Corrective studio tools lowering musician talent?

Jeff White · Post by **Jeff White** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:51 am

A-Barr wrote:there are no absolutes in art.

Thanks. Yes. 100% correct.

dynomike · Post by **dynomike** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:57 am

ipressrecord wrote:I also, like John, love electronic music and what crazy shit computers allow you to do. Maybe I'll use Auto-tune (or DP's tune function or Waves Tune LT since I have them) for whacky shit, but not for a vocalist who is tone deaf.

If you've never used autotune, I suppose it would be easy to think that it can turn a tone-deaf vocalist into pavarotti. It can't. It can, however, tighten up an already in-pitch vocal take (slow attack, just focusing the end of held notes) which in some styles is pretty much essential... I don't have a problem using it gently to lock a good vocal into the 'polish zone' for styles where that's appropriate (pop-punk, slick emo, pretty much any of those bands who play through triple recs and marshall cabs).

The vast majority of the time I like to hear the vocalist sliding around a bit like an actual human. But there is this one syllable that keeps coming out wrong, and its driving the band nuts. Should I *not fix this* even though I have the tools to do so? Even though the band will be dissatisfied if I don't? Even though the band doesn't have the budget to spend another day doing vocal punch ins because they go home unsatisfied with the vocal takes?

I dunno how some of you guys get away with having 'ethics' about not using autotune... the bands you record must have a lot more time / money, or are a lot easier to please than the ones i record.

---------------

It was mentioned by someone above that once the band realizes you can edit things, they play a lot worse. I disagree with this, in my own experience. Most of the time I try to let the band know that I can fix some things (this is for live-off-the-floor tracking mostly), but it will take less time for them to do it right than for me to make it right. Usually once they know that I can fix little things, there's no more stopping in the middle of a take, they relax a bit more, and play the takes better overall even though they did add an extra repetition of that bridge section.

;ivlunsdystf · Post by **;ivlunsdystf** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:36 am

dynomike wrote:
It was mentioned by someone above that once the band realizes you can edit things, they play a lot worse. I disagree with this, in my own experience. Most of the time I try to let the band know that I can fix some things (this is for live-off-the-floor tracking mostly), but it will take less time for them to do it right than for me to make it right. Usually once they know that I can fix little things, there's no more stopping in the middle of a take, they relax a bit more, and play the takes better overall even though they did add an extra repetition of that bridge section.

Yeah! Knowing litttle stuff can be fixed eliminates the "all or nothing" pressure and enables a person to relax and just play! Yeah!

Put that concept in the term paper for sure. When is this thing due anyway?

lyman · Post by **lyman** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:54 am

ipressrecord wrote:
What I have done, mostly due to time constraints:

? Slid (nudged) drum hits or instruments into time if they are early or short

What I will not do:

? Auto-Tune instruments or vox

can you explain the distinction you make here, ipressrecord? i don't see the difference between nudging a drum hit to be on the beat versus nudging a sung note to be in pitch.

trodden · Post by **trodden** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:56 am

damn, this fucking discussion again. fucking boring.

??????? · Post by **???????** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:01 am

trodden wrote:damn, this fucking discussion again. fucking boring.

And you just bumped it right up to the top!

trodden · Post by **trodden** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:17 pm

??????? wrote:
trodden wrote:damn, this fucking discussion again. fucking boring.
And you just bumped it right up to the top!

just here, doing my job!

Jeff White · Post by **Jeff White** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:23 pm

lyman wrote:
ipressrecord wrote:
What I have done, mostly due to time constraints:

? Slid (nudged) drum hits or instruments into time if they are early or short

What I will not do:

? Auto-Tune instruments or vox
can you explain the distinction you make here, ipressrecord? i don't see the difference between nudging a drum hit to be on the beat versus nudging a sung note to be in pitch.

dynomike wrote: Should I *not fix this* even though I have the tools to do so? Even though the band will be dissatisfied if I don't? Even though the band doesn't have the budget to spend another day doing vocal punch ins because they go home unsatisfied with the vocal takes?

I dunno how some of you guys get away with having 'ethics' about not using autotune... the bands you record must have a lot more time / money, or are a lot easier to please than the ones i record.

Like I said, I'm a hypocritical asshole when it comes to this shit. It's the same thing, I know, I know.

Let me say that any *little fix* using any tool is ok, but when it becomes a crutch and replaces talent it is not ok.

Unless you are Aphex Twin. then you can do whatever the fuck you want to do and it is ok.

Jeff

i am monster face · Post by **i am monster face** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:18 pm

Yeah but...

they're paying me to make them sound like they sound in their heads...or...what they envision I can do to make it sound like it does in both of our heads. We all use a number of psychological tactics to evoke better performances from artists. Be it turning the lights down low (or high), setting a specific room temp, or any little other thing you do...these are all tools and methods to bring out better performances and therefore a better product as the end result.

I generally see the edit tools as another form of those things. Why not? Like many other people have said...it's at our disposal...and what we're looking for is a good, cohesive product that allows the artist to sound like they want to. Not sound like I want them to.

Ah shit, I'm done with this I guess. Nothing I can say that other, smarter people haven't said.

ian

JGriffin · Post by **JGriffin** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:37 pm

i am monster face wrote:what we're looking for is a good, cohesive product that allows the artist to sound like they want to. Not sound like I want them to.

This should be applied globally on this board.

tomberdude · Post by **tomberdude** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 5:01 pm

dwlb wrote:
i am monster face wrote:what we're looking for is a good, cohesive product that allows the artist to sound like they want to. Not sound like I want them to.
This should be applied globally on this board.

+1 to dwlb.

I don't have any issues with a clients performance, as any drum alignments, reamping (for the tone deaf guitarists), and other such methods are performed while they are gone. they have yet to notice.

however, the drummer in my band knows all the tricks that we do and only performs to those tolerances. it doesn't help that he works in a factory environment that employs that same thinking...

EDIT: I forgot to mention that he is an amazing drummer, just kinda lazy about recording.

visible cow · Post by **visible cow** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:16 pm

Personally I find that editing my way to perfection is a lot more difficult than just playing the part. Many a long, painful editing session has ended with 20 minutes of playing my instrument......did that come out right?

So count me in for "disagree". I feel that recording, and all of it's tricks, has only made me a better player with better ears. (Maybe that's not the case for other people?)

I will say that since I'm in a two-man band, something only made possible by multi-tracking, I am missing the experience of interacting with a group........but since "hell is other people", maybe that's not so bad.

So yeah, "disagree".

Kindly Killer · Post by **Kindly Killer** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:03 am

These tools are good for everyone. Tone-deaf rockers and starlets can finally yield a product that you can stand to listen to, if necessary, and hardcore musicians have more options for fixing the blemishes on an inspired take.

If someone is going to rely on these tools, I'd say he wasn't a musician to start with. Musicians live for performance, not recording.

??????? · Post by **???????** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:20 am

ever notice that the people who start these threads on oft-rehashed topics, usually because they need help with something, often are nowhere to be found after the first post? I get the feeling that we've taken this topic to three full pages for nobody but ourselves.

JGriffin · Post by **JGriffin** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:13 pm

??????? wrote:ever notice that the people who start these threads on oft-rehashed topics, usually because they need help with something, often are nowhere to be found after the first post? I get the feeling that we've taken this topic to three full pages for nobody but ourselves.

a good point, that. Perhaps we should not feed the trolls.

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?

Who is online