What's new
By:
Filters
Drummerworld Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

unpopular opinion about modern recordings

cbphoto said:
In 2017 I took a Sweetwater studio class on drum recording. The instructor had Kenny Aronoff make six consecutive takes then took the "best" of each take to make a "performance that never happened". It floored me. I was the only guy (and only drummer) in the class who was surprised.
Click to expand...
In a commercial studio time is money. Not only the time to record six takes, but also listening through and noting all the best bits and then editing them together. So top studio players are still valued for playing at least one complete great performance, and not taking long to get there (take 2 or 3). Back in the tape editing days, I would often play a complete take, then the producer might ask me to 'drop in' a couple of the drum fills,or maybe redo the bridge if my performance had dropped in intensity somehow.
Recording remotely at home, I have to admit I usually track two complete takes back to back, then edit together the best bits from the two performances. I'm generally not being paid for post production, so I don't wanna be spending half a day editing hundreds of clips together.
Also, it's quicker to re-record something (4 minutes? the length of the song?) than scratch my head trying to make an average take better with lots of edits.
I once sat in on a Gregg Bissonette session. He played the song through once. then they recorded his first proper take, which was slick, professional and zero mistakes. Gregg then told the producer to record a second take and he would play a bit more 'out there'. So he played more busy, some more crazy drum fills etc. Then the producer could edit together bits from the safe take and the crazy take. Producers love that.
 
I find funny that listening to the radio to still very popular 80's pop ; I used to hate when I was a kid/teen : I realise that even if it was drum machine on a lot of tunes, the drum machine was a bit more programmed than now. The beat we hear now is constant, as I said, most of the time. No fill, no change, hardly an intro or outro. But the drum machine in the 80's offered sometimes, changes, fills and all. Take the worn out tunes like "Take on me", or "Tainted love", there are changes, a bit of work on the beat sound, some fills... Not just a boring beat that lasts all the song with a pseudo bass line marking the 1 and 3.
 
Smoke said:
Everybody's said it, but nobody's used the word so far: greed.

Money and time and perfection and laziness and ambivalence - these are the catalysts, but greed is the cause.

From the executive producer right through to the listening audience, everybody wants more for less. What you get is what we got. It's the same everywhere.

They say money is the root of all evil, but greed is the cause.
Click to expand...
The music business has always been about greed. That's just a constant across time
 
Chris Whitten said:
In a commercial studio time is money. Not only the time to record six takes, but also listening through and noting all the best bits and then editing them together. So top studio players are still valued for playing at least one complete great performance, and not taking long to get there (take 2 or 3). Back in the tape editing days, I would often play a complete take, then the producer might ask me to 'drop in' a couple of the drum fills,or maybe redo the bridge if my performance had dropped in intensity somehow.
Recording remotely at home, I have to admit I usually track two complete takes back to back, then edit together the best bits from the two performances. I'm generally not being paid for post production, so I don't wanna be spending half a day editing hundreds of clips together.
Also, it's quicker to re-record something (4 minutes? the length of the song?) than scratch my head trying to make an average take better with lots of edits.
I once sat in on a Gregg Bissonette session. He played the song through once. then they recorded his first proper take, which was slick, professional and zero mistakes. Gregg then told the producer to record a second take and he would play a bit more 'out there'. So he played more busy, some more crazy drum fills etc. Then the producer could edit together bits from the safe take and the crazy take. Producers love that.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Aronoff showed up to the class with his part written down. His score was his own; the class instructor/engineer/producer let him write what he felt best served the song. When recording, he played his written part, then the Pro Tools "playhead" looped back to the start of the tune and he played straight, without any fills and only a few crashes. When the playhead looped the subsequent 3, 4, 5 & 6 times, he got busier and more flamboyant. It was a 3.5 minute tune and, for me, it was great to see what can be done in 20 minutes; how the feel of the song can change with/without fills & crashes.

The looping playhead, combined with multiple takes locked into the song, was a revelation to me (a total rookie).

Aside from the actual recording, the most time consuming task was getting levels on the mics and getting Kenny a headphone play-along mix he wanted. Not much time was spent on adjusting mic positions 'cuz the instructor had twice/thrice as many mics as needed to show the class examples of mic type and position. It was a vacation for me and I had a great time.

sw_class_184.jpeg
 
Xstr8edgtnrdrmrX said:
this reminds me to mention that processing and overdubbing to fix mistakes has been happening since the 1930's and 40's at least...it is not a phenomenon of just the past 30 years...a lot of the "classic performances" we all know a nd love were probably a mish-mash of individual takes and overdubs, and EQ fixes, and additions of reverb etc
Click to expand...
I'd have to disagree with you on that point. Magnetic tape recorders weren't really a thing until the late 1940's and the first "multi-track" tape recorders weren't introduced until the mid 1950s. Not sure how overdubbing would've been accomplished prior to the advent of magnetic tape machine since the tech prior to that would've been disk-cutting. Early film audio was done optically but I'm not sure if that tech was ever employed in pre-tape music recording days. And also, mixing desks of that time were very minimal in terms of sound shaping and stereo/two-channel sound was still not widely embraced until the mid 60s.
It's astounding to me how audio recording/production occurred in 50's with the larger bands. Sessions were conducted quickly with minimal recording tech. No "fixing" performances with overdubs and such. So many classic performances of that time still put most modern stuff to shame in my opinion. The early Rudy Van Gelder recordings still are a standard and some of the early Columbia/Capitol records stuff (Louis Prima, Les Baxter, etc.) are so good. My theory is that the bands played out live so much that the recording aspect was easy for them. The performances, arrangements were pretty much done.
I think that the Beatles are primarily associated with the whole assemblage of music piecemeal via overdubs since they viewed the studio as a creative tool. Unfortunately, that approach seems to have become the de facto standard for music creation currently.
 
John B said:
I think that the Beatles are primarily associated with the whole assemblage of music piecemeal via overdubs since they viewed the studio as a creative tool.
Click to expand...
The sequence of Beatles' albums is a great view into the use of the recording studio. Revolver, their first album after stopping touring and devoting all their time to recording, is a huge break from their earlier albums. They made it seem fun and creative.
 
It seems to me that most hit songs from the last 40 years have used drum machines, programmed, or sequenced drum tracks, rather than live human drummers. I don’t follow popular music too closely, but that’s my general feeling when I do hear it, and please correct me if I’m wrong.

I, being a drummer, would much rather hear a live human drummer, But obviously, the general public doesn’t share that sentiment, and I would assume most people under 50 probably prefer the sound of a “ automated” drum performance.
I notice at events with bands that alternate with DJs, the DJ usually packs a dance floor, and when the band comes back on , most people take a seat and have a drink or something.
 
Paul Blood said:
It seems to me that most hit songs from the last 40 years have used drum machines, programmed, or sequenced drum tracks, rather than live human drummers. I don’t follow popular music too closely, but that’s my general feeling when I do hear it, and please correct me if I’m wrong.

I, being a drummer, would much rather hear a live human drummer, But obviously, the general public doesn’t share that sentiment, and I would assume most people under 50 probably prefer the sound of a “ automated” drum performance.
I notice at events with bands that alternate with DJs, the DJ usually packs a dance floor, and when the band comes back on , most people take a seat and have a drink or something.
Click to expand...
Honestly, many times when I see this happen its because the band dawdles between songs and/or selects music that is not really dance music. For example: Most people love Tom Petty. No one dances to Tom Petty. Getting them dancing is challenging enough. Don't give them a reason to go sit down because you're screwing around between songs
 
