# The "half speed recording" debate



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

So, I don't really want to name names, but it has come to light that several "overly technical" bands of late have "cheated" with the recording of their albums in that they've recorded the songs in a slower speed and then sped them up. Even Misha admitted that they've done similar techniques for certain riffs and it is used to add clarity to some riffs that end up otherwise muddy due to intricacies of the recording process (not an exact quote, some additions by me. if this is inaccurate please let me know). But it is also clear that Misha is certainly capable, to a significant degree, of playing said songs, whereas it was alleged that some of these bands can't.

What do you guys think about this issue? Is it ok to "cheat" in recording? Is it less ok when the band can't play the material live? Is it more ok if they can? Does it even matter at all? Is it ok to record songs bar-by-bar instead? Is it ok to split up bars? Some bands record their songs note-by-note. Is that ok?

My opinion is that music is an expression and the recording process doesn't matter, what stands is the music. And if you can entertain your fans live then who cares what you do. But we have a culture of looking up to players as idols of skill, and due to this image people end up disappointed. Add to that the elitism in metal circles towards recording techniques (some people considering triggers to not be a legitimate drumming technique (which I think is not true, you still need to hit the trigger with good timing, but that's a different debate)), this becomes even more of a red-button issue. I think we need to separate the idol mentality from the music.

One thing to remember, let's keep all discussion civil, and make this less about calling out individual bands and shitting on them, and more about discussion of this technique, the philosophy of skill, etc.


----------



## MassNecrophagia (Nov 7, 2012)

A.) If you intend to play your music live, you should work toward that goal. Maybe one could say that you should be writing your music at, or slightly above, your current skill level. 

B.) Music isn't a competition, it's the end result that matters to me. Just be up front about it if someone asks.


----------



## Fiction (Nov 7, 2012)

Yes its okay to cheat in recording.

No its not okay to cheat live.

I'm not paying to watch you mime to a CD, I want to hear how you play it whole, away from the studio and hear changes that bands add to live music.


----------



## Jake (Nov 7, 2012)

I see where it has it's uses and where it doesnt. If you are capable of actually playing what you are writing and it might be a little sloppy I understand, but if you write a song to be completely recorded at half speed then sped up I think thats just wrong. I know for a part we couldnt get just tight enough on my bands EP we ended up trying to punch it in slower but it sounded too machine like so we ended up autopunching 4 notes at a time, granted it was a very hard to play riff while being perfect, granted both me and my other guitarist can play the part it just didnt record well.


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

717ctsjz said:


> I see where it has it's uses and where it doesnt. If you are capable of actually playing what you are writing and it might be a little sloppy I understand, but if you write a song to be completely recorded at half speed then sped up I think thats just wrong. I know for a part we couldnt get just tight enough on my bands EP we ended up trying to punch it in slower but it sounded too machine like so we ended up autopunching 4 notes at a time, granted it was a very hard to play riff while being perfect, granted both me and my other guitarist can play the part it just didnt record well.



I've had a similar problem where I can play a fast riff fine, but it just sounds like ass when recorded, there's just too much fuzz. I wasn't aware of these techniques at the time so I had to change the riff. it ended up sounding less cool though.


----------



## datalore (Nov 7, 2012)

For me, the only important thing is whether the music has any impact on me. When I hear a record, I assume that when making the record, the musicians were doing whatever they had to do to create the best possible representation of their work. I accept that some bands aren't able to translate that to a live environment, and some are. It doesn't affect whether or not I enjoy the record, but it may affect which bands I choose to see live.


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 7, 2012)

Not okay. I'm actually kind of sad to hear bands are doing this.


----------



## Jake (Nov 7, 2012)

NaYoN said:


> I've had a similar problem where I can play a fast riff fine, but it just sounds like ass when recorded, there's just too much fuzz. I wasn't aware of these techniques at the time so I had to change the riff. it ended up sounding less cool though.


I was somewhat aware but didnt realize how easily it could be done until our awesome producer showed me haha


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

717ctsjz said:


> I was somewhat aware but didnt realize how easily it could be done until our awesome producer showed me haha



Care to elaborate how it works, for the sake of the thread?


----------



## edsped (Nov 7, 2012)

Personally I think part of the appeal of music with more technical aspects to it is the whole "wow how are they doing that" factor. Finding out it was recorded at half speed is disheartening but if they can pull it off competently in a live situation then I don't mind so much.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Nov 7, 2012)

completely not into the idea at all.


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 7, 2012)

edsped said:


> if they can pull it off competently in a live situation



Then they can do it on the record in the first place.


----------



## Prydogga (Nov 7, 2012)

To me, the idea of 'cheating' in music is irrelevant. As long as the outcome sounds good, I don't care how it was achieved. 

That being said, with bands like Rings of Saturn recording music that's a total shredfest, I think recording half time defeats the purpose, especially when (to me) the music isn't exactly the main reason one would listen to such a blistering style of music.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

Music is music. 
I enjoy good music and do not care how it was created. We have no problem with drum machines, no problem with dance music, no problem with programmed synth parts. I view guitar the same. I really don't care how it was made, as a listener. 

I do however, think it is wrong to deceive. That makes things tricky as an artist in metal - because it's all about the guitarist, to an extent, and there are such traditions in place such as everything being playable. You either announce outright that your guitar parts are not recorded 'for real', which I've only seen twice - In more experimental music - or you are a cheater. Seems quite unfair given the allowances in my first paragraph but that's just how the genre of 'guitar music' is. 

When it comes to live performance, it's tricky still. We have no problem with backing tracks for synth parts, percussion, extra guitar etc. And of course no problem with live dance music 'performance'...But despite this post I've even been somewhat of a hypocrite given that I saw a band who had their solos on a backing track and the guitarist played the rhythm parts. I looked down on that (they had always been just one guitarist - it wasn't because the leader player left)..I guess it's just expectations of the genre.

All in all I care much more about records than live shows, and couldn't give a damn how what I'm listening to was made.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

It's only cheating if you can't play it live.
If that band never plays live............who cares?
When recording, you could use it to get rid of picking noises, fingers noises etc expecially with fast bass riffs , live nobody will complain about them but on cd we don't want noises polluting our ears.
Some drum rolls are really difficult to play a riff over them, this technique will make it easier, live nobody will notice if your riff(guitar or bass) was a little beat out of sync with drums.


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> Then they can do it on the record in the first place.



The standards for quality on a record and in a live situation are different. Live has to be entertaining, record has to be "correct"


----------



## Fiction (Nov 7, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> Then they can do it on the record in the first place.



In this day and age, if I bought a CD and all I heard was "Competent" playing in the age of technology i'd be pretty disappointed. Because's its possible to make it sound as perfect as possible, hiding the imperfections, whether it's through punching in a few notes at a time, recording slower and speeding up or whatever other doctoring that's possible now a days.

E: ....aaaand Ninja'd.


----------



## Jake (Nov 7, 2012)

NaYoN said:


> Care to elaborate how it works, for the sake of the thread?


he simply just had the autopunch on a loop for a measure or so at a time and we did as many takes of it in a row until you got as close as possible then pieced it together in the end. pretty much it


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

NaYoN said:


> The standards for quality on a record and in a live situation are different. Live has to be entertaining, record has to be "correct"





I'm sure even the best live 'takes' from the bands we most respect would still be nowhere near good enough for a studio recording, at least in modern metal.


----------



## JosephAOI (Nov 7, 2012)

Some people consider using a hairband or sock or whatever to make tapping cleaner cheating. This is the same way.

I think that you should do whatever you need to do in order to make a record sound how you want it. You should be able to play whatever you're playing live though.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

717ctsjz said:


> he simply just had the autopunch on a loop for a measure or so at a time and we did as many takes of it in a row until you got as close as possible then pieced it together in the end. pretty much it



Yeah I made a whole album like this for my friends band. No speeding up, but very very small takes. Loop 4 bars at a time, record 10 or so takes. Take the best parts of each and splice together, often selecting as small as one beat at a time. 

With regards to speeding up I would just set the project to 50% speed. Any MIDI would go with it. Any audio such as real drums I would set to be timestretched. Then I would record the guitars, set them to be timestretched too, and turn the project back to 100%. Very easy.


----------



## Devyn Eclipse Nav (Nov 7, 2012)

I'd say, it's okay if you want to clean up something that is a bit sloppy when you try to play it at full speed, but not okay if you just straight up cannot play the part. If you can't play something, then modify it so that you can, not record it slow then speed up.


----------



## edsped (Nov 7, 2012)

NaYoN said:


> The standards for quality on a record and in a live situation are different. Live has to be entertaining, record has to be "correct"


This, but also even slight mistakes or flubbed nuances can be glaring on a recording whereas you might not even notice them if the guy's playing it right in front of you or in a live playthrough.


----------



## JosephAOI (Nov 7, 2012)

Zeno said:


> I'd say, it's okay if you want to clean up something that is a bit sloppy when you try to play it at full speed, but not okay if you just straight up cannot play the part. If you can't play something, then modify it so that you can, not record it slow then speed up.



What if it's a song that you just wrote before recording and you haven't practiced it enough yet? Along those lines, etc. I think it's also fine to use this technique with riffs you can't play so long as you get them down for live situations.


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

JosephAOI said:


> What if it's a song that you just wrote before recording and you haven't practiced it enough yet? Along those lines, etc. I think it's also fine to use this technique with riffs you can't play so long as you get them down for live situations.



Shameless self plug incoming:



This is my situation. I wasn't able to play the riff at 1:07 properly when I recorded this, but since I had it recorded, I made myself own up and get to the level where I could actually play it. I had to record it by splitting up the bar.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

NaYoN said:


> Shameless self plug incoming:
> 
> 
> 
> This is my situation. I wasn't able to play the riff at 1:07 properly when I recorded this, but since I had it recorded, I made myself own up and get to the level where I could actually play it. I had to record it by splitting up the bar.




It's impossible to understand what's happening there plus nobody knows your riff so in any case nobody would be able to tell if you have played it wrong.


----------



## JosephAOI (Nov 7, 2012)

^You would if he had played it like shit


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 7, 2012)

EtherealEntity said:


> I'm sure even the best live 'takes' from the bands we most respect would still be nowhere near good enough for a studio recording, at least in modern metal.



Jeff Waters could do it 20 years ago. Why can't these guys?


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

JosephAOI said:


> ^You would if he had played it like shit



See that's the thing, perfection isn't salient because it's what we're used to, but a flub would be immediately obvious


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

JosephAOI said:


> ^You would if he had played it like shit



Playing like shit is one thing, playing different notes(not the ones he wanted) is another thing.
I could tell if it was out of sync but I would never know if he played wrong notes or not cause that's his riff, not mine.
Plus that kind of riff at that speed to me sounds like noise, no musicality at all so I don't know how could somebody tell it's wrong or not(besides speed).


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 7, 2012)

NaYoN said:


> See that's the thing, perfection isn't salient because it's what we're used to, but a flub would be immediately obvious



Would it? In a nice, organic recording? Old classic albums are full of accidents, flubs, extraneous noises, etc... - and I love them for it.


----------



## gunch (Nov 7, 2012)

Seems like a pretty hot button issue

If you're up-front about it when asked it shouldn't be an issue. Same deal as Auto-tune, Drum Triggers and Drum Machines.

Then again as a visual artist, Traditional vs Digital debates still rage on a regular basis on forums I frequent.

CRTL-Z? TEXTURE BRUSHES? LAYER FILTERS? DO YOU EVEN LIFT BRO?

Edit: grammar mistakes :C


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> Would it? In a nice, organic recording? Old classic albums are full of accidents, flubs, extraneous noises, etc... - and I love them for it.



Yep, everything depends on style and what a band wants.
Sometimes mistakes sound awesome, sometimes not.
Sometimes a mistake creates new ideas or makes a song sound different, for better or worse.
Who wants robots playing?
Not me.


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> Would it? In a nice, organic recording? Old classic albums are full of accidents, flubs, extraneous noises, etc... - and I love them for it.



I didn't say the flub would be bad, just obvious. Depends on the band's vision...


----------



## Blasphemer (Nov 7, 2012)

Crazy, I just made a post on my tumblr about this earlier. I had no idea how close (notice I didnt say spot-on perfect) a 50% speed recording could sound to somebody playing it at full speed. 

I think it's a little disheartening to see happen, but what position am I in to judge? I'm not going to use it in my music, but if other people are going to, who am I to argue with them?


----------



## abandonist (Nov 7, 2012)

As a person who knows how to splice analog tape, and has spent hundreds of frustrating hours with it, I don't really care what bands do in the studio as long as they're open about it.

In some eyes everyone recording digital is "faking it". 

Play a riff half-time for whatever reason. Who cares? Someone asks you about it, just explain.

I'm a sloppy guitar player. If I had something in my brain and that was the only way for me to realize it, I don't much care what anyone thinks of it. It's just an innovation. These sorts of things come up every few years.

What about everyone using drum programs instead of learning to play...? Hell, I still remember the trigger controversy.

It's just a hopeless pride thing if you even care to indulge in the conversation.


----------



## Atomshipped (Nov 7, 2012)

To increase clarity in a recording? Fine. To play a riff they physically can't without speeding it up? Not good, imo.


----------



## xCaptainx (Nov 7, 2012)

I don't give a shit either way if it sounds good on the album. 

We had bands in the 80's recording huge chords one string at a time, what's the difference? 

Plus, nowadays with bands recording digital, with axe fx, superior drummer, double tracked vocals, everything compressed to hell...what is real and what isn't nowadays anyway? 

btw Metal injection had a large article about the band the OP is referring to. They definitely did not record at half speed. But even if they did, so what. Death metal is one of the most clinical, sterile style of metal, and it's done on purpose. I'd dare argue that techniques such as this could easily be compared to the 'be really shit for the sake of black metal' that so many true black metal bands do.


----------



## drjeffreyodweyer (Nov 7, 2012)

Not this topic again... It's not true
The Drama Continues: Rings of Saturn Guitarist Refutes Accusation that Band Recorded Album at Half-Speed, Accuser Fires Back | MetalSucks


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

drjeffreyodweyer said:


> Not this topic again... It's not true
> The Drama Continues: Rings of Saturn Guitarist Refutes Accusation that Band Recorded Album at Half-Speed, Accuser Fires Back | MetalSucks



As I said in the OP:



NaYoN said:


> One thing to remember, let's keep all discussion civil, and make this less about calling out individual bands and shitting on them, and more about discussion of this technique, the philosophy of skill, etc.


----------



## Bloodbath Salt (Nov 7, 2012)

Ride the Lightning was sped up. That's why their guitar tracks sound like their tuned sharp. So I'd believe it. 
I think a lot of metal bands also use looped drum tracks. I'm not a 100% sure on this, but "The Demon's Name is Surveillance" by Meshuggah sounds looped to me, but I could be wrong. Does anybody else think this too.

Unrelated fact: Tomas Haake also makes drum samples/loops for recording software.


----------



## Leuchty (Nov 7, 2012)

Meh, who cares...

If it sounds good. Do it. In the end its still ART. I never thought you could "cheat" with art.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

Bloodbath Salt said:


> "The Demon's Name is Surveillance" by Meshuggah sounds looped to me, but I could be wrong. Does anybody else think this too.



Maybe, no idea. I wouldn't really say looping falls into the realms of this thread though. Copy pasting sections or bars is a widely accepted digital practice that many wouldn't really call 'editing'


----------



## wrongnote85 (Nov 7, 2012)

for me, i never record anything unless i can nail it all the way through in one take. it doesn't really change anything for the listener, but it gives me a greater sense of accomplishment.


----------



## Dwellingers (Nov 7, 2012)

It´s kinda sad - but most recording involves some kind of editing, moving a couple of snare hits, recording very few bars at the time. Music to me is organic and organic music is harder to find i the metal world today, and thats why i enjoy metal live shows more than modern recordings; here the bands has to take its toll...


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

If a band records stuff at half-speed, it will sound like shit at full speed. Think of the way drums and guitars would sound. Vibrato? Sustain? A growl can't be recorded at half-speed.

But if people seriously need studio magic to pull of their stuff, then they shouldn't be trying to make music they can't play. I am all for punching a solo when you are too nervous to play it in one single take (I believe Petrucci has done this many times), but speeding things up? Fuck that.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> If a band records stuff at half-speed, it will sound like shit at full speed. Think of the way drums and guitars would sound. Vibrato? Sustain? A growl can't be recorded at half-speed.



Just guitars, man. It definitely works, especially if you speed up the DI signal first.


----------



## xCaptainx (Nov 7, 2012)

Bloodbath Salt said:


> Ride the Lightning was sped up. That's why their guitar tracks sound like their tuned sharp. So I'd believe it.
> I think a lot of metal bands also use looped drum tracks. I'm not a 100% sure on this, but "The Demon's Name is Surveillance" by Meshuggah sounds looped to me, but I could be wrong. Does anybody else think this too.
> 
> Unrelated fact: Tomas Haake also makes drum samples/loops for recording software.




does that kind of stuff really matter though? I loop everything 







I mean I'm just doing demos, but pretty much every engineer I've worked with loops riffs. It's easier, faster and no one can tell, as far as I can tell it's just effective time management. 

I use superior drummers midi groove kits for everything (I'm not a drummer, I wouldnt know what to programe and how to humanise everything, their beat packs make capturing ideas so much better)


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 7, 2012)

You cant cheat in art. However its really annoying trying to play as clean as on a recording when you know its not possible.


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

Another thing that everyone does is quantization of drums. I'm sure some purists would be against that too. But in the end, like a lot of techniques discussed in this thread, it's a time saving method. You can do a million takes until you get it right and you can practice forever, but you can record it (with "cheats") first and worry about getting it right later.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

Shameless self-plug: I had to record the solo in this tune in 4 parts. I am able to play the solo when I am not recording, but since I improvised it the day I recorded it, my brain hadn't quite get used to the note patterns, so I kept on forgetting notes and the like. How does it sound? (It's the first solo in the song called "Polaris").

Sphereal | Free Music, Tour Dates, Photos, Videos


----------



## DLG (Nov 7, 2012)

the only people to blame for this are the fans and labels. 

the younger people that listen to djent and "technical deathcore" that comes out demand super clean, inhuman production or they shit on it. therefore the labels that put out these bands want that as well in order to please/impress the buying public. 

then ensues the competition of who's the fastest, has the most brutally tight tone, tunes the lowest, etc. resulting in the actual musical ideas being thrown by the wayside. 

I've never heard rings of saturn before and played a track from the new album to see what it's all about, and the guitars sound so cartoony and fake that it sound hilarious to me instead of impressive. to me, who's 30, it sounds like a parody, while I guess younger people are impressed by it. 

for my personal tastes, I'd rather hear a band playing in the studio to their capabilities. cleaning up stuff, griding drums, editing riffs is all fine. it saves time in the studio and it makes it easier to record. 

but when you overuse these studio techniques I think it's pretty obvious to anyone with a decent ear who's been playing or listening to metal for a while. some people don't mind it, but to me, it usually doesn't sound good. it sounds like I'm listening to a guitar pro file. 

this is why I've found myself gravitating more towards stuff like pig destroyer, converge, enslaved, etc this year. I miss hearing guitars that actually sound like guitars and bands that sound like they are actually jamming out as a unit in their recordings. 

but at the same time, the new cattle decapitation and revocation sound dope to me. the production is modern and polished, but it has character and it sounds realistic. A lot of stuff coming out just doesn't. so I think that finding a balance is important and not overdoing it. Cutting the tail off every palm muted "djent" chord and editing out every bit of string noise, to me, is pointless and doesn't do anything to increase my enjoyment of the recording, it makes it sound plastic and dull.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 7, 2012)

Yeah thats what bugs me, the doctored chugging is so annoying. Ive seen VoM live and marc is a great player but obviously nobody can chug that tight so a few kids were complaining..


----------



## mattofvengeance (Nov 7, 2012)

DLG said:


> the only people to blame for this are the fans and labels.
> 
> the younger people that listen to djent and "technical deathcore" that comes out demand super clean, inhuman production or they shit on it. therefore the labels that put out these bands want that as well in order to please/impress the buying public.
> 
> ...



Completely agreed, and highlighted are some of my favorite bands who have put out some marvelous releases lately. Haven't listened to the new Revocation EP, but I'm sure it rules.


----------



## cronux (Nov 7, 2012)

for me the whole recording experience is like building a house. 
if you want a good-solid home, you don't do shortcuts. 

recording a riff slowly and then speeding it up is by far one of the most funniest things that I have ever heard. If you can't play it up to speed -> DON'T RECORD IT UNTIL YOU CAN. and if you can play it up to speed then realize that live - no one will hear the clarity of that riff because of the PA, venue capacity, bad sound tech, low tuning etc.

as for recording it -> if you want "clarity" you record it xy times until is sounds clear or you change the sound of the amp for that song alone, or that passage alone or put 2x tight gates on your signal when you record etc.

IMO if you are going so far as to play something slow just to speed it up later because of some guy you don't even know who will judge you about the clarity of the riff you are not doing music for yourself - you're doing it for someone else or you are just showing off how slow you can play (  ) just to speed it up again

silly 

i bet these guys didn't speed up their riffs


----------



## MikeyLHolm (Nov 7, 2012)

I don't think it matters in a sense of creating perfect record. If it sounds better on CD recorded at halfspeed and doubled up be my guest and go for it as long as your intentions are in making best record you can and not to cover your inability to play music. But this is also why i can't stand modern metal or music in general. It sounds so fucking bad like it is hospitalized, and who actually likes hospitals? It lacks the spirit things at 70s and 80s had, even if I'm not big fan of the 70s overall tone in music. I know there was plenty of studio magic done already at 80s but if you listen something like Def Leppard live they sound great even if Hysteria had string by string recording for beefier sounds and what not. You don't get the same groove that way either than you would playing it properly. Whole bar for bar recording is just MEH.

Also if you are a live band its not too smart to do things like this and then be unable to play the songs for audience that pays to see you live.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 7, 2012)

One of the things I've always valued about metal is it's brutal honest compared to pop music. Metal was supposed to be about being true to yourself whatever anyone else would say. Recording music as half speed is fake, and undermines the foundations that metal was built on. Sure you can say that if they're honest, then it's fine, but you shouldn't do it in the first place. I mean, 10% less than full speed maybe, but half speed? Too much in my opinion. Just practice.


----------



## xCaptainx (Nov 7, 2012)

DLG said:


> the only people to blame for this are the fans and labels.
> 
> the younger people that listen to djent and "technical deathcore" that comes out demand super clean, inhuman production or they shit on it. therefore the labels that put out these bands want that as well in order to please/impress the buying public.
> 
> ...



Word! Kids these days need to listen to Morbid Angel - Dominate. My fav metal band of all time. Kids need to play riffs are normal speed, and preferably while playing Quake at the same time


----------



## cronux (Nov 7, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> One of the things I've always valued about metal is it's brutal honest compared to pop music. Metal was supposed to be about being true to yourself whatever anyone else would say. Recording music as half speed is fake, and undermines the foundations that metal was built on. Sure you can say that if they're honest, then it's fine, but you shouldn't do it in the first place. I mean, 10% less than full speed maybe, but half speed? Too much in my opinion. Just practice.



agree 100%

this shed some light on the subject

More Rings of Saturn Drama: ex-Drummer Brent Silletto Shares His Side of the Story | MetalSucks

what i said before -> if you can't play it, you don't record it

really simple


----------



## Dayn (Nov 7, 2012)

Whatever gets you the sound you want.

Whether you can play it or not is a different matter. That only concerns me if I'm going to see someone play live. I want to see them _play_ live. If they can, cool. If not, I'll go back to the album instead.


----------



## PeteyG (Nov 7, 2012)

I'm fine with it if you do it for the odd riff, but not if it happens for more than 50% of an album.

That said I just fucking hate the sound of it, it's pretty obvious throughout a certain recent album that I cannot listen to, because the guitars start to sound like the "Overdriven Guitar" setting on most cheap keyboards you can buy for a few pounds.


----------



## Cancer (Nov 7, 2012)

Just my .02$, I'm glad that we live in an age where our musical conceptions are not constrained by physical limitations. My personal observation is, in general, what musicians compose (espeically if they don't compose of staff paper) tend to be based around what they can physically do, and we are on the ground floor of seeing this change.

I can only imagine the compositions we'll get in the future we musicians (by and large) completely embrace this concept, and we have the technology that allows that composition process to be less painstaking then it is today (like I can just plug my brain into a computer and imagine wha the parts will sound like, and have it captured).


----------



## DLG (Nov 7, 2012)

Cancer said:


> Just my .02$, I'm glad that we live in an age where our musical conceptions are not constrained by physical limitations. My personal observation is, in general, what musicians compose (espeically if they don't compose of staff paper) tend to be based around what they can physically do, and we are on the ground floor of seeing this change.
> 
> I can only imagine the compositions we'll get in the future we musicians (by and large) completely embrace this concept, and we have the technology that allows that composition process to be less painstaking then it is today (like I can just plug my brain into a computer and imagine wha the parts will sound like, and have it captured).



you are only limited by the amount of effort and time you put in. 

everyone wants to be a technical metal band after being together for two years these days. getting to that level takes time and effort, and a lot of people are taking short cuts on their recordings to achieve a recording that sounds "technical" or "complex" immediately. 

look at that cannibal corpse video posted above. they play that way because they've been playing this stuff for 20 years. Spawn of Possession sound the way they do because they've put years into getting to that level. 

Colin from Behold the Arctopus writes all of the band's music as notation using software so that he is not limited by muscle memory and the way he regularly plays an instrument - he does this to focus on the composition entirely without any physical aspects impeding the process. 

you know what he and the band do after this process is complete though?

they woodshed until they are able to play this ridiculous and crazy ass music on their instruments in a practice room together, and then they record it.


----------



## Cancer (Nov 7, 2012)

DLG said:


> I've never heard rings of saturn before and played a track from the new album to see what it's all about, and the guitars sound so cartoony and fake that it sound hilarious to me instead of impressive. to me, who's 30, it sounds like a parody, while I guess younger people are impressed by it.



Since you brought them up:

I saw Rings of Saturn open at tSummer Slaughter (?!??!?!?) last year at Sonar in Baltimore, MD. I've never heard them before that point and too honest what made me curious was their name. They started played and were amazing. Their songs use alot of whole tone and augmented sounding scales and arps which you don't normally hear in deathcore context, and their guitarists nailed them live.

I became a fan of them based off their live show, which is rare occurrence nowadays.

I only bring this up because, I can see how someone might think their guitars "sound cartoony and fake that it sound hilarious", but who saw them up close and personal, I can safely say that's more of a compositional choice.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

I never understood people playing overly technical stuff. To me it sounds like playing fast,"complex" music for the sake of doing it. 

... and then these bands complain about not being able to live off their music.


----------



## PeteyG (Nov 7, 2012)

Let me just say this.

When I first heard SikTh at the age of 16 when their first album was released I was overcome with a sense of awe, because while most music I heard I could imagine how it would be played, this album I just had no comprehension of where to even begin. I was enraptured by the album and I would listen to it over and over, each time having my mind blown.

If I was to find out after listening to that album that it was recorded at half speed or using studio trickery, I would, in a sense, be heartbroken. All of the magic would be gone, regardless of whether they can play it live or not, I wouldn't be listening to anything worth amazement when I put the album.

There's an argument that it doesn't matter, that it's the composition that matters, and yes to a degree this is true, but then why bother recording it yourself? Why not just hire a much better player to play the parts for you on the record?

I imagine many of us listen to metal because there's a level of sincerity and camaraderie in it that heightens the experience for us. The idea that a small group of friends can get together and create these wonderful songs and then cut it to record for other people to enjoy in their own homes. There's a human aspect to metal that is in the interaction of a handful of people creating something magical, an integrity that isn't present in a lot of pop music.

I think there are a few other modern recording techniques that diminish this. I feel they're fine for compositional purposes, when demoing tracks in order to hear how ideas will sound recorded as opposed to in guitar pro or in a rehearsal space, but that a final record should be instrumentalists playing their parts to the best of their abilities, even if little imperfections are left over as a result. For a lot of us those little imperfections are the things we latch onto and end up loving the track for, for the vast majority of people those imperfections are near undetectable, for the few who actually care, I say just fucking deal with it.


----------



## Dan (Nov 7, 2012)

I record double time and slow it down.


----------



## rythmic_pulses (Nov 7, 2012)

Every musician has their live techniques and their studio techniques, the truth is, as long as they can play the song they've written at the original speed live, I have no problem with them using the half speed recording idea, it's all for clean and less messy takes.

I don't do it though, I like to let tiny mistakes flow through, not flubbing notes though, that's serious BAD! 



PeteyG said:


> Let me just say this.
> 
> When I first heard SikTh at the age of 16 when their first album was released I was overcome with a sense of awe, because while most music I heard I could imagine how it would be played, this album I just had no comprehension of where to even begin. I was enraptured by the album and I would listen to it over and over, each time having my mind blown.
> 
> ...



I couldn't agree more man.


----------



## DLG (Nov 7, 2012)

PeteyG said:


> Let me just say this.
> 
> When I first heard SikTh at the age of 16 when their first album was released I was overcome with a sense of awe, because while most music I heard I could imagine how it would be played, this album I just had no comprehension of where to even begin. I was enraptured by the album and I would listen to it over and over, each time having my mind blown.
> 
> ...


----------



## JohnIce (Nov 7, 2012)

I have nothing against it, but I don't do it. I think your artistic vision should come first, and if you think you need to quantize the living shit out of everyone in the band and do auto-tuned word-by-word vocal takes then do it. I certainly won't listen to it, because it doesn't move me. At all, in fact I think it sounds stupid, but I'm not telling anyone not to if they like that sound. Like PeteyG mentioned, I like the sound of friends making music together, not a DAW showcase.

The backlash of all of this is of course when you spend ages rehearsing and practicing to absolutely nail your songs in the studio, often first takes, and people still _assume_ you're not because "everyone cheats". People have said my band's last record was "overly quantized and autotuned" when it was simply very well rehearsed and meticulous. That's disheartening, but what can you do.

At the end of the day, the way the music business is evolving, live shows and merchandise (which requires loyal fans getting impressed at those shows) is the way to make a carreer today. No-one can make a living releasing albums. So if your live show isn't up to standards, then you'll have to reap what you sow and get a day job. So it certainly pays to be able to play your shit.


----------



## xCaptainx (Nov 7, 2012)

ok hang on, so I finally went and listened to the band in question. 

Half speed or not, I know what it sounds like; shit. 

Everything sounds like Guitar Pro 5. I seriously don't understand why kids get into this.


----------



## pawel (Nov 7, 2012)

"Studio as an instrument" has been around since the Beatles and has generally always been considered a positive thing and a sign of creativity, even if it is ubiquitous now. So, overall, I don't see a problem of putting things on record that can't be played live - otherwise you get into debating whether using samples, orchestras, or other session musicians to play some parts is ok, if the actual "band" can't reproduce them on stage. 

I understand the argument about being sincere and transparent, but you wouldn't necessarily call out an electronica producer for, say, using a sped-up effected recording of a toaster as a drum loop instead of meticulously programming it on the TR-808?

Either way, even if a band tries to build their reputation on being fast and technical, by now the public is informed enough about studio trickery that sooner or later they will want to test it live and the band will be very quickly exposed if they can't reproduce their music half-decently. 

Personally, I am not that much into the modern polished production, but for that very reason you also see many bands trying to go for the exact oposite sound, which is a great development in my book.


----------



## Demiurge (Nov 7, 2012)

There is that age-old argument as to whether an audio recording was a representation of the composition or of the performance. I've always leaned toward the former, but I think there are some types of music that seem meant to showcase the performance, where so-called technical metal would be one of them. I like the idea of using technology to make the impossible possible, yet using it as a substitute for practice or a misrepresentation of ability (_if_ the music is considered a showcase of ability/performance) seems tacky. 

Of course, it's nothing to lose sleep over, but the artist should really worry that, if their writing process is so slap-dash to the point where they don't work their riffs well-enough to even be able to play them, then the song quality might suffer.


----------



## PeteyG (Nov 7, 2012)

pawel said:


> "Studio as an instrument" has been around since the Beatles and has generally always been considered a positive thing and a sign of creativity, even if it is ubiquitous now. So, overall, I don't see a problem of putting things on record that can't be played live - otherwise you get into debating whether using samples, orchestras, or other session musicians to play some parts is ok, if the actual "band" can't reproduce them on stage.
> 
> I understand the argument about being sincere and transparent, but you wouldn't necessarily call out an electronica producer for, say, using a sped-up effected recording of a toaster as a drum loop instead of meticulously programming it on the TR-808?



I don't think that many people here have an issue or are debating the production of layers in songs that aren't meant to be played live by a person but instead included on a backing track. The argument is against using techniques in the production of the parts that _are_ meant to be played by a person live that could be deemed "cheating" in order to make a specific guitar part sound cleaner than it might if the person just played it to the best of their ability.

Just something I want to say as a suggestion for those of us who are struggling with getting a particularly tricky riff or lick down on record, something I do in this case is to program a synth that doubles the guitar part, using a synth sound that compliments the guitar part, and I blend it in, quite low in the mix. It generally tends to help smooth out the sketchy bits and still sounds natural enough.

For example, the riff in this song at 17 seconds in has this exact thing going on.
https://soundcloud.com/redseasfire/the-recovery-1


----------



## Wings of Obsidian (Nov 7, 2012)

C'mon guys, we all suspected Dragonforce of doing this years ago.... -.-" ...big deal


----------



## dizzy (Nov 7, 2012)

Whilst I've always taken the "live in the studio" approach when recording, I'm not a massively technical guitarist and can see why, for more complicated compositions, some people might look to the available technology for a helping hand. Especially as studio time costs money and patience is finite.

From my listener's perspective however, overly engineered, overly quantised, snapped to grid shimmering technical perfection sounds, well, wrong on some level. It lacks the human feel that makes me connect with some of my favourite records. I still prefer the sound of early Bolt Thrower to any of these modern studio masterpieces as the modern stuff sounds sterile. In a bad way, not in an awesomely bleak death metal way!

By way of comparison, autotune has been used to death in an attempt to make sub-par pop acts sound vaguely reasonable. It has got to the point, however, where even non-musicians can hear that it sounds wrong in some way. Heck, even the UK tabloid papers here were running stories on overuse of it on TV talent shows, it became that obvious.

I guess as humans, we connect much better to human performances, warts and all, than to something that has been polished to within an inch of its life.


----------



## Scattered Messiah (Nov 7, 2012)

Interesting topic.
As said, the question lying beyond is really the interpretation of the album: is an album a display of skill or a display of composition?
So, IMHO, it's about the vision the band has about itself.
Now, if a band takes pride in being technical, I feel they kinda fail on the technical aspect if they are not able to play(read as record) their stuff without having to slow it down, or punching in the notes all at one time. I mean, where is the sense in that?

I generally do not have a problem with said techniques, as long as I still have the feeling, that there might be a human being behind this.
Obviously, all these techniques can be used as stylistic device, just as intense layering, quadtracking (which I am a huge fan of), ectect...
And obviously, there are many more tricks in the studio, small and big ones.
But I feel / hear, thet there is some point, where it all just starts to sound ridiculous, at least to my ears.
- but still, different people, different tastes and different visions!

F. exp my major project atm is getting pretty technical and complex in some areas, but we all feel, that it is just more honest to practice a bit more and then track the stuff with as few tricks as possible,
to make it feel more organic, to give us the feedback that we actually can do the stuff and to be able to represent the image we want to create. I feel more honest that way, cause this "tracking at halfspeed" has a slight air of self decieving, doesn't it?

A band should do whatever they feel is needed, in order to fullfill the vision they have of their material - but it is a must to be honest about how the recording process went.
And live, you should be able to play the stuff you chose to play. From a musician's point of view, it would be appreciated, that the most "difficult" part is always played live "by humans", f.exp concerning overdubs ect - or just use a looper, like tosin did on the first tour 

Edit: typos due to lack of coffee


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

Deleted for politically correct reasons


----------



## thrsher (Nov 7, 2012)

i honestly do believe their first record was recorded half speed and fortunately the band got members that can play what they recorded. i personally witnessed the bassist sean work on bass tracks for the new record at full speed. Being that he joined the band and did not write the material, he did it piece by piece but full speed.


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> Did anyone really expect these guys:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




As I said in the OP:



NaYoN said:


> One thing to remember, let's keep all discussion civil, and make this less about calling out individual bands and shitting on them, and more about discussion of this technique, the philosophy of skill, etc.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

Uh oh. Sorry about that. But I am sure you read the same article as I did and had the same band in mind when you wrote the op.


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> Uh oh. Sorry about that. But I am sure you read the same article as I did and had the same band in mind when you wrote the op.



Not just that band, there's also another band that had their megathread here blow up and get locked due to a flame war started because the band used this technique, but as I said, let's not make this about the bands. I'm interested in the ethics, metholodogy, philosophy etc.


----------



## ST3MOCON (Nov 7, 2012)

I don't think there is such a thing a cheating in the studio as long as you can play the material live. A lot of these bands have super precise riffing going on. A lot of times these precise riffs are syncopated with the kick drum. I think in a recording situation it has its uses. To me it makes sense for a band to make sure that the recording is going to on par with other bands. I think that this is a natural technique that has evolved because of our overly trained ears for precision. I say on the recording just let your bands do what they do to make a awesome record. When you see them live I'm sure you won't be disappointed. They have deadlines and studio time cost money. Time is money regardless so whatever helps them finish the album and gets them back on the road is cool with me.


----------



## cronux (Nov 7, 2012)

here's something that I think is important from the metalsucks link 

"It was around the time Joel joined the band that our manager Anthony found out about the techniques used to record the album, saw us live and knew we could not actually pull that material off as clean as it is on the album. Relations with him soured because of this and we severed the contract."

this sucks really hard... I mean, technique aside and all that but thinking/wanting to play fast is not the same as playing fast. 

i find this useful because this shows that if you want to be taken seriously you have to woodshed yourself to perfection or in short - you can take a shortcut because of the "clarity" just be sure to play it accurately live 

(this clarity thing really blows my mind in terms of how funny it all seems  )


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

Steve Vai recorded the solo in "For the love of G-d" in a single take. I don't want to know how many takes he needed before he did one he was happy with. Musicians nowadays are too prone to be mediocre, I think. I call it the pro-tools-effect.


----------



## guy in latvia (Nov 7, 2012)

I honestly think people are just lazy and undedicated. I actually find that the recording process always helps me improve my playing, because I play the riffs over and over and over until every pick hit lines up close enough to the kick drums, snare, that the accents are right. One of my favorite albums of all time was recorded on tape with shitty gear, low level editing and military discipline. Slaughter of the Soul. 

I love old school metal records because they sound raw and natural, no the overcompressed, brickwalled and completely perfect productions. I can't stand them, because they don't even invoke any kind of emotion when listening to them, its no different than listening to guitar pro, just with better tone. Music needs to be raw and imperfect, that's what makes it interesting!

I agreed to mix and master a track for a friend, he only had to record the guitar parts and I would do the rest. I spent 5 months of telling him to rerecord the tracks and he sent me new takes every week, sometimes even 3/4 times a week. I would hear inconsistencies and tell him to rerecord. The argument got so heated he started sending me images of the *.wav files lined up to metronome hits. As a result, he became a better guitar player and the recording turned out really incredible!

TL,DL: You're just cheating yourself.


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

Counterargument: It's not always about being unable to play. Sometimes due to stuff like pick noises, fuzz on the tone etc, faster parts are really hard to get clear, especially for people with equipment that is not top of the line. The player is able to play, but they can't get the needed clarity (not due to lack of skill but due to lack of gear). This actually happened to me. What to do in this situation if one can't afford better gear?


----------



## PyramidSmasher (Nov 7, 2012)

I think it's a complete waste of time to care if someone is using studio magic or not. It's standard for pop music, and if I hear a song that I like I dont care how it was achieved. It is just the consequences of music technology advancing, though I personally wont do it lol


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

NaYoN said:


> Counterargument: It's not always about being unable to play. Sometimes due to stuff like pick noises, fuzz on the tone etc, faster parts are really hard to get clear, especially for people with equipment that is not top of the line. The player is able to play, but they can't get the needed clarity (not due to lack of skill but due to lack of gear). This actually happened to me. What to do in this situation if one can't afford better gear?



lol how does the amp determine whether you can sweep and speed pick clearly or not? Your technique remains the same. I am sure Michael Angelo would sound as clean through a shitty peavy 15 watt amp.


----------



## cwhitey2 (Nov 7, 2012)

Studio im ok with it, some people clam up when in the studio and cant play to thier full potential.

Live you better play something close to what I heard on the cd.

Ps I heard ROS did this. And I honestly dont care. I have played with them...they shred \m/


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> lol how does the amp determine whether you can sweep and speed pick clearly or not? Your technique remains the same. I am sure Michael Angelo would sound as clean through a shitty peavy 15 watt amp.



Pickups, interface, tone, all of these factors contribute to having muddiness in your sound. And I didn't say anything about sweeping. Think playing palm muted 16th notes at 240 BPM. I can very clearly play the part, but when recorded through my gear, no matter what, it sounds like mud. When played through a sweet amp and recorded like that it sounds fine, but with my home equipment (POD farm) it's just completely inaudible. And I live in an apartment so I can't record my own stuff with an amp. This means I have to go to a studio to record whenever I want to make a certain type of song, and that's infeasible.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

NaYoN said:


> Pickups, interface, tone, all of these factors contribute to having muddiness in your sound. And I didn't say anything about sweeping. Think playing palm muted 16th notes at 240 BPM. I can very clearly play the part, but when recorded through my gear, no matter what, it sounds like mud. When played through a sweet amp and recorded like that it sounds fine, but with my home equipment (POD farm) it's just completely inaudible. And I live in an apartment so I can't record my own stuff with an amp. This means I have to go to a studio to record whenever I want to make a certain type of song, and that's infeasible.



Well, there is a difference between sounding muddy and playing in such a way that everything sounds unclear.

And that about sweeping...that was an example.


----------



## pawel (Nov 7, 2012)

PeteyG said:


> I don't think that many people here have an issue or are debating the production of layers in songs that aren't meant to be played live by a person but instead included on a backing track. The argument is against using techniques in the production of the parts that _are_ meant to be played by a person live that could be deemed "cheating" in order to make a specific guitar part sound cleaner than it might if the person just played it to the best of their ability.



I see that distinction of course. I guess my point was that it just becomes one of the arguments where it's hard to draw the line as to where it is deception and where it is just a technique used to get a cleaner sounding record. Someone provided an example of bands in the 80s recording big sounding chords string by string (not sure if this is true or which band it refers to, but let's just go with it for now). It is 'cheating' in a way that it makes something that's supposed to be played by a human sound bigger, better, etc. and it would probably not be possible for a player to get this exact sound (i.e. through inability to, say, pluck all strings at exactly the same time etc). A big chord is different than a fast part, but the principle is the same, hell, the principle is the same also if you play something at twice the speed and slow it down. So, it really comes down to what the band's original intention was - whether deception was their aim or not...



m3l-mrq3z said:


> Steve Vai recorded the solo in "For the love of G-d" in a single take. I don't want to know how many takes he needed before he did one he was happy with. Musicians nowadays are too prone to be mediocre, I think. I call it the pro-tools-effect.



Could also be that with changes in the music industry, lower budgets, etc. there is more pressure to cut down on studio time and lay things down quicker?


----------



## Danukenator (Nov 7, 2012)

I for one love old crazy shred stuff. Racer X, Gilbert's solo stuff, Vinnie Moore...

I love being able to hear the skill and practice that went into playing that cleanly. That said, I also the gritty "realness" of Gary Moore tunes. You can the small mistakes. 

I get using studio tricks for new metal stuff. Djent and whatnot is expected to be ultra-technical but also stupidly clean. If you "cheat" that's fine. You just have to say you did it. It's more about honesty to me than it is about "skill."


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

I NEVER EVER heard/read/known somebody who bought an album/song or went to a concert because "that band doesn't cheat at the studio".
So if you're not in a contest, who the fuck cares about it?
Making music is not about proving you can play something fast BUT sharing emotions. 
*OF COURSE a band that plays live can't cheat cause it has to play it live* but there are thousands musicians in their houses only wanting to compose music and share their ideas/emotions, they're not shredders and probably will never play live, they don't want to be Petrucci, they don't care about this alpha male thing about who plays faster.
I'm a guitarist so I care about playing my stuff so I'd never do that but that's my need and not everybody need.I already recorded several musicians who asked me to do that and I asked myself why somebody would record something they can't play................I asked then and they replied:

"I'm just a hobby player, I probably will never have a band to play that stuff live so I'm just having fun sharing my music with friends, I don't wanna be the fastest player ever, I don't even have time to practice that hard, I'm just a composer who hope people like my music."

Some people should stop caring about players and pay attention to music, music is what matters no matter if people "cheated" or not, if a song makes your heart pumps faster, who cares how it was recorded


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

pawel said:


> Could also be that with changes in the music industry, lower budgets, etc. there is more pressure to cut down on studio time and lay things down quicker?



We live in times where almost everybody who is a musician has a personal computer (a laptop) and is somehow acquainted with the recording process. No one is holding musicians back from going DIY and record albums on their own. Sure, they won't sound as crisp as an engineers/producer's effort, but another complain of fans is that music sounds too overproduced and polished, almost plastic. 

Dream Theater wrote and recorded Train of Thought in three weeks. What's your excuse?


----------



## Maniacal (Nov 7, 2012)

When it comes to technical metal, I don't like the idea of half speed recording. A big element of extreme metal is the virtuosity and dedication it takes to be able to play that kind of music. To record it half speed totally ruins it for me. It's like an illusion, the excitement of the music is lost because the musicians can't play it. 

