September 2005 Editorial: There's no substitute for talent...

[Phil O'Keefe]

DAW's are cool tools. I love 'em - they allow me to do things quickly and efficiently, and if you're working on good songs, with good musicians, they are capable of producing great results - IF you do your part.

 

However, I think there is a danger that comes with DAW's. "DAW abuse" seems to have become an epidemic problem, and I really don't see any relief in sight.

 

As I said in a previous post, IMO the problem kicks in when some people decide to use the DAW as a "talent substitute" and / or engineers and producers over-analyze everything, and get tempted to tweak and edit endlessly in search of "perfection"... IMO, the biggest temptation, the biggest "trap" of DAWs is exactly that. Engineers make the decision to cut and paste and edit, and even completely construct everything artifically, when maybe a retake would be a better option... And for crying out loud, who decided that music had to be "perfect" to be "good"? Who decided that perfection and lack of human emotion makes for better music? I must have missed the memo...

 

I understand that sometimes it's better / quicker / more efficient to construct something from bits and pieces. I've done plenty of comps over the years, and I will most likely continue to do so. However, I think that it has become the norm to do so on everything... which IMO, leads to a downward cycle - engineers create things that the musicians couldn't possibly pull off live... and then the musicians start relying on the engineers and producers to make them sound far more capable than they are in actual fact. "Hey dood, why practice my parts? Why bother learning the song in advance or working out arrangements? We'll just fix it in the editing and in the mix..." I believe that partially because of this, the musicianship suffers. Which means even MORE editing and "fixing" is required...

 

IMO, this is one reason why so many groups are such a disappointment in a live performance. So how do we get around that? Why, we use pitch correction, pre-recorded and sequenced tracks "live", which allows people to worry about their stage show and dancing instead of actually performing music.

 

Please don't take this as an attack on any particular musical style or genre - I see this happening all over the place, with all sorts of styles.

 

I have no problem with tools - they're just tools, and they don't have a brain, nor can they force anything upon us as users. WE have the ability to choose - to decide if and when to use the tools, and how we're going to do that. But IMO, we're too often guilty of overdoing things... to the point of making the music suffer.

 

Use your DAW's in good health, but please - "first do no harm" to the music. Don't kill all the life, emotion and the humanity out of the music, because that's what makes it special. I don't want "perfect" music - I want great songs and solid performances by musicians who can move me and reach deep into my heart and my gut. I don't really care how you get there, but let's not discourage developent of individual musicianship for the sake of happier clients and a quick buck.

 

As with all of the monthly editorials here on HC, your comments and opinions are not only allowed, they're encouraged.

[sweet]

Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe Engineers make the decision to cut and paste and edit, and even completely construct everything artifically, when maybe a retake would be a better option...

Holy crap. I'm totally guilty of this. Literally, 2 nights ago, my drummer missed a fill and he studdered on one of the changes.

 

"Oh, don't worry about it", I said.

"I'm using Cubase", I said.

"Watch how easy this is", I said.

 

20 minutes later, when I couldn't get it quiiiiiiite perfect, Mr. Drummer suggested, "dude, why don't I just redo it"

 

"yeah, you're probably, right", I said.... DOH!!

 

But - I am learning... a lot.

 

Thank you all for that.

[Funkwave]

Originally posted by Phil O'Keefe As I said in a previous post, IMO the problem kicks in when some people decide to use the DAW as a "talent substitute" and / or engineers and producers over-analyze everything, and get tempted to tweak and edit endlessly in search of "perfection"...

 

Amen Phil and very well said. Nothing IMO sounds as soulful and moving as a live performance or a recording from the 70's.

 

Being primarily a session drummer, I will refuse to have one of my parts "fixed" in the mix. I would rather do the entire take over.

 

That's in the rare event that I make a mistake :D

[Kranak]

Thanks for the article. Great read. I just finished doing a mix for my band and we all decided to not punch in any takes, but to play each part fully through. And truthfully, mixing it has been so much easier because of it. It took probabily twice the time to track and half the time to mix. And the songs just sound like, well songs.

