-
I imagine recordings like Jarrett's trio stuff are untouched. And I think that because he has a history of excess. And it's harder to edit recordings like that. Unless they're taking a concert recording from Berlin and appending one from Paris. But that's REALLY hard. Different sounding halls, different density because of the audience, let alone tempos.
-
09-20-2013 03:41 PM
-
Doc - I was going to point that out. The artist has/had very little control over these things. He'd do his job and then hear the recording and all of the edits when everyone else did. I suppose some were lucky enough to be warned of the process, but he had very little say in it, for the most part.
-
Well I must be naive this is as bad as finding out that all those guys in the Tour de France were cheating all along...my world has been rocked...
-
All the above said, I still prefer unedited recordings, with my own recordings. It doesn't always happen though! As an engineer or artist you can tell when you are losing the original vibe. My theory is that recordings are SUPPOSED to be a representation of a real event. This real event is unique because it shares the SAME TIME STREAM. In modern recording we attempt to fool people into thinking it did happen at the same time. But more to the point, jazz is about creating the same time at the same time. Everybody who is playing is experiencing, more or less, the same thing at the same time. You're sharing the time, the emotion, the groove, the thoughts. When you overdub you ARE cheating. You're forcing another time stream into a static, old one. So you are changing it and lessening it's impact. Sometimes months can go by, even YEARS between sessions to the final one. You are diluting the track. But sometimes there's no avoiding it. Not with modern recording. Do you go for the raw energy or the imperfections? Modern recordings and the public have already spoken on this one. They are conditioned for perfection. They are conditioned to notice the slightest variations of pitch or timing. Even if you're listening to jazz, the effects of pop music abound. And jazz has borrowed this technology to help stay relevant and competitive.
In the olden days of Motown and Atlantic and smaller labels in the 60s, imperfections were all over the place. Drummers were dropping beats, singers were slightly out of tune and sometimes it was hip. It's MUCH harder to get away with that now and try to release something in a major way. Even if you're doing a small jazz record, you don't want to think of it as a small jazz record. You're hoping that Columbia is still going to want to pick it up, or some reputable European label. Or just put it out yourself like every one else. But you want to be able to get on the radio airwaves and internet. You want to be picked up by some agency. It's hard to take the chance unless you 1) don't know any better, or 2) don't need to because you have a large enough following, or 3) you just don't care.
-
I also think it was easier, in a sense, back in the day when Dexter Gordon or Ben Webster were recording quartets. Generally the music was a little easier. They're playing exactly what they played live: standards. Calling tunes, going in and recording.
But when guys started doing really challenging original music, it changed. I've recorded some tracks, myself but mainly others, where the music is just so complicated. Jazz NEVER has a big budget. Keep that in mind. Nobody buys it. It's a lost leader item and has been for decades. But you're doing music that's fast, fast, fast and has unusual, tricky changes, sometimes also tricky time signature changes, meter changes and a near impossible head. Most often it's IMPOSSIBLE unless you're wealthy, or have a big label (yeah, right. We're talking jazz remember?), have you're own studio and enough money to pay the guys day after day, for recording and rehearsals. Chick Corea? Pat Metheny? That's about it, right? Who else might have that kind of budget?
Or you have what everyone wants, a tight unit of guys dedicated to your music who are willing to tough it out with and for you for little pay, just because they believe in the music. Believe it or not, those guys are hard to impossible to find these days. Everyone has to make a living, and increasingly it's very, very hard for jazz musicians. We're journeymen by nature, not group people.
So these technological innovations have helped, though they may disappoint some fans. Necessary evils I'm afraid. And it has a very real downside. This is my main complaint about engineers who assist, or enable, in this kind of thing: it's teaching young musicians that they don't have to learn it the right way. "You can fix it in the mix, right?" This is where the jazz musician still has a leg up. The jazz cat can still play. We can still pull off what is being edited. The rock/pop/hip hop guys 9 times out of ten can't. This is why I ALWAYS fight when I'm asked to pitch correct every out of tune spot or generally fix all of the imperfections. This is also why I drive my band crazy when recording by not punching the band in. I want a band performance from beginning to end, even if down the line I may edit it. As much as possible I want to preserve the integrity of the performance. And much more often than not, I do.
-
Some of the 'guide' solos in rock music are some of my favourite solos.
Some examples are 'Ladies Night in Buffalo' by David Lee Roth.
Steve Vai recorded that solo as a guide for a 'proper' solo but the take was so good they put it on the record.
Same with Randy Rhoads' solo on 'Little Dolls'. Originally recorded as a rough track but it was so good it made the actual LP.
-
Van Halen's solo on "Beat It" was a first take, too.
I'm sure there are plenty out there. Most of these guys can play their asses off, but 90% of Vai's solos, in particular, are recorded twice because he liked the way it thickened up the guitar part.
-
What about the rest of "Beat it"?
Originally Posted by ecj
-
Who cares, it's guitar solos that sell the records.
-
You're fighting the good fight Henry. I did my time as an assistant engineer before moving on to post production and I found it pretty numbing to spend days on end auto-tuning vocals and lining drums up to the grid (this was when beat detective was still in it's infancy). Originally Posted by henryrobinett
-
If you think the solos on Thriller are what sold that record to the masses you're completely out of touch with popular culture lol. It was all about the glove and the moonwalk. Originally Posted by Vladan
-
First or second takes are generally the best. Generally. For me that tends to be the case, unless I just don't have a conception yet. Nevertheless often times 1st takes, as good as they are in terms of energy and vibe and ideas, are raw and often have a couple of clams. If you can fix them great. Most often the soloist doesn't know that's the best take he's going to get and goes on and on and on and on, obliterating everything else he did before.
