Some thoughts on recording and attitudes towards it.

[tigermoth]

I posted this a while back on FB when I was in a ranting mood. I think what I need is a blog, but then who'd read it? Lol
Ok, warning this is a lengthy post so if you're easily bord then navigate away from this page immediately I don't mind.
Certain recent events and conversations with friends have led me to question again the strange way in which digital recording and the record industry in general have changed our outlook on things.
I am often invited to go and record in the studios of friends of mine who tell me about their vast aray of state of the art plug ins, sound modules, software etc. When I go to these places i am indeed impressed by the sounds they have and how speedily  they can use lodgic or pro tools or whatever.
However, I also often notice little querks in the sounds that they can't seem to do anything about and in some cases can't even hear. I also notice little querks with the software and basic things which I take for granted in my own little setup that seem to be difficult or impossible to fix in these sparkly new studios.
For instance, i went to a studio in Sheffield owned by a verry successful record producer who I won't name but if I were to say Bryan Adams or the Spice Girls you'd probably work it out. Anyway I was having a go on the latest extremely expensive piano plug in they had, and I noticed straight away, there was latency. Ok, not much, but more than I was comfortable with. I mentioned it, and the chap said he hadn't noticed and said "there shouldn't be". I thought, "Well yes, I know there shouldn't be". Latency is one of the things I frequently notice either during recording or playback. It seems that in some cases this just can't be helped. Similarly, there seems to be difficulty in getting reverb in to the headfone monitors so that a singer can hear it while they record. There's other things but i'll be here all day as it is.
So we go on to produce a verry nice track using hollywood strings, bfd and whatever else there is, which takes not some inconsiderable time, creative and technical effort, to then hear something like "Well we've got the basis of a good demo. Now we can look at getting string players, drummers, etc etc.".
Of course I know this is standard practice, but there seems something a little odd about spending thousands of pounds on samples of strings probably played by the best and highest payed performers in the world, to then effectively not use them. I suppose what I mean is, what's the point of using the best sounds money can by, if you're then going to pay for a string quartet to come in and try and recreate them.
Some will say there's no substitute for the real thing, which in principal I agree with, but if that's the case, why bother to try and reproduce a hollywood string section in the first place? Why do they keep making the plugins and why do people keep buying them?
Same applies with drums. What is the point of painstakingly programming an amazing drum part, adjusting the mic positions, tuning the snares, and all the other things you can do with bfd, if you're just gonna get a drummer to do it again anyway.
It gets crazier. Now with all the technical jiggerypokery, we can now make real drums not sound like drums! You can apply any number of effects and processors and I believe you can even quantise a drummers performance if necesary.
Million Town album is a great example of what I think people would agree is in some parts a strange drum sound. I hasen to add that in my book its a great sound and not a bad thing atall. Also I know that in parts there are reall drums verses programmed drums. But it has to be said, there are parts where the drums don't sound like drums.
So you can now go to the time and expense of getting a drummer to play live, and then make it sound like it came off a keyboard.
In a nut shell, you can have real drums that don't sound like 'em, or drums which aren't real but do. Take your choice.
It seems that over the last 20 years manafacturers of digital instruments and recording gear have gone to extraordinary lengths to reproduce, amp modeling, guitar modeling, string sections, drum sounds, analogue processors and effects, the list goes on.
We're now at the stage where the reason digital is so great, is because we've finally managed to make it sound like analogue! And yet, should we choose to record in analogue, we'll be told that the sound is inferior and unacceptable, and yet it's the sound that digital has tried so hard and for so long to recreate. A paradox?
Keyboards have been designed over the decades to recreate the sounds of other instruments. While this has no doubt resulted in p---ing off a lot of drummers, basists, string players etc, it has also meant that creating music on your own or with others is more afordable and easier. Without the melotrom would we have had King Crimsone? Would we have even had prog as we know it? There's got to be a reason why to this day bands would rather use the melotron choir sound that was recorded over 40 years ago, than to get a choir in to do it for them. Of
course in this case it's for the vintage sound, but it's also got to be because of the ease and creativity factor. But let's face it, you can now get choir plug ins where you can get them to say what you want them to say, (although i've not heard one that sounds quite convincing yet).
We're now at the stage where keyboards can reproduce sounds so well that in order to replacate them for real, your average bedroom recording artist would have to spend huge amounts to find and pay for the performers, not to mention buying a new house to put them in.
So, why is it now unacceptable in some circles to use keyboards for the verry thing they were designed for? Why is analogue a nono, when digital is in some ways doing it's best to compete with analogue and in some ways stil failing?
I could give many examples of albums which were recorded with electric drum kits and synth strings that are timeless works of art. Would they really have been better if they'd got the philharmonic in? Further more, in the time that would have taken might the work have lost some of it's creativity?

