-
Thanks for this information gentlemen.
I always wondered how some of these players could construct and execute such perfect, idea-filled solos, measure after measure. Now I know how it was done.
This thread should make guys like me adjust their goals to be a little more realistic.
Its nice to know the truth.
-
09-19-2013 06:47 PM
-
You are most welcome
Originally Posted by AlsoRan
-
Jaco was an arranger and worked on his main solos constantly writing them out and refining them and using that as the basis of his live solos. People want their best out there whether its pre-arranging parts of a solo or in the studio assembling pieces to create what they feel represents them. Originally Posted by AlsoRan
-
I dug your take Paul - you're in good company, here's Tristano playing a sped up version of All Of Me Originally Posted by pkirk
-
Well this has been an enlightening thread to say the least - so I'm assuming that when the older recordings were edited it was the whole band at once that was spliced, whereas from the 80's onwards most of these guys would isolate their instruments to avoid spill? then individually overdub corrections etc. such as that Kenny Garrett session?
-
Yes 3625, I believe that is correct. I wasn't there so I can only surmise. But there was some splicing going on. Some of those things you can easily hear, but we've gotten used to the splices!
Not all, or maybe even not most would isolate themselves. Art Lande insisted that the early ECM recordings were all done with the guys close in, no isolation and no close mic'ing. But he recorded for ECM real early. But photos of modern recording sessions have the drums isolated, the bass isolated. And this has been my experience as a player and engineer. That's also the way I like to do it. Less problems with the bass and drums fighting each other. The purpose isn't so much for overdubs, but for keeping the integrity of the bass and the drums, and the piano from too much bleed and phase issues.
-
Yes, well, as already mentioned, taking the blade Teo Macera style to Miles was indeed something that had been going on for some time prior, just not as much. Heck, even Mingus "added" his bass back (dubiously?) on the famous Massey Hall recordings. But when no one draws the line and declares "thou shalt not pass", the problem is that people creep over the line, and the line keeps moving until the whole art form no longer resembles what it once was. You may say that's fine because art is meant to "progress", but when art regresses to become craft, then surely some line has been crossed...
There's a world of difference between editing out bum sections of the whole band in a coupla spots, and doing "drop ins" on individual solos. As for the bass player asking to be pitch tuned because of his lousy intonation *gasp*, maybe we should all be asking ourselves : "Where would we draw the line?" ...
-
I record for a living too, Henry, and do way too much editing for my liking.... but when it comes to recording Jazz, the "bleed and phase issues" when there is little or no isolation actually is the magic glue that the old recordings have. I say it gives it more integrity. Originally Posted by henryrobinett
RVG would tell you that, and I'm sure you know it anyway.
-
Yeah well I don't know. You like the sound of the old recordings more than I do. I actually am not (gasp!) a huge fan of RVG's recordings. I much prefer the Columbia Miles and the Atlantic Blues and Roots Mingus. I always thought RVG'S piano sound was shitty. Too tiney. And the cymbals too smeary. But that's just me.
-
Well the bass players in question here are PHENOMENAL bass players. I wouldn't talk about lousy intonation. They're both in NYC kicking serious ass right now. Originally Posted by princeplanet
-
I think this is a great discussion. I find live albums much more listenable than studio albums. I thought it was because the performers were more inspired by the live audience, but now I think it is because live albums are more authentic (less edited).
Miles famously said "do not fear mistakes for there are none". I guess he should have said "do not fear mistakes, they will fix them in editing".
I agree with Planetprince. I'm probably naive, but I think all the editing is anti-jazz.
Some of my favorite recordings are the Bill Evans, Scott LaFaro, Paul Motion Village Vanguard sessions. I don't think those recordings could have happened in the studio.
-
Frank Zappa burst that bubble too. Back when he released Inca Roads or whatever album that was that had it, he said anyone who thinks live albums done today are actually live is naive. They do the same things. They record a ton of gigs and edit them to get the best performances. Also they'd go back to the studio and enhance the live stuff.
Now this is for the big budget rock band stuff. I'm unaware of jazz groups doing this. I'll ask a friend who specializes in remote recording and has done a ton of jazz releases recorded at the Vanguard, Blue Note etc.
-
Princeplanet - you're the same guy on gearslutz, right?
-
Off Topic: Henry - would Melodyne do a decent job of pitch correcting a double bass, not necessarily the whole take, but isolating a few conspicuous notes? or would it sound like Kanye West? haven't used Melodyne before, but it seems pretty incredible
-
you'll hear it if you know it's there. My experience.
Last edited by Vladan; 09-20-2013 at 03:11 AM.
-
Henry - There is a clip on YT of Bill Evans playing The Shadow of Your Smile at the Village Vanguard, if I recall, entitled the secret recordings or something like that. The recording is notable for a couple of things. First, to my ears the piano is horribly out of tune, which must have been an agony to a musician of Evans' caliber. But it also seems to be unedited which is wonderful in its own way as a real document and musical statement.
I laugh a bit at all the issues about comping and editing of performances. I do not yet have an Apple Logic Pro or Pro Tools computer software system. (Can't afford it in our current magnificently wonderful economic Depression...err... Recession.) My home recording happens via a legacy Korg D1200 with limited editing capability - essentially more an adequate hardware recording system, which actually has its pluses in terms of lack of latency and other software problems. But while one could feasibly perform some editing and painstaking comping of takes with the D1200, I just redo takes if I flub it. And I refuse to use Autotune or other pitch correction devices, even if I had computer editing software like Pro Logic. If I can't sing on pitch, then maybe I shouldn't be singing. So I can bask in my authenticity!
