Ok I've had it. where have all the real musicians gone? RANT!
Home > Home Recording Forum > Talkin' Smack > Ok I've had it. where have all the real musicians gone? RANT!
Posted on Jul 08, 2006 09:14 am
jetglo
Member Since: Jul 23, 2004
I went to watch a friend's band practice. They were good.. in a rough around the edges aggressive manner.. sort of a California surf meets Everly Brothers meets Black Flag. I liked it.
So yesterday I go visit my friend after he's been working with this local "producer/engineer".. I get to hear a few songs since they've been working together. It sounds so slick and clean, polished etc. but powerful in terms of signal.. like a very high quality recording. But I learn that the parts were taken from several tracking sessions and then reassembled using the choicest of performances/parts.. then there's the issue of where some other instruments are coming from; they're other peoples performances just sampled, warped and replayed into a new song.
I have had it! I hate the fact that so many people are doing this and calling themselves musicians. Just because I can print something from my printer does not make me a sketch artist! But so many people make recordings that they can never pull off on the actual instrument.. and people ooohh and aaaahh about oh what a great musician.
I say if you are looping parts to make a song, sampling other artists (warped or not), you have NO business calling yourself a musician. And certainly should in no way be proud of any recording you make.
So my friend says... yeah but no one is actually playing all the way through songs anymore it's all looped, sampled parts. NNNNNOOOOOOOOOO!
Look I realize that the monster is off the table, computers have completely changed the recording industry.. but if you can't play a solid line for three or four minutes.. you don't belong on record.
I really fight for good performances. I am happy to spend as much time as it takes to get that perfect performance... and yeah I will punch in and out if I need to get rid of something.. but not alot in one song.. and I certainly would never put out a cd that I could not actually play.
This rant brought to you by the Luddites.
[ Back to Top ]
olddogMember
Since: Jul 02, 2003
Jul 08, 2006 03:20 pm It has been done forever, computers have made it easier and more accessible to a larger group of musicians, but looping samples, taking parts from better takes, punching in, etc, has been going on since at least the The Beatles and I'm sure even before.
How is punching in, which is apparently okay to you any different than taking a better take from a previous attempt/session?
Worry about whether the music is good, not how it was created.
Dan
jetgloMember
Since: Jul 23, 2004
Jul 08, 2006 05:29 pm breathe in 12345678910 breathe out.... ok ok
I suppose the most irritating thing about this is that the bar is so artificially high.
The ease with which one can build a song has insured that just about any recording is going to be a patchwork of performances or copied/pasted verses and choruses etc. To me however it IS important how the end result is achieved.
There are computer systems that will paint pictures with real paint.. texture and all.. and systems that will carve a statue using laser guidance for the cutting tools.. yeah perhaps a flawlss marketable product can be achieved quickly that way but is that the same as a human being actually creating and rendering the thing? Could I tell the difference? Probably not.. but if I knew, I would feel the computer rendered version to be less special.. it is the same with music.
I have a good friend who is a great drummer.. but has lately gotten into computer recording. Instead of actually playing a drum parts, he will instead create them on the computer using the kick he sampled and the snare and hi-hat etc etc all that yes he actually hit and sampled once upon a time.. however to me there is something so wrong with that. Especially when it comes to creating songs that he could not play. We argue (good naturedly) back and forth.. and yeah I think I know that I am just voicing something into the wind. But if I sample my bass or guitar and record songs using those samples.. writing things that I could never play, does that make me a great bassist? or guitarist? NO.. maybe a great mousist though.
LokiCone PokerMember
Since: Apr 07, 2002
Jul 08, 2006 05:34 pm Quote:
I say if you are looping parts to make a song, sampling other artists (warped or not), you have NO business calling yourself a musician.
This line bugged me a bit. For example in one of my songs up here the bass drum sound is actually the bass drum from another bands recording that I had cut and pasted into a sampler and triggered it as the bass. According to your theory I am not a musician for this?
Fact of the matter is, even with tape, many studios will comp together several takes to make the best final product. I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think it's fair to say anyone doing that isn't a musician. Music is about putting sounds together to make something pleasant to listen to, and if someones doing that then they are, in my book, a musician.
Jul 08, 2006 05:47 pm Buddy Rich, the great jazz drummer, once heard about a band that had just completed an album after spending 11 months on it. His opinion was (I paraphrase), "If it takes you 11 months to make an album, it may be time to consider some music lessons."
I can't argue with that.
Jul 08, 2006 07:31 pm I'm with Loki, that line bugged me too. I cut and paste my stuff all the time, I have no issues calling myself a musician.
Jul 08, 2006 08:27 pm Well I don't understand why everyone would neccesarily wish to call themselves a "musician". I play the piano, guitar, bass and a few other instruments but I call myself a Composer. I do think that using purchased loops etc. is a cheap way of making music and it is kind of a sham to play it all up as your own. Thus I never do this. However, I believe that the final result is the most important thing.
A recording is supposed to represent the musical ideas in your head and how they come together. I don't think that whether you can play certain pieces fast and flawlessly every time matters so much in the end. The act of writing and recording is more of a composer's world. The musicians are there to carry out the act, but if it can be done in other ways or if copying and pasting helps, then it is simply technology taking its course...in my opinion, it can even open doors for bigger and better things.
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Jul 08, 2006 10:21 pm Well of course as one who calls myself a musician I have an opinion like all other ego maniac musicians, lol at self.