Ok, i'm not suggesting people make crap recordings (but then how do you define crap). I'm not saying we shouldn't have drummers or basists or anything ridiculous like that. I'm not implying that keyboards can conquer all.
My point, if I have one, is that surely the joy of all these digital advances is that one should be able to use them as one wishes. If you've got hollywood strings and you know how to use it, why not leave it at that? I'd argue that programming samples and building up arangements is just as valid an achievement as playing a violin.
I wouldn't mind betting that some amazing film scores and albums have been produced which never saw a "real" instrument, and that even the sharpist ears would struggle to tell the difference.
Fair enough, if you can aford orchestras and what not and that's how you prefer to work then thats great. But a lot of people can't. Further more, some people like to work and create alone. Creation should NEVER be compromised. If you want to reproduce an orchestra in your bedroom and then  sell your work, why on earth not?
Well, for a start "why not" is the fact that if you want to go down the record company route and they insist that you redo your work with real instruments in a propper studio then you don't have much choice.
I'm the first one to groan with pain when Will I Am brings out his latest vocoderised electronic nightmare, but nobody says "Go back and do it again, with a drummer, a bass player and preferably a singer who can sing". I realise that's an extreme example and you can't compare it with prog or classical music. But what i'm saying is, we have the choice of how we want to create, and neither musical snobbery, elitism, budget, technology or lack of it should be allowed to compromise that. I genuinely think that when some people listen to a track that hasn't got real drums on, they'll just switch off as soon as they realise. The fact that a great job has been done and that you've made a good sound doesn't matter after that because it's not real. At the other end of the scale I know people who wouldn't know a synth drum if it bit them on the backside, they just like what they hear and enjoy the music for what it is.

People like Mr Godfrey have proved what amazing things you can do with all the latest and greatest gear.
Then take an album like Phil's Both Sides. Done all on his own at his house (Apart from the drums). Obviously recorded at a time when his creativity was flowing but he chose to do it on his own with just a keyboard. The reason may have been finantial, experimental, or maybe that he just wanted to be alone.
Whatever the reasons, it resulted in an album with guitars, violins, banjos, trumpet, bag pipes,  etc reproduced by synths. It also included some leed synth sounds which some would say were a bit dubious, not to mention some of the actual solos. But it also included some of Phils most emotional, reflective and creative work to date. That album takes me to all sorts of places, dark and light.
The verry method of how it was done shows us so clearly the feelings and phil's state of mind at the time. If he'd gone in to the studio with Hugh Padgem, Darrel and the crew and did it all again, would it be so much better? Would it really be worth doing?
Who knows, we'll probably never know. Although in these days where it seems we've got to remaster everything pre the year 2000 (or even 2006) it might not be out of the question.
But I hope it never happens. That album is a perfect example of solo creativity at a budget which produced some of Phil's finest work. If you put something out like that these days, it would be a demo, and probably thought of as not a verry good one. How things have changed.
So in a vague long winded way, I suppose what i'm trying to say is that it seems that we're now in a time where we have more creative choices than ever, and those choices include opting to go back to old gear or instruments, to just record yourself singing with a guitar using one mic if you like, to recreate an orchestra in a box, or to go out and record one live in action. And yet with all these choices, some how it seems like we've become less open minded. Is that a general affect of the human brain? The more options we have, the less options we want?
I'm certainly old fassioned and possibly living in a different world to my contemporaries. You could also argue that i'm swayed by my own limitations. All I know is, there's no right or wrong when it comes to music, but sometimes it seems a lot like it.

[Rook]

I can pretty much guarantee that 95% of the string sections you hear on T.V. Shows are from some library, usually VSL or East West. Television had neither the budget or scheduling flexibility for full scoring (with the exception of Game of Thrones). Heck, Mark a Snow scored The X Files in his back room with an Roland JV1080 module. Even a lot of bigger budget stuff is done by layering the lib sounds with just one or two live players.

[E.S.]

