Jump to content

Are the Studio Tricks We Use the Equivalent of Fake News?


Anderton

Recommended Posts

  • Members

"Fake news" is designed to make people believe something is true that is not, typically because of wanting to push some agenda. So is comping, overdubbing, adding processors, and the like related to fake news? We don't like the reality of our vocals, so we add limiting, pitch correction, and EQ to make it sound like the vocals are actually good. We punch in over guitar solos to fix bad lead lines and make it seem like we're better guitar players, and quantize drums to make drummers sound like they have better timing.

 

The main difference I can think of is that no one gets hurt by this kind of "fake news." But I can't help feeling that fake news simply reflects society's propensity to cheat. Movies use CGI to fake reality when reality is too expensive or not possible, models get photoshopped on magazine covers, statisticians twist numbers to prove a point, people stretch deductions on their tax returns, resumes get puffed up to look like job seekers accomplished more than they did, etc.

 

Does our use of studio tools, no matter how innocent the motivation, support a trend of dishonesty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Multitrack recording engineers are illusionists. We create the illusion of a live performance that never actually occurred.

 

I don't consider that to be the equivalent of fake news - it's more analogous to what a magician does, or what happens with a movie production of an adaptation of a fictional book. Everyone knows (or should know) that it doesn't represent real-time reality, but rather is produced with entertainment of the viewer / listener in mind.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
"Fake news" is designed to make people believe something is true that is not, typically because of wanting to push some agenda. So is comping, overdubbing, adding processors, and the like related to fake news? We don't like the reality of our vocals, so we add limiting, pitch correction, and EQ to make it sound like the vocals are actually good. We punch in over guitar solos to fix bad lead lines and make it seem like we're better guitar players, and quantize drums to make drummers sound like they have better timing.

 

The main difference I can think of is that no one gets hurt by this kind of "fake news." But I can't help feeling that fake news simply reflects society's propensity to cheat. Movies use CGI to fake reality when reality is too expensive or not possible, models get photoshopped on magazine covers, statisticians twist numbers to prove a point, people stretch deductions on their tax returns, resumes get puffed up to look like job seekers accomplished more than they did, etc.

 

Does our use of studio tools, no matter how innocent the motivation, support a trend of dishonesty?

 

Perhaps some of the hurt are the musicians that lost work and left the biz because of midi and the like. I had a recently added Facebook friend, a tuba player from my NCSA days comment on a studio photo. "Nice studio-is that midi gear I see?" I told him yes, that it's primarily for mock ups and that when I've performed, it's with people. I was not a friend for long anyway.

 

And maybe there is a risk. The more it's made into something anyone can do, the more crowded it gets, the less special music becomes..along with the musicians that practiced hard so that they can get it done without much help...if any.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think of a studio, or guitar room with a laptop in my case, as a totally different entity than a live venue. I create songs like an artist would a painting with different brushes and colors, and most of my favorite albums came to be with the intent to make a great record rather than something the band could easily pull off live. There are songs I cannot recreate at all, much less onstage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"fake news" is the wrong analogy.

 

Studio tricks are more like CGI in the movies. There is a finished product in mind and a place to take the audience. There are many ways to create the illusion of a park full of dinosaurs. Which the best way to achieve it for the sake of the audience, the art of the film, and the cost/time constraints?

 

If you have a particular sound for the guitar solo in mind, is it better to do multiple complete takes, punch in to overdub the flubbed notes, or just leave whatever the guitarist played the first time around regardless?

 

It's all about the best/most efficient way to get you where you want to go.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If a studio record that employed these devices were represented as a live recording, then I could see how one could make a fake news analogy; but studio recordings are more like painting than photography in that they are more of a creative process than an accurate representation, and I think it's generally understood that this is the case.

 

After all, we have been constructing and manipulating sound since we invented the first instruments. One could make a good case that the only sounds that represent reality are the ones made in nature.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
If a studio record that employed these devices were represented as a live recording' date=' then I could see how one could make a fake news analogy; but studio recordings are more like painting than photography in that they are more of a creative process than an accurate representation, and I think it's generally understood that this is the case.[/quote']

 

You bring up a good point, actually. Think of how many "live" albums have overdubs that were done in the studio.

 

The reason why I posted this is I've been trying more and more to have what I do in the studio reflect what I can do live. So even though I do use the studio to create that which can't be done live (i.e., play several instruments on the same track!), I've been leaving in little vocal pitch issues, some finger squeaks, using longer and longer phrases when comping, and so on. It's more of a challenge not to rely on studio tools, but even though I can't be objective about it, I think the music might be a bit more compelling because it's at least somewhat more "honest."

