Would We Be Better Off if We Pretended DAWs Couldn't Edit?

[Anderton]

So I hear people bitching about Pro Tools and saying how great tape is.

 

Let's avoid the "Pro Tools mixer sound vs. analog tape sound" and instead look at the workflow. With tape, editing is very limited; you're mostly left with doing things during mixing, but the part pretty much stays the same (other than punching).

 

With DAWs, parts aren't only recut and rearranged, sometimes they're even bits and pieces of different takes.

 

I tend to think that every edit takes just a little more magic out of a part. I can't really explain it, because the edited part might actually sound better in all possible respects...but it just isn't the same thing.

 

So, here's my question: If we all pretended that DAWs couldn't edit, do you think there would still be as many tape vs. DAW debates, or would that change in workflow alone resolve the major difference?

[sventvkg]

Interesting. I can't stand really produced and edited recordings anymore. Anything I listen to and enjoy is usually Live or raw. It's probably a reaction to the computerization and quantization of music today. As for my own stuff, I try to use editing very very sparingly and utilize the performance instead. I could still make an album recorded live acoustic, no problem. Actually I have done it from a gig performance. I agree that too much editing kills the soul. Soulless music sucks. I don't care about the debates etc. I just care about the art of music as a whole.

[elsongs]

I actually like the editing. I realize that over-editing can be and is bad, but on the other hand, sometimes intended editing can be an artform in itself (musique concrete, anyone?)

 

You can do it in moderation. I recorded my drummer playing a live drum track to a song I recently wrote. Yes he was playing to a click but I disallowed any punch-ins and overdubs. We recorded for a good 5 hours and I kept the two best takes. One of the takes had some timing/feel slop in the chorus while the other take had it better, so I lifted the choruses from the second take and grafted them onto the first take and that was the drumtrack right there.

 

At one point I considered audio-quantizing the chorus of the first take, but it made it sound really bad, so I settled for the graft.

 

Interestingly, we recorded at the drummer's studio, he uses Logic. I for the life of me found it extremely hard to navigate and when I wanted to edit some audio, I couldn't get it to do what I want to do (Shout-outs to Craig, I'm using the Cakewalk Sonar platform on my DAW The grafts were done on my Sonar system after the drummer's tracks were exported to my external HD), so that was another reason why I opted to not really edit on the spot.

[MikeRivers]

The problem with Pro Tools (and really any other DAW) isn't that it makes editing easy. It's that it puts the capability of constructing a coherent piece of music out of scraps that would never be acceptable to the least critical outside ear.

 

The great music of the 50s through the 90s always involved editing of one form or another. People used to construct electronic music by making multiple copies of phrases or even notes and splicing them together. Singers were put back in tune by varying the speed of the recorder. Backwards sounds were recorded by playing the tape and the part backwards. Fixes within a track were made with "window" edits. Bad notes were replaced with punch-ins. Tracks were cleaned up using a pen-like permanent magnet.

 

These are all things that involved skill, practice, and risk so they were, for the most part, only done by "professionals" or really high level hobbyists. Today, DAWs make this all possible with only the knowledge of how to operate the program, with the comfort of an un-do button.

 

There is no problem with DAWs and their editing capability. If there's a problem with the music produced with the aid of those tools, it's with the source material and the limited creativity of the users. There are so many more users, they can't all be like George Martin or Tom Dowd or Les Paul (who made a lot of mistakes and did a lot of things over).

[Ernest Buckley]

I think DAWs and all their editing abilities have a place. I for one enjoy all types of music, even if its gridded. I`ve heard some outstanding work done both ways so... its all about what works for each of us.

 

And as far as the DAW vs tape debate, I think that would happen no matter what because they do sound different. Some one will figure out how to make convertors sound more like tape and then eventually you`ll have choices between which tape sound you want. I believe these choices will eventually become standards on all convertors. Give it another 5-10 years.

[Flogger59]

I use a stand alone, and pretty much treat it like a tape machine. I go for the performance, but if an edit can save a great take, I'll do it.

[1manband]

I produce and do remixes in an electronic dancy/pop style. Edits rule in this genre. Everything is very produced. Things that would not be humanly possible and the quantized feeling is part of the style.

 

However, I love real performance and often try to inject it with at least the vocalists. I work with several and most are really professional and deliver great performances. But there is one that illustrates the down side to technology. She has a beautiful voice. A real natural talent. But she won't practice or try to improve her skills. She just insists on melodyne and editing her takes. I've sat through 15-20 takes of her voice, chopping it up and taking the best parts. Sometimes just one syllable. On those occasions, I really do wish for the old days when singers would rehearse till they got it perfect and then come into the studio to record. She illustrates what many people do now. They just start recording with no real practice or mastery, and then edit till it sounds 'good enough'.

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

So, here's my question: If we all pretended that DAWs couldn't edit, do you think there would still be as many tape vs. DAW debates, or would that change in workflow alone resolve the major difference?

 

 

I don't really care if there would be more or less debates about it... I do pretend that I'm doing a tape recording when I perform songs in the studio. But remember, Craig: my musical style (poppy rock stuff) lends itself to that method of working. Others' don't.

