How many tracks?

octatonic

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.

Vinegar is used for cleaning (white) and salads (balsamic).
Ketchup on chips.
Kimchi on eggs.
End of.

fields5069

The Primitives captured their recorded sound live, although I think they were cheating. I don’t think anybody minded, everyone just wanted to do dirty with Tracy Tracy.  

paulmapp8306

PolarityMan said:

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. 

Awards mean jack.... Golden Globes, Oscars, Mobos, Grammys...... self pretentious back slapping imo.  Doesnt mean the winners arnt good, dont work hard - or in fact that they ARE any good, its just the concept of industry awards.... Anti art if anything is.

octatonic

paulmapp8306 said:

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

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I would never completely trust anyone who didn't appreciate NIN. 
I'm kidding.
Sort of.

LastMantra

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;)

I can appreciate the skill involved with that kind of recording. What about hendrix and Co? multiple overdubs, stereo fx and the like? The Beatles? 

I remember John frusciantie saying that when they (cps) play live he just chooses one part to play, sometimes choosing a different part or mixing it up. 

paulmapp8306

octatonic said:

paulmapp8306 said:

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

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I would never completely trust anyone who didn't appreciate NIN. 
I'm kidding.
Sort of.

I kind of appreciate what they do from a music creation perspective, just doesnt float my boat at all.

Cirrus

I think that only one person should be allowed to listen to a given bands's recordings at any one time.

I mean, think about it - in real life a band wouldn't be able to be in lots of places at once, giving multiple performances of different tracks or even the same track at the same time in different places. It's just ludicrous. I think a recording of a band should only be able to do what the actual band would be able to do in person, without cheating.

PolarityMan

paulmapp8306 said:

PolarityMan said:

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. 

Awards mean jack.... Golden Globes, Oscars, Mobos, Grammys...... self pretentious back slapping imo.  Doesnt mean the winners arnt good, dont work hard - or in fact that they ARE any good, its just the concept of industry awards.... Anti art if anything is.

Thing is you're massively undermining your own credibility here. Regardless of whether you like NIN or not the link I posted is an example of an objectively good live performance that is pretty much universally acclaimed yet it certainly contains sequenced elements.

The stupid thing is that I dont actually think that's really your point at all but you've painted yourself into a corner with your blanket statements about "cheating" or whatever.

Personally I agree there are definitely a set of bands that are completely carried by their production and their live performance whether faithful to the recording or not is not on par with their recorded output. That's definitely shit and I suspect we're in agreement here. 

But then there's also the great live performances that contain pre-recorded elements and there's absolutely certainly bands who have great albums with great productions who are also great live playing things 100% live but not hitting all the parts on the record.

Besides didn't you join a band as a keyboard player recently? Is it cheating if you use orchestra hits or string pads?

paulmapp8306

Cirrus said:

I think that only one person should be allowed to listen to a given bands's recordings at any one time.

I mean, think about it - in real life a band wouldn't be able to be in lots of places at once, giving multiple performances of different tracks or even the same track at the same time in different places. It's just ludicrous. I think a recording of a band should only be able to do what the actual band would be able to do in person, without cheating.

that is the whole point of a recording to bring that performance to multiple people and places.  Its why it was invented.   

paulmapp8306

PolarityMan said:

paulmapp8306 said:

PolarityMan said:

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. 

Awards mean jack.... Golden Globes, Oscars, Mobos, Grammys...... self pretentious back slapping imo.  Doesnt mean the winners arnt good, dont work hard - or in fact that they ARE any good, its just the concept of industry awards.... Anti art if anything is.

Thing is you're massively undermining your own credibility here. Regardless of whether you like NIN or not the link I posted is an example of an objectively good live performance that is pretty much universally acclaimed yet it certainly contains sequenced elements.

The stupid thing is that I dont actually think that's really your point at all but you've painted yourself into a corner with your blanket statements about "cheating" or whatever.

Personally I agree there are definitely a set of bands that are completely carried by their production and their live performance whether faithful to the recording or not is not on par with their recorded output. That's definitely shit and I suspect we're in agreement here. 

But then there's also the great live performances that contain pre-recorded elements and there's absolutely certainly bands who have great albums with great productions who are also great live playing things 100% live but not hitting all the parts on the record.

Besides didn't you join a band as a keyboard player recently? Is it cheating if you use orchestra hits or string pads?

I did - and I dont use orchestral hits - though I do use strings (thought to be fair not sampled strings, but rather string like sounds created with base waveforms in a synth).  Its not cheating in the same way, I guess it can be looked at that way as its not real strings - and if it was it would use multiple musicians.

BUT - If I recorded tha band, I could then re-create that sound live in person so in that way, its not cheating.

Even in that 80s band, as a keys player I refuse to use samples and sequences.  I do use Arpegiators because they are generated live rather than pre-recorded.  Even the, theres a grey area.   using a step sequencer to produce a 4 bar pattern, is like an arpegiater with a user programmed pattern, so  I can persuade myself that OK.  Using an automated  complete track sequence on the other hand I cant.

