Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ted nightshade]

Geoff Grace wrote on Wed, 10 November 2004 12:27

I submit that we lost the purity of "keepin' it real" when we invented the first instrument, when we added wooden bodies to amplify and improve the resonance of strings for example.

I don't imagine you really believe that. As a reductio ad absurdem argument, it has it's charms though =)

Quote:

There is virtually no conceptual difference between putting frets on a bass and using pitch correction on a vocal.

I see a lot of difference myself. I'm thinking you do too, if you stop to think about it for a bit.

[/quote]

Again, the DEFAULT nature of all this is the crux of the problem. "that's the way it's done" is most of the reason why we use all these contrived approaches.

[tom eaton]

There may be little conceptual difference between a fretted instrument and autotune (not sure about that), but only if you're arguing that frets allow the player to perform a part that they could not otherwise perform.  The actual difference is that the fretted instrument IS the instrument being played, and the player's technique with that real, actual instrument determines the quality of the outcome.  The frets are not added after the fact.  Putting frets on an upright does not make an autotuned bass...it just makes a really hard to play upright.  And makes the bass player mad.  It takes forever to get those things off.

-tom

[canada]

TER wrote on Thu, 11 November 2004 00:14

There may be little conceptual difference between a fretted instrument and autotune (not sure about that), but only if you're arguing that frets allow the player to perform a part that they could not otherwise perform.  The actual difference is that the fretted instrument IS the instrument being played, and the player's technique with that real, actual instrument determines the quality of the outcome.  The frets are not added after the fact.  Putting frets on an upright does not make an autotuned bass...it just makes a really hard to play upright.  And makes the bass player mad.  It takes forever to get those things off. -tom

Couldn't have said it better myself
Awesome replies gentlemen!

[Geoff Grace]

Ted, it's true that my arguments had the dichotomy of being at once both black and white but also full of gray areas.

Tom, as someone who has a great deal of experience playing and a fair amount of experience as a singer, I'll concede that the choice to apply pitch correction before or after the fact would affect the performance in very different ways. Even so, from the point of view of the listener, the difference might be much more subtle.

The point I'm driving at is that the truth we perceive is very much colored by our perspectives. The process of "creating" a "record" is, on the face of it, something of a contradiction in terms. Taken literally, recording means preserving or accurately representing something that exists so that a permanent record of what was recorded will continue to exist. On the other hand, the process of creation involves giving birth to something new that never existed before.

Pitch correction applied after the fact undermines the accurate representation of a performance. Therefore, in a pure sense, that makes it the enemy of recording. On the other hand, pitch correction could also be seen as an empowering tool in the arsenal of a creator, allowing the birth of new performances that could have never been heard before. In a pure sense that makes it a boon for music creation.

Somehow the combination of these two seemingly opposing approaches has created a lot of great music recordings over the years. (And of course, a lot of not so great music recordings have been made as well.) My point is that, with the possible exception of nature recordings, we've always been recording creations: created instruments, performing in created spaces, playing created music through created microphones, etc. Initially, it was easiest to modify pitch, rhythm, dynamics, and timbre before or during recording; but over time it's become easier and easier to change all of these things after recording. Time marches on and either Pandora's box opens wider or advancements are made, depending on one's perspective.

I'll offer one last comparison for consideration before I finish. Should women wear makeup? Some might say that makeup is a lie and women shouldn't wear it, and yet enough men respond positively to makeup that most women wear some. Can a woman wear too much makeup? Yes, but probably not if she's a clown.

Just as there was initially much resistance toward women wearing makeup upon its introduction into society, there is now much resistance to the relatively new advent of pitch correction. Sure, pitch correction is a lie; but used well, it may be a pleasing lie to many. Sure it can be and often is overused, but not necessarily in dance music. Just like makeup, pitch correction is here to stay. What will change is when and how its used, and there is plenty of room for discussion in that area!

Best,

Geoff

[Keith Smith]

Hello all,
My first post here. I have been lurking for a while, and learning a lot. It's not without some trepidation that I jump in here, but having read the 'Kill the Mastering Engineer' thread and now this one this evening, I had to rise to the bait.

As I've been working pretty seriously at developing some recording chops for a couple of years now, it's been interesting to observe how my proprietary interest in a recording has changed. As player I always thought the recording was mine and the engineer just recorded it. Now, as a recordist, I have to grin a bit (with guilt) when I find myself thinking that the recording is mine and the musician just played on it!