 

@sharkbait: Although the term "fake news" has only come into being recently, fake news has been around for a long time...the National Enquirer comes to mind, and probably a lot of propaganda could be considered fake news as well. Or there's North Korea, which it seems has only fake news :) Unless you believe Kim Il Sung really did hit a hole in one on every hole when he played golf.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Of course, and perhaps I should have qualified that I knew you were using the term in it's "traditional" sense.

 

I chimed in because the recent application is not at all light subject matter, and there's a trend to assimilating outrageous and dangerous concepts (ironically, often by the media) through a kind of benign referencing; in the case of the news, a insistence in trying to show two sides of a one-sided issue, in the case of your wording, what strikes me as broad application of a particular phrase.

 

The effect is to normalize something that should not be.

 

Sorry to seem humorless/hypercritical, but I'm scared as hell with the Trump/Bannon attacks on the legit press and the First Amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • CMS Author

It might be an enhanced, better-than-life, but what's news about that? I don't think anyone feels defrauded when they discover that what's on the record isn't really what they thought it was, though Milli Vanilli fans might have a stronger opinion.

 

Fake news in the music business is that Elvis is alive and set the Russian hackers up to embarass the US Oscar hosts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The whole "Fake News" thing is simply a deflector that Our Fuhrer's team came up with. I think Geoff Grace came up with the perfect analogy for what we do with the myriad of recording tools we have available. We're painting. No one would suggest that a painter using more than one color or brush was "Faking" a painting.

 

Calling valid criticism, and perhaps damning but accurate reporting "Fake News", is not only disingenuous, it's criminally misleading.

Compressing a bass drum to make it sound like thunder is not "Fake". It's art.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Having followed your music for a couple of years now, I have to say your approach to recording your own material is remarkably straight forward and even minimalist most of the time. You paint with broad strokes, relying on tone and mood for the most part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What's interesting to me is what we accept or don't accept. Back in the 60s (1960s, not 1860s, I'm not that old :) ) there were op-ed pieces about how singers used EQ and reverb to cover up for a lack of talent. We've also seen this with samplers ("fake" instruments), the lip-synching on Saturday Night Life that essentially ended Ashlee Simpson's career, and Milli Vanilli. So I guess the answer is it's art if artists do it, it's fake if it's done with an intent to deceive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
So I guess the answer is it's art if artists do it' date=' it's fake if it's done with an [i']intent [/i]to deceive.

 

Intent and deception I think are key here. The Milli Vanilli syndrome is probably the closest equivalent to fake news.

 

"Oh! What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm solely an amateur studio musician, and I create tracks that sound good, with no intent of ever playing them live. There was a time I wanted to be Rick Wakeman and be a keyboard hero, but now I just get satisfaction from creating something new and unique.

 

I fully understand the satisfaction people get from playing live or listening to live music, but I don't go into the studio looking to capture a live event. I use the tools to create something totally independent of a live event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
"Fake news" is designed to make people believe something is true that is not...

 

… Does our use of studio tools, no matter how innocent the motivation, support a trend of dishonesty?

 

That's like asking if Glenn Gould was a fake piano player. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Speaking of Glenn Gould, this DVD set has some interviews with him where he talks about his approach to recording, recording techniques and technology and makes some predictions about what the future will be. The future that he talked about then is the present today and the accuracy of his predictions is uncanny.

 

shopping?q=tbn:ANd9GcS-y1retXCNklCtawRu0ctN8KZRXyHtmYkGfvGZf3eGYjsb6A6fj0vjoean4jKu1x3V04gJKxKb&usqp=CAE

 

I highly recommend this DVD set to anyone who is a fan of Gould (I think he was one of the greatest pianists of all time) and to those who are interested in the art of recording music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There's a difference, for me, between using the studio as a creative tool, and using it to nip and tuck away - well into full on plastic surgery in order to make someone presentable who would otherwise not be. Or to strap on the auto-tune, full blast mode under the guise of 'creativity' when the damn truth is that somebody is pitchy to the point where they'd normally get the hook from stage left in short order... or can scarcely even carry a tune.

 

I was listnening to Billy Cobham's flanged snare drum roll from one speaker to the other and back the other day. I'm pretty sure he wasn't running from one side of the room to the other. That's ok. He's Billy and I know what he can do.

 

I actually have the TC Helicon Voice One here in my studio. I got it some years back thinking that with such a bad neck I had a right to cheat finally because I simply can't stand playing take after take anymore. Just for that odd note that gets away, you know. But I just haven't been able to bring myself to use the Correction, print, and call it good. And excuses or no, am left feeling that if I can't get it done without that I may as well go paint in the garden.

 

I don't mind messing up the snare drum with it though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a difference' date=' for me, between using the studio as a creative tool, and using it to nip and tuck away - well into full on plastic surgery in order to make someone presentable who would otherwise not be.[/quote']

 

As someone who has been there as the engineer many times for both types of sessions, I totally agree.

