-
That's always a subject for discussion with my son (bass player 20 years old)
He doesn't understand how could it be possible to leave so many mistakes on records made in the 60's or 70's, compared to today recordings.
I always argue that in those good ol'times, there was no Logic Pro, and people didn't spend 3 years in the studio to complete an album.
Nothing better than live music IMO
-
09-19-2013 09:09 AM
-
Actually (and to my amazement) Holdsworth NEVER edited a single solo! he did multiple takes (sometimes hundreds) but if it went in a sour direction. This came up in a conversation in the van and when we were talking about Metheny comping solos he said: "who has time for all that cheese. just play your damn guitar quick so you can go to the pub and have a pint" LOL He is awesome!!!
Originally Posted by 3625
-
I've seen Metheny and looked for how they're monitoring the backing tracks. I've known this for a long time. Even "Are You Going With Me" has that ostinato pattern that's sequenced.
I think what a lot of guys are getting hung up on is the difference between a composer, orchestrator and jazz musician. With Metheny, Corea (who also does this sometimes) you have this combination. When you have a real composer he wants to realize the piece of music and write freely and not necessarily be limited to the instruments of a live jazz quartet. So multiple guitars, multiple keyboard parts, multiple layers of percussion, voices are available. With the technology why limit yourself? What, for fear of the jazz police? He can play already. He's a composer. Let him compose.
When you're making albums its a whole different kettle of fish. You're making a collection of songs, and producing something that hopefully will stand the test of time; that can withstand many, many listens before it begins to get old. Live playing is not meant to hold up. It's here and gone. Great. But making albums is entirely different.
Now if you want to make an album that is a demo of your live band so you can get gigs, cool. Or if you want to show off your band that really kicks serious ass, cool. But if you're a composer and not intimidated by the jazz police and don't have a jazz orchestra, or likely can't afford one, make a record and overdub as much as you want. You can afford it.
-
What I find interesting is how some 'classic' recordings with mistakes still sound great regardless - whereas we've all heard something (our own playing at times!) with mistakes and it's obviously mediocre or just plain bad. What is it about a Miles or Monk that can get away with the odd mistake yet it doesn't detract from the overall quality? I think being right in the pocket helps, as well as playing every note with absolute conviction - being on the edge where it happens. I also wonder if old analog recording equipment adds a certain vibe to the whole thing - digital recordings don't tend to forgive mistakes of any kind in my experience. Originally Posted by 339 in june
-
I don't think anyone would dare argue that Jazz records were just better decades ago. Better vibe, better sound, better playing. Whether or not the music was better, well, that you can argue, but maybe the music made back then was more exciting. It had to be, the sword of Damocles was hanging over their heads. They had a few hours to get it right, not one track, but 2 whole sides! Screwup and you don't get called back. It was a culture, it was an attitude. It's gone.
Shame, because there are obviously enough great players still around who can make great un edited recordings, their live shows prove that. I know, a few do, but it's not the norm. If it were an unwritten rule that a true Jazz recording must not be edited, comped or overdubbed, then Jazz recordings might get exciting again! It's the one music that should stand apart from other recordings that are edited to the nth degree. Even classical, or fine art music recordings are way less edited, and that music is certainly not of the spontaneous kind....
Just my taste, but if it's not on the knife's edge, I don't care for it. Just like watching the trapeze wire walker. If he's up high, it's dangerous, it's exciting, you're on the edge of your seat. Compelling, thrilling, even if it were recorded.... Watch it again and again, it's still gonna be powerful. But, if the wire weren't so high, and if there was a net underneath, where is the danger? The excitement? If, in the finished edited video, the walker gets to the end, but you know that he fell off hundreds of times into the net before those bits were edited out, would you watch it? More than once??
No, and what if he were walking along a line on the ground? Ridiculous, right?
Welcome to the digital recording revolution....
-
Editing and comping tracks was certainly happening by the early Seventies. An example is documented as regards country rock records of the Eagles in Don Felder's book Heaven and Hell - My Life in the Eagles. He recounts how, recording to tape in those days, their producer/engineer would cut and paste the tape tracks to create a comp track that was as 'perfect' as possible, leaving on the cutting room floor a lot of vibrant performances with minor imperfections.
So even before the advent of Pro Tools, comping was happening. No question that it occurred like in jazz recordings as well.
-
Dear princeplanet, I totally disagree! Music is worth for how much you like what you hear. There are no other senses involved. What you hear can enagage your brain, fool it into perception of unexistent, but for no reason whatsoever it has to be unedited live performance. Do you watch movie on ocassion, or theather is the only way to go?
-
Count me among the heartbroken.
.
Are there any emperors anywhere that are actually wearing clothes. I thought that almost all jazz recordings were spontaneous live recordings with little or no dubbing - especially in the 40's, 50's and early 60's.
Another myth exposed.
Oh well. At least I can still count on St. Nick coming to my chimney in late December.
