# Half-Speed Recording Trend



## Adonai678 (Jul 5, 2016)

Hey guys,
So I wish I could provide examples of some bands recording their stuff at half speed or a sped up rather, but that would be in bad taste and I'm not trying to brew up hate. But I've noticed a huuge trend in bands (and some shredders) putting out videos and small recordings of them "playing" their .... and its usually really obvious to the trained ear that they CANNOT play that that clean and certain notes ring out and sustain too much to be true. Don't get me wrong, we all know of the awesome shredders out there and bands that have insane guitarists, but I think there's some integrity lost when you don't openly admit it and shower in the compliments. And look, I'm not really knocking the technique or "trick" of recording it at a slow temp then speeding it up... as shady as it is.. I am just criticizing those who put stuff out there and give off this air of "I have transcended mankind" in their playing. Again, all of this is soapbox stuff and I'm sure these dudes are still really talented, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when you aren't open. I wish you all good energy at the end of the day 

tl;dr people are recording at half speed and being all shady


----------



## A-Branger (Jul 5, 2016)

any proof of stuff recorded at "lower speeds" and speed up in post?

or you are taking that assumption due to the artist not being able to play their solo "clean" on a guitar playtrough?


speed up stuff would trow the guitar tone out of the window. Maybe a tinny speed up not THAT much?. But still it would sound awfull, and its a risky thing for the player, as if he/she cant play that on a controled environment of a studio how they pretend to play that in live? when usually stuff gets played bit faster. I would say some people might use a slight speed adjust just to compensate for a lack of consistent tempo of the solo rather than make things eassier (like the guy finish his solo a 1/16-1/8 note before the bar finish as he was playing ahead of the tempo during the whole solo), but due to being a "solo" it doesnt need to be "precise and perfect tempo", so this scenario would be very very very limited

regarding on the "clean" playing for a record vs a youtube playtrough, then there is a lot of recording tricks done to make your tone as clean as possible. Plus also remember that in the context of a mix you might dotn notice the other notes ringing out (if they happen to let those go in the recording)

usually on a recording they guy have been pleying the solo for sooooo many takes that hes already in perfect shape to do a clean passage. As long he plays 1 out of 35 times then thats the point of a recording, to get the best performance. Some guys are able to play their stuff on the first go clean and on tempo, other people need to do it 30 times and they still might be slight out of tempo (this is when you know who grew up practicing with a metronome and who didnt)

- then they could be just play one lick at a time. So the solo you hear is actually 4 different takes patched togueter

-also all the different tricks to stop the other strings ringing. By putting a headband on the neck, using masking tape on the strings not being played, and using a buddy to mute the other strings. All this so the player can just concentrate on getting the solo done and not on muting technique

ect ect


----------



## OmegaSlayer (Jul 6, 2016)

Some names associated with speeding up the tempos are Dragonforce and Ring Of Saturn.
Just mentioning what is said around the net, but I have no proof whatsoever.


----------



## Dayn (Jul 6, 2016)

To put it nicely, I honestly don't give a .....

It only matters if it's meant to be played live. Apart from Sam most likely being drunk when he stuffed up the intro to Through the Fire and the Flames, they nailed the entire set up to speed perfectly when I saw them live. It was an incredible performance.

Not that I have any reason to believe they record it slower anyway besides unfounded rumours. It sounds good, and they play it live extremely well. That's all that matters.


----------



## marcwormjim (Jul 6, 2016)

Now that we're firmly in the age of guitarists getting endorsements strictly for videos of themselves playing "crazy" stuff in their bedrooms, I must admit I've experienced a few disappointing realizations that I'm not watching an honest take: 

Whether it's the audio track having been replaced with a separately-recorded/tweaked "perfect" take (sometimes it's a pantomime cover; with the audio being the original, copyrighted full-band recording), awkward limb movements/fast bedroom clocks implying speed shenanigans, or just a lot of really sloppy playing that has multiple HD camera angles cutting between obviously different takes under a separately-recorded audio track that was also sloppy, I end up feeling bad for giving these channels another hit. 

When the number of hits on a video is the bottom line, it's easy to understand why capable players cut corners in the production. But it's just as easy for players punching above their weight to simply check the boxes needed to clickbait themselves toward getting free gear or at least a gimmick-earned spotlight on ultimate-guitar or metalsucks.

Guthrie Govan owes his career to YouTube - So it can't be all bad, and there's always room to grift any system. I feel it's the hype bandwagons found on sites such as this who are to blame for elevating fools and charlatans into heroes. 

They shouldn't even be bothering with production-cheats: All anyone needs to be famous is to be easily hated. And so I try to just bear in mind that many of these shenanigan-artists will never get enough of a push from YouTube to quit their dayjobs, no matter how many metal rearrangements or thumbnails with easily-hateable faces they upload with "exclusive" bonus footage to Patreon.


----------



## Floppystrings (Jul 6, 2016)

I have tried it before to see if I could tell myself if it was altered...

It's pretty hard to tell honestly.


----------



## Sumsar (Jul 6, 2016)

Well if we widen the scope to music in general, pretty much everything is fake to some degree.

Vocals: Editing editing and editing, and a good amount of autotune / pitch correction is done for 99% * of vocals, both in metal and even more in the pop world. Also a ton of compression and volume automation helps producers make vocals sound 'perfect'.

Drums: Sample replacement, time-alignment (beat-detective) or even completely programming the entire drumkit are pretty much the industry standard for drums these days. Few bands make due without, but say 90% * of productions use some or all of these tricks to fake or improve performances.

Bass: Programming or editing-till-death as well as pitchcorrection (autotune) to deal with intonation problems and / or sloppy playing.

Guitar: Editing, a thousand noisegates, a thousand takes (and edits), note by note takes, use of all sorts of muting devices to make stuff sound cleaner etc. And apparently some people also just speedup there performances to improve them.

All in all, little of what you hear on albums these days are real, or atleast they are only partly real. Some do it because they like that production style, and others because they want to appear better than they are.

I remember being shocked when I first heard people like Eyal Levy and Joey Sturgis talking about all these tricks as industri standards, and how it is rare NOT to do it, but having done a good amount of production myself at this point it is actually really easy to hear that most stuff out there is faked to some degree.

So do some people record at slower tempos and speed it up? Probably, but it is just one of many ways to 'cheat' in audio production, and it is done for everything.

It seems it is no longer only 'fix it in the mix/editing' but 'improve it in the mix/editing'.

Personally I prefer music that has some flaws and sound like they actually used real drums, guitars and vocals. Like the latest Gorguts album.

* Yes I pull numbers out of my ass.


----------



## ArtHam (Jul 6, 2016)

Epitaph by Necrophagist was almost entirely recorded note for note. It was a sound they went for. They recorded guitars for that for 8 months. Yet it's being treated like one of the biggest masterpieces in metal. Can't be too much of a big deal then. 