[Mudcat007]

 

I think DAWs and all their editing abilities have a place. I for one enjoy all types of music, even if its gridded. I`ve heard some outstanding work done both ways so... its all about what works for each of us.

 

 

I agree with Ernest on this. It really depends on the specifc song and it's musical performance, or in the case of highly edited music, it's musical construction.

 

Now as for someone like me, a one man writing performing, engineering & producing operation, digital editing is a total lifesaver. Digital editing & MIDI programming give me the ability to get on "tape" sounds & musical performances I hear in my head that I don't have the chops to pull off on my own otherwise. Having said that, I must point out that the aesthetic I go for is based in traditional pop & rock multi-track production values of the sixties, seventies & eighties. IE. Even though I use grids for timing correction, I make a point to make sure things still sound human.

[Hard Truth]

I don't really understand the anti-editing backlash. Any technology can be abused, but it isn't the technology's fault.

 

In my view editing can and should help retain the spontaneity in the music by allowing one to cut together earlier, fresh but imperfect takes into a perfect take instead of making the player do the part over and over again until it is perfect, but uninspired and lifeless.

 

The ability to change the arrangement after recording is also a major advantage.

[Jeff da Weasel]

 

I don't really understand the anti-editing backlash.

 

 

There's an anti-editing backlash?

[nat whilk II]

With traditional classical music, you have a situation where the music is preserved in a totally gridded format - standard musical notation - and the task of the musicians and conductor is to bring the music to life by translating it out of the grid. The music is caged in a way by it's compositional format, and the performance takes it out on a leash to let it move around and find expression. Or like a race horse - the best jockies tease the most performance out of the beast.

 

The result being that reviews of traditional classical performance often run on a scale between "lifeless and hindered and mechanical" and "over-interpreted and undisciplined and indulgent".

 

This makes me think of the problem of the "grid" as being something that dogs all music, not just DAW-produced, computer-formatted music. It's just that the DAWs provide this convenience factor, a short-cut to results that have the surface qualities of rhythmic tightness, mistake-free performance, and perfect intonation, etc.

 

So you get people who half perform music that is half listened to anyway, where the lyrics are throwaways and the whole experience is forgotten in six weeks. Maybe long enough to make enough money to play the music lottery one more time. But I don't waste energy worrying about the shallow end of the music pool. It's just one part of the big picture. There are enough brilliant and serious musicians to keep me occupied, intimidated, and inspired without ragging on about the lightweights.

 

nat whilk ii

[nice keetee]

I'm a fan of 1st takes. Editing to me is cutting out the big mistakes, not auto tuning etc.

[veracohr]

 

She has a beautiful voice. A real natural talent. But she won't practice or try to improve her skills. She just insists on melodyne and editing her takes. I've sat through 15-20 takes of her voice, chopping it up and taking the best parts. Sometimes just one syllable.

 

 

If you have to do so much editing, can you honestly say she has "real natural talent"? I think talent would remove the need for editing to get a good final product.

[UstadKhanAli]

I largely use my Pro Tools rig as a "tape machine". I'm not anti-editing by any stretch (There's a backlash? Who knew?). I edit regularly. But I also do it with a very light touch. If we can knock out a better take, well, that's almost always quicker than editing.

 

I also do a lot of things that require a lot of editing, such as producing the radio show for The Tibet Connection. Doing something like this would be far more difficult if I couldn't edit.

[Lee Flier]

I use a stand alone, and pretty much treat it like a tape machine. I go for the performance, but if an edit can save a great take, I'll do it.

 

This. I don't mind doing an edit here or there to save a take that we all know couldn't possibly get any better. But that's no different than what I do when recording to tape. I agree with Craig that each time you edit, you lose a little bit of magic, so the question is "how much magic was there to begin with?" which should help you determine how much you can afford to lose.

 

I think Mike Rivers hit the really salient point: when people start editing together stuff from scraps that would never fly if it wasn't in the back of the performer's and engineer's mind that "it can be fixed," then you've seriously jumped the shark. People now often miss those "magic takes" because they don't keep trying for them, they stop as soon as they think they have enough to edit together a part that's technically correct.

[Lee Flier]

So, here's my question: If we all pretended that DAWs couldn't edit, do you think there would still be as many tape vs. DAW debates, or would that change in workflow alone resolve the major difference?

 

Well, it'd go a long way. I still think the sound is significantly different (at this point), and the workflow is different in a few other ways - such as the fact that I don't like to look at a screen while recording or mixing.

 

So there'd still be debate. But what you're talking about is a big part of the debate, yes, and certainly I personally treat a DAW much like a tape machine, rarely doing any edits.

[blue2blue]

So I hear people bitching about Pro Tools and saying how great tape is. Let's avoid the "Pro Tools mixer sound vs. analog tape sound" and instead look at the workflow. With tape, editing is very limited; you're mostly left with doing things during mixing, but the part pretty much stays the same (other than punching). With DAWs, parts aren't only recut and rearranged, sometimes they're even bits and pieces of different takes. I tend to think that every edit takes just a little more magic out of a part. I can't really explain it, because the edited part might actually sound better in all possible respects...but it just isn't the same thing. So, here's my question: If we all pretended that DAWs couldn't edit, do you think there would still be as many tape vs. DAW debates, or would that change in workflow alone resolve the major difference?

