Honesty in recordings

[dorable]

Just a thought that's been plaguing me, but can you "cheat" a recording?

For example, I recently recorded myself singing and playing. It came out really sloppy, so I redid the parts individually. Much better results. Now, for me at least, I wouldn't share this take because it feels "dishonest" like... I did it to remind myself that I can sound decent (at least when only doing one part at a time), but it seems like sharing it would be saying "yes of course this is what I sound like all the time."

[Andromeda]

The Beatles did it all the time. Strawberry Fields is two different takes spliced together. I even think they either sped up or slowed down one of the sections.

[RodB]

IMHO I would say that it is up to you how you achieve the results and any 'dishonesty' is only involved if you were to claim it was a one-take single recording. Even then the only person you would be cheating on is yourself. If the end result is better achieved by doing it separately - why not? Enjoy!

[Ty Ford]

d,

I think this is part guilt trip and part something else. Why are you not better? Why can't you just play the song the way you hear it in your head without the clams! Well, you're not perfect. And while there are people who are better (more perfect), we don't know how they got there.

One thing for sure; practice pays off. How important is guitar playing and singing to your whole life? How much more would you have to practice to play and sing better? What would you give up to pursue this practice? Would a couple of hours a day make a difference? Why not try that for a short while to see if it gets you over the hump?

Maybe take a few lessons and find out whatever you've been doing isn't the best way to do it! Then, when you find a better way, the doors to a new you really open up.

Musicians a lot better than you or I edit, and punch in and out all the time. There's a live CSN&Y concert out there - don't remember the year or the place - and many of the harmonies are pretty nasty. I'm sure they'd like a redo on that one.

I've seen Grateful Dead video in which Jerry Garcia looks like he's sweating every stinkin' note of a solo he's played a million times. Are you willing to take that ride? Fine, then hop on board and go for it. But you'll probably have to quit your day job.

If you're sending this out to people in an effort to get work singing and playing live, then, yes, it's clearly dishonest and will only come back to bite you in the butt. You knew that, right?

Regards,

Ty Ford

PS: I feel your pain every time I play and sing. I think most of us do.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by dorable

Just a thought that's been plaguing me, but can you "cheat" a recording?

For example, I recently recorded myself singing and playing. It came out really sloppy, so I redid the parts individually. Much better results. Now, for me at least, I wouldn't share this take because it feels "dishonest" like... I did it to remind myself that I can sound decent (at least when only doing one part at a time), but it seems like sharing it would be saying "yes of course this is what I sound like all the time."

I don't know, seems like this would only be an issue if you happen to view recording as a competition. Or misrepresenting the piece as a one shot take.

[Bob Womack]

The recorder is a canvas to be painted upon. Paint liberally and joyously and without guilt. It has been decades since ANYONE professional forced themselves to do pieces or songs in one pass, and that includes classical performers. Recorded art is far different from live art - live, you can look the performer in the face and are willing to forgive more mistakes. Recorded, the sound is all you have. Mistakes are glaring and aren't tolerated by the audience.

An anecdote: Back in the '80s, famous electric guitarist Eric Johnson used to impose a "through the song without stop or fixes, all vocals and solos" recording ethic on himself. That's how he originated his multi-amplifier rig: one amp and pedal stream for clean, one for crunch, and another for leads. Why? Because he would go into the studio and play through some takes and not be satisfied. The next day, he'd try again. And over, and over, and over, multiple days, until "the magic came" and he was able to make it through a take with accuracy up to his standards. Everyone would frantically mark and keep track of the takes he liked because he might be back in the next day, trying for better but getting worse. This would go on for months. He eventually pulled it off, but it nearly cost him and everyone on the projects their sanity. He's since learned to use the studio as it works best, as a canvas.

Bob
(recording engineer)

[ombudsman]

All recordings constitute, at the least, selection. And all hearing of music is subjective.

There is no one sound of anything that can be perceived by people - even if two people are watching the same live performance, it sounds different to each of them due to where they are sitting and the particulars of their ears and the way their mind processes the sounds. The whole idea of "honesty/integrity" as applied to recordings is fundamentally misguided for that reason - there really is no such thing as a non selected, non subjective recording of anything, and can never be.

Now, if your values about music include an ideal or an expectation of "what you hear is what was played" - which is certainly one possibility - then fine, I understand the appeal of that and respect people going that direction. But you should keep in mind that everybody has different values and expectations, even within fans of the same exact music, style, or culture.

I also think that the way we think and change things after reflection (editing) is interesting and uniquely valuable. You will get different ideas and results when you do that. I happen to think many of them are better than the in-the-moment choices which tend to be reactionary and more closely tied to expectations, group behavior, and self conscious desire to come across personally in a certain way (competent, appealing, whatever) which I would argue can make those choices less "pure" or your true self. So that's a counter argument to the whole "editing is dishonest" way of looking at it.