Yes they can play it live. 

But they didn't record it that way.

It's a huge deal when the Haarp Machine does it, but Necrophagist and Periphery can get away with it.


----------



## Winspear (Jul 6, 2016)

A-Branger said:


> speed up stuff would trow the guitar tone out of the window. Maybe a tinny speed up not THAT much?



You would be surprised. When you think sped up it's easy to think of chipmunk voice type stuff, but you can record a guitar DI and more than double the tempo before reamping it and it sounds fine. And then there's the sampling/heavy editing method that doesn't actually involve speeding up. 

The giveaway is in the attack though. It's something the trained ear can hear for sure. But that's what makes it appealing to do, like mentioned above re. Necrophagist. 

I have nothing against the method at all. When it comes to music, I care only for the end product. Nothing says to me that certain genres have to provide more authenticity or performance than say, programmed electronic music. It's just something lots of people have come to expect, listening to metal for at least some instrumental prowess alongside pure musical enjoyment. That's fine, but I think it's also important to be able to accept musical output no matter how it was made. After all, where do you draw the line between it being ok to disregard 'programmed' metal as 'fake' in some way, and it _not_ being ok to be an elitist that says electro etc. "isn't real music"? 

The only problem I have is with people who will deny it, or use it to their advantage e.g guitar solo contests. The Lucas Mann thing was pretty hilarious. Absolutely anyone who has done studio work knew _exactly_ what they were hearing, but he adamantly denied it because he knew the main fanbase wouldn't know or care. That, I think, is wrong. On a personal level. But takes nothing away from his music itself.


----------



## Lorcan Ward (Jul 6, 2016)

OmegaSlayer said:


> Some names associated with speeding up the tempos are Dragonforce and Ring Of Saturn.
> Just mentioning what is said around the net, but I have no proof whatsoever.



Dragonforce don't speed up their tracks. Its a lot of takes edited together which so many bands do. They just got a lot of hate for it because their live performances went to s**t, which was mostly down to drinking.

Rings of Saturn is an obvious one thats been discussed a lot on this board. 

Like them The Haarp Machine and tons of other bands edit together notes and tiny takes to get ridiculously tight guitars:


I think that sounds amazing. Its so clear you can hear every note. With most other bands it sounds like guitar pro.


----------



## Winspear (Jul 6, 2016)

I'm tracking my EP with two guitars recorded normally and two recorded at 70% blended in. The sped up tracks add a little clarity to the original doubletrack, _and _you get the fatness of quadtracking without the generally expected loss of clarity over doubletracking.


----------



## drmosh (Jul 6, 2016)

ArtHam said:


> Epitaph by Necrophagist was almost entirely recorded note for note. It was a sound they went for. They recorded guitars for that for 8 months. Yet it's being treated like one of the biggest masterpieces in metal. Can't be too much of a big deal then.



proof?


----------



## ArtHam (Jul 6, 2016)

drmosh said:


> proof?



Of course none other than asking 3 of the 4 people who play on it about it and them telling me. It is one of the industries' worst kept 'secrets'. It's not like anybody would upload videos of them recording single notes going 'this is how we recorded epitaph', so no tangible proof there I'm afraid. Even when the album was released I remember people talking about the fact they recorded guitars for 8 months and putting single notes together.


----------



## Demiurge (Jul 6, 2016)

For the most part, I believe that a recording is primarily about the music composition itself and that most production methods & tricks are fair game. The band assumes the risk to their reputation if they can't play the material as well live.

There is some music, however, whose _raison d'etre_ is the virtuosity of the performance itself and it's only in those cases where studio trickery may be disconcerting. Really, for a lot of "tech" metal, the only thing going for it is the impressive performance of the material that by itself isn't always compelling.


----------



## The Mirror (Jul 6, 2016)

Though it's not the main topic of this thread at this point I definitely want to take up the cudgels for Dragonforce.

They are not my kind of music, they are cheesy af, but I saw them somewhat around '11 and they were spot on. 

They played everything perfectly and even included those ridiculous trampolines in their performance. 

They can play all the songs and they don't seem to me to be the guys who have to "speed up" their recordings to be better or stuff. 

Of course they had their bad days after suddenly becoming a household band (graspop' 06 is all I have to say), but for more than 6 years they are a technically excellent band.


----------



## DLG (Jul 6, 2016)

I don't care if they do it or not, I think the results sound stupid. 

I have no desire to listen to something that sounds like a guitar pro project. 

There are plenty tech bands from Watchtower to Spiral Architect to Martyr and Theory of Practice who have been able to record hyper technical metal music without making it sound like midi.


----------



## mightypudge (Jul 6, 2016)

EtherealEntity said:


> I'm tracking my EP with two guitars recorded normally and two recorded at 70% blended in. The sped up tracks add a little clarity to the original doubletrack, _and _you get the fatness of quadtracking without the generally expected loss of clarity over doubletracking.



Honestly, that is kind of fascinating. Never heard of this technique before. I'd be interested in hearing the results.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 6, 2016)

It's music, not the olympics.


----------



## Random3 (Jul 6, 2016)

If you make something that sounds good then no one should care how you arrived at that sound. It doesn't matter if the entire thing is 100% digital.

However, the moment you start lying to people and claim that you are actually that good is the moment where it is no longer ok.


----------



## Tree (Jul 6, 2016)

drmosh said:


> proof?



I'm pretty sure the recording engineer that worked on Epitaph mentioned it on the old Sneap forum.


----------



## jerm (Jul 6, 2016)

Music is art.

Let the artist decide how they want to sound.

If they want to sound robotic as hell, so much to the point that they can't pull it off live, that is their prerogative.

For studio bands/bedroom warriors, I think they can get away with a much clinical/edited sound because they won't be playing live.

However if your going to be playing live at 250 bpm and you recorded your solo at 150 bpm, you better practice that stuff before you hit the stage....


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Jul 6, 2016)

OmegaSlayer said:


> Some names associated with speeding up the tempos are Dragonforce and Ring Of Saturn.
> Just mentioning what is said around the net, but I have no proof whatsoever.




A friend of mine was in Rings of Saturn for a while and said Lucas was full of ..... They absolutely record at slower speed and note-by-note.


----------



## sharedEQ (Jul 6, 2016)

marcwormjim said:


> Now that we're firmly in the age of guitarists getting endorsements strictly for videos of themselves playing "crazy" stuff in their bedrooms, I must admit I've experienced a few disappointing realizations that I'm not watching an honest take:
> 
> Whether it's the audio track having been replaced with a separately-recorded/tweaked "perfect" take (sometimes it's a pantomime cover; with the audio being the original, copyrighted full-band recording), awkward limb movements/fast bedroom clocks implying speed shenanigans, or just a lot of really sloppy playing that has multiple HD camera angles cutting between obviously different takes under a separately-recorded audio track that was also sloppy, I end up feeling bad for giving these channels another hit.



