Should they rename the Grammys the Pro Tools awards?

Oh please. Like most of the drummers here aren't guilty of recording to a click and re-doing every section till perfect and then still applying heavy post.

As much as some of us wish music was still more "real" that's not what gets pushed by the industry. Luckily, it's pretty much a dying industry, partially for these reasons.


My first band I recorded 2 albums live off the floor and they sounded pretty decent actually. Plenty of energy and a very raw real sound. They were not in perfect time, had a few mistakes, and sounded the exact same as our jams and live shows.

Fast forward to my metal bands these days. I always record to a click, but the first album due to our experience we didn't want to edit. So I did a one take of every song. It took me several takes of each song playing front to back but it worked out. It was tough doing 2 full days of blasts and double kick though of every song front to back over and over and not punching in.

By learning this way I still do minimal punch ins, I may do a few but I usually make sure I have gone a minute or 2 without an error or I will just redo the take. I do know of other very good drummers who punch in every section of a song which blows my mind. If it has to be that perfect, and then triggered, you might as well just program them.

I'm fine with post processing (eq, gates,compression) to make things sound big and awesome. Even a partial sample with a kick drum or moving 1 or 2 hits that were off time.... Quantizing an entire album and sampling everything is a different story. I want it to sound like me playing still.

Also, I have seen far too many times at a gig a band I am excited for after hearing their album and they start and it sounds like they just learnt the songs that sounded amazing on the disk. With anything I record there are no surprises when you come watch us play or jam.

I'll add in about 90% of the YouTube drummers with camera angles that change every bar and few seconds. There is a reason for that too.. I always love a drummer that has one angle up the whole time. Heck put a stopwatch beside you too... We are all human, lets hear you play like a human and not a machine.
 
Huh. People watch the Grammy's?
No musician I know gives any creedance to the manufactured crap these so called "artists" put out. They aren't musicians, they're computer nerds with dancing girls and special effects. Besides, who gives a flying pig what they think about President Trump, and/or politics in general? It's like the NFL. We want to escape into the music or sport, not get lectured on what they, with their limited knowledge of the world think is right or wrong. My suggestion is play your music, do your sport, and use the excessive amount of money you make to better the inner cities of our country instead of demanding the government do it. Bruno Mars rules!!
 
Interesting fun fact I learned about the Grammys.

The awards you see them handing out on stage are props that they've used for years. The actual Grammy awards are mailed to recipients' homes.

If I was in charge, I would have numbered the Grammy props. Then, I would have kept track of who all received that specific prop each year. I guess I'm sort of a dork though.
 
There is no objective merit to any of this; it's people rewarding themselves for selling units. And that's fine, it's great to be successful. I just don't understand why people get wrapped up in the Emmys, Oscars, Grammys, Tonys, etc. It doesn't _mean_ anything.

Grammies aren't given based on sales, that would be the Billboard awards and the like. But they are sort of a reward from within the industry, from other musicians, composers, engineers, arrangers, and others in the business.

No musician I know gives any creedance to the manufactured crap these so called "artists" put out. They aren't musicians, they're computer nerds with dancing girls and special effects.
Music award shows seem hell bent on ignoring folks that can play an instrument well or sing adequately.

Don't forget, what you see on the TV show is for entertainment and ratings, those aren't all of the awards given. Some big categories are skipped, and some token pedestrian awards are included for a little equal time. The bulk of the awards would be otherwise considered quite legit to musicians who are looking for that, and the awards are about the people in the business, not about the fans.

But in defense of those who do get perfect tracks, I have a recording I made in the 90's that has some mistakes, and it drives me crazy every time I listen to it. So if given the opportunity I would have made the whole thing perfect to avoid the glaring mistakes.

There's no reason to accept a less-than-great performance, when you have every opportunity to make it the better. Recordings are literally permanent records of performances, subject at a minimum to lifelong scrutiny by its players and producer, as well as thousands or millions of listeners. Why settle? Get it right, or make it right.

I just did a session last week where I needed to play a series of syncopated hits to match an existing horn part, while ritarding slightly. Not a big deal, I gave it one pass and it matched-up fine for about 99% of the listeners. But I wanted it dead-on. So I asked the engineer to simply line-up my hits with the horns. That went a lot faster than punching-in would have taken, and ProTools made it a simple fix that wouldn't have been possible with tape.

Bermuda
 
My first band I recorded 2 albums live off the floor and they sounded pretty decent actually. Plenty of energy and a very raw real sound. They were not in perfect time, had a few mistakes, and sounded the exact same as our jams and live shows.

Fast forward to my metal bands these days. I always record to a click, but the first album due to our experience we didn't want to edit. So I did a one take of every song. It took me several takes of each song playing front to back but it worked out. It was tough doing 2 full days of blasts and double kick though of every song front to back over and over and not punching in.

By learning this way I still do minimal punch ins, I may do a few but I usually make sure I have gone a minute or 2 without an error or I will just redo the take. I do know of other very good drummers who punch in every section of a song which blows my mind. If it has to be that perfect, and then triggered, you might as well just program them.

I'm fine with post processing (eq, gates,compression) to make things sound big and awesome. Even a partial sample with a kick drum or moving 1 or 2 hits that were off time.... Quantizing an entire album and sampling everything is a different story. I want it to sound like me playing still.

Also, I have seen far too many times at a gig a band I am excited for after hearing their album and they start and it sounds like they just learnt the songs that sounded amazing on the disk. With anything I record there are no surprises when you come watch us play or jam.

I'll add in about 90% of the YouTube drummers with camera angles that change every bar and few seconds. There is a reason for that too.. I always love a drummer that has one angle up the whole time. Heck put a stopwatch beside you too... We are all human, lets hear you play like a human and not a machine.

Totally agree with your thoughts here. I think/hope the balance is swinging back and it will be again acceptable to put out records like we saw lots of in the 90's... Forget perfection and go for life in the recording.

I once had the sample thing pushed on me. They I guess thought I wouldn't notice and it was just standard procedure that the engineer did for almost 100% of the bands that came in. I said basically like you, if you're going to replace my playing with samples, then I don't need to play and you can just program that crap. It did not sound good to my ear at all. Way too clean and just slightly strange. After finally getting my tracks back in, I later got lots of compliments on the drum sounds so it appears we can actually just do some EQ and go with it! Like I say, weird times for recording these days. Everyone wants fast, cheap and "perfect".

Imagine if all art on canvas was painted over the same grids with the same colors... Not a good thing. We need more slight imperfection and real back and forth between the players again if you ask me.
 
There's no reason to accept a less-than-great performance, when you have every opportunity to make it the better. Recordings are literally permanent records of performances, subject at a minimum to lifelong scrutiny by its players and producer, as well as thousands or millions of listeners. Why settle? Get it right, or make it right.

With full due respect, for some of us, the valid reason is that we only have a day to track drums and can't obsess as much as we'd like to over it.

I've taken to a new mantra that helps me avoid infection of perfection-ism. I basically remind myself that a recording doesn't have to be some perfect thing pulled together to a cleaner and better standard than the average play-through. It can also simply be a record of where you really were as a band at that time in your life. That doesn't mean you don't do your damnedest to make the best recording of yourselves at the time, but you don't have to approach it as some permanent record that will be agonized over forever.

I even have friends, and I've read about big name artists who refuse to listen to their own recordings after they're complete. They accept the record of their music as it is and move on to the new stuff.
 
I've taken to a new mantra that helps me avoid infection of perfection-ism. I basically remind myself that a recording doesn't have to be some perfect thing pulled together to a cleaner and better standard than the average play-through. It can also simply be a record of where you really were as a band at that time in your life.

That's also rationalizing a take that's "good enough" to allow yourself to move on. A recording is a different standard, because it's a permanent record. It should be right. Obviously we all have different levels of what's right and acceptable before moving on. But settling for capturing a good performance, when it could be great instead, shouldn't have to be rationalized. There shouldn't even be a question about accepting a performance that's "fine" or "very good" when with just another take or punch-in, or moving a beat 20ms, it could be great.

In terms of capturing where the band is at, that's a matter of musicianship and experience. But a recorded performance should still be the best that's possible for the players at that time.

I even have friends, and I've read about big name artists who refuse to listen to their own recordings after they're complete. They accept the record of their music as it is and move on to the new stuff.

There are artists who have such a high level of perfection, that they can't even achieve it. They know better than to torture themselves by agonizing over their recordings. But they still strive for that perfection. They don't say 'I know it will never be perfect so it can just be okay instead'.

Not everything needs to be perfect. But the pursuit of perfection is important in getting the best performances and recordings.

Bermuda
 
That's also rationalizing a take that's "good enough" to allow yourself to move on.
I think in the end, everyone does this to some degree. Bands that spend 10 years making an album like Tool I think still don't consider their work to be fully "perfect" in every way, and at some point, you have to accept that it's good enough to represent what you're trying to convey.

