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.
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 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?
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.The OP said that it was primarily a financial issue. If he couldn't cut the parts, he wouldn't be playing live, either.
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.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.
In the OP's case, the smart thing is to let the band do the recordings their way, and enjoy the paying gigs.
Bermuda
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)?
Oh god, the video....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.
Dude, fuck that. Find another band. Seriously.