Corrective studio tools lowering musician talent?

marc_s · Post by **marc_s** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:58 pm

Hi guys,

Hoping this will cause a bit of debate from both musician's and engineers side of the view.

Does modern studio corrective tools (Eg Autotune, Beat Detective etc.) help to promote a lower quality of musician's playing ability in the recording process?

To Explain more; as musician's become ever more aware of the engineers ability to 'fix' themselves with tools, this may promote a lower quality of future instrumentalists and vocalists?
If we can fix pitch and timing among other things, what does this promote to musician's? Or does it simply help in shorter studio times to help produce perfect takes?

I would like to quote responses and the poll for a paper that I'm currently writing on this subject where possible, feel free to say anything on the subject you wish.

Cheers
Marc

drumsound · Post by **drumsound** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:07 pm

I've said it a bunch of times. Once the musicians see you fix something they stop trying as hard. Part of what I like about working on tape is that it keeps the performance as the focus. The players really keep striving for the 'magic take' when they realize that it needs to come from them, not be edited into submission by the 'man behind the curtain.'

JohnDavisNYC · Post by **JohnDavisNYC** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:15 pm

totally agree.... not because i think the technology is lame or anything.... just true. lots of people release good sounding records that don't have a lick of un 'fixed' playing.... and usually those bands also suck live.

but then again, there is lots of really cool electronic music that i love that wouldn't be possible without 'cheating' technology....

shitty musicians used to be replaced by proficient studio musicians... now we can just use the 'future calculator music toy' thingy to chop them into sounding decent... same shit, though.

john

cgarges · Post by **cgarges** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:04 pm

toaster3000 wrote:shitty musicians used to be replaced by proficient studio musicians... now we can just use the 'future calculator music toy' thingy to chop them into sounding decent... same shit, though.

It's not really the same to me because if you do enough of this kind of performance manipulation with the tools available today, the artifcating becomes pretty apparent. I think most of these programs sound like ass. A well-recorded musician, whether he's actually in the band or not, does not.

Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC

??????? · Post by **???????** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:07 pm

JohnDavisNYC · Post by **JohnDavisNYC** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:25 pm

the main problem is that the majority of musicians in rock bands are not passionate about their instruments.... they are usually much more into the social aspect...

those of us who are 'serious' musicians (i hate that term) are largely unaffected by the ability to fix... the number of people who let shitty takes go by in the studio, declaring at the end of said shitty take 'we'll just fix it in post, right?' or 'it's all just waveforms, right? just fix it.' is sometimes a bit depressing... i will say, however, that i have been really lucky to work with some motivated, hard working young bands lately that wanted to do things as analog as possible and get good takes, and do minimal punching to get their goal.... it was fun and rewarding.

whatever, like i said before, the tools don't ruin music by any means, but i have definitely seen a huge change in the mentality of musicians in the studio in the last 10 years... lots of musicians no longer think it is crucial to play a great take, it is somehow the engineer's job....

bla...

john

JohnDavisNYC · Post by **JohnDavisNYC** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:37 pm

brad, your last two paragraphs are perfect....

word.

john

??????? · Post by **???????** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:37 pm

I feel like the naive little kid or something. I guess I've never participated in a recording session where people didn't care about making it sound right. And I'm not saying that to be... whatever that sounds like. Like the cocky messageboard dude, because I don't feel like that.

I do know that I have not been as involved in recording other people like you do. I guess 'like attracts like' when you're talking about musicians, but pro engineers see all kinds.

So I guess I'm just... naive. Which may say something about the topic anyway, somehow.

??????? · Post by **???????** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 6:38 pm

Hah. It just took me 18 other paragraphs to get there.

chris harris · Post by **chris harris** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:59 pm

sweet!! another "help me do my homework" post!

you forgot an option in your poll for: UTFSF

there are pages upon pages upon pages of discussion on this very topic, right here on this message board. Your paper is already written. Just dig it up.

A-Barr · Post by **A-Barr** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:02 pm

I'm gonna be the stuck-up grammar freak (which is completely inappropriate, considering my usual posting patterns) and point out that agreeing or disagreeing to a question doesn't make any sense at all.

i am monster face · Post by **i am monster face** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:48 pm

Of course it does. Who cares at this point? I mean, who cares enough to just throw up their hands, quit editing, and just say

"You have two takes. One practice. The other is THE one."?

I rely on my editing skills to make people sound like they really know what they're doing. If that means editing every vocal take to be rhythmically, tonally, and pitch-illy perfect, than damnit, I'm going to do it.

I feel like I can do it to the point where nobody will notice. I believe I have that tact. Sure, I have done three sessions this year that had no playlists, no punch-ins, and no drum mangling...all of those straight to tape.

Two were jazz bands from Minneapolis and one was a dirty, dirty garage rock band.

I (like many of you) still record to tape and then bounce down and add more on top of that. Usually what happens to tape doesn't really need to be edited.

I will admit, however, that I really only record bands that I like and usually they are pretty darn good. There are times where I wish they were better musicians, but when they are good people, it actually makes me want to edit their shit.

"Go ahead, throw some crazy ghost notes at me on the snare drum...I'll fix 'em."

syrupcore · Post by **syrupcore** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:53 pm

i am monster face · Post by **i am monster face** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:42 pm

syrupcore wrote:meh.

Yeah, that's probably how I should have answered it.

I hate how sometimes I write like I'm an old man. Like, 80. Complaining about the bus or food or air conditioning.

I'm Painting Again · Post by **I'm Painting Again** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 7:01 am

a musician's ability/soul/style is the same with a studio or without one..the engineer has a choice to use the tools or not..so they are not directly related..you just can't can't say if it matters or not with a blanket statement like that..

Message Board

Corrective studio tools lowering musician talent?

Does modern studio corrective tools help to promote a lower quality of musician's playing ability in the recording process?

Corrective studio tools lowering musician talent?

Who is online