I love listening to classical pianists, guys like Cziffra can burn all over the piano effortlessly, and it is exciting to see that. It should be the same when it comes to guitarists displaying virtuoso compositions. 

Any guitarist can learn to use Superior, learn a few diminished arpeggio shapes etc and then write hideously over the top music. But there is no talent in that. 

This is why I have turned away from metal, it rarely excites me these days. With the exception of a few bands, such as Wintersun.


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

Maniacal said:


> This is why I have turned away from metal, it rarely excites me these days. With the exception of a few bands, such as Wintersun.



Funny you would say that, considering that band would be impossible without "cheating" since all the orchestral stuff is synthesized.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

NaYoN said:


> Funny you would say that, considering *that band would be impossible without "cheating" since all the orchestral stuff is synthesized*.


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 7, 2012)

Scattered Messiah said:


> As said, the question lying beyond is really the interpretation of the album: is an album a display of skill or a display of composition?




When did it stop being about both?

Maybe it's because I went through the whole classical musician thing as a young age (Royal Conservatory of Music and Festivals and Orchestras and whatnot) but I've viewed being a composer and a musician as two separate things. 

If you do both (and I do) they you damn well better be able to do both.


----------



## bulb (Nov 7, 2012)

The studio is the place to create an Idea, do whatever suits the end product, without question. Unless you plan on recording the whole band in one take and choosing which take you prefer (as many Jazz artists do) you are editing in SOME way, and then where you draw the line is really up to you, but I don't think you should be judged for half-speed recording or miking up a milk carton or whatever you need to do.

Recreating it live...now that is another issue altogether. If as a result of your recording techniques, you can't actually perform the music you have created, then that's something that I personally think is a bit lame. But that's just me.


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


>



Here I mean cheating as using non-real instruments, which is frowned upon by some. Dimmu Borgir for example usually record with a real orchestra. The point is that times change and so do recording methods. Without such advancements we wouldn't have Wintersun. Apply this argument generally, we wouldn't have a lot of the music we have now without some studio tricks.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

NaYoN said:


> Here I mean cheating as using non-real instruments, which is frowned upon by some. *Dimmu Borgir for example usually record with a real orchestra.* The point is that times change and so do recording methods. Without such advancements we wouldn't have Wintersun. Apply this argument generally, we wouldn't have a lot of the music we have now without some studio tricks.



And guess what? Those cool orchestral arrangements are not done by them, but by a guy who can do that. Quite the opposite to the guys in Rhapsody, who are by far better musicians.

I remember reading about Jordan Rudess being involved in the orchestration of "Score", you know, that concert...

Using samples of instruments you can't play isn't cheating. Using samples to cover up for the fact that you can't play the instrument you are supposed to play (and that you claim to play well) is another thing.


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> And guess what? Those cool orchestral arrangements are not done by them, but by a guy who can do that. Quite the opposite to the guys in Rhapsody, who are by far better musicians.
> 
> I remember reading about Jordan Rudess being involved in the orchestration of "Score", you know, that concert...
> 
> Using samples of instruments you can't play isn't cheating. Using samples to cover up for the fact that you can't play the instrument you are supposed to play (and that you claim to play well) is another thing.



Hence the quotes around "cheating". Chill out. I was trying to make an argument for advancement in recording technology leading to more interesting music. To some, it doesn't matter who composed what or who played what, some just care about the end result.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

NaYoN said:


> Hence the quotes around "cheating". Chill out. I was trying to make an argument for advancement in recording technology leading to more interesting music. *To some, it doesn't matter who composed what or who played what, some just care about the end result.*



Musician fans do, I believe. How would you feel if your favourite guitarist turned out to be a fake? I know I was dissapointed when I realized that Dimmu Borgir weren't responsabile for the orchestral shit they've got going on.


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> Musician fans do, I believe. How would you feel if your favourite guitarist turned out to be a fake? I know I was dissapointed when I realized that Dimmu Borgir weren't responsabile for the orchestral shit they've got going on.



Honestly, the fact that a band cheated doesn't make the music go away, and I could still enjoy the music. To me music isn't a dick measuring contest, but I guess that changes from person to person. It would make me lose respect for the musician, yes, but I'd still enjoy the music.


----------



## pawel (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> We live in times where almost everybody who is a musician has a personal computer (a laptop) and is somehow acquainted with the recording process. No one is holding musicians back from going DIY and record albums on their own. Sure, they won't sound as crisp as an engineers/producer's effort, but another complain of fans is that music sounds too overproduced and polished, almost plastic.



It's true that you can now go DIY and record as many takes as you might want. My point was that for artists/bands who are trying to make the "big time" and are still partly in the record label/professional studio paradigm, it might not always be up to them how much time they take to record and how many takes they lay down....


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

NaYoN said:


> Honestly, the fact that a band cheated *doesn't make the music go away*, and I could still enjoy the music. To me music isn't a dick measuring contest, but I guess that changes from person to person. It would make me lose respect for the musician, yes, but I'd still enjoy the music.



It makes the human element of the music and the integrity of the latter go away.


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 7, 2012)

I believe what you, rather condescendingly(?), refer to as, "...a dick measuring contest..." other people might refer to as artistic integrity? 

Lots of people talking about artistic vision. And that's great. I approve 100%. But the vision is the start of the process. How that vision goes from your head to reality is where the integrity comes in. 

Of course integrity is a rather nebulous term and basically what this whole discussion is about! 


It would be interesting to see where people draw the line.


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> It makes the human element of the music and the integrity of the latter go away.





AxeHappy said:


> I believe what you, rather condescendingly(?), refer to as, "...a dick measuring contest..." other people might refer to as artistic integrity?
> 
> Lots of people talking about artistic vision. And that's great. I approve 100%. But the vision is the start of the process. How that vision goes from your head to reality is where the integrity comes in.
> 
> ...



No, don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say I don't care about artistic integrity. I myself said that I would lose respect for the artist. But I am able to separate the art from the artist. The dick measuring contest refers to the "we can play faster and more technical than everyone else" mentality some bands have, regardless of whether they have skill or not.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

So here's a quick questionnaire for y'all, mark where applies:

[ ] Multitrack recording of instruments separately is ok.
[ ] Splitting a song into sections to record with more clarity/impact is ok.
[ ] Splitting a measure into sections to record with more clarity/impact is ok.
[ ] Recording note by note to record with more clarity/impact is ok.
[ ] Slowing down a song to record with more clarity/impact then speeding it up is ok.
[ ] Overdubbing stuff like chords and pinch harmonics to record with more clarity/impact is ok.
[ ] Using amp simulation instead of amps is ok.
[ ] Using synths for extraneous instruments like sitar, cello etc is ok.
[ ] Using triggers is ok.
[ ] Using a drum machine is ok.
[ ] Quantization of drum/instrument notes is ok.
[ ] If possible, recording guitar via synths is ok.
[ ] Playing live to a backing track due to not having certain aspects of the sound like ambience and synths replicable in a live environment is ok.
[ ] Playing live with one guitarist and a backing track to simulate two guitarists is ok.
[ ] Playing live with a backing track to cover up sloppiness is ok.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

NaYoN said:


> [x ] Multitrack recording of instruments separately is ok.
> [x ] Splitting a song into sections to record with more clarity/impact is ok.
> [x ] Splitting a measure into sections to record with more clarity/impact is ok.
> [x ] Recording note by note to record with more clarity/impact is ok.
> ...



I'd just like to say I agree with pretty much everything you've said, Nayon.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

[x] Multitrack recording of instruments separately is ok.
[x] Splitting a song into sections to record with more clarity/impact is ok.
[x] Splitting a measure into sections to record with more clarity/impact is ok.
[ ] Recording note by note to record with more clarity/impact is ok.
[ ] Slowing down a song to record with more clarity/impact then speeding it up is ok.
[ ] Overdubbing stuff like chords and pinch harmonics to record with more clarity/impact is ok.
[x] Using amp simulation instead of amps is ok. (WTF does this have to do with artistic integrity?)
[x] Using synths for extraneous instruments like sitar, cello etc is ok. (Of course it's OK when you don't know anyone who plays said instruments).
[x] Using triggers is ok.
[x] Using a drum machine is ok. (It's OK if you don't know a drummer who can play your music)
[ ] Quantization of drum/instrument notes is ok.
[ ] If possible, recording guitar via synths is ok.
[ ] Playing live to a backing track due to not having certain aspects of the sound like ambience and synths replicable in a live environment is ok.
[ ] Playing live with one guitarist and a backing track to simulate two guitarists is ok.
[ ] Playing live with a backing track to cover up sloppiness is ok.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

Personally I would say that:
[ ] Recording note by note to record with more clarity/impact is ok.
[ ] Slowing down a song to record with more clarity/impact then speeding it up is ok.

Are the only questionable ones. Not at all questionable for me personally, but everything else on that list is absolutely common practice. Especially the pinch harmonics.
They are the only two that would make me lose some respect for a musician (If he wasn't upfront about it or attempted to deceive). Though no matter what the case, as said before, it would make absolutely NO difference to my perception of the music itself.


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> [x] Using amp simulation instead of amps is ok. (WTF does this have to do with artistic integrity?)



It has less to do with artistic integrity and more to do with accepting changes in recording technology. I know a lot of people who still consider recording without real amps to be "faking".




m3l-mrq3z said:


> [ ] Playing live to a backing track due to not having certain aspects of the sound like ambience and synths replicable in a live environment is ok.



So Wintersun shouldn't play live?


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

NaYoN said:


> So Wintersun shouldn't play live?



And you want artists to have only one keyboard part on their albums, or multiple orchestral musicians available for all shows? 
And only one rhythm track under solos?


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

NaYoN said:


> It has less to do with artistic integrity and more to do with accepting changes in recording technology. I know a lot of people who still consider recording without real amps to be "faking".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I forgot to place an "x" next to that one. I actually like it when bands use backing tracks with whatever soundscapes they used in the album. Otherwise their songs sound lifeless on stage (Sybreed, for example).


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> I forgot to place an "x" next to that one. I actually like it when bands use backing tracks with whatever soundscapes they used in the album. Otherwise their songs sound lifeless on stage (Sybreed, for example).



As for:

[ ] Playing live with one guitarist and a backing track to simulate two guitarists is ok.

For example, Within the Ruins lost a guitar player, and their music is heavily dependent on harmonies, thus they use one guitar player and a backing track. Why do you think this is not ok?


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 7, 2012)

NaYoN said:


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> So here's a quick questionnaire for y'all, mark where applies:
> 
> ...




Basically for me, what it comes down to is, if you can't do it, don't do it. Don't much care what other people do though. Haha.


My band's vision is basically, we're tired of hearing all this fake crap, but people need it so every album will be a double disc. With 1 album of songs we play live, there are 100% the band playing stuff with no studio magic at all. And then the other being 100% slick, over-the-top, produced shit that you just can't do live because there aren't 9 guitarists (or 2 drummers) in the band.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

I guess it's OK to use a backing track, but how about hiring a second guitar player to fill in the shoes of the guy they lost?


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> I guess it's OK to use a backing track, but how about hiring a second guitar player to fill in the shoes of the guy they lost?



I'm sure they're looking into that but in the meantime they can't drop off tours. At least that's what I assume.


----------



## troyguitar (Nov 7, 2012)

Almost everyone who posts music on this forum is a cheater (myself included).

How many of us are playing our own drum, piano, synth, and string parts? I can't even come close to playing my stuff besides the guitar and bass parts. Even vocals takes me hundreds of takes because I suck at singing


----------



## Maniacal (Nov 7, 2012)

I was referring purely to ultra tech metal guitar playing, not about using orchestral plugins. 

Music that is about being super technical should be played by capable musicians. That's just my opinion on the matter, I don't want to argue about it on here.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> Almost everyone who posts music on this forum is a cheater (myself included).
> *
> How many of us are playing our own drum, piano, synth, and string parts?* I can't even come close to playing my stuff besides the guitar and bass parts. Even vocals takes me hundreds of takes because I suck at singing



It is not cheating if we write them and compose/arrange music on our own. So classical composers were cheaters because they weren't able to play ALL instruments in an orchestra? 

Some people have some weird definitions of "cheating"...


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 7, 2012)

Not me! I play my guitar parts, other guitarist plays his. Drummer programs (for scratch tracks to practice too) or plays his parts and the singer sings his parts. 

We're currently between bassists though...


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> It is not cheating if we write them and compose/arrange music on our own. So classical composers were cheaters because they weren't able to play ALL instruments in an orchestra?
> 
> Some people have some weird definitions of "cheating"...




They would be cheating if they had said they were playing all the instruments on the recording yes. 

Composer != Musician.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> They would be cheating if they had said they were playing all the instruments on the recording yes.
> *
> Composer != Musician*.



You mean composers aren't musicians per se? Correct me if I am wrong, but in order to major in composition at any school you must be able to play an instrument, preferably the piano. All composers I can think of play(ed) one or more instruments.


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> They would be cheating if they had said they were playing all the instruments on the recording yes.
> 
> Composer != Musician.



This is a distinction that is lost in metal since it's almost always the same thing, and I think this is the distinction that we should possibly start making again.


----------



## troyguitar (Nov 7, 2012)

Maniacal said:


> I was referring purely to ultra tech metal guitar playing, not about using orchestral plugins.
> 
> Music that is about being super technical should be played by capable musicians. That's just my opinion on the matter, I don't want to argue about it on here.


 
Ultra technical metal is the worst. So many guitar players and so few drummers = cheater fake drums on almost every album it seems.

I would _never_ release an album for sale with fake drums. They are the most important instrument in rock and metal.


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> You mean composers aren't musicians per se? Correct me if I am wrong, but in order to major in composition at any school you must be able to play an instrument, preferably the piano. All composers I can think of play(ed) one or more instruments.



I mean they are two different roles in the music creation process. In many modern bands (pretty much since the Beatles) the musicians do tend to be the composers, but they are not one and the same thing. 

Songwriting is a different thing than performing. Whether it be performing in a recording studio or live. Not the same thing. 

I struggle to think of any composer who couldn't play at least piano, but that's not the point or issue at all.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

NaYoN said:


> This is a distinction that is lost in metal since it's almost always the same thing, and I think this is the distinction that we should possibly start making again.



The distinction between composer and musician? Read my other post.



troyguitar said:


> *
> I would never release an album for sale with fake drums*. They are the most important instrument in rock and metal.



Fear Factory did. Meshuggah did. Periphery "did". Many djent bands/projects do lol.

And I beg to differ. The guitar is more important. Good luck selling a rock album where the guitars sound terrible but the drums sound great. No one will give a shit about the drums sounding great if the guitars are unbearable from a sonic standpoint.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

NaYoN said:


> This is a distinction that is lost in metal since it's almost always the same thing, and I think this is the distinction that we should possibly start making again.



Precisely.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> I would _never_ release an album for sale with fake drums. They are the most important instrument in rock and metal.



Yet the most widely accepted to being edited, faked, or otherwise altered.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> Songwriting is a different thing than performing.



So a composer is only then a Pianist when he plays his piano for an audience?


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> Ultra technical metal is the worst. So many guitar players and so few drummers = cheater fake drums on almost every album it seems.
> 
> I would _never_ release an album for sale with fake drums. They are the most important instrument in rock and metal.



So many bands do this nowadays that I don't think arguing this position is reasonable anymore. And with effort put into it, "fake" drums can sound pretty good and be near-indistinguishable from "real" drums, so I concur.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> And I beg to differ. The guitar is more important. Good luck selling a rock album where the guitars sound terrible but the drums sound great. No one will give a shit about the drums sounding great if the guitars are unbearable from a sonic standpoint.



Guitars sound terrible?
Who judges that?
I mean we all have different tastes, what's good to one is crap to the other so tone is not a fact.
I hate guitars tones of about 90% of albums out there but they sell millions so other people like them so there's no bad tone, there's only different tastes.
I really care about all instruments tones but I'm a musician, non musicians care only about music/melody etc and not about if people are cheating or instruments tones.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

EtherealEntity said:


> Precisely.



To put it clearer:
Precisely; why can we not enjoy 'composed' metal just like we can enjoy composed soundtracks, or electronic music?


----------



## Purelojik (Nov 7, 2012)

for studio recordings yes its alright, i want to pay for the best piece of music. But to say that that is played in one take or without edits etc... isnt right.

i wouldnt consider it cheating if your honest about it. the negative connotation is implied if said band states that they did that without help or tempo changes. 

The general goal is to get the best sounding record possible. the means may or may not justify the end result, which is subjective to the listener. 

i dont see why its a bad thing on the bands part to just admit it. if anything other people would want to try out the similar process for a good take. There are a few bands which overdo this. To my ears it takes the life and dynamic out of the song. I want to hear some mistakes, some parts that are accidental. that preserves the energy and helps me connect to the music im listening to


----------



## troyguitar (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> Fear Factory did. Meshuggah did. Periphery "did". Many djent bands/projects do lol.
> 
> And I beg to differ. The guitar is more important. Good luck selling a rock album where the guitars sound terrible but the drums sound great. No one will give a shit about the drums sounding great if the guitars are unbearable from a sonic standpoint.


 
And I think less of all those bands for doing so. Drums are the core of the whole song, faking them is ridiculous. 

The only reason people use fake drums more than fake guitars is fake drums sound better than fake guitars. If/when fake guitar technology gets to be sounding as good as the current drum stuff, we will be listening to extreme metal albums where the growling is the only real thing on the whole damn record


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> Guitars sound terrible?
> Who judges that?
> I mean we all have different tastes, what's good to one is crap to the other so tone is not a fact.
> I hate guitars tones of about 90% of albums out there but they sell millions so other people like them so there's no bad tone, there's only different tastes.
> I really care about all instruments tones but I'm a musician, non musicians care only about music/melody etc and not about if people are cheating or instruments tones.



 What I meant to say is: people (and I mean non-musician listeners) care more about the way a guitar sounds than about the drums. Rock=guitars. That's what most people associate with the genre.


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> So a composer is only then a Pianist when he plays his piano for an audience?



No, he is a musician and composer, and possibly many other things all the time. 

He is only serving the role of musician when he is playing the music.


Just like a director isn't an actor when he is a director. Even if he is has also acted at other times. 

This really isn't a hard concept.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> And I think less of all those bands for doing so. Drums are the core of the whole song, faking them is ridiculous.
> 
> The only reason people use fake drums more than fake guitars is fake drums sound better than fake guitars. If/when fake guitar technology gets to be sounding as good as the current drum stuff, we will be listening to extreme metal albums where the growling is the only real thing on the whole damn record



The reason this thread exists is because some bands are so unethical about their "art" that they could go as far and use fake guitar samples that can play the music they write on GP5. I won't mention any names.


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

EtherealEntity said:


> To put it clearer:
> Precisely; why can we not enjoy 'composed' metal just like we can enjoy composed soundtracks, or electronic music?



Because many metalheads are quite traditional-minded, contrary to their claiming otherwise. 

To many, the skill to achieve a certain quality of playing is, well, an achievement. And many people care about that achievement factor. And many consider metal to be a sincere genre, and they find this idea to be insincere. I think that most people are unaware of the degree of "cheating" that goes on in modern metal albums and they'd be shocked if they knew. As for people who only listen to old-school metal, well, I don't have much to say since that speaks for itself.

That, and metal is often perceived as a "live" genre, and concerns as to whether these songs could be executed live are a big deal. Not all music is intended to be played live yet the music is still admired. See Cloudkicker.

If you are ethical about how you make your music (and you disclose that you use certain techniques), I think ideally everything should be fine.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> No, he is a musician and composer, and possibly many other things all the time.
> 
> *He is only serving the role of musician when he is playing the music.*
> 
> ...



So I am only a father when I am around my children?


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> What I meant to say is: people (and I mean non-musician listeners) care more about the way a guitar sounds than about the drums. Rock=guitars. That's what most people associate with the genre.



Nope, non musicians care about music/melody, they don't care about how instruments sound and that's why there are so many pop albums with terrible recordings and singers with bad voices.They don't care about instruments tones as long as they like a melody.An album could have the best tones ever but if they don't like its melodies, they don't buy it.Only musicians care about tone.


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 7, 2012)

> So I am only a father when I am around my children?



Now you're just being silly.


----------



## Kroaton (Nov 7, 2012)

I feel like I just stepped into /r/circlejerk.


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

Musician = performer and/or composer
Performer not necessarily = composer


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Nov 7, 2012)

Electric guitar and hi-gain distortion isn't exactly a clean sounding instrument. You pick slightly wrong, pull off brushing another string or lift your finger a split second late you can hear it so there is a reason bands use string Dampeners, record bar by bar, copy/paste takes etc to get the best recording possible. Its all about getting the best sounding album for the listener so I don't really have a problem with bands using "cheat" methods to achieve this.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> Nope, non musicians care about music/melody, they don't care about how instruments sound and that's why there are so many pop albums with terrible recordings and singers with bad voices.They don't care about instruments tones as long as they like a melody.An album could have the best tones ever but if they don't like its melodies, they don't buy it.Only musicians care about tone.



Just completing...................Justin Bieber.Are you saying all non musicians chicks who buy his albums care about how instruments(or only guitars) sound?
NO, they care about his lookings and about melody, never about instruments tones


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> Now you're just being silly.



No, his claim that a composer is only a musician when he plays a musical instrument doesn't make sense. According to that logic, the composer in question isn't a composer when he isn't writing music, thus he is nothing when he goes on vacation and isn't able to play an instrument or lay down some ideas on paper. Comprende?



8Fingers said:


> Nope, non musicians care about music/melody, they don't care about how instruments sound and that's why there are so many pop albums with terrible recordings and *singers with bad voices*.They don't care about instruments tones as long as they like a melody.An album could have the best tones ever but if they don't like its melodies, they don't buy it.Only musicians care about tone.



Name 5 succesful pop albums where the singer had a bad voice.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> Only musicians care about tone.



That's not true. Production is a huge element. Quite often will a consumer mistake bad sound as the musicians problem. You could play a great sounding overproduced record to somebody, and play them the same record as it was unmixed - they will likely think the produced record is by a better band.



AxeHappy said:


> No, he is a musician and composer, and possibly many other things all the time.
> 
> He is only serving the role of musician when he is playing the music.
> 
> ...



Indeed. I am not saying that somebody who puts together a 'composed' metal album is necessarily a musician. But why should the album be less accepted?



NaYoN said:


> Because many metalheads are quite traditional-minded, contrary to their claiming otherwise.
> 
> To many, the skill to achieve a certain quality of playing is, well, an achievement. And many people care about that achievement factor. And many consider metal to be a sincere genre, and they find this idea to be insincere. I think that most people are unaware of the degree of "cheating" that goes on in modern metal albums and they'd be shocked if they knew. As for people who only listen to old-school metal, well, I don't have much to say since that speaks for itself.
> 
> ...



That's why. It certainly is a very traditional genre. I think it's something that is going to take a long time to move away from.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

It's quite clear that there is a separation, one that has become much more clearly defined with new things such as heavily programmed metal music, extended range instruments and the like. 
Of course not a strict division, but there seem to be the traditionalists who want 'real music' on 'real instruments', and those who are open to all kinds of instruments and care simply about the sound of the end product.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

EtherealEntity said:


> That's not true. Production is a huge element. Quite often will a consumer mistake bad sound as the musicians problem. You could play a great sounding overproduced record to somebody, and play them the same record as it was unmixed - they will likely think the produced record is by a better band.



Yeah but you're showing them two options, if you showed only the bad one and if they liked its melodies, they would buy it cause their ears care about melody.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

drawnacrol said:


> Electric guitar and hi-gain distortion isn't exactly a clean sounding instrument. You pick slightly wrong, pull off brushing another string or lift your finger a split second late you can hear it so there is a reason bands use string Dampeners, record bar by bar, copy/paste takes etc to get the best recording possible. Its all about getting the best sounding album for the listener so I don't really have a problem with bands using "cheat" methods to achieve this.



Hmm I don't remember seeing John Petrucci using string dampeners in the studio:







If you need string dampeners to sound clean, well...that says a lot about your technique...


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> Yeah but you're showing them two options, if you showed only the bad one and if they liked its melodies, they would buy it.



I did think I should perhaps write 'then erase their memory' or something of that sense, haha. Of course that kind of test isn't strictly correct. 
I'm sure a large amount would buy it, yes. But I certainly do know quite a few instances where a crappy sound has been mistaken for a bad artist.


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> No, his claim that a composer is only a musician when he plays a musical instrument doesn't make sense. According to that logic, the composer in question isn't a composer when he isn't writing music, thus he is nothing when he goes on vacation and isn't able to play an instrument or lay down some ideas on paper. Comprende?



Did you miss the part where I said this:



> No, he is a musician and composer, and possibly many other things all the time.



We aren't talking about all the things a person may be all the time. We're talking about what roles people are serving as it pertains to a specific piece of music. 

For example:
If you are commissioned to write a piece of music for an orchestra and do, and then have no part in playing it, you are a composer for that song. But not a musician in it's performance. 

Inversely, if you were one of the musicians involved in the performance, but had no hand in performing it than you would be a musician (for that piece) but not a composer (for that piece) EVEN if you had written other songs where you were a composer. 


Just because somebody is a composer, doesn't mean they wrote every song they played on.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> Name 5 succesful pop albums where the singer had a bad voice.



There are so many and I guess we all have ours so the list is huge.

Axl Rose, Cobain, Rod Stewart, Robert Plant, Justin Bieber, Britney Spears(so many pop bands with crap singers and only 1 hit) etc, they all sound terrible to me BUT they sold millions so tone is about tastes and only musicians care about tones, the crowd cares about melody.They prefer Spears singing Oops I did it again with only a mandolin than the best recorded album ever.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> *If you are commissioned to write a piece of music for an orchestra and do, and then have no part in playing it, you are a composer for that song. But not a musician in it's performance.
> *



But when I sit at the piano and start writing the parts for the orchestra I am playing a musical instrument, creating music and playing it. Does that not make the composer a musician? Lol. Being a musician is actually the first step to become a composer.


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 7, 2012)

EtherealEntity said:


> Indeed. I am not saying that somebody who puts together a 'composed' metal album is necessarily a musician. But why should the album be less accepted?




Speaking entirely on a completely personally level:

A large part of the enjoyment of music for me is derived from the performance of the song. The musician interpreting and expressing himself through the composers music. 

With the removal of that, I enjoy the music less. 

That said, I largely agree with you on your premise.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> But when I sit at the piano and start writing the parts for the orchestra I am playing a musical instrument, creating music and playing it. Does that not make the composer a musician? Lol. Being a musician is actually the first step to become a composer.



Might be how you do it, but one certainly does not need to be a musician to compose.



EtherealEntity said:


> I did think I should perhaps write 'then erase their memory' or something of that sense, haha. Of course that kind of test isn't strictly correct.
> I'm sure a large amount would buy it, yes. But I certainly do know quite a few instances where a crappy sound has been mistaken for a bad artist.



To put it very clearly: A large, solid, pounding production is often a requirement for what a listener will find catchy. If you took some of the most popular dance hits around and reduced them to how they were before the synths were all beefed up and maximized, I guarantee the song would not have been as successful and people would not want to dance when they heard it.


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> But when I sit at the piano and start writing the parts for the orchestra I am playing a musical instrument, creating music and playing it. Does that not make the composer a musician? Lol. Being a musician is actually the first step to become a composer.



Yes, but the role you are serving is composer not musician. 

There is a reason song-writing royalties are separate from mechanical and performance royalties.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> There are so many and I guess we all have ours so the list is huge.
> 
> Axl Rose, Cobain, Rod Stewart, Robert Plant, Justin Bieber, Britney Spears(so many pop bands with crap singers and only 1 hit) etc, they all sound terrible to me BUT they sold millions so tone is about tastes and only musicians care about tones, the crowd cares about melody.



The people you mentioned that annoying voices. By no mean "bad", as they were able to train those voices to a certain extent and make it sing the same notes the other instruments in their bands were playing. Hell, even Justin Bieber can play more instruments than many people here.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> The people you mentioned that annoying voices. By no mean "bad", as they were able to train those voices to a certain extent and make it sing the same notes the other instruments in their bands were playing. Hell, even Justin Bieber can play more instruments than many people here.



Not bad to you but bad to me for sure and so many others think they're bad.
And I bet they all used/use autotune(cheating).
Why only your opinion is a fact?
Aren't you able to accept other people have different tastes than yours?
I guess not.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> Yes, but the role you are serving is composer not musician.
> 
> There is a reason song-writing royalties are separate from mechanical and performance royalties.



I believe you are mistaking musician with "performer". Basic logic: a musician= not always a composer. Composer=ALWAYs a musician.

Which leads me to ...



EtherealEntity said:


> Might be how you do it, but one certainly does not need to be a musician to compose.



How would that work? Unless someone has perfect pitch, orchestration knowledge (or knowledge on how band instruments work), they won't be able to compose music, much less arrange it.

Of course, this depends on what you define as composing. I know extremely liberal people who think that drawing some random notes on a staff can be called art and composition.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> Not bad to you but bad to me for sure and so many others think they're bad.
> And I bet they all used/use autotune(cheating).
> Why only your opinion is a fact?
> Aren't you able to accept other people have different tastes than yours?
> I guess not.



You said (and I agreed with you in this regard) that you found their voices to be annoying and terrible. Were they bad singers? I am asking. Kurt was able to sing the notes his guitar played. Axl rose was always in tune. Even Britney spears can sing well. How are those "bad" voices? They have/had annoying voices, that were GOOD for singing purposes, because they had been trained enough.


----------



## Dakotaspex (Nov 7, 2012)

No. Hate it. My band went to record a single, and they wanted to put a sweep on, and they were using another guitarist's guitar that I was not used to at all, but they couldn't record it, so they asked me to, since I have the cleanest sweeps (recording anyway). It took me a while, and the producer and band just thought I should try it at half speed. I knew I could nail it, so I just walked away from it for a bit, had a bite to eat, came back, and nailed it in two takes. If you can play it, you should try REALLY hard to get it honestly. I love some bands that do the half time recording, but overproduction is sadly becoming the norm in modern metal. I like polished, but not metallic sounding from all of the production. Bands should just learn to play their stuff, and then record it MAYBE a bit slower than live speed. What's the point of being so technical if you can't record/play a majority of the song up to tempo?


----------



## goldsteinat0r (Nov 7, 2012)

Has anyone ever tried sweep-picking or tapping at half tempo? It can actually be more difficult in a lot of situations.

EDIT: Full disclosure - I cannot sweep pick but I can tap enough to do some damage.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> You said (and I agreed with you in this regard) that you found their voices to be annoying and terrible. Were they bad singers? I am asking. Kurt was able to sing the notes his guitar played. Axl rose was always in tune. Even Britney spears can sing well. How are those "bad" voices? They have/had annoying voices, that were GOOD for singing purposes, because they had been trained enough.



Axl in tune LIVE?
Britney in tune LIVE?
Kurt in tune LIVE?

Yeah as long as their best friend was at that concert(autotune).
That's cheating(not that I care for) so you should not respect them.

You can have a low quality album but if melody/songs are good, non musicians will buy it.
There are some DT albums I hate their mixes BUT I bought them cause I love their songs so even musicians can accept tones they don't like if they like melodies.
In the end it's all about personal tastes so everyone has his own point of view so everybody is right and wrong.

I love DT since 1994(I&W) but if tomorrow they came in public and said they never played their stuff, they built robots to play and those robots don't even look like them, I couldn't care less cause they're not my band or even my friends, I only care about their music and not if they play it or not, I don't love musicians, I love music.I'd never lost my respect for them, in fact I'd like them more cause I'd laugh so much thinking about all those closed metal minds wanting to kill them saying they betrayed metal


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> How would that work? Unless someone has perfect pitch, orchestration knowledge (or knowledge on how band instruments work), they won't be able to compose music, much less arrange it.
> 
> Of course, this depends on what you define as composing. I know extremely liberal people who think that drawing some random notes on a staff can be called art and composition.



I certainly don't mean random notes. But you don't need to be able to play at all. I can sit down at the piano roll with my mouse and click in what I will eventually find to be a good melody. Many dance producers do the same, though sure, most of them can play keyboard to an extent. 


With regards to the bad singers debate - Yeah..autotune.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> Axl in tune LIVE?
> Britney in tune LIVE?
> Kurt in tune LIVE?
> 
> ...



Oh ok. Try to sing in tune when you're singing 200 nights a year, getting drunk almost every day, losing sleep, giving interviews, being annoyed by people you don't know, being far from home.
I could say the same about many bands out there. When was the last time band X played perfectly live?

I am pretty sure you started to hate the mix after you started "producing" music and reading stuff that gave you the impression you're a producer. Not meaning to offend you, but I know this has been the case with friends of mine, who used to enjoy albums by the likes of Carcass but then they started to record at home and think of themselves as "producers" so now all they do is talk shit about how the "mix doesn't work".


----------



## goldsteinat0r (Nov 7, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> Axl in tune LIVE?
> Britney in tune LIVE?
> Kurt in tune LIVE?
> 
> ...



Will try to avoid a pissing match, but Axl spent most of the 1980s and 90s tearing ass around America (and the world, really), wow-ing/pissing off crowds (depending on his antics) without the use of auto tune. Dude is a phenomenal singer and anyone who saw GNR in their heyday will likely tell you the same. 

Kurt also may not have been an Italian Tenor, but he did what he did well. And in tune. Enough, anyway. Nirvana were a grunge band, not a church choir. 

Even Ms. Spears has a good set of pipes...she just doesn't utilize them as much anymore. Pop trends demand the robotic, processed vox. You still have to sing though.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

EtherealEntity said:


> I certainly don't mean random notes. *But you don't need to be able to play at all. I can sit down at the piano roll with my mouse and click in what I will eventually find to be a good melody. Many dance producers do the same, though sure, most of them can play keyboard to an extent. *.



That's basically being a guy with a computer, not a musician. One of the things I try to teach to my students is how to write music on paper. You know, old school. Piano rolls...that's for guys like Skrillex or Avicii. What if your computer gets broken and no one in your neighbourhood owns a computer with Cubase on it? Do you stop composing music? (this question is related to the situation where someone who isn't a musician is supposed to compose music)


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> Oh ok. Try to sing in tune when you're singing 200 nights a year, getting drunk almost every day, losing sleep, giving interviews, being annoyed by people you don't know, being far from home.
> I could say the same about many bands out there. When was the last time band X played perfectly live?
> 
> I am pretty sure you started to hate the mix after you started "producing" music and reading stuff that gave you the impression you're a producer. Not meaning to offend you, but I know this has been the case with friends of mine, who used to enjoy albums by the likes of Carcass but then they started to record at home and think of themselves as "producers" so now all they do is talk shit about how the "mix doesn't work".



That's their problems , not mine, if they're dumb enough to kill their bodies(drugs), that's their problems.
They have to sing/play with the same quality as their albums, using drugs as an excuse only shows how dumb they're, well some killed themselves so they were not only dumb but crazy.When I go to a concert, I want to watch that artist playing what he recorded, I don't want to watch a drugged dumbass trying to stay awake. 

Nope, I started producing/recording etc because I love doing that, since the first time I played a chord on an acoustic guitar(around 1985), I wanted to record myself.I was listening to glam metal bands like Bon Jovi etc and I really hated some mixings but I knew nothing about making/recording music so I started to hate the mix even before I learned what a chord was.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> Try to sing in tune when you're singing 200 nights a year, getting drunk almost every day, losing sleep, giving interviews, being annoyed by people you don't know, being far from home.



Not speaking about people like Axl, but pop musicians:
Try to sing in tune when you were hired for your looks, because the producer knew that autotune would do the job to sell records.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> That's basically being a guy with a computer, not a musician. One of the things I try to teach to my students is how to write music on paper. You know, old school. Piano rolls...that's for guys like Skrillex or Avicii. What if your computer gets broken and no one in your neighbourhood owns a computer with Cubase on it? Do you stop composing music? (this question is related to the situation where someone who isn't a musician is supposed to compose music)



I wasn't saying they were a musician. I am saying they are a composer - you can certainly compose without being a musician or being able to play an instrument. 
I've barely ever written music on paper but I use the piano roll (and score view) extensively. Little of my knowledge there comes from guitar playing..so you may aswell forget I can play guitar. I can however read a score and compose on one for instruments I can't play, and I am sure the same is the case with many people who don't play any instrument at all.
And there's no reason somebody can't compose in piano roll without looking at score view. They don't NEED to know the theory etc to put together a good sounding piece by trial and error, or knowing what kind of keys work well together to make certain chords that they know the sound of, though they might not know the name or how to write it on a score.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

@8fingers: the guys in Metallica can barely play their own music anymore. Do you respect them less because of that?

@EtherealEntity: You are talking about pop musicians from these times, where being a mediocre musician isn't really a problem. Back in the day, you had to sing. Do you think Britney Spears or Justin Timberlake needed autotune in their Disney years? How about Christina Aguilera?

I am very sure Adele got hired for her looks lol.


----------



## SenorDingDong (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> If you need string dampeners to sound clean, well...that says a lot about your technique...



Agree 100 per cent. Never used them, never liked the fact that some guitarists do. If you want to sound cleaner, work on your damn technique instead of writing something you can't properly play. 


As to the subject of this thread, I have zero respect for _*professiona*l_ bands that "write" things they cannot play. Notice I emphasized professional. A band that is paid to write and record an album, and tour the material, should have the skill to do so. Just as a _*professional*_ painter should not stencil copy to create their art, and a _*professional*_ writer should not use a template to create a work.

Now with non-professional musicians, those who don't get paid by record companies and such, I could care less--they are in it for the fun of it, and are probably playing one or two gigs a month.


----------



## SenorDingDong (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> @8fingers: the guys in Metallica can barely play their own music anymore. Do you respect them less because of that?



To answer this, though you did not ask me, I respect them because at one point in time, and during the times they recorded the material, they _could_ play the music, and have been doing so for decades.


EDIT: Read wrong post before replying, but I'll leave my answer up because I'm a man and I have a mustache.


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 7, 2012)

I write most the vocals for my band, and I can't sing any of the shit I write for our singer. She can. 

Using your logic (m3l-mrq3z) I'm a vocalist.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

EtherealEntity said:


> *They don't NEED to know the theory etc to put together a good sounding piece by trial and error, or knowing what kind of keys work well together to make certain chords that they know the sound of, though they might not know the name or how to write it on a score*.



I am sorry, but that trial-and-error method reminds me of what a monkey would do. Try and try until something remotely logical comes out of their experimentation.

See? People complain about musicians nowadays being prone to cheat, fake, be half-assed...but on the other hand the same people agree that anyone can make music and be a composer


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 7, 2012)

The following are separate things that may or may not apply to a single person simultaneously:
Trained composer
Composer who "wings it"
Live performer
Studio performer
Producer

It's not that hard to keep these things separate and stop arguing about semantics.

Many other genres of music can achieve this separation.


----------



## goldsteinat0r (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> @8fingers: the guys in Metallica can barely play their own music anymore. Do you respect them less because of that?



They were pretty tight on the Death Magnetic tour.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> @8fingers: the guys in Metallica can barely play their own music anymore. Do you respect them less because of that?



I never respected Metallica cause I hate their music, no matter if they play it or not.
Why did you assume I respect them?
Because you do?
Again your tastes are what matters and everybody have to agree with you.
In the day you learn and accept tastes are not facts you'll grow as a person. 

I said DT could be robots and I'd still like them so that should have answered your question.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> @EtherealEntity: You are talking about pop musicians from these times, where being a mediocre musician isn't really a problem. Back in the day, you had to sing. Do you think Britney Spears or Justin Timberlake needed autotune in their Disney years? How about Christina Aguilera?
> 
> I am very sure Adele got hired for her looks lol.



Fair enough. Whilst you listed such artists, the discussion wasn't specifying older artists at the start. We were talking about how 'tone doesn't affect purchase of records' - and then vocal tone itself. The majority of singers these days certainly fit what I said. 
Adele is a great singer and is_ known_ for being one of the exceptions these days in that she has a great natural voice and wasn't hired for her looks, haha.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> See? People complain about musicians nowadays being prone to cheat, fake, be half-assed...but on the other hand the same people agree that anyone can make music and be a composer



Anyone? I never said that. I said you simply don't have to be trained or know what you are doing. We have an ear for what works and what is a catchy melody. Not everyone does, obviously. There is _talent _involved.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

This week I'm recording a rock/reggae band which musicians are really poor, their instruments barely stay in tune, I'm having to do miracles to make them sound at least acceptable BUT their songs are pretty cool, some even made me want to dance 
So my point is I'm a musician and I could buy their album no matter how its quality is below standards because I like its songs, so what matters to me is melody and not if the mix is the best ever.Non musicians won't care if drums are real or if guitars were recorded with mesa boogies or a zoom 9002(yeah the first zoom).
I had it, it was the most amazing gear a guitarist could have  =


----------



## dax21 (Nov 7, 2012)

I have nothing against the so-called "half speed recording" as far as the recording technique itself. It's in the same category as drum quantization to me, same ballpark but different level.
While I don't like tech-death or any of the similar genres, I can't possibly understand people who liked the ROS album when they first heard it and then stopped liking it just because a certain recording technique was utilized. You like something because of the way it sounds, not the way it was made. Otherwise you are basically eating the soup because you like the spoon. 

With that being said, I think the bigger problem lies within the current state of industry and we have no one else to blame but us musicians/bands.
Everything is too damn compressed nowadays, 99% of guitar tones sound like pneumatic drills on crack. VST/amp sims don't help either, even though I'm all for them myself.
I also 100% agree about someone's comment in this thread regarding how bands are just lazy and don't keep shit-filter high enough. Both composing and recording-wise. Add to that that most of the modern metal (did someone say djent?) is written in Guitar Pro without taking instrument's limitations into consideration. Again, I am all for that, because I as a bass player can't write guitar parts/melodies for shit on my main instrument, but there is still a fine line between using and abusing something.

Another issue worth mentioning, which is directly related to the whole ROS affair - for some weird reason bands feel inclined to produce and/or mix their records themselves. But that is a whole another subject and I'll prefer to leave that can of worms unopened.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> I never respected Metallica cause I hate their music, no matter if they play it or not.
> *Why did you assume I respect them?*
> Because you do?
> Again your tastes are what matters and everybody have to agree with you.
> ...



I didn't assume that. I did assume you would get the analogy. 



EtherealEntity said:


> Fair enough. Whilst you listed such artists, the discussion wasn't specifying older artists at the start. We were talking about how 'tone doesn't affect purchase of records' - and then vocal tone itself. The majority of singers these days certainly fit what I said.
> Adele is a great singer and is_ known_ for being one of the exceptions these days in that she has a great natural voice and wasn't hired for her looks, haha.



The discussion wasn't specifying any kind of artists. That's why I listed those artists. Some of them were relevant a few years ago.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> The discussion wasn't specifying any kind of artists. That's why I listed those artists. Some of them were relevant a few years ago.



Alright, but if we go right back - we have this



m3l-mrq3z said:


> Name 5 succesful pop albums where the singer had a bad voice.



Probably around 90% of hits produced in recent years, I expect.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

EtherealEntity said:


> Probably around 90% of hits produced in recent years, I expect.



Yeah but he's been living in a different world where probably 90% of hits produced in recent years are AWESOME 
Since 2000 I can't stand any music that plays on the radio or tv.
Seriously I'm not north american but how the hell is Taylor Swift country?
She's ultra crap pop with awful movements and queen of bones cause her legs never touch themselves, put her on a red dress and she'll look like a ketchup bottle


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

@etherealentity: ^"recent years". I am glad you refer to this aspect, since I consider the popularity of overproduced records to be a result of musicians getting worse. Whereas back in the day you needed to be talented in order to pull it off both at the studio and live, nowadays you can get away with flaws in your technique (specially at the studio).


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> @etherealentity: ^"recent years". I am glad you refer to this aspect, since I consider the popularity of overproduced records to be a result of musicians getting worse.



Nope, the crowd has worse tastes so they accept anything with good lookings, hey Bieber tell him why you're a millionaire 
Good musicians have no place to show their music so they didn't get worse, they are hidden in underground, the worse we see is the same worse we used to see in the past but now only the worse is on the media.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> Nope, the crowd has worse tastes so they accept anything with_ good lookings_, hey Bieber tell him why you're a millionaire
> Good musicians have no place to show their music so they didn't get worse, they are hidden in underground, the worse we see is the same worse we used to see in the past but now only the worse is on the media.



It's not about looks (if it were, Nicki Minaj wouldn't be as famous and succesful). I do agree that people's taste got worse over time and will listen to the garbage promotion companies shove in their ears.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

It's just that more people can make music now, the market is more saturated with crap, and people hear more crap and LIKE it. Definitely down to the listener.
Back in the day you had to have money to go into the studio and record, which meant you needed to be scouted by a label willing to give you money because you were good. 
Now, labels know they can pick up pretty much anyone, give them autotune and some electronic backing and sell hits. And the public are so used to hearing this stuff that they consider it good..causing record labels to put out even more of it.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

EtherealEntity said:


> It's just that more people can make music now, the market is more saturated with crap, and people hear more crap and LIKE it. Definitely down to the listener.
> Back in the day you had to have money to go into the studio and record, which meant you needed to be scouted by a label willing to give you money because you were good.
> Now, labels know they can pick up pretty much anyone, give them autotune and some electronic backing and sell hits. And the public are so used to hearing this stuff that they consider it good..causing record labels to put out even more of it.



