any shame in piecing together multiple recordings/honour in a single take?

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by mc1

any shame in piecing together multiple recordings/honour in a single take?

Nope not a bit

[mc1]

Originally Posted by ukejon

In the end, figure out what is best for you and don't let it become a moral decision because both approaches are fine.

thanks ukejon. i enjoyed your thoughts.

my thread subject was a little over the top, just to glitz it up a bit for effect. it really isn't a moral issue.

[Bern]

Originally Posted by Doug Young

for me, creating a recording is about conveying music to the listener, and I want to give them the best experience, not let them down by hearing my mistakes. Doing it in one take might give me bragging rights, but who cares?

I totally agree...musical content is important above anything else.
Sometimes, my recording device does funky stuff and I just play another clip and edit it in if I feel the entire recording was satisfying overall.

[muscmp]

Originally Posted by mc1

thanks for all the responses. i'm a thinking...thinking i need to practice more, either way.

i wonder if anyone has recorded a song one note at a time.

yes, but they still haven't finished it! ha!
play music!

[Bern]

Originally Posted by mc1

i wonder if anyone has recorded a song one note at a time.

Well...I have about 20000 songs on the back-burner with one note completed.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by Bern

Well...I have about 20000 songs on the back-burner with one note completed.

part of your tout de suite?

[Bob Womack]

I worked with an engineer who did an album for a pretty well-known female celebrity. He described her vocal overdub sessions as literally punching in word-by-word. It happens. In. Out. In. Out. This was back in the days of manual punch ins and outs. You'd emerge from a session with your nerves jumping. Yum, yum.

Bob

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

I worked with an engineer who did an album for a pretty well-known female celebrity. He described her vocal overdub sessions as literally punching in word-by-word. It happens. In. Out. In. Out. This was back in the days of manual punch ins and outs. You'd emerge from a session with your nerves jumping. Yum, yum.

Bob

By that point the song interpretation is as much the engineer's as it is the singer's.

[blue]

To the OPs original dilema the question for me comes down to your intention. You know you can't play it clean in a recording session. What are you trying to achieve?

Make people think you can. It's bad.

Present music you have written in the most beautiful way possible? No problem!

To me it's as simple as that. If you are highlighting the music, and not your performance, it's all good. If you were a composer and felt you needed a string section to make your music better you'd bring them in no? So as the composer if you feel you need to drop in a different section? No biggie. It's not a live performance. It's a recorded piece of music.

Read up on how David Gilmour recorded the "Comfortably Numb" solo. Let's just say it involved lots of tracks, a stopwatch, and faders If that's what it takes for music like that to exist, I'll buy him a stopwatch when his breaks.

[ukejon]

...if it takes me 200 (or more) takes and another 2 months to get a recording it will be time well spent. i'll probably never lose my desire for a single, reasonably good take.

Amen to that, Brother.

[RRuskin]

Chet Atkins would edit pieces together all the time. And he did his edits on analog tape with a single-edged razor blade. Most edits done now are on a DAW, making them more accurate, and reversible. Bottom line: If it was good enough for the likes of Chet, it should be good enough for you.

[Howard Emerson]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

By that point the song interpretation is as much the engineer's as it is the singer's.

That's how engineers become co-producers.

HE

[RRuskin]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

I worked with an engineer who did an album for a pretty well-known female celebrity. He described her vocal overdub sessions as literally punching in word-by-word. It happens. In. Out. In. Out. This was back in the days of manual punch ins and outs. You'd emerge from a session with your nerves jumping. Yum, yum.

Bob

I've had sessions like that as well. Hasn't everybody? It's the only way when a singer has no sense of time, pitch, can't remember lyrics, or all three.

[RRuskin]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

By that point the song interpretation is as much the engineer's as it is the singer's.

Piecing performances together that have different readings rarely works. The result will usually sound really out of whack from one edit to another.

[SteveA]

Originally Posted by blue

To the OPs original dilema the question for me comes down to your intention. You know you can't play it clean in a recording session. What are you trying to achieve?

Make people think you can. It's bad.

When one of my tunes isn't coming out the way I want it, and my best playing is not doing my well written song justice........................

I know its time to bring in the "hired guns"...........Translation: Session Players