A recording is a different standard, because it's a permanent record.
Assume you're familiar with the Minutemen, and their amazing album "Double Nickels On the Dime". I'm curious about your thoughts on it, the production and the end result of the music. I won't be at all offended if you feel put on the spot and prefer not to answer. Advanced apologies if that's the case.

It should be right.
I think everyone has this goal.

Obviously we all have different levels of what's right and acceptable before moving on. But settling for capturing a good performance, when it could be great instead, shouldn't have to be rationalized.
There shouldn't even be a question about accepting a performance that's "fine" or "very good" when with just another take or punch-in, or moving a beat 20ms, it could be great.
Except when that extra few takes you want to do pushes the rest of the tracking and editing to a point where you're endangering getting the product in-budget over nit pick obsession. It's also possible to overthink perfection in such a way as to never attain it; when in fact anyone on the outside would never notice the things I might be worried about.(or in fact values them!) Moving hits 20 thousands of a second is only even possible because we have software to analyse the mathematical perfection at that level, and I personally don't think it's unreasonable to value a real true performance over post fixes at that level.

In terms of capturing where the band is at, that's a matter of musicianship and experience. But a recorded performance should still be the best that's possible for the players at that time.
Agree 100%. Same reason I'm always telling people to practice playing rather than go in with the idea that computers will fix it.

There are artists who have such a high level of perfection, that they can't even achieve it. They know better than to torture themselves by agonizing over their recordings. But they still strive for that perfection. They don't say 'I know it will never be perfect so it can just be okay instead'.
I know tons of amazing players who do in fact think it will never be perfect so it can just be what it is. It's like body dis-morphia where the sufferer cannot see reality in a realistic lens. For a lot of people having an imperfection on their body is unacceptable and must be corrected with immediate surgery until it conforms to the mathematical ideal of beauty. It won't matter that people already find them beautiful and value the imperfection that is completely human. It feels to them that their work or body will not stand up to self or outside scrutiny.

Not everything needs to be perfect. But the pursuit of perfection is important in getting the best performances and recordings.
Right. But we're still faced with the same quandary. Is the "best performance" the one with the minor human imperfections, or the one where a computer lined up things to the millisecond beyond what a human could produce? Something in the middle?

It's so interesting how different people approach and view art. The very same things I might think are kind of boring or "overproduced" are also probably someone else's idea of a "perfect" rendition.
 
I know tons of amazing players who do in fact think it will never be perfect so it can just be what it is. It's like body dis-morphia where the sufferer cannot see reality in a realistic lens. For a lot of people having an imperfection on their body is unacceptable and must be corrected with immediate surgery until it conforms to the mathematical ideal of beauty. It won't matter that people already find them beautiful and value the imperfection that is completely human. It feels to them that their work or body will not stand up to self or outside scrutiny.

Very good analogy, Doc. I will add that many people who subject their physical appearance to numerous surgical "improvements" also eventually end up being much less attractive to most people than they were at the beginning. The excessively applied "improvements" begin to look off-putting and unnatural, sometimes even scary.

I think this is also true for music and art in general.

I agree with Bermuda that a recording should be made as best as possible. However, the natural human element has to shine through. After all, music is made for human beings and not for robots.
 
It aint just pop music.

Mr Fricker did a very good video on autotune in metal. Which is just as bad as pop music nowadays in terms of being edited:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT9LUiWXkyo&t=322s

I'd love to see someone hit the mainstream doing things the old fashioned way and put a bit of passion back into the music. Not economic though!

As already stated music has become stale. Didn't someone write a song about video killing the radiostar?
 
Music award shows seem hell bent on ignoring folks that can play an instrument well or sing adequately.

Still stuck in a Milli Vanilli state of mind.

Yes! Despite my young age of 22, I have a rather jaded view of contemporary pop music for that reason, and I have never watched a single Grammy Award show. My brother, on the other hand, somehow manages to like the stuff, and knows everything about every band, and sneaks into the bathroom and blasts some of the music on his phone if I am taking too long in the shower.
 
I think in the end, everyone does this to some degree. Bands that spend 10 years making an album like Tool I think still don't consider their work to be fully "perfect" in every way, and at some point, you have to accept that it's good enough to represent what you're trying to convey.

I use the recording of Snakes and Arrows from Rush to support this. They spent 5 weeks at Allaire Studios in NY State doing this record and even Geddy mentioned how back in the old days, they'd write the new record on the road touring the current one.
Get back, spend a week in the studio and another few days mixing and turn it in for distribution.

To have over a month to record and mix is a luxury most bands never get (we are talking about Rush here after all). So doing what you can in the least amount of time available is the norm for us "little guys".
As such, doing "good enough" takes is all many ever get.
 
Back
Top