Is hard disk recording a curse sometimes?

[Jimi75]

It's so many times that I heard a guitarist say:" Who cares if this take is sh**, we could make thousands of takes, it's hard disk recording!".

I feel like especially demo recordings of young bands often stink like copy- paste-thousand-takes per solo-melodined voice-recordings. Every little band can trigger drums, slow down solos etc. Also if it was possible before hard disk recording, Joe normal could hardly do it.

Do you remember how you did your first recordings? I remember the first demo tape we have recorded in the end of the 80s with a Tascam 8 track recorder. The guy who recorded us said, you gotta have to have your stuff and parts down. And we did. We rehearsed, we practised our solos and we have recorded a natural sounding demo. Not perfect, but honest.

I think it is sad to see that people correct their records and polish them to a level where they do not represent the real potential of a band. Most of the times one must say that the band sounds way more imperfect on stage! Surprise, surprise!

I am talking about amateur bands mostly. I know that most of the professionals sounded better on vinyl than live on stage in the 70s, 80s and 90s. The accessability of professional recording software though changed the world of underground bands forever.

I would lie if I said that I hadn't been the happiest young guitarist if my demos sounded back in 1988 like they sound today, but I also see the "dark side" of all this hard disk recording.

What do you think about the development?

[Heywood Jablomie]

Over the years, and through the developments in recording techniques, my gold standard for a performer is whether they play well live. For me, this applies to all levels, whether they've "made it" or not.

[Eric]

Huh. This is the first I've thought about it. I mean, I've done multiple takes before, but never futzed with the sound. You bring up a good point.

[Spudman]

You make a good point Jimi. However, I can see another side to this. First let me say that over editing for the sake of mistake correction would seem like you'd be giving a false representation of the real product, which might be sloppy initially. Correcting constantly poor musicianship is not much of a credible excuse for using digital recording for that reason.

On the other side, as a creative tool, hard disc recording allows a lot more experimentation and refinement. While in the creative process, at the the editing desk, an idea for arrangement may happen and it can be very valuable to be able to shuffle parts around digitally. This can be very helpful to recognize the vision in your head without having to recall musicians, pay them and schedule them to try something different.

I think HD recording has it's place but certainly not just for the sake of polishing turds and giving false representation.

[helliott]

I've always lived by the maxim that any recorded sounds you make, you should be able to perform live, or at least a reasonable facsimile. People who rely on overproduction usually get burned when it's time to perform, I've found.

[Rockermann]

Plus, it gives bands like mine the opportunity to even exist. Spread across the globe with none of us ever in the same place, it makes recording, writing and releasing CDs a 'normal' task where as a few years ago, that would have been completely impossible.

[hubberjub]

I guess it depends on the situation. When I was in high school I had a little Tascam cassette four track. I would spend hours with my drummer writing songs. This was such a primitive four track that you couldn't even punch in or out. It had to be right the whole way through. We got some pretty great recordings for a couple of 13 year olds. I mostly record demos in my studio now. It's just a songwriting tool that I can use for splicing together ideas. I never use it to put together parts that I couldn't play already and I'm sick of hearing a vocoder being overused. Most professional studios have gone digital but still keep a lot of analog equipment. A local studio (Dryhill Studios) insists on recording all drums on an 8-track reel to reel that is synced to their Protools setup.

[marnold]

The good: opens up recording to the masses
The bad: Autotune, nuff said

I don't think that bands should be limited by what they can do live (several Queen albums spring to mind). But Heywood's point is well taken. A demo will get you in the door, but if you can't deliver the goods live, no one will care.

[Katastrophe]

Excellent point, Jimi. Digital recording has gotten so high tech that any little mistake can be fixed, or copied, or doubletracked, or autotuned to death.

IMO, it's an easy trap to fall into.


On a related note, "Heartbreak Hotel" came on the radio (on the classic country station, no less!) yesterday, and I was blown away by the recording itself. It was real, raw, and honest. The production wasn't the greatest, but damn, they sure did sound good.

I fear we will never again hear true greatness like that again. It will be synthesized, digitized, quantized, sterilized, and commercialized from here on out.

[Heywood Jablomie]

But Heywood's point is well taken. A demo will get you in the door, but if you can't deliver the goods live, no one will care.
I wish you were right, but unfortunately, you're not.

[marnold]

I wish you were right, but unfortunately, you're not.
You're probably right. Oh wait. I think I just got sucked into a logical vortex.

[otaypanky]

I think that's why there are so many no talent 'celebrities' in the music business. Crazy get ups, some schtick like a meat dress, lip syncing at your concerts and you're a "star"

[jpfeifer]

I can see two sides to this technology trend, a good side and a bad side

The bad part of hard disk recording (and all of the amazing editing that you can do with it in the digital domain, that you could never do in the old analog days) is that people rely on the technology to make up for the fact that they 1) can't play in time, accurately 2) can't sing on pitch or, 3) can't play their whole song from start to finish so they cut/paste their way through the whole process. There's no substitute for really knowing how to play your parts with enough skill to stay in time with the rest of the band, getting the right tone, and making it feel natural. This is way harder than most people think. It's almost a lost art. I remember getting grilled by a very experienced studio bass player one time when I was hired to help with some guitar parts for a recording. He was on me like crazy to lay back and stay in the pocket. His ears were so sensitive to all the nuances of timing/feel that he could tell if someone was anticipating the beat or not. I had to really listen and practice focusing on the pocket to get my act together. It really helped my playing, and I'm glad that I went through that. Some of the most difficult parts to play accurately (under the microscope of recording) are those very even-8th note sort of strumming or fingerpicked parts. If your timing isn't together it sticks out like crazy. There is not substitute for getting your chops together. Not that I've never cleaned up parts after the fact, and fixed timing here and there with digital post processing, but to rely on it for 90 % of your recording is just using a crutch to make up for the fact that you need to work on your timing. The same argument would go for singers too, who rely so much on autotune that they can't sing on pitch anymore. Just listen to some of these artists live and you can really hear the raw sound that you don't seem to hear on their recordings. I saw one of these bands on Austin City Limits recently who I really admired and I was shocked at how "out-of-tune" they were singing. It sounded like karaoke.

