|
Post by chessparov on Apr 14, 2020 11:30:13 GMT -6
Great thread! Thanks guys.
How many of you saw Rick Beato's video on this? Chris
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Apr 14, 2020 11:44:02 GMT -6
I think its worth saying that How you quantize is as important as If you quantize. Are you quantizing everything in the song to the grid, or all instruments to the drums? What grid value are you using? 1/8, 1/4, just the down beat on every new measure? Are you locking to a straight grid or using swing timing and/or groove maping? Are you accounting for tempo changes or keeping it static? There's a real skill to doing it right, and sooo many ways to do it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Apr 14, 2020 14:20:43 GMT -6
Sometimes the music calls for that hard quantized rigid robotic 80s sound, very common in EDM, Rap, Hip-Hop, Pop, country-pop, Pop-Rock, you know... 95% of the world's music. It's the other 5% we live for! Where natural humanization occurs, like Uncle Bob Bob Olhsson told us. True anecdotal story that applies here I think. So...I had to do an arrangement / takedown / production of a Sinatra song for a Sinatra impersonator. I did the song, and orchestrated it exactly like the recording. But the impersonator kept telling me it was wrong. I went over and over it with a fine tooth comb and it was perfect. And I do mean perfect. Tempo changes, voicing, everything. Well...except one tiiiiny thing. (Keep in mind, this dude was beyond insanely fanatical. He'd literally sung over this song thousands of times. He had every inflection, etc. down perfect.). Finally after going back and forth with him, I got the guy in to the studio, imported the Sinatra song into the session to put it up against the programmed band / orchestra - and low and behold, there was a section in the song where Hal Blaine (RIP Hal, miss seeing you around) had a little bobble on one fill in the song. (I know, heresy, right?? haha). But I had programmed it in and auto corrected the fill to be "right" - cause it was a mistake in a live vocal / orchestra / band take that got overlooked cause the rest of the take was.....well....legendary. Well, this dude didn't want right, he wanted it with the warts. So I f'd it up exactly like Hal did, and he was happy. (It wasn't a huge deal, just a little timing bauble that most would never notice.) Sometimes, we get used to the inconsistencies in older songs that we know, and we grow to love them. In new stuff we're producing, the danger is to sanitize and iron out all inconsistencies until all humanity is gone. That can be a crime, and coming back years later can be quite a disappointment after you have some perspective. But yeah.....for the other 95%....
You are kidding me you transcribed the whole big band arrangement and rearranged it note by note feeling for feeling with virtual instruments. Jesus - I hope he paid well for this...sounds like a lot of work and NF at all.
Is this song online?
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Apr 14, 2020 15:40:22 GMT -6
True anecdotal story that applies here I think. So...I had to do an arrangement / takedown / production of a Sinatra song for a Sinatra impersonator. I did the song, and orchestrated it exactly like the recording. But the impersonator kept telling me it was wrong. I went over and over it with a fine tooth comb and it was perfect. And I do mean perfect. Tempo changes, voicing, everything. Well...except one tiiiiny thing. (Keep in mind, this dude was beyond insanely fanatical. He'd literally sung over this song thousands of times. He had every inflection, etc. down perfect.). Finally after going back and forth with him, I got the guy in to the studio, imported the Sinatra song into the session to put it up against the programmed band / orchestra - and low and behold, there was a section in the song where Hal Blaine (RIP Hal, miss seeing you around) had a little bobble on one fill in the song. (I know, heresy, right?? haha). But I had programmed it in and auto corrected the fill to be "right" - cause it was a mistake in a live vocal / orchestra / band take that got overlooked cause the rest of the take was.....well....legendary. Well, this dude didn't want right, he wanted it with the warts. So I f'd it up exactly like Hal did, and he was happy. (It wasn't a huge deal, just a little timing bauble that most would never notice.) Sometimes, we get used to the inconsistencies in older songs that we know, and we grow to love them. In new stuff we're producing, the danger is to sanitize and iron out all inconsistencies until all humanity is gone. That can be a crime, and coming back years later can be quite a disappointment after you have some perspective. But yeah.....for the other 95%....
You are kidding me you transcribed the whole big band arrangement and rearranged it note by note feeling for feeling with virtual instruments. Jesus - I hope he paid well for this...sounds like a lot of work and NF at all.
Is this song online?
Yup. But that's what I studied at university, so it's not a big deal for me. But yeah, a lot of work, and no, not enough pay. LOL. Not online that I know of.
