Why don't pop songs have real drums?

Honestly, I think the main reason for pop songs not having drums is simply convenience, it takes a bit more effort to record drums.

In some cases, that's certainly true. But you're discounting the bigger picture, which remains: what serves the song best? It doesn't matter if the song is a commercial throw-away or whatever, there's still a conscious decision (on the part of the writer and/or producer) as to the best way to reproduce the song that's in their head.

You have to allow the writer/producer/artist the freedom to do a song the way they want. Nobody is going out of their way to put musicians out of work. Nobody is slyly wringing their hands because they saved $383 by not using a live drummer.

Bermuda
 
In some cases, that's certainly true. But you're discounting the bigger picture, which remains: what serves the song best? It doesn't matter if the song is a commercial throw-away or whatever, there's still a conscious decision (on the part of the writer and/or producer) as to the best way to reproduce the song that's in their head.

You have to allow the writer/producer/artist the freedom to do a song the way they want. Nobody is going out of their way to put musicians out of work. Nobody is slyly wringing their hands because they saved $383 by not using a live drummer.

Bermuda
I agree that there's an artistic decision involved. But it is interesting how often the recording features a programmed drum part and yet there's a live drummer on the tour playing the same songs. I do think the aesthetic of having a full band on stage is part of that. But the sound changes, and apparently the artist is okay with that.
 
The links are to different songs. Closer studio and Paris live. Great songs, but what are you all comparing? Not surprised that nobody here likes them. No Supra or Acro to be heard so it must suck. Stick to your guns guys. Hey, it's gotten you all this far. Love these songs. Funny thing is that I love the music you love too. Life is forward. Not digging your heals in as hard as you can. Sorry to be a pain in the ass, but you guys sound really old and kinda out of touch. To think that a real drummer would have made these recordings sound better? That the artist and producer are just clueless or mindless robots? I say that if they had let you produce this to your liking, then it never would have been a hit and therefore you'd have nothing to bitch about... and we wouldn't have this conversation.

Ah yes, the ole 'SunDog flame-out'.... every Saturday. I can set my watch to it. I think we all get that its sounds, music and personal opinion.
No need to be 'sorry for being a pain in the ass'. Its your opinion. Contrarianism is needed. But really, the only guy 'bitching' here ...is you.
 
I agree that there's an artistic decision involved. But it is interesting how often the recording features a programmed drum part and yet there's a live drummer on the tour playing the same songs. I do think the aesthetic of having a full band on stage is part of that. But the sound changes, and apparently the artist is okay with that.

Part of that is the "show" aspect of a live performance. The artist wants bodies on stage, and some are aware of the backlash of vocal tracks being used (coughcoughBritneycoughcough) and are out to prove that the people are actually playing and singing.

But there are rap artists that stay true to their art, and rap to tracks and a DJ (who's really there mostly for visual effect.)

But in general, the ethic for a recording (that has to stand the test of repeated listening and scrutiny) and live performance (where there's a one-time visual interaction plus the vibe from fellow concert-goers) are treated differently by most artists. There needs to be added excitement in a live performance, so that people don't simply buy (rather, download/stream) the songs, and that's the end of the relationship.

It's why my boss plays and sings the songs pretty much like the recordings, but adds video, costumes, and lighting for added excitement and experience. That's the reason people repeatedly come to our shows. It's something different, added value, that can't occur at the original recording level.

That's why a recording differs from a live performance. I would venture to say that the recording has to be more enticing, so that people will want to see the artist live. Of course, the live show has to go a step further. Those who can't at least live up to their recordings will have a short career.

Bermuda
 
Last edited:
I digress. As far as computers go, it's just the nature of the beast. I do drafting for a living. I was trained in hand drafting, much like you were trained in music. To be a good drafter back then, you hand to be good with the tools of the trade in order to produce accurate and presentable drawings.

But now, with the advent of the computer, we don't use any of that stuff. It's mostly forgotten skill, much like music literacy and using old school tools. I don't need a drumset or a drummer to produce beats.

Interestingly, the tools for drafting and composing a score are the same. would run into drafters buying the same supplies as me when i was in college for composition.
 
I think it is kind of ironic, that the people that are belly aching about this are the very same ones that created this race to the bottom in the first place, Beatles. It's not like they are arguing that big bands are better, musically speaking. They are arguing "The Who" hoping on stage and ripping stuff up are more musical, Nay!

I think the best part of this is that if you have a musical idea you can record it, which is making the industry much more diverse. People aren't limited to samples from three cymbals and five drums.

People do eventually play these tracks. Trent Reznor played "A Copy of a Copy" live for example.