-
I disagree with princeplanet too. I love music, not just guitar or not just proven off the cuff playing. I mean I love symphonies and written classical music, orchestrated music. There are so many different ways of conceiving music. If it's good it makes no difference to me how it was done. It's music.
-
I'm more with princeplanet here, at least as far a jazz goes. When I listen to jazz, I want to thrill of how successful the group interaction is, how skilled the improvising is, etc. I'll throw this out: here's an old clip of me playing Donna Lee, but I sped it way up without changing pitch, so I had all kids of time to think as I played it. is this as interesting as if I was actually able to play that well? I woudl conisder it a fraud if it turned out this was done on jazz records. Of course, for pop music I don't care. It serves a different purpose to my listening.
SoundClick artist: Paul Kirk - page with MP3 music downloads
-
Well, I understand the point, I'd also think of it as of a fraud should you be claiming you did it in real time. However, as long as you say listen to "my music", as oposed to "my playing", I see no problem.
-
Someone else already said it, but I really feel like Metheny gets a "pass" on this stuff because he's proven that he can play absolutely incredible solos live. If he couldn't, or if his live performances were only limited to the tightly controlled environment of the PMG, I might feel differently. But he's definitely proven himself to be fully capable of playing live, improvised jazz at the very highest possible level.
It does definitely give you an incredible amount of respect for Charlie Christian and Django Reinhardt to think of them cutting those records in a day or two at the most, and just absolutely nailing the hell out of everything in one or two takes.
I can't think of a Christian solo in the more arranged band formats (not the Minton's stuff) that has a single misplaced note, to my ears.
-
Hehe, seems so many of you guys disagree with so many of my posts! Oh well, I can't help what I'm attracted to in the Jazz I like, one man's floor is another man's ceiling I suppose....
Hey Vladan, movies vs theatre is another good analogy. Of course I appreciate movies, it's the ultimate culmination of the entertainment arts, photography, writing, music, even editing. But the theatre is such a different animal. Some actors who are purists will not do films, but are happy for their play to be filmed in one long take. If a Jazz musician took the same stance, would you disagree with him also?
Seems to me that of all artists who work hard to prepare themselves for the act of spontanaiety, one would think the Jazz musician to be the most likely to value unedited performance, even in recording. But yeah, whatever blows yer hair back...
-
Sure, and as we all know, even the venerable Laurence Olivier acted in many films. But an actor has a script, the "script" for the Jazz musician is much looser. The accomplished jazz musician is a rare beast. Making records the way Pop bands do is hardly a way to differentiate his/her skill set from the herd, which is what I wish Jazz musicians would do. Originally Posted by ecj
Stand apart from the crowd, make the rules different, make them hard. Not to be elitist, but to draw attention to how rarified the skill is, how special and exciting it is. You know, back to bop culture!
-
Princeplnet, we're all entitled to own opinion. Dissaagreement is an opinion too. Sorry for croossthreading, but ther's a maybe a part of the reason for declined popularity, laiyng in. Jazz musician may be overconcerned about purity of the idiom, instead giving more attention to his product as percieved by the audience. I mean, we can not restrict ourselves to Crossroads duelling type of events, for another movie analogy.
And for one more, ther's this Dogme 95 thing, Lars Von Trier and others ...
But, they said we're gonna do it this way, like it or not, it's our way. However, nor they claimed the other way of doing is not cinematography, nor the rest of cinematographic world said dogmatics are out of community. They're still all together in commercial mainsytream cinematography. None of them consider recorded theather a genre worth explring/ exploiting. Days of that genre are long gone. Just between the time the train entered the station, and Jack Palance got shot of the gallery. Not that there are no recorded thether projects, but they're very few and far between.
-
I dig Lars' films, but Dogma 95 was far from filmed live theatre, but yeah, closer than Hollywood... As for Jazz lacking popularity because of a "purist" ethic, can't say I agree. I say find a new champion, a new loudmouthed "purist" who can walk the talk (preferably some closer to Miles than, say, Wynton). Someone who calls anyone who edits their recordings "pussies". Someone with more bravado than your average rapper. Then we'll see if more people listen up! Sure, it might only be for a few years, but it keeps Jazz alive. Seriously, where would Jazz be now if not for the Young Lions of the 80's? Imagine if there was zero connection to anything earlier than 1970. Some may shrug, but that's a scary thought for me....
-
Here we agree. Only, if by young lions you mean fusion shreadders, they were connected via HM hero genre. kids were in HM, than some narowed to guitar technique, then some trnscended to fusion. Not that I'd know, this is just an opinion, of corse.
Is there some popular genre today, based on somewhat technicaly demandig guitar playing, or any instrument? Today, you need someone who'll conect via multimedia and augmented reality. Of course, appart from oldschool Jazz really being not even close to death as some present it, there are sub and off genres, like etno, world and so on, whicha are also a chance (many already did it long time ago Zawinul, .. ) However, it may be hard to draw the line (with etno and world) and not loose the "art" denominator. So, multimedia would be it, I think. And augmented reality.Last edited by Vladan; 09-19-2013 at 02:17 PM.