[Will Chen]

 

And for crying out loud, who decided that music had to be "perfect" to be "good"?

 

 

That would be MTV. When looking good became more important that sounding good. Chris Cornell is a prime example. I love listening to the old Soundgarden stuff and I like some of the new Audio Slave stuff but I've seen Cornell live and seen a few taped performances and that guy is 100% tone deaf. Quite clear that the albums are laboriously pitch corrected. DAW's have allowed the ability to mask the sounding good aspect of the industry.

 

Fixing a snare hit or a flubbed note I don't mind. Trying to "nip and tuck" 20 takes into 1 natural sounding take is the same disease driving airbrushing magazine covers to hide that wrinkle on a models face or stretch her legs to make her look tall and lean. We seem to be obsessed with the fantasy of perfection rather than the beautiful imperfections of life.

 

That being said, there is a ton a good music out there that you just have to dig a little harder to find.

[ArrMatey]

somehow, I'm still a fervent preacher that a good band has to have good FULL takes or at least good half takes.

I hate having to "temper" with files. Not really because I'm lazy about those things but because it becomes a waste of time to try to glue it all like a big puzzle.

A good band with decent instruments and good mic placement will save a WORLD of Time I think...and I'm only a begginer

[Lee Knight]

I agree with all the points above.

 

But...

 

Well...

 

I'm working with a band (Producing / Engineering) that consists of guys that have far more in the way of creativity than they do in chops. I'm 46, and still play. I come from an era of chops. Chops is good. These guys don't have it. But that drum fill was great... a really cool idea, you just can't execute it you hack! (Endlessly chopping up drums takes it's toll).

 

Now I'm producing. I want this album to be competitive. I don't know what to say... I could lie and say, "Right on, guys. Auto Tune sucks. MTV sucks too, yeah."

 

I've even gone so far as to cop the tone of whatever instrument it is and punch in for them when they're not around.

 

I'm guilty. (How come there isn't a Smilie looking down in shame?)

 

Edit: I should add, I just put out an album of my band that has none of the tomfoolery mentioned above. Horses for courses...

[Will Chen]

 

Originally posted by Lee Knight I agree with all the points above. I'm working with a band (Producing / Engineering) that consists of guys that have far more in the way of creativity than they do in chops. I'm 46, and still play. I come from an era of chops. Chops is good. These guys don't have it. But that drum fill was great... a really cool idea, you just can't execute it you hack! (Endlessly chopping up drums takes it's toll). Now I'm producing. I want this album to be competitive. I don't know what to say... I could lie and say, "Right on, guys. Auto Tune sucks. MTV sucks too, yeah."

 

 

I should've added, that I don't think it sucks and I'm old enough to know you gotta do what you gotta do to make a living. I wish you much success. Creativity versus chops usually isn't the issue, its the lack of creativity coupled with a lack of chops. The idea of perfection gets set by the latest trand and the goal is to conform as closly as possible to the illusion. Then someone comes along to challenge the illusion and it catches on to become the new trend and everyone rushes to stand still.

[Lee Knight]

 

Originally posted by wbcsound I should've added, that I don't think it sucks and I'm old enough to know you gotta do what you gotta do to make a living. I wish you much success. Creativity versus chops usually isn't the issue, its the lack of creativity coupled with a lack of chops. The idea of perfection gets set by the latest trand and the goal is to conform as closly as possible to the illusion. Then someone comes along to challenge the illusion and it catches on to become the new trend and everyone rushes to stand still.

 

 

Thank you. That's a very good point you make, differentiating between creativity with lack of chops / lack of creativity with lack of chops. The idea of perfection being the latest trend is an interesting idea. Now that IS sad.

 

The positive in all this is someone like Jack White of White Stripes stands out and shines... people can tell the difference.

[sweet]

Devil's advocate... (you'll see from my first post, that I generally agree that the performance is the thing, not the production) but...