Well, i don't know that it's a race to the bottom. In certain respects the technology has democratized composition. One used to have to gain a lot of specialized knowledge to have one's music disseminated to the masses. Or, like Irving Berlin, pay someone with the specialized knowledge to transcribe your songs for you. Now that isn't strictly necessary and for many people the recording is the song, not the score.
 
The sound of acoustic drums is my first love.

This may bring us closer to the spirit of this thread, "Why don't pop songs have real drums?"

Is it the drum sounds at issue, or is it playing vs programming? That is, if a track is programmed with pure acoustic drum samples, is that okay? I mean, the sounds are real, and a good programmer can easily make a sequence feel quite live (I've been fooled many times.) Or, is it the lack of a live drummer that's an issue? In that case, would a live drummer whose drums were sound-replaced be permissible?

Just trying to get at the heart of the question, since the thread is taking the usual tangents.

Bermuda
 
Ultimately the answer is: Because people buy it.

You do not want to release a song that has depth, complexity, or lasting impressions and has people listening to it over and over again. You want people to hear the song, like it, forget it, and buy another song.

If you sell only durable goods, you're limiting your revenue because there will be fewer subsequent sales. You want to produce and distribute goods that are disposable, with a finite lifetime, so that consumers will buy next year's model.

Yeah, just ask the Beatles. Wait a minute...
 
sure feels like everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room. Why spend money on real drums on a song, when nobody is buying records / CD's any more. This is probably the high point for recorded music, it's going to get much much worse IMO.

I did laugh at the person who brought up In the Air tonight as an example of real drums. Lol, the whole main beat is a drum machine. That's the whole vibe of the song.
Tons of stuff in the late 80's was programmed, and that was 35 years ago. This isn't a new development.
 
Is it the drum sounds at issue, or is it playing vs programming? That is, if a track is programmed with pure acoustic drum samples, is that okay? I mean, the sounds are real, and a good programmer can easily make a sequence feel quite live (I've been fooled many times.) Or, is it the lack of a live drummer that's an issue? In that case, would a live drummer whose drums were sound-replaced be permissible?

It's not sound or feel or even the "parts", it's that I want to hear an actual performance-- somebody making his own sounds and creative decisions (cooperative w the producer of course), playing a song basically from start to finish. I'm really interested in listening to Phil Rudd, and not at all interested in the exact same performance faked by a machine. The process is completely different, and there's just something fraudulent about using advanced technology to fake sounding like a human knucklehead.

I get why people do these things-- it expedites production, pop is about producers and not musicians now, the expected level of sonic polish is higher, etc. It just doesn't really interest me as someone trying to learn how to play the drums-- and as a listener/consumer I mostly like music that sounds like it was made by humans.
 
This may bring us closer to the spirit of this thread, "Why don't pop songs have real drums?"

Is it the drum sounds at issue, or is it playing vs programming? That is, if a track is programmed with pure acoustic drum samples, is that okay? I mean, the sounds are real, and a good programmer can easily make a sequence feel quite live (I've been fooled many times.) Or, is it the lack of a live drummer that's an issue? In that case, would a live drummer whose drums were sound-replaced be permissible?

Just trying to get at the heart of the question, since the thread is taking the usual tangents.

Bermuda

Nine times out of ten it's a head room issue, toms being the biggest culprits, by the time the are compressed and noise gated might as well use some other sound. This is why drums(and bass) get programmed first they take up the most headroom, it's easier to start with the loudest most audible sounds and work down.

The other time it's that people can adapt a wider variety of sounds and effects either synthetically generated or more likely than not sampled and processed. Shakers, noise effects etc.
 
Just trying to get at the heart of the question, since the thread is taking the usual tangents.

The simple answer at the heart of the question is, simplicity.

A HUGE majority of the public doesn't know or care about the drums in a song and it's easier, cheaper and more flexible to have fake drums on this type of music.
 
Real music that is played by humans with passion and sincerity is increasingly only found away from the mainstream. It's akin to fossicking for gemstones on an urban building site.

There's no point having real drums on most pop today, just as there's no point in having real bass, guitar, piano, horn or strings. Just get one of the programmer's on the company's books to program 'em up and away you go.

No worries about micing, charts, setting up, musicians' pay, availability, reliability, briefing, meal breaks, toilet, seating and studio space, egos, tastes or aptitudes.

Fallible human musicians physically playing their instruments are increasingly being thought of as a liability in commercial pop. At best real musos in the mainstream will be a quaint anachronism for future generations, perhaps with periodical "retro revivals" before they fizz out into the mainframe. Buying human music will be akin to buying a hand made vase from a market, as opposed to the usual purchase of a machine-made object from a department store.