My view is that if the song is an original they are playing on YT, that they can use multiple takes or sync video over previously recorded material. This is no different than what pro players do.

If someone is playing a cover however, the point is to demonstrate that they can play it. If they are using multiple takes, camera angles, any tricks, that defeats the purpose of the video.

I hate the YT bedroom wankers who put extra effort into playing covers. You know the guys who have a fan setup to blow their hair and record in front of a green screen. That is bull.... stuff.


----------



## Mathemagician (Jul 6, 2016)

Honestly? The end product an artist decides to put out is their "music" if they used every "cheat" in the book to get there then so be it, because I'm judging the final output. And if they are truly bad, but the album sounds good, then other more skilled musicians may be inspired to produce something in the genre/sound and could push the envelope further. 

It's just another "style", IMO. Personally I'd like artists to just not deny what they're doing, if it was good enough for you to put your name on it then just own it. But I won't fault someone for it if it means they get paid more. There isn't exactly a ton of money in music if one isn't a mainstream act. No reason to be elitist, $0.02.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 6, 2016)

Top five counter-arguments to this thread:

5. I don't speed up the recording, I just remove all of the silence between notes.
4. I actually just play one note, and then copy/paste that note throughout the entire song, just pitch-shifted to save time.
3. I just program guitar in Midi and reamp it with the new AxeFX/Kemper to make it sound more like a real guitar than an actual real guitar sounds in a recording.
2. I actually play at double speed and slow it down to regular speed in post.
1. I don't record at half speed, I just hire real guitarists to play my parts perfectly.


----------



## extendedsolo (Jul 6, 2016)

I have heard the "it's art maaaaan you should be able to art how you want maaaaan!" argument frequently. While I usually agree with that, I don't when it comes to putting notes together and speeding it up. Also that statement is one of the biggest cop outs when it comes to deflecting criticism. Yeah I get it when people say "WHY DON"T YOU SING AND NOT SCREAM!" Fine. It's getting in the way of your vision. I know that bush oasis sped up their recordings in the 90s, but that was to make it 'pop' more. Give it extra energy. Thats fine! Recording at half speed or doing small takes and then cut/paste together is not art anymore than getting an adult coloring book is art. Yeah it looks nice and cool whatever, but the work is halfway done by a computer. It's just lazy. I think we are in an age where we are trying to capture perfectly manufactured performances. Everything has to be clean, perfect, and in tune 100% of the time. To me that's boring. There are people that do this that I like, but they are pop artists. It's kind of a bummer that metal/rock/prog is starting to go this way too. To me, those genres should be a blow back to perfect performances. It's just really uninteresting. Show me a part of yourself. Show me what you are really made of.

I honestly think that we are going to look back at this time in music's history the same way we look back at bad 80s songs. Just over processed schlock that we will think "I can't believe that ever sold". In the pop realm the sound is now "create a ton of space for the melody, minimal, drenched in reverb". It's going to sound dated really fast.


----------



## jerm (Jul 6, 2016)

^So then a super car built in a state of the art facility with computer programmed robots isn't art either.....


----------



## drmosh (Jul 6, 2016)

Isn't this "trend" from like 5 years ago?


----------



## Noxon (Jul 6, 2016)

As long as it doesn't get into Lucas Mann levels of abuse, I'm fine with using technology to one's advantage to make records sound as good as possible.


----------



## lemeker (Jul 6, 2016)

Dayn said:


> To put it nicely, I honestly don't give a .....
> 
> It only matters if it's meant to be played live. Apart from Sam most likely being drunk when he stuffed up the intro to Through the Fire and the Flames, they nailed the entire set up to speed perfectly when I saw them live. It was an incredible performance.
> 
> Not that I have any reason to believe they record it slower anyway besides unfounded rumours. It sounds good, and they play it live extremely well. That's all that matters.



The only thing that I have heard about Dragonforce was that they didn't play solos in one take, or played the riff once or twice then edited it. I've never heard that they sped up anything. Live they were sloppy yes, but they were bouncing all over the stage, so i wasn't surprised about that.

As far as Necrophagist recording note for note, thats no biggie either. If im understanding the note for note recording comment, Def Leppard did the same thing on Hysteria, to keep the notes clean and clear, nothing out of the ordinary there. It just seems like an extremely tedious way to record. I absolutely do not think Necrophagist was sped up at all. 

I saw them with Dying Fetus and Cannibal Corpse a few years back at the Rave in Milwaukee, and they were tight tight tight(so tight i had to say it 3 times).....I was dead center watching them play too. Fetus was amazing too, guitarist was behind the merch counter warming up before the gig too, how cool is that.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 6, 2016)

extendedsolo said:


> I have heard the "it's art maaaaan you should be able to art how you want maaaaan!" argument frequently. While I usually agree with that, I don't when it comes to putting notes together and speeding it up. Also that statement is one of the biggest cop outs when it comes to deflecting criticism. Yeah I get it when people say "WHY DON"T YOU SING AND NOT SCREAM!" Fine. It's getting in the way of your vision. I know that bush oasis sped up their recordings in the 90s, but that was to make it 'pop' more. Give it extra energy. Thats fine! Recording at half speed or doing small takes and then cut/paste together is not art anymore than getting an adult coloring book is art. Yeah it looks nice and cool whatever, but the work is halfway done by a computer. It's just lazy. I think we are in an age where we are trying to capture perfectly manufactured performances. Everything has to be clean, perfect, and in tune 100% of the time. To me that's boring. There are people that do this that I like, but they are pop artists. It's kind of a bummer that metal/rock/prog is starting to go this way too. To me, those genres should be a blow back to perfect performances. It's just really uninteresting. Show me a part of yourself. Show me what you are really made of.
> 
> I honestly think that we are going to look back at this time in music's history the same way we look back at bad 80s songs. Just over processed schlock that we will think "I can't believe that ever sold". In the pop realm the sound is now "create a ton of space for the melody, minimal, drenched in reverb". It's going to sound dated really fast.



That's a double standard, though.

I can understand that metalheads are supposed to be purists, but obviously, that's in flux right now, or else this discussion would not be necessary.

I think the culture has driven itself into insanity. I highly prefer recordings to just be the artists playing their songs. Rock & Roll and its derivatives should not be about pristine audio recordings costing half a million dollars to produce. I like the idea of throwing a microphone in front of an amp and just playing, but anybody who does that nowadays would be immediately shunned and ridiculed.

The fact that pop music embraces the culture of heavy autotune, programming, sequencing, etc., isn't a free pass, to me.

I'm not going to blame artists for doing stuff like this, although I'd prefer them not to, but this is on industry culture, love it or hate it.