Last edited:
Xstr8edgtnrdrmrX said:
this reminds me to mention that processing and overdubbing to fix mistakes has been happening since the 1930's and 40's at least...it is not a phenomenon of just the past 30 years...a lot of the "classic performances" we all know a nd love were probably a mish-mash of individual takes and overdubs, and EQ fixes, and additions of reverb etc
Click to expand...
Yeah, the Edgar Winter song Frankenstein comes to mind...which is how it got it's name.

en.wikipedia.org

Frankenstein (instrumental) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
John B said:
I'd have to disagree with you on that point. Magnetic tape recorders weren't really a thing until the late 1940's and the first "multi-track" tape recorders weren't introduced until the mid 1950s. Not sure how overdubbing would've been accomplished prior to the advent of magnetic tape machine since the tech prior to that would've been disk-cutting. Early film audio was done optically but I'm not sure if that tech was ever employed in pre-tape music recording days. And also, mixing desks of that time were very minimal in terms of sound shaping and stereo/two-channel sound was still not widely embraced until the mid 60s.
Click to expand...

yeah...when I was typing my response, I was less worried about exact dates....I assumed that tape recording was happening back in the 40's...but I still will say that we have always been editing performances when we could.

John B said:
It's astounding to me how audio recording/production occurred in 50's with the larger bands. Sessions were conducted quickly with minimal recording tech. No "fixing" performances with overdubs and such. So many classic performances of that time still put most modern stuff to shame in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I have always been astounded by orchestral recordings as well....no overdubbing there in the early days,. We did recordings when I was in college, and you could not do more than 2 or 3 takes on anything b/c of the expense

John B said:
The early Rudy Van Gelder recordings still are a standard and some of the early Columbia/Capitol records stuff (Louis Prima, Les Baxter, etc.) are so good. My theory is that the bands played out live so much that the recording aspect was easy for them. The performances, arrangements were pretty much done.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you that the players were so honed that getting takes was probably pretty easy. Almost every rock band I have been in only recorded stuff that had been played out live a million times. The parts had settled in, and we knew all of the turns and structure.
John B said:
I think that the Beatles are primarily associated with the whole assemblage of music piecemeal via overdubs since they viewed the studio as a creative tool. Unfortunately, that approach seems to have become the de facto standard for music creation currently.
Click to expand...

true....
 
AudioWonderland said:
The music business has always been about greed.
Click to expand...
It's a constant cliche that gets repeated in a thoughtless way. There has never been more greed than the tech industry and its treatment of music. For most of my career in music the industry took it's profits from FleetwoodMac, The Eagles, The Osmonds etc and invested it back into new young artists, or left field artists like Tom Waits and Frank Zappa.
In the 70's many, many drummers put out solo albums. Who is doing that now?
 
Xstr8edgtnrdrmrX said:
agreed...you just have to look "below the mainstream"....sort of like it has always been...



I will proudly wave the old man flag and say that ALL popular music has been boring...ever since I can remember...which is back to around 1973ish...pop music was never meant to have substance, because it was always meant to be background. One memorable melody, some mediocre lyrics meant to take take you back to some part of your life that gives you warm fuzzies. Disposable. On to the next....
Click to expand...
It seems to me that for the most part in regard to pop music it's the music that sells the song and not the lyrics. In religious music it's often the opposite.
 
New Jazz drummers put out their own CDs. they're Leaders
Not many and not wildly "popular" but
I often see Drummers leading their own quartets trios etc
 
Last edited:
bermuda said:
That's not over-production, it's lack of musicianship. Typically, a band has to actually play their parts in front of an audience. That's where they help build exposure and longevity. And make money. It's certainly not from dismal record sales, no matter how over-produced and perfect the music sounds.

Don't blame the production, blame the players.
Click to expand...
100% SPOT ON

On 'The Wrecking Crew' documentary Hal Blaine talked about their cost savings in recordings. 'Our crew could come in (all being the best sight readers and all phenomenal musicians) and record the backing instruments in 2-3 days versus the 2-3 weeks it would have taken the actual band.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top