I realize that there is no 'going back to the age of innocence'. We live in the age of autotune, comping, and manufactured music. Once you're addicted to fillers and face lifts, you too can look like a molded plastic Barbie Doll, like Cher, even at sixty plus. Not too bad unless you look up close. But no question that it ain't the real deal.
-
Melodyne is great. It's my preferred pitch correction tool. And I only use it on specific notes, only if I really have to. Originally Posted by 3625
-
Actually, I do recall that Holdsworth parted company with the other original members of UK (John Wetton, Eddie Jobson) because he refused to play at gigs the guitar solos that were on the album. Apparently he told them "Nope. Sorry - can't do it", which was deemed to be "musical differences" and that was that. So I can't imagine his editing solos forever in the recording process either, to be fair. Originally Posted by danihrabin
-
Well, logicaly, that would exactly be the reason...., if he could not played it in studio, but rathet compiled, how's he supposed to play them live. Originally Posted by mangotango
You understood this was smartass type of joke, right?
-
At studio I worked at we did the Beach Boys live album, by time they were done only the drums and audience were left from the live tracking. Now what I was told is the closest thing to a totally live album was The Band's Rock of Ages album Garth overdubed two clarinet notes rest is totally live. Originally Posted by henryrobinett
What I find interesting is now how live sound has changed with modern tech. With computerized lights, sound, and backstage musicians playing extra parts and punching in prerecorded sections whole "live" shows are on a sync generator to keep things together. But the funnest is sound guys having to punch in prerecorded audience applause to kick a dead audience in the ass to clap especially for live recordings/broadcast. And people thought laugh-tracks on TV were bad.
-
LOL. I didn't know the thing about pre-recorded applause! That's great.
-
Until the public started feeling it was their right to steal music and no one was prosecuted for it, music was big business. No one is upset watching a movie and discovering it was edited. Or reading a book and finding out an editor got to it. Or a play or musical and find out it differed great from the initial version. In a Silent Way and Bitches Brew were edited all over the place. Sometimes very poorly, by todays standards. Teo Macero took a razor blade and you can hear it. No listener expected Tony Williams to play a hi-hat pattern with no variation for 25 minutes.
Of course records were and are edited! We live, in the US, in the king of capitalism, in the capital of the capitalist age. EVERYTHING is designed to make money. It's business.
-
Thank you for pointing this out. Recordings are a product as much as an artistic statement. There are tremendous pressures on everyone involved to deliver something that will sell. I've spent a lot of time in the studio on both sides of the glass. I'm sure many of us have had that awful feeling of being in a session where, take after take, overdub after overdub, we watch the excitement and spontaneity get sucked out of a song to fit some producer's idea of perfection. On the other hand, editing for length or to remove errors can really improve a take and save expensive studio time. Originally Posted by henryrobinett
Modern recording, like movies, is a collaborative process. Often it results in a better, or at least more commercially successful, recording. Personally, I like recordings that document a live performance. But I also understand why there aren't too many of those these days.
-
Really interesting thread, guys. Thanks for sharing all of this experience. I've known for some time that even the classic recordings had swapped out solos, or overdubbed parts on heads, etc., but I did not realize the extent of the editing process. I was also really interested to hear about the "behind the scenes" stuff with live sets (backstage musicians, sync generators, etc.). I'm a very simple player, and haven't encountered any of that stuff before.
I do sympathize with both camps. From a composer's standpoint, you're trying to create something beautiful. From a player's standpoint, you're trying to demonstrate your skills and do something authentic. I think there are pluses and minuses from both sides.
I don't think folks should go overboard on the criticism, though. If you've been out to see live jazz recently (and if you haven't, you should), you know that there are incredible players out there who can do incredible things live. Even if they fix a booboo once in a while on a recording, they're still kicking ass on the stage.
I, personally, have no real interest in recording, but absolutely love live music. I've never tried to edit anything that I've done, but I don't think I'd be morally opposed to it if music became my livelihood.
-
Apart from the business side, I think it's an interesting discussion about what a jazz recording should be and why. As fans, I think some of us get caught up in nostalgia as well as in inventing fantasy scenarios about who our heroes are and how we think they should behave. It has nothing to do with the actual artists themselves but fantasies of our own that we project on to them. Originally Posted by henryrobinett
There is no rule that jazz has to be recorded live with no punch ins or overdubs. Back in the day, they simply didn't have that option. In 2013 it's pretty silly to say it's not a jazz record unless you do it how they did it 60 years ago. The reality is that a player at Metheny's level could hop in a time machine, travel back to the olden timey days and hang on any live session any day of the week...period. He chooses to take advantage of modern technology when creating records and as long as he can back it up live, I just can't see a reason to fault him for it.
Now if the discussion is about recording techniques and personal preference as to what sounds better I can understand that. There is definitely a sonic difference between tracking everyone in a room together the old school way and isolating the musicians using more modern recording techniques. I appreciate the aesthetic of both approaches, it just depends on the sound the artist is going for.
Creative recording techniques have changed the sonic landscape in a good way for the most part. Prince asked where we should draw the line and imo I'd say if the artist can't perform to the same level live than the technology has been abused. If the artist is using the technology to fix a bum note, comp together takes or lay down multiple parts, I don't have an issue with it.
I do think live albums should be live but as doc pointed out, even that's not always the reality. I would imagine most live jazz recordings are largely untouched but I'm probably being naive!Last edited by Jazzpunk; 09-20-2013 at 03:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos