Let’s Set Some Limits!

Perfectionism seems like a nice label to put on it... I'll give you that! 

What bothers me, and should probably bother most of us is that level of editing becoming "the standard" 

Sure I've cut in lines or even single words. Absolutely all the time. But doing 87 takes and slicing syllable by syllable? I think we all know that isn't typical. 

When Letterman goes "wow its like visiting the cardiologist" - I always bust a gut because he's not wrong. He's been around the entertainment biz for a long time and seemed to be as genuinely shocked as any of us.

I don't have any sort of opinion on her because the pop thing isn't my wheelhouse... I'm more commenting on the technology and execution. It could be anyone and I'd have the same thoughts. It just seems so excessive.

For the record I wasn't the one to mention Ellish... but if that's what the kids are into these days, well that's how their doing it. And not shockingly they aren't booking time with anyone to record and edit those 87 takes. You can do that in your bedroom. When your on the clock in a pro room that's gonna get really expensive really fast. 

So obviously they are putting the investment into time to get a result they want. And she's obviously had a degree of success with it so good on them. 

I didn’t take your comments as dismissive at all, FWIW.

I get skeptical at anyone doing so many vocal takes if the goal is primarily to avoid tuning. Good tuning ain't that obvious. Then; if that's what it takes, it's surely tuned in live performance. I have questions.

I've had people insist and had a comp grow to 40-50 layers, coulda been done in 10 or less and no one would have been able to tell. Whatever floats your boat.

Then I think of that Ariana Grande vocal layering video, blazing through a shitload of layering really fast.

At the volume she sings at 87 takes are possible.

Try that with “Smells like teen spirit”!

I only ever do 5 takes, comp a bit and invisibly fix the odd syllable with Melodyne if it’s only out a few cents.

I’ve always worked on the basis of I can’t sing it in 5 takes what’s gonna happen on take 6 that’s fundamentally different.

You can either sing the song or you can’t!

But that’s a traditional approach I guess, and this artist has had massive success (well deserved) so if 87 takes is her method - perfect it works.

Sure. And I've had guitarists blow themselves up and spend 10 hours on a single guitar solo... another story for another time. 

I think some are missing the point... maybe focusing (maybe rightly so?) on the genre of music when this topic was more about the studio biz.  

Do you think anyone would book our rooms to make an album like that? Do 87 takes? 

No of course not. They're doing that kind of thing at home. 

When was the last time you did 50+ takes of anything on regular basis? That doesn't happen in for hire rooms. And its certainly not happening in a 3 or 4 hour "reduced slot" like the guy who started this whole topic was thinking about... 

When I'm producing, I personally avoid recording more than 5-7 takes of vocals, for a combination of practical (eg - endurance, budget, the usual) and artistic reasons. Not to mention simple organizational reasons. But I am not one to play armchair producer with eminent artists. It's just not my place.

OTOH, if Billie hired me to make a record, I'm not sure how I'd approach it. That would require a bit of conversations with her about what she was looking for from me; this is the same approach I take with any artist I'm hired to produce. When I was working with Steven Tyler, we'd often do a LOT (a LOT) of takes. All of them were amazing -- the man can REALLY sing -- but the producer(s) and Steven wanted to try different things, so we tried them. With Amanda Palmer, we did exactly three takes as a rule. Three takes, every time. Ben Folds knocked out flawless single takes. Magnetic Fields are as many as it takes to get what Stephin wants. Might be one, might be a dozen (though this is vanishingly rare). These are all artists whom I consider to be amongst the best at what they do, and each has a very different approach; all of them valid. And all of them yield the desired results.

Importantly, all of them are EXCELLENT singers. The number of takes does not reflect a *need*. 

To your point about the economics of working in for-hire rooms...well...I would suggest that artists at that level (of success, specifically) can certainly afford to work exactly as they want to. If Billie wanted to book my room and record 80 takes, she could. The money wouldn't be a problem. But it's obvious her preference is to work in her own space, and it's obviously not a financial issue. This was the case for Steven Tyler, too, btw. I guess ultimately, I'm of the mind that we do whatever gets the art right. Not always the best news for the for-hire studios, but I'd also argue that it doesn't really hurt us, either. I'm still plenty busy, even if my most take-prolific clients prefer working in their own spaces.

As a final thought, I tend to believe that the staff sells a room more than the room itself. People generally land at my studio to work with me, not because of the studio itself. To bring it back to the Billie point, she's working with Phineas, at their own place, because of their relationship. The facility is secondary. Likewise, when I've been hired to engineer for the "name" folks I name-dropped above (sorry for that, btw, but it was necessary to make my point), even if I'm working outside my studio, it will still eventually sell studio time at MY studio, because new/up-and-coming clients see the familiar names I've worked with and it helps me get hired.

This thread reminded me of this scene for La Bamba 😁:

Just so easy to suck up to big tech money. how many laptops and software do these pop stars pump? I see it as being in bed with the big money, in return the art gets the money back. Which is smart- always has been I guess… as an art, I’m still respecting wasted lazy losers from the 80s in their basements

And anyway …. and we all know this.

It’s the “entertainment business”

It’s not even “the music business”

And it’s sure as heck not “the most talented business”!

There is an insane amount of good luck, fortuitous timing and critically an ability to entertain a specific target audience within the zeitgeist of the moment.

Someone always gets the right ticket and catches the wave whilst the majority sink in a sea of also ran’s. The arts are cruel if you want to find fame and fortune.

I like most, know several unbelievably talented artists that the “business” passed over and they never found any success even though to my ears they were stand out talents.

My uncle, made it in the entertainment industry, he ran a very famous venue and a famous international music festival, helped form and manage some very famous bands, helped some very famous musicians start their careers …. on and on his credits go.
(no name dropping - David Bowie always told me don’t drop names)

My uncle told me, you better enjoy being a professional musician just for being a professional musician because if you also want fame and fortune ….

You better buy a lottery ticket and double your chances.

That stuck with me

It’s got nothing to do with 5 takes, 87 takes, this artist is a great entertainer and good luck to her, she’s riding the wave.

Well that’s what I mean.. they THINK they are saving time- no time is saved. Actually more time is wasted. It worked for them, sold some MacBooks along with tour dates(nobody buys albums). Now we will get the clones for next 10 years who “found the secret”

Imagine if her brother charged for every hour to produce her? She’s lucky, he’s lucky, good for them. But to then be like “look how easy and you can too!” Yeah

He bragged about 10,000 hours to get the skills.. say min wage $10/hr.. 100,000 invested. Min wage in my county is now $17