How edited should a prog record be??

[No Pride]

Good thread! So many interesting points have been made that if I "multi-quote" them all and comment on each point, my post will be ridiculously long.

First and foremost, I do consider live performances and studio recordings to be separate entities. Each have their pros and cons; it's rare to match the kind of perfection that can be achieved in a studio when performing live and it's equally rare to be able to capture the vibe of playing live in front of an audience when recording in a studio. When my own band made our studio album, I was kind of torn, having always been a fan of jazz albums that were recorded live in a studio with no punch-ins or overdubs AND being a fan of highly polished rock and pop albums where overdubs, punch-ins, pitch and time correcting and combining parts from different takes of a solo (known as "comping") were standard protocol. We did it like Kerry did with his current band; we all played together live for our "basic" tracks, with the goal of getting usable bass and drum tracks and the guitar and keyboard were "scratch tracks," intended to be replaced with better sounding tracks, not having to deal with the isolation limitations of playing in small booths or in the case of guitar, being able to crank enough for maximum tone without worry about "bleeding" into the drum tracks. In a few cases, the scratch keyboard and guitar tracks were kept, because the performances were good enough and the tones weren't that bad. There was one tune that had an "open" (no preset length) improvisation section and I insisted on us playing live in the studio, keeping everything and adding some minimal keyboard overdubs afterwards. I wanted to capture the kind of spontaneous band interaction that would be natural in a live performance, at least for that tune where the improve section was such a big chunk of the whole.

Backing tracks: I'm mostly against it if it's for the purpose of making the live performance sound more like the studio recording. I always admired the way bands like Queen or Gentle Giant completely rearranged their tunes for the live shows; that epitomizes the understanding of the difference between live vs. studio. They knew they couldn't possibly duplicate the multi-overdubbed sound of their studio recordings and heavily modified the tunes in a way where they'd be at least as powerful as the studio versions, but stripped down and optimized for live performance.

[rcarlberg]

A lot of the records that have been coming out in the last few decades are SUPER polished to my ears!

Proving once again that it *is* possible to polish a turd.

Of course -- it's still a turd.

[bill g]

Yup - even to the point of taking two- or four-bars of a "best performance" of a rhythm guitar part, bass part, vocal parts that repeat in the song, (or whatever instrument), cutting/truncating, and reusing the same part throughout the entire song. Some guys will actually use drum one-shots and replace all the drum tracks with individual samples for a perfect noiseless recording...at this point, it isn't a recording of a performance but is more akin to "Music Sequencing" but, instead of using MIDI tracks triggering VSTi instruments and/or outboard hardware, it uses samples/WAVs of instruments as the sound sources....this is where the rub is because it is no longer the artist or band making the music and communicating to its audience but some producer recreating a facsimile of it in cyberspace

wow that seems like a lot of work. especially if, like me, you are paying for studio time. On our last album I did a solo in the outro to 'Circles and Seasons', and the engineer wanted 3 takes, to fuse the best of the three, but we just ended up using one solo and scratching the other 2, which just was easier and made more sense. I will admit though with the new album when we were recording the viola parts last month, we did about 3 or 4 takes of each section, and then we'll take the best of each. Our viola player is very good, plays in a couple of local youth symphonies, but there were still some takes that were better than others, and I'll use the best one. But mostly the keyboard and acoustic guitar we go with one take. Electic guitar may take more than one.

[klothos]

wow that seems like a lot of work. especially if, like me, you are paying for studio time.

It doesn't take a long time at all.....as a matter of fact, a really good digital audio editor with a lot of experience behind him/her can cut, truncate, process, and place/replace parts in the process that you will be in the studio in less time .... this is part of what makes this thread interesting is how a recorded product comes out: the artist looks at each track as a process in the "art" but the producer looks at it as "raw material"....The irony is that, these days, many times the artist and producer are one-and-the-same

[profusion]

the artist looks at each track as a process in the "art" but the producer looks at it as "raw material"....The irony is that, these days, many times the artist and producer are one-and-the-same

I think prog musicians could take a lot more advantage of this than you usually see. If you record guitar with an amp modeler like the Axe-FX, you can record totally "dry" tracks that can be re-amped through any combination of amps and effects. Combine that with MIDI instruments, and you can make the same guitar, keyboard or drum performances sound a zillion different ways depending on how the guitars are re-amped/processed and on which MIDI samples are chosen. And that doesn't even get into editing parts.

