Get off your Recording High Horse

[lobstman]

I disagree. I think the mindset is very strongly influenced by the environment and the tools. I do agree that some people set-out to make decisions and others, if they're honest, don't actually intend to make any decisions - they just want to experiment with technology as a hobby.

It sounds like you're talking about something entirely different, though- recording as part of the songwriting process instead of recording to document an already written song. Nothing wrong with it, but the goal and methodology is different. It's kind of like Keith Richards playing the "Satisfaction" riff into a handheld tape recorder in the middle of the night. At the end what you have is a demo- a sketch of an idea, not a finished product.

[cactus]

From the first post:

...An artist shouldnt release art because its the best they had to coose from.....

That's exactly the point the "older" guys are trying make.
I worked with a band that wanted to do 10 vox tracks and comp them later, SIGHT UNSEEN! THAT'S the bad mentality.

No one will begrudge you keeping 10 awesome vocal takes and choosing later.

[HighColourStudio]

People, Make music anyway you can, for as long as you can, having as much fun as you can, any way you want to. Just do it. Gimme analog, gimme digital, just let me record.[/quote]

Right on, thanks for contributing to the thread. It seemed this discussion had wittled down to nit-picking and the ol Im rubber your glue distilation. I guess I simply misunderstood what you/and/or others on here meant by options. I guess for most folks, they take it as 300+ takes of the same vocal line, or whatever. I suppose, I do believe in some cut-off point. Usually, if I have 3-7 takes of a part, I feel like thats PLENTY to either comp a track or just select between. Honestly, most of the recording I do myself, I feel obligated to do complete takes, jut out of the sincerity it conveys to me on a personal level. Perhaps listeners wouldnt notice a comp/vs whole take, and thats fine, but for my own music i do like the satisfaction of knowing i can play the whole part, all the way through. THat being said, options I believe are a good thing, and not a detriment. Its the engineer/operator that is the detriment if they cant DECIDE between options. So in conclusion, if any future posters are looking for a good way to prompt repsonses etc to a thread, ALWAYS choose a provactive title, one that borders on between assisine and presumptuous! This thread had a good example. Oh, and that above quote from Wiggins, I couldnt agree with more. Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and all that good stuff, yall.

[Nick Sevilla]

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 choose 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.

Ho Ho Ho, and merry x-mas to you.

1st - It has little to do with digital VS analogue. Back in the days of analogue we used to make stereo submixes onto a second, third or even fourth (oh Lord) 24 track slaves, in order to augment the track count. Let see... 4 X 24 = 96 tracks. this was common in the 80s, and went through the 90's as well. Reference any big hair rock band, and any pop group from that era.

2nd. Giving some artists that much leeway is very bad both for them, and for the art itself. YOU try comping a lead vocal from 223 TAKES. I did this once in a Pro Tools rig. F$%K giving the artist "more room to explore" or "more tracks to inspire their genius". The best artists I have ever worked with NEVER do this. they give at most FIVE takes to comp from, of any particular lead vocal. As far as instruments, all the artists I've worked with NAIL the performance into just the amount of tracks it takes to get the one instrument recorded properly. IE a piano one to three tracks, mono guitar on ONE track (screw those stereo everything guitars... they're not even Stereo anyways). Etc... after nailing it, we ERASE, yes ERASE any tracks not deemed worthy of keeping. I other words, we decide that day the keeper take, and move on. It is SO GOOD to be able to do this, as when we are done, there are onyl MIXING decisions to be done. Yay to that.

So, the way I see it, if the artist cannot convey the darn message of their art starting with their voice and one accompanying instrument... then the song is no good. That might be "old school" but it is the only effective way to sort the wheat from the chaff, as it were, and get better material from the artist. Sure there are the odd artists that need more than one instrument, but they rarely know what their music will sound like in real terms. Giving them a "mega mall" of tracks / sound choices is ridiculous, and that is dangerous, not only for the engineer who might lose their mind, but more importantly, the artist, who will lose their sound and voice in the Sea of Sounds before them.

Cheers

[the Wozz]

Its all about capturing the right take for the right song. I PERSONALLY wouldn't want to sit on 6 or 7 takes of the same solo or vocal track to slice the best elements out of.

[JohnDavisNYC]

noeq nailed it.

good artists don't need it, and once you nail it, you move on and erase the other bullshit.

j

[RefD]

noeq nailed it.

good artists don't need it, and once you nail it, you move on and erase the other bullshit.

unless you WANT to take a few passes and comp the best bits together.

handy when you have inspiration for an instrumental solo but don't want to compose it top to bottom.

[JohnDavisNYC]

totally, but once you comp, throw the rest of the shit away.... i think the important part is deciding once you have it, that you have it.

j

[Jess P]

totally, but once you comp, throw the rest of the shit away.... i think the important part is deciding once you have it, that you have it.

j

Amen

[RefD]

totally, but once you comp, throw the rest of the shit away.... i think the important part is deciding once you have it, that you have it.

j

Amen

agreed.

to clarify my position overall: i'm a big believer in sorting out the parts and arrangements in preproduction and going for complete takes, even if you're putting things down track by track as a one-person band.

but i also believe in allowing exceptions when it makes sense creatively or for practical reasons.