As a musician the people we entertain (key word) are by vast majority not musicians. Try to pardon my sinicism per my discust with the GP, but they are bored morons. Ok that's a streatch as they surely can do things I can not. We opened for Grand Funk and Forigner today at a local festival. A whole bunch of folks who have heard us came up and told us how good we where. Why? Because local radio WCSX told them we where good. We were last up for sound check after Farner and others took hours. We got five minutes. We played, the sound system sounded like extreamly loud mud, and yet the crowd went wild. One woman was crying about one patriotic sickening sweet piece we do. Did any of them hear any good music? Hell no! They heard magnified mud. They had an experience. The crowd, they hype, being seen as well as seeing, bla bla bla. Same thing when they sit in their living room and spin a cd. Their 'feel good' is not the same criteria by which a musician would critique music. So fine. Just like any other succesfull business, I find out what my client wants. And yes it is loops, synthetic sounds, artificially perfect performances, bla bla bla. My success is in providing what my client (the GP) wants. Is all that an art. Ab-ah-so-lute-ly! Is it necessaraly musicianship...no.
I asked my wife how we sounded after the gig. She said good and went on to tell me everything her and the other band wives talked about. She had a great experience. Does she share my musicianship...NO! Did she hear that great trill I did on the poped G string in the 3rd refrain? Are you kidding me. That was for me.
jetgloMember
Since: Jul 23, 2004
Jul 08, 2006 11:17 pm Goldenmean says:Composer
Well yeah to me that makes sense. It WAS unfair of me to say -no business calling oneself a musician-. Perhaps this fact of modern recording, sampling copy/paste, belongs in another category according to my thinking.. that of composer.
I have to say that I have benefited from punch-in besides it's normal use.. but as a composition tool.. when a mistaken punch-out mark created a very cool little bass fill... which I promptly learned on the bass. But I am pretty sure I would not have thought of it on it's own. So I can see the value (for me) of punch as a compositional tool as well as pasting parts here and there to try out different arrangements.. all in the field of composing.
I would never use sampled lines in a finished product though.. but that's just me I should say. If I put out a cd and it is full of wild constructions that I could never really play.. I would feel like a sham, as someone else said.
Wouldn't it really suck to find out that your favourite player doesn't really play that well and that it is all just studio trickery?
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Jul 08, 2006 11:39 pm Get real dude. Listen to Britney Spanial at the stadium when her sound track went out. It's entertainment. In her case soft porn.
Jul 08, 2006 11:55 pm I believe you blur the line between band/live culture and actual music. If we are talking about mainstream bands, and say I am infatuated with Guns n' Roses...well maybe Slash really can't play this crazy solo I heard on an album, but I liked it and it is on no other album. So who is to care whether some guy who calls himself "Slash" can play it or not? Only crazy fans who idolize him as a legendary player. I liked the music, and thats just what it is...music, not a venue to brag ones abilities as a musician.
One could make the argument that the production companies try to sell their artists in a certain way and call them talented. But if you like the music only until you find out that the blonde chick can't actually play it, well then you never really liked the music. Just her image as a whole.
Lastly, like I said, musicians/players in my opinion are simply a means to an end. They play what the composer writes and if there is nobody who can do it flawlessly, then where else is there to turn? It is not a sham to simply use certain tools in any way. But for a musician/player to claim they played something they didnt, then obviously that is a sham. But if they composed the piece, they could easily take credit for that.
Jul 09, 2006 12:40 am I played drums in bar bands for over 20 years, and Walt's last entry explains exactly why I exited the "music business". Voiceovers are much more fun, and the girls still love you.
Will someone please give me a good reason to set up my old Rogers kit?
olddogMember
Since: Jul 02, 2003
Jul 09, 2006 01:18 am Well Walt, I have never understood the attitude that the GP are a mindless bunch of zombies.
Do you honestly believe just because someone says you're good, or they're good, or anybody is good, that people believe it, much less like something for that reason? Do you like a movie because the trailer or a critic says it's great, or a food because someone else said it was great, I doubt it. We are all the general public in one way or another. If it weren't for the general public there wouldn't be much point in being in a band & playing in the first place would there. To hold your fans or people who listen to your music in such contempt is just unimaginable to me. I've been to alot of concerts, some had great sound systems, some not so great but the music has always managed to come thru.
People like a given music because they connect with it, they might not get to hear all the music that they might connect with, but that doesn't make what they have and do hear any less valid as great music to them, IMO.
Dan
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Jul 09, 2006 01:22 am I have not played live in years. But I can still create music, mostly on computer for the last however many years. I personally dont care to play it live and have no intention of doing so. And I as well will be more then happy to admit that indeed, I could not do it live the same as it is recorded. That in a nutshell is the genious of it all. I have not intention nor will I say I can do it live. Not without the aid of my computer. Which is being done on a daily basis these days. And drawing rather large crowds as well. People who want to listen and dance to the music dont really care if it is one guy onstage running several computers and synthisizers and what not. HE is still the one making the music, creating the musical atmosphere the people came to see and hear. And odds are good that if they didnt know he was doing it all with a computer, they will by the time they leave.
And they will most likely be amazed at what technology has brought us.
This new technology has given me the means to work with people from every corner of this planet, and I love that fact. Wether I give them 3 minutes of 6 15 second loops or I play 3 minutes straight through. They dont care, and neither do I. I can do so much more now then I could 10 years ago. And I am not ashamed to admit it is this technolgy, loops, cut and paste, punch in, time stretching, pitch correction, twisted samples, what ever. It takes my imagination to create it and make it something new.
