This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.

All users can post to this forum on general music topics.

Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace

#68449 by Black57
Mon May 25, 2009 5:56 pm
Capt. Scott wrote:If you layer your music and punch out the material you like/dislike, you mean.

No, I disagree. I prefer a LIVE take.

Know your music or don't waste time while you are paying by the hour.

An amateur goes into the studio not knowing exActly how the music goes.

If you are prepared, you already wrote your music and your band has practiced it as well. Don't dumb it down by taking whatever crap slipped out of your head, down your fingers and onto the recording. I prefer to do it again, rather than chop it all up.

If you're making mistakes while doing studio work, I would contend that you don't know your own tune well enough to play it consistently and get a good recording.

I want live music, thus what gets recorded is the same copy that gets played. If I have to patch, edit and layer, it's not to be a copy that can be reproduced live in a faithful fashion, thus not true...

If you were to create a copy that can be played accurately and yet you had to alter significantly, it is not just plain sloppy work not to rerecord it?

Any producer can lay 75 layers etc., but just how do they perform that live and accurately? No, be able to play it from top to bottom, no surprises and you'll get copy you can be proud of instead of being surprised if it's good.

You don't have to do it all at once, but make sure the meat and potatoes of it is done. (You want to go in later and drop a solo over it, no problem)


I'm not talking about dumbing it down. I mean if there is something messed up by a cracked note or something that is just not perfect, you can just take out the segment and redo it. Not only do I have my stuff well rehearsed, it is written out measure by measure. So then I know exactly where in the music the mistake can be fixed...that is if there are any mistakes at all. And mistakes aren't always mistakes as in wrong notes, they are just some things that are not quite cohesive for the final release.

My last recording was done with 6 flute parts for a flute choir composition. If the fifth flute segment that occurs in the 37th measure ( 2:40 ) came off a little sharp or too loud etc, I can go right to and fix it instead of replaying the whole track. ANd if something comes out in the recording that is better that what I originally composed, I can easily change the original. Or if the third flute is playing too much vibrato, I can record just the third flute part with the vibtrato fixed. If you are going to work in the recording studio, you should be playing right notes. Playing right notes doesn't mean that the music is right...right?

#68475 by jw123
Tue May 26, 2009 3:24 pm
My band when we record we try to get a good drum, bass, rythym guitar tracking done together old school live in a take or two. We go to work with pro tools to some extent. Out meter is not that great, live we vary tempos with the emotion that is going on at the time. I like that old school vibe to the music.

A lot of todays music sounds way to processed and sterile to me. If you cant hit the notes live why cover it and do it on the record.

#68480 by ColorsFade
Tue May 26, 2009 4:43 pm
[quote="Chippy"]

My take on this was that if something sounded good would you tamper with it? Not timing essentially related.



[quote="Chippy"]

The answer is, "It Depends". My first reaction is - yes, I would tamper with it if the note (or notes) in question were not my original intention. Again, I'm coming at this from the angle of making a record, and on a record that's the final cut. So I want it to be correct; to be an accurate representation of the song.

However, creativity can strike anytime and an artist has to allow for that. If the "mistakes" actually improved the song, then I'd leave them in. But at that point they are no longer mistakes - they are the correct way to play the song. They become permanent.

#68580 by Starfish Scott
Wed May 27, 2009 5:24 pm
JW for the win..

IF YOU CAN'T HIT IT LIVE, DO NOT TRY FOR IT ON THE RECORDING.

If someone plays well on the recording and you see them live only to be disappointed with your live performance, what do you think that says to your audience?

What you play live = what you record to the note or be prepared to answer why...

People notice everything at one time or another.

#68644 by Black57
Wed May 27, 2009 11:52 pm
I prefer to hear a little variation in a live performance as opposed to a recording. I don't want a live performance to sound the same as the CD I have sitting on my dresser. Afterall, if the performance is identical to the recording I could have just stayed home. However, the variations are not mistakes.

Mistakes should be something that I, the listener, cannot discern. Also note that when I am listeing to a performance I am not listening for mistakes, I am listening for the beauty of the performance, seriously. I would expect the artists to have the ability to meld the mistakes into the music without busting a sweat.In comparison to that, I instruct my students to not let mistakes ruin the piece of music. You make a mistake, keep going. Also once a mistake is made get your mind off of it or you will continue to make more mistakes. I force my students to keep going if they make a mistake because each time they get to a precarious spot, they pretty much repeat the mistake. It is as if the mind tells them to play something incorrectly. once they learn to play through a mistake, it will get corrected.

So as for the original question, do mistakes count. They count only if the performer expects the listener to realize it is there.

#68675 by philbymon
Thu May 28, 2009 4:09 am
Cap - did you used to play with the Eagles?

Sorry, but I, too, like variations from the recorded norm in a live performance. Longer leads, totally new directions, whatever - surprize me, live!