And Bush, a grunge band, speeding their songs up to make them snappier...why not just play them that much faster to make them snappier?! If anybody should be dropping a mic in front of the band to record, it should be grunge bands and punk bands.

So, there are multiple facets to this. Music is art. Recordings are painted canvases... If someone has to speed up a recording to make it work, why not? But also why? If the answer is to make them sound superhuman, then IDK, if they can pull it off live, then I guess there's no harm done, but if it sets unrealistic expectations for budding players, then it's just another cultural refrain that human beings are not good enough for their own expectations.


----------



## abeigor (Jul 6, 2016)

ArtHam said:


> Epitaph by Necrophagist was almost entirely recorded note for note. It was a sound they went for. They recorded guitars for that for 8 months. Yet it's being treated like one of the biggest masterpieces in metal. Can't be too much of a big deal then.
> 
> Yes they can play it live.
> 
> ...



That's interesting about Necrophagist...where'd you find that info?


----------



## Wildebeest (Jul 6, 2016)

I don't care as long as it sounds good and they aren't lying about it.


----------



## ArtDecade (Jul 6, 2016)

I dunno. Most of the albums that I listen to were recorded before Pro-Tools was even a thing. Stop listening to new music.


----------



## extendedsolo (Jul 6, 2016)

jerm said:


> ^So then a super car built in a state of the art facility with computer programmed robots isn't art either.....



Yeah, just ....ty art. It's art in the same way building a house is. Although I guess some people consider tribal tattoos art also. 

What's more is you are equating basically what is an intangible object or idea with something that is tangible. I can make the argument that anything is art and therefore it can't be questioned but it's just a terrible argument. Math has some art in it, but we all know things can be incorrect. Most subjects are interconnected in some way, but this is specifically about music not cars. 

Good way to argue though, just moving the goal posts. Is someone going to pop in with a definition of art from the dictionary next? That's another favorite of mine.


----------



## Low Baller (Jul 6, 2016)

Trying to look at this unbiased. There is a lot of studio tricks and always has been some may seem ethical some not. Using athletes as an analogy you got athletes trying to build strength, speed, and master their sport. Some say supplements like protein, is OK. Others may say pre workout is ok others may disagree. Then let's throw in steroids many will say unethical because it makes these athletes superhuman it's a short cut and it's cheating. So people may wonder how all these athletes who had so much passion could do this. One way of looking at it is long seasons no rest time for the body and trying to keep up with others and stand out many who use roids so they want to even the playing field that's when they start using.

So putting that analogy into metal, metal is all about being tight, clean and flawless. The bar has been raised and artist have been using studio tricks for their recordings. Also there are many genuine great players out there. So regardless if they're trying to reach the bar or even push the bar by trying to be even tighter that's when things like midi or half speed comes in. Just like steroids, it is making results past human potential. So it depends some may say it's ok as long as they play it live. Others feel cheated which makes sense. Now also people are saying backing tracks are being used a lot live. However you look at it its up to you. Of course too there are many talented people who can play super tight I am not saying there isn't.

Me personally I wouldn't feel good if I put out a midi track or sped up my playing and lied about it. I may not be able to play like a robot perfectly but I practice and stand by what I do. Even if it has flaws and sounds human I can at least say it was me who was playing. If other people feel midi tracks and speed up recordings are the new standard than call me a stubborn old man. If people want that sound they can do it I am good though. I do wish if someone released a midi track through fractal or what not they would be honest. I have nothing against electronic music and you could at least respect they're doing their thing and being transparent. Which people may dig electronic music is big right now.


----------



## extendedsolo (Jul 6, 2016)

Low Baller said:


> Me personally I wouldn't feel good if I put out a midi track or sped up my playing and lied about it. I may not be able to play like a robot perfectly but I practice and stand by what I do. Even if it has flaws and sounds human I can at least say it was me who was playing. If other people feel midi tracks and speed up recordings are the new standard than call me a stubborn old man. If people want that sound they can do it I am good though. I do wish if someone released a midi track through fractal or what not they would be honest. I have nothing against electronic music and you could at least respect they're doing their thing and being transparent. Which people may dig electronic music is big right now.



I think it's like someone else telling you what to say to win a girlfriend/boyfriend. Yes you technically said the words, but it wasn't your words that did it. It wasn't you or an extension of you. It was someone else. Yeah TECHNICALLY it's you playing the parts and cutting and pasting them together, but it's not really because you can't do it. Something is lost in music when that is done. It just sounds so sterile and unnatural.


----------



## PBC (Jul 6, 2016)

It's all a matter of composition for me. You can manipulate all you want, but if feign musicianship behind it that's a big problem and if you're a live band, you need to deliver.

When you take human out of the playing it can be an interesting alternative, but not replacement, for musicality. With unlimited reach and fingers, you can probably craft interesting guitar work with something like this. 



That would otherwise take multiple takes to achieve. An example that comes to mind is Slice the Cake, who have some inhuman drum patterns, that sound awesome within their songwriting. 

I think of Andy Serkis, a phenomenal actor who you rarely see his actual face on screen, but brings to life awesome characters such as Gollum, Kong, Caesar. 

Amongst all this manipulation, you can't hide bad composition. So if the composition is there, that's all that matters. 

As Milton Babbitt says, "Nothing gets as old quickly as 'new sounds.'" Songwriting ensures the lasting appeal.


----------



## crankyrayhanky (Jul 6, 2016)

I never did it myself, but now wondering if I took my solos and sped them up that it would give me a good target at improving my current chops


----------



## jerm (Jul 6, 2016)

^^I'm assuming you're talking about Slice The Cake's early work like Cleansed and not the Odyssey series? Because Odyssey to the West is damn near perfect in every respect.


----------



## RuiNs777 (Jul 6, 2016)

ArtHam said:


> Epitaph by Necrophagist was almost entirely recorded note for note. It was a sound they went for. They recorded guitars for that for 8 months. Yet it's being treated like one of the biggest masterpieces in metal. Can't be too much of a big deal then.




This is what Muhammed said  here in this very forum.

"punch-ins are ok. never had a problem with it. the goal is to record the best album possible. anyone telling you the opposite is not telling the truth or is the next paganini."


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Jul 6, 2016)

Writing songs is an art in and of itself. Playing an instrument is not art. It's not "like an adult coloring book" to create your art using any tricks or techniques. The lines weren't drawn for you, you made them yourself with the help of tools. Be it a ruler, or compass for lines/circles, or recording bits and pieces and sitting them together so it forms a cohesive piece.

If you want to brag or come off as some kind of great player and not a writer, that's one thing. You better be able to play that .... if playing it is what matters to you. Having said that, if a track sounds good, then it is good. So long as you're not taking someone else's labors and claiming it as your own, there's no big deal. Hell, composers ....ing HIRE orchestras to play their pieces all the time. I can honestly say I don't really care about the proficiency of whoever's playing each individual instrument. I care about how the musical piece makes me feel. If it sounds good.

