Instrumentals with multiple instruments?

[rockabilly69]

Originally Posted by Rudy4

"No myth propagation necessary"

this was your exact quote... "If you can strum a guitar and lay down a scratch vocal your performance WILL have a much more intimate feel than anything recorded to a rigid rhythm generated from a drum machine"

That's the myth! Is that the case in your situation? Maybe, and if that works for you, great, but a person that knows how to work with a click track can get just as intimate of a performance with or without. If your MO is to not use a click track, well then, that's how you work, and more power to you. But advising others they will get a much more intimate feel from not using one, well that is a point of view not shared by me personally, and MOST (not all) professional producers. And having the click there provides a reference for all subsequent tracks. So that's why I expressed my counter-point.

The particular statement that you just posted about the knitting that is where snarkiness started, and in my opinion, is more that a bit off base, as if a response to you having your opinion countered.

I have made my sole income from playing and recording music for the last 15 years and I can say without a doubt that having in a click in studio scenarios has saved more time, and produced more positive results that I can count.

And your other statement... "As far as a polished over-all performance, I have observed a LOT of live music over my years and I really can't recall any case where the performer needed a click track in their ear to present a good performance." that has nothing to do with the OP's original desire to learn how to multi-track an instrumental performance.

[Rudy4]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Whoa some clarification is in order... First "live music" is nothing like the multi track style recording, rockabily69 clearly stated he was referring to. And therefore is not remotely analogous. Perhaps you might go back and re read what he quoted and what he was talking about ?


And it is not really a matter of opinion, rocabilly69 is absolutely correct your statement below (as stated) is propagation of pure myth .



Now had you said something like "In my opinion" or " When I strum guitar and lay down a scratch vocal it will have a much more intimate feel then if I try to use a click or drum machine".... Then of course if would be valid as an opinion or personal preference.

As stated however it is simply a categorical falsehood. Because first and foremost the only thing that is actually "rigid" in a performance using a click or drum machine is the click or drum machine itself, the playing will have human variations of time just like a relly good scratch or live performance with no click (that isn't actually drifting way off time) .
And rocabilly69 is also correct whatever may not sound right about a performance "with a click" is due to the performer, not the click.



Where this statement is just a variation of a straw man argument He of course never said you "need" to develop skill with a click to "record" effectively. He correctly observed that by far the the greatest percentage of "multi track recordings" are recorded based on a click.
Again you might re read if you don't understand

I have absolutely no desire to argue the finer points of what anyone here said or didn't say. They are all valid opinions.

I'll site your rebuttal (highlighted above) as a typical example of misinterpretation. You feel the need to quote that line and then choose to ignore the line that follows:

"The bottom line is try both methods and make the determination for yourself. YMMV."

That's common internet vernacular that means basically the same thing as "In my opinion...".

I'd say that the responses here highlight the line from The Boxer, "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

I'm offering MY OPINION only to the OP and it's worth the same as all the other self-professed experts that contribute to public forums.

[rockabilly69]

Originally Posted by Rudy4

I'd say that the responses here highlight the line from The Boxer, "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

Another clever bit of snarkiness...

NO I didn't disregard the REST, I countered the statement/opinion of yours that used the absolute "Will". My purpose in the rebuttal was to have the OP consider both opinions, so that he wasn't overly biased by your first statement, which whether you intended or not, somewhat nullified your second with your YMMV. And I it did it with a clear explanation and NO snarkiness!

It's obvious that we were both trying to help the OP but have different approaches. But, I can't tell you how many times I've had people walk into my studio not willing to even try to use a
click because statements they read on the internet about stiffness, un-natural feel, etc. That's why I posted up my opinion. And many of those people that were worried about using a click came to realize later, after working with me, that it was way more helpful than they thought! And as a bonus they got to feel how their songs felt by being aware of the tempo and by being able to slow it up and down with just a click, pardon the pun.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Rudy4

I have absolutely no desire to argue the finer points of what anyone here said or didn't say. They are all valid opinions.

I'll site your rebuttal (highlighted above) as a typical example of misinterpretation. You feel the need to quote that line and then choose to ignore the line that follows:

"The bottom line is try both methods and make the determination for yourself. YMMV."

That's common internet vernacular that means basically the same thing as "In my opinion...".

I'd say that the responses here highlight the line from The Boxer, "a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest".

I'm offering MY OPINION only to the OP and it's worth the same as all the other self-professed experts that contribute to public forums.

Yep no need to argue the finer points. Opinions are one persons view, often differ, and allow for variation. Categorical statements on the other hand allow no variation, and are either true or false. In this case it was false. And BTW "misinterpretation" can't apply to my own statement.... Now it certainly could be just me being difficult , but in case you haven't noticed, taking exception to your statements and how you presented them isn't a unilateral. In fact the offending post has gone MIA curious don't ya think ?

