General Music Chat

I may be off base here, but consider this: A few years ago, "Matt", a friend of mine (who played guitar) moved back into town after being away for several years. He brought with him a CD on which he supposedly played the lead guitar parts...which were pretty impressive. He asked me to let him in my band, which I did. He then told me that he couldn't play with my original guitarist, so I kicked out the guy who was already in the band-partly because "Matt" was a good friend (I thought), but also because of the accomplished playing that he had demonstrated to me on the CD.

Anybody want to guess what happened next?

One day, I was browsing online and decided to look up "Matt's" old band. In a matter of seconds I discovered that not only were they not from where he had lived, not only had they been around a lot a longer and recorded far more albums than he had said, but...

DUH! He was never in the band and had not played on the album. Furthermore, "Matt", despite playing guitar for well over ten years, could barely play in time nevermind the right key.

I still hate the guy.

Why am I telling you folks this story? It's not to prove what an idiot I can be (although I'm sure that's apparent). No, it can be summed up in one word: MISREPRESENTATION.

Ask yourself this: Why are you recording? To spread YOUR music? To have a representation of what YOU are capable of?

If it's not really you, why bother?

I know I'm writing a novel here, but my point is that if you are going to go to the lengths of recording and gigging, you have to have SOME level of consistency. I firmly believe that the music industry (not just the big labels, but us little guys, too) is dying, and a big chunk of that comes from the fact that everyone wants to take shortcuts.

"Don't learn the songs."
"Don't have a PERFORMANCE."
"Just slap it all together and go out and abuse the crowd."
"Damn, why won't anybody hire me to play anymore?"

God, I'm ranting...sorry.

If you don't do the milli crap, have your bassplayer fill the voids by staying a little busier or by extending note lenghts.
Using note lenghts/duration won't add nor remove anything, it just fills some holes.
The bass staying busy by outling the chords instead of just roots, or playing up the neck (higher register) can compliment you or follow you to a certain extent, once again filling holes.
The trick is, whatever any other instrument can do or add to not have it sounding empty when compared to your recording.

BTW, I am still recovering from yesterday's hangover...I'm a bit cranky.

Man Joseph that just sucks. Puts me in mind of something I heard my father say once.
Dont mistake that because I'm a Christian means I wont kick your ass.
Me thinks your guitar (not) playing (not) friend, needs to be slapped around some.

If it's a recording, it should sound like you are right there playing it.

If it's live, it should sound like you are right there playing it.

get it?

75 layers is wonderful and I bet that sounds wonderful, but if you do it live, it won't sound wonderful.

You always need to sound wonderful.
3 parts to sounding the way you want to.
1) BE IN TUNE. the whole band.. (duh)
2) KNOW YOUR PART(S)
3) Know your tone and have it ready to go..

Remove one of those and you will come off looking like a dummy or worse.

If you don't do the milli crap, have your bassplayer fill the voids by staying a little busier or by extending note lenghts.
Using note lenghts/duration won't add nor remove anything, it just fills some holes.
The bass staying busy by outling the chords instead of just roots, or playing up the neck (higher register) can compliment you or follow you to a certain extent, once again filling holes.
The trick is, whatever any other instrument can do or add to not have it sounding empty when compared to your recording.

Well said, Franny! I can't tell you the hard work I've put in being a bass player in a 3-piece covering the Dead or Phish or just about any group, but when it comes together it's magic. I've played a lot of rhythm licks on the bass, while trying to hold the bottom, too. it's a blast!

Personally I don't think a studio has any business changing a song just because they think it sounds better.

And so what if a part goes wrong and you have to reply it? Studios are difficult places in the first place and there is a lot of pressure on getting it right first time owing to financial resources.

Going further than this I would feel it very demeaning if someone came along and who I were employing for the most part change something I had played a part in just for a quick fix or gag on his or her part.

I talk from experience when out new age band I was in some years ago decided it would be nice to advertise that we had used a drum machine on one track ERM!!! That was the fun part, I totally showed them what I was doing, it cost us an arm and a leg owing to teaching them too.

