No FX?

The fetishized idea of "going all live" seems to be a knee jerk reaction to all the over manipulated-in-the-name-of-inexperienced "PERFECTON" ...

You can actually make an engaging piece of music without every single element going down live, to tape.... yes, you can even use protools and musicians with different schedules that know how to play their instruments and then CREATE a concise feel to all the tracks that will put the writers intent out through the speakers in an engaging, appropriate manner, regardless of the capture format.

Anything less seems to fall heavily into the "these damn kids" category in one way or the other.

wow. rant-o-rama.

[Slider]

It's all in how you use it.
I try to keep the goal in focus and not let the tools guide me.
It's easier said then done sometimes.

[JGriffin]

And to touch on the totally weird notion that overdubbing somehow "killed our craft" or whatever...

Would Star Wars have been a better movie if it was shot in real time? no edits? no multiple takes? No FX?

The fetishized idea of "going all live" seems to be a knee jerk reaction to all the over manipulated-in-the-name-of-inexperienced "PERFECTON" ...

For my part, I was being sarcastic about that. My point was that ProTools didn't "kill" anything any more than overdubbing, or editing, or any other new audio tool ever did.

it's a tool. Use it well, or use it poorly. Don't blame the tool.