-
Those young lions also edited. I was privy to the Blue Note Young Lions recordings with Kenny Garrett and Ralph Bowen. Another very common way of doing it is recording several takes and comping them together. A LOT of jazz groups do it this way. This way you actually have the dialogue with the band. But take 3 has a better tenor solo and take one a better piano solo. The out head had to be over dubbed with the entire band. The trumpet player keeps missing a note on the head so they overdub him. Or the whole band come in at the coda, take 5.
Wake up guys. This isn't Fantasy Island.
-
I got to hang one night with Ed Michel the great producer of Coltrane album, but was even more amazing was his skill with a razor blade editing those recordings. He he said most those Jazz tracks were LONG takes with multiple solos, that he then had to edit down to the short recording you hear on the albums. No computer with elastic time and other tools like today, had to know what part of a beat to cut on, could the different points in the track match up dynamicaly and tonally. One of my last jobs was doing post audio editing and with ProTools was so much easier not only the tools, if you don't like the result you undo out of it, back in the day once the tape was cut you were committed. Originally Posted by henryrobinett
Yes a lot of tracks, solos, and etc were created with the razor blade.
-
I was a fan of PM back in the first decade of his career. And while he is obviously a beast of a player, I have come to dislike his aesthetic as an artist. That aesthetic is made up of many choices. And this comping thing is one of those choices. And while he and others may think that the result is "better", that is far from clear. After all, we are all familar with the debate about air brushing nudes. Most agree that a bit of air brushing to remove an obvious flaw in an otherwise great photo is unobjectionable. Most also agree that too much air brushing produces something cold and lifeless. I don't mind that he avails himself of every tool. I just don't care for the result.
Last edited by jster; 09-19-2013 at 03:11 PM.
-
I'm envious. I do audio engineering, but all digital. I've done many jazz recordings. Razor blades were tough, and many were poorly done. I never did that as an engineer, but I've had other engineers do it when I was the artist. Killed me. Originally Posted by docbop
If you listen to some of those old sides you can hear it. Mingus Ah Um and Blues and Roots. Compare some of the unedited tracks released later and you can see why they were edited. THEY'RE MAKING RECORDS TO LAST THE TEST OF TIME.
Today, unless it's simply impossible, you cannot tell an edit. And I've had to argue with clients who want me to pitch correct the upright bass, or the trumpet. And sometimes it's necessary. But I like to leave things as close to performance level as possible. But to remain competitive with the big boys who use it themselves, you cave into the clients wishes. He's paying me anyway. And is it really wrong to salvage an otherwise brilliant solo because he hits one clam? You don't think Bird would have been happy to salvage his famous break on A Night In Tunisia? Drop that break in another performance, one where the band doesn't fall apart?
When you learn that Michael Brecker did it and symphony recordings do it and opera singers do it, let alone every pop record since the 70s, you find that's just the way its done. Go hear live music. Support live music and by CDs for the music and to support the artist.
-
Then you should just support live music. I don't think you're going to find much music that hasn't been edited. Period. Not just Metheny. Originally Posted by jster
-
I do support live music. I much prefer it to studio music anymore. I'm sure you're right that almost everything is edited today. That reminds me! Wayne is coming to town next month! Originally Posted by henryrobinett
-
I'm not the biggest Metheny fan but you're really grasping for a dig at him here. You can edit all you like but most of us aren't going to sound anywhere close to what Metheny can crap out on his worst of days lol. He's not my favorite but I've seen him live and he is a monster player. The fact that he takes advantage of modern recording techniques to achieve his goals in the studio doesn't take away from what he can do live imo. Originally Posted by princeplanet
Don't think Wes cut ay albums that way, certainly not the live ones! (but maybe the "strings" ones...)
If its cut'n'paste, it's composition, it ain't true improvisation. I don't really marvel at composition so much - not in Jazz anyway. The true alchemists, the conjurers, they didn't / wouldn't cut'n'paste, and if they did I'd be disappointed.
Shit, even my solos are wonderful when I splice my good bits together!Last edited by Jazzpunk; 09-19-2013 at 04:48 PM.
-
I probably consider myself more of a composer than a guitarist, or at least as much. Composition is where I got involved in music. Then I get seriously sidetracked into guitar. But how anyone cannot be moved by composition is beyond me. That's what music is. Without tunes or great music there's no guitar playing to play. A great guitarist plys his trade on the music provided by a composer.
When I hear Prokofiev, Jim Beard, Vince Mendoza, whoever great composer - man that's it for me. I don't need to hear a guitar solo or a tenor solo, piano solo. It's music. It's always music. I want to hear the clarinets coming in under the trombones and the staccato violins and piano clusters. Counterpoint. Contrary motion. The main thing FOR ME is composition. Guitar falls underneath. It's only a cog in the wheel of music.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos