Drum Samples/ Replacement/ Augmentation (Future of Drums?)

[SpencerMartin]

One thing worth considering beyond the ethics of editing and sample use is the instrument itself and the challenges it presents to both musicians and engineers. For those of us who have been at it for a while and have found our own way of getting "good" drum sounds, it's easy to forget that drums are probably the most difficult instrument to learn how to record well. There's a lot involved and it can be super intimidating to someone who doesn't have extensive experience or a well-developed setup with enough tracks or mics (although it is certainly possible to get a great sound with only 1, 2, or 3 mics given the right approach and circumstances). The very fact that we are all trying to achieve what we each consider a "good" drum sound is a conundrum in itself because our definitions of "good" are going to vary wildy from one person to another. There are super great real drum recordings and super shitty real drum recordings. There are super great sampled drum recordings and super shitty sampled drum recordings.

The thing that matters more than sample use, lack of sample use, type of kit, type of v-kit, quality of kit, gear, room, etc., is the collective quality of:

1. The drummer (if there is one)
2. The engineer (or programmer)
3. Their collective approach to recording/editing (which I'd argue is THE most important factor)

If you have a good drummer, you're a good engineer/programmer, and you have a good overall approach to recording/editing you'll probably get a drum sound that you like and fans of your musical style of choice will probably like.

For me personanally, I like to record real drums but in sometimes unnatural ways. I'll often modify the kit (through dampening/deading/tuning/exclusion of certain parts/using different types of sticks, rods, brushes, or mallets) and modify the drummer's performance as well (through instruction/suggestion as we're recording) to get more drums and less cymbals, more/less resonance, an unusal/interesting sound, etc. In general, I prefer less microphones - usually around 4. I admittedly do prefer quantization in most cases and I approach mixing drums in a sometimes pretty drastic way too. I'll blend in samples for about 25% of projects because in some scenarios it can be an incredibly powerful tool for achieving a good sound. I like to alternate samples though because it allows for interesting dynamics and isn't as stale sounding as the "one hit" approach (if you listen closely you'll hear alternating kick/snare sounds on tons of recordings - most likely the ones where you weren't offended by the "fake" drum sound).

That's the general approach I've gradually developed out of plenty of trial-and-error and I like the results I get from it very much. I also vary things really widely from project to project though too. It'd be super lame to just do the same exact thing over and over again. To each his own though - you guys probably have totally different tastes and totally different approaches. Having an appropriate, effective approach for the project at hand is really the most important thing.

[ubertar]

If everything is "perfect" and homogenous it might sound better on first listen than something more organic with all its flaws, but it will get boring and unlistenable much faster, IMO. I guess that's fine for "disposable" music, but for anything that is intended to last over time, it seems a poor strategy.

[digitaldrummer]

you can also sample and/or program piano/keyboards, guitars, bass, strings, etc.... but guess what? there are still keyboard/piano players, guitar players, bass players, string orchestras, symphonic bands, marching bands...

if you like samples then use them. if you like acoustic sounds, then record real instruments.

I like acoustic sounds.

Mike

[digitaldrummer]

then again every keyboard player I know gigs with a box of samples (in the keyboard that is...) instead of a Piano, B3, Rhodes, Wurli... all that would need a pretty big truck.