And the fact that it can never be played physically live is more to make people stand up and go WOW that was amazing, how did he do that. And I will be the first to sit them donw and show them exactly how it is done. No problems there admiting technology gave me the power to do that.
Do I miss the simpler days of playing everything live without the magic and tricks I have now, yes indeed I do. But would I trade all this to go backwards and have it all over again. Absolutely not! I can still toss out the sync, the midi and all the littel tricks that fix things and just record straight ahead audio tracks without timing markers and the whole bit. And I have done that on more then one occasion. So even with the technology there, you can still choose to go the old way and just do it straight out. No one is forcing anyone to play to the measure, beat and tick of todays recording software.
Sorry if this sounded like a rant.
Noize
Jul 09, 2006 02:14 am I too played drums for about 20 years and haven't played in over 2 years now. I totally understand what you're saying. Lets face it, it all coincides with the fact that there are rarely guitar solos in modern pop music, reality TV starts are not stars, and reality as a whole has become increasingly mediated, to the point where plastic is becoming reality. I guess if I can sense it, it is real, even if it is recyclable.
When people started saying "keep it real",-I hate that phrase-, it marked the true end of keeping it real... or.. at least.. as real as the majority of the 20th century was. Also with this social change comes the "you are who you perceive yourself to be" syndrome. Suddenly, EVERYBODY is a star or whatever they THINK they've become. The social guidelines for success and entitlement have totally changed as well. Lets just hope that our social fabric has not been permanently torn due to this change.
The modern music business career seeker has to wear an increasing number of hats now-a-days . This driven by the more recent exponentially evolving nature of capitalism combined with technology booms. So, as I see it, when someone loops the snot out of a song, he takes off the musician hat he was wearing when he recorded his take(s), and puts on the composer-engineer-producer hat. For instance, I've always had mad respect for Electronica and anyone who can do it original and tastefully, or even a good trance DJ. Does he call himself a musician , maybe, maybe not, but I've learned to gain respect. Lets just say, indecent marketing is an opinion, not necesarily a crime by today's standards.
Another opinion I have is that many of the modern groups bite live. There is little depth of character out there anymore. Their shows are simply to support a company's marketing efforts and THATS IT ! Lets face it, there is more of a pull for technology in business that there is in art. Therefor EVERYTHING increasingly resembles business itself. Is it live, or is it Memorex!
Jul 09, 2006 02:16 am Maybe the very definition of "musician" is changing as times and tools change ? !
Izzy Dutch'The Flying Dutchman'Member
Since: Jan 11, 2006
Jul 09, 2006 04:02 am I'm a fan of everything simple and natural. Everything I record is one take and I'll never compose the best pieces of several takes, it all becomes so sterile perfect. Also I'm not a fan of a clicktrack or drummachine. (Altough I do use a drummachine out of necessity but that's cause I need drums somehow hehe). A real drummer with not 100% accurate metre can lift the song giving it it's push and feel. It can make your hands clap and your toes tap so to speak.
Today with all those programs like Beatslicer, samples and composing the best bits out of ten takes etc. it becomes so sterile. Almost all the bands I really like have recorded their albums in a live situation, simple and fast.
Jul 09, 2006 05:08 am Its funny but as you strive for perfection when playing live ie sound,timing and tight,its getting closer to a cd which was done in the studio.Then you go and watch a band that people have been raving about only to find they have a distorted pa,bad playing, no harmonies,crap timing but what they do have is radio packs and canter from side to side of the stage!Marvelous!Most live recordings are taken to the studio and improved keeping a live feel after all music is a form of communication.I only play live and have done since I was 13 but if anyone is going to create music in a studio useing all the tec they can,a musician can do it better, hopfully.
Jul 09, 2006 10:34 am In the studio anything realy go's,I get alot of young players who kinda sound ok and play ok and pay me to make them sound good,some of them realy don't know the song,so a comp is the best way to go.But! I tell them,...look, you are gonna have to learn to play this song and play it well,because how I make you sound in the studio is not the same as on a stage live,people will know you realy don't know the song and won't come back.
Alot of big name acts do loops and samples,to keep cost down.then learn the song at reheasal.When your paying $100,000.00 for a studio you realy don't have the time to sit and plunk out an ideal,you garb a sample or loop and go.
Ken Sutton
WaterFall Records.
www.waterfallrecordings.com
www.sweetkenny.com
Jul 09, 2006 12:11 pm Yeah, I've had to warn bands/artists of doing the same. Funny thing is the ones that I dolled up the most, were the ones that either quit playing, or completely left the scene all together. If you can leave the perception that you are actually good, whether you are or not, thats what the majority of the audience is looking for now. Only the very small hand full of true musicians/artists/producers in the crowd are gonna know if its lip synced/looped or whatever, especially if you get away from cultural meccas like NYC. The result is bands that craft music and show toward what the customer wants instead of saying **** it, this is our music, take it the way we force feed it to ya.
jetgloMember
Since: Jul 23, 2004
Jul 09, 2006 12:48 pm Walt says- "Get real dude. Listen to Britney Spanial at the stadium when her sound track went out. It's entertainment. In her case soft porn."
That's probably more to my point though. Not all that long ago if you wanted to cut and paste, you really rocked the reels, cut and tape, splice tape that is.. not quite as easy as what for a few hundred bucks can be achieved today on a digital recorder in a matter of seconds. So I guess I see things getting worse.. because everyday it gets easier and easier to scam a cd listener into thinking someone really can play.. because it is now SO easy to make a crappy band sound great. I can't imagine thinking this is okay. I know it's reality.. but it sucks.