That's why the 80's were awesome, crap, good and awesome music were together, there was room for anything, it was an explosion of so different bands/artists, that was fun.
Today.....................


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

Certainly..I try not to let it bother me too much. It's just the way it goes. I think more people having access to making music can only be a good thing. 
It does make me lose faith in humanity that so many people can like crap, though. But nevermind - just listen to what does it for you


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

Try to explain to non musicians why crap music is crap.
It's impossible.
You can even write instructions.
They never get.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

EtherealEntity said:


> Certainly..I try not to let it bother me too much. It's just the way it goes. _*I think more people having access to making music can only be a good thing. *_
> It does make me lose faith in humanity that so many people can like crap, though. But nevermind - just listen to what does it for you



That's actually one of the reasons why we are being overflooded with terrible commercial music. I believe even you pointed out this in a previous comment. It's because of this "democratization" of music making that everybody and their mother are musicians now.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

Oh I know it is the reason - But I meant, I wouldn't change it - because more people being able to express creativity is a good thing in my opinion.
Overflooding with crap is an unwanted side effect, but just the way it goes. 
It would be alright if people weren't brainless and got accustomed to it and liked it so easily. But like somebody said, there's rarely anything you can do about that. Show them good music and they'll think it's bad because they can't wrap their brain around it within the first few seconds.


----------



## Wings of Obsidian (Nov 7, 2012)

WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH "HALF SPEED RECORDING"? ^^^


----------



## Winspear (Nov 7, 2012)

Yeah the thread took quite a detour but if you read through you can see how it happened and it's still relevant discussion in somewhat the same area as to attitudes to the creation of music and how it is consumed.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

Wings of Obsidian said:


> WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH "HALF SPEED RECORDING"? ^^^



Chatting with friends means a subject can lead to another subject etc etc.
I see, you don't have friends, I mean not real friends, only computer friends that have to act like robots and always follow one subject 
The best part of chatting is exchanging experiences/ideas about the main subject or not.
I miss whe we(dudes) used to put (oYo) in the middle of chatting, seems like these days dudes don't like (oYo)


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

EtherealEntity said:


> Oh I know it is the reason - But I meant, I wouldn't change it - because more people being able to express creativity is a good thing in my opinion.
> Overflooding with crap is an _*unwanted*_ side effect, but just the way it goes.
> It would be alright if people weren't brainless and got accustomed to it and liked it so easily. But like somebody said, there's rarely anything you can do about that. Show them good music and they'll think it's bad because they can't wrap their brain around it within the first few seconds.



I highly doubt we are dealing with an unwanted side effect. The crap-overflood is a logical consequence of people without musical abilities making music. I mean, check out this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pm5m5-VIbUk#t=37s

If FL studio didn'T exist, he wouldn't have been able to make that "music".

So the next time you turn your radio on and this comes out of the speakers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnr-frwGCf8

...think about it as a consequence of the democratization of music, which you consider to be a good thing. There is a reason why the ancient Greeks didn't allow everyone to make music. I suggest reading about Socrate
s vision of an utopic society.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> I highly doubt we are dealing with an unwanted side effect. The crap-overflood is a logical consequence of people without musical abilities making music. I mean, check out this guy:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pm5m5-VIbUk#t=37s
> 
> ...



I agree in some level but...
We can't let non doctors operate cause they will kill people, allowing non musicians to make music won't kill people cause it's art.
Besides that a musician could be really good but terrible as a composer so who will judge if music is good or bad?
You?
Me?
Socrates?
Freedom is always better cause I decide what I like or hate, I don't want a bunch of ego musicians from egomusic college deciding what's good or bad.Let crap free cause it doesn't reach my ears cause I have a remote control 
On the other side please set on fire that crap crowd that swallows anything with a haircut they like!

BTW his movements are so awful as Swift's


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> I agree in some level but...
> We can't let non doctors operate cause they will kill people, allowing non musicians to make music won't kill people cause *it's art*.
> Besides that a musician could be really good but terrible as a composer so who will judge if music is good or bad?
> You?
> ...



It's not art just because a vegetarian hipster MacBook owner tells you it's art, A few years ago I read about this guy who filled cans with his feces and then exhibit them at an art expo. He was an artist by today's dumbed-down standards. I believe that in other eras he would have been hanged.

I believe that says a lot about the intellectual level of today's society.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> I believe that says a lot about the intellectual level of today's society.



That's what I said, musicians didn't get worse, the crowd did.

But who judges if feces in a can is art are not?
Probably the beholder and that's about freedom, we can choose what's art or not, what is good or not, do you want other people deciding for you?
I surelly don't.


----------



## Trespass (Nov 7, 2012)

Jazz pianist Lennie Tristano records his bassist and drummer playing the changes to All of Me.

After they left, he slows down the track to half the speed, he then improvises an immaculate bop solo with an octave below the intended pitch, and speeds the all the tracks back to the intended pitch.

In 1954.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennie_Tristano_(album)

Naturally, it caused an uprorar.
We've been debating this literally since 1954.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 7, 2012)

Trespass said:


> Jazz pianist Lennie Tristano records his bassist and drummer playing the changes to All of Me.
> 
> After they left, he slows down the track to half the speed, he then improvises an immaculate bop solo with an octave below the intended pitch, and speeds the all the tracks back to the intended pitch.
> 
> ...




But there is a difference between Tristano speeding a track up and young metal bands doing so.

Some background information on Tristano:

"
Tristano (...) was blind from infancy and studied piano and music theory from pre-teen years, graduating with a bachelor's degree from his home town's American Conservatory of Music in 1943. (...) His advanced grasp of harmony pushed his music beyond even the complexities of the contemporary bebop movement, (...)."


It*s pretty clear that Tristano was a musician. Schooled, capable. If he sped things up it was for EXPERIMENTAL purposes, not because he wasn'T able to play his music.


----------



## ROAR (Nov 7, 2012)

Half speed recording eh?

Well, if the end result is what was in your head, what's the problem?
My audio fundamentals teacher had this really great set of rules for recording:
1. There are no rules

This debate is pointless, and is now 6 pages of circle jerking.
Go read The Beatles recording notes for their albums, 
and open your mind.


----------



## ROAR (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> It*s pretty clear that Tristano was a musician. Schooled, capable. If he sped things up it was for EXPERIMENTAL purposes, not because he wasn'T able to play his music.



I'm a musician, but I'm not schooled.
So ultimately, I'm not allowed to do whatever I want?
Fuck off


----------



## leandroab (Nov 7, 2012)

717ctsjz said:


> he simply just had the autopunch on a loop for a measure or so at a time and we did as many takes of it in a row until you got as close as possible then pieced it together in the end. pretty much it



Autopunch? Wat?

Somebody make a youtube 10 second riff demo!


----------



## Valnob (Nov 7, 2012)

Sorry if that was mentionned, but I did not read the whole thread.

It's ok the cheat in recording but not live.
And something that I find funny, is that with The Haarp Machine, Al' made the songs half speed and we don't really know if he can play it live, and there are covers of those songs at full speed on youtube  .


----------



## oddcam (Nov 7, 2012)

This thread is asking the wrong question.

The real question is: "Should bands be able to play the music they record?" The answer is Yes, if they are a touring band. If they are not a touring band, the answer is No, because the composition is their product, not the live experience.

The answer to the original question: "Is half-speed recording okay?" is obvious. Yes it's fine, it's just a recording technique. It has positive or negative implications only when applied to the first question I mentioned above.


----------



## Trespass (Nov 7, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> It*s pretty clear that Tristano was a musician. Schooled, capable. If he sped things up it was for EXPERIMENTAL purposes, not because he wasn'T able to play his music.



That experimentation produced a very, very high quality conventional product.

His lines are mindblowingly good there. Easily better than what he could've accomplished had he improvised it at full speed.


----------



## Wings of Obsidian (Nov 7, 2012)

I'm geeving right now...


----------



## sear (Nov 8, 2012)

Music is to be composed and performed. If you cannot perform your music then you have no business being a musician. You are a composer, an entertainer, but not a musician.

To me, it's not just this ultra-precise playing that bugs me, it's the mixing and mastering as well. Aside from just being fucking crap, I can't listen to 99% of deathcore bands or even your regular Arch Enemy bowel movement because it sounds like soulless, overprocessed crap. Music needs to have some life, humanity, and ambiance to it, and that comes from imperfection and the fact that it's an actual person performing the part and not a timesliced, quantized, octo-tracked nightmare.

I'm totally okay with using digital effects and editing if you are making electronic music and there is no emphasis on musicianship in the first place. In those cases, the mixing, effects work etc. _is_ the performance. I love tons of electronic music. But, that's not metal, and trying to justify your shitty musicianship by saying it "saves time" or "sounds better than the real thing" when the _entire genre_ is founded on raw energy and integrity of performing the piece? That's bullshit.

If you can't play constant 16th note sweeps at 240 bpm, then play something you _can_ and focus on improving to get where you want to be. Although to be honest, your 240 bpm sweeping probably sounds like fucking garbage. There is so much amazing music out there that isn't technically advanced - technicality isn't an end goal, it's a means. When did Atari getting raped + Linkin Park vocals + DROP G CHUGGIN BRO become metal anyway?



NaYoN said:


> Counterargument: It's not always about being unable to play. Sometimes due to stuff like pick noises, fuzz on the tone etc, faster parts are really hard to get clear, especially for people with equipment that is not top of the line. The player is able to play, but they can't get the needed clarity (not due to lack of skill but due to lack of gear). This actually happened to me. What to do in this situation if one can't afford better gear?




 Learn to play better.
 Accept the fact that you will not sound like a computer no matter how good you are.


----------



## Trespass (Nov 8, 2012)

^I'm digging this.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 8, 2012)

sear said:


> When did Atari getting raped + Linkin Park vocals + DROP G CHUGGIN BRO become metal anyway?




Some Rust Cooley solos sound like a raped Atari


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 8, 2012)

sear said:


> Learn to play better.
> Accept the fact that you will not sound like a computer no matter how good you are.



Thanks for totally missing the point, though.

I guess some people here assume everyone has infinite amounts of time and resources.

And what does sounding like a computer have to do with anything? At the time, I had shitty gear and shitty pickups, I couldn't get the clarity I wanted. I even said I can play the riff properly and that's not the issue. What does this have to do with playing better? Oh right, you just wanted to throw in an ad hominem there because you didn't actually read what I said. I explicitly said that this wasn't about sweeps.

I guess some people value bashing other peoples's guitar skills over reading comprehension, that's cool too.


----------



## Fiction (Nov 8, 2012)

sear said:


> Accept the fact that you will not sound like a computer no matter how good you are.



Well they obviously can, through the means of recording at 50%, remember 

The thing about music is it is subjective, to some, they may like the over processed, technically wild & staccato drop G chuggin' (bro), whereas others may like for the imperfections and and the raw(er) mixes. And if you don't like one of them, there's no pressure on you to enjoy it, as you said, there's plenty of other great music out there.


----------



## MetalBuddah (Nov 8, 2012)




----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 8, 2012)

Thousands and thousands dollars invested in another Let It Be/With or Without You(chord progression) song, a lot of them to a STUPID producer who couldn't tune that song down 2 steps.Seriously if it's in D, record it in C, she almost died trying to reach some notes, it sounds completely unnatural, chicks already sing in a higher register so it's too high even for a chick.
But of course on studio version she sings perfectly cause that STUPID producer brother was there(autotune).
Of course this is not her fault, nothing against her, she's singing live without autotune so she's a fighter in the middle of crap.
How much that STUPID producer put in his pocket?
Damn I just wanted a recto 



BTW what does this has to do with this thread?
Well it's an example that crap studio "magic" is not only related to technical stuff and metal, even extremely simple songs suffer from it because of STUPID producers.She can sing properly but a STUPID producer made her sound like a dieing screaming goat


----------



## Winspear (Nov 8, 2012)

sear said:


> ut, that's not metal, and trying to justify your shitty musicianship by saying it "saves time" or "sounds better than the real thing" when the _entire genre_ is founded on raw energy and integrity of performing the piece? That's bullshit.



Once again - tradition is brought up. Why must we stick with tradition? Why can the 'metal' sound not be approached from other viewpoints, such as that of dance music? It's ok to make certain sounds with a computer but as soon as you want a distorted guitar the rules entirely change? Why does it matter what the genre is founded on? Who set these rules anyway?_ That's_ bullshit.


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 8, 2012)

EtherealEntity said:


> Once again - tradition is brought up. Why must we stick with tradition? Why can the 'metal' sound not be approached from other viewpoints, such as that of dance music? It's ok to make certain sounds with a computer but as soon as you want a distorted guitar the rules entirely change? Why does it matter what the genre is founded on? Who set these rules anyway?_ That's_ bullshit.



Appeal to tradition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## abandonist (Nov 8, 2012)

Man, this thread has taken quite the turn.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 8, 2012)

abandonist said:


> Man, this thread has taken quite the turn.



Come'n don't ABANDON it


----------



## ROAR (Nov 8, 2012)

Some of the people can be right part of the, ah fuck it.

Stop worrying about all this shit and go do whatever the fuck you want.
I swear if you guys stopped bitching about all this maybe you'd have enough
time to practice and play better in the first place.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 8, 2012)

ROAR said:


> I'm a musician, but I'm not schooled.
> So ultimately, I'm not allowed to do whatever I want?
> Fuck off



I kindly ask you to re-read my comment and find the part where I said that non-schooled musicians should refrain from experimenting. 

What I am saying is that the knowledgeable musician gets more credit and respect for his experimentation than a clueless guy either pressing keys, or twisting knobs at random, or generally being oblivious as to how to be or sound experimental. 

John Cage's efforts are analyzed at music colleges. The academics sure wouldn't give a damn about John Cage if the guy hadn't studied enough to know how to make his artistic vision come to life as music.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 8, 2012)

Radiohead makes (made?) amazing music and are not schooled. I know educated musicians who analyze their music despite a lack of musical knowledge being applied to the process.

The end result is all that matters, whether that is random key presses or methodically conceived. A good song is good either way just as crap is crap, music knowledge or not.

Are you really saying an amazing song is no longer amazing (composition exclusively) if you found out they used no instrument or theory? That would affect my level of respect and desire to see live, but not my enjoyment of the music or how crazy something sounds.

What if you use random keys to find the pitch to a melody you conceived in your head (in other words not so random in creation)?


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 8, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> What I am saying is that the knowledgeable musician gets more credit and respect for his experimentation than a clueless guy either pressing keys, or twisting knobs at random, or generally being oblivious as to how to be or sound experimental.



You're so lost about it, you're upside down.
Music came first and not music theory.
Music theory was created to explain what musicians were playing so music started with everybody "either pressing keys, or twisting knobs at random".
Music is about freedom, people play whatever they want, some are locked inside of blues and some have the freedom of progressive music, music theory will never be able to tell who is good or bad cause 10 billion people have different tastes no matter what music theory says.
We can make good songs with only 3 chords, a lot of artists already made so music theory says they're crap?
NEVER, music theory respects not only technique but MELODY.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 8, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Radiohead makes (made?) amazing music and are not schooled. I know educated musicians who analyze their music despite a lack of musical knowledge being applied to the process.
> 
> The end result is all that matters, whether that is random key presses or methodically conceived. A good song is good either way just as crap is crap, music knowledge or not.
> 
> ...



From wikipedia...

About the guitar player: "Greenwood had begun studying music and psychology at Oxford Brookes University " 

About the bassist: "When Greenwood was 15 years old he bought his first guitar,[8] studying classical guitar with influential teacher Terence Gilmore-James."

About the drummer: "Selway has studied drums in London at Drumtech under the tutelage of Francis Seriau along with fellow Radiohead member Ed O'Brien."

Whenever I listen to a new band and I end up loving their music, I always read about their origins and 99% of the times they have studied music. Muse, who are making radio-friendly music (even dubstep as of late) are great musicians in their own right. Even Lady Gaga has an academic background.

Sure, if it sounds good, it's good. I know JAmes Hetfield isn't a schooled musician. But he wasn't experimenting. My statement deals with oblivious musicians "experimenting".


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 8, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> You're so lost about it, you're upside down.
> *Music came first and not music theory.*.



Tell that to Pytagoras.



8Fingers said:


> cause *10 billion* people have different tastes no matter what music theory says.



In my planet we have less people listening to music.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 8, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> Tell that to Pytagoras.
> 
> In my planet we have less people listening to music.



Pytagoras were born after cavemen, you obviously don't know they made music.
You could return to your planet(Melmac) but I bet they can't stand you too 

Can you realize you didn't accept A WORD everybody said here?
A WORD.
So why are you here if your brain is smarter than all of us and only your opinions are right?
I mean you disagree to everybody so you obviously don't fit here...............or.......................in your planet(Melmac)


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 8, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> Pytagoras were born after cavemen, you obviously don't know they made music.
> You could return to your planet(Melmac) but I bet they can't stand you too
> 
> Can you realize you didn't accept A WORD everybody said here?
> ...



I will return to Melmac as soon as you go back to school and finish what you started, irmao.



I am discussing. It's my right to agree/to disagree. I am not even making fun of you or anybody else. It's you who has probably never taken part in a debate.


----------



## fps (Nov 8, 2012)

NaYoN said:


> My opinion is that music is an expression and the recording process doesn't matter, what stands is the music.



If music is a form of expression, but you can only record your music one bar at a time, then you're speaking with all the fluidity and musicality of one of those Stephen Hawking voice boxes. 

As for not even playing a song at the right speed, that's pathetic, and if you do that you should be ashamed of yourself, because you're a phony.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 8, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> I will return to Melmac as soon as you go back to school and finish what you started, irmao.
> 
> 
> 
> I am discussing. It's my right to agree/to disagree. I am not even making fun of you or anybody else. It's you who has probably never taken part in a debate.



Yep you're right, as always


----------



## ROAR (Nov 8, 2012)

Devin Townsend doesn't know anything about music theory yet makes his artistic vision come to life.

Is he the clueless knob twirling man you're talking about?
Should we respect him less because he's less knowledgable than John Cage,
a man who spent pretty much his whole life theorizing music and teaching?
Are you only successful if music teachers from around the world are analyzing 
your music?

Are The Beatles and their producer being falsely idolized for experimenting
and creating the flange sound, something they didn't even understand?
Among other countless experimentations the Beatles did, I guess we should
stop caring simply because they didn't know their 7's from their 9's!


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 8, 2012)

ROAR said:


> I'm a musician, but I'm not schooled.
> So ultimately, I'm not allowed to do whatever I want?
> Fuck off



These tools should not be used as a crutch, but as a way of either adding an interesting dimension to a song or just smoothing it out slightly. If you use them to the point that you can't even actually perform it, you're only cheating yourself, schooled or not.


----------



## ROAR (Nov 8, 2012)

^Good point, that about ends this thread for me.
It was fun <3


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 8, 2012)

ROAR said:


> *Devin Townsend doesn't know anything about music theory yet makes his artistic vision come to life.*



Unless you have been inside his brain, you can't know that for sure.


----------



## ROAR (Nov 8, 2012)

I have been inside his brain, it was part of my Epicloud pre-order.
And no, he has knowledge of theory. 
/encore

You've been a great audience!


"I'm riffing out at home or sitting on the stairs or whatever,
and my hands end up finding notes and melodies that are representative
of these moments of emotional significance to me, right?"
-Heavy Devy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw-9oGUXg6c
watch out, Devin knows the names of notes and maybe a scale. I guess he's as good as John Cage


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 8, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> Tell that to Pytagoras.




Tonal Harmony, what most of us refer to as "Music Theory", came about through studying the works of composers of a specific era (1600-1900). If you had the education you seem to hold in such regard, you'd know what you're saying is poppycock. These rules only exist by studying composers who had no such rules to follow. Composers like Mozart quite literally invented music theory by playing the examples we'd be studying for centuries to come.

But yes, math and music make a great chicken and egg argument. They're greatly interconnected.

None of this changes how lame it is for a guitarist to speed up solos and riffs.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 8, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> If you had the education you seem to hold in such regard, you'd know what you're saying is poppycock. These rules only exist by studying composers who had no such rules to follow. Composers like Mozart quite literally invented music theory by playing the examples we'd be studying for centuries to come.





8Fingers said:


> You're so lost about it, you're upside down.
> Music came first and not music theory.
> Music theory was created to explain what musicians were playing so music started with everybody "either pressing keys, or twisting knobs at random".


----------



## Dan (Nov 8, 2012)

While all you guys bitched about who is right and wrong in this thread over the past day i have managed to:



Learn the Alternate picked part thats been killing me in the new Wintersun album.
Get a solo i need to play tight up to speed for recording this weekend.
wrote the start of a new song.

and 



Made a tasty tasty lasagne 


Who's the real winner here guys?  Bottom line, some people agree some people don't. It's all down to personal preference. I personally have no gripe as long as they can pull it off live. 



Coming from a dude who spends a lot of time in the studio trying to get things perfect without changing the core sound, sometimes studio magic is just simply needed for sanity reasons. Some days i can play it shit hot, some days i can't. I sometimes only have a limited time in the studio and some days i HAVE to do these things just so it's right for either myself or the client. 


End of the day music is music, and im sure everyone here has heard something that they believe they wouldn't be able to play in a million years. It sets the benchmark for the next generation of musicians who dont care about studio techniques and just want to play it. If you can't i'm sure someone can 


Anyway, back to my lasagne...


----------



## DLG (Nov 8, 2012)

fuck, now I'm hungry


----------



## flint757 (Nov 8, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> From wikipedia...
> 
> About the guitar player: "Greenwood had begun studying music and psychology at Oxford Brookes University "
> 
> ...



Haha so much for me taking hearsay at face value (curse my lack of research ). I concede there about Radiohead...

However, my point still stands overall and yes even for experimentation. Good is good whether you were trying or not, that is honestly undeniable. Even if it were the case that the only 'good' experimenters you (or I) knew knew theory that fact would still remain. I doubt every good experimenter was well versed in theory as absolutes are rarely true. Lots of people on the planet and all.


----------



## Fiction (Nov 8, 2012)

DLG said:


> fuck, now I'm hungry



Would a frozen lasagne be cheating?


----------



## cronux (Nov 8, 2012)

Fiction said:


> Would a frozen lasagne be cheating?



you should bake your lasagne for 3 hours on 50°C and then speed bake it for 5min on 380°C


----------



## troyguitar (Nov 8, 2012)

Dan said:


> While all you guys bitched about who is right and wrong in this thread over the past day i have managed to:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




 You wasted your time too bro, should have just played them at half speed then sped it back up. It's the same thing according to clowns in this thread


----------



## hairychris (Nov 8, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> If you need string dampeners to sound clean, well...that says a lot about your technique...


Hm, tell that to Guthrie Govan who is uber-clean and *still* uses them.