Musicians are the most conservative and closed minded people you can find. For us keyboardists it's the whole analogue vs digital debate that never dies. Just like it is with orchestral libraries vs real musicians.
In both cases it's quite easy to see that one is expensive and one isn't, yet both sound remarkably good today. Not identical, but in many cases very close. It's a financial question for 99% of all musicians. Try hiring just a string quartet and see how much money that'll cost you, then think about a full symphony orchestra. Plus the recording space, sound engineer, all needs to be hired and paid for. There's a reason why only big budget Hollywood can do that.
The rest of us will have to stick to the libraries, and maybe hire a solo cellist or violinist if we can afford that. A pro musician doesn't work for free.

But, if you can't hear what's real and what's not, does it matter? It certainly didn't sound worse before you knew the truth, did it? Some people get hung up in silly nonsense like that. Oh well, their problem. I just enjoy the song, even if it was recorded on a fax machine and a bucket of pee.

In my opinion it's not the sound, it's all about the performance. That's where you hear the difference. To prove the point, I just did a couple of drum sessions for my electronic project. I have around 80Gb of drum samples in Superior Drummer, much better than the recordings we did quality wise. But I wanted a real performance by a drummer, and that's what makes all the difference. It's all in the cymbal and hi-hat nuances, and the way a human plays music vs a sequencer. I'm pretty darn good at programming drums after years of doing it, but still there's the human touch.

It's a great contrast to the electronic drums I've made.

A lot of people will assume that it's all programmed anyway.

[tigermoth]

"But, if you can't hear what's real and what's not, does it matter? It certainly didn't sound worse before you knew the truth, did it?"
Couldn't agree more. I suppose it's a question of each individual person's boundariesI listen to a lot of Big Finish audio dramas. (Don't know if you're familiar) I know that pretty much all of their sound tracks will be done with keyboards and libraries. If they payed for the stingplayers, brass players etc, not only could they not afford the actors, they'd be bankrupt. But what they do with what they've got is sensational. That said, depending on who's done the sound design I sometimes find myself thinking "Oo, that was a bit keyboard". Even though I know its all keyboard, sometimes it's more obvious than others. I remember one play where the quote went something like: "Hark, do you hear the trumpet?" "Er, no. I heard what sounded like someone fecking about with a cassio." Lol anyway.
Regarding drums, I'd be lying if I said that real drums don't beat samples. That said, again you have the problem of recording space, affording mics, your neighbours hating you etc, and sometimes finding a drummer who can do it the way you want. As you may have heard, there are no real drums on my album, but in my defence I played them all in live on the keyboard. Although this is probably more to do with the fact that if I tried to programme them I'd probably stil be doing it now.
As for sound quality, I'm coming to the conclusion that I have some very strange ideas about sound. My friends say that I must have amazing ears, especially being blind, one sense compensating for another etc. However, I don't have a hifi. When I listen to music it's either through my Ipod dock, or through headphones. I always mix through headphones too. Fair enough I do have great quality headphones, but I don't know anyone else who works like this. I think I get more excited by the musical quality of what I'm hearing, rather than what I'm listening to it through, and maybe this sometimes affects my judgement. I'm rambling now.

[owen]

Next time you talk to Rob Reed ask him about Kompendium and strings. I'm sure he said for preference once he'd got the strings done (Abbey Rd, which must have been cool) he layered extra samples on to bulk it out, presumably to sound like a full concert orchestra (BPO/LSO/ELO, one of them). If you had the budget, would you do it?

[tigermoth]

"If you had the budget, would you do it?"
Interesting question. I think I would have to take each track or project on it's own merits. Funny you should mention Kompendium though, as I was talking to a friend about it. I bought him a copy for his birthday and he's well in to it. We were talking about how it's all done with real instruments and how many performers there must be. But he's a brass player, and he pointed out that there were one or two brass bits that sounded a bit, well shal we say not as immaculate as the rest. I knew straight away which bit he meant. I think its on the storm. Pretty sure that's not real and it sticks out like a slightly sprained thumb. I guess the moral of the story is if you're going to start doing everything real, then that means everything. LIke I say, I guess it comes down to the individual's boundaries.
Take the track Jem put on soundcloud. "Eat". Hand on heart, I wouldn't know that wasn't real strings, and I'd put money on about 95 percent of people not knowing. However, if you told them, some people would probably then say, "Imagine how good that'd sound if they were real.". That's the bit that really grinds my gears. Lol