recreating demoes and "demo-itis"

[shedshrine]

A few great stories from Rick Beato concerning artist's attachment to demo nuances.

[winky dinglehoffer]

You have expectations about what certain music is supposed to sound like. If you're a fan of, say, early Residents records, the idea of hearing a better-played, higher fidelity version of that music just seems flat out wrong. And I think "demo-itis" is a similar phenomenon. You hear something cool that's maybe not perfectly recorded or even necessarily perfectly played, and after a while the imperfections become part of the character of the music. On the flip side, our expectations and opinions of "good"-sounding music are not built on absolutes either--notions of what sounds "great" tend to change over time--whether it's changes in recording approaches, vocal stylings, lyrical content, arrangements, song structures. I'm not sure that there are any aesthetic absolutes for music--in fact, there are times when I think the listener's expectations are almost as crucial as the music itself. And the listener's expectations are themselves quite malleable and mutable.
So maybe demos are indeed perfect to the right listener at the right time.
But maybe the lesson is to be more open to the directions a piece of music might take--regardless of whether it fits your initial expectations, or fits what it's "supposed" to sound like.

Of course, you may also have expectations about where you wanted this forum thread to go. And maybe this reply is challenging or even contradicting your expectations. If this is the case, try rereading it about a kajillion times until you couldn't imagine things going any other way. And once you've done that, I'll come back and revise it, and you'll be disgusted because my "improvements" ruined the magic.

[shedshrine]

Yeah, but see, that reply, all typed out like that, articulate as it is but shorn of all its world weary gravitas and sense of a journey, is just a pale shadow of the original, a desiccated shell carelessly stepped upon and rendered to dust.
No, I want to hear that reply as it was initially brought into this world. Recorded, before being written out, as a captured voice dictation through a cheap broken radio shack mic that passed intermittent signal onto a stretched out worn Maxell tape cassette loosely housed in a trashed partially functioning Fostex four track with oxidized heads and inconsistent capstan speed dubbed digitally through an incorrectly installed 1992 sound card with random drop outs and frequent static blasts. The sheer overwhelming humanity of that voyage, in total..
That’s the sound of that statement’s sonic truth, man.

[Rodgre]

I will check that Beato link in a bit, but I wanted to chime in here as I've had a lot of experience with both Demo-itis and Rough-mix-itis. Last week, I ran into a situation where the client had a bad case of Rough-mix-itis. It wasn't so much about there being some sort of magic captured in the rough mix, or that there were little "mistakes" that made things feel human. This was a case of just being so used to hearing the track one way, that psychologically, any deviation from that makes the brain go "oh no! something is wrong!" There should be a difference between "wrong" and "different" but in this case, there was none.

Anyone who has worked with a client, not just for yourself, you've surely dealt with this sort of thing. There is a lot of psychology involved in recording and a lot of insecurities that come out. I feel like my job, as a producer, is to be aware of this and somehow tread the line between doing what the client says they want, and laying it out there for the client to understand what *I* think the SONG wants. This is assuming that I've been hired for my feedback and production skills. I pick which battles are worth the fight, so to speak. Sometimes you get a sense that a client has an attachment to some aspect of a demo because it's special. Other times you can spot that it's an insecurity thing. They might need someone to tell them that something is either good as it is, or needs to be improved, because they're not sure.

That's more specifically about rough mixes. Demos that are basically semi-finished versions of the song are another issue, that in 2020, I find less of a problem. I had a frustrating time in the early 2000s trying to re-create very hard-fought demos that we did on ADAT and a Mackie 8-bus once the project was signed and brought to the biggest and best studios in NYC to do "the album". Trying to recreate the relaxed "first thought/best thought" vibe of the demos was nearly impossible working in a $3000 a day studio. The spontaneity and excitement were totally gone and replaced with a blasé attitude combined with major label pressure to make everything "perfect" and strip the songs of their edges, second-guessing everything that we had done in the past. Even then, however, I brought a box full of CD-Rs and DVDs of the demo sessions that we could import into our current Pro Tools sessions to reference, and sometimes even use an original bass or vocal track. That may have saved us a few times, but at the end of the day, I wasn't mixing and we were at the mercy of a mixing engineer who had never heard the demos and didn't care to. In fact, we (the producer and myself, as "additional engineer") had to fight over every detail we thought was important to the mix. At one point, we walked into the control room as he was starting a mix for the day and we were blown away by how good it sounded. We told him so. "You're on the right track! You're super close!" He immediately pressed stop and looked at us, clearly upset. "I haven't even done anything yet. You're completely tying my hands of what I was planning to do." He was throwing the baby out with the bathwater because he had to do "his thing" and we just wanted a great mix (which was merely a matter of putting the faders up because it was recorded so well).