Even vocalists are being replaced by machines. That, at least, is a blessing :)

Note: I like machines in some contexts and still use them at times, and I programmed enough drums on my old TR707 in the 80s to be offered work, knocking up drum tracks for demos (which I turned down because programming that much without composition bores me). I am just observing.
 
Last edited:
It's not sound or feel or even the "parts", it's that I want to hear an actual performance-- somebody making his own sounds and creative decisions (cooperative w the producer of course), playing a song basically from start to finish. I'm really interested in listening to Phil Rudd, and not at all interested in the exact same performance faked by a machine.

If it results in the exact same performance, then what's the difference?

Let me convey a little story. On one of Al's recent albums, there's a particular original song on which I played the drums live. I have to brag here, I did a particularly excellent job, and there's not a moment where you'd think "that's a live drummer." It was that tight and even and solid, and the song lent itself to that vibe, so it was perfect.

But I still wonder why I spent the time playing it when I could have just programmed it for the exact same result. I don't think I was trying to prove something, but I know I ended up working harder behind the drums than I would have behind the keyboard. Note: I get paid the same either way. :)

Just saying, if the result is the same, then what's the difference?

Bermuda
 
A HUGE majority of the public doesn't know or care about the drums in a song and it's easier, cheaper and more flexible to have fake drums on this type of music.

Agreed about the audience, a bunch of musicians are obviously going to have a unique discussion compared to the target audience of pop songs.

But I disagree about a sequence being used s a money-saving ploy, except possibly by unknown musicians cooking up tracks at home (which rarely see the light of day anyway.) In the big leagues, even though music really isn't selling, the product is still held to a fairly high standard of production and (potential) marketability.

As for flexibility, as long as a track is on the grid - live drums or not - there are good editing options.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fake drums"... as in not a live drummer? Or not traditional acoustic-sounding sounds? There are already plenty of live drum sounds that are affected beyond their acoustic origins, and we tend to accept them. Times change. Production and tastes change. I'll bet drumming heroes/pioneers like Bonham and Moon would be appalled at today's real live drum sounds. Buddy and Gene are undoubtedly spinning!

Bermuda
 
If it results in the exact same performance, then what's the difference?

Let me convey a little story. On one of Al's recent albums, there's a particular original song on which I played the drums live. I have to brag here, I did a particularly excellent job, and there's not a moment where you'd think "that's a live drummer." It was that tight and even and solid, and the song lent itself to that vibe, so it was perfect.

But I still wonder why I spent the time playing it when I could have just programmed it for the exact same result. I don't think I was trying to prove something, but I know I ended up working harder behind the drums than I would have behind the keyboard. Note: I get paid the same either way. :)

Just saying, if the result is the same, then what's the difference?

Bermuda

Only because Al is a nice guy.

In most other pop situations, they'd just program the drums themselves and not pay any drummer anything. Saving $$ and getting a perfect take without all the hard work.
 
Only because Al is a nice guy.

Only because I'm a better programmer than the writer/producer (Al.)

The truth is, it's always about the final product. Saving money is fine, but never at the risk of the music.

Bermuda
 
But I disagree about a sequence being used s a money-saving ploy ... In the big leagues, even though music really isn't selling, the product is still held to a fairly high standard of production and (potential) marketability.

Come on, Jon. I understand your points but you can't claim that the use of sequencers in lieu of musicians isn't a money saving ploy.

There are sometimes stylistic choices, but it's mostly about money - a money saving ploy, as was said. A lot of it is disposable pop. If there is any concern about standards aside from slick professionalism I'm yet to see it.
 
I'm not sure what you mean by "fake drums"... as in not a live drummer? Bermuda

Yeah, I meant fake as in programmed. EIther way, Im open to any kind of technology. I generally don't care what kind of percussive sounds are on a recording but I would rather see someone banging on the drums in a live show.



Times change. Production and tastes change. I'll bet drumming heroes/pioneers like Bonham and Moon would be appalled at today's real live drum sounds. Buddy and Gene are undoubtedly spinning!

Maybe but, who really knows? Sometimes even people change :). Being at the top of the top of the heap with nothing to prove, they might have had a more open mind.


And, I wouldn't say that sequencing as a ploy. Having a string and horn section on a flash drive is just a tool.
 
Today's pop music has no staying power. It was concocted by producers using a recipe that makes them money. Programmed drums are just part of the recipe. I bet a hundred years from now the Beatles will still be relevant, whereas Blurred Lines and Get Lucky will not. Heck, who even plays those songs anymore? But people will still be singing Strawberry Fields forever.
 
Back
Top