It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
You can easily play along to loops set to repeat that get faded in and out simply by using a multitrack playback device- a laptop connected to a mixer over ethernet would do it.
Or you fade out the loops, if you want to do an improv tempo change thing- bands practice this all the time, often cued from the drummer or from whoever is acting as musical director for the band.
It takes a bit of technology and then just the practice to work with it.
It isn't something that happens down the Dog n Duck but session musicians work like this all the time.
Studio: https://www.voltperoctave.com
Music: https://www.euclideancircuits.com
Me: https://www.jamesrichmond.com
Football is rubbish.
I am currently 'Mixing' a full album project of 15 songs, in Reaper, a single project file.
All songs are constructed from midi tracks, all covers, with 8-10 instrument tracks each.
I use various drum VST to get a blended sound, 6 different sets.
Then I use different instrument VST for the parts, I concentrate on creating string arrangements from the original tracks.
I spent 7 hours the other day setting up the project and bouncing out audio stems to get some rough ideas for the overall sound across the 15 track project.
Once these audio stems are used my 2009 macbook pro is running at 20% system resources, so ticking along nicely.
At the moment, the project has 450 tracks, including duplicate original midi tracks for reference, and bounced down stems.
Hard to imagine this being done in 'the good old days', and I am constantly amazed by the capability of Reaper and modern VST software.
By that I mean you have to do a lot of sketches and refine them before you can finish a masterpiece. The vast majority of sketches even by a master are essentially disposable. The masterpiece is is objectively technically superior when executed correctly but sometimes a sketch can move you as much as an oil painting.
Saying that neither you nor the original artist can do justice to a recording live is bizarre to me, it's mostly about performance and dynamics, not whether you need to hire a bloody sousaphone player!
I think you might be right that it's more that they can't be bothered with working out a solo so convince themselves there's benefit to an improvisation.
It is strange that Id consider a completely different version - say an acoustic version of an electric song - or a country version of a rock song - to be valid in its own way, rather than doing the original with backing tracks or the original with loads of bits missing which I just cant seem to see as valid.
Im very strange at time - well a lot of times.
If someone isn't good enough to be able to play a solo they've worked out before hand then they're not good enough to be recording guitar solos anyway and their improves one won't be good.
What's your obsession with playing songs live anyway? Do you not enjoy listening to records?
For me it's the other way around, the record is the main thing for me and if I love an artist's records I'll go see them live for an additional experience but I don't think I've ever seen a concert that was as good as the record. It's an uncomfortable scenario (standing up with loads of people all around spilling beer and being hot etc.) and the sound quality is totally shit with everything going through the PA.
Personally I think those who feel the recording is the be all and end all rather than the live performance are the ones with the skewed outlook. Nothing wrong with enjoying them, but the experience in general just isnt the same. Its typical of todays lifestyle - perfection in solitude is preferred rather than atmosphere in a group.
Something funny is that on this forum there's someone who chooses to limit the number of tracks in his music to the number of musicians there are in the room for the recording while I was just Googling some info about CPUs for a potential upgrade and found a forum full of people who do "electronic production" (people whom I feel sorry for, but that's another matter completely) who are talking about 32gb of RAM not being enough for their projects that have hundreds of tracks.
It's not proper music unless you were there witnessing it in the flesh.... and if it's a human singing.
Anything else is technology, and is thus cheating.
But if it's more than one person in a room watching another person singing, then that's cheating too.
Gregorian chanting monks in a choir is analog multitrack nonsense, and I'll be having none of that pleasenthanku!
EDIT: Had to go back and fix a typo that I spotted several hours after posting. That too is cheating.
It then took someone else to come up with further innovations that allowed people to record over their existing recording and perform multiple parts by themselves.
It's not like there was ever the thought before that to only record things in one take, it just hadn't been thought of then.
Ive never said you have to do it in one take mind. Ive just said it should be something you can re-create live without relying on backing tracks. 60 tracks, no problem. Could be 40 of them are a few seconds long, and CAN be recreated. Couldnt be many drum track one drummer can play and such.
Im not against the creativity of an artist to use studio techniques to develop and record interesting stuff - I just cant seem to separate "a recorded" piece thats not meant or designed for live reproduction - from a live piece that gets recorded so more people can enjoy it. It always sits there going "but how could you do that live...." - and if you cant it must be cheating - though as Ive said thats probably too harsh, or the wrong term. Maybe using technology to create something in one environment that cant be replicated in another is a better way of putting it.
Maybe I need to learn to ignore that particular thing sat on my shoulder.....