It's sort of like email; if you get an annoying one and you respond quickly, you might say something you regret later. Which one is more honest ? Which one is better ? Which one is more the real you ? Does one of them have to be more real than the other ? Which one would you rather send ?

To me, sometimes you need raw expression and sometimes you need restraint and separation from the subjective emotional influences of the moment in order to make the best decision. Musicians tend to assume that what is emotional for them is inherently good and will be the same way for other people, but that is not necessarily true. So much of what we feel has to do with connections to memories and ways of thinking that are unique to our own lives. There's all kinds of bad music that I'm sure was highly emotionally cathartic and charged to the people playing it; it can be the element that takes music from bad to excruciating.

[rick-slo]

Honesty, like "let me tell you what I really think", you may get by asking, but you might not like what you hear.

[muscmp]

record the best you can at this point in time no matter what it takes! keep the recording going until you get it right in your mind. nothing dishonest going on unless it is in your mind.

play music!

[ombudsman]

One other thing came to mind; if you present a recording to someone when trying to get gigs (explicitly stating that this is what you sound like), and your live performance doesn't sound like the recording, that may be a problem .

But that would be a problem with the live show rather than the recording.

The grey area is when you didn't say "we sound just like this" and you feel there is an implicit difference between recordings and live shows which should be understood by people in the business (not an unreasonable assumption) and they don't see it that way. Clueless, unreasonable or even openly exploitative attitudes about musicians are getting to be the norm.

[Bern]

Originally Posted by dorable

can you "cheat" a recording?

Yes, if you claim you're the one who's playing and actually you're not.
Everything else, as long as it sounds like music, is irrelevant, IMO.

I can only speak for me but when I record, I like to do everything at once (play and sing, no over dubs), as I use it as a reference tool for when I am playing out. It mimics my real life situations and gives me objectivity.

That's not what happens in most studios but I'm not making a CD here, I'm just trying to improve.

So, in short, I'm honest but is anybody being dishonest? I think not if they are achieving what they want to.

[ljguitar]

Originally Posted by dorable

Just a thought that's been plaguing me, but can you "cheat" a recording?

For example, I recently recorded myself singing and playing. It came out really sloppy, so I redid the parts individually. Much better results. Now, for me at least, I wouldn't share this take because it feels "dishonest" like... I did it to remind myself that I can sound decent (at least when only doing one part at a time), but it seems like sharing it would be saying "yes of course this is what I sound like all the time."

Hi dorable...
You are describing the difference between single take recording, and producing a song/project.

Unless you are doing a 'LIVE' project, part of recording performances is editing and remixing till it's 'right'. The demand for perfection of even small nuances is great.

And I've seen/heard plenty of 'LIVE' recordings which are edited/retouched in studio after the fact as well.

The recording industry has been doing punch in/out, and splicing tape (back in the day) and adding in redone/corrected/layered parts & fragments on tracks for nearly half a decade.

Having run a small recording studio for 8 years, I don't recall anyone ever coming in and just recording songs in a single take, no mistakes, no bad pitches, and ready to roll. I became really good at rolling an additional track and punching in/out the corrections, or second versions and then copy/pasting them over the original.

And I was good with pitch correction too...which comes in handy after a really late night session with a tired singer who nails things except for one or two notes…no need to call them back in.

Debreathilizing is another process which is sometimes necessary for heavy-breathers and wind-suckers. I did it unashamedly with singer's permission (and charged the same amount per hour as recording time).

It's just part of the recording side of things, and an important one.

We overlook minor mistakes/flaws in Live shows, because we are having a musical experience which includes the environment, the show aspects, and the sound. We assemble ear, eye, nose perceptions with the brain, and not merely the ears. Listeners/fans are much more forgiving live than recorded.

But a recording is naked. If you make a mistake, it's there every time that recording goes by that spot, and once you hear it, you are waiting for it every time (and disappointed every time).

So if you cannot reconcile the process of using these corrective tools, but you have the talent and time, you will probably get a 'perfect' take sometime.

[Fruitloop]

There is no cheating in recording IMO. It's all about the music, you do whatever you need to get the sound you have in your head. I for example often write a part that's a bit over my technical proficiency. What do I do? I isolate that part and punch it into the track. Once I even had to record a bar slower and speed it up because I couldn't play it cleanly. I see the recording gear as tools at my disposal to help me realize my music.

Live music is of course different, in that case the recording represents that particular take. Even here though you'll find almost all the live DVD's are edited afterwards in some way.

[MikeBmusic]

To echo other comments - it's all about what YOU want to represent in the recording.
Punch-ins, comping multiple takes, etc, are all tools to use, just like preamps (external or VST), reverbs and on-and-on.