How many tracks?

PolarityMan

paulmapp8306 said:

It does seem that things have turned round in this matter...

Originally you had artists that performed pieces live.  There were no recording mediums, it was composed and played - the audience went to see the performance.

Then recording became achievable, and it was used to record the artist playing so is could be enjoyed by a wider range of people that couldn't see it live.

Somewhere along the way we got lost, and now create music in a studio that simply cant be replicated.  To me that is not, and never was the point of recording a piece.

Im old and grumpy, and stuck in my ways is all.

I kinda see your point but I think your actual problem is shit live performances. So a band that doesn't have live performance that is on par with their recorded output...even if its very different... is definitely a let down. In cases like that you can definitely feel that the production is what is carrying the band.

digitalscream

Really, my biggest problem with that stance is that it's artificially restraining creativity. Basically, it's saying "Unless you hire a bunch more people, you're not allowed to have more tracks on your album than you have members in the band. Want that brief harmony track in one song? Forget it, unless you hire an extra musician to play for those five seconds and then stand around doing nothing for the rest of your show. Fancy an extra guitar to pad it out and emphasise the high notes to make it sparkle in stereo? Nope. And no cowbell unless you've hired Will Ferrell."

Nah, it's bollocks. Music doesn't revolve around live performances. More to the point...live performances and recorded music shouldn't even be linked, other than by the underlying song - hell, most live songs are played differently to the recording anyway, because songs evolve over time.

Bands are more than just ambulatory jukeboxes. If you want to listen to the exact version that's on the album, stay at home and listen to the CD, just turn the volume up.

*sigh*

Gotta say, I feel better after that

TheBigDipper

I've heard a lot of Pink Floyd bootlegs as a result of being best mates with a Floyd fanatic when we were much, much younger. Hearing Dark Side of The Moon and Atom Heart Mother being played by the four of them before they recorded either album is just as enjoyable as the studio output - but a different experience. 

I've mentioned this before in posts, but... There's a great book available called "Perfecting Sound Forever" by Greg Milner. On the surface, a book about the history of recorded music and the recording of it. However, at some point it morphs into getting the reader to start thinking about what a recording actually is and what is it about the recording that makes it art.

Cirrus

TheBigDipper said:

I've mentioned this before in posts, but... There's a great book available called "Perfecting Sound Forever" by Greg Milner. On the surface, a book about the history of recorded music and the recording of it. However, at some point it morphs into getting the reader to start thinking about what a recording actually is and what is it about the recording that makes it art.

Oh, I read that a few years back! Really enjoyable. I'll read it again some time.

Freebird

This is one of my favourite albums:



But I can hardly listen to their stuff live  

Stuckfast

Freebird said:Prior to the impressionists, the artists of the day concentrated on capturing reality, such as life-like portraits and landscapes.

Er... ever seen a painting by Turner? Bosch? Brueghel? Blake?

Jalapeno

Danny1969 said:

Jalapeno said:

Still amazes me the Sgt Pepper album was recorded and mixed on an 8 track !

4 track mate ... although the US has 8 track machines Abbey Road didn't have one in service for a long time

Blimey you're right ! (though they had 2x 4 track machines for bouncing)

WiresDreamDisasters

LMAO at the cover band guitarists criticizing artists using their medium in the way they choose.

Freebird

Stuckfast said:

Freebird said:Prior to the impressionists, the artists of the day concentrated on capturing reality, such as life-like portraits and landscapes. 

Er... ever seen a painting by Turner? Bosch? Brueghel? Blake?

I'd say Romanticism was the turning point, which transitioned into impressionism, which then became fully formed post-impressionism. For me personally, this is the vision that I can translate into a music making process, particularly the vivid colours and the immediate capturing of a given moment that includes modern life subject matter. Subsequent movements became increasingly more abstract and inventive, to the point where many art school students were able to move seemlessly into the music world.

thegummy

paulmapp8306 said:

I come from the opinion if you cant replicate it live with the band alone (no sequence tracks etc) then the recording is cheating.

How can a band with 1 keys player play a song with 20 synth parts.... how can one singer sing 4 harmony parts etc.

But I record and mix for fun an no other reason.

Considering that music isn't a competition, the idea of "cheating" existing in music is as absurd and ridiculous as someone who likes the taste of tomato ketchup on their chips deciding that it's cheating so choosing to eat them dry instead.

I'm not exaggerating to make a point, it really is just as arbitrary as that to come up with these rules for no reason and using them to choose not to enjoy something that you enjoy (or not) on a far more primitive level than that.

Tex Mexico

paulmapp8306 said:

I come from the opinion if you cant replicate it live with the band alone (no sequence tracks etc) then the recording is cheating.

How can a band with 1 keys player play a song with 20 synth parts.... how can one singer sing 4 harmony parts etc.

But I record and mix for fun an no other reason.

I could pick about 50 amazing records off my shelf that wouldn't exist at all if the artists had taken that view, and another 200 that would be substantially less interesting.