Basically there are two different avenues at play here. The performance art, and the art of the music itself. There's no harm in utilizing "cheats" to get the sound out of your head and onto tape.

As an aside, vibrato is a dead giveaway about a track that's sped up.


----------



## sharedEQ (Jul 6, 2016)

As I get older I view music like a magic trick/show.

Its a performance, it takes alot of work, there is more to it that just the music, and if its done right, it makes the audience go "wow".

Ive learned to play some killer solos, and its just a magic trick.

The problem is when you can see the strings holding up the levitating girl, thats when it goes from "wow" to "thats bull....".

Musicians are more likely to see the strings holding up the girl because they know more about music.

If you go "wow" when you listen to an album, but then later learn that the band cant play it live, it quickly goes to "bull....".

That was alwasy the acid test for metal bands. How do they sound live?

My opinion is that many of the more extreme metal acts sound terrible live. They are played too fast, they rely on too much production tricks to actually work well live.

When I heard Metallica for the first time back in the 90s (Black Album), it was clear that they weren't as good a live band as Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, or the Scorpions. The best song Metallica played was a cover of Maiden's Prowler.


----------



## Reverend Chug (Jul 7, 2016)

The only thing I have heard about this was a quote from Flemming Rasmussen on the 30th anniversary of Master of Puppets. He said they tuned the guitars lower and slowed down the recording so that the guitars could be doubled really, really tight and multiple times...


----------



## Reverend Chug (Jul 7, 2016)

Also, if you watch Pantera's home video #3 (I forget the name, Watch It Go, or something like that). There's a scene where Dimebag is playing Strength Beyond Strength a good deal slower than how the recording ended up. That _could_ be the same thing...


----------



## sharedEQ (Jul 7, 2016)

I wasnt saying that Metallica tracked slow or couldnt play their songs, although they were drunk the time I saw them.

I meant that in an arena setting where sound is bouncing off the walls, songs that work on albums don't always sound as good live.


----------



## CaptainD00M (Jul 7, 2016)

I don't see the issue, I mean I regularly record at half speed. 
Usually 70bpm, sometimes 80bpm if I wanna play really fast.



































Srsly though, my take:

If you use studio wizardry to tidy something, or to reduce the amount of time it takes you to record something, do an overdub or whatever its fine. As soon as it gets to the point where you cannot replicate it live, either because physically you cannot do it or because its been quantizer to hell or whatever other gimmick you do then you doing it wrong.


----------



## bloodfiredoom (Jul 7, 2016)

I don't have any problem with how someone wants to record something. I think the issue comes when someone uses a recording technique and then claims that they didn't, for whatever reason. I honestly couldn't give a .... about that either but deception isn't cool.

Personally, I try to do all bass, rhythm, and lead tracks in one pass. If I mess up, I start over. If I keep messing up, I use the time to rehearse. You would be amazed at what putting the guitar down and sleeping on it will do for your abilities. I usually walk back in the next day and knock out whatever I was having trouble with in one shot. Then I will go back and punch-in on places where I want to add or emphasize something. There's just a flow and vibe that comes with doing it this way that I really like. However, I suspect many of my favorite artists record piecemeal, and I can't even tell.


----------



## vilk (Jul 7, 2016)

Man, I literally expected this entire thread to be:

"Well as long as they can play it live, it's fine to record like this"

I don't even understand how that's not the where the bar is set. If they can actually play it live, then why on earth should it matter how it's recorded?


----------



## QuantumCybin (Jul 7, 2016)

Yeah, I'm in the camp of I don't really care how it's recorded. If I like what I'm hearing, that's cool. I have no issue being a mindless consumer


----------



## bloodfiredoom (Jul 7, 2016)

I'd like to hear Donald Fagen's comments on this.


----------



## Rawkmann (Jul 7, 2016)

I'm actually pretty relieved to hear stuff like this, doesn't make me feel so bad knowing some of these guys can't get an absolutely perfect take without some technological assistance. Although it does make me appreciate the 80s shredders that much more because while I'm sure they took advantage of some 'studio magic' it's nowhere near what producers are capable of these days. I remember a really old Scott Ian interview where he openly admitted a particular solo of his was like 17 different takes all spliced together lol.


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Jul 7, 2016)

vilk said:


> Man, I literally expected this entire thread to be:
> 
> "Well as long as they can play it live, it's fine to record like this"
> 
> I don't even understand how that's not the where the bar is set. If they can actually play it live, then why on earth should it matter how it's recorded?



I don't perform live though, so being able to play live is irrelevant to me. (I can play my songs live mind you, but being able to is irrelevant in my case.)

I do think it'd be supremely sh_i_tty for a band to have this amazingly complex tune, then they get up on stage and all you hear is string noise and sloppy playing. If you can't play it live, then don't play it live, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't record it your own way.


----------



## Reverend Chug (Jul 7, 2016)

Rawkmann said:


> I'm actually pretty relieved to hear stuff like this, doesn't make me feel so bad knowing some of these guys can't get an absolutely perfect take without some technological assistance. Although it does make me appreciate the 80s shredders that much more because while I'm sure they took advantage of some 'studio magic' it's nowhere near what producers are capable of these days. I remember a really old Scott Ian interview where he openly admitted a particular solo of his was like 17 different takes all spliced together lol.



I agree 100%!


----------



## Wildebeest (Jul 7, 2016)

Since we are talking about this, does anyone have a good guide to punching in guitars for metal music? I'm in a rock band, so most of the recording I do is in full takes rather than note by note. I don't really have much metal stuff written aside from 1 or 2 full songs, but I'd love to toy around with some of the common techniques people use. When I tried doing this in Logic X I was left with a huge amount of tracks and a lot of volume automation editing, it didn't really seem efficient. Thanks.


Epitaph by Necrophagist is one of my top 10 metal albums of all time. I absolutely love the production on it and the way the guitars sound. It's cool to know that it's punched in because I've always wondered how they got their guitars to sound the way they did, aside from being a master of the instrument.


----------



## JPhoenix19 (Jul 7, 2016)

I'm sure people thought multi-track recording was like cheating when it first hit the scene.

Who gives a .... if it's altered?


----------



## Winspear (Jul 7, 2016)

Wildebeest said:


> When I tried doing this in Logic X I was left with a huge amount of tracks and a lot of volume automation editing, it didn't really seem efficient. Thanks.



It can be editing intensive. You should be able to just record on the same track, with a setting somewhere to make sure the audio overlaps, not overwrites. You do indeed then have to crossfade but once used to it it only takes a second manually. There's probably a setting somewhere to do that automatically too. I seem to remember in Logic it could make cascading track layers to hold each take, and you could choose where they cut etc. Probably detailed tutorials on Youtube. Search for Logic Comping and punch in. Comping is what it's called.