[arabicadabra]

A gentleman who has done some engineering for the Steve Morse Band gave me a couple tips to make Pinnacle records two and three better. One was that Steve Morse will make a keyboard sequence of his songs and then record his tracks playing to that. Another tip was to take three different approaches to drum tracks: one like you're Charlie Watts (no fills), one like you're Phil Ehart (go for a great performance but don't go for the really wild stuff) and one like you think you're Rod Morgenstein - as crazy as you want and then further! Then combine sections of each.

[klothos]

I think prog musicians could take a lot more advantage of this than you usually see. If you record guitar with an amp modeler like the Axe-FX, you can record totally "dry" tracks that can be re-amped through any combination of amps and effects. Combine that with MIDI instruments, and you can make the same guitar, keyboard or drum performances sound a zillion different ways depending on how the guitars are re-amped/processed and on which MIDI samples are chosen. And that doesn't even get into editing parts.

yup - I agree

This thread is starting to turn into one of those "purist fundamentalist" vs. "technological progressionist" threads, of which there really isn't a right or wrong because there are merits to both.

....and i always like to use The Modern Blues Scene as an example, because - in 2013 - many blues aficionados believe its all about vintage and/or boutique gear to recreate the sound of the blues greats....but wasn't the blues really done on acoustic guitars and, on occasion, using pocket-knives for slides? Couldn't a blues purist debate that the "electric blues" is not true blues? at the same time, couldnt the technological progressionist argue that the electric blues was a natural progression to the music?

In the mid-20th century, when guys like BB and Albert were starting their hey-dey, they were playing electric guitars and amps built in the mid-20th century i.e. they were using modern technology. Their criteria for getting equipment wasn't to sound "vintage" or to cop "that blues sound" - their only criteria for what they chose for an amp and guitar, at that time, was "I like this" - thats it. Who is to say that if solid-state amps were available in the mid-50s that some of the electric blues pioneers may have chosen those? (For the record, when Acoustic made the solid-state Acoustic 270 bass amp in the 70s, Albert King played guitar through it -- he also played through a Roland JC-120 later on - another solid state amp)

fast forward to 2013: Who is more the blues guy? (A) the guy at the blues jam with the BB King T-Shirt a 57 reissue strat playing through a Class A Matchless amp (instant "tone") who learned the blues through the Mel Bay "this Is The Pick Method" and picking out every SRV solo ver batim from years of practicing to the DVDs and really cops that vintage-thang or (B) the schmuck who showed up with a pointy-headstock Ibanez, solid-state amp, and guitar modeler set to "vintage blues" but that plays from the heart and you - the listener - can feel the soul in everything he is doing?

[klothos]

By the way, my answer is "Both"

[bill g]

It doesn't take a long time at all.....as a matter of fact, a really good digital audio editor with a lot of experience behind him/her can cut, truncate, process, and place/replace parts in the process that you will be in the studio in less time .... this is part of what makes this thread interesting is how a recorded product comes out: the artist looks at each track as a process in the "art" but the producer looks at it as "raw material"....The irony is that, these days, many times the artist and producer are one-and-the-same

I appreciate you bringing this out. I'm not an engineer, so it sounds like all that cutting, truncating etc... would be a chore, and I'm sure there are tricks there that I'm not using that I could be using. I have no real strong opinion when it comes to the purist vs technological thing, its the end result I care about-how it sounds. Does it sound like I originally heard it in my head. I'm sure with other composers its similar-they hear the music in their head-and in one's head, it can sound pretty fantastic, but the trick is to translate the exact sound and feeling from one's head, and if technology such as pro-tools can get you there, great. I think I've been kind of in the middle on this, but I'm totally up for using whatever it takes to get the music out properly and the most efficiently.

[PeterG]

I was wondering what you guys think about this issue? Does it make a difference to you how much fixing goes on in the studio? time/pitch correcting etc... and do you mind if the bands perform with prerecorded tracks?
A lot of the records that have been coming out in the last few decades are SUPER polished to my ears!
what do you think?

Bob, all I see when I read your opening post is one question "How much do you guys like prog?"

Prog is totally polished, overdubbed, ultra-fiddled about with, multitracked and everything else, that's part of the essence of what makes it prog.

[Plasmatopia]

yup - I agree

This thread is starting to turn into one of those "purist fundamentalist" vs. "technological progressionist" threads, of which there really isn't a right or wrong because there are merits to both.

....and i always like to use The Modern Blues Scene as an example, because - in 2013 - many blues aficionados believe its all about vintage and/or boutique gear to recreate the sound of the blues greats....but wasn't the blues really done on acoustic guitars and, on occasion, using pocket-knives for slides? Couldn't a blues purist debate that the "electric blues" is not true blues? at the same time, couldnt the technological progressionist argue that the electric blues was a natural progression to the music?

In the mid-20th century, when guys like BB and Albert were starting their hey-dey, they were playing electric guitars and amps built in the mid-20th century i.e. they were using modern technology. Their criteria for getting equipment wasn't to sound "vintage" or to cop "that blues sound" - their only criteria for what they chose for an amp and guitar, at that time, was "I like this" - thats it. Who is to say that if solid-state amps were available in the mid-50s that some of the electric blues pioneers may have chosen those? (For the record, when Acoustic made the solid-state Acoustic 270 bass amp in the 70s, Albert King played guitar through it -- he also played through a Roland JC-120 later on - another solid state amp)

fast forward to 2013: Who is more the blues guy? (A) the guy at the blues jam with the BB King T-Shirt a 57 reissue strat playing through a Class A Matchless amp (instant "tone") who learned the blues through the Mel Bay "this Is The Pick Method" and picking out every SRV solo ver batim from years of practicing to the DVDs and really cops that vintage-thang or (B) the schmuck who showed up with a pointy-headstock Ibanez, solid-state amp, and guitar modeler set to "vintage blues" but that plays from the heart and you - the listener - can feel the soul in everything he is doing?

Great post. I really think all that matters is the end result and whether or not it feels right to us, "sounds good" to us, etc...no amount of technology is too much as long as there is an emotional resonance of some sort (although I can appreciate if others have a different internal yardstick...though I might not be able to relate exactly).

[bill g]

Prog is totally polished, overdubbed, ultra-fiddled about with, multitracked and everything else, that's part of the essence of what makes it prog.

If you take something completely stripped down and bare, like The White Stripes, you have nothing except a melody and a crunchy guitar. I find that very dull, and though millions will disagree with me, I find them bland with nothing whatsoever to scratch any emotional itches musically. Partly because I find nothing redeeming in their melodies either. On the other hand, take, say, 'East Coast Racer' by Big Big Train, you have a TON of stuff going on. With this (the essence of what makes it prog, as Peter said) one can hear new things again and again, and it is fantastic. But, just as important, you have the great melody in there as well. The combination is what makes it special. With an artist like Anthony Phillips, he'll have a good melody, but when its just his voice and his guitar, it isn't nearly as interesting as a piece like 'The Geese and The Ghost', which has all the overdubs along with the great melody.

[klothos]

If you take something completely stripped down and bare, like The White Stripes, you have nothing except a melody and a crunchy guitar. I find that very dull, and though millions will disagree with me,

I find the same thing in some Visual Arts, like most pieces of minimalism. For example, Malovich's "Black Square" doesn't do anything for me except make me say "WTF?". Just because there is a hidden cross shape in the painting using a slightly different shade of black is a thin reason to justify its masterpiece status. The better example is Duchamp, who took a men's urinal (something he didn't even craft himself), put it on a pedestal, and called it art.....and the art-world went nuts over it (at the time)......