I really don't think it is blurring the line. How many musicians going to cd want the "public" to know that it sounds good only because someone spent lots of time syncing and shifting mis-strikes and bad playing. It is not just about the end result.. the music. If that's really the case why hide a bassist backstage to play Syd Vicious's parts while he was onstage, why hide so many musicians out of sight to fill in behind U2's "Edge", why does MillieVanillie (sp?) get shunned into obscurity for lip-syncing, as for Britney Spears.. I know people who did like her music (including me) but slam her since her live performance scam became known, albeit early on. I ,and people I agree with, certainly feel a greater sense of respect for those performers who really are playing/singing. The list is surely endless.. a scam is a scam.
On a continuum, a few pitch shifts is pretty low on the egregiousness scale.. but I just hear so many people relying entirely on studio tools to come off as talented. Which of course they want to be called. There are not many who go through the trouble of putting out a cd AND have the desire to be called no-talent.
Jul 09, 2006 01:18 pm Right on, not just the bands or the musicians in them, but outside of classical and jazz, when I started playing, you actually had to know most of the chords and scales on guitar and rudiments on drums. to be considered good at what you do. I've spent countless hours in the practice room so I didn't have to rely on fakeness live. There is a standard there that was the basis for the common language of music. The last original group I was in broke up because the guitar player thought there was some easy way around rock solid practice, and it really upset me to throw away all that vested time becouse he chose mediocracy over excellence.
It recent music, drum fills sound the same, guitar riffs sound the same, R&B vocalists murder the national anthem at ball games trying to over embellish every other note, cause everyone out there is jocking this safe and secure formula which is a standard that has been set by the desire to make money, not music. Yes, its a very misfortunate dilemma and every so often someone true to the craft creeps to the top of the buiz and gets a little noteriety but those instances are becoming increasingly far and few between! I don't think your gonna see anymore groups like Rush or Yes in my lifetime, and that is a really sad thought !
Jul 09, 2006 02:44 pm OK, here's my input.
First off, I dont like those who LIE/DECEIVE/OTHERWISE TRY TO INFLUENCE others into a pretence as to something they are not. By this, I am talking about manufactured "bands" who do nothing but MIME and CANNOT actually sing/play at all!! That DOES piss me off and is nothing more than a big sham, usually setup to con kids out thier pocket money...there is no place for THESE types to call themselves musicians etc though to a point (and to SOME people) they are performing - so, if it keeps the kids happy, its all good BUT, I am also blissfully aware these types of acts are NOT musicians...or most of them..not sure if the original poster was makin this distinction but I do here as it is one of my pet hates.
BUT, moving on to the jist of overdubs, using the "Best parts" etc - my friend, this has happened for years. As OldDog says, this goes back to day one since multitracking was available and perhaps before. Indeed, the MASTERS of this were the Beatles. And I am SURE, NOBODY in the world would ever claim John, Paul, George or Ringo were not "real" "Musicians" or a real band!! In fact, in the later days, many songs didnt feature the whole band - some songs for example, were tracked (seperately unless either one of em grew extra arms and hands ;-) and laid down in this fashion..there is NOTHING wrong with this. It still boils down to a HUMAN being writing/performing and recording EACH part and laying it down.
Following this, we have now evolved so far that guys like me and others on this forum can do this with their very own music, in their own homes, in their own time and in fact, you can add the extra steps (which require a LOT of skill to do properly) of recording, mixing, mastering and PRODUCING the stuff on TOP of actually writing and performing it. That to my thinking, requires a HELL of a lot more skill and whatnot that the professional "musician" who may perhaps know every scale/chord known to man but knows jackshit about putting it all together, composing it, recording/mixing etc ... indeed, if it werent for such facilities guys like us on here wouldnt be having this chat on this here forum! I would suggest that some guys who visit and psot here have more skill than many actual singular instrument or "classically" trainied musiciains - I know guys on here who write the songs, play ALL the parts (as I say, in stages due to not having multiple arms/legs ;-) and putting it all together, mixing, mastering and producing from idea to finished CD. I do it myself when not playing with the band...its an art that I suggest, requires even more skill in more areas than just playing a song from start to finish. I would also add many guys on here, myself included can and have done and continue to also play songs from start to finish (be it in a band or by live takes for their songs) and they can INDEED do this...
Moving on, "computer" "digital" "electronic" music - this is often scorned on... I almost understand this as I used to do it myself. Until I realised how much MORE was involved in GOOD electronic music. Some of the finest electronic music I have heard has come from this fine forum and Noize2U has made a helluva lot of it..check his stuff. This requires musicianship and then some..composing, arranging, PERFORMING (albeit using a keyboard or a synth perhaps) STILL requires the user to input the notes, know WHEN and how to do this and put it all together.
Again, this is a much undervalued skill - I suggest, and one which all to many scorn as "crap" or "computerised" - be aware computers dont get of their ***, plug themselves in and just get down with it ;-) ... a person, someone at the end of the chain has to make em do it...they are but a means to an end, a tool...and a bloody good and useful one at that.
Finally, I would add, I do understand what the original poster is saying - I pour more scorn on those who PRETEND to be something they are not than those who do work in such ways and everyone knows this. I would say that the music business as a whole does this and even the finest live albums (recorded by bands or whoever LIVE) Will also have had elements of it touched up (using computers or technically advanced studio gear).
Its the way of the world...and its no bad thing. The folk "society" poured scorn on Bob Dylan for pluggin in and "selling out" going electric...Im sure the awards he has received over the years mean nothing with the scorn such narrow minded folks poured on him ;-) .... NOT!