----------



## Wildebeest (Jul 7, 2016)

EtherealEntity said:


> It can be editing intensive. You should be able to just record on the same track, with a setting somewhere to make sure the audio overlaps, not overwrites. You do indeed then have to crossfade but once used to it it only takes a second manually. There's probably a setting somewhere to do that automatically too. I seem to remember in Logic it could make cascading track layers to hold each take, and you could choose where they cut etc. Probably detailed tutorials on Youtube. Search for Logic Comping and punch in. Comping is what it's called.



Thanks so much, I'm going to start researching when I get home.


----------



## Given To Fly (Jul 7, 2016)

PBC said:


> As Milton Babbitt says, "Nothing gets as old quickly as 'new sounds.'" Songwriting ensures the lasting appeal.



That was a heavy dose of culture you threw in there!


----------



## mongey (Jul 7, 2016)

being a good studio band and a good live band are 2 different things. some bands are both , some are 1 or the other. I say use whatever tools you have at your disposal to create


----------



## prlgmnr (Jul 9, 2016)

I would say do whatever you need to do to get the sound you hear in your head committed to tape or disk or stone tablet or whatever it is you're using, but always keep in mind there's a certain ineffable quality to a band playing together, pushing and pulling the pulse and so on that is very hard to capture to begin with, even before you start making the recording process more incremental and less like playing together.


----------



## Varcolac (Jul 9, 2016)

So, this is a thing. 

https://m.soundcloud.com/alvin-thechipmunkson16sp

Alvin and the Chipmunks songs, from the 60s, slowed down so the voices are in a regular octave. The original ones were recorded using the exact technique of this thread's title. Sing half speed in regular octave, speed it up, instant octave pitch-shift and chipmunkification.

Added bonus: slow them down again and they become d00my as fvck. The Chipmunks version of "My Sharona" is more doom than Electric Wizard covering Black Sabbath on horse tranquilisers.


----------



## prlgmnr (Jul 9, 2016)

Varcolac said:


> The Chipmunks version of "My Sharona" is more doom than Electric Wizard covering Black Sabbath on horse tranquilisers.



ahaha this is making things fall off the desk in here

never achieved that with Funeralopolis

"heaven is a place on earth" sounds like a Justin Broadrick project


----------



## Double A (Jul 9, 2016)

So the reality of recording guitar is punch ins and click tracks. That is just how it is done. But if you record at half speed or do the note for note technique you are pretty much a fraud. I know art is art but a lot of music we listen to on this site pretty much is based off us praising technique and clean playing and when you get past that and record stuff you can't actually play then you lose all credibility. We have seen that backlash more than a few times over the years. 

I don't know when people started accepting this crap and making excuses for themselves but all I can say is maybe if you use these techniques you should practice a bit more.


----------



## Random3 (Jul 9, 2016)

^^ totally agree.

There is a difference between speeding things up to get a particular desired effect (chipmonking yourself) and speeding things up because you are unable to perform the part at full speed. Neither is necessarily a problem as far as the music is concerned, but if you lie about it you just lose all artistic integrity.


----------



## Sikthness (Jul 9, 2016)

half speed recording doesn't make a band/player 'bad' or even diminish their artistic integrity...In other media editing is simply a part of, and not considered cheating. You really wanna watch a movie where things like fights, car chases and other stunts are all a single tracking shot? Sure, its awesome and impressive sometimes, but doesn't work when the stunts and such are really death defying..you need studio magic. If a band has written very complex material that is outside their ability of recreating live, but was their vision, then so be it. Some studio magic needs to occur. Now thats not to say that pointing to these sped up and pieces together recordings as an indicator of how skilled they are isn't dishonest. I don't think its anything to be ashamed of at all.


----------



## Random3 (Jul 9, 2016)

Sikthness said:


> *post*



I agree with this mostly but I should clarify what I said.

IMO using studio trickery to fix things you can't play is fine. It happens all the time. Pretending that you are actually that good however is not fine. Like if you record a drummer and use a MIDI kick so that it is 100% perfect and the drummer goes around telling people "yeah that was all me", then that drummer is a liar and a poser.


----------



## Double A (Jul 9, 2016)

Sikthness said:


> half speed recording doesn't make a band/player 'bad' or even diminish their artistic integrity...In other media editing is simply a part of, and not considered cheating. You really wanna watch a movie where things like fights, car chases and other stunts are all a single tracking shot? Sure, its awesome and impressive sometimes, but doesn't work when the stunts and such are really death defying..you need studio magic. If a band has written very complex material that is outside their ability of recreating live, but was their vision, then so be it. Some studio magic needs to occur. Now thats not to say that pointing to these sped up and pieces together recordings as an indicator of how skilled they are isn't dishonest. I don't think its anything to be ashamed of at all.


Half speed recording=/=editing

My thought is if you are a musician playing an instrument and you resort to recording things at half speed then you mind as well make EDM or something. I am not saying EDM is not music but we all know what it is and it is not advertised as something it isn't. This is why the Rings of Saturn backlash was so huge.

Also, I am the first person to love art for the sake of art but I am increasingly baffled that on a forum that is ostensibly full of musicians ( big dick swinging guitar players at that! ) that respect the craft that there seems to be a lot of people condoning this crap. Maybe I am getting old.


----------



## works0fheart (Jul 9, 2016)

RuiNs777 said:


> This is what Muhammed said  here in this very forum.
> 
> "punch-ins are ok. never had a problem with it. the goal is to record the best album possible. anyone telling you the opposite is not telling the truth or is the next paganini."



Punch-ins =/= recording things one note at a time and then speeding them up. However, considering that other people who were on the album (Christian, etc) have said the album was sped-up on recording I wouldn't doubt it.

I'm pretty positive that what he meant was section by section, which is literally what everyone does. No one sits down and records an entire song in one-take on guitar, or at least not anyone that wants it to sound right.

At the end of the day, I don't really care what a band does to make their album sound good. If they're having to speed up their stuff, fine, but if they're able to record it up to tempo, that's great too, but if they can't play that material live that's a game-breaker for me (ie. Dragonforce, Rings of Saturn)


----------



## Semi-pro (Jul 10, 2016)

If you can play the song live while fullfilling the audience's expectiations about your playing, then do as you please.

BUT faking your playing abilities in a scene like metal music, in which the musicians skills are admired, is like faking that you come straight from the ghetto for gangsta rappers. You don't want to be Vanilla Ice of djent, do you !?


----------



## marcwormjim (Jul 10, 2016)

A few years ago, I witnessed a local, two-guitar garage band playing a show they were unprepared for. The songs were essentially written around moments where twin guitar-harmonies would put things over the top. The problem was that they couldn't yet pull it off, live. They compensated by looking at each other, turning their volume knobs down, then pantomiming the tough parts while a prerecorded harmony played through _one_ amp.