I digress. In 2020, we can often START with the demo and replace and change whatever we want to, always having the option of reverting back to an earlier version of the session (as long as you save different versions along the way) if we feel we have veered too far away from home. I think arming the artists with the ability to home-record their demos with a good basic knowledge of standard skills to use in a DAW like Pro Tools (file naming, click tracks), it's a no-brainer to be able to start, not from square one, but from a finished demo that we can build upon. The thought that we can always revert something back to the original makes the artist relax a little and not worry about taking chances on a new direction.

Sorry for babbling
Roger

[Scodiddly]

Recorded, before being written out, as a captured voice dictation through a cheap broken radio shack mic that passed intermittent signal onto a stretched out worn Maxell tape cassette loosely housed in a trashed partially functioning Fostex four track with oxidized heads and inconsistent capstan speed dubbed digitally through an incorrectly installed 1992 sound card with random drop outs and frequent static blasts.

I've got a plugin that does that. Even adds noise!

Ahem.

This is all part of the usual problem with commercial music production and the places where it's done. Not only is it expensive, but you as the artist have to grind what you do through a very fine mill of technical considerations - not just "technical" meaning the technology, but "technical" in your playing and singing. The demo usually happens in a much happier place where you have much less in the way of pressure happening, and the emotion lingers even if nobody else can hear it in your demo recording. *You* remember it.

In an way it was better when the studio just had the Funk Brothers or the Wrecking Crew play your track brilliantly, and you just came in and sang your part. The final product was played by people who could play at a high technical level while being relaxed and not lose the vibe.

[kslight]

I love demos, rough mixes, and for the same reasons I love (recording) concerts either properly or bootlegging them, and I absolutely do listen to them again, for all their flaws.

One of the best functions to come out of digital recording is how I can (and do) save every revision in its own file so when we have produced our song to death I can always go back to the original spark.

[Rodgre]

One of the best functions to come out of digital recording is how I can (and do) save every revision in its own file so when we have produced our song to death I can always go back to the original spark.

Exactly. If this is part of your process, it's probably helpful (crucial?) to make notes somewhere (file names?) that give you an idea of what was particular about this version or that version. I've definitely gone down rabbit holes of "was that version v.04 or v.11 that had the shuffle beat in the bridge?"

Hard drives being so cheap nowadays, there is no excuse to not do this. It's not exactly the same as not committing to a mix as one can do with an endless amount of tracks and plugins to tweak and never settle on anything, but giving yourself a breadcrumb trail to get back to where you were yesterday if you need it is very useful.

Roger

[winky dinglehoffer]

Sometimes the best thing an earlier version of a track can do is allow you to realize you're over-romanticizing that version. I think sometimes one can remember the feeling of making something more than the actual sound of it. Of course, sometimes that feeling is a big part of what you're trying to communicate.

[Magnetic Services]

I've got a plugin that does that. Even adds noise!

#zing

[losthighway]

Sometimes the best thing an earlier version of a track can do is allow you to realize you're over-romanticizing that version. I think sometimes one can remember the feeling of making something more than the actual sound of it. Of course, sometimes that feeling is a big part of what you're trying to communicate.

This is exactly what I was thinking. There is often a moment, or several moments of creative breakthrough in the demo process. There is a rush of endorphins where everyone involved goes 'Oooooh, this is our SONG! It goes like this and it's actually AWESOME.' There is no recreating that feeling, and expecting to get the feeling while you pick at, revise, and perfect the final document of it is one of the cyclical emotional challenges of the recording arts.

The front half of making a record is full of joy, rushes, breakthroughs, laughs (maybe some crises too), while the back half is full of diligence, doubt, analysis, and negotiation. That's why some records never get finished.

[MoreSpaceEcho]

Recorded, before being written out, as a captured voice dictation through a cheap broken radio shack mic that passed intermittent signal onto a stretched out worn Maxell tape cassette loosely housed in a trashed partially functioning Fostex four track with oxidized heads and inconsistent capstan speed dubbed digitally through an incorrectly installed 1992 sound card with random drop outs and frequent static blasts.

I've got a plugin that does that. Even adds noise!

He jests, but: https://www.audiothing.net/effects/wires/

Good thread and great replies from everyone. I don't have much to add, except that awhile back a good friend/client of mine and I were talking about U2, and specifically about "Zooropa".....I said I liked that it sounded kinda unfinished, definitely has a demo vibe compared to their other records. And my friend said he always tries to keep "some of that zooropa unfinishedness" to his records. Which was funny cause his records are about the most hyper-produced records I can think of. But he tries!