 

Or to strap on the auto-tune, full blast mode under the guise of 'creativity' when the damn truth is that somebody is pitchy to the point where they'd normally get the hook from stage left in short order... or can scarcely even carry a tune.

 

I don't mind using AT when it's the right tool for the situation at hand, but I use it intentionally and deliberately and (modesty aside) with uncommon skill; by that I mean I avoid auto mode, and use advanced techniques in graphic mode that not a lot of people utilize - then I take the additional step of auditioning the edit soloed out and again in context with the mix. If I can't hear it under those circumstances, no one else will, and the tuning edit passes muster. If not, I retweak it, or try something else.

 

Where I prefer to use AT is when I have something spectacular in terms of phrasing, emotion or feel that we just can't match or beat (despite trying), but that has a slight tuning / intonation issue. I'll take feel and emotion over the pitch, especially if I can touch up the pitch. But while I could do it, it's not my job to take a monotone vocal and create a melody for someone. If things require that kind of surgery, they're not ready to be in a recording studio, and I have no problem advising them accordingly.

 

I was listnening to Billy Cobham's flanged snare drum roll from one speaker to the other and back the other day. I'm pretty sure he wasn't running from one side of the room to the other. That's ok. He's Billy and I know what he can do.

 

That was someone being creative with a pan knob. :) BTW, I saw Billy playing at NAMM. He's just as solid as ever. :)

 

I actually have the TC Helicon Voice One here in my studio. I got it some years back thinking that with such a bad neck I had a right to cheat finally because I simply can't stand playing take after take anymore. Just for that odd note that gets away, you know. But I just haven't been able to bring myself to use the Correction, print, and call it good. And excuses or no, am left feeling that if I can't get it done without that I may as well go paint in the garden.

 

That's at home though, right? The nice thing about working on music at home is that you have unlimited time; in a project or commercial studio the clock is usually running, people are waiting and you have to sometimes make the tough budget and time management decisions - should we keep trying to improve this one vocal line or keep trying to punch in that one tricky guitar lick, or should we 1) simplify the part (it's always fun trying to get the lead guitarist who's obsessed with the lick to go for that... :lol: ) 2) "settle" for a sloppy take (not really an option IMHO) 3) cut into the time needed to overdub the vocals and do the percussion overdubs in order to keep trying to get a good take or 4) let the engineer have 2-5 minutes to try to fix it and then decide on one of the other options if you don't like how the edit sounds... a lot of the time, it's a matter of expediency and practicality.

 

Everybody has occasional times when they struggle in the studio, even if they've done a good job of preparing in advance. IMHO a good producer and a good engineer's job is to support them and help get them through those times. You certainly don't want to lose sight of the larger goal and let the recording suffer because of them.

 

And then there's the bands that just aren't ready, and haven't done the work needed in advance of going into the studio. If you're not the producer you can tell him or her that you think the band's not ready and you'd recommend they reschedule and come back after more rehearsal, but you usually can't force the issue of pre-production, and sometimes you wind up recording people who just were not ready. Every engineer does. It's never my idea of a good time.

 

I don't mind messing up the snare drum with it though.

 

Again, IMO that's creative. :cool2: You're trying something different, and using it in your own way for your own thing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
...

Where I prefer to use AT is when I have something spectacular in terms of phrasing, emotion or feel that we just can't match or beat (despite trying), but that has a slight tuning / intonation issue. I'll take feel and emotion over the pitch, especially if I can touch up the pitch. But while I could do it, it's not my job to take a monotone vocal and create a melody for someone. If things require that kind of surgery, they're not ready to be in a recording studio, and I have no problem advising them accordingly...

 

A friend of mine and fellow musician grew up with Jim Vallance.

 

He and I recorded a demo CD of songs with a young lady we both know in an effort to support her as a songwriter. The songs were very good (IMO) and heartfelt but she had a problem pushing her voice enough to maintain solid pitch. I did not have any pitch correction hardware or software at the time so I stitched a track together from the best bits of several takes.

 

With the permission of the singer/sognwriter but without consulting me, my friend sent one of the best songs to Jim Vallance to get his take on it and with the hope of getting her songs some real exposure. Jim's reply was a scathing 'the girl can't sing' and that was the end of it.

 

I was disappointed that the pitchy vocals were enough to distract from the song and my first thought was 'this is where autotune would have made a positive difference.'

 

I now have the Melodyne plug in and use it on occasion. I find cleaning up a few bits on a single take sounds more natural than putting a track together from bits of multiple takes.

 

 

In the context of the OP, the studio tricks could make the singer sound better than she was (she's much better now) but that was not the objective. The demo was about the songs so in this case the 'tricks' were about removing the distractions that might detract from the song.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...