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Studios are there to produce a sound not write a song. If they were that good they would be doing other things right?

Ah that felt better.

And blame it on your producer. He put the damn stuff in there. That was just a bad move on his part. He shouldn't have done that unless he were going to try to talk you into adding another player.

..And the producers aren't going on tour with the band, so what do they care? They've got their "wankery" for THEIR portfolio.

This is why I don't trust producers. In the end, they care about the studio work and to hell with the live act.

I have always produced all of my recordings, and I think about this when writing the tune and when in the studio. How will it sound live? Is the part I would play live strong enough to carry the song without all the layering? Recording and playing live are two different activities that ultimately must support each other.

The reason ppl hire a producer is to enhance &/or improve the sounds they can make in the studio. If you're that worried about sounding exactly like you do live, then simply produce it yourself. Many bands do. In fact, most indie artists do, as far as I can tell.

I see nothing inherently wrong with a producer adding in instruments or extra vocals. That's part of the job. As pinkflame said in the beginning of this thread - the producer didn't change the lead that much. He simply doubled the guitar part in places. She didn't mind the changes, as a recording. Hearing her live playing a single guitar solo instead of a doubled lead like the one on the CD shouldn't piss anyone off at all. The final verdict on any finished recording should always be the performing act, & if he/she/they like it, I say go for it, no matter whether or not you can reproduce it to the note live.

We come back to one of the greatest questions of all time - would the Beatles have been as great, or as accepted, or as timeless, without George Martin's incredible productions? I really don't think so, myself. Did they sound like that live? No, they didn't. They were no less of a top-notch act, though. I don't recall anyone complaining that they didn't sound right.

Ditto the Who. Fantastic productions (thank you, Pete!), yet they didn't try to reproduce the recordings live when they played Quadrophenia or Tommy songs. When these songs are played live, the audience's ear & memory often fit the "missing parts" in, anyway.

You "purists" will be missing out on a lot of unbeatable recordings if all you ever do is stick with your live sound. You may as well only release live CD's. What a waste!

I probably went overboard...
However, I do feel that what Jimmy said about the recording and the live act ultimately having to support each other, well, that sums it up for me.

PinkFlame-IMO, no. It wouldn't make me think your band sucks-unless the leads you are referring to were way above your playing level. Then I would be suspicious and disappointed.

Perhaps I missed reading that Phil, apologies.

Even so we all have ears and we pay people to enhance it. If adding guitars makes people sit up and think about it, though I doubt it, kudos. But I truly think if you go in with a set idea you not need Steven Spielberg to direct it for you. (No I know he didn't do this).

There are cases of course when this will be different, but then we are talking millions of dollars.

I see nothing inherently wrong with a producer adding in instruments or extra vocals. That's part of the job. As pinkflame said in the beginning of this thread - the producer didn't change the lead that much. He simply doubled the guitar part in places.

I'll be the very 1st to point out when something is overproduced, cuz it usually is done to cover up a lack of ability in the recording artist, & ALWAYS reduces the quality of the recording. Lots of local acts that produce their own CD's sound like amateurs for that very reason, Good, even great producing can't cover up for bad songs or poor musicianship (although with today's technologies, that, too, is being overcome, unfortunately, as singers who can't hold or even catch a frikken note are enhanced & tuned by the studio wizards, & ditto the stupid guitarists who can't tune their own axe).

But a good producer is pure gold. If you like the work, if it's pleasing to your audience, if his work helps you sell your wares, then pay him for what he's done for you, & laud his work to one & all. They are a rare breed in many many modern recordings of stripped down bland sound.

One final point from me: most touring bands have support musicians. Extra guitar players, keyboardists, drummers, etc. This is something that we can use too. If the sound is a little thin have a buddy sit in with you when you play "live". I'm sure you have a guitar player friend who could play some rhythms or do some leads, and that would fill out your sound live. A lot of guitar players I have met are reluctant to let additional guitar players steal their thunder. That's too bad; the goal is good music, not hero worship.