 

I remember that bands used to make flyers by cutting stuff out, drawing pictures, and using scotch tape to put it all together and then making photo copies by the dozens to pass out, by hand.

 

Now bands are creating the coolest looking graphics (on par with professional designers) with their copy of photoshop, putting them up on Myspace, and emailing them by the 1000s, with a mouse click

 

My point is, technology makes things easier. In many cases better. I wonder if the digital age, not MTV, is responsible for the "perfection" we're seeing everyone strive for?

 

Like the "everything is too loud, there are no dynamics" arguement. Well, if you can make it louder, give it more energy and punch, and still retain the clarity, why not?

 

If you can focus on the best take of a note, riff, part, etc. you possible can get, and then use technology to construct your vision of a song, then why not?

 

If you feel the need to express something musically, but lack the chops to pull it off in a full take, or half take, or whatever and you use the tools at your disposal to accomplish that, what's the harm?

[Will Chen]

 

Originally posted by sweet My point is, technology makes things easier. In many cases better. I wonder if the digital age, not MTV, is responsible for the "perfection" we're seeing everyone strive for? If you can focus on the best take of a note, riff, part, etc. you possible can get, and then use technology to construct your vision of a song, then why not? If you feel the need to express something musically, but lack the chops to pull it off in a full take, or half take, or whatever and you use the tools at your disposal to accomplish that, what's the harm?

 

 

The "harm" is when the curtain is pulled back and the wizard is nothing but a little man pulling strings and levers. There's no harm if you're smart enough to seek the truth.

[MarkGifford-1]

I've had many young bands ask me how it was done in the "old days" (!?) of 24-track analog tape. I told them that it was a little harder, but about the same things could be done as now, but most players and engineers were better at what they did and weren't afraid of committing.

 

There's an interesting new book out that discusses the theory that people in today's society are overwhelmed and crippled by the choices we have. Just walk down the cereal aisle, or worse yet, try to research flat panel TV sets or DV camcorders.

 

IMHO, the biggest problem w/DAW projects is the ability to put off just about every major production issue until the very end. If even, as attested by the sometimes completely different mixes of songs that appear on differently formatted media outlets. Can you imagine an "easy listening" mix of "Brown Sugar?"

 

In the days of tape, you recorded that guitar solo on one track, wiping out the previous take as you went. If the producer loved the last one, and you said you had a better one in you, you'd better have been able to deliver. Now, you just record as many as you think you need and comp something together that works.

 

If you came up thru the standard path of 4-track, 8-track, etc. you learned how to see the big picture as well as know how to get there, before you started tracking. That's gone, now.

 

MG

[Phil O'Keefe]

That's gone, now.

 

Unless a savvy student of the recording arts decides to impose some self-limitations. Which IMO, might be a good idea for many of us to do from time to time - experts included. Going back to the basics from time to time is a good thing.

 

Excellent post Mark - thanks for your comments.

[Steve LeBlanc]

here's an idea...let's list some of our favorite 'flubbs' from recordings the not so anal days

 

Cat Stevens - "Two Fine People"

 

that bass flubb after the modulation in the middle of the tune (where the chicks are singing by themselves) is totally classic

 

Beatles - "Let it Be"

 

when Paul plays the C triad a whole step up one time (third verse? can't remember for sure) it works so well it could have been written that way

[Phil O'Keefe]

That idea is so good Steve, that I'm going to give it its own thread.

[umkcprof]

Hi all. . .

 

With my own music recording venture, I have purposely decided to ashew any of the modern recording "tricks of the trade": No loops, no editing, no pitch shifting, no timing changes, no sequencing, no nuttin' honey.

 

Basically, I'm just using the digital domain as a multitrack recorder from the "good old days." Granted I AM a geezer (48), but I have to say, I'm absolutely loving the sounds I'm getting. No, it won't sound polished to the pros, but I'm not making it for them. I'm making it for myself and musical partner in crime, San Francisco guitarist extraordinaire, Geoff Wilcox. And when we're done, I'll be able to say, "all of those licks were recorded in real time and we didn't play any games (other than compression, ambience, and overdubs) to make them sound that way."