Truth is, music, like everything else in this world evolves. And evolution is a good thing. Instruments have evolved, techniques have evolved and they will continue to do so...
BOTTOM LINE - if it SOUNDS good...it IS good ;-)
Peace.
Coco.
LokiCone PokerMember
Since: Apr 07, 2002
Jul 10, 2006 07:59 am Just got to thinking, Doesn't enya do everything on her CDs herself? That's a lot of overdubbing and beautiful music. I don't think anyone can argue that.
jetgloMember
Since: Jul 23, 2004
Jul 10, 2006 10:20 am Okay a few days ago I was on the forum clocktower, blasting away.. perhaps I was irrational with some points.. but after reading posts and thinking, I have derived some hopefully rational concepts that I am trying to communicate.
I suppose for me it comes down to intent. I have heard too many local musicians/bands that go into a studio with the intent to sound better than they actually are. So that the whole cd or song is hung on the framework of "lets hide the fact that these guys suck". If a band goes in well practiced and does their best and a few fixes are used to clean up some spots, I don't have a problem with that. It's the difference between this tool is used to make you good vs. this tool is used to cut re-recording time or preserve an otherwise good performance.
And , ok I see the point about saving expensive recording time.. if I know I can play solid measures of eighth notes for a long time and cut/paste a section to cut the possibility of error, alright.
Likewise .. perhaps as a purist, I do have a problem with people who instead of playing a part, RELY on the computer to play the part for them.. even IF they at one time sampled their own stick hitting a tom. There are too many albums out there with a drummer (for instance) listed as the player when it really is DELL or MAC. Again this is intent. Instead of getting behind their instrument and playing the part, they sit at the computer, write the part AND let it play the notes for them on the final track.. then call themselves the, say, drummer on the album.
Perhaps.. "drums composed by" or "drums programmed by" is more apt.
Using sampled parts of other peoples work, to me.. is a crime. If it is warped beyond recognition and used.. it is Lame. Okay I started climbing the tower again.
As for overdubbing, layering.. I don't have a problem with that.. as long as the musician can actually play those parts. like I thought it was cool that Johnny Marr (The Smiths) would bring another guitar player onstage to play the parts that were overdubbed.. that's being honest.
I think what I'll do is, if my friends play me a cd that I know they can't play.. I'll just say.. "hey that sounds really good.. like Britney Spears!"
CptTrippsCzar of Turd PolishMember
Since: Jun 20, 2006
Jul 10, 2006 12:01 pm This to me is an odd situation.
If I'm recording and it takes me 20 takes to nail a riff, then I must assume when playing it live I will get it right 1 of 20 times :) That is unacceptable to me. I try to keep things on the level that I can play it live, while having seizures and getting beer sprayed in my face.
Looping, punching in, cut n paste, I love the fact that it's available but I would rather do tons of takes. I don't mind a couple cut n pastes, but too many are unfun and time consuming.
I really agree with Jetglo's "trying to sound better than they are" statement. For me though, that is great. That means when I play a show with that band they will sound nothing like their cd and be a letdown, and we will sound pretty much like ours. What has two thumbs and appeals more to the crowd? THIS GUY!!
Jul 10, 2006 12:05 pm There's always been things that drive everyone crazy in this business,like bands on Top of the Pops that learn to play after stardom,then if at all.I know some guys who've written megga hits and been ripped off too,one of them was 'Sailing' that Rod Stuart sang,but discussions like this will make us more streetwise.
TadpuiI am not a crook's headMember
Since: Mar 14, 2003
Jul 10, 2006 04:29 pm Remember that music is art. The boundaries of the definition of art are always changing, and are almost always blurry. One man's poop-on-a-stick is another man's art.
I think of an album as analagous to a painting. Its layers of carefully considered textures, colors, and ideas that have all come together to form something interesting, personal, and unique. You wouldn't expect a painter to be able to stand in front of a crowd and flawlessly reproduce one of his works would you?
I think that whatever it takes to produce the basic unit of the musical art form (a song), so be it. Whether its a collage of samples and loops drenched in effects and aural trickery, or an untreated single-take recording of a man and his guitar, as long as the end product is interesting and moves me in some way I can't say that its bad or insincere.
Jul 10, 2006 06:41 pm I completly agree with Tadpui and I like your painter analogy. It takes such comparisons to put this into proper perspective. And if you ever want one of my poop covered sticks, just say the word :)
Jul 10, 2006 09:02 pm I want my doo-doo nugget necklace ASAP. I hear the deluxe edition is coming soon with the entire log on a chain. Pricey though.
Jul 10, 2006 11:29 pm Recent posts here have reminded me how astounding it feels to see a group who not only kicks *** on their cd but also live. Man, that combination is such a 1-2 knock out punch that I really take time to cherish the moment when having the honor to do so. Those are the bands and artists that leave a permanent impression on your psyche and make you truely proud to be human.
In regards to recording and being able to nail it without a gazillian takes or tons of editing ... remember ... the likelyhood of a large number of bands/record companies paying $100 - $1000 and hour for high-end studio recordings and not nailing their takes is minimal. Quite often the cost is too high to screw around anyways.
Rick Rubin has done it for years, he gets a group he's interested in signing a production contract with, rehearses with them until everyone in the room is best friends on a spiritual/musical level, then takes these bad *** performers into a studio(s) and the band lays down $500 to $2000 an hour and for studio time and comes out with a masterpiece. It wasn't until the advent of the home recording studio that people could afford to make the studio the practice room as well at the place to record anyways.