[rwc]

when I have to comp stuff I have the artist sit there and do it with me - and make every decision. I just act as their hand, in doing it. They direct me.

There have been people who asked me, after doing 17 takes, to "put the best ones together", then left the room.

I don't mind someone asking if they think one take is better. What kind of person would I be if I minded that?

But the above is crazy for several reasons.

a) How do I know my tastes are the same as yours?

b) How can you have such little involvement in your own art?

c) This comes off in text way worse than it does in my head, but if I'm going to have to listen to 17 takes and decide which is the best for that phrase and in context of the entire song, you're going to sit there and join in the misery with me.

The beauty of leaving staff = I don't get "assigned" that nonsense anymore. Good times.

P.S.

If anyone can guess how many of the above kind of situations ever finished a song, a Christmas cookie will be yours.

[dynomike]

when I have to comp stuff I have the artist sit there and do it with me - and make every decision. I just act as their hand, in doing it. They direct me.

There have been people who asked me, after doing 17 takes, to "put the best ones together", then left the room.

I don't mind someone asking if they think one take is better. What kind of person would I be if I minded that?

But the above is crazy for several reasons.

a) How do I know my tastes are the same as yours?

b) How can you have such little involvement in your own art?

c) This comes off in text way worse than it does in my head, but if I'm going to have to listen to 17 takes and decide which is the best for that phrase and in context of the entire song, you're going to sit there and join in the misery with me.

The beauty of leaving staff = I don't get "assigned" that nonsense anymore. Good times.

P.S.

If anyone can guess how many of the above kind of situations ever finished a song, a Christmas cookie will be yours.

Different strokes... sounds like you're more of a textbook transparent 'recording engineer'. I'm getting more involved with most of the bands I'm working with now, either producing outright or co-producing. In situations where I'm confident that my intuition and taste will best serve the end product, I just go ahead and comp away. WAY more efficient than "is this one good?" "how bout this one?" for every vocal phrase (if thats the level of editing required... and sometimes it is)

If I'm really not on the same page as the band, I'll either avoid working with them (which is often the best move, for me) or work more in the way you're promoting RWC. When my intuition isn't working, thats when I step back and just push buttons. I seriously hate working on those kinds of projects though. I'm glad there are people who are down with working that way... so I don't have to!

[JGriffin]

when I have to comp stuff I have the artist sit there and do it with me - and make every decision. I just act as their hand, in doing it. They direct me.

There have been people who asked me, after doing 17 takes, to "put the best ones together", then left the room.

I don't mind someone asking if they think one take is better. What kind of person would I be if I minded that?

But the above is crazy for several reasons.

a) How do I know my tastes are the same as yours?

b) How can you have such little involvement in your own art?

c) This comes off in text way worse than it does in my head, but if I'm going to have to listen to 17 takes and decide which is the best for that phrase and in context of the entire song, you're going to sit there and join in the misery with me.

The beauty of leaving staff = I don't get "assigned" that nonsense anymore. Good times.

P.S.

If anyone can guess how many of the above kind of situations ever finished a song, a Christmas cookie will be yours.

Different strokes... sounds like you're more of a textbook transparent 'recording engineer'. I'm getting more involved with most of the bands I'm working with now, either producing outright or co-producing. In situations where I'm confident that my intuition and taste will best serve the end product, I just go ahead and comp away. WAY more efficient than "is this one good?" "how bout this one?" for every vocal phrase (if thats the level of editing required... and sometimes it is)

If I'm really not on the same page as the band, I'll either avoid working with them (which is often the best move, for me) or work more in the way you're promoting RWC. When my intuition isn't working, thats when I step back and just push buttons. I seriously hate working on those kinds of projects though. I'm glad there are people who are down with working that way... so I don't have to!

Of course, it also may be that after 17 takes the artist knows s/he has lost objectivity and is trusting you to make the choices. I get that from time to time-- the writer gets up after the last take and says, "make it pretty" and walks out.

[dynomike]

+1 on objectivity, dwlb... its really hard to hear whats good when you're listening to a take you just did. hardest part about recording yourself, and one of the rare cases where i'll get behind piling up a few takes (3-5?), and comp them at home a few days later.

[rwc]

on stuff I chose to work with vs random assignment, there are no 17 takes in the "ok, we're recording now" phase.

on stuff I get stuck with, it is 17 takes all with different flaws. there is really no better, but different versions of mediocre, or ok in my experience. Every single time. I am sure that this could be different in other cases, but it hasn't been for me.

I have never worked with someone who did 17 or so takes of the same thing and kept them, where

a) it was good

or

b) after 17 takes it became better.

The other people who are in the room in my experience lose objectivity just as fast as the artist, and people not in the room who are brought in for opinions usually

a) can't tell a difference

b) will say what they really think, which the kind of artist who will do 17 takes of one part will probably get offended by

There's not an issue of getting involved in the artistic side. I like getting involved with stuff I like. But I feel it is counterproductive to do the same thing over and over and expect a different result, and think it's even crazier to keep them all.

P.S.

Merry Christmas