Quote:
Originally Posted by rick-slo
Each cut and paste it is being snapped to the preset time grid. They are all quantized on the spot. He shows with a bunch of examples how it might be done
in a studio and as a result why it has become more possible and prevalent for studio musicians to record their parts separately, not together as a group.
|
Well yes and no. Cut and pasting a section of music is not the same thing as "quantizing" that section from say "Beat Detective" or other "audio" quantizing software. Those are two entirely different mixing processes.
YES: each cut and paste for that section ( or duplicate) the "starting point of that
selection " for that section CAN be snapped to the grid. However NO: that does not automatically mean that the start of music in that selection is snapped to grid , it can still be in front of or behind the beat . And even if the start of the music is in fact snapped to the grid/beat that does not mean that the rest of the music in that section is "quantized ". If there are timing anomalies in that section they are not "quantized" to the grid/beat ,,,, they are simply duplicated with whatever variance from the grid (beat) they were recorded at .
And to clarify "Recording separately" has no direct causation nor is it specifically facilitated from or by, quantising , cut and paste , or recording to a click, Per. Se.
Lets not forget it was multi track "tape" recording that first allowed musicians to record "separately" and later combine separate parts. Rock bands were doing that long before digital came into use.
Whie it is true that digital recording and digital files has made separate recording "more possible' ...
It's entirely possible and is done all the time , where a guitarist records an entire song, then a drummer records the entire song, then a vocalist etc etc etc. with nary a quantize grid or Cut and paste in sight . And can even be done sans a click
The available software tools are one situation.. the "mixing decisions" and process decisions are a different situation. and while they can certainly be contextually related, they are not automatically mutually inclusive or inherent .
Again what is actually invalid in that video is the suggestion (especially the title) that association equals causation ...