In some respects, its enticed people into getting lazy with their practice. I've done my best to encourage groups and artists I've recorded to really put the time in. A few of them had me critique them and I'd leave a list of stuff to focus on perfecting. Its very hard to find totally committed players, sometimes life doesn't warrent the time necessary to do so. I'm as guilty as anyone of that.
Jul 11, 2006 12:34 am i have a new appreciation for drum programming. i cannot play a real set convincingly at all (though one day i hope to be able to) but somehow i can program them and am getting better all the time (it just depends, at this point, how much effort i want to put into them, which is never much: the more i practice, though, the better the 'no effort' results become).
so it's weird. am i a drummer? i understand drums. i know how they need to function to sound 'right.' i just can't play them. but i can describe to the computer, using mouse clicks, exactly how to play what i'm hearing.
olddogMember
Since: Jul 02, 2003
Jul 11, 2006 02:09 am I think to be a drummer, or a guitarist, or pianist or..., ones needs to be able to play them to be one. ;)
TallChapAnswer:On a good day, lipstick.Member
Since: Jun 24, 2004
Jul 11, 2006 10:15 am Musings...
* There's a difference between being a guitar player, and a guitar owner....
* If an artist uses premixed paints, does that mean he/she is not a pure artist?
* If music is an art form, why is it so important that the music at a live show be identical to the recording? Would you appreciate Michaelangelo's David as much if it was one of forty he sculpted?
* I use a virtual drum program. I don't have real drums, and I couldn't play them if I did. Does that mean that the recordings I make are not music? I play everything else....
* I have no band. So if I want to play my music to anyone, I either need to play it with one instrument live, or I can play them the recording. Since I usually have three or four guitars, bass, keyboards, harmony vocals, drums, etc. on my recordings, am I any less a musician if I can't play it all at once live?
* Miming and telling everyone that you're really singing is a bad thing. That's fraud. Miming because you're on Top of the Pops is okay, it's promotion rather than fraud.
* Quote: "If I'm recording and it takes me 20 takes to nail a riff, then I must assume when playing it live I will get it right 1 of 20 times :) That is unacceptable to me." RIGHT ON!
* I played an acoustic set a couple of weeks ago. Felt good, and made me think about how/what I was playing. I tried to entertain the audience I had. If I wanted them to hear my music as I record it, then I'd just play them a CD. Think they'd appreciate that? Live and studio are two separate disciplines.
* There are only seven notes (pus the sharps and flats). Rearranging them into something new is an art form. It's amazing how many genres, songs, and tunes we have considering how limited our palette is. Having said that, could someone explain to me why people keep rehashing old songs rather than writing new ones? I like a good cover now and again, but it's getting silly. My fourteen year old daughter was surprised I knew so many of the songs she was listening to....(she also tried to correct me on the lyrics....they'd been subtly changed on the remake).
* Keep making music. That's what matters, not the instrument. The purists out there can go back to hurdy gurdy, lute and shawms....have fun. I'll be working on an Intel Pentium 4 with optical input. Still, I'll have a plank on my lap for most of the time....
* Saw Def Leppard at the Hammersmith Odeon. Worst band I ever saw. Awful show. The album they were promoting was flawless... Bad night? Maybe. Does the album have bad nights? I've seen Richard Thompson countless times. I've never heard a song played the same way twice. Am I disappointed? No, because he's choosing to work his art.
I'd better go.
jetgloMember
Since: Jul 23, 2004
Jul 11, 2006 10:25 am Tadpui says-"I think of an album as analagous to a painting. Its layers of carefully considered textures, colors, and ideas that have all come together to form something interesting, personal, and unique. You wouldn't expect a painter to be able to stand in front of a crowd and flawlessly reproduce one of his works would you?"
Yeah I am always trying to think in terms of art when it comes to music..as my day job, so to speak, is in visual art. The stuff I complain about when it comes to recording is the same stuff I complain about when it comes to "great visual artists" There is a long tradition that great artists (Rodin, Michaelangelo etc) have relied on.. using other people's (apprentices) skills in a shop to create what the , say, author of the work intends. But what would you rather have.. a painting that was actually painted stroke by stroke by Michaelangelo or one that he directed some apprentice to make.."Hey Tony.. you gonna needa more a red there, eh?" Which one is more valuable? Gets more respect? It's the same thing with recording.. only there is less or zero "paper trail" for the consumer to know if a player can really play some amazing run that inspires..based solely on the album/radio.
On another note.. there is a local band here that puts out very "computer made" albums, lots of sampled "real" instruments..very artistic, avant garde stuff.. but to see them live is a completely different experience.. they can't do it. But I actually like their live shows better than their albums because they are great musicians.
CptTrippsCzar of Turd PolishMember
Since: Jun 20, 2006
Jul 11, 2006 11:42 am Flawlessly reproduce, not at all, it's next to impossible. But at least be able to resemble, yes I think that is required. Which is why I said "sound pretty much like".
I have no problems with tricky editing, but I am a firm believer in recording what you can play. And I'm not talking perfect takes really, but if I have to use 3 takes spliced together because I couldn't play the riff one time through without extreme messups, I would changed the riff.
Jul 11, 2006 01:24 pm Let me clairify myself a bit, I guess what I Really meant to say was after acclimating one's self to an awsome CD, especially if never having witnessed that group's performance before, its a life-changing experience to see a show as good as..... or better ..... even with embellishments or different arrangements, than the album in a live setting. There. done.