Anyway it was a good reminder about keeping things a little loose, letting a few seams show.

Shed I owe you an email, sorry!

[Recycled_Brains]

Why is it always implied that a demo is inherently flawed, in terms of a performance? Maybe it's not imperfections that the band is attached to, maybe it's legitimately the best the song has ever sounded.

I actually avoid demo-ing stuff altogether. I don't see much point in it honestly. We rehearse our songs meticulously and write slowly. By the time the structure is fully established, it's been vetted plenty. Little nuances within that structure are liquid though, and might drift here and there right up until the final take (and that continues after the record is made in the live context). I'd rather be encountering little surprises and imperfections like that when I'm doing it for real, than be trying to recreate them from a recording I tracked 6 months ago. That doesn't interest me at all, and I think having that on my mind would bum me out and make it hard to be in the moment.

[Recycled_Brains]

This is exactly what I was thinking. There is often a moment, or several moments of creative breakthrough in the demo process. There is a rush of endorphins where everyone involved goes 'Oooooh, this is our SONG! It goes like this and it's actually AWESOME.' There is no recreating that feeling, and expecting to get the feeling while you pick at, revise, and perfect the final document of it is one of the cyclical emotional challenges of the recording arts.

I get that feeling once the vocalist comes in for that first time with his parts all written and laid out and we've gone from a rhythm section riff writing crew to a full band again. We all start head-banging a little harder than usual. haha.

You're right about all that stuff though.

I would argue, that you get that same feeling the first time you hear your shit "properly" recorded as your intended final version, IF that is the moment you first hear it from that 3rd party perspective. I remember vividly working on our last record and the dudes being like "fuck, THAT'S what you play there?" and and that rules. Same thing happens to me with the drums/bass/vocals. Suddenly it's like you're hearing the songs for the first time again, even though you've sweated and frozen your balls off in a disgusting practice space rehearsing them ad nauseam for 3 years.

[vvv]

In terms of commercial product, I love outtakes, which are often just fine if not quite polished. Sometimes they are better, even, than the formal release (Sticky Fingers and even the Exile outtakes are fine example, with the latter being augmented 30+ years later).

And I like demos because I like the process.

And the re-mix/re-master trend can serve that purpose to some extent, also (ex., which version of Exile do you prefer?).

Steve Wynn* (Dream Syndicate, Miracle 3, Baseball Project, Gutterball, Danny & Dusty) just released a fascinating and excellent 10 CD box set of most of his solo and Miracle 3 records, with about 10 demos or outakes per album. Most are demos, and they are very cool, altho' some are not going to be sought out to listen to again. But I love listening to a song go from voc/gtr/drummacheen to finish. A great example re demos/outtakes is the inclusion of some of The Suitcase Sessions recordings on Melting in the Dark; I'm a big 11th Dream Day Fan, used to know those guys, but Come totally outplayed 'em and their tracks became the commercial release. (Altho' Suitcase is totally worthy, if you can find it in its entirety.)

As for me, I work with what I do/have, and if it doesn't work (like my current experiment with DI simulator guitars where 2/5 might be kept), I do it again - totally different paradigm to most commercial and even indie released stuff, I'm sure.


* Additionally noteworthy here for calling the original mixes of Exile, "the Bible".

[Nick Sevilla]

I have had experience both with artists who know it is a demo, and treat it as such, i.e. as a sketch of a song.
Which only contains the melody, harmony, rhythm components, and is as barebones as possible.

I have also dealt with artists who come in with a more pre produced demo, in which case I do ask them for a multitrack,
if possible, to extract the parts they like, and then to continue forward from there. I typically never erase parts, I just
make a new session file version, and also keep detailed notes on a spreadsheet, when needed, especially if there is a lot
of work to do before mix time.

I always have conversations so things are clear on both ends, regarding keeping demo stuff, replacing demo stuff, etc.

When I have had to mix, and not replace anything, and am given a mix reference, I always ask both what the artist loves / likes
about the reference mix, and what they expect to be changed. I start from there, and really try to keep what they love from
the reference rough mix. In most cases, I do get a multitrack, or can talk to the previous engineer about getting a multitrack
with the individual tracks PRINTED with the processing already, to save time in the mix. This is a different version multitrack,
in case I do have to re process an individual track later on, if / when the artist changes their mind (and sometimes they do).

So, I can end up with two multitrack sessions, one, with clean recordings with zero processing other than what happened during the recording, and a second version with whatever they did "mix" wise as they worked on the song. That is an ideal situation.