----------



## rythmic_pulses (Nov 8, 2012)

Wow, I think this thread is well and truly out of steam, srsly


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 8, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> Tonal Harmony, what most of us refer to as "Music Theory", came about through studying the works of composers of a specific era (1600-1900). If you had the education you seem to hold in such regard, you'd know what you're saying is poppycock. These rules only exist by studying composers who had no such rules to follow. Composers like Mozart quite literally invented music theory by playing the examples we'd be studying for centuries to come.
> 
> But yes, math and music make a great chicken and egg argument. They're greatly interconnected.
> 
> None of this changes how lame it is for a guitarist to speed up solos and riffs.



Where did I state that pytagoras wrote a book on tonal harmony? Everybody knows that ancient Greeks didn't compose harmonies, as most of their music was solely based on melodies.

btw I don't know what 8fingers has been doing other than liking his own posts, but I was practicing my vibrato all the time as I participated in this thread


----------



## NaYoN (Nov 8, 2012)

troyguitar said:


> [/LIST] You wasted your time too bro, should have just played them at half speed then sped it back up. It's the same thing according to clowns in this thread



I'm pretty sure every sane person in this thread, even those who don't see a problem with "cheating", understand the value of being able to play a riff. Don't straw man.


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 8, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> Where did I state that pytagoras wrote a book on tonal harmony?



You were talking about music theory, so I'm not quite sure WHY you brought up Pythagoras, to be honest. They're not related at all.


----------



## Volteau (Nov 8, 2012)

Pythagoras IS related to music (and it's theory), man. There's even a tuning named after him; Pythagorean Tuning, and a scale called the Pythagorean Diatonic Scale, which is basically perfect 5ths and octaves (in relation to it's tuning).


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 8, 2012)

Volteau said:


> Pythagoras IS related to music (and it's theory), man. There's even a tuning named after him; Pythagorean Tuning, and a scale called the Pythagorean Diatonic Scale.



Some swear there's Pythagodjent scale


----------



## Volteau (Nov 8, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> Some swear there's Pythagodjent scale



I loled pretty hard at this. Pythagodjent. Sounds so epic.

And just to be clear, I DO agree with you, AH, about the old classic albums being awesome because of their accidents, noises and flubs. It makes them way more interesting (perfection bores me). One of the things I LOVED about Dream Theater's last album was how uncompressed and seemingly unedited it was. Hell, you can hear a loud BEEP noise at 3:30 on "On The Backs Of Angels" courtesy of a Petruccian accident (I figured out it was him after hearing just the guitar stem of the song). So awesome.

In the end, everyone will do as they please. Philosophies will vary, but there's no reason to call the other one "wrong". Now, let's all head up/down to Washington or Colorado and have ourselves a good and peaceful time


----------



## Nykur_Myrkvi (Nov 8, 2012)

EtherealEntity said:


> Music is music.
> I enjoy good music and do not care how it was created. We have no problem with drum machines, no problem with dance music, no problem with programmed synth parts. I view guitar the same. I really don't care how it was made, as a listener.
> 
> I do however, think it is wrong to deceive. That makes things tricky as an artist in metal - because it's all about the guitarist, to an extent, and there are such traditions in place such as everything being playable. You either announce outright that your guitar parts are not recorded 'for real', which I've only seen twice - In more experimental music - or you are a cheater. Seems quite unfair given the allowances in my first paragraph but that's just how the genre of 'guitar music' is.
> ...


You put it better then I could have so I'm "stealing" this.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 8, 2012)

NaYoN said:


> The standards for quality on a record and in a live situation are different. Live has to be entertaining, record has to be "correct"



Interesting thought and on this statement alone I completely agree. 

I'm internally torn as to whether or not it's okay or whether or not it should even matter. There are a lot of situations where I can play through a song just fine when I'm just jammin' it out with the band, but the moment I have to sit there by myself and record my part playing it becomes impossible...

That may be more a result of recording anxiety and something that I should learn to cope with as opposed to just allowing myself to play it half speed and then speed it up later. For the sake of my own sanity, I at least have to work toward getting myself to a point where I can record myself at my desired speed and then make a conscious decision as to whether or not it sounds right played at that speed (assuming I stick the run).

That said... I typically find trying to play it up to speed while recording is good and constructive practice [for me].


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 8, 2012)

Volteau said:


> Pythagoras IS related to music (and it's theory), man. There's even a tuning named after him; Pythagorean Tuning, and a scale called the Pythagorean Diatonic Scale, which is basically perfect 5ths and octaves (in relation to it's tuning).



But it's not related to "music theory", which in an institutional setting (what he started talking about pages ago) is only about 300 or so years worth of music and study.

He's grasping at straws to show musical study is needed to be a great musician, an absolutely false statement. The study and analysis of music is to grasp WHY something sounds good to us. The fact that it sounds good precedes the analysis.

And none of that, still, makes it any cooler to speed up riffs and solos to make yourself sound tighter. The whole "it makes it sound cleaner" is a giant turd of an excuse, and this whole thread has left me sadly mistrustful of the music my friends, peers, and idols produce now and in the future.

It's one thing to manipulate tracks for art and creativity (Reznor). It's another to do it because you're scared of criticism or want to impress people. (Dragonforce)


----------



## TheOddGoat (Nov 8, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> Being a musician is actually the first step to become a composer.






Edit for clarity:
If you play an instrument, you are then a guitarist/cellist/pianist/whateverist and also a musician.

If you write music in any capacity you are a composer and also a musician.

Musician:
Composer, (instrument)-ist (times however many you play) or both.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 8, 2012)

TheOddGoat said:


>



Exactly...

You can be one or the other or both me thinks... And one doesn't necessarily have to precede the other in any particular order.


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 8, 2012)

Edit: @arrowhead's comment

As I understood it he wasn't saying that at all. 

But rather that people are more likely to respect a trained person for being "experimental" than a person just randomly plucking away. 

He wasn't passing judgment, just saying how other seems to. And I agree with. It's even worse in the visual art world. If you don't have a degree you're completely meaningless. And once you have a name, you can make the worst drivel there is and people will eat it up. Bleh. 


Also:
DragonForce doesn't manipulate their tracks any more than your average modern Metal band and FAR less than many.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 8, 2012)

^ I can get down with that.


----------



## TheOddGoat (Nov 8, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> Also:
> DragonForce doesn't manipulate their tracks any more than your average modern Metal band and FAR less than many.




To back this up, I think I remember around the time of *that* graspop footage Herman Li explained they recorded in teeny chunks and that was actually their method of writing it. 

Then they had shows to play and not enough time to learn it well enough...

Also, alcohol.


----------



## ILuvPillows (Nov 8, 2012)

^In regards to DF, during in their 'making of Ultra Beatdown' video blog they made it pretty clear that they don't do half speed recording or anything like that. Not that anyone with logical sense should consider such a possibility, considering that they're a Power Metal band, not the Ultradjentprog that this thread really relates to.


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Nov 8, 2012)

I've turned up late and I'm not trawling through pages of this topic.

Personally, I would NEVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR cheat with "half speed" on a solo!

That's just shameful behaviour. Expression limited only by technique, and people want to bypass their own playing? 
Just hire a better guitarist! FTW!

For a little riff or something generic, fine.

If your deleting your own identity with recording techniques, what's the point, unless your making karaoke covers or other non-artistic excercise.

I'd rather use a slower BPM or slower tempo for the section than manipulate the audio.


----------



## Webmaestro (Nov 8, 2012)

I don't care if a band uses tricks in the studio (actually, I do, a little), as long as I know about it so I don't bust my ass trying to learn a riff that's physically, humanly impossible... then beating myself up because I can't get it (thinking I should).

It's akin to people starving themselves to become unnaturally thin, because they saw a model in a magazine... not realizing it's all just photoshop.

I think it's okay (sort of) if there's some transparency about it. That gives the listener/fan a choice in the matter... to be inspired and impressed (and be a fan), or not.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 8, 2012)

Close enough


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Nov 8, 2012)

^Hey, Konfyouzd, did you listen to my "Tribute to the Harpsichord" yet?

http://soundcloud.com/ryan-zengtr/a-tribute-to-the-harpsichord



What did you think? Will it make it onto the album?


----------



## Cancer (Nov 8, 2012)

This thread is proof that metal (at least the underground variety) has become a competitive sport. It's music by musicians for musician who care only about measuring their abilities against other musicians. In other genres of music if you're composer you are not expected to know how to play other people's parts, you either hire someone who can, or let the computer do it.

Mozart did not play the oboe, y'know what I mean?


----------



## TheOddGoat (Nov 8, 2012)

Cancer said:


> This thread is proof that metal (at least the underground variety) has become a competitive sport. It's music by musicians for musician who care only about measuring their abilities against other musicians. In other genres of music if you're composer you are not expected to know how to play other people's parts, you either hire someone who can, or let the computer do it.
> 
> Mozart did not play the oboe, y'know what I mean?





I agree with people saying that it's bad to say you played something when you didn't though...

Because that's lying. Not because you aren't TRVE METAL EL1TE.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 8, 2012)

Cancer said:


> This thread is proof that metal (at least the underground variety) has become a competitive sport. It's music by musicians for musician who care only about measuring their abilities against other musicians. In other genres of music if you're composer you are not expected to know how to play other people's parts, you either hire someone who can, or let the computer do it.
> 
> Mozart did not play the oboe, y'know what I mean?



 Like I said in my first post I think, it all stems from the problem that in 'guitar music' you assume that what you are hearing is real.

'Real'..What am I talking about? Everything is real. If the soundwaves are coming out of the speakers into your ears..it's real. Listen for the music - the sound, people. Not for who is behind it or what his methods may be.


----------



## Overtone (Nov 8, 2012)

I think an exception would be if you want to deliberately achieve that whacky sped up sound as part of the expression of the part of the song, the way you might use an effect, or the difference between using autotune to fix a pitchy performance, or using autotune to make the vocal track sound noticeably effected. Using it as a workaround to let you incorporate stuff you aren't capable of playing seems kind of weak to me. Like Ryan said, why not have the humility to have somebody who CAN play it guest on your recording? If it's really just "about the composition" you should be ok with someone else getting the performance credit, right? After all, a recording of the guitar is still a studio performance of a person playing an instrument. It's different from live, but still a performance.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 8, 2012)

EtherealEntity said:


> 'Real'..What am I talking about? Everything is real. If the soundwaves are coming out of the speakers into your ears..it's real. Listen for the music - the sound, people. Not for who is behind it or what his methods may be.






I gotta say this again:

I never ever saw/read/knew about someone who bought a cd thinking "man I'll buy it because I believe those dudes play their stuff".
I never listened to a song thinking about if that band was "cheating" or actually playing all parts.
I always listened to MUSIC expecting it'd take me to a another dimension, sometimes a melody/chord progression/solo or even a singer did that, I NEVER wasted my time thinking about how they recorded that.
To me listening to music was always something magical, I remember every VINYL I bought, I used to turn my bedroom lights off, starfix started glowing on my ceiling(I don't know its name in english starfix= glowing in the dark stars) and I always had a trip.
In my music I HAVE to play all parts without any "cheating", if I can't play I'll practice BUT other musicians don't care about that stuff, they just want to share music.
OBVIOUSLY if somebody do that ONLY to impress people like if he was a badass player, well he's dumb but still I don't care, that's his problem.


----------



## Winspear (Nov 8, 2012)

^ Precisely. 
If someone is doing it show off, sure it's a problem. But just to make the sound that they want people to hear? Why does it matter?
I personally will always prefer to play my own parts too, but at the same time I couldn't give a damn if some dude sampled his guitar note by note into Kontakt and programmed it with a mouse if it sounds good and I like the melody.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 8, 2012)

Did you also play the latin perc parts in some of your tunes?

Don't get mad. I am just asking.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 8, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> Did you also play the latin perc parts in some of your tunes?
> 
> Don't get mad. I am just asking.



I never get mad and I never take internet texts seriously and that's why 90% of my replies are jokes, people are too serious in these forums, we need to joke/laugh more.

I said "I have to play all parts" meaning MY guitar parts.
I play all guitars/bass/keyboards and drums in my songs(good or bad at least it was me) , I didn't play latin percussion because I don't have it.I have nothing against people using samples, loops whatever, it's about expressing feelings and not trying to sound like a badass player.
To me people can use whatever they want/need as long as I like their music.
If I was a judge on an instrument contest then I'd care how people recorded their stuff.

Asking if I played latin percussion in my song have nothing to do with this thread, it's about people cheating their own instruments cause they can't play what they recorded and not about using samples which is not "cheating" but adding different sounds.


----------



## Overtone (Nov 8, 2012)

It's all context. The OP didn't mention any bands but it sounded like it was in reference to some tech kinda stuff. I think part of that music is the fact that it takes a lot of discipline and technique to play it, and pushing the envelope is part of what the fans want to hear. If bands are using that type of thing (chopping, speeding up, etc.) to get stuff they just plain can't play cleanly, they are kind of defeating the purpose. So that's one context. But honestly, I can't think of a context, other than perhaps electronic music, where doing that stuff is cool, ie. the listener gives zero fucks about the performance of the musician, and just wants to hear "the notes." If it's rock or metal especially, something is missing if a guitar player is going in to the studio with the goal of simply making sure that notes SOMEHOW end up on the song regardless of the means.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 8, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> I never get mad and I never take internet texts seriously and that's why 90% of my replies are jokes, people are too serious in these forums, we need to joke/laugh more.
> 
> I said "I have to play all parts" meaning MY guitar parts.
> I play all guitars/bass/keyboards and drums in my songs(good or bad at least it was me) , I didn't play latin percussion because I don't have it.I have nothing against people using samples, loops whatever, it's about expressing feelings and not trying to sound like a badass player.
> ...



I was asking because I was curious lol


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 8, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> I was asking because I was curious lol



No problem, but in the middle of this thread sounded like you were saying I cheated because I used latin percussion loop.
Still love you no matter how Melmac guys hate you


----------



## TheOddGoat (Nov 8, 2012)

I just tried to record acoustic guitar at half speed and then bring it up to tempo.

schmega man - YouTube


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 8, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> No problem, but in the middle of this thread sounded like you were saying I cheated because I used latin percussion loop.
> Still love you no matter how Melmac guys hate you



I never implied that. I also use lots of samples in my own music...


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 8, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> No problem, but in the middle of this thread sounded like you were saying I cheated because I used latin percussion loop.
> Still love you no matter how Melmac guys hate you





m3l-mrq3z said:


> I never implied that. I also use lots of samples in my own music...



I said "it sounded", it doesn't mean you implied it.


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 8, 2012)

AxeHappy said:


> But rather that people are more likely to respect a trained person for being "experimental" than a person just randomly plucking away.



But that's still not accurate.

What IS this "music theory" that a "trained person" has learned? According to my textbook, it's a set of rules based on 300 years of analyzing the writings of "a person just randomly plucking away".


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 8, 2012)

ArrowHead said:


> But that's still not accurate.
> 
> What IS this "music theory" that a "trained person" has learned? According to my textbook, it's a set of rules based on 300 years of analyzing the writings of "a person just randomly plucking away".



Yep some sound like they think music theory came first than music.
Music theory was created to explain what "a person was just randomly plucking away".

The sad stuff is only guitarists have that closed mind, imagine how many keyboardists recorded their midi stuff and edited them.
No other keyboardist will say "hey man you cheated".
That's dumb.
What do I have to do with how people record their stuff?
Nothing.
I don't care who plays better, I care about music.


----------



## guitareben (Nov 8, 2012)

Not really that fussed, though IMO for me if there was something I couldn't play clean enough I'd practice it until I can.


----------



## sakeido (Nov 8, 2012)

Cancer said:


> This thread is proof that metal (at least the underground variety) has become a competitive sport. It's music by musicians for musician who care only about measuring their abilities against other musicians. In other genres of music if you're composer you are not expected to know how to play other people's parts, you either hire someone who can, or let the computer do it.
> 
> Mozart did not play the oboe, y'know what I mean?



Best take on the issue I've heard 

So much metal coming out right now is fucking terrible. Absolutely godawful, horrible music that is only interesting as a thought exercise for musicians. I thought the OP would have a link to these uhh... wtf are they called.. saturn rings? Something like that. some band that is getting blown up on metalsucks right now because they apparently can't play their stuff.

But I really don't know why anybody cares. I listened to a bit of their album and it is legitimately some of the worst music I have heard in my entire life. Rebecca Black Friday bad. It is sheer technicality completely devoid of _any_ trace of actual songwriting.

Who knows though... its a trend. A response will develop soon enough. Super low fi sounding one take albums where they record like old jazz bands? Drop a mic in the room then play the whole song perfect?


----------



## fwd0120 (Nov 8, 2012)

[X] Multitrack recording of instruments separately is ok.
[X] Splitting a song into sections to record with more clarity/impact is ok.
[ ] Splitting a measure into sections to record with more clarity/impact is ok.
[ ] Recording note by note to record with more clarity/impact is ok.
[X] Slowing down a song to record with more clarity/impact then speeding it up is ok.
[X] Overdubbing stuff like chords and pinch harmonics to record with more clarity/impact is ok.
[X] Using amp simulation instead of amps is ok.
[X] Using synths for extraneous instruments like sitar, cello etc is ok.
[ ] Using triggers is ok.
[X] Using a drum machine is ok.
[X] Quantization of drum/instrument notes is ok.
[ ] If possible, recording guitar via synths is ok.
[X] Playing live to a backing track due to not having certain aspects of the sound like ambience and synths replicable in a live environment is ok.
[ ] Playing live with one guitarist and a backing track to simulate two guitarists is ok.
[ ] Playing live with a backing track to cover up sloppiness is ok.

That's basically my view.
I have slowed down to record, but never less then 80% (from 100), and normally that stays as the demo. My current practice is to demo a song, rehearse and play it at a gig (I will be very well rehearsed at that point), then record it. That's how they did "Dark Side of the Moon".
Also, if everything is perfect and only one note (like the last note) is really messed up (and does not add character) I will punch in a new one. 
Every section gets 3 takes when I do the proper recording. If it takes more, I put it off for another day.
I don't quantize as much as I used to, because I have developed a natural, consistent swing. That only adds to the groove imo. Imagine if the quantized John Bonham....


----------



## fwd0120 (Nov 8, 2012)

m3l-mrq3z said:


> If you need string dampeners to sound clean, well...that says a lot about your technique...



Yep, Guthrie Govan... Perfect example of mediocre technique. 

Ooops. 'd by @hairychris.


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 8, 2012)

y'all motherfuckers r crazy

i play punk, n we record r instrumnts all at once, in a single room.

our album was acsually recoreded in one take. leik we stopped when the song was done, but then we wnt 2 the next one, u kno? idk bout this "slowin down'' thing


----------



## Compton (Nov 8, 2012)

I don't expect bands to play their record perfectly live, and i like that organic sound. But when im listening to a record, i don't want slop distracting me from the song as a whole. I really don't mind in moderation.


----------



## Overtone (Nov 8, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> Yep some sound like they think music theory came first than music.
> Music theory was created to explain what "a person was just randomly plucking away".
> 
> The sad stuff is only guitarists have that closed mind, imagine how many keyboardists recorded their midi stuff and edited them.
> ...




Vocalists, horn players, pianists, and string players must also be pretty dumb.


----------



## Stealthtastic (Nov 8, 2012)

My opinion is that music is an expression and the recording process doesn't matter, what stands is the music. And if you can entertain your fans live then who cares what you do. But we have a culture of looking up to players as idols of skill, and due to this image people end up disappointed. Add to that the elitism in metal circles towards recording techniques (some people considering triggers to not be a legitimate drumming technique (which I think is not true, you still need to hit the trigger with good timing, but that's a different debate)), this becomes even more of a red-button issue. I think we need to separate the idol mentality from the music.



Angel Vivaldi once said "I believe that as a performer you're obligated to give the audience something- whether it's a thought, an emtion, a day dream, or a head-ache, In order to be remembered you need to be conscious of how the audience will remember you."


That being said if a band chooses to record at half tempo in order to have the song sound super tight on the album so be it. It's not a bad idea by any means, UNLESS they can't play it live. However if we are speaking of the band I think we are in this case, we know they can because we've seen videos of it and so on so forth. So instead of discrediting a band for their recording process, why don't we enjoy the recording and make our judgement of their playing chops off of live performances.


----------



## Seanthesheep (Nov 8, 2012)

if it sounds good, and they can pull it off live, then I dont really care


----------



## mike0 (Nov 9, 2012)

i can understand doing it for the sake of being clean on an album, but personally there gets to a point where it sounds TOO clean and polished to where it doesn't even sound real anymore. i hate that, with a passion. i truly do. i mean it'll make me lose respect some respect for the band, maybe, but aesthetically to my ears it just won't sound good. i like a little raw, not scratchy demo quality, but not overproduced. this is my main concern with the whole new wave of DIY going on, it gives people the opportunity and time to make every note absolutely perfect, which i feel takes the "life" out of the recording. i feel the same way with programmed drums, which there is especially more incentive to use since it's a hell of a lot less time, money, and hassle then recording real drums. they just sound sterile and lifeless to me. sure, some are sounding closer and closer to the "real thing", but in just about every case there are overdone blastbeats, sterile snare/symbol hits, and bass drums that are about on pitch with toms, etc. etc. most of the time it just makes me cringe rather than enjoy the song as a whole.


----------



## getaway_fromme (Nov 9, 2012)

12 pages into this thread and after countless articles on this subject, I have since:

1. Listened to the full album on youtube.
2. Downloaded the entire album FOR FREE thanks to the band
3. Plan on purchasing the album when it's released.

Granted, I don't like most of it, but the intro to Peeling Arteries just gets me right in the sweet spot. I fucking hate how "precise" this shit sounds, but some of it is very appealing, and hey, it just gave the band more publicity. 

Point: I don't care how it was recorded. I'll give a shit when I see them live.

Thank god for controversy!


----------



## ChrisRushing (Nov 9, 2012)

This debate is funny because every time a new tool or technology comes out, the mind set shifts and a new debate arises. For example, bands used to record almost 100% live. Can you imagine what people were saying as soon as a band or artist started overdubbing? How about the first guys to start using overdrive? I bet they were called out for hiding behind an effect. I can't say that I would personally record an album at half speed and then speed it up but I can see where someone else might view it as a creative tool as a opposed to "cheating". 
Also, how many people call out these techniques and tools but have no fucking clue what they are actually talking about? I can't count how many times someone has called "triggers" cheating but they don't realize that 1) it's sound replacement and 2) that about 90% of their metal collection that they love so much uses it.


----------



## petereanima (Nov 9, 2012)

ChrisRushing said:


> but they don't realize that 1) it's sound replacement and 2) that about 90% of their metal collection that they love so much uses it.



and 3) that the drummer has to play even tighter than without triggering - because the common clickety-clack sound is much more focused, so you hear almost every untight kick...where the bit of muddy wobble that comes with a mic'd bass-drum is much better for hiding sloppy kicks.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 9, 2012)

Ryan-ZenGtr- said:


> ^Hey, Konfyouzd, did you listen to my "Tribute to the Harpsichord" yet?
> 
> A tribute to the Harpsichord - The konfyouzd years MM by Ryan-ZenGtr- on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free
> 
> ...