In the case of Def Leopard, I saw on VH1's Rock Honors, the All American Rejects (a band I don't particularly care for),, cover Potograph, and man I thought it sucked. That was until Def Leopard came out on stage shortly after them to play Hysteria and sounded HORRIBLE, even worse than the Rejects... REally ! Man, whats up with singers that get nodes on their vocal chords from screaming their asses off through their 20's and 30's, then try a come back. Can anyone say Brain Johnson !!! On the other side, when McCartney played the Super Bowl 1/2 time show a few years back, that was an outstanding performance..... Rock star retirement, My awnser, its for the money.
RE. flawless reproduction live, yes, its next to impossible, but lets remember, many of the wise big names save all the settings of the useable live outboard gear and take it on the road, thereby making that live show damn close to the album, providing the group's players hit their mark. Plugins are used live now too ! To be oraganized on that level in the studio to help in live show recreation is a seriously major task.
CptTrippsCzar of Turd PolishMember
Since: Jun 20, 2006
Jul 11, 2006 06:02 pm Understood, I think I may have been a little unclear myself *gasp*.. no never!! :)
RigsbyUltra MagnusMember
Since: Nov 13, 2004
Jul 12, 2006 01:59 am It's all about creativity to me, there are all these tools you can use, you can make a functional piece of furniture that works but is basically dull, or you can put a lot more effort in and get something that works beautifully and looks astonishing.
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Jul 13, 2006 01:14 am Well OldDog my friend, I have to admit that I truely do precieve the bulk of my audiances as musicly illiterate, and artisticly numb. And yes; I also believe that most of my 'audiance' has no clue with which to ascertain the quality of the music being presented. If they have been entertained, e.g. feel part of something bigger, feel 'cool', feel connected, or simply got drunk or stoned, they will go away having been entertained. All of this is simply a nonsequitor relitive to the performers being good, bad, or indifferent. I can't say I hold them in comtempt. They know no better. Do I have any sense of 'sharing' my music with them? No.
Jul 13, 2006 03:16 pm Basically, there are two different reasons to make music: for yourself, and for everyone else. While these aren't mutually exclusive reasons (by any means), they do represent a decision one has to make when writing/recording/performing music. Whatever makes you happy is what you should be doing. For some people, it is the feeling of the music that is most important, for others the technical precision of the performance. Some people love to see & hear a live audience's reaction to the show, and some people could give a **** less about the audience. There are bands that never play live, and there are bands that rarely record anything.
Because of these differences, musicians can be very critical of eachother, making accusations of "not being in it for the right reasons" or "destroying what it is to be a musician. Give me a break. As previously stated/discussed, music is an art form, and art holds both no real purpose and holds the only true purpose in life, depending on what you're trying to get out of said life.
And who cares if Joe Blow doesn't actually play the bass parts on the CD/live? It's a show. Just like TV, just like movies, people are paying money to be entertained. Hell, for actors, the ability to deceive the audience is what makes a great actor great! I'm not saying that I think musicians are the same as actors (and thank god they're not!), I'm just saying to many people, they are.
Most people could give a **** less what went into creating the music they love, as long as there's a good beat to it. Holding out on the belief that "if they could just see the light that is *real* music..." etc., is futile. Not everybody posesses the ability to experience emotion through music. Most people have never laughed/cried/fallen in love because of a song, and most never will. So if you're trying to 'help' people understand music, if you're striving to write a piece so beautiful, so touching, that everybody will have no choice but to understand you, GIVE UP. STOP WRITING FOR ANYBODY/EVERYBODY ELSE. If you have the potential to write emotionally riveting songs, you'd better do it for yourself, in a way that makes YOU laugh/cry. Write the music that only you can write, because that's the only original ******* thing you can do!!! :)
Jul 13, 2006 03:44 pm Right on. To add a bit to what you were saying, I've mentioned to a few people that the best way to see what is "actually" happening in a culture during any different time period is research their music.
Ofcourse, this means not getting hung up entirely on highly commercialized stuff. If that was the case, my outlook on today's generation would be pretty grim as it seems to be the most superficial to date. But, there are some really awsome artists out there that would never be heard if they hadn't learned to record and start an indie label etc. etc. So while, in my opinion, there seems to be tons more crap, there are diamonds in the ruff that have really opened new doors. I feel they are the ones truely writing music that only THEY could write.
Jul 14, 2006 05:11 pm Incidentally by the way, I suggest that some of the best stuff ever made has been cut/spliced and put together largely by accident (again I put reference back to the Beatles who come up with MANY a studio trick accidentally)...and as I said before, NOBODY would doubt the Beatles were a top class band...
I have seen many bands live (most of the best and I mean most) and I have heard albums ... there are FEW and I mean FEW who flawlessly reproduce their albums live.
And to be honest, I wouldnt want em too..I like "warts and all" live music...if I want to hear flawless, perfect music that depicts the album perfectly, well, I go and listen to the album ;-D !!
But I DO take the subtle point being made here...one shouldnt LIE about one's ability to do something live when they cannot...similarly, if someone wants to make a kick *** 20 track guitar solo and can play each part, but never do it live, well, thats cool...its still a piece of musical art and history and someone sculpted it all together, well thats cool too.
As I say, if it SOUNDS good, it is GOOD !
Cheers
Coco.