People who can't handle freedom embrace slavery?

 

 

 

I've made inroads at getting some balance and perspective when it comes to decisions about when to try to fix and when to be real with yourself and just redo...

 

... but like any lazy guy, the lure of a quick, transparent fix -- and the relatively high success rate -- definitely often beckons at times when I should be trying to reconnect with my puritan roots....

 

... worse, like any obsessive tinkerer, I can, indeed, find myself continuing to try to tinker and fix long after I've given up on a specific effort...

 

... and that is kinda sick.

 

 

 

But in answer to your final question about whether or not there would be less debates...

 

... I have a shiny cyberbuck that says, No, I don't think so.

 

Because, from what I've seen, it is a debate sustained in large part by emotionalism and ego. (And I say that as a fallible human who has watched himself participate in that debate in all the fullness of that characterization -- and from both sides, if we go back far enough.)

[UstadKhanAli]

I also really liked Mike Rivers point as well, just to add that in.

[Lee Flier]

 

I've made inroads at getting some balance and perspective when it comes to decisions about when to try to fix and when to be real with yourself and just redo... ... but like any lazy guy, the lure of a quick, transparent fix -- and the relatively high success rate -- definitely often beckons at times when I should be trying to reconnect with my puritan roots.... ... worse, like any obsessive tinkerer , I can, indeed, find myself continuing to try to tinker and fix long after I've given up on a specific effort ... ... and that is kinda sick.

 

 

Well, I think that's Craig's point in the thread... to raise some awareness of that in case anybody's let it creep into their work habits. Because it IS kind of a creeping thing - you may not notice you've done it too much until it's too late.

 

 

But in answer to your final question about whether or not there would be less debates... ... I have a shiny cyberbuck that says, No, I don't think so. Because, from what I've seen, it is a debate sustained in large part by emotionalism and ego.

 

 

That's a pretty unfair characterization from my POV. Got any concrete examples to back this up?

[Lee Knight]

The only problem with random access non-linear editing is... the operator. I say we need to adopt some taste and self discipline.

 

In the visual arts you have:

 

Plays

 

Movies

 

Is a movie any less of an art form because of all the available post production? Only if the editor is a hack. If the director is a hack. The guy who did such a crappy job on my fence was a hack. Not his hammer and saw. So...

 

...we all just need to get good. Get artful. Get tasteful. Get good.

[MikeRivers]

 

I don't really understand the anti-editing backlash. Any technology can be abused, but it isn't the technology's fault.

 

Exactly. The problem is that with technology as powerful and inexpensive as DAWs are today, the capability is accessible to far more people who don't yet have the skills to use it in good taste. If the tools cost enough so that only those with too much money or the incentive to train under someone else first, perhaps the balance between junk and quality production would tip the other way.

 

We might lost a couple less good productions from people who can only afford to work at this price point, but we'd have a whole lot less [let me put this as politely as I can] output that's of very narrowly limited interest, material which is likely to be termed "crap" by more people than well produced more universally accessible music.

[blue2blue]

Well, I think that's Craig's point in the thread... to raise some awareness of that in case anybody's let it creep into their work habits. Because it IS kind of a creeping thing - you may not notice you've done it too much until it's too late.

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

 

That's a pretty unfair characterization from my POV. Got any concrete examples to back this up?

I would only be citing examples from my own erstwhile positions... can't we stipulate that they were driven by emotionalism and ego and extraploate that there are enough guys like me to on both sides keep the debate going forever?

 

I'm not saying that it's impossible to have a rational discussion of the merits of different transcription systems.

 

But rather that the 'debate' between digital and analog partisans is likely to go on indefinitely.

 

 

 

PS... I wouldn't consider myself a digital partisan, although I certainly was, in the 80s, an analog partisan. I'm a digital user, and perfectly happy as one. But I certainly understand many of the reasons someone might prefer to use analog tape for some or all of their projects.

[Khem1cal]

Analog or Digital I prefer a raw take over a pieced together over-edited section.

 

Although I sometimes contradict myself and do it with vocal takes, but guitar I like to play the song straight through.

 

I think you lose momentum when you edit it too much, going straight through during the build ups and break downs feels more intense when you're in the groove as opposed to stopping every riff and frankensteining it together.

 

It'll be dead accurate but it'll also feel weaker.

 

I practice on a DAW but i'll record in an analog studio when I'm ready to do the real thing, I also like the raw sound of analog as opposed to digitals ultra-clean signal. Not really what i'm looking for as a death metal player, though if I did pop music, I would probably be strictly digital for the cleaner tone.

[Mudcat007]

The only problem with random access non-linear editing is... the operator. I say we need to adopt some taste and self discipline. In the visual arts you have: Plays Movies Is a movie any less of an art form because of all the available post production? Only if the editor is a hack. If the director is a hack. The guy who did such a crappy job on my fence was a hack. Not his hammer and saw. So... ...we all just need to get good. Get artful. Get tasteful. Get good.

 

Great analogy!