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Apr 14, 2020 15:43:53 GMT -6
I quantize. I don't quantize. I quantize some instruments but not others. I quantize some sections but not others. Sometimes I record to a click and quantize it, and other times I let the music flow in and round the click. Quantizing can improves things. Quantizing can ruin things and suck the soul out. That's my way of saying it all depends on what the music needs to achieve and how the elements combine. I LOVE roots music, but "perfect" music can have an effect on me too. Would anyone say that Marvin Gaye singing to a drum machine in Sexual Healing is not soulful? I think this is a really misunderstood topic because the nature of time and how humans react to it is as deep as any pursuit on the planet. Here are a few random thoughts:
- If you're struggling over modern recording choices ask yourself the honest question if it's truly moving you on a deep level. Don't be mislead by being satisfied that time correcting somehow makes your music more professional. If anything it can make it more your tracks more amateur sounding if done without a musical, soulful approach.
- Loose time, inconsistencies, ragged, rushing, dragging etc. are bad word choices for the magic that can happen with a great rhythm section. The snare fill in Elvis's Hound Dog speeds up like crazy. It also perfectly fits the song making it correct and perfect. When great musicians play together they're relating and responding to the time on a level that even they don't fully realize. That's why I'm a little suspect of software that tries to program "mistakes." The magic is not simply a matter of random imperfections. It's the result of a deep human conversation that's not limited by mathematical accuracy.
- Even famous band leaders don't always understand how the unique flow of a drummer effects the music positively. Tom Petty fired the drummer after multiple hit records. I don't think Pete Townsend to this day fully gets why The Who sounded so great with Keith Moon's free flowing style. Hendrix wanted a more locked down backbeat and fired Mitch Mitchell. He then re-hired him after realizing his mistake.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Apr 14, 2020 17:34:12 GMT -6
I quantize. I don't quantize. I quantize some instruments but not others. I quantize some sections but not others. Sometimes I record to a click and quantize it, and other times I let the music flow in and round the click. Quantizing can improves things. Quantizing can ruin things and suck the soul out. That's my way of saying it all depends on what the music needs to achieve and how the elements combine. I LOVE roots music, but "perfect" music can have an effect on me too. Would anyone say that Marvin Gaye singing to a drum machine in Sexual Healing is not soulful? I think this is a really misunderstood topic because the nature of time and how humans react to it is as deep as any pursuit on the planet. Here are a few random thoughts: - If you're struggling over modern recording choices ask yourself the honest question if it's truly moving you on a deep level. Don't be mislead by being satisfied that time correcting somehow makes your music more professional. If anything it can make it more your tracks more amateur sounding if done without a musical, soulful approach. - Loose time, inconsistencies, ragged, rushing, dragging etc. are bad word choices for the magic that can happen with a great rhythm section. The snare fill in Elvis's Hound Dog speeds up like crazy. It also perfectly fits the song making it correct and perfect. When great musicians play together they're relating and responding to the time on a level that even they don't fully realize. That's why I'm a little suspect of software that tries to program "mistakes." The magic is not simply a matter of random imperfections. It's the result of a deep human conversation that's not limited by mathematical accuracy. - Even famous band leaders don't always understand how the unique flow of a drummer effects the music positively. Tom Petty fired the drummer after multiple hit records. I don't think Pete Townsend to this day fully gets why The Who sounded so great with Keith Moon's free flowing style. Hendrix wanted a more locked down backbeat and fired Mitch Mitchell. He then re-hired him after realizing his mistake.
Just a side topic:
The damn stupid artificial intelligence aka Logic Drummer is so bad, that I have been asked in which studio I track the drum parts.
The man who asked is not a bad drummer, and he played a few sessions. To be fair, he took the question back when the cymbals came in... they sounded artificial to him.
I hate to say it.
From this day on I never again hired a real drummer for simple drumming parts.
In other words a drummer told me that I care too much if I don't use it.
I am not saying its perfect.
Depending on what I expect.
I can stand behind the result if someone asks.... yet no one said a word. My guesswork is, with the next major upgrade they will improve this technology.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Apr 15, 2020 9:50:52 GMT -6
Apr 14, 2020 8:27:21 GMT -5 bricejchandler said:
"I feel it's a bit of a vicious circle, people started to over produce things and now the ear of the general public is tuned to everything sounding perfect."
The proverbial elephant in the room is the fact that the same "general public" also considers music to no longer be worth paying for!
