Band wants to use programmed drums on record

And no matter what your bandmates think, at least try to have the record mixed and mastered professionally. It'll be a good investment.
 
Normally I think it's crap when a band doesn't respect the individual drummer enough to want his style and playing on the record. If the parts I'm expected to play are so straightforward and set in stone that a machine can do it just as well, then I'd want to be getting paid for my participation in this band as an employee.

The OP said that it was primarily a financial issue. If he couldn't cut the parts, he wouldn't be playing live, either.

Also, project bands don't normally pay their members for work related to promoting themselves, rehearsals, etc. Even if the concept of being an employee of the band was somehow enforceable, he wouldn't get paid for these recordings anyway.

Bermuda
 
If I were in your situation, as a young drummer, I don't care what's easier, or what will sound someone's idea of "better"-- I want to be on the recording. It's a reasonable requirement if you're going to show up to rehearsals, learn their music, and do the poorly paying gigs.



Seems like they've already given you their feelings on that. You can judge for yourself whether you're in a position to really insist on this, or if they'll even care if you quit over it. Maybe there's no relationship there at all, and it would be silly to force the issue. I would be looking for a better band to join.

btw, if you're going to be the executive producer and pay for the recording session, you may as well record the music you want with the people you want. Just saying...

I agree with this completely---if I'm not important enough to be on the recording---I'm out!
 
Personally, ego aside, I would embrace the road they chose, I would be thinking about what is best for the band and what is the shortest route to a good sounding product that will represent the band well when listened to for potential gigs etc.

I would stay very close to whomever is programming the tracks and soak up as much as I can from an education perspective. If there is a good opportunity to suggest something or add something creatively then go for it, just make sure not to cross the line into "awkward". I would also watch and listen closely for any programmed parts that might be tricky to replicate when you have to play it live, and if it is a matter of something you need to practice I would make a point of practicing the shit out of those sections so there is never even a thought in your band-mates minds that you can't do it.

I would also keep an ear out for key samples and sounds you can't replicate easily live.....for example if I played a 1 up 1 down kit live and the programmed drums have some key fills rolling toms in 8", 10", 12", 14" and 16" you might have a hard time capturing the same energy or feel live.....

Either way......I wouldn't look at this as an me vs. them or a hit to the ego, I would wrap my arms around it and dive in with enthusiasm for the good of the band and bring nothing but positive energy.

But that is just me........WTF do I know :)
 
Well, I've kind of had the opposite problem. I was happy to produce a demo for my band with the recording gear I have in my bedroom. This meant using synthetic drums, although I would programme them in exactly the same way as I'd play them in the songs. We would have made a demo for free, but they weren't interested. The guitarists didn't want to record directly into an interface, even though my DAW has tons of guitar effects they could have used. For them it was simply out of the question. Months have passed and we still don't have a demo, which we obviously need if we want to play in venues we have yet to play in, so the fact that we don't have one is holding us back. Just think of Stephen Morris. He started out playing drums for Joy Division, then learnt how to use drum programming equipment with new Order. As others have mentioned on here, I would embrace it.
 
I wouldn't look at this as an me vs. them or a hit to the ego, I would wrap my arms around it and dive in with enthusiasm for the good of the band and bring nothing but positive energy.
But that is just me........WTF do I know :)

Maybe the guitarist wouldn't mind programming his part as well---hell let's do everything on the computer---who needs a band?
 
Maybe the guitarist wouldn't mind programming his part as well---hell let's do everything on the computer---who needs a band?

The point is THIS band has chosen to do it that way and either he can fight it and try and convince them they are wrong or he can take what he can from the experience and later down the road bring that to a band that actually wants to play shit live......sounds like if he wants to play with these folks, he can roll with it or cause issues and potentially cause angst and maybe end up band-less.
 
The OP said that it was primarily a financial issue. If he couldn't cut the parts, he wouldn't be playing live, either.
Wasn't trying to imply he couldn't perform the parts well... Assume he can or we wouldn't be discussing this. I'm talking about the role in his band.

Also, project bands don't normally pay their members for work related to promoting themselves, rehearsals, etc. Even if the concept of being an employee of the band was somehow enforceable, he wouldn't get paid for these recordings anyway.
That's weird. I know plenty of guys, and I'm sure there are plenty on this board who charge bands or organizers for rehearsing, recording, and performing if they are just hired guns and there's no promise of big money from the shows. The only other idea I can think of is that you just really like some guy's band and want to support it as their drummer. If I'm not getting to be on the recordings, don't get to create/write material and am expected to basically play the parts as they're already written, I'd have a hard time being motivated and would feel more like an employee who's getting told what's what than a guy who is an equal in an originals band and doesn't get treated as dispensable when the matter of some cash for recording my parts comes up.

I have been part of projects in fact that broached this. In one example, I sort of liked the material, but the band was always a bit of a revolving door of musicians except for the core two guys. I didn't mind rehearsing with them on my time and basically just helping to bring their vision to life as a project. When asked to record tracks I had no issue doing so also on my time and un-paid. The problem came up when they assumed I'd want to help pay for part of the recordings. I had to decline because of my role in the project. In this case, they were still keen to have my "voice" on the recording and didn't complain about my logic, but I would not have been offended if they wanted to program or whatever... It wasn't my project or vision.
 
