Get off your Recording High Horse

HighColourStudio · Post by **HighColourStudio** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 9:07 am

So, after reading through issue 68, Im compelled to discuss a recurring theme in a couple of the articles (primarily the Tommy Wiggins article). That theme is this idea that its NOT OK for recordists/engineers to "not make decisions" during tracking. This notion is lame. The point that they (the article interviewees) were trying to make was that tracking say 10 vocal cuts and saving the final decision for mixing is un-ballsy or just indecisive. Come on! It seems that the core of this issue is still the battle between digital recording and analog. The main guy talking about this was Wiggins who argues, "If you have fewer choices, you make those choices-you're forced to make the right choices"- hrmmmmm, seems to me deciding between just a few things, be them good or bad can be dangerous, if you can make that pool of choices larger. Thats the beauty of digital recording. We are no longer shoeboxed in by the actual medium requirements of say 24 track analog recording. An artist shouldnt release art because its the best they had to coose from. They continue to create an art that is acceptable to release, being close to what they have invisioned inside their imaginative genius (yes, I dig Blake). Anyways, it seems to me to be the ol old timer vs new schooler argument rearing its head again. Its funny to think whether Edison would still be championing the wax cylinder medium if he were alive today.

JohnDavisNYC · Post by **JohnDavisNYC** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 9:26 am

i think so many people champion it is because it is true.

making decisions and working hard to get the best take possible will ALWAYS yield better results than comping between 300 half-assed takes.

the technology has changed, but music hasn't, and a good performance will always be better than a collage of a bunch of shitty ones.

painters don't paint the same portrait 20 times, then scan them all and make a composite in Photoshop...

i'm not saying that there should never be choices, or that only full live takes should be used, but i believe that it is not only true, but entirely self evident that putting off decisions till the last possible moment can only be detrimental to making a strong piece of art.

john

T-rex · Post by **T-rex** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 9:30 am

I kind of see where it may be an old school versus new school thing, but in general I agree with the articles you are referencing. I mean I guess it all comes down to how individual people work, but the longer I do this the more I start trying to narrow down the choices in tracking.

Its situational, like anything. If a guy wants to try a solo part with two totally different feels to see what will work in the final mix I can understand that. But to have 5 different versions of the same exact thing and have to make a choice at mix time seems kind of crazy to me. Especially when you hear that the second take was "the one", it had that undefinable thing that makes it great, but they want to do it two more times just to have some safety tracks. What the heck is a safety track? If you are listening during the take and it works and sounds great, why do you need another two or three run throughs that you are just going to toss out at mixdown?

If you are tracking yourself and you want to do multiple takes and try different things I think that is a totally different situation, but when you are tracking bands I agree that some form of limitations of choices from the onset will keep things more focused.

Jay Reynolds · Post by **Jay Reynolds** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 9:59 am

I try to look at it like this: the moment is more important than the sound. Listen to "Sonny Side Up" by Dizzy Gillespie. No multi track. No punches. A "safety take" was another run through the entire song. There are "mistakes" galore in there too. But the whole album, IMHO, captures some of the greatest moments in the history of recorded music.
Decisions that are made by you can contribute to the moment also. I think the idea of making these decisions during tracking isn't as much about technique or logic as it is about putting yourself on the same plane as the artists you're recording. Why should the musicians be the only people trying to "nail it" in the studio?
It not like we're all making license plates here. In the end, emotion/vibe/spirit/magic/"it factor" are what the artist and the listener are after.

lobstman · Post by **lobstman** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:30 am

It's not about some kind of macho attitude, it's about workflow. Too many choices leads to paralysis- if you have unlimited takes and unlimited time, nothing is ever "final", so nothing is ever finished. 24 tracks was a somewhat arbitrary technical limitation, but it seemed to be a good compromise between not enough choice and too much.

I know a couple bands that took years to make records that could have been done in a couple of months if someone had just said "enough" and not let people keep overdubbing themselves in circles. In the end, everyone was sick of the project, the songs and each other, and rushed through the final stages just to get the monkey off their backs, thus defeating the whole purpose of taking so much time to "get it right".

I have embraced digital recording and I appreciate the options it provides, but I also know not to succumb to the rapture of the deep. For people who weren't reared with the discipline that the technical limitations of analog required, it's a tough lesson to learn.

HighColourStudio · Post by **HighColourStudio** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:00 am

making decisions and working hard to get the best take possible will ALWAYS yield better results than comping between 300 half-assed takes.

the technology has changed, but music hasn't, and a good performance will always be better than a collage of a bunch of shitty ones.

painters don't paint the same portrait 20 times, then scan them all and make a composite in Photoshop...