 

It's not a philosophy that will or should work for everyone. But it's the one that I plan to carry out until our CD is done.

 

But, like I said, I'm strickly old school.

 

Steve

[TBush]

 

Originally posted by sweet Like the "everything is too loud, there are no dynamics" arguement. Well, if you can make it louder, give it more energy and punch, and still retain the clarity, why not?

 

 

No dynamics and no clarity IS the problem.

(Sorry, I meant "are the problems", but it sounded bigger with "IS the problem").

 

Sure, punch it up, make it big- but at a certain point you literally over-saturate the mix and that's it- no more. Have you heard the new live Carol King CD? CAROL KING, for crying out loud- no drums and the thing is STILL over-limited. Ridiculous. I think the harangue over "no dynamics/too compressed" can be over-stated, but the reason it's out there is surely because somebody got an L1 and went nuts a few too many thousand times. It's not even cool anymore...

 

On point- nothing like a real band in a room and they're cooking. We sometimes take a section from take 2 to replace the same in take 1, but it's usually everybody playing together.

[Lee Knight]

 

Originally posted by MarkGifford-1 There's an interesting new book out that discusses the theory that people in today's society are overwhelmed and crippled by the choices we have. Just walk down the cereal aisle, or worse yet, try to research flat panel TV sets or DV camcorders. IMHO, the biggest problem w/DAW projects is the ability to put off just about every major production issue until the very end. MG

 

 

That is as great point. I think you've got to go with your gut every minute. Constantly make desicions and move on. When I look at a dinner menu, I'm fast. I size up my options, and DECIDE! Then I eat.

 

The same goes for recording. Throw out some ideas and pick one... execute it and pick a take. Then move on...

 

This way of working does 2 things

 

1. You get good at making GOOD desicions quickly.

 

2. You get a lot done.

 

If we are constantly looking at the options and trying to figure out which is best, we're wasting time. If, on the other hand, you try something and it fails... that's experience that makes the next decision easier and faster.

[Phil O'Keefe]

Have you heard the new live Carol King CD?

 

No, but I'd like to. I love Carole King's stuff.

 

CAROL KING, for crying out loud- no drums and the thing is STILL over-limited. Ridiculous.

 

Say it ain't so!!! :(

[wishfulsinful909]

I'm a young buck compared to all you "geezers" ( I kid I KID!) but I am completely in agreement with alot that's been said here. There is no substitute for a good performance and no excuse for trying to record a record when you can't even play the parts.

 

All my heroes and inspiration are from the mid 60's and 70's period, so my aesthetic is not to go for synthetic "perfection"....drummer missed his fill? Tough {censored}, you're doing that take over again!

 

HOWEVER, if it weren't for the availability, ease of use and INEXPENSIVENESS of digital I wouldn't be able to produce! It's unlocked a door to a club I wouldn't have been able to join 20 years ago. But like anything good, the tools can be abused!

 

My friend is in a music program in college and the head professor announced they were getting rid of the last remnants of the old analog mixing consoles and recorders. Off to be auctioned by the state (who owns them)...a whole generation of engineers, producers and musicians will never learn about the beauty of tape or tube compressors. For shame.

[Superbad]

I think a differentiation should be made between using a DAW as a fancy poo polisher, and using a DAW as an instrument. Lots of folks in these recording bbs places seem to talk about pitch shifting / correction, WAV chopping, sample using, etc. as devices that only hacks use to "fix" things, and I think that's a pretty limiting view.

 

There's a growing generation of musicians that can't strum a guitar or play the keys, though they sure can manipulate that keyboard and mouse. I say if you've got the vision and you can make it happen, then you've got "chops" just as good as anyone else. I mean, there are whole live shows centered around quick-fingered guys with their laptops.