I'm literally listening to it now... This is awesome!


----------



## Konfyouzd (Nov 9, 2012)

The Reverend said:


> y'all motherfuckers r crazy
> 
> i play punk, n we record r instrumnts all at once, in a single room.
> 
> our album was acsually recoreded in one take. leik we stopped when the song was done, but then we wnt 2 the next one, u kno? idk bout this "slowin down'' thing


----------



## Esp Griffyn (Nov 9, 2012)

Haven't Dragonforce being doing this for years? Sloppy as hell live, but so perfect in the studio it's almost like computers were playing the music. Oh wait...


----------



## baptizedinblood (Nov 9, 2012)

In terms of RoS and their performance...

Abysmal. Sloppy as hell. I've seen them live. Lucas had the guitar backing track 'harmony' considerably louder in the mix than his own guitar. I really wanted to like this band but after seeing them live, and learning about all of the shenanigans going on behind the record, I just can't. 

It's one thing to record an album and use studio tricks to clean it up. That's totally fine in my opinion...as long as you can play it live too without deviating too far from the record. A lot of tech death bands will do this for the sake of saving cash/time in the studio. Hell, some of the tech death bands play faster live (I'm looking at you, Origin). This Rings of Saturn band sound nothing like their album live. 


Even this playthrough is sloppy as hell. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8AhBjEytP0


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 9, 2012)

baptizedinblood said:


> In terms of RoS and their performance...
> 
> Abysmal. Sloppy as hell. I've seen them live. Lucas had the guitar backing track 'harmony' considerably louder in the mix than his own guitar. I really wanted to like this band but after seeing them live, and learning about all of the shenanigans going on behind the record, I just can't.



You don't have to like any band, you have to like its music.
If you buy a cd and like what you hear...........you like it PERIOD.
If they're crap live just don't go to their gigs but keep enjoying their albums.
There are a lot of bands I like live but I hate their albums mixings STILL I like their music.
Why this insane need of liking players, liking the way they record, liking the way they act/breath/live?
Weird.
If any musician recorded his entire album "cheating", I don't care, I don't buy albums to judge who "cheated" or not, I buy albums because I love MUSIC.
If it sounds good to my ears I buy it no matter who recorded it or how it was recorded.
Music is not a contest of who plays better, music is sound and sound is good or not no matter how it was created.


----------



## Pooluke41 (Nov 9, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> Music is not a contest of who plays better, music is sound and sound is good or not no matter how it was created.



It's not about music being a contest.

It's more about feeling cheated by the artist. If you found out that your favourite artist, that you've thought was so hard working and so dedicated, was a cheater who couldn't play cleanly, wouldn't you feel cheated?


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 9, 2012)

Pooluke41 said:


> It's not about music being a contest.
> 
> It's more about feeling cheated by the artist. If you found out that your favourite artist, that you've thought was so hard working and so dedicated, was a cheater who couldn't play cleanly, wouldn't you feel cheated?



Nope that's his problem if he's a cheater, not mine.
I don't care about players and how they get their sounds, I care about their results = music.
This is something you'll learn only after had a lot of experience playing in bands and recording other musicians.
I don't want famous musicians signing my guitars, I don't want their photos by my side, I only want their music, I'm not a FANatic, well I'm for music and not for musicians.
If you feel like if you were cheated, ok that's your right but it's a complete waste of time cause just because you never noticed an artist you like cheated, it doesn't mean he never cheated, probably he's better cheating and not getting caught, well guys know about cheating 
Music is so much more than recording skills or "cheating' or not.


----------



## baptizedinblood (Nov 9, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> You don't have to like any band, you have to like its music.
> If you buy a cd and like what you hear...........you like it PERIOD.
> If they're crap live just don't go to their gigs but keep enjoying their albums.
> There are a lot of bands I like live but I hate their albums mixings STILL I like their music.
> ...



So... do you date people who cheat on you and stay with them just because you love them? 

There's a thing called musical integrity...it's a lot less common nowadays with everyone and their mother being a "DIY Producer at home."

I personally feel that musical integrity has a lot to do with a musician. To CLAIM that you didn't overproduce the record, then get caught, and not be able to back it up with a solid live performance is just fucking pathetic. Bands doing that really need to reevaluate what they are doing and what their goal in music is. Like I said, I wanted to like the band, the records are cool, but after learning about all this bullshit, I'm over them and have lost all respect for them.


----------



## Pooluke41 (Nov 9, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> If you feel like if you were cheated, ok that's your right but it's a complete waste of time, music is so much more than recording skills or "cheating' or not.



Well, actually, I can't fucking stand the band.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 9, 2012)

baptizedinblood said:


> So... do you date people who cheat on you and stay with them just because you love them?
> 
> There's a thing called musical integrity...it's a lot less common nowadays with everyone and their mother being a "DIY Producer at home."
> 
> I personally feel that musical integrity has a lot to do with a musician. To CLAIM that you didn't overproduce the record, then get caught, and not be able to back it up with a solid live performance is just fucking pathetic. Bands doing that really need to reevaluate what they are doing and what their goal in music is. Like I said, I wanted to like the band, the records are cool, but after learning about all this bullshit, I'm over them and have lost all respect for them.



Oh yes a girl cheating on me is the same as a musician from another country not being able to play his own music.Terrible comparison.

Musical integrity exists ONLY among musicians, non musicians don't care about it, millions and millions of now musicians don't care if singers use autotune, some care about their lookinks, about melodies etc and not how they recorded their songs.Think about pop music, millions and millions non musicians buying music created by producers who "cheated" probably about everything.I never heard somebody saying he/she won't buy Bieber/Gaga album because they cheated. 

As a musician I AGREE with you, cheating is crap BUT like I said, that musician is not my friend, I couldn't care less how he got his sounds, I care only about his results = music.


----------



## baptizedinblood (Nov 9, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> Oh yes a girl cheating on me is the same as a musician from another country not being able to play his own music.Terrible comparison.
> 
> Musical integrity exists ONLY among musicians, non musicians don't care about it, millions and millions of now musicians don't care if singers use autotune, some care about their lookinks, about melodies etc and not how they recorded their songs.Think about pop music, millions and millions non musicians buying music created by producers who "cheated" probably about everything.
> 
> As a musician I AGREE with you, cheating is crap BUT like I said, that musician is not my friend, I couldn't care less how he got his sounds, I care only about his results = music.




It's the same logic; willing to look past deception just for the sake of gratification/enjoyment. Not really trying to compare the two as they are both on different levels/terms. 

So is metal starting to degrade into pop now? Millions buy these garbage pop cds...millions are also very ignorant and couldn't give two shits about the music. We do care, that's why you don't see a Bieber megathread over in General. We're talking metal here; an underground community in which musical integrity STILL REMAINS, and plays a vital role for the most part. By using pop as a justification, then you're basically saying that metal has degraded to the level of a Bieber album. Bands in metal that fake their records won't go far, I can assure you that. It's one thing to admit you overproduced the album, but to lie about it and then get caught? The community won't tolerate it.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 9, 2012)

baptizedinblood said:


> It's the same logic; willing to look past deception just for the sake of gratification/enjoyment. Not really trying to compare the two as they are both on different levels/terms.
> 
> So is metal starting to degrade into pop now? Millions buy these garbage pop cds...millions are also very ignorant and couldn't give two shits about the music. We do care, that's why you don't see a Bieber megathread over in General. We're talking metal here; an underground community in which musical integrity STILL REMAINS, and plays a vital role for the most part. By using pop as a justification, then you're basically saying that metal has degraded to the level of a Bieber album. Bands in metal that fake their records won't go far, I can assure you that. The community won't tolerate it.



Still remaims where?
This thread is the proof of a lot of metal bands "cheat".
And just like pop, metal has crap, good and awesome songs/genres.
Metal is not better or worse than any other genre, it's just another genre.
And saying all pop is crap is so closed mind as a person who only likes pop saying all metal bands love Satan  , both are dumb ways of thinking.
Yep SOME bands degraded to Bieber level and (again) this thread is a proof.

"Bands in metal that fake their records won't go far, I can assure you that." 
You really think big bands never cheated?Metallica never cheated?Hammett fails even playing his own solos live but on records they're perfect.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
So I can see you think only metal it's good, so there are no crap metal bands, everybody is good and music is awesome.There are no metal bands created by producers ONLY to make money.
Dude............you should get out more and listen to other genres, there are a lot of awesome music out there.

Well it's friday night, I have to work(gig) while you'll stay here saying ONLY metal is honest and it's the only music that is good.
Later


----------



## baptizedinblood (Nov 9, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> Still remaims where?
> This thread is the proof of a lot of metal bands "cheat".
> And just like pop, metal has crap, good and awesome songs/genres.
> Metal is not better or worse than any other genre, it's just another genre.
> ...




You're missing my point. This isn't 'cheating', but a lack of integrity. Most metal bands will overproduce their album to some degree. They aren't going around denying it, and they also can play their songs live and accurately. 

Integrity DOES still remain in metal. Do you think Tosin Abasi got to where he is now faking both of his records w/ AAL and denying it? Go see a band like Decapitated or Origin live if you ever get the chance. Those guys rip live, and sound even BETTER than their albums in a live setting. 

Yeah, metal has crap, but the difference between metal and pop is that the crap metal doesn't really get far, while the pop does because the millions will eat the spoonful of shit that is a rehashed song 10 times a year. 

Close minded? No, I just don't find modern pop to be stimulating or enjoyable whatsoever. Call me close minded all you want while jamming the new Taylor Swift album, I couldn't give a shit if I tried. 



And Metallica sucks anyways buddy.


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 9, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> Musical integrity exists ONLY among musicians, non musicians don't care about it,




Milli Vanilli says you're incorrect.


----------



## ncfiala (Nov 9, 2012)

Like others have said, I don't think it's "cheating" because that word pertains to contests and games, and music is neither. However, I do think it is dishonest and demonstrates a lack of integrity. I listen to music to hear what they can do with their instruments, not to see how good they are with a computer.

I doubt any artists that I'm into do this, since it's probably most prevalent in djent and that over-the-top stuff like Rings of Saturn, etc., most of which has terrible tone and sounds like a huge steamy pile of digital poop.


----------



## oddcam (Nov 10, 2012)

Since some people here think many of the new-age metal studio techniques are not "metal," I'm interested to know where you, personally, draw the line. Is double-tracking unacceptable, or quantizing? Reverb? Compression? How much? What about punching in each riff, or just punching in for solos? Do we have to record with a cab and mike? What about drums, or bass? Can I use fake ones?


----------



## 3074326 (Nov 10, 2012)

I don't give a single fuck, as long as they don't lie about it. Personally, I'd never do it because I would want to be able to play it, but if you do it and it sounds good, then awesome. You've accomplished your goal - whether that was writing a song, or whether it was impressing yourself at how good you can sound, congrats. 

If I like it, I like it. I like some pop music. I don't like metal because of its foundations, counter-culture, angst, etc. I like it because the music is fucking good. That's what it's about to me. How it's made is just a process of building it. We've always pushed technology along to help us achieve our goals in society. It's pretty clear that music isn't any different. It's a big part of our society, after all. 

I see both sides. Neither are right or wrong - just be honest about it!


----------



## Demiurge (Nov 10, 2012)

I sought-out some of material from one of the "offending parties" referenced here. It certainly sounds like there is some time-based manipulation going on, but it becomes apparent that there are much greater sins than fibbing about recording speed.


----------



## slowro (Nov 10, 2012)

I don't think it matters too much, I have been listening to sequenced, manipulated, electronic music for years and had a lot of enjoyment from it BUT if they weren't "upfront" I would only feel cheated by the artist trying to pass themselves off as a much better player than they may be capable of. 
Guitar isn't a sport but if someone is a balls out great guitarist I want to hear them play


----------



## bigredmetfan (Nov 10, 2012)

I didn't read any of the posts above doin hope I didn't repeat.

We are living in an age where we should embrace technology. Back in the day I am sure led zeppelin or sabbath would kill to have the punching in and out for guitars and drum takes nowadays....just think how awesome sounding some of those records would be if they were recorded in a modern era??

I also think that if it speeds up the recording process then you should do what you have to do. Espeacially if you don't have a huge budget to make an album (and also CD sales have dropped, so why bother spending half a year recording a record, and spend $50,000 only to have 2000 copies of your record purchased, and the rest downloaded) 

The majority of People won't buy your record, and will download it. If people are going to take steps like this and dowload everything why should a musician slave over some parts in song that he can't nail the first few takes?


----------



## Sikthness (Nov 10, 2012)

every single band puts what they believe to be the best possible representation of their music on cd. If I wrote a riff I could play 99% flawlessly everytime, but could get it to sound absolutely 100% flawless by recording half speed, I would. Every musician you listen to cleans their shit up in the studio. Multiple takes. All that shit. This is no different than many other techniques used in recording to make the end product better. IMO, people getting butt hurt about this are clinging to the idea that its not pure because they don't have the technical chops to play or write interesting and technical music. So they will push this notion that they are pure, whereas a band like Haarp Machine or RoS are just cheaters. Its kinda like when I was watching history of grunge the other day, and they were interviewing Mudhoney, asking about Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, and Pearl Jam. Mudhoney was all bitter, saying those three bands got sucked into this corporate machine, and were mass marketed, and were essentially sell outs. So since they weren't capable of reaching the same level of success, respect, and creativity of their peers, they fell back on this idea that they stayed true, while others sold out.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 10, 2012)

Demiurge said:


> I sought-out some of material from one of the "offending parties" referenced here. It certainly sounds like there is some time-based manipulation going on, but it becomes apparent that there* are much greater sins than fibbing about recording speed*.



Such as?


----------



## Winspear (Nov 10, 2012)

I presume he's talking about the musical content


----------



## Overtone (Nov 10, 2012)

Punching in and speeding up are just so different I don't think that they can be compared. A good job punching in and out will mean that it's done at times when the track is totally silent, ie. after a note has completely decayed and before the next has begun. Done right, you won't hear that it's been done. Speeding something up totally throws the sound out of whack. More importantly, at least what you hear in a punched part of a recording is what the musician actually played.


----------



## sear (Nov 10, 2012)

Overtone said:


> Punching in and speeding up are just so different I don't think that they can be compared. A good job punching in and out will mean that it's done at times when the track is totally silent, ie. after a note has completely decayed and before the next has begun. Done right, you won't hear that it's been done. Speeding something up totally throws the sound out of whack. More importantly, at least what you hear in a punched part of a recording is what the musician actually played.


The "best" way to punch in is to have the musician play the final bar/chord/note/etc. before the next section and crossfade between the two takes. Impossible to pick up the transition unless the instrument itself sounds different, the mic moved, etc., even solo'd.


----------



## 3074326 (Nov 10, 2012)

bigredmetfan said:


> I didn't read any of the posts above doin hope I didn't repeat.
> 
> We are living in an age where we should embrace technology. Back in the day I am sure led zeppelin or sabbath would kill to have the punching in and out for guitars and drum takes nowadays....just think how awesome sounding some of those records would be if they were recorded in a modern era??



There's some magic in those old albums that is lost with current technology. Both have ups and downs. The next album I hear that sounds like an old Zeppelin album will be the first. There are plenty of mistakes and it's fairly sloppy, but mother of god, there's something about those albums that is better than the current crop of "perfect" metal albums. 

Both are/were perfect for their respective styles.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 11, 2012)

^^^agree about the magic of errors for sure, miss it to an extent. At the same time don't mind modern production, although I can't stand a song that has been so compressed it hurts my ears quite literally.

Black Dog has to be the most error ridden solo I have ever heard.  I think he was trying to push the envelope for the time and wasn't quite there yet, so sloppy...


----------



## bigredmetfan (Nov 11, 2012)

3074326 said:


> There's some magic in those old albums that is lost with current technology. Both have ups and downs. The next album I hear that sounds like an old Zeppelin album will be the first. There are plenty of mistakes and it's fairly sloppy, but mother of god, there's something about those albums that is better than the current crop of "perfect" metal albums.
> 
> Both are/were perfect for their respective styles.



For sure!! I just can't imagine what an old sabbath or zeppelin album would sound like if it had Mordern era recording twist (I always thought it would be interesting to see like if a band like zeppelin or say metallica would go back in time and re-record an album....like if Metallica went into the studio and re-recorded ride the lighting....man would it be cool


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 11, 2012)

bigredmetfan said:


> For sure!! I just can't imagine what an old sabbath or zeppelin album would sound like if it had Mordern era recording twist (I always thought it would be interesting to see like if a band like zeppelin or say metallica would go back in time and re-record an album....like if Metallica went into the studio and re-recorded ride the lighting....man would it be cool



Nope, Metallica should go back in time and go to college, never be "musicians" or at least, never let Wah evil entity possess Hammett


----------



## flint757 (Nov 11, 2012)

I imagine for 70's rock you'd end up, production wise, with something like Them Crooked Vultures, White Stripes, Caged Elephants, kind of vibe. Although they were attempting a retro sound so who knows.


----------



## m3l-mrq3z (Nov 11, 2012)

bigredmetfan said:


> For sure!! I just can't imagine what an old sabbath or zeppelin album would sound like if it had Mordern era recording twist (I always thought it would be interesting to see like if a *band like zeppelin or say metallica would go back in time and re-record an album.*...like if Metallica went into the studio and re-recorded ride the lighting....man would it be cool



The only band that should go back in time and re-record their whole discography is Symphony X.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Nov 11, 2012)

While i'm not one to judge people based on recording tricks and techniques, i will admit that i tend to prefer listening to stuff recorded in "real time". No cuts and stuff.


----------



## jarnozz (Nov 11, 2012)

To me it doesn't really matter what bands do to record their songs. If they are able to pull it of live or improvise an epic solo instead of the recorded one I'm fine with it. Personally I want to be able to play what I record and write. I find no value in recording at a lower bpm and speed it up. There is no better feeling then recording a pain in the ass solo and nailing it hard!


----------



## Sinborn (Nov 11, 2012)

One can take this line of thought to the extreme: "Fuck this overdubbing bullshit! Bands should record all members together, 1 take. It sounds fake otherwise. Danza IIII is bullshit because their guitarist recorded the drum parts. The HAARP Machine's new album is horrible because of all the overdubs."

Now I don't actually think this way, I'm just giving an example of an extreme opinion. I want metal recorded in the best way possible. If that means muting strings on guitars, half-time riff recording, triggers, autotune, then so be it. Just make sure you practice your stuff before making a fool of yourself live (cough Dragonforce).


----------



## budda (Nov 11, 2012)

I didn't want to read through 12 pages at 30 replies a page, so I'll put this here:

Has anyone mentioned the cost of producer, studio time, engineering as yet?


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 11, 2012)

budda said:


> Has anyone mentioned the cost of producer, studio time, engineering as yet?



Also, has anyone mentioned the value of pre-production, writing your material, rehearsing it, practicing on your own, and having it tight and possibly even demoed before you even enter the studio?

Sorry, speeding up a solo to save time in the studio is about as sad as finding out all my favorite cock rock guitar solos in the 80s were actually recorded by someone like Steve Lukather while the "guitar hero" slept one off in the corner, at the behest of the labels.

Pre-production. In the studio is not the place to find out you're sloppy.


----------



## SirMyghin (Nov 11, 2012)

I put a whole lot more stock in the idea than the execution, so you do what you have to do to make your idea come to life. Writing great music is harder than playing it.


----------



## budda (Nov 11, 2012)

I just simply assume a whole lot of time and energy was spent to put out the music I'm listening to, when it comes to modern metal albums . I really don't like the idea of recording then speeding up in the studio just to get a part down. I also listen to metal to relax or vent, I don't want it to become another source of stress.


----------



## HK_Derek (Nov 11, 2012)

Just my opinion, of course.


----------



## Superwoodle (Nov 11, 2012)

I would say that, music is music. Music has no rules, and you can't "cheat" without rules.


----------



## budda (Nov 11, 2012)

Some consider the guidelines to be more strict than others


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 11, 2012)

budda said:


> Some consider the guidelines to be more strict than others



Yep and the question is, those who consider the guidelines to be more strict ever composed and recorded a song?
Maybe they're just hobby players with that " alpha macho" behaviour.

Good music is good no matter who recorded it and how it was recorded.
Instruments olympics belong only to some kind of PLAYERS and not to musicians.
I never ever recorded myself using half speed cause I play/record for myself and friends, my pleasure is being able to compose and play my own stuff STILL I don't care if the whole world does it.


----------



## Hybrid138 (Nov 11, 2012)

Am I the only one that doesn't like the old sloppy style of old recordings?


----------



## The Reverend (Nov 11, 2012)

Hybrid138 said:


> Am I the only one that doesn't like the old sloppy style of old recordings?



No, I actually hate it as well. I often wonder what classic players and bands would sound like now, with all the tools we have at our disposal.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 11, 2012)

Hybrid138 said:


> Am I the only one that doesn't like the old sloppy style of old recordings?



It's funny that in all decades, everytime a new technology was born, a lot of people said it was cheating.
So there was "cheating" even in those old recordings and the majority of "cheating" haters can't even realize that.
"Cheating" doesn't belong only to digital era and probably will still exist till we finally play only midi stuff


----------



## flint757 (Nov 11, 2012)

I like the production style involved with analog, but I could take or leave the errors. Depends on how it adds/detracts from the music. 

The only time errors, for me, add to the music is when you wrote something one way, screwed up in the recording studio and realized you made a happy accident. I don't think the sloppy solo's of decades past would constitute what I just described.


----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Nov 12, 2012)

baptizedinblood said:


> Do you think Tosin Abasi got to where he is now faking both of his records w/ AAL and denying it?



I really doubt Tosin became famous solely based on his technical proficiency, that sort of thing just doesn't happen anymore. On the contrary, it's entirely likely that his compositional skills are what got him recognized, and that turns the tables a bit


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 12, 2012)

budda said:


> Some consider the guidelines to be more strict than others



So those people should practice even more.


----------



## Overtone (Nov 12, 2012)

Writing is a noble cause and I'm all for people who write material that pushes their boundaries. I don't hesitate to write something beyond where I am at the time. It's a good motivation to work harder because I want to bring that music to life. I also think that it's a more rewarding way to play something enough that it becomes second nature, as opposed to speed exercises or anything of that nature. The point being that while the writing comes first, I see the playing as an opportunity to push myself. 

Music is a reflection of the person playing it... their creativity, but also their drive and ethic. What half speed recording tells me about the person is that either their writing is out of touch with their capabilities, or that they felt it would be more work than they wanted to do to bring their capabilities up to their writing. I have far more respect for someone who can either put in the hard work, or have enough of a sense of their playing to hold back a bit and write something that works for them. 

If my view was really that guitar playing is a "competition" and technique mattered so much I'd spend some of my time listening to players like Cooley simply because they are winning in that regard. Ultimately I don't care how fast or technically anyone is playing and I never have.