I am not a human juke box!

Nothing at all wrong with doing things different on a recording...nearly all my idols did it - The Who, Beatles, Stones, etc. Imagine trying to perform George Martin productions live with a 4-piece!

Live can be more stripped down & STILL be more energetic, while a recording can be, well, PERFECT.

#68718 by gbheil
Thu May 28, 2009 1:28 pm
ZZ Top always put on a good show, yet I often wondered what was "missing". Did not keep me from buying tickets.

#68719 by Black57
Thu May 28, 2009 1:35 pm
philbymon wrote:Cap - did you used to play with the Eagles?

Sorry, but I, too, like variations from the recorded norm in a live performance. Longer leads, totally new directions, whatever - surprize me, live!

I am not a human juke box!

Nothing at all wrong with doing things different on a recording...nearly all my idols did it - The Who, Beatles, Stones, etc. Imagine trying to perform George Martin productions live with a 4-piece!

Live can be more stripped down & STILL be more energetic, while a recording can be, well, PERFECT.


A recording should be perfect.

#68722 by gbheil
Thu May 28, 2009 1:47 pm
A recording should be representitive of the artist style and talents, yes.
Should it be mathmaticly perfect? Only if you can play it that way every time.
I think anyone who owns a Foghat LP, and has seen them live would understand what I mean.
It's like, what band is that on stage? LOL

#68726 by ratsass
Thu May 28, 2009 2:03 pm
sanshouheil wrote:A recording should be representitive of the artist style and talents, yes.
Should it be mathmaticly perfect? Only if you can play it that way every time.
I think anyone who owns a Foghat LP, and has seen them live would understand what I mean.
It's like, what band is that on stage? LOL


My brother saw Led Zeppelin years ago in Muscle Shoals and Page screwed the lead up on "Stairway to Heaven" so bad that they had to stop and restart it. I think drugs and/or alcohol was involved. ;)

#68786 by gbheil
Thu May 28, 2009 8:05 pm
Now that would just piss me off!

#68806 by Black57
Thu May 28, 2009 10:45 pm
Black57 wrote:
philbymon wrote:Cap - did you used to play with the Eagles?

Sorry, but I, too, like variations from the recorded norm in a live performance. Longer leads, totally new directions, whatever - surprize me, live!

I am not a human juke box!

Nothing at all wrong with doing things different on a recording...nearly all my idols did it - The Who, Beatles, Stones, etc. Imagine trying to perform George Martin productions live with a 4-piece!

Live can be more stripped down & STILL be more energetic, while a recording can be, well, PERFECT.


A recording should be perfect.


A recording should be perfect in the sense that there are no mistakes that ruin the piece. In a recording the same wrong, scratched, overblown even missing notes just get repeated each time the CD is played. You don't want that. You want to sell your fans flawless merchandise or they won't buy it. This is what I mean by saying that the recording should be perfrct. A CD represents the artist. It is your advertizing. If you don't clean up the mistakes it is like being a sharp dressed man with a booger hangin' out his nose. Blech. :oops:

#68822 by gbheil
Fri May 29, 2009 1:35 am
A booger? :lol:

I think we get side tracked on two different issues.
This is the way I see it.

1 No, I dont want to send out a pro recorded CD with "mistakes" ie: an R chord or something.

AND

2 No, I dont want a bunch off added sounds we wont be making at a live show. Nor do I want someone to run Rays voice through a computer and make him sound like. well, someone else.

I took lessons from a very respected guitar teacher in our area.
One of his top students had become a studio player and was touring with one of the girly pop stars. (sorry her name escapes)
This guitarest said to hear her real voice during sound check was dreadfull. And Everything they sold / performed was computer enhanced.
That is a lie. I'd rather my act suck, than live a lie.

#68825 by RGMixProject
Fri May 29, 2009 1:50 am
sanshouheil wrote:A booger? :lol:

I think we get side tracked on two different issues.
This is the way I see it.

1 No, I dont want to send out a pro recorded CD with "mistakes" ie: an R chord or something.

AND

2 No, I dont want a bunch off added sounds we wont be making at a live show. Nor do I want someone to run Rays voice through a computer and make him sound like. well, someone else.

I took lessons from a very respected guitar teacher in our area.
One of his top students had become a studio player and was touring with one of the girly pop stars. (sorry her name escapes)
This guitarest said to hear her real voice during sound check was dreadfull. And Everything they sold / performed was computer enhanced.
That is a lie. I'd rather my act suck, than live a lie.


Not sure if I would call it a lie. More like “computer enhancement” in the music production. 1953 chev vs. Ferrari Enzo, not necessarily better just enhanced in a different way. They both have 4 wheels and a engine. I'm not trying to make you change the way your feel but its not a lie.

#68838 by ratsass
Fri May 29, 2009 11:34 am
Now, Milli Vanilli...THAT was a lie. :shock:

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests