Drummers who QUANTIZE recorded drums

supermacaco

Junior Member
Hi,
The other day I've recorded some tracks: One of them wasn't really well played, so the sound technician said "we can quantize the drums, don't worry", so we did.
Since then I've wondered: Is this a method professional drummers often use?
I heard some drumming that sound really accurate, mostly in new metal rock bands, do they quantize the drums?
I would like to discuss the subject.
Thanks!!
 
Yes. This is endemic. Especially contemporary metal, and metalcore. Along with the autotuned vocals in the latter. It will be a rare record these days that hasn't been quantized heavily.
 
Yes. This is endemic. Especially contemporary metal, and metalcore. Along with the autotuned vocals in the latter. It will be a rare record these days that hasn't been quantized heavily.

And it's also important to note that an engineer can quantize subtly if he wants to, so it becomes nearly impossible to tell if something's been corrected or not.

Also endemic is the act of "sample replacement/enhancement", where samples of snare, kick, and tom hits replace, or are blended in with, the original drum tracks.

If you want truth in your drum tracks, don't look to commercial radio or today's metal bands.
 
And it's also important to note that an engineer can quantize subtly if he wants to, so it becomes nearly impossible to tell if something's been corrected or not.

True, and the same is done for sequenced tracks to give them very subtle pushes and pulls to make them feel live. I've been fooled more than once when hearing midi drum tracks!

If you want truth in your drum tracks, don't look to commercial radio or today's metal bands.

I suppose if you judge music by how the drum parts were created, rather than simply listening and enjoying, it would be correct to say that there's little music left that is 100% live and largely un-retouched. What's left... some jazz? Classical? Folk? Big band? Church hymns?

But where do you want to draw the line as to what's 'true' in a track anyway? Recording without a click? No punch-ins in the studio or edits in the mix? No EQ or reverb? Doing only one take regardless of how it sounds?

Trying to make the best-sounding recordings has been a goal almost as far back as Thomas Edison badly recited "Mary Had A Little Lamb" into his cylinder recorder! Whether it's recording in a certain room or venue, using certain mics and miking techniques, applying EQ, reverb, or compression on instruments to convey energy, doing repeated takes until the track is 'just right'... there's always going to be some method employed during or after the fact that will make the recording listenable to the artist's satisfaction. In that respect, the exploitation of ProTools and its plug-ins isn't conceptually any different.

The listening public has been trained by improvements in production, performance values, and home/car/personal stereo equipment throughout the rock era, and there's no turning back. Over the last 30 years in particular, production itself has become as key a part of making music as the melody, performance, lyrical content.

I'm just sayin'

Bermuda
 
Holy crap, as you guys serious? I am in shock here.

So, is it true then that a lot of the great drummers have their tracks "fixed" when they record? Neil Peart? Spock's Beard Virgil? Portnoy? Gavin Harrison?
So, you can't really tell how tight a certain drummer's pocket is until you see them live, because the record you are listening too might just be "QUANTIZED"? That sucks. Might as well just use drum machines.

Seriously? Say it ain't so
 
Holy crap, as you guys serious? I am in shock here.

So, is it true then that a lot of the great drummers have their tracks "fixed" when they record? Neil Peart? Spock's Beard Virgil? Portnoy? Gavin Harrison?
So, you can't really tell how tight a certain drummer's pocket is until you see them live, because the record you are listening too might just be "QUANTIZED"? That sucks. Might as well just use drum machines.

Seriously? Say it ain't so

What's the difference? It's still good music and they can play it live. I don't see the big deal?
 
Holy crap, as you guys serious? I am in shock here.

So, is it true then that a lot of the great drummers have their tracks "fixed" when they record? Neil Peart? Spock's Beard Virgil? Portnoy? Gavin Harrison?

Seriously? Say it ain't so

I doubt neil peart quantizes his drums simply because he's is an "experienced" drummer who has been recording long before Quantizing was around. As for Mike and Nick I'm sure they do and if you want to know about Gavin go ask him on his thread. :) Although I'm fairly certain he doesn't.

If you want to hear drums that haven't been quantized head on over to http://thescripteddream.com/

-Jonathan

p.s. the downloads and the disc itself are free!!
 
I doubt neil peart quantizes his drums simply because he's is an "experienced" drummer who has been recording long before Quantizing was around. As for Mike and Nick I'm sure they do and if you want to know about Gavin go ask him on his thread. :) Although I'm fairly certain he doesn't.

If you want to hear drums that haven't been quantized head on over to http://thescripteddream.com/

-Jonathan

p.s. the downloads and the disc itself are free!!

thanks, I just asked Gavin. We'll see what he says.
 
Rather than quantizing drum parts to lock in every hit to the nearest 16th or whatever, which will definitely sterilize a recording, I hear more looping of a catchy bar or phrase to make entire drum parts from.

Ringo's drum part on Tomorrow Never Knows was done this way, right Bermuda? So it isn't like a super new idea.

A band I'm playing with right now just got done doing some recording where I did that (yes, it was my idea). The song had this outtro that we didn't quite understand before tracking it, so we just played every permutation through one take, then chose what ended up being a single tasty bar and used just that for the entire outtro (originally I was looking for a 4 bar phrase but liked the single better). Sounds great as far as I'm concerned. The result was still me playing and it's still my feel, sound, and all that (no quantizing).

Another thing I'll do is if there's a hit that ends up being awkward because it's a little ahead or behind, then I'll just scooch it over to where I intended to put it. I don't consider that cheating, although you could argue that way if you wanted.

Ultimately, I need to be able to play the parts live so I'm not going to make myself sound super-human with metronomic feel or insert things that I simply can't do.

It's kind of like the recording studio becomes the last stop in the songwriting process.
 
Hi,
The other day I've recorded some tracks: One of them wasn't really well played, so the sound technician said "we can quantize the drums, don't worry", so we did.
Since then I've wondered: Is this a method professional drummers often use?
I heard some drumming that sound really accurate, mostly in new metal rock bands, do they quantize the drums?
I would like to discuss the subject.
Thanks!!
If the band has low budget, time, sometimes it can't be avoided
Personally I HATE it.
Sorry to hurt anyones feeling but Quantized drumming is not real
cueing up the bass and bass drum once in a while is OK cheaper to do than re record
This is one of the reason musicians need to do PRE production before recording.
Tim
 
Bermuda said it best.

Yes, it is very prevalent. And yes, most audiences, even us, are so trained to expect perfection in recordings, and with more and more music being a mix of programming and real drums, and using triggers or sound replacement software for sounds, it can be difficult to tell where the real drums begin or end.

I recently bought an album from a Norwegian symphonic metal band. I'm digging the album, but it took 5 or 6 listens before I realized it's not even a real drummer on the album. I had assumed it was a real person who was triggering sounds, and had some really good takes cut and pasted together. Opps..

As to why, as mentioned, it's somewhat expected in commercial music that the drums be perfect, and using quantize options is a quick way to make it happen. Others times, as noted in the OP, there just isn't the budget to go in the studio, set up a drum kit and do numerous takes. Studio time is expensive, sitting behind a computer is less so.

Some say it's cheating. I'd agree.
But I agree with Bermuda, in the grand scheme of things, it's not much different than the many other ways drummers and other musicians have used to make "perfect" recordings.

The Beach Boys would hire Hal Blaine to record the drums for Dennis Wilson, and most fans had no idea Dennis wasn't on the albums because he was on the tour and in the band photos. Like MikeM said, The Beatles "Tomorrow Never Knows" is one bar of Ringo played, and the tape was literally looped around to make a "perfect" recording.
In the 70's, it became common for studio drummers to record each drum on a separate take, they would play the bass drum, then over dub the snare. then over dub the cymbals.

Also starting in the late 60's, producers would actually cut the recording tape and paste it back together to create a perfect take from multiple takes. In the 80's, it came out some guys would record drums certain sections at a time, and then sections were put together to make the whole song.

But of course, every guitar player and singer does this too. People look at drummers funny for cutting and pasting, but almost every singer records songs in small sections at a time, and over dubs and such to make a perfect track.
 
True, and the same is done for sequenced tracks to give them very subtle pushes and pulls to make them feel live. I've been fooled more than once when hearing midi drum tracks!



I suppose if you judge music by how the drum parts were created, rather than simply listening and enjoying, it would be correct to say that there's little music left that is 100% live and largely un-retouched. What's left... some jazz? Classical? Folk? Big band? Church hymns?

But where do you want to draw the line as to what's 'true' in a track anyway? Recording without a click? No punch-ins in the studio or edits in the mix? No EQ or reverb? Doing only one take regardless of how it sounds?

Trying to make the best-sounding recordings has been a goal almost as far back as Thomas Edison badly recited "Mary Had A Little Lamb" into his cylinder recorder! Whether it's recording in a certain room or venue, using certain mics and miking techniques, applying EQ, reverb, or compression on instruments to convey energy, doing repeated takes until the track is 'just right'... there's always going to be some method employed during or after the fact that will make the recording listenable to the artist's satisfaction. In that respect, the exploitation of ProTools and its plug-ins isn't conceptually any different.