 

I know that probably nobody here was insinuating anything about this kind of stuff, and I know Chief O'Keefe's article made a clear differentiation of the two ideas (in fact I don't think it was even about stuff like this), but MANG! am I sick of people turning up their noses when words like "autotune" or "cut and paste" or something like that comes up. It's gotten to the point that telling other engineers that you have herpes is less akward than telling them you use autotune.

 

Ok. Sorry for the rant. By the way, you might want to go get checked for... um... you know, just because I found out... and that was before we... well, you might just want to go get things checked out.

[MarkGifford-1]

 

Originally posted by Superbad There's a growing generation of musicians that can't strum a guitar or play the keys, though they sure can manipulate that keyboard and mouse. I say if you've got the vision and you can make it happen, then you've got "chops" just as good as anyone else.

 

 

I've got no problems using Autotune or a little editing, to tweak what's otherwise a great take. IMHO, the problem lies when people w/o even the most basic instrumental or vocal chops insist that you make their performances appear to be competent. Instead, maybe they should work within their own musical limitations?

 

I'd rather hear someone like Neil Young, or R.L. Burnside, w/all the warts intact, than a heavily "massaged" act. Much more compelling, artistically.

 

Also, not that it's totally relevant, what happens when these people have to play live? Two choices, stink or use tracks, which leads us to a whole 'nother discussion of what constitutes "live" performance...

 

MG

[Phil O'Keefe]

IMO, Mark just hit the nail on the head.

 

I too, have zero problems with using ANY tool when it is appropriate. As I mentioned in the editorial, I have done plenty of comps in my life, and I'm hardly a "purist" who isn't willing to do anything but capture complete takes... even analog multitrack is frowned upon by some purists... if you do a punch in, or multitrack parts, that's technically another form of "cheating" to some people.

 

If I have a great take, but there's a problem with a vocal line or two being a bit sketchy on the intonation, but it has great feel and we were not able to match it or beat it insofar as "feel" AND pitch, then I'll AT it. And again, I have no problem with doing say, three passes at a lead vocal and picking the best parts of each for a comp. Some vocalists prefer to sing the song all the way through - start to finish - because that allows them to get into the feel of the song without interruptions and the distractions that come along with stopping on each error and then punching in, or going back and hitting single lines that need fixing. Me? I don't care either way - I'll work in the way that makes the vocalist the most comfortable and that gives us the best results. If that means working on a single "magic" take and punching in single lines here and there, or recording until they (or I) hear a mistake, then stopping and punching in, or doing three passes and then comping, it makes no difference to me.

 

But doing endless takes, and endless comps and THEN going in and having to AutoTune the results of that entire comped track, and time shift the parts where the timing was off...

 

This all pertains to more traditional musical styles. If you're doing electronica, or something a bit more experimental, AND you're relying on the DAW as a "creative tool" - sort of a musical paper mache assembly tool, I'm okay with that... it can and does allow a new and different type of musical self-expression, and I can certainly appreciate that. I'd really rather hear people actually play, but that's my old geezer bias showing, and I'm certainly not trying to put anyone down who takes that approach. But please don't try to pass that off as "hey, I PLAYED all of that", and don't take it out on the road and play HDD tracks and a totally "canned" recording while you dance around and try to pass that off as a "live performance". If you're not AT LEAST controlling and actively manipulating those samples live in some active, creative way, IMO, it's a sham and not a real "live" performance in any way whatsoever.

[Superbad]

Yeah. I think we all get it in some sort of way. DAWs and the tools they make available are still new and emerging, meaning the real interesting live uses for these tools are still being defined.

 

I'm willing to except a live performace with computers as the instruments just the same as the traditional instruments, if the emotion is there. But yeah, it's still new, so opinions will vary on that. I still have friends that won't buy CDs because they're "not really music, man! They're all 1's and 0's!"

 

Anyway, I think this editorial was about realizing how we sometimes DAWs to destroy the personality in music, and not about whether DAWs are legitimate tools or not. So I'll just shut my off-topic yap.

[Phil O'Keefe]

IMO, you certainly brought up some good points Superbad, and it's actually on topic, so please don't feel you can't continue if you have anything else to ask or add.