What happened to "getting it right the first time"

[curtiswyant]

All I hear while recording my band is "we'll overdub it later" or "copy it from another place in the song"! You'd think with home recording that you would have an infinite amount of time to do perfect takes but it seems to be doing the opposite...

[b3groover]

And thus you have discovered the curse of technology!

[Shawn Simmons]

I make people go do it again. It's usually faster to go sing one more chorus than it is for me to paste one in (at least that's what I always say). And it's always faster to go sing it again than it is to argue about it.

I'll generally only cut and paste if the artist just CAN'T get another take. Maybe they blow their voice out or they run out of time or go past their point of getting good takes. It's not the end of the world if I have to cut and paste or copy a chorus or two. I'll just try every other option first.

shawn

[pulse_divider]

What paste works best on 456?

[dynomike]

Yeah, you're right. You just have to make a conscious decision of when to do it again, and when to edit the hell out of it.

Like shawn said, it usually is faster (and better!) to do another take - copying+pasting = BORING song. I usually will just do 3-5 takes in a row, or close to each other, and then either take the best one and fix problems or comp a good take, depending on how you felt about the takes... but not moving stuff around in time. This way you still have options for "fixing it in the mix", but you can keep some movement and real feel throughout the song - ie. your voice is working just a bit harder at the end of the song than the beginning? Little things make a difference. I'd say the 4 takes and comp is a good compromise though.

Mike

[chris harris]

ahhh, the guardians of musicianship!

if it's your own band, then by all means, crack the whip and get them back in the practice space.

but, if you're recording other bands for money, and refusing to edit, then either:

1. you're the only studio in town
2. you're not getting much return business
or,
3. you're lucky to work with bands who have huge budgets and come to you because you "do it old school".

christ people. it's 2005. and, contrary to how perceptive you think you are, you probably CAN'T tell if a flubbed line from the third chorus was replaced with a good one from the first.

and, if it's really faster for you to make them do it again, than to copy a small part from another chorus, then it says more about your skills as a modern engineer than about the technology itself. don't complain when you lose business to the bedroom recordist down the street who doesn't have the quality of pre's and converters that you have, but does know how to use the technology sitting in front of him to deliver results that make bands happy.

I'm as disappointed as everyone else that every band that walks in doesn't nail every performance in a few takes. but, I'd rather do an edit that 99.9999999% of people will never hear than sit and watch a kid struggle under pressure in front of his bandmates and a ticking clock.

I don't often offer to edit unless I can tell that the artist just can't get it. but, if they ask, there's no arguing, and there's no wasting time trying every other option first. if they ask, it's clickety click and we're moving on to the next part.

but, I also run into situations where an edit attempt is just not working and the part has just got to be redone. I never let a project out that has edits as obvious as some of the edits that I've heard on Beatles or Beach Boys songs.

I mean, sheesh... couldn't they have found good enough musicians to play Good Vibrations all the way through.. it's so lame that Brian Wilson chose editing over musicianship.

[joeysimms]

Depends on the style though.. For general rock music I don't see why anyone'd step one foot into a studio without rehearsing enough to get through the fucking thing and do it well.

[drumsound]

I think there's a big difference between fixing one line with a quick edit and only playing each section on the song and 'creating' the take. I try my hardest to not edit things that the musican could redo easily. Once you let the musicians see you fix their mistakes, they stop trying to getit right. That makes for very boring, cookie cutter type records. I think that doesn't serve the music, the musicians, or the listeners.

Depends on the style though.. For general rock music I don't see why anyone'd step one foot into a studio without rehearsing enough to get through the fucking thing and do it well.

Yet, it sadly still happens!?!

[Shawn Simmons]

You are right, Subatomic, after a month or so no one can tell what part was edited or copied. You just hear the song and whether it's good or not.

I am not in a band. I make my money recording bands. I do alright. My "modern engineering skills" aren't lacking in any way (at least not when it comes to Protools) I can edit with the best of them. It really comes down to choice. And in my situation, since I'm usually "the producer", it's my decision. And if I'm producing, I have a good idea of how far to push someone and where their limits are. If they can't sing it again or play it again, I cut, paste, and edit to make it work and I move on. I don't think twice about it. But I think it's important that a band member actually does their own parts. They take ownership of their parts, of their record. I don't have any hard rules for recording. For me, it's about the song and the end result. If I need to edit the crap out of something, I will. It's just not my first option.

shawn

[Brett Siler]

I mostly record punk and hardcore bands, and if there is something sloppy that I know they can play better, then I ask them how they felt about the part that is kinda sloppy (phrased in a nice way not to hurt their confidence/ego) and if they say they can do better then we just re-record the part and i say 99% of the time it is quicker that if i were to cut and paste stuff.