But on the positive side, hard disk recording is putting so many advanded recording techniques in the hands of so many people, that it is helping more people have access to high quality recording equipment that may never have had it otherwise. It has brought the costs way down to the point where many more people can make high quality recordings of their work. Who knows when we might see the next Lennon and McCartney come to the forefront because they can easily do most if it with their laptop and a few mics. It's unreal to think of what some one like the Beatles or a Bethoven would have done with access to this kind of technology when they were creating their work.

--Jim

[Jimi75]

Who knows when we might see the next Lennon and McCartney come to the forefront because they can easily do most if it with their laptop and a few mics. It's unreal to think of what some one like the Beatles or a Bethoven would have done with access to this kind of technology when they were creating their work.
--Jim

I wonder what Jimi Hendrix would have done had he a little Macbook and Logic at hand :-)

[Retro Hound]

In a way, the easy access to recording equipment can be a bad thing. The Beatles spent YEARS honing their craft before getting a record deal. I would say it's the same with many others. Years working hard in front of live audiences prepares the artist for putting it down on tape (or HD, as it may be).

Of course I speak theoretically as someone who has no experience whatsoever.

[R_of_G]

I fear we will never again hear true greatness like that again. It will be synthesized, digitized, quantized, sterilized, and commercialized from here on out.

Don't fear too much. There are a plethora of bands out there right now that are very much committed to the "lo-fi" or "DIY" sound.

Most of them do not get as much attention as the more mainstream auto-tuned acts, but in this day and age, I don't think radio airplay is all that necessary anyway. If people are into good music, they'll find it. I think most people over the age of 13 have long-since evolved past listening to only what they hear on the radio.

[Eric]

I think most people over the age of 13 have long-since evolved past listening to only what they hear on the radio.
Hoo boy do I disagree with that. Yes, several people move beyond mainstream top-40 music as they get older, but more people than we could possibly realize still bow at the altar of Taylor Swift and Chris Daughtry.

I think that it's that natural exclusive progression of life that makes me think people don't listen to mainstream music: most of my friends (due to automatic filtering on my part) listen to something other than top 40, therefore I think all people have informed musical tastes. But it's not true.

--

An innovative group like the Beatles could definitely come along again. They may not be as popular as the Beatles, but it's bound to happen. Music is too attractive to too many people to have only unpracticed, technology-dependent artists for the rest of our lives.

[deeaa]

I do think it's great to have all that technology.

And I do use it to my advantage. If we record a demo for my band, am I gonna pay $600 to record drums in a great room, or mix in some triggered samples myself? The latter of course, unless I win the lottery.

Also, if I notice a bad take after the fact, no harm in snipping out a bad drum hit or replacing it with a good one, or editing a noisy bass to properly die out without noise in breaks.

I even use Autotune now and then as well, mainly to check if it was in tune, and then re-sing it now that I hear what exact should be better, but I can also sometimes - again after the fact - salvage an otherwise good track by autotuning a bad ending I missed when recording it, for instance. I won't rather set up the gear again and try to get the sound the same, much easier with some 'cheating'.

I don't make a point of it or labour too much with it, but it has good uses to be able to do that. Sometimes it can save hours and hours of hard work.

What's sad, though, is that dance etc. band singers say these days they're starting to have to start autotuning LIVE even if they're quite spot on even without...because people are so used to hearing ultra-autotuned-synthesizer steady pop/rock vocals, they'll complain about the artist's singing if it doesn't sound steady and smooth like a synthesizer almost...

I don't give a flying F if some of my singing is ever so slightly off key even on record; nobody can e 100% accurate in real life, and so it should be.

[deeaa]

And oh, I must say, IMO one of the greatest pros to HD recording is you can kiss phase cancellation errors good bye when doing drum tracks etc. Just line up the peaks on each track having, for instance the kick & snare as guides, and need not worry if some overhead mic was out of phase originally...just set the peaks align on the hit or 1st or 2nd harmonic depending on how much room you want, and it'll be way stronger than just winging the mic distances by luck or trial&error.

[oldguy]

It's a tool, and can be used for good or evil. Repetitive takes can be a learning curve, fixing mistakes can lead you down the path to creativity, or just be a cheap cheat. All depends on how you use it.

[syo]

It's a tool, and can be used for good or evil. Repetitive takes can be a learning curve, fixing mistakes can lead you down the path to creativity, or just be a cheap cheat. All depends on how you use it.
I completely agree oldguy.

Jimi's original topic was whether HD recording could be a curse sometimes. Personally, I don't really see it as a curse. I think it is an amazing tool that can do both amazing and crappy things. Sometimes simultaneously. :D

Taste and restraint (or the lack of) have always been a factor whether recording analog or digital. Plenty of crappy recordings in the old days and certainly tons more now that anyone can do it. But the access and creative freedom are wonderful things.