-
Yeah. That's numbing. I can't do it unless I'm getting paid well by the hour. Even then I can't. But once I hear what the client wants it's a game to see how much I can get away with - or just do it if it really needs to be done. I still try to preserve the integrity of the performance. The client may have to send it back to me two or three times before we're done. Originally Posted by Jazzpunk
-
I don't know about this (high lighted above) man. I feel like there are two separate types of products when producing or buying recorded jazz music. Songs (or tunes) being one product and live performances being another. Originally Posted by pkirk
This is not in any way unique to jazz. In virtually any live performance of music, the artists run the risk of all sorts of imperfections. A stringed instrument suddenly going out of tune, a vocal mishap, a brain fart and forgotten lyric, an electrical power glitch causing chaos with an electric keyboard, a broken string on a guitar . . . so on and so on. What would happen if such an incident happened during what was supposed to be a "live recording"? If it was recorded live on location and one of these major glitches happened, would the producers print it to CD to be sold? In some cases yes, in some cases no . . depending upon how bad the issue was. If it happened in an intended "studio live" recording setting . . . would the band not stop, correct the problem and take it from the top? What's the difference?
In some instances, the desired product is as perfect a rendition of a jazz tune as possible, what ever it takes. In other instances, the desired product is a live rendition of a jazz tune . . . with all of it's spontaneities regardless of the good and the bad. I really appreciate both equally as well.
-
I saw an interview yesterday with one of the engineers for Yes and he said that when they recorded their big hit Roundabout, they were no where near capable of playing the whole tune from beginning to end. And so they recorded each little bit separately and glued them together. lol.
-
Frank Sinatra's vocals were comped, according to engineers who were around at the time.
As I've mentioned before the solo from the live version of Crossroads by Clapton is comped.....well the 2 solos were swapped around. Listen to the hi hat and you will hear the drop.
So then we should also question what is supposedly sacrosanct.
Did Martino really play the solo from Sunny or Along Came Betty in one take? Those solos are almost superhuman.
Not sure about that. From memory his book states that they played that gig for 6 nights running and recorded the last night (for the "Live" album).
But did they?
And what about "Along Came Betty". It would have been a piece of cake to comp that. We know that there was more than one take......because there is an alt version.
Did Benson drop in?
Almost certainly in my opinion. He has killer licks in crucial spots of his solos. Licks that I've never heard him play again.
Doesn't worry me at all really. I take the view that it's a different form and there are no rules.....or at least the rules are flexible.
As has been stated before, we know those guys can play and we've heard how great they are live.
-
Metheny said in a lot of interviews that he wasn't happy with the way the old ECM records were done, i.e. two or three days in the studio. That's why he left ECM at a time when the Group records became more dense, after First Circle.
He always said that it is more important to him that listeners can enjoy the record for years to come than to keep all the original solos.
I don't have a problem with that because live he can live up to the studio standard and sometimes beyond.
-
Yes. There's a difference between having the chops and creating something memorable that has taste and endurance.
-
Originally Posted by Gearhead
And for me, that's what it's all about. Why even go to see Metheney live if he's going to cover an improv note for note against what he laid down in a studio? We listen to a recorded version of a given jazz tune over and over and over . . at home, in the car, while we're walking (jogging for you young'uns). The solo becomes ingrained in our memory. Then, when we do get a chance to see an artist live, it's always a very refreshing thing to hear that solo expanded upon, changed up, etc.. Back when I was spending time in the studio, we'd have our artists lay back a bit on the solos just so that they could take it to the next level in live performances. Also, there's nothing "improvisational" about replicating or regurgitating something you've done before . . whether the prior solo was written out or totally improvised.
Here's another side of it. I was once shopping a "baby act", (great band though . . 4 horns and a killer rhythm section) . . . with H & L Records of Englewood Cliffs NJ. Brought the Mother tape up to Landy McNeil, the head of A&R. He listened to it three times. Said he loved it. But, then he said to me . . "this recording is balls to the wall. Where are these guys gonna go from here when the do this live".
That was a great lesson for me.Last edited by Patrick2; 09-21-2013 at 02:02 PM.
-
It's just a taste thing for me. I know that many recordings are edited (I run across this sometimes when transcribing) I get the point of overdubbing solos and punching stuff in, etc. I just prefer "live" jazz recordings, and prefer live jazz performances, because of what I listen for and aspire to in jazz. Originally Posted by Patrick2
My tastes are not consistent across styles: I like hip hop, but it tends to sound like crap (to me) live. I like some extreme metal (dillinger escape plan or don caballero anyone?) but would never consider attending one of their performances, volume kills music for me. I go to many "classical" music performances, but don't enjoy listening to classical recordings. etc. No logic to it, just my taste.
-
When I was an engineer for Big Clam Records, once we fired up the Radio Shack cassette recorder, what got played was what you got. "The Nutbush Tuba Quartet does Dylan" was done in one afternoon, one take.
-
One and the same, although, I don't post there much any more, too many people interested in "bluffing" their way into the scene. No one is interested in developing skills or discipline, it's all about finding shortcuts to a dubious end... That's why I'm becoming increasingly attracted to the world of Jazz, the good players (like yourself) have put in the hard yards, and don't need to BS. Originally Posted by henryrobinett
For me, Jazz is a refuge from all the BS I've endured in the music biz over the years, and that's the reason why it means a lot to me that the Jazz I choose to listen to is as far away from BS as I can find it.
Reply With Quote
Recommandations for Hollowbodies for $600 and under?
Today, 05:20 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos