 |
| Girl you know it's not the Foo Fighters. |
"This is a great honour, because this record was a special record for our band. Rather than go to the best studio in the world down the street in Hollywood and rather than use all of the fanciest computers that money can buy, we made this one in my garage with some microphones and a tape machine... To me this award means a lot because it shows that the human element of music is what's important. Singing into a microphone and learning to play an instrument and learning to do your craft, that's the most important thing for people to do... It's not about being perfect, it's not about sounding absolutely correct, it's not about what goes on in a computer. It's about what goes on in here [your heart] and what goes on in here [your head]," said Grohl during his acceptance speech for Best Album.
What Grohl is advocating is for music to return to a more "honest" live sound without all the technological enhancement. Phooey. Grohl may be taking a purist stand on what music should be, but where does he draw the line? Dave Grohl's "garage" and "tape machine" is worth more than my house. He admits that his tracks are spliced together from different takes, and this old school editing process is exactly what a computer does except instead of scissors and adhesive, digital uses (ctrl+x) and (ctrl+v) respectively. And the album was digitally mastered anyway. So in the end, what you hear coming out still isn't the same as when it when in. Isn't that still using technology to convince listeners that you're better than you are?
Even before Grohl made his point about enhanced modern music, I was looking for ways to get my non-recordist readers involved. I thought I would talk about so-called "studio magic," or exactly what Grohl is talking about. So I headed over to HomeRecording.com, an online forum for - wait for it - home recording to ask some of the members whether using technology or editing techniques was "cheating" or "lying" to listeners.
"Honestly, if you're recording something in any way other than completely live; no [effects], no pitch correction, no level automation... And you're doing it all in one take, it's technically cheating," says MrWrenchey, a home recordist.
But for MrWrenchey and every other forum participant (from hobbyist to professional) whether it's cheating the listener or not isn't the point. The processing or lack thereof is just part of the artistic process."Just call your efforts 'art' and POOF! it's art. There is no 'cheating' in art." says wheelema.
The truth is that many recordists and most of the music industry doesn't care whether we're given an accurate account of the musician's talent, nor do they have "humanity" in mind. They just want it to sound good and will do whatever it takes to do it. There's a lot of tinkering involved which just isn't natural. If I screw up on a verse 99 out of 100 times, I can just copy and paste the good take. I can mute out or replace a bad note. If I'm singing out of tune, I can run a pitch correction program (the infamous auto-tune). It's standard to run voice through an EQ and a nice reverb to make it sound more pleasant than it naturally is. Even live music can use the full weight of technology to enhance a performance.
So yes, musicianship matters. The heart and the head matters. But let's be real: A recording artist is like a magician. You practice and perfect your slight of hand, but at the end of the day, it's the secret pocket in the bottom of the hat that makes the rabbit appear.
Thanks to bruiser1964 for the Foo Fighter's tip and everyone else at www.homerecording.com for their input.
------
I want to know your opinion! Are you a purist who thinks music should rely solely on talent, not technology? Or is it the product that ultimately counts? Is there something wrong with presenting a performance as natural when it isn't? Does it change your thinking about music knowing that a multi-Grammy winning singer has millions of dollars worth of technology behind her?
I think music should rely on talent, but what kind of talent are we talking about? The talent of playing guitar, drums, piano, violin, or the talent of pieces together sounds on a computer or the talent of arranging equipment properly to get a fuller sound. These days, people seem to expect their music to be perfect when it comes out because that is the trend in society today. Voices are edited, music is ripped and streatched and tinkered with and made to sound more pleasing to the ear. In reality, it does not come out this way except in a few rare, live shows. People have this idea that these million-dollar artists should be able to hit every note perfectly but this is only possible with a little help from a computer and other devices. I do think it should rely on talent, but unfortunately it doesn't.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great post. You should be getting more comments. Let me send around another e-mail.
ReplyDeleteI think that music should rely talent, however, this is coming from someone who doesn't know much about music. I grew up listening to the great jazz and blues composers, such as B.B. King, Count Basie, Miles Davis, Duke Ellington and many others. What did they have? Just their instruments, fellow band members and their talent. I haven't really gotten into the "pop" music of today, because to me, it all sounds the same. I'll listen to good rap every now and then like Black Star, but for the most part, I can't stand the drub artists are churning out these days. Like I said, I really don't know much about music, but I think today's technology can make most decent singers sound top-notch.
ReplyDeleteOf course I think that music should rely on talent, but I don't think that having a little digital emphasis in the studio necessarily negates talent. Foo Fighters sound just as good live as they do on an album. They may use a little (or a lot) of reworking in the studio, but that doesn't mean they suck. You can cut and paste tracks together for lots of reasons: not just that your lead was off key. Maybe Taylor did something different on the drums in a second or third that sounded better. I also don't think that doing more than one take makes you a cheater. Some people are perfectionists. I sometimes write multiple, completely different drafts of the same article. It's not that the first one wasn't good...it's just that fifteen minutes later I had a line pop into my head that I HAD to use and suddenly the entire article was rotating around that.
ReplyDeleteI think home recording studios are awesome. There are sounds in live recordings that you just don't get when you start cutting and pasting shit together. The first time I ever heard someone use the "c" word (no...the other one) was in middle school. It was at the end of a song on this album by a local punk band. It was someone just calling their friend a name and everyone laughed afterwards. It was a great thing to accidentally capture on tape and then leave.
Afterthought: That band probably sucked, honestly. At that point I wasn't listening to music for quality, I was listening to music that would piss off my parents. These guys thanked "drunk sluts" in the liner notes. Clearly they were winners. (PS-It's Deirdre.)
What I think is important to remember is that music is made for an audience to listen to and enjoy. If fans buy the Foo Fighters newest album and enjoy it - great! If a consumer purchases David Guetta's most recent dubstep album mixing, mashing, and electronically altering several songs to make a unique sound - even better! Music is about the listener and what it means to them. While I respect David Grohl's music (one of my favorite artists), I think this is something he needs to remember. The best part about music is that there are so many different genres that there is something for everyone to enjoy! There isn't a magic formula for what makes a good sound - it's up to a listener to determine that.
ReplyDeleteReally a great addition. I have read this marvelous post. Thanks for sharing information about it. I really like that. Thanks so lot for your convene.
ReplyDeleteMastering on Line