That's weird. I know plenty of guys, and I'm sure there are plenty on this board who charge bands or organizers for rehearsing, recording, and performing if they are just hired guns and there's no promise of big money from the shows.

As hired guns, correct, they should be paid for some or all of that with certain considerations.

As a member of a band, the line is blurred and there's an expectation of participation at no charge with the hope of a payoff down the line.

There are bands where I'm paid for every little thing, and others where unpaid rehearsals are the norm because they're for paid gigs and that's just part of the deal with most bands.

The thing is, it varies. Every project is different. Some have financial means, but most don't apart from any money they make at gigs. Sometimes a band's drummer plays on a recording, sometimes they don't. They might get paid for it, or they might not.

There are no rules, only what the individual player is willing to accept.

In the OP's case, the smart thing is to let the band do the recordings their way, and enjoy the paying gigs.

Bermuda
 
Thanks so much all, managed to compromise and will be using electric kit with samples from Ableton, which i think (hope) is possible, because samples on my DTX kit arent that great.

It isnt acoustic, but at least can add my subtleties and will sound a bit more human.

I maybe should have mentioned this is a first EP. So i suppose it is quite normal for a first EP to not be optimal in terms of sound. Thinking of some bands I like, their first EPs sound like they were recorded live in someone's bedroom. But those days are gone now I suppose and have been replaced by doing it on a laptop.

Either way, Im happy with the outcome. And hopefully, if it ever happens, we will be using a studio for a debut LP.

Cheers
 
In the OP's case, the smart thing is to let the band do the recordings their way, and enjoy the paying gigs.

Bermuda

Yea, but if I had a dollar for every time I followed my heart instead of doing the smart thing, I wouldn't need to get paid for any of this!

You've obviously got a very professional level view and perspective on the situation whereas I was gathering that the OP is possibly bothered that his creativity and personal voice which cannot be duplicated by a computer won't be a part of the band's project or an album from when he was a part of the project. I could be totally wrong about the OP, but for lots of guys the gig money is irrelevant and not at all the reason they put in all the time and effort to learn, rehearse, play and support a projects' material.

You're totally correct that there's no one way or right way to make music/records as a group. Every response here is potentially the right one, but only the OP can decide how much it means to him if he's included in the record or not.
 
This band I'm in wants to use programmed drums on computer to record, mainly because of the cost of getting a recording studio for a few days, and they've done everything else without needing a recording studio.

This is very upsetting because it would be my first chance to play on record, and makes me disappointed we live in a time where you basically don't even need a drummer.

If this was just some years ago, we would have no choice but to record my drums, now its just easier + cheaper to do it on a laptop.

I know programmed drums might not sound quite the same, but clearly most people don't actually care/ won't even notice.

So how could I convince them, and are they right anyway? What's the point in using a drummer (other than for live)?

Why not compare it.
How many hours does a programmer need to do this, in such a quality that is enough believable than just "computers"?
How many hours would you need to record and edit?

Make the math.... I'm not sure of the result, it really depends... you can always opt to quit the band...

Just my 2ct..

Edit: after reading further, try to see if you can buy a licence of some virtual drum kit add-ons. There are really good ones and can help you mimic the acoustic to a really good stage.
 
It's a all too common scenario.

Recording live drums can be expensive.

A few albums where this has happened include
Def Leppard's Pyromania (Rick Allen over dubbed cymbals, but the drums were prpgrammed).
Type O Negative's October Rust

And then you have the millions of albums where the drummer was secretly or not so secretly replaced by a studio musician because it was cheaper to pay someone to get it in one take.

And then there are the millions more albums where yes, the drummer got to record their parts, but then the parts were quantized, sound replaced, over dumbed, mixed with percussion, cut and pasted, etc, to the point that what appears on the album bares little resemblance to what was played.

Ozzy's Bark at the Moon album was originally released with Tommy Aldridge's 2nd bass drum left out of the mix, and Carmine Appice appeared in the video instead of Tommy.

There is the old quote: The music business has two sides. One side, the music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs.

Then there's also a negative side"
 
I agree about the point made about being a full band member or not.
If your are an equal member of the band than this is total BS, and you should do what I did with my first band in high school. Everyone saved up an equal amount of money and went to a studio and all paid for our first record. That being said I am currently full member of a group that uses programed drums on the albums too, however it's more due to the nature of the music genre and has nothing to do with costs.

As a hired gun I charge for recording services.
About 75% of all the groups I play live with use programed drums on their recordings. Out of the 25% of groups that have real drums, I've probably only done about 10% of the tracking.

Oh, and when it comes to music videos... I think I've filmed around 20 over my career. Only 3 of them... 3 Were songs that I actually recorded the drums on.
6 others had real drums on them, either by another session guy or the bands previous drummer. Leaving 11 with programed drums.
 
What the band needs is a keyboardist who can sequence the whole song. That would be much cheaper again. Otherwise you are just wasting valuable studio time with pointless musicians and their instruments.
 
the advantage to recording guitars/bass/vocals/whatever in a studio are

-better rooms
-better equipment
-likely a professional audio engineer working on your mix
 
Back
Top