[Rudy4]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Yep no need to argue the finer points. Opinions are one persons view, often differ, and allow for variation. Categorical statements on the other hand allow no variation, and are either true or false. In this case it was false. And BTW "misinterpretation" can't apply to my own statement.... Now it certainly could be just me being difficult , but in case you haven't noticed, taking exception to your statements and how you presented them isn't a unilateral. In fact the offending post has gone MIA curious don't ya think ?

Did I miss something?

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Rudy4

Did I miss something?

Nope my bad. I missed that there were two different posts that have sparked reactions (well three now) so disregard the MIA. but the point of the previous sentence still stands as accurate . As does the rest of that post and my previous one. YMMV

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Martin Maniac

I'd start with a click track...

That.
And if you're not used to playing with a click track, it's probably going to take some getting used to. The first few times I tried, I thought I'd never be able to do it but now it's second nature. Just gotta stick with it until it becomes comfortable.

Originally Posted by DanR

That's kinda what I do. I will usually play a scratch rhythm track to a click track at a specific tempo which makes editing easier. Instead of an actual click, I usually use an old Alesis SR-16 drum machine sync'ed to the recorder. I'll use an appropriate kick drum pattern and I've found that eight note cabasas help me stay in time to the rhythm.

That works too, although I'd still call that a click track. You're simply replacing the click sound with another sound.

Originally Posted by Rudy4

As far as a polished over-all performance, I have observed a LOT of live music over my years and I really can't recall any case where the performer needed a click track in their ear to present a good performance.

That's true. It's also true that in most cases you're only hearing that particular performance one time so you're not likely to pick up on inadvertent changes in tempo.

[Yamaha Man]

Live playing is different that a recording. In a live setting if someone misses a beat he can usually cover it up and catch up in a measure or two and maybe no one will notice. The problem is the rest of the band has to compensate for it and also catch up. This sounds fine live BUT:

In a recording situation, the tape don't lie, it plays back exactly was put in. If one guy misses a beat all of a sudden the whole band is out of time. If everybody is using the click track as a guide, more often than not, everybody will be playing in sync.

[Rudy4]

Originally Posted by jim1960

That.
And if you're not used to playing with a click track, it's probably going to take some getting used to. The first few times I tried, I thought I'd never be able to do it but now it's second nature. Just gotta stick with it until it becomes comfortable.


That works too, although I'd still call that a click track. You're simply replacing the click sound with another sound.


That's true. It's also true that in most cases you're only hearing that particular performance one time so you're not likely to pick up on inadvertent changes in tempo.

Hi Jim,
The subtle shifts in timing / tempo are indeed part of what I was referring to when I made the inference that "timing irregularity" was IMHO preferable to regimented step time in recorded music. (Please don't interpret this as being derogatory toward your comments...) I've heard about as much regimented rhythm / auto-tuned studio production as I can stand. I've actually been on the receiving end of working in a studio where the tracks were quantized until they had the life choked out of them. It really opened my eyes to the difference between performance and engineering; I prefer the former, it's what music is all about IMHO.

I don't mind tracks that ebb and flow with energy and display the human factor in music.

All this is just my opinion, and obviously it ruffles a lot of feathers.

I also did some session work at Pogo Studios with Mark Ruble (now of Blackbird Studios) and really learned a lot in the short time working with him. Mark loves to do recording with as much of a live feel as possible, and I totally dug his vibe. (Oh, There was no click track to be found in any of the session work I did there...)

My intent was to offer an alternative that I thought as superior to me, but obviously there's no room for an alternative viewpoint here unless you word your responses very carefully so they can't be used against you.

I understand this at the "Gearsluts" forum, but I was a bit surprised at the reaction it garnered here.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by Rudy4

Hi Jim,
The subtle shifts in timing / tempo are indeed part of what I was referring to when I made the inference that "timing irregularity" was IMHO preferable to regimented step time in recorded music. (Please don't interpret this as being derogatory toward your comments...)

There are certainly songs that have timing changes but they're usual deliberate rather than accidental. For example, I laid down guitar tracks not too long ago for a song I wrote. The tempo is 81 bpm from the beginning through two verses, two choruses, and the bridge. But coming out of the bridge the tempo is deliberately increased to 99 bpm. I'm not sure if that's what you're talking about.

If you're talking about someone just randomly making tempo shifts ...for example, starting a song at 90 bpm, shifting up to 94 bpm, then slowing to 92 bpm... I've never heard anyone else call that desirable and I've never come across anyone seeking to do that deliberately.

But it's a big world and there's room for everyone.

[Yamaha Man]

One of the guys I play out with has "timing irregularities", he's horrible, the rest of the band has to compensate to keep up with him. He's nice guy, I like him, but I would never want to work with him in the studio. We tolerate it because he owns the P.A. system.

[Rudy4]

"The subtle shifts in timing / tempo are indeed part of what I was referring to..."

I don't consider any shift in tempo that's obviously discernable as "subtle", but evidently that's a hard concept to get across.

sub·tle: (adjective, especially of a change or distinction) so delicate or precise as to be difficult to analyze or describe.

