The Death of the "Creative Full Stop"

[Anderton]

Very interesting article called Kanye West, Leonard Cohen, and the Death of the Creative Full Stop. It basically questions whether art is something that should be altered and modified over time, as opposed to "frozen in time" on a recording. On the one hand, you have George Lucas...how many times has the original "Star Wars" been updated?

 

While I like the idea of continuous evolution, at some point you gotta say "STOP!" I've been working on my Neo- album on and off (mostly off) for four years. I posted drafts here for the SSS Production Squad and on my YouTube channel. Now I'm in the final stages of mastering, which has meant altering some of the mixes. Could I keep tweaking it forever? Probably...I'll get new gear, have more experience, etc. But I won't. At some point, you just have to say "Okay it's done" to free up the psychic space to start a new project. Maybe if I could do projects in parallel it would be different, but soon I'll put Neo- to bed, and start something else. Sometimes dividing lines are good...contrary to the premise of the article.

[daddymack]

Much like raising a child, with musical projects you have to know when they need to get out of the house and stand on their own.You can go back and tweak it later [for the greatest hits package ], but if you keep nit-picking it, it will never get out...kind of like picking at a scab...it won't heal up. Give it the energy it deserves, and let it go...and move on to the next one.

[Geoff Grace]

Abnormality or not, recorded music—like photography—has helped us as a society to encapsulate moments in time, thus forming a record of existence and reminding us of the way we were. I'm glad that we tinker with it as little as we do.

 

Remakes, on the other hand, are a great way to channel creativity; but I have no desire to see them replace the original versions.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Beck]

I think the full-stop is becoming a lost art. Perhaps artists are subconsciously starting to follow the lack of full-stop on the operating systems and software they use. The practice of little upgrades and fixes is now ingrained in society. We can do it, but I think "Revisionism" is a danger, historically speaking. There is higher value to something when it becomes holy... sacrosanct. We stop messing with it or we risk messing it up.

[Mats Nermark]

Abnormality or not, recorded music—like photography—has helped us as a society to encapsulate moments in time, thus forming a record of existence and reminding us of the way we were. I'm glad that we tinker with it as little as we do.

 

Remakes, on the other hand, are a great way to channel creativity; but I have no desire to see them replace the original versions.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

 

This is a very wise man speaking!

 

Cheers,

 

Mats N

[Phil O'Keefe]

A bit of reworking when it's appropriate is one thing - such as the 2009 Beatles remasters, but constantly reworking mixes from years ago is a never-ending (and usually fruitless / pointless) race down the rabbit hole IMHO.

[Geoff Grace]

Thank you for your kind words, Mats!

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[Anderton]

A bit of reworking when it's appropriate is one thing - such as the 2009 Beatles remasters' date=' but constantly reworking mixes from years ago is a never-ending (and usually fruitless / pointless) race down the rabbit hole IMHO. [/quote']

 

 

One point I try to hammer home with people is whether something is better or just different. If you've gotten tired of listening to something and you change the mix around, the fact that it's different may make it more appealing...but an unbiased listener might not consider one or the other "better," just "different."

 

Of course remixes are a different kind of thing altogether, and there, anything goes. But the important point here is that the original is still around, even when there's a remix.

[Phil O'Keefe]

 

Of course remixes are a different kind of thing altogether, and there, anything goes. But the important point here is that the original is still around, even when there's a remix.

 

That's one of the things about "redoing" something (I'm not referring to remixes here) that's already been released. How are you going to get it into the hands of everyone who has the original so they can enjoy the supposedly "better" version?

 

Even if we could somehow force the update on everyone in some sort of Microsoftesque move, that probably wouldn't be a great idea - after all, a lot of people will still probably consider the original to be the better or definitive version, whether it is to us as creators or not. Familiarity means a lot...

 

 

[Phil O'Keefe]

 

 

One point I try to hammer home with people is whether something is better or just different. If you've gotten tired of listening to something and you change the mix around, the fact that it's different may make it more appealing...but an unbiased listener might not consider one or the other "better," just "different."

 

 

 

Sometimes creative people get too close to their own work and have a hard time differentiating between the two.

[UstadKhanAli]

Learn to make a decision and commit to it. Then move on.

[electrow]

Well fellas I may be in the minority here(or not thinking correctly about the subject - at my age that's entirely possible ). But I think reinterpretation of a work can be a marvelous thing. My first love musically has been jazz and just one example, for instance, Thelonious Monk recorded Ruby My dear at least 5 times. It's pretty standard in Jazz at least to record an different interpretation of the same piece more than once or twice for many musicians. I think a lot of musicians aren't trying to record a "better" version than the original - just different how ever subtle.

[Phil O'Keefe]

Well fellas I may be in the minority here(or not thinking correctly about the subject - at my age that's entirely possible ). But I think reinterpretation of a work can be a marvelous thing. My first love musically has been jazz and just one example' date=' for instance, Thelonious Monk recorded Ruby My dear at least 5 times. It's pretty standard in Jazz at least to record an different interpretation of the same piece more than once or twice for many musicians. I think a lot of musicians aren't trying to record a "better" version than the original - just different how ever subtle.[/quote']

 

I can see where that might be cool, but I think more often than not these days it winds up being just a bunch of edits and changes to a previous recording and not a full re-recording. It's almost like having Monk only do one version of Ruby My Dear and re-releasing it five times with a few parts punched in or edited, and a couple of mix moves changed on each release. I would much rather hear him re-perform or re-record it again every few years to see how his perspective and interpretation changed (especially with a jazz musician / band) than hear five "versions" with a couple of things "corrected" or "fixed" each time around that the artist considered flaws or imperfections in the original recording. At some point, I really do think you have to say "hey, it is what it is, and it's now finished" and let it go. YMMV

[electrow]

 

. I would much rather hear him re-perform or re-record it again every few years to see how his perspective and interpretation changed (especially with a jazz musician / band) than hear five "versions" with a couple of things "corrected" or "fixed" each time around that the artist considered flaws or imperfections in the original recording.

 

Actually Phil,

 

What you say here is what I was trying to say about Jazz (Monk being one example). I would even say its a jazz hallmark - a musician reinterpreting a piece over time.

 

Mike

[Anderton]

We may also be dealing with live performance vs. recording. Saw Steve Winwood a while ago live and he re-worked several of his songs from the Traffic days, and they had a certain freshness from not being a slavish imitation of what had some before. But, I can't imagine him doing a "Traffic Re-Visited" album. I think he would be more interested in releasing new material.

[Phil O'Keefe]

 

Actually Phil,

 

What you say here is what I was trying to say about Jazz (Monk being one example). I would even say its a jazz hallmark - a musician reinterpreting a piece over time.

 

Mike

 

I agree it's a hallmark of Jazz, but to me a reinterpretation and re-recording is different than a mix touch up or remastering job of the same original recording. The former is usually of far greater interest to me than the later.

[UstadKhanAli]

Well fellas I may be in the minority here(or not thinking correctly about the subject - at my age that's entirely possible ). But I think reinterpretation of a work can be a marvelous thing.

 

So do I.

 

But finish one thing. Done.

 

Then reinterpret. Finish that. Done.

 

Then reinterpret. Finish that. Done.

 

Not continually changing and changing and changing and changing and changing......