Being a local show, most of the audience was comprised of the other local bands on the bill. When the shenanigans occurred during the first song, everyone just kind of looked at each other. By the third time, everyone just started walking away. After the last song, someone heckled "You guys need to practice - That was bull$%}!"

Years later, the band that faked the dual-guitar leads is what people remember about the show.

I bring up this anecdote so that a Good Samaritan/devil's-advocate contrarian can flex their creative muscles in making a case for why the art of what they did should be respected - Something not proposed then or since.


----------



## bulb (Jul 10, 2016)

Do what you gotta do in the studio to get the composition and your vision to be correct, but if you are writing music to be performed live, make sure you can still pull it off well in that context.


----------



## prlgmnr (Jul 11, 2016)

marcwormjim said:


> A few years ago, I witnessed a local, two-guitar garage band playing a show they were unprepared for. The songs were essentially written around moments where twin guitar-harmonies would put things over the top. The problem was that they couldn't yet pull it off, live. They compensated by looking at each other, turning their volume knobs down, then pantomiming the tough parts while a prerecorded harmony played through _one_ amp.
> 
> Being a local show, most of the audience was comprised of the other local bands on the bill. When the shenanigans occurred during the first song, everyone just kind of looked at each other. By the third time, everyone just started walking away. After the last song, someone heckled "You guys need to practice - That was bull$%}!"
> 
> ...



It's almost as if live performance and studio recording are two completely different contexts.


----------



## ArtDecade (Jul 11, 2016)

If you can't do it live, you aren't a band that I have any interest in whatsoever.


----------



## cip 123 (Jul 11, 2016)

I do use it. To check how things sound at different tempos when I'm at home recording. If I'm at a rehearsal as a band we usually try tempo's out just to get what feels right.

Even if I can't play stuff I sit and practice till I can. I couldn't rightfully put something out thinking I recorded it slower as I couldn't play it fast enough. Just my opinion I couldn't do it.


----------



## SteveFireland (Jul 11, 2016)

I don't really care how people achieve the sound they're after - all studio stuff is "fake". Compressors, reverb, delay, none of it is achieved naturally (usually).

My takeaway from this thread is that Chipmunks stuff, that is freakin' awesome!!!!


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Jul 11, 2016)

Double A said:


> So the reality of recording guitar is punch ins and click tracks. That is just how it is done. But if you record at half speed or do the note for note technique you are pretty much a fraud. I know art is art but a lot of music we listen to on this site pretty much is based off us praising technique and clean playing and when you get past that and record stuff you can't actually play then you lose all credibility. We have seen that backlash more than a few times over the years.
> 
> I don't know when people started accepting this crap and making excuses for themselves but all I can say is maybe if you use these techniques you should practice a bit more.



You're putting way to much stock into the musician, when the musician largely doesn't matter. In the end, I don't care if billy buttf_u_ck can really play something, or if he hires others to do it, or "cheats" the recordings. If the sounds are good, they're good. Case in point, Howard Shore. Insane works of art as a composer, pretty much hires people to do the actual playing.

Unless you're specifically going to see someone play, or somebody brags about their technical prowess, I don't know why it matters an ounce if someone can perform it in real time or not. If you only liked music where the person who wrote it was the one who performed it and performed it well, you'd be doing yourself a disservice.


----------



## Double A (Jul 11, 2016)

Señor Voorhees;4613883 said:


> You're putting way to much stock into the musician


Yes, I am putting stock in musicians on a website made for musicians to talk about playing guitar.


----------



## Señor Voorhees (Jul 11, 2016)

I'm not saying you can't appreciate someone's skill or whatever, but to hint that someone's playing ability is more important than the music itself is asinine. I'd rather listen to a "cheated" piece of music than something that's technically amazing but sounds like .....

Yeah this site is about people who ENJOY guitars and gear. The fact is that you don't have to be great at it to appreciate/write the music, the instruments themselves, and those who are insanely skilled at it seperately. Somebody who values how good somebody is at playing an instrument over the music has their priorities skewed, to which again I point you towards Howard Shore, who's music is very well composed for someone who doesn't play the vast majority of it.

edit: Perhaps I should have just said "putting stock =/= putting too much stock."

My point still stands... You're putting way more stock than needed into it. Appreciating a musician and their skill is fine and dandy, but to discredit people who aren't technically proficient is just stupid.


----------



## Double A (Jul 11, 2016)

Señor Voorhees;4613910 said:


> I'm not saying you can't appreciate someone's skill or whatever, but to hint that someone's playing ability is more important than the music itself is asinine.


I am not saying that at all. I listen to all types of music, not just metal and guitar music because I just really love music. I listen to ....ing Bjork for god's sake.

My point is that there are studio tricks and then there are "studio" tricks. This goes back to Aerosmith and the whole Train Kept a Rolling crap where they had session players playing some of their tracks. Are both guitar players talented and pretty much fantastic musicians that probably could have played those parts? You bet. But did they lose a ton of credibility when this came out? Of course they did. Same thing with speeding up or doing note for note recordings. I would rather hear the player putting his all into a take then them having to resort to doing things that make possible something they have no business doing. In the realm of guitar based music that is tantamount to fraud. I mean if everything turns into C-Value Enigma than why the hell are we even playing guitar for?


----------



## Veldar (Jul 11, 2016)

Double A said:


> I would rather hear the player putting his all into a take then them having to resort to doing things that make possible something they have no business doing.



That's what you'd rather hear but the person playing wants to hear the highly edited part as they prefer that sound.



Double A said:


> In the realm of guitar based music that is tantamount to fraud. I mean if everything turns into C-Value Enigma than why the hell are we even playing guitar for?



To create music, composition is more important that technical skill.

I will openly admit I'd recorded guitar parts at half speed, I'm a trained bassist and suck on guitar, however I can get my composition ideas recorded using that technique rather than getting a guitar player of better skill to learn it and record it for me.


----------



## Necris (Jul 12, 2016)

I choose to ignore that half-speed recording is even an option.
Personally, for my metal stuff, I do all of my takes up to speed and only punch in parts if the mistake I've made is really, really bad and I can't duplicate it in the next take (IMO the difference between a mistake and a riff is being able to replicate it a second time ) I tend to practice my stuff at a tempo roughly 20 to 30 bpm faster than written, if feasible, so when the time comes to record playing at the real tempo is a cakewalk.

If I were playing highly technical contemporary classical pieces like Elliot Carter's Shard or just classical guitar pieces in general,however, you'd better believe I'd be avoiding punch-ins like the plague. But I don't do that so that's purely hypothetical....


----------



## Genome (Jul 12, 2016)

Petrucci's parts for the unison section in DT's Blind Faith is recorded bit by bit.