So, given that, I do find myself wondering if engineers are perhaps inclined to take themselves a bit too seriously as creators of a given work? To agree to that would certainly take a lot of the fun, let alone the sense of personal investment, out of it, but the comments I'm reading above do make me lean toward the more generalizing question: Is recording art or craft? Well, obviously it's both, but one or the other will probably predominate depending on circumstances.

With the current availability of decent recording gear that almost anyone can afford, is the recordist/engineer not in a similar situation to that in which photographers have found themselves ever since decent cameras became affordable for most people? The point is that most people can do it themselves, after a fashion. They can, with a little effort, record a reasonable graphic or sonic likeness of something. But, they hire a pro because he has the skills and the gear to realize their dream, be that a smile devoid of warts, or a comped and intonated recording. They own the print/master. Do you complain when they order a sepia toned print where the scale is compressed, or do you make the print and write the bill?

So you get a client with a mole on one cheek, and a pimple on the other. Is it lying to retouch the pimple and leave the mole? Hopefully the client can live with the mole. They do everyday anyway, but some will want that removed too, and will hopefully be willing to pay for it. I'm thinking that's the craft part of it, and there is clearly a lot of satisfaction to be had by doing it well.

When the engineer becomes the producer, it seems the time has arrived when one can insist on perfect takes, and pay the performer for long enough, or the price for the very best performer, or both in order to get that take.

Geoff Grace, in the post before this one refers at some length to recording "creations". I find that interesting, and true. I think the first recording I remember that struck me huge-ly as being great was Julian(Bream) & John(Williams) on RCA Red Seal back in the early 70's. It certainly wasn't the only great recording I'd heard up to then (but I could never afford to be an audiophile), but it was the first to really knock me over with the sheer beauty of the recording, and I thought to myself, 'My God, this really is like the real thing'.  And then years later I started hearing what was coming out of Windham Hill, and I immediately found myself thinking 'Oh Dear, this really is better than the real thing.'

Has recording developed to the point where it's connection with reality is so tenuous that the enforcement of these sorts of ethics seems a bit pedantic, or even cute? Perhaps it's just the times we live in. Look at the ethical dilemna's faced by the medical professions, these days.

Cheers,
Keith Smith

[Bob Olhsson]

Keith Smith wrote on Wed, 10 November 2004 23:18

... So, given that, I do find myself wondering if engineers are perhaps inclined to take themselves a bit too seriously as creators of a given work?..

Absolutely and I'll raise you one!

I think people are taking RECORDINGS way too seriously today. I know a girl who can play her acoustic guitar and sing six feet away from me and make me cry every single time. THIS and goosebumps are what it's really all about.

[Peter Simonsen]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Thu, 11 November 2004 07:03

Keith Smith wrote on Wed, 10 November 2004 23:18 ... So, given that, I do find myself wondering if engineers are perhaps inclined to take themselves a bit too seriously as creators of a given work?.. Absolutely and I'll raise you one! I think people are taking RECORDINGS way too seriously today. I know a girl who can play her acoustic guitar and sing six feet away from me and make me cry every single time. THIS and goosebumps are what it's really all about.

Yes..yes...yes...I?ll 3rd that...couldn?t agree more..

kind regards

Peter

[tom eaton]

Should women wear makeup?

Here's the problem with that analogy:
What a woman looks like has nothing to do with her BEING a woman.  Or is appearance one of the DEFINING factors of being female?

Sound has timbre, pitch, duration and amplitude.

Timbre is a given with most singers, it is what it is.

And then a decent singer should sing in time, in pitch and with intent, and ideally some dynamic control.

Intent is always open to debate.  
Given time and some direction a decent singer can always get words in the right place time-wise and sing them in a dynamically appropriate fashion.
Now we're down to pitch...

Calling oneself a "singer" implies the ability to sing in tune.  Being a woman does not imply anything about physical beauty.

Of course, today, the most skilled singers are those who can move their lips to the prerecorded track in the most convincing fashion.  Ashlee Simpson loses on that count.

-tom

[PP]

[Eric Bridenbaker]

Keith Smith wrote on Thu, 11 November 2004 00:18

Geoff Grace, in the post before this one refers at some length to recording "creations". I find that interesting, and true. I think the first recording I remember that struck me huge-ly as being great was Julian(Bream) & John(Williams) on RCA Red Seal back in the early 70's. It certainly wasn't the only great recording I'd heard up to then (but I could never afford to be an audiophile), but it was the first to really knock me over with the sheer beauty of the recording, and I thought to myself, 'My God, this really is like the real thing'.  And then years later I started hearing what was coming out of Windham Hill, and I immediately found myself thinking 'Oh Dear, this really is better than the real thing.' Has recording developed to the point where it's connection with reality is so tenuous that the enforcement of these sorts of ethics seems a bit pedantic, or even cute? Perhaps it's just the times we live in. Look at the ethical dilemna's faced by the medical professions, these days. Cheers, Keith Smith

This is a really interesting point...