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Apr 15, 2020 13:10:09 GMT -6
Apr 14, 2020 8:27:21 GMT -5 bricejchandler said: "I feel it's a bit of a vicious circle, people started to over produce things and now the ear of the general public is tuned to everything sounding perfect." The proverbial elephant in the room is the fact that the same "general public" also considers music to no longer be worth paying for! There may be a connection. But we can't forget that labels and distributors of today's music and looking for new product to push so they can earn money. Even if they personally own a classic collection of old vinyl they're not interested in recreating the sounds of Motown, Bakersfield, or Abby Road. It wouldn't sell because it would sound sonically puny side by side with today's loud, massive, super compressed pop music. It's soulful artistry would get swallowed up by the current steroidal recordings. Quantizing the time to a grid is only part of the debate.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Apr 15, 2020 15:44:18 GMT -6
Didn't the Flamingos have a hit with this?... "I only quantize, for yoooou dear". Always be at least a niche market, for those like Amy Winehouse. Chris
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Apr 15, 2020 17:36:50 GMT -6
I'm not talking about imitating old music. I'm talking about new music based on live performances and the shared human communication experience.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Apr 15, 2020 21:06:59 GMT -6
I'm not talking about imitating old music. I'm talking about new music based on live performances and the shared human communication experience. True that's something that gets lost. Technology moves forward but also has the downside that it kills interaction. A one man show can produce a whole score in a single daw. I call this permanent social distance...
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Apr 15, 2020 21:56:52 GMT -6
I'm not talking about imitating old music. I'm talking about new music based on live performances and the shared human communication experience. I hear you Bob. But I think some feel that ethos we cherish is "old music" and fear it will no longer reach a younger audience bred on sounds that are quantized and tuned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2020 9:28:38 GMT -6
I'm not talking about imitating old music. I'm talking about new music based on live performances and the shared human communication experience. True that's something that gets lost. Technology moves forward but also has the downside that it kills interaction. A one man show can produce a whole score in a single daw. I call this permanent social distance... I agree with your overall sentiment, but I also think it's SUPER impressive when one person can create a complex song by his or her self, so I don't see technologies facilitation of working alone being a problem at all. I fact, I think that that is one of the best things to come from it. Lack of collaboration does not necessarily hinder creation of great art or its emotional impact. I do think unnecessary perfection does though, so it's up to the artist to exercise some restraint and taste in that regard. There are exceptions of course. Like hip hop, or very technical metal or something. There's a coldness to that sound that is very appropriate. Speaking for the "world" I occupy and draw from, there is still a ton of great music being made by 4 or 5 people standing in the same room doing live takes, not quantizing, not over-doing anything, allowing space for little flaws and character, etc... A lot of that stuff is popular by certain standards. Maybe not gold-record-popular, but you know what I mean.
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Apr 16, 2020 10:15:31 GMT -6
Interesting how certain genres of music, helped generate Woodstock. And nowadays others sell lots of earbuds! Chris
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Apr 16, 2020 12:16:52 GMT -6
True that's something that gets lost. Technology moves forward but also has the downside that it kills interaction. A one man show can produce a whole score in a single daw. I call this permanent social distance... I agree with your overall sentiment, but I also think it's SUPER impressive when one person can create a complex song by his or her self, so I don't see technologies facilitation of working alone being a problem at all. I fact, I think that that is one of the best things to come from it. Lack of collaboration does not necessarily hinder creation of great art or its emotional impact. I do think unnecessary perfection does though, so it's up to the artist to exercise some restraint and taste in that regard. There are exceptions of course. Like hip hop, or very technical metal or something. There's a coldness to that sound that is very appropriate. Speaking for the "world" I occupy and draw from, there is still a ton of great music being made by 4 or 5 people standing in the same room doing live takes, not quantizing, not over-doing anything, allowing space for little flaws and character, etc... A lot of that stuff is popular by certain standards. Maybe not gold-record-popular, but you know what I mean.
At least I learn in this COVID times how many old -long-lost friends- call me and ask if I am doing well. I am not saying technology is bad, but it can separate us from real social contacts...
See above I am no longer hiring a drummer for simple drumming parts because Logic Drummer sounds good enough.
Its funny actually I am reading about creativity science. True, it can happen on a lonely island but creativity always needs contact to other humans. It needs feedback from other creatives.
For me its clear why some bands had a lot of hits. John and Paul I am sure they inspired each other and later they teamed up with George Martin. Many creative minds make it possible that a Band like the Beatles wrote timeless Music.
I have my doubts if creativity is always at its best if one single person doing everything.
There is no way that I have more experience in audio compared to someone who is a full time AE. I think teaming up still can be a good thing in 2020.
20 Minutes not wasted:
|
|
|
Post by howie on Apr 16, 2020 15:24:02 GMT -6
"For me its clear why some bands had a lot of hits. John and Paul I am sure they inspired each other and later they teamed up with George Martin. Many creative minds make it possible that a Band like the Beatles wrote timeless Music."
...And of course The Stones with the Jagger and Richards duo... and maybe most Rock. Collaborations.
But, I wonder, how much grid quantization do the old timer great rock acts use nowadays - the ones still doing new recodings? What about Neil Young? He's still making new stuff. Is he using the grid? Autotune like new acts?
|
|