[Hot Vibrato]

Originally Posted by BoneDigger

In real life, the rhythm guitar usually follows the lead, but I'm not sure it wouldn't be reversed here?

The term "lead guitar" is a misnomer. In real life, the lead follows the rhythm guitar, always.

Some good advice here. Lay down your rhythm guitar part and start layering from there.

Regarding click tracks - many musicians are uncomfortable with a click track. To those musicians I say, get off your lazy butt and practice. If you can't play to a click, without it sounding "stiff and unnatural", then you have no business calling yourself a musician. If you choose not to use a click, that's cool, but if you CAN'T play to one, then you need to spend a couple months with a metronome. My band never records or performs with a click, but we practice to a click quite often. But we don't multitrack our parts either. If se did, maybe a click would be a good idea.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Rudy4

Hi Jim,
The subtle shifts in timing / tempo are indeed part of what I was referring to when I made the inference that "timing irregularity" was IMHO preferable to regimented step time in recorded music. (Please don't interpret this as being derogatory toward your comments...) I've heard about as much regimented rhythm / auto-tuned studio production as I can stand. I've actually been on the receiving end of working in a studio where the tracks were quantized until they had the life choked out of them. It really opened my eyes to the difference between performance and engineering; I prefer the former, it's what music is all about IMHO.

I don't mind tracks that ebb and flow with energy and display the human factor in music.

All this is just my opinion, and obviously it ruffles a lot of feathers.

I also did some session work at Pogo Studios with Mark Ruble (now of Blackbird Studios) and really learned a lot in the short time working with him. Mark loves to do recording with as much of a live feel as possible, and I totally dug his vibe. (Oh, There was no click track to be found in any of the session work I did there...)

My intent was to offer an alternative that I thought as superior to me, but obviously there's no room for an alternative viewpoint here unless you word your responses very carefully so they can't be used against you.

I understand this at the "Gearsluts" forum, but I was a bit surprised at the reaction it garnered here.

"The subtle shifts in timing / tempo are indeed part of what I was referring to..."

I don't consider any shift in tempo that's obviously discernable as "subtle", but evidently that's a hard concept to get across.

sub·tle: (adjective, especially of a change or distinction) so delicate or precise as to be difficult to analyze or describe.

Perhaps if you stopped including completely unnecessary quips like ("but evidently that's a hard concept to get across." ) the GS style responses you state you are "surprised by" might stop also ?????



So with that in mind how bout we start over ?

First: Yes indeed playing to scratch track as opposed to click is a completely valid method. But then so is playing to click. Neither one is "inherently" superior to the other, (except for in the realm of personal preference). Implying that one process is somehow intrinsically a superior method to the other is fallacy , and that does indeed go both ways does it not?

Fact : A human plying an instrument or singing to a click will also and absolutely have subtle timing shifts in the performance, because unlike a digital click or drum machine, a sample accurate human does in fact not exist.

Fact : Quantization and auto tune are entirely different processes and subjects than playing to a click and have no inclusive relationship. Even so most prominent modern DAWs have quantization algorithms that include percentage and randomization options that result in subtle timing variations that do not consistently fall directly on the grid.

Fact: A click , a quantization algorithm , or pitch correction program , ect. are simply tools. If they are misused or over used, that is a human failing not a failure inherent of the tool and no different than EQ, Compression or Reverb.

So while I would completely agree a performance with the "life choked out of it" does happen and is not desirable. But lets not forget that is happening because of the specific human decisions being made, not because of any actual causal relationship with the tools being used .

[Rudy4]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Perhaps if you stopped including completely unnecessary quips like ("but evidently that's a hard concept to get across." ) the GS style responses you state you are "surprised by" might stop also ?????

So with that in mind how bout we start over ?

First: Yes indeed playing to scratch track as opposed to click is a completely valid method. But then so is playing to click. Neither one is "inherently" superior to the other, (except for in the realm of personal preference). Implying that one process is somehow intrinsically a superior method to the other is fallacy , and that does indeed go both ways does it not?

Fact : A human plying an instrument or singing to a click will also and absolutely have subtle timing shifts in the performance, because unlike a digital click or drum machine, a sample accurate human does in fact not exist.

Fact : Quantization and auto tune are entirely different processes and subjects than playing to a click and have no inclusive relationship. Even so most prominent modern DAWs have quantization algorithms that include percentage and randomization options that result in subtle timing variations that do not consistently fall directly on the grid.

Fact: A click , a quantization algorithm , or pitch correction program , ect. are simply tools. If they are misused or over used, that is a human failing not a failure inherent of the tool and no different than EQ, Compression or Reverb. So while I would completely agree a performance with the "Life choked out of it" does happen and is not desirable. But lets no forget that is happening because of the specific human decisions being made, not because of any actual causal relationship with the tools being used .

I'm totally down with all of that.

I don't think there's anything I offered that conflicts with any of what you stated here.