This proposed dilemna holds only if you accept the notion that making a "recording" should be an attempt at replication of the real thing. I've definitely run into my fair share of those in this camp.

Have also seen quite a few live front of house people trying really hard to make the show sound like the record.

When you have records that are supposed to sound live, and shows that are supposed to sound like the record, you have to wonder about the whole thing. To me both are unrealistic approaches, but potentially creatively valid ones.

I would have to say that it is a sign of the times...

"It's a reality series, but it is better than reality, it's not live, although we're broadcasting it in real time...."

As long as we, as a culture are hapilly wallowing in our own flakiness, yet still "keeping it real". There will always be an perceived "ethical" dilemna, which may not necessarily need be solved...

Having said that I feel that we're lucky as engineers, because millions of lives aren't typically directly in jeopardy over our decisions.

Cheers,
Eric

[Extreme Mixing]

When I mix, I have absolutely no interest in reality.  I'm trying to create my own reality, a world where rules can be broken and things that could never have happened, sometimes do.  However, I want the listener to think that it did happen.  I don't want them to be aware of my presence as the mixer.  What they get to hear is that one perfect performance of the song, not the outtakes or the fumbling that come with the process.  If that makes me a bad person, then I guess I'm bad to the bone.

Steve

[steve parker]

Quote:

When I mix, I have absolutely no interest in reality. I'm trying to create my own reality, a world where rules can be broken and things that could never have happened, sometimes do. However, I want the listener to think that it did happen. I don't want them to be aware of my presence as the mixer. What they get to hear is that one perfect performance of the song, not the outtakes or the fumbling that come with the process. If that makes me a bad person, then I guess I'm bad to the bone.

i have no problem with any of this.
i own truly wonderful cds full of 1000's of edits.
i also own cds recorded with two mics in the most purist manor possible - ie mark levinson.
so many instances of AT usage don't create a perfect version of the song.
they create an out-of-tune one 'cos the engineer has applied it without knowledge, subtlety or musicality.
i really think that MOST times AT is used the tuning is probably generally worse after than before.
"not being aware of the mixer" surely means not thinking, "dodgy tuning....ah...the AT sound"!

steve parker.

[Phil]

[Geoff Grace]

Tom, you led me down an interesting path, but you took a comparison that I made between sonic enhancement and beauty enhancement and turned it into a comparison between being a singer and being a woman. I wouldn't claim that pitch correction turns someone into a singer nor that makeup turns someone into a woman, only that singers and women might occasionally need a little help to sound or look their best.

Otherwise, comparing what makes someone a singer and what makes someone a woman fails as an analogy because one would then be comparing a relative with an absolute. For example, one is either a woman or not a woman. That is an absolute. However, no one is a singer if defined with absolute precision. No one can sing unwaveringly on pitch or in time to the nanosecond, for example. A singer may only hope to come relatively close to those absolutes.

Singing is also relative in that to some degree it is subjective. Some people might think of U2's Bono as a better singer than Luciano Pavarotti; but technically, that's not true. However, who's to say they're wrong? Bono's greatest strength in my opinion is the expressiveness with which he sings. Few singers can equal that, and certainly no pitch correction device can manufacture that.

How does one measure or quantify Bono's expressiveness? One can't any more than one can measure or quantify physical attractiveness. Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, music is in the ear of the beholder. And returning to square one, just as to some eyes makeup aids physical beauty, to some ears pitch correction aids musical beauty. We are free to agree or disagree, but we can't prove them right or wrong.

Best,

Geoff

[Bill B]

bobkatz wrote on Tue, 09 November 2004 20:23

Today, we'd be SO-TEMPTED to fix a note or two of Sinatra when the test of time has shown those notes to be charming, to be just right for all time. What would Sinatra do today? BK

I just started reading this thread, so my reply may not be on point, but what BK says in the above quote is the crux of the matter. Are we good enough artists, mixers, producers, etc to realize the quirky off-key note for what it is, or could be? It's so easy to tweak every 'mistake' these days that we actually can make the art suffer a little by some missed opportunities.
I was mixing down one of my daughters' tunes last night and really appreciated how honest a few missed notes sounded. Am I a great engineer capturing the magic? Nope, but being her father I could feel the 'humaness' of the moment as it pertained to her voice that I know so well..
I wish I could do that for every vocal performance I've worked on.