[bill g]

I find the same thing in some Visual Arts, like most pieces of minimalism. For example, Malovich's "Black Square" doesn't do anything for me except make me say "WTF?". Just because there is a hidden cross shape in the painting using a slightly different shade of black is a thin reason to justify its masterpiece status. The better example is Duchamp, who took a men's urinal (something he didn't even craft himself), put it on a pedestal, and called it art.....and the art-world went nuts over it (at the time)......

Yep. And then someone puts their heart and soul into something, and it is ignored. Or called 'pretentious'.

[klothos]

Yep. And then someone puts their heart and soul into something, and it is ignored. Or called 'pretentious'.

My favorite example is Norman Rockwell. Rockwell may be appreciated now but, in his day, the "art world" shunned him while they embraced Duchamp's urinal- many even calling Rockwell an "illustrator" as to not elevate his status to "artiste"....but Norman Rockwell can create artwork with almost photographic resolution PLUS he had a lifetime output of over 4000(!) pieces, making him not only accurate, but fast and accurate

[Guitarplyrjvb]

Only leave the good stuff in!

[Baribrotzer]

Bob, all I see when I read your opening post is one question "How much do you guys like prog?"

Prog is totally polished, overdubbed, ultra-fiddled about with, multitracked and everything else, that's part of the essence of what makes it prog.

Some of it is, some of it isn't.

Because, while none of us will ever agree on a single definition for "prog", there's a good chance most of us would agree that it's a very "big-tent" genre of music. In some sense, it covers everything from Pink Floyd to Weather Report to Thinking Plague. Of that, some of it takes the approach of trying to get the depth, richness, and complexity of a symphony orchestra but with just four or five players, other of it goes first for the immediacy of a live rock band, and still other of it is highly improvisational and approaches jazz. And jazz typically exists in the moment, and isn't at all "totally polished, overdubbed, ultra-fiddled about with, multitracked and everything else". It may be edited, and that's about it.

[PeterG]

If you take something completely stripped down and bare, like The White Stripes, you have nothing except a melody and a crunchy guitar. I find that very dull, and though millions will disagree with me, I find them bland with nothing whatsoever to scratch any emotional itches musically. Partly because I find nothing redeeming in their melodies either.

I'm in 100% agreement with you on that.

[bill g]

Some of it is, some of it isn't.

Because, while none of us will ever agree on a single definition for "prog", there's a good chance most of us would agree that it's a very "big-tent" genre of music. In some sense, it covers everything from Pink Floyd to Weather Report to Thinking Plague. Of that, some of it takes the approach of trying to get the depth, richness, and complexity of a symphony orchestra but with just four or five players, other of it goes first for the immediacy of a live rock band, and still other of it is highly improvisational and approaches jazz. And jazz typically exists in the moment, and isn't at all "totally polished, overdubbed, ultra-fiddled about with, multitracked and everything else". It may be edited, and that's about it.

Yes, very true. For my later comment, I was speaking of course in general, using Big Big Train as an example. Thinking Plague for example, is not about overdubs to create their art. They can do it live and be utterly fantastic due to the compositions and musicianship of the band. (incidentally, probably the most impressive live show I've ever seen).

[martiprog]

Basically, you can't polish a turd.

A good song or a good band will shine through. However, there's no doubt that genre counts to a degree. A singer songwriter with an acoustic guitar needs feel, honesty but not necessarily polish, or listen to an old blues record from the 40's or 50's & it still moves you. In something like Progressive, there are a lot more bands doing a lot more adventurous things, and the studio, along with tools like MIDI, add to the possibilities. That doesn't meant that the end result will be good. The heart & soul have to be there, and the humanity should shine through, regardless of how technically brilliant the playing or the recording is.

I think that the more tools you have at your disposal, the more you will get out of talented musicians & writers. If the talent isn't there however, the studio is just an expensive room with lots of toys.

Would the Beatles have been as influential as they were if they didn't have George Martin giving them the tools to come up with things like A Day in the Life? They would still have been incredibly popular, and brilliant writers, but we might not have had "progressive" rock. Those sounds heavily influenced a generation of musicians to experiment like never before, and within 5 years the landscape of popular music had altered completely, from psychedelia and prog, to glam rock & metal. Advances in recording techniques were a huge part of that by allowing the freedom of creative expression.