I agree, nothing substitutes a good performance. Hell, a good performance played on a shitty instrument heavuly outweighs any good reording of a Strativarius played by a goon. The issue isnt performance though. The issue is options. A painter might paint the same painting many times before he has piece he desires. This is ok, and in fact, this is a form of revision, and progress. Technique evolves from practice, and execution is bettered through technique. I just dont see the difference between 3 vocal takes and 10. I do see a problem in collaging a bunch of crap together in order to make a decent take, as turds cant be polished. But the issue at hand is options, not performance.

rwc · Post by **rwc** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:05 am

I think it is good to make decisions as you go.

The decisions you make now will help influence the NEXT decision.

The closer it sounds like a record during every stage if the process, the better off you'll be.

I really don't see the benefit in leaving every decision for some undetermined future time.

chris harris · Post by **chris harris** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:21 pm

I haven't read this whole thread yet....

but, to me, it's the difference between being experienced enough to be confident making decisions and knowing what's best for the project, and being green or indecisive.

the reason people who have been doing this for a long time typically don't advocate leaving lots of options for later, is because they've seen people bang their heads against a wall for years doing that.

The idea that this is an analog vs. digital thing is complete nonsense. There were plenty of records from the analog days that had a second Studer slaved for extra things to have as "options".

No, this is about how experienced and confident people work, vs. the way people banging their heads against a wall, learning by trial and error work.

HighColourStudio · Post by **HighColourStudio** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 12:45 pm

The idea that this is an analog vs. digital thing is complete nonsense. There were plenty of records from the analog days that had a second Studer slaved for extra things to have as "options".

No, this is about how experienced and confident people work, vs. the way people banging their heads against a wall, learning by trial and error work

Hrrrmmmmm, I dont agree that its about experience vs. inexperience. Experience would suggest that one is willing to say do several guitar parts and pick from those to decide which best serves the song. Since so many people write as they record, (since the Beatles popularized it in 67) having some options down the road can be very benficial. I think it only hinders someone if they dont know how to make ANY decisions, in which case they are niether artists, engineers, or producers. We'd be silly to say that the greats always knew exactly what part would go where, etc etc. Sometimes you just have to audition parts, cut them later, or add them later. Sometimes the pieces dont fall in line as we would like them, step by step. Part of the creative process is having options, and executing those options with precision. Dont get me wrong, Im no fan of poor talent trying to forge some masterpiece out of half-baked parts and poor artistry. The whole will never lie, and if those parts that sum are crap, then that whole is crap. I just think its sort of farce to say that having options by mix time is wussy, or however Wiggins put it.

T-rex · Post by **T-rex** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:03 pm

I can't believe I didn't think of this on my first response, but two words:

Chinese Democracy!

Jay Reynolds · Post by **Jay Reynolds** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:24 pm

T-rex wrote:I can't believe I didn't think of this on my first response, but two words:

Chinese Democracy!

Indeed! I think we can retire this thread now.

curtiswyant · Post by **curtiswyant** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:40 pm

A lot of the classic, glorified recordings from the 60s/70s (early multitrack days) were full of comps and punch-ins (see Motown vocals!). Saying that a comped or edited track somehow lacks the vibe of a complete take is bullshit. Why not argue that compression/EQ/delay are violating the integrity of the track too? Why do we even mix/master songs to being with?

I disagree that comping is indecisive or too time-consuming. I'm not a very good singer but I can usually comp a good take (of an entire song) from about 4 takes. Now, I can record those 4 takes back-to-back in about 15 minutes whereas it would take me hours to get a good, complete take. Comping saves me time and it's certainly not because I'm indecisive. That's assuming I have a plethora of good takes to begin with. Instead, I'm building a take piece-by-piece, matching each phrase to the next, keeping it consistent if that's what I want.

I'm sure, just like with the analog vs. digital debate, that a simple blind listening test would prove that no one can tell the difference between a comped take versus a complete take in terms of "vibe." It's a bunch of holier-than-thou professional snobbery that is a complete waste of time for everyone involved to even argue about. No one cares how disciplined you were when tracking, it's still all about the song.

chris harris · Post by **chris harris** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:58 pm

I'm not talking about comping vocals. I'm talking about putting up 16 drum mics, "just in case". Or, putting 3 mics on each of two amps for every guitar take. Those are the kinds of decisions I find it better to just make as you go.

rwc · Post by **rwc** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 9:08 pm

I've never worked on a project where "leaving options for later" left anything less of disappointment or clusterfuck.

Brian Brock · Post by **Brian Brock** » Sat Dec 06, 2008 9:29 pm

Choose when you know the answer.

Message Board

Get off your Recording High Horse

Get off your Recording High Horse

Who is online