7:56 

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


----------



## bostjan (Jul 12, 2016)

Necris said:


> I choose to ignore that half-speed recording is even an option.
> Personally, for my metal stuff, I do all of my takes up to speed and only punch in parts if the mistake I've made is really, really bad and I can't duplicate it in the next take (IMO the difference between a mistake and a riff is being able to replicate it a second time ) I tend to practice my stuff at a tempo roughly 20 to 30 bpm faster than written, if feasible, so when the time comes to record playing at the real tempo is a cakewalk.
> 
> If I were playing highly technical contemporary classical pieces like Elliot Carter's Shard or just classical guitar pieces in general,however, you'd better believe I'd be avoiding punch-ins like the plague. But I don't do that so that's purely hypothetical....



When I practice 20 BPM faster than the song is intended to be played, I tend to play it live 20-30 BPM faster than I initially intended to, pissing off both the drummer and the bass player tremendously. 

My only way around that is to practice individual parts at tempo + 20 BPM, then go back and take the entire song at tempo + 0 BPM.

But that's just me.

I also tend to .... up a lot more in a studio situation than I do live, for some reason. So I do use punch ins a lot. Or do two takes and frankenstein them together. Am I ashamed that I do so? Nah. I wish I could play everything perfectly, but I can't. Hell, I can't play Hot Crossed Buns all the way through unless I'm playing for strangers. Sit me down in front of a couple musicians who will hyper-analyze every damn note that I play, and I freeze up. So I punch in and I frankenstein.

The way I see it, is that the demo is done in one take, or if it sucks, do it live for another take. Not because I don't want it to sound good, but because I want it to get done quickly and represent how the song sounds. The studio version had better sound clean, so everything is isolated, there is a click track, and I fuss about punching in and doing multiple takes. Maybe I overdub acoustic guitar or keyboard in parts, even knowing full well that without a second guitarist or a keyboard player, it won't sound the same live, but then I'm also careful that these parts don't stand out too much for that reason. It's all a balancing act.

I also use studio plugins that I cannot reproduce live.

The idea is that I can play live, not the studio version of the song, but a live version that is a fairly good representation thereof. Sometimes we even extend the live version or change the arrangement to mix things up (you know, it can be somewhat boring for the musicians playing exactly the same thing week after week). Sometimes we had a different drummer in the studio version or I played the drums in the studio version, and our current drummer plays a completely different pattern.

But live music is about right now. It's magical. It's a flower, born to finesse the air around it and to blush seen or unseen for a few days, then to lose its fragrance, turn brown and die.

Studio music is a permanent record in indelible ink. It needs to be accurate and preserve the vision of its intention.

And now that I've had a minute to mess with recording at half speed and playing it back at full speed, I think it sounds like utter horse...., and it didn't make anything easier to play. I think maybe I see where it could, but it seems to me to be a bit of a hassle for what it might be worth. I *think* I'd be able to tell, just from casual listening, if a recording was sped up to 2x speed. If it was sped up 10-20%, I think I'd have to pay pretty close attention, though, but, then again, I've got an AudioBox and Studio One Standard. Someone with a MOTU and ProTool Expert Super Mega Studio Living Monster Edition could do much better. Also someone with more patience for studio trickery could do better than me.

And to sum up my rant: If I think a band's record is cool, and I see them live, and they suck live, then I un-fan them.


----------



## Double A (Jul 12, 2016)

bostjan said:


> And to sum up my rant: If I think a band's record is cool, and I see them live, and they suck live, then I un-fan them.


Like HAARP Machine...
This is pretty much the bottom line. With technical stuff. At least live, you better bring your big boy pants.


----------



## Jacksonluvr636 (Jul 12, 2016)

ArtHam said:


> Epitaph by Necrophagist was almost entirely recorded note for note. It was a sound they went for. They recorded guitars for that for 8 months. Yet it's being treated like one of the biggest masterpieces in metal. Can't be too much of a big deal then.
> 
> Yes they can play it live.
> 
> ...



I don't follow this stuff and I think it's dumb but from what little I have read is that the HAARP guy can't actually play it which would make him a fraud.

I don't know the truth but when I did hear about this the buzz was that he was a fraud.


----------



## avinu (Jul 16, 2016)

prlgmnr said:


> It's almost as if live performance and studio recording are two completely different contexts.



This. How do people not understand this concept? I'd say it becomes a problem when you have guitarists miming complex solos live.


----------



## TheTrooper (Jul 16, 2016)

This thread should be renamed "ATTENTION: NONSENSE"


Recording note for note is not a problem IN THE STUDIO; it's been done since day 1.

Recording at half speed isn't a problem either, altough I find it extremely stupid, because if You inted it to play the thing live You have to learn it at "real" speed.

Recording at half speed and then playing it live by mimicing the bits You CAN'T play (but pretendig than You can) is stupid and You are a sucker for doing that. 

(Recently some guy did that on a contest, remember right?)

Honestly, it bugs me that there is even a thread on the subject.......
The Digital world gave a lot of freedom and every studio trickery possible to producers/musicians, but when You use it to cheat on who buys Your CDs, then You deserve the current situation of the music industry: You don't make millions anymore by selling records.

It's so true: the REAL bands were the ones in the 60s/70s/80s/90s.......

That's why these bands sound good live, while the new ones suck live. 
(Except the ones that CAN play their own songs)


----------



## AmoryB (Jul 16, 2016)

In my humble opinion, it seems to me that it's just another crutch for poorly trained musicians to lean on in the studio.


----------



## Given To Fly (Jul 17, 2016)

Necris said:


> I choose to ignore that half-speed recording is even an option.
> Personally, for my metal stuff, I do all of my takes up to speed and only punch in parts if the mistake I've made is really, really bad and I can't duplicate it in the next take (IMO the difference between a mistake and a riff is being able to replicate it a second time ) I tend to practice my stuff at a tempo roughly 20 to 30 bpm faster than written, if feasible, so when the time comes to record playing at the real tempo is a cakewalk.
> 
> If I were playing highly technical contemporary classical pieces like Elliot Carter's Shard or just classical guitar pieces in general,however, you'd better believe I'd be avoiding punch-ins like the plague. But I don't do that so that's purely hypothetical....



Classical guitar recordings, and recordings of classical music in general, are heavily edited. Usually, its the best parts from hours of material pieced together to create an "ideal" performance. However, since live performance is the main focus everything you hear recorded can be performed too. _Shard_ is a difficult piece to perform, but extremely rewarding when you feel you performed it well, in front of other people no less.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jul 17, 2016)

I love guitar, and I love technical guitar work, but I absolutely don't care how real a recording is. If I like the music, I just absolutely don't care if it was all programmed, or if the musicians can't replicate it live. I want to hear good music. On the other hand, even if a recording is poorly performed by an under-skilled musician, I still don't care much as long as the music is well written.


----------