The only time I really cut in paste is if after the recording part of the session is over and there was a mess up that sticks out that we did not catch, when we were recording.

i did do some hip hop stuff where I copy and pasted the chorus and it was no big deal.

Ultimatly it comes down to what the customer wants. If he/she wants you to just cut and paste, then its time to get out your surgical gloves because it is their money they are spending and thier songs they wrote.

[soundguy]

Its a choice that comes from having more confidence in technology than it does in yourself as a musician, end of story. Rocker must be pretty awesome if he can only perform something once and doing it twice right is this earth shattering event. jesus.

My friends band recorded a record which they did fairly quick, no big deal. They did it on a nonlinear system. They fired their drummer and found a new guy. They rehearsed. They got awesome. And like, legitimately awesome, not that awesome you get when your friends are around. They asked me to help engineer drum tracks to slip in in place of the old drummer on the old recording. I told them they were high and that they should retrack the whole record. The shit is over a year old, they know it backwards and forwards, have played it out again and again and again and could blow out everything on the record without hesitation in 48 hours. They say no, too hard. Harder than slipping in drum tracks? Ive told this to them now 4 times, each time 7 days apart. Oh, we are still working on it, we cant get the pocket right. No shit. All they can remember is how difficult it was to record the stuff the first time around when they didnt know the material and when they were playing with a drummer that wasnt so great. Now, the tables have completely changed but they just dont have the confidence to see it. They are still working on that record now. If they had come to my place to re-do it, or ANY place, it would have been done seven times over by now.

Vocalist flubs something, its sorta cool to fix it with a performance. Perhaps the flub came from not being entirely confident with the material. Perhaps after you try to hit it 30 times, you actually learn the part and eventually pull it off better than the first time you got it right earlier in the tune where it just sorta skated. Now you've got weak version earrly in the song and some power next time it comes around. Thats pretty cool. Of course you could have just copied it and had it sound like every other record made today: static. There is no emotive shift in a copied and pasted part. Thats an obvious thing to say, its not what everyone wants but its worth raising hell about sometimes.

we are not all out to make the same kind of records. If you have grown up on puddle of mud you are probably gonna be pissed if your record isnt edited like that. There arent really any rules, getting it right the first time doesnt apply to EVERYONE, but I wish more people would check their head on the pro's and cons of this shit and make a realistic decision about the type of sound they are trying to have come across on a record. Sure, beach boys stuff is edited to hell and back, but the performances are edited as a whole. Thats a huge contrast to the type of editing that is on a puddle of mud record. Equal quantites of editing, completely nigth and day different sounds. One has a pocket, one has a beat detective.

have some confidence in yourself as a musician. some technology or engineer is not going to make you better, they just help you mask what you are trying to hide.

ddave

[digital eagle audio]

ahhh, the guardians of musicianship!


I'm as disappointed as everyone else that every band that walks in doesn't nail every performance in a few takes. but, I'd rather do an edit that 99.9999999% of people will never hear than sit and watch a kid struggle under pressure in front of his bandmates and a ticking clock.

amen. we are members of the service industry, after all.

[curtiswyant]

amen. we are members of the service industry, after all.

If I was getting paid, it would be a different story. But since I am performing, engineering, and basically producing, all for free, I don't think it's too much to ask.

[chris harris]

amen. we are members of the service industry, after all.

If I was getting paid, it would be a different story. But since I am performing, engineering, and basically producing, all for free, I don't think it's too much to ask.

yeah. just turn off the recording gear one night and rehearse.

[junkyardtodd]

I have been playing guitar and bass for like, a million years, and I will typically play the parts that wind up making the song hundreds of times before I am ready to record, so I am really pretty well prepared. Still, many times while recording basic bass or rythm parts, where I am going top to bottom, my attention will wander, and I will make a small mistake. (yes, i know, this is why i am not a big rock star).
Anyways, it always seems to work better (for the overall feel of the song) if I cut/paste to fix the mistake, rather than punching, or redoing the whole thing.
Using this method I am able to have the freshness of "first takes" on all my rythm tracks. This may be superstition, or mere amatuerishness, but I really prefer working this way.
I would say the time spent is not much more than punching, and quite a bit less than redoing the whole track.

That said, when I am tracking with my drummer, I do always make him play everything PERFECTLY.