----------



## BuckarooBanzai (Nov 12, 2012)

I don't feel like wading through 14 pages to see whether or not this has already been said, so I'll just say it: the ONLY problem with this is whether or not the band lies about it when asked, since that's deceptive. Pretty much every piece of gear or studio procedure could be argued to be dishonest if it remotely deviates from the act of playing live and recording in the room, and I see this as no different. The fact that instruments are recorded separately and to click tracks could be viewed by some as "cheating" since it's not completely true to a live performance situation, but that's preposterous in the same way that saying that time-stretching ruins the aesthetic experience of the music which it produces.


----------



## ArrowHead (Nov 12, 2012)

I think also that the genre is very important here.

EXTREME metal, shred music, and other forms of technical music are, by nature, based upon virtuosity. 

In these cases, tape trickery and comps are absolutely "cheating".

Def Leppard stacking notes into a chord to create a lush stereo spread? I couldn't care less. Sounded amazing, actually.

Worked with a drummer (another one) who sucked balls when it came to double bass. So instead of working at it or using trickery, he started developing a tendency to roll out triplets in groups on his kick while using his toms to hold down the faster doubled parts. It gave him an entirely unique sound, and made him a very sought out player and one of my favorites I've played with.

Could you imagine how that story would go if, at 16, he found he could just trigger, quantize, replace and hit all those double parts after all?

Those saying perfection, editing, and "cheating" are simply about creating music - yes. But it can also be the single biggest limit you place on yourself as a composer and musician. Some of the greatest self discovery and advancement we experience as technicians comes from trying to work our way around our own limits.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 12, 2012)

I actually find that the craziest, most innovative things that I right is when I'm not even touching a guitar. My original ideas get bastardized once I touch the guitar (formulaic) whereas if I just write it out it stays more true to my original vision.

Point being is technique can be just as much of a weakness as 'cheating'. People should just do what works best for them and that be that. This thread has gone much further than I would have expected.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 12, 2012)

flint757 said:


> This thread has gone much further than I would have expected.



Yeah, isn't good exchanging opinions?
And we have to clap our hands about the fact NOBODY here was rude, no matter how different opinions are still we all respected each others, disagreeing is never being rude, it's just having a different point of view.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Nov 12, 2012)

I think the only defining factor is really the intent behind the use of the technique. Are you doing it to make people think you are a guitar god, even though you're just a sloppy bitch with a tricked out DAW? In other words, are you marketing and calling attention to your amazing guitar skills that aren't actually real? if so, i think that's highly questionable. I don't think it's right. If you do the half-speed recording trick (doesn't have to be HALF time, a bit slower can be enough, depending on how extreme of an effect you want) in order to get a certain sound, and create a certain expression, then that's just another recording technique. If you can't pull it off as cleanly, then honestly as long as it sounds close enough then who gives a shit? You're not trying to push a mechanically perfected recording as if it was an organic natural single take. You're just sharing your musical expression as you meant for it to be presented.

I think Dragonforce are teetering on the edge here, because they are marketed as insane skillful players, yet more than that they are pushing this idea of insane over-the-top-to-the-point-of-comedy music, and their playing is just the vehicle of that, with the "recorded slow then sped up" technique being used to properly express that. The reason they are unable to do it as cleanly live often has a lot to do with them being piss drunk a lot of the time, anyway.

So really, it's a question of honesty. That is all.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Nov 12, 2012)

Music is music to me. It will bite those who do so in the ass live though. As long as it sounds good I don't care though.


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 12, 2012)

MF_Kitten said:


> So really, it's a question of honesty. That is all.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 12, 2012)

8Fingers said:


> Yeah, isn't good exchanging opinions?
> And we have to clap our hands about the fact NOBODY here was rude, no matter how different opinions are still we all respected each others, disagreeing is never being rude, it's just having a different point of view.





No, it is always good to exchange opinions.  I'm still surprised that it has gone on for this many pages though (surprised not concerned)...

Agreed, quite civil.


----------



## MF_Kitten (Nov 12, 2012)

8Fingers said:


>




uh. sure, yeah. i guess


----------



## Overtone (Nov 12, 2012)

All of this machinery making modern music CAN still be open hearted.


----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Nov 12, 2012)

Now that I've heard it I can say with certainty, I like RoS's album. It's brutally whimsical


----------



## Trent_Holeman (Nov 13, 2012)

*mod edit: learn to express an opinion without being seriously insulting to others*


----------



## 8Fingers (Nov 13, 2012)




----------



## flint757 (Nov 13, 2012)

Telling people to grow up and then calling them fags isn't exactly 'mature' either.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Nov 13, 2012)

Trent_Holeman said:


> *ranty thing*



y u mad tho?


----------



## Opion (Nov 13, 2012)

Trent_Holeman said:


> .




Not really trying to pander to any particular side here, even though there's a lot of emotion/opinion in this which I can dig. But I seem to remember Misha only claiming that he'd experimented with this thing once before, only to prove that he could recognize when a band was trying to get away with it (from the infamous THM thread)...the drums thing is pointless to debate because, let's face it, almost every metal band uses some sort of sampling even on a real kit for consistency.

Guess I should add my case here. I don't really care whether or not if Rings of Saturn can or can't play their stuff, but after listening to them, it sounds like they intended for their music to sound like that anyway...so why are people so surprised?  I understand the benefits to it in the studio environment, PeteyG's comment was absolutely perfect in nailing the more austere side of the argument. More music today is starting to gravitate towards a more calculated equation as opposed to raw, alive and with a soul.

I for one, welcome our new musically inclined overlords.


----------



## ilyti (Nov 13, 2012)

I'm starting to like this thread. Many great points have been made on both sides that I never thought or cared about. One thing that remains for me, and maybe someone can explain it to me, is what's wrong with just leaving it slow? A great riff is a great riff, why not just leave it at the tempo you can comfortably play it? I don't really see what can be expressed in a musical way just by speeding it up. Have more faith in the material itself rather than trying to enhance it in an artificial way. If there's a point other than showing off or saving time in the studio, I don't see it. An artistic point, I mean.
If you absolutely must have a fast part at that spot in the song and you're the only one who can't stay in time with the rest of the band; challenge your compositional skills by playing something else. Seems like a non-issue.

It's not that I have a moral objection to the technique or a beef against those who use it, I just don't understand what drives people to those means.


----------



## flint757 (Nov 13, 2012)

Well if you wrote something on paper or in your computer at a certain speed along with the riffs prior at a certain speed you might have no choice, compositionally, but to leave it up to tempo. If you slowed the part you couldn't play down you might have to slow the whole song down and the singing/growling or drums or whatever could just sound odd at that speed. That'd be one reason.

The counter argument would be to just write what you can play.


----------



## ilyti (Nov 13, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Well if you wrote something on paper or in your computer at a certain speed along with the riffs prior at a certain speed you might have no choice, compositionally, but to leave it up to tempo. If you slowed the part you couldn't play down you might have to slow the whole song down and the singing/growling or drums or whatever could just sound odd at that speed. That'd be one reason.


Okay, I get that. I'd still think a tempo change, if done right, would sound less unnatural than a sped-up instrument. Unless unnatural is exactly the type of feel you're going for (which has also been discussed).


----------



## flint757 (Nov 13, 2012)

Most likely, I have never attempted it, but when I change tempo or speed of a finished recording for tabbing reasons it is quite obvious so you are probably right. Suppose it depends on how much you slowed it down and how buried the instrument is. A solo on one string during parts with little vibrato would probably go unnoticed if sped up.


----------



## Deathspell Omega (Nov 13, 2012)

Trent_Holeman said:


> .



"Djentfags" ? Hah, never heard that one before. Funny indeed.  But you sound bitter. And I am not so sure if that`s the right way to jump to the defense of Rings Of Saturn.


----------



## AxeHappy (Nov 13, 2012)

Trent_Holeman said:


> Rant




Hey man, I've been a DragonForce fan since 2004ish. I would suggest just ignoring it.


----------



## no_dice (Nov 13, 2012)

This is still going?  I saw Rings of Saturn on the Slaughter Survivors tour a year or two ago, and the guitar playing was tight. I don't like their songs, but they seemed to be good at what they do. The drumming was nothing special though, haha. Definitely not the drilling speed you hear on the recordings. 

As far as the debate, I guess it doesn't really matter so long as you aren't using it to try and present yourself as a better guitarist than you are (like it matters anyway ). Slowing things down to practice is something a good majority of us do or have done, but using it as a shortcut to your finished product does seem like a cheap shortcut.


----------



## Captain Butterscotch (Nov 13, 2012)

The real question is: how is it done so I can do it too?


----------



## baptizedinblood (Nov 13, 2012)

Trent_Holeman said:


> .


----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Nov 13, 2012)

Trent_Holeman said:


> people still get on there knees and look to Periphery and Misha Mansoor as if they were gods which to me is absolute crap. Those guys rip off Meshuggah and are boring and aren't original by any means and yet ROS comes out and writes some original material and practices there asses off and works so hard to record and release there album and yet what happens?? They get nothing but disrespect and slander thrown at them.



Periphery really isn't all that similar to Meshuggah, and they never were. They rarely use polymeter of anykind, they stick to more traditional harmonic structures, and there's far, far more emphasis on melody than in Meshuggah. Periphery may not be "original" according to your arbitrary standards, but the fact remains that when they hit the scene they made waves, and one of the reasons for that is that they were playing a style of music that simply wasn't very well known, and they played it well.

That doesn't mean RoS isn't the same way, and I personally love their stuff, but trying to play up a non-existent rivalry between Djent and whatever you want to call RoS isn't going to get you anywhere, and is really pretty silly when you think about it. The fact of the matter is that their music has a level of perceived technicality to it, and any attempt to present that level of technicality as being higher than it is is going to rub fans the wrong way. I won't say RoS has done that, and I won't say that I'd like their music any less if they had, but you really shouldn't be surprised, given the traditionalist nature of your average metalhead, that the mere suggestion of such a thing caused an uproar, and you _definitely_ shouldn't try to quell that uproar by proclaiming that the majority of the people perpetuating it are trying to engage in some sort of genre war just to prevent an imaginary butthurt over having someone on the scene who can play guitar better than the guys in their favorite band.

I mean, really.


----------



## Overtone (Nov 13, 2012)

Those videos were whack... I don't think anybody is closed minded if they were able to tell that what they heard and what they saw were not the same.


----------



## goldsteinat0r (Nov 13, 2012)

Opion said:


> *the drums thing is pointless to debate because, let's face it, almost every metal band uses some sort of sampling even on a real kit for consistency.*



Woah! Thats totally inconsistent. A technical band can program every single drum hit on a grid with almost no regard for whether or not the parts can be played cleanly by the band's drummer (happens ALL the time), but a guitarist can't manipulate the speed of a recording that is actually played by them in the name of accuracy or to make it work in the context of a mix?

You do realize the drums on the first Periphery recordings were ENTIRELY programmed, right? Only later did they get Halpern behind the kit to record.

For the record though, I've seen Periphery live and Halpern is a straight up beast. 

Also for the record, my metal band used zero triggering or drum replacement on our last record. We did a few edits for accuracy after-the-fact, but very few. Our drummer practiced his ass off, because while we're not overly technical, we have a fair amount of technical drumming in our music.


----------



## Opion (Nov 13, 2012)

goldsteinat0r said:


> Woah! Thats totally inconsistent. A technical band can program every single drum hit on a grid with almost no regard for whether or not the parts can be played cleanly by the band's drummer (happens ALL the time), but a guitarist can't manipulate the speed of a recording that is actually played by them in the name of accuracy or to make it work in the context of a mix?
> 
> You do realize the drums on the first Periphery recordings were ENTIRELY programmed, right? Only later did they get Halpern behind the kit to record.
> 
> ...




I've been following Bulb since before Periphery put out their self-titled, so yes, I know that their first album's drums were completely programmed. You are saying it is perfectly OK for a band to slow down a recording and "punch-in" the notes for the sake of the recording, that's cool and all - but what's gonna happen when it comes time to play it live? I think that's where we start to lose artistic integrity, it is almost like cheating. You don't see Guthrie Govan punching in any of those notes "to make it work in the context of the mix". If a band can pull off a riff/drum beat/vocal melody they had to break down in the studio to get it to their expectations, then more power to them. 

Again, this is purely a matter of opinion. Some people like that robotic sound - I have to admit, I'm not entirely against it. But there is also a something purely badass about a lick that sounds inhuman, but is actually capable of being played in the artist's own weird way. By misleading your listener, you essentially lie to them.


Also, Periphery's S/T was played on a Roland TD-20 electronic kit. So while the samples are digital, the hits were done by a human, and only after recording did they fix any sloppy takes. Add to the fact they recorded it in an apartment. So there's a difference there, wouldn't you say? 

Edit: cleaned up stuff/clarified things.


----------



## Sikthness (Nov 13, 2012)

^not really any difference in my opinion. If they can play it w/ a reasonable degree of accuracy live, then there is no issue. Every instrument is cleaned up in studio. No singer to have ever lived sounds as good live as in the studio. New techniques will always be used in order to improve the recording process. these bands are cheating, you can't cheat at music.


----------



## Opion (Nov 13, 2012)

Sikthness said:


> ^not really any difference in my opinion. If they can play it w/ a reasonable degree of accuracy live, then there is no issue. Every instrument is cleaned up in studio. No singer to have ever lived sounds as good live as in the studio. New techniques will always be used in order to improve the recording process. these bands are cheating, you can't cheat at music.




That's kinda what I meant but I guess I should've clarified. If you have to take it slow piece by piece in the studio to get it right, I have no problem with that...as a bedroom recording guitarist I see the benefit to that. I agree - if you can play it live then by any means, I don't care how you track it. It's the bands that use it as a shortcut to songwriting that kinda rubs me the wrong way.

This argument potentially spirals off into the electronic vs. analog music debate which I really don't plan on getting into  But I do have to give a hand to everyone in this thread for keeping it together as previously mentioned. It's a worthy topic of debate and a lot of interesting opinions and perspectives are being brought to the floor, which is good.


----------



## BMU (Nov 14, 2012)

Great thread.

There is only one opinion that counts. Ron Jarzombek's (obviously). If he has to learn to play his stuff for real, so does everyone. 

So here are the rules, the Jarzombek rules:
1. It's ok to record piece by piece and struggle later to learn it all.
2. But you have to be able to play it in the first place. 
3. If you can't, you need to re-write it simpler or slower until you can.


(This URL does not exist any longer unfortunately. I saved this a long time ago 'cos I love this part of the interview so much.)


"http://spinelanguage.com/2010/02/19/an-odd-amount-of-questions-with-ron-jarzombek/"
"Even after being introduced to you with Blotted Science, I still dont think the new fans are in 100% agreement that youre really a human being and not some hyper-advanced alien fretboard acrobat. Are you still challenged by anything on the guitar? For instance, do you ever struggle or get frustrated while trying to play some of your own riffs and licks?

Yes, as a matter of fact, playing my stuff can be a bitch. I had to re-learn a bunch of stuff when I started to put my instructional DVDs together and some of it was a headache to remember and get tight. Just to do the Blotted Science rehearsal nearly a year after we recorded the CD was a real bitch. Most of the stuff that I put together these days is written on computer, then is learned on guitar. *If things are too fast to play, I have to modify things*. And at my age I barely remember anything. Also, a lot of licks that I play on current CDs are barely rehearsed. I get them learned well enough to record them, then hit the record button. Then move on to the next part."


----------



## Overtone (Nov 14, 2012)

Ron is the man. One thing on the back of my mind throughout this thread is that if he can actually play his stuff, then that is what everybody else should be aspiring towards. I doubt Loomis ever did any half speed recording or quantization either....


----------



## goldsteinat0r (Nov 14, 2012)

Opion said:


> I've been following Bulb since before Periphery put out their self-titled, so yes, I know that their first album's drums were completely programmed. You are saying it is perfectly OK for a band to slow down a recording and "punch-in" the notes for the sake of the recording, that's cool and all - but what's gonna happen when it comes time to play it live? I think that's where we start to lose artistic integrity, it is almost like cheating. You don't see Guthrie Govan punching in any of those notes "to make it work in the context of the mix". If a band can pull off a riff/drum beat/vocal melody they had to break down in the studio to get it to their expectations, then more power to them.
> 
> Again, this is purely a matter of opinion. Some people like that robotic sound - I have to admit, I'm not entirely against it. But there is also a something purely badass about a lick that sounds inhuman, but is actually capable of being played in the artist's own weird way. By misleading your listener, you essentially lie to them.
> 
> ...



I wasn't saying that its perfectly ok (in fact I really don't have an opinion on this with respect to anyone's music but my own, really), just pointing out that there was a serious double standard there, imho.


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 14, 2012)

Cheating ? You mean, like using reverb ?

Modifying a recording to let you hear something else than what was played exists since recordings are done. That some people make speed different in this regard compared to tone is, to me, irrelevant. A recording is full of cheats, by design.


----------



## Narrillnezzurh (Nov 15, 2012)

Well, you can manipulate reverb just as easily in a live setting as you can in the studio. Time stretching's a bit of a bitch to pull off live


----------



## rectifryer (Nov 15, 2012)

I didn't watch the whole video, I just scrolled along the buffer bar and saw that the video was nothing more then complete and utter embarrassment.


Also, there is nothing more I want to do right now then to just reach through this computer screen and slap you in the face. With a fish. A rainbow trout more specifically. And even more specifically, a dead and rotting one. So this way, every time you think of posting the link to this video on any other forum you may just happen to frequent, you will remember the smell of rotting rainbow trout sliding across your greasy face, and quite possibly, refrain from ever posting it again, in fear that another do-gooder may just reach out and slap you with another dead fish. Preferably a large mouth bass this time.


----------



## Sephael (Nov 15, 2012)

If it is only intended to be heard recorded, remember some people don't care to play live, then what ever means you need is fair game. Special effects, green screens, clipped together scenes, etc are perfectly acceptable in a movie. If the music is awesome and you wrote it, I could care less how you get it done to release the track. However, if you plan to play it live and can't come near reproducing it then it is a different matter.


----------



## baptizedinblood (Nov 15, 2012)

Sephael said:


> If it is only intended to be heard recorded, remember some people don't care to play live, then what ever means you need is fair game. Special effects, green screens, clipped together scenes, etc are perfectly acceptable in a movie. If the music is awesome and you wrote it, I could care less how you get it done to release the track. However, if you plan to play it live and can't come near reproducing it then it is a different matter.




Exactly. You nailed it.

In this case, it's the latter; a band records and tours and can't keep up with their own record. It's a fucking joke really.


----------



## ItWillDo (Nov 15, 2012)

Honestly this sort of threads is what shows the true face of the metal-scene. A cesspit of slander towards other bands and eachother worthy of a cover for The Daily Mail. 

I'm not a huge fan of speeding recordings up myself, but if this is what you're going after, so be it. Just don't be a dick about it and lie. Aside from the recording-aspect and all other garbage that has come up in this thread, I have to say that I do like Rings of Saturn for compositional reasons. They have a unique anorganic sound, and it fits their music and image entirely.

The problem here is that the metalscene is flooded with self-righteous elitist cunts that can't wait to bash a fellow musician for whatever reason they can find, in order to compensate for their own inadequacies. You're not into overly technical stuff? Great, glad you shared, don't listen to it. But the guys that are playing this stuff have devoted A LOT of time practicing and polishing their technique in order to be able to perform this and the least you could do is show some respect.

Same goes for people that bash musicians that aren't into technical stuff. By losing the technical-aspect, these guys will have to resort to other techniques and methods to keep their music interesting and in some cases this might be just as challenging as writing that sweep-lead you're so proud of. 



Despite the wall of text, there is just one thing I'm trying to say. Instead of trying to bring eachother down to inflate your own ego or put your insecurities to rest, try to find something to praise eachother about and be a positive influence upon eachother.


----------



## rectifryer (Nov 15, 2012)

If you can play it live I give absolutely no fucks as to how it was transcribed to a portable media.

Infact, I appreciate the extra engineering effort involved in assuring my listening experience is optimum.

It will do is on to it. Half of you are self-loathing, neck-bearded, basement-dwelling wannabes that will pick apart anything even at the most minimal of consequences to your taste. 

I use to be like you. Then I tried extenz, got my promotion at mcdonalds, and found a girl to friend zone me. Its been downhill ever since.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 15, 2012)

I record at full speed and then slow it down 50%, because DROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONE.


----------



## rectifryer (Nov 15, 2012)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I record at full speed and then slow it down 50%, because DROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONE.



holy shit I am crying


----------



## BornToLooze (Nov 16, 2012)

Honestly, when I record stuff if it isn't tight enough I can double track it and not here any difference, as in any sort of noise, vibrato, barely off time, anything, it gets deleted. No editing out mistakes, no speeding it up, no studio magic. If I can't record it perfect in one take I need to practice more.

But anyways, brb, I just found out I can play this.


----------



## ROAR (Nov 27, 2012)

John Lennon asked George Martin to play a piano solo for In My Life.
Martin did but found out what he wrote he couldn't play at tempo of the song,
so he recorded it half speed an octave lower, then doubled the tape speed.
This was 1965, and everyone thought EVERYTHING The Beatles did was crazy.
Don't put limitations on your creativity friends


----------



## protest (Nov 27, 2012)

Andromalia said:


> Cheating ? You mean, like using reverb ?
> 
> Modifying a recording to let you hear something else than what was played exists since recordings are done. That some people make speed different in this regard compared to tone is, to me, irrelevant. *A recording is full of cheats, by design.*



True.

As long as you can play it live no one should care. We buy the albums to hear the music as it was intended to be heard. We go to shows to watch the musicians perform their songs. Shows aren't as clean as an album, and they shouldn't be. An album should be as clean as possible, and people have been using different techniques to make this happen for years. Do people also think its wrong to play a song in smaller sections for recording? Or to do mulitple takes?

Sometimes guys write stuff that they can't play. They record it however they can to make it sound the way they want. However, I'll bet you 99% of those guys then work their butts off to be able to get it down well enough to be able to play it consistently at their shows.

I understand that when you hear recorded at half speed you think "oh some dude who cant play recorded a song slow and sped it up to make people think he's the next Petrucci," but in reality it's most likely someone trying to clean up a difficult section because they don't want their recording to sound like ass.

Yes, me doing half speed recording of myself playing at a normal speed, and then speeding it up to make people think I'm amazing is certainly disingenuous. However, I doubt that's what most of these professional musicians are doing.


----------



## Sinborn (Nov 27, 2012)

Use of pro tools in extreme ways to accomplish your musical vision is not frowned upon by me. What I can't stand is hiding behind lies. If you track your hard riffs at half speed, be honest. I understand recordings are expected to sound top-notch. I understand you have short deadlines and tight budgets. I am not ok with complete denial of quite obvious recording techniques being used.

Any band usually has to prove themselves live. I guess one just needs to produce a nice board mix of a live show into a youtube video to prove your skill to a doubtful internet.


----------