BUT I do take your point - and yes, to some extent, bands that rely on pre recorded parts that are triggered live when needed - and samples as well to some extend (rather than having half the song on a backing track that isnt triggered when needed but runs the whole song) - and who reproduce the studio track by doing so??  I guess thats OK, though it still grates on me a little.   Nick Rhodes has never played all the parts of a Druran song live, ever.  Even in the late 70s before they were signed he ran a real to real tape machine with recorded parts.

Absolutely though, I cant abide bands that rely solely on studio to generate all heir tracks and sounds but then cant reproduce them live in any way.  Maybe "cheating" was a bit strong a term. 

digitalscream

paulmapp8306 said:

Cirrus said:

I think that only one person should be allowed to listen to a given bands's recordings at any one time.

I mean, think about it - in real life a band wouldn't be able to be in lots of places at once, giving multiple performances of different tracks or even the same track at the same time in different places. It's just ludicrous. I think a recording of a band should only be able to do what the actual band would be able to do in person, without cheating.

that is the whole point of a recording to bring that performance to multiple people and places.  Its why it was invented.   

Not really - things have moved on since the 1930s

paulmapp8306

Still why it was invented though.

digitalscream

paulmapp8306 said:

Still why it was invented though.

Not doubting that. What I'm disputing is "that is the whole point of a recording".

It was the whole point of a recording. That changed...about 75 years ago, when dubbed recordings began to be commonplace.

Cirrus

paulmapp8306 said:

Cirrus said:

I think that only one person should be allowed to listen to a given bands's recordings at any one time.

I mean, think about it - in real life a band wouldn't be able to be in lots of places at once, giving multiple performances of different tracks or even the same track at the same time in different places. It's just ludicrous. I think a recording of a band should only be able to do what the actual band would be able to do in person, without cheating.

that is the whole point of a recording to bring that performance to multiple people and places.  Its why it was invented.   

Actually the whole point was to make money and give people a reason to want new technology. THAT is why it was invented. You think Edison cared about art more than money?

paulmapp8306

Edison cared about science more than money.

Danny1969

paulmapp8306 said:

Edison cared about science more than money.

I don't think so ... Edison invented very little but registered patents on things his employees invented. Certainly wasn't an animal lover either !!

Jez6345789

At the end of the day its all production and if you think of the lengths Bands went to back in the late 60's 70's trying to sync machines together mixing down to two tracks then adding more often at the expense of overall quality. The fact that you now have a virtually unlimited sonic palette in comparison to say Zepplin or Beatles albums. There are very few artists from back in the day would turn their nose up at having not to submix all the guitars to a track to make room for something else. 

If the standard of songs in modern music has dropped since the good old days then, in general, the inventiveness of producers to polish those very derivative turd pop songs has expanded to a very sophisticated level. 

As for should a studio session by a realistic sound of the live band never was never will be. Even the most straight-ahead recording will use selective mike placement, mike tonality pre-amp tonality eq etc to sculpt a listenable sound. 

thegummy

paulmapp8306 said:

Cirrus said:

I think that only one person should be allowed to listen to a given bands's recordings at any one time.

I mean, think about it - in real life a band wouldn't be able to be in lots of places at once, giving multiple performances of different tracks or even the same track at the same time in different places. It's just ludicrous. I think a recording of a band should only be able to do what the actual band would be able to do in person, without cheating.

that is the whole point of a recording to bring that performance to multiple people and places.  Its why it was invented.   

The whole point of overdub multitracking is so your piece of music isn't limited by the number of musicians you have. That's why it was invented

I honestly don't know why you're arguing back - you've made a completely arbitrary rule up that makes no sense whatsoever and can't be explained or justified. If you want to limit yourself to it, limit away, but it won't ever come across as sane to anyone else.

octatonic

It is easy to be purist until you have to work with others in a record label type infrastructure.
"Do this or you don't get paid" is a difficult thing to argue against if you rely on getting paid to live and pay bills.

paulmapp8306

That I understand.

As I say, it's just how I see things.  I'm not really arguing back, my view wont change what people do at all.  I do see its limiting, and the benefit from a creative pov.  But I cant help always thinking (how are you going to play that live without backing tracks).    

Part of it is that it restricts improvisation live.  How can you extend a groove that's going down well if you have stuff on a ore recorded track?  What opens creativity in a studio also restricts creativity as a performer.

I guess part of it also comes from playing in covers bands all my life rather than writing/creating (I cant write lyrics to save my ass).  Punters expect a decent rendition of the songs they know. The more tracks/overdubscetc the recording has the harder that is.

The general public here their favourite track performed by a 4 piece and dont see why you cant do similar.

That should come into it as the covers band is not the creative element, but it does limit material you can choose.