Art is about creating new things, not forcing yourself to replicate old things. Getting hung up on irrelevant technicalities is the enemy of innovation. It's hard enough to break down real barriers without erecting fake ones to deal with too.

guitarfishbay

thegummy said:

paulmapp8306 said:

I come from the opinion if you cant replicate it live with the band alone (no sequence tracks etc) then the recording is cheating.

How can a band with 1 keys player play a song with 20 synth parts.... how can one singer sing 4 harmony parts etc.

But I record and mix for fun an no other reason.

Considering that music isn't a competition, the idea of "cheating" existing in music is as absurd and ridiculous as someone who likes the taste of tomato ketchup on their chips deciding that it's cheating so choosing to eat them dry instead.

As long as we agree vinegar makes chips worse

WiresDreamDisasters

guitarfishbay said:

thegummy said:

paulmapp8306 said:

I come from the opinion if you cant replicate it live with the band alone (no sequence tracks etc) then the recording is cheating.

How can a band with 1 keys player play a song with 20 synth parts.... how can one singer sing 4 harmony parts etc.

But I record and mix for fun an no other reason.

Considering that music isn't a competition, the idea of "cheating" existing in music is as absurd and ridiculous as someone who likes the taste of tomato ketchup on their chips deciding that it's cheating so choosing to eat them dry instead.

As long as we agree vinegar makes chips worse

We definitely do not agree on that, and our friendship is on real rocky ground now.

digitalscream

WiresDreamDisasters said:

guitarfishbay said:

thegummy said:

paulmapp8306 said:

I come from the opinion if you cant replicate it live with the band alone (no sequence tracks etc) then the recording is cheating.

How can a band with 1 keys player play a song with 20 synth parts.... how can one singer sing 4 harmony parts etc.

But I record and mix for fun an no other reason.

Considering that music isn't a competition, the idea of "cheating" existing in music is as absurd and ridiculous as someone who likes the taste of tomato ketchup on their chips deciding that it's cheating so choosing to eat them dry instead.

As long as we agree vinegar makes chips worse

We definitely do not agree on that, and our friendship is on real rocky ground now.

Vinegar makes everything worse, except a few sauces and (occasionally) poached eggs.

WiresDreamDisasters

digitalscream said:

WiresDreamDisasters said:

guitarfishbay said:

thegummy said:

paulmapp8306 said:

I come from the opinion if you cant replicate it live with the band alone (no sequence tracks etc) then the recording is cheating.

How can a band with 1 keys player play a song with 20 synth parts.... how can one singer sing 4 harmony parts etc.

But I record and mix for fun an no other reason.

Considering that music isn't a competition, the idea of "cheating" existing in music is as absurd and ridiculous as someone who likes the taste of tomato ketchup on their chips deciding that it's cheating so choosing to eat them dry instead.

As long as we agree vinegar makes chips worse

We definitely do not agree on that, and our friendship is on real rocky ground now.

Vinegar makes everything worse, except a few sauces and (occasionally) poached eggs.

You know what... you can both F88k 0ff! In the salty seas with ye!!

Modellista

It’s never occurred to me when listening to an album whether or not it would be accurately reproducible in a live setting. That would only become an issue if the band failed to get anywhere close live. And where does that philosophy leave many of us on here who makes tracks by ourselves? One instrument and one vocal only? 

Snap

Nine Inch Nails - originally one, now two blokes making varied music which is often very layered, complex and with loads of tracks. My favourite band. Is the argument saying that they can't do this music cos there is no way they could replicate it live?

Nah, that's just daft. They are amazing live as well.

PolarityMan

Snap said:

Nine Inch Nails - originally one, now two blokes making varied music which is often very layered, complex and with loads of tracks. My favourite band. Is the argument saying that they can't do this music cos there is no way they could replicate it live?

Nah, that's just daft. They are amazing live as well.

Yeah I mean they dont play all the parts live so I guess they might well as have not bothered making one of the most ambitious live performances ever conceived in the genre:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBC3NXnN8y4&t=1616s

Cos I'd have hated to have been there to watch that amazing spectacle knowing that the 4th rhythm guitar track was on a sequencer. 

paulmapp8306

There my rules, thoughts and feelings, nobody else's.  I'm not saying dont do it, or dont enjoy ehats been done at all.

I just believe that a redcording should aim to be the capture of a live performance to be relived and shared rather than an artistic creation in its own right.

Just my pov which I've held for about 40 years...and 9 inch nails are complete garbage;)

PolarityMan

paulmapp8306 said:

There my rules, thoughts and feelings, nobody else's.  I'm not saying dont do it, or dont enjoy ehats been done at all.

I just believe that a redcording should aim to be the capture of a live performance to be relived and shared rather than an artistic creation in its own right.

Just my pov which I've held for about 40 years...and 9 inch nails are complete garbage;)

Yeah you'e right. its fucking well easy to win Grammys when you play industrial.