TallChapAnswer:On a good day, lipstick.Member
Since: Jun 24, 2004
Jul 14, 2006 05:39 pm I did have a "project" band once. We wrote all our songs in a studio environment (a higher end Tascam four track cassette....oh...I just aged myself), recorded them all in the same environment. When it actually cam to the live thing, we went into a rehearsal room and NAILED every part. We'd had this stuff in our ears for so long, and made sure that our timing, tone, etc. was tight, so when we actually all played at once (we'd tracked everything in turn..four track), it was f'ing amazing.
That's sometimes what surpizes me when I do see a Billion Album selling band, and they're rubbish...Don't they listen to their own stuff? Or is it that the producer made the record, not the band?
Jul 14, 2006 07:29 pm My feelings exactly tallchap !
Jul 15, 2006 04:02 am Rehearsals,luxury,has everyone noticed, the more a band needs it, the harder it gets to arrange one.
Jul 20, 2006 12:04 am I use to complain about how easy new technoligy has made it for ANYONE to sound good. I've yet to use a computer myself. But reading these posts has been enlightening (as well as very entertaining). I sit by myself in my 10X10 and 'piece together' some good stuff, if I do say so myself, but recently, friends and family have been urging me to perform. Now I spend alot more studio time playing, singing and actually learning a song all the way through. Gotta hand it to Tadpui though. Everyone's attitudes seemed to change when he reminded us that it's all art. It's all good. Great thread guys!
Sep 03, 2006 06:00 pm Just thought I'd add a couple points:
The human ear is much more forgiving when it comes to a live performance. I'm not sure whether it's just the expectation we've built up by "overproducing" our recordings for so long, but the slightest shift in tempo or missed note on a recording can really turn off a listener. This is especially true when you consider that a recording is always the same every single time that it is played back. Every mistake left unedited will be heard hundreds-- even thousands or millions-- of times.
The other thing is that nobody here has really brought up the perspective of the recording/mixing engineer in all of this. It takes talent to make a recording sound good-- after all, isn't that what this entire web site is here for in the first place? I don't know if you want to call it composition, musical engineering, or musicianship, but either way, it's a form of artistry. As an engineer, I enjoy making the most out of what I'm provided with. Not everyone's cut out for that. Not everyone knows how to layer those vocals right, etc, etc. And you know what? I find that it's really not true that anyone can sound great on a recording. There's still a lot of talent required to get to that point. In reality, there's only so much editing and simulation that you can do. I can help a lot, but garbage in is still garbage out.
Oct 02, 2006 11:37 am Adding a bit to the "if it sounds good, it is good" theory, I feel that primarily a musician is a person who can turn notes into songs. From that point of view, it really doesn't matter how they get there, whether by intention or by fluke. A GOOD musician can use those notes/songs to evoke emotions, and that's what's really missing in most of today's "pop" music. People aren't even trying to evoke any sort of emotion in people any more. It seems like people are just trying to make the catchiest riffs, or the heaviest songs, or the dirtiest lyrics, etc. etc.
What the hell happened to writing a song to connect to people? To express one's inner self in a way that only music can? I mean jesus christ it's almost like they're just writing jingles for commercials, advertizing themselves...
Oct 02, 2006 01:05 pm Anarchist, funny you picked back up on this thread, I was planning on posting something relative to this topic soon. Same goes for acting and the entertainment business as a whole. Why is there no depth in any of the acting anymore? This recent wave of entertainers are F$#%ing clones I swear.
Funny thing is even if they are simply writing jingles advertising themselves, as a marketing and management major undergrad, I'd have to say its not even good advertising.... thats why it takes 5 times the amount of bands/artists cycled through the music industry to create sales ratios comparible to the past,.. when a larger number of entertainers still had soul. Even the styles of music that used to exemplify emotional conquest, like R&B, are outrageously cheesy now.
Kinda ties in with the iPod commercials or other digital devices boasting that the customer can listen to music 24/7 with ease. Problem is, they're not really listening, but they're hearing more. 5% good, 95% crap. I've been taking note of the FX this is having on our youth and it makes me LMAO and cry at the same time. Somehow, fakeness has ruled long enough to actually become reality for some. The dawn of a spineless era. Can't wait till it passes !!!!!
zekthedeadcowEat Spam before it eats YOU!!!Member
Since: May 11, 2002
Oct 02, 2006 03:52 pm the music industry goes in cycles... but only the christian side can keep up... the secular just lags and falls into a "it's 9 o'clock twice a day" situation.
The phase I've noticed essentially goes from happys to sad to content to angry
We're comming off a very metal phase almost a glam-metalcore (angry) and plunking right into poprock (happy) ... after that R&B will be what I call dirty-R&B (sad) which is hiphop over grunge.. maybe grungecore ... it'll be ugly... then I think we'll have a series of rock ballads mid to late 07... (content) at which point the emokid will die off and become the school shooter he really wants to be and we'll have an evil incarnation of what I call popcore(n) which might be better described as mushmetal... as the emokids buy black wigs with longer hair and try to play metal... someone will get shot though and they'll all go into hiding... meanwhile the TV show Rockstar "XYZ" whill finally put out a heavy rock band instead of light rock but it'll be too late because a number of bands come out of universities with a blues jazz mix and do to rock what Dream Theater did to metal... of course all of these bands have MBA friends and start the first successful indie lable over myspace totally bypassing the establishment... of course myspace is bought by Virgin at about this time... and after that the future gets a little fuzzy... :)
Oct 02, 2006 10:35 pm Ha Ha, I guess I used to be amused by individual acts and great live shows... but now, I realized that what amazes me is observing 5 and 10 year cycles in music. The macro picture is entertaining indeed.