The listening public has been trained by improvements in production, performance values, and home/car/personal stereo equipment throughout the rock era, and there's no turning back. Over the last 30 years in particular, production itself has become as key a part of making music as the melody, performance, lyrical content.

I'm just sayin'

Bermuda
Bermuda GREAT Quote
YEs there is a fine line between fixing little mistakes and quantizing to sound better or faster...DOH
Lately ive been recording old school Analouge sounds using New school technolgy digital recorders ill send you a link when im done
Im trying to record as live as I can and NEVER quantize a part.
Tim
 
Some really great music has been recorded pieces at a time.

Some of the great David Gilmour lines were done as many takes, with the Best Of bits
spliced together.
 
Holy crap, as you guys serious? I am in shock here.

So, is it true then that a lot of the great drummers have their tracks "fixed" when they record? Neil Peart? Spock's Beard Virgil? Portnoy? Gavin Harrison?
So, you can't really tell how tight a certain drummer's pocket is until you see them live, because the record you are listening too might just be "QUANTIZED"? That sucks. Might as well just use drum machines.

Seriously? Say it ain't so

Peart and Rush: No, Rush was putting out albums before much of this technology was available. But are some songs put together from multiple takes? I'm sure of it.

Portnoy: He sells cam footage of himself in the studio recording Dream Theater albums. You can see the actual tracks has he records them. No, there does not seem to be any quantization. However you can see (and he readily states) where different takes are put together to make the final take, and in a few cases, some sections are cut and pasted because the band decided to repeat a section after the drums were recorded.
On a few songs, he even switches drum kits mid-song, which are clearly two different takes assembled to make one recorded song

Both Portnoy and Gavin have recorded with OSI. I know part of their process is Kevin Moore cutting up drum takes and re-assembling them. Which is a big reason why Portnoy declined to continue working with them, which opened the door for Gavin to play on their 3rd album.
 
Quantizing should be used as an effect i.e., this part of the tune needs to sound and feel electronic and static so let's quantize it. Unfortunately it has become all too commonplace and some producers use quantizing as a default rather than using it as a tool to get the desired product which is just odd to me.

As soon as one quantizes drum tracks then it's not longer the human being playing the track, it's a computer.
 
But of course, every guitar player and singer does this too. People look at drummers funny for cutting and pasting, but almost every singer records songs in small sections at a time, and over dubs and such to make a perfect track.
This is exactly what it comes down to for me - everyone else in the band is EXPECTED to punch in to do all their little fixes and otherwise record things in manageable little chunks. Why should drummers treat the process any differently?

Rhetorical questions: Why is nobody up in arms when just about any 3-piece rock band has rhythm guitar playing under the guitar solo? And should the guitar player / singer also be expected to track both of those live in one take?

To follow this logic to its end, if you apply all these live one-take-with-no-edits studio rules onto everyone else in the band, you might as well just go make a live record.

The studio is a tool to help you capture the ideal of what the song should be. Then learn to reproduce it for the live shows.
 
....<snip>

The studio is a tool to help you capture the ideal of what the song should be. Then learn to reproduce it for the live shows.

Is this how it's typically done? A band will record a song in the studio before they are apt to playing it live?
 
With the onslaught of drum samplers and plugins in recent years :
Steven State Drums, BFD, Superior Drummer, Addictive Drums etc....

It's wonder that drummers are even needed in the studio anymore.

I own the Addictive Drums plugin and it is amazing. real, live acoustic drum
and cymbal sounds - editable loops and humanize function, velocity maniplulation etc...

Kid you not - I can lay down a convincing drum part to ANY song
with this software -with fills, & nuances so good....I could easily fool the average listener to thinking they were recorded with a real drummer...

So why did I choose to buy acoustic drums, mics, and practice playing to a click everyday??

the bottom line is I am actually sick of the quantized perfect studio sound that is
permeating our airwaves these days - where's the grit, the soul and the heart of music anymore?

If I want perfect drums on my songs that's easy: Addictive Drums
they sound better, the performances are tight - the fact is my record will sound better that way - but I am digging my heels in and saying BS to this trend.

my kind of Rock and roll is raw and edgy - not pristine and shiny.
But that;'s just me
 
Is this how it's typically done? A band will record a song in the studio before they are apt to playing it live?
No. Many bands like to take their new songs out on the road before recording them, but that doesn't mean they won't end up making drastic changes during recording.
 
I relate to Bermuda's comment. The Beatles certainly "cheated" once they became a studio band, and it hardly mattered to the world that there were songs that they couldn't reproduce live.

So I don't mind if the drums are quantised, as long as the music sounds good. When I was young a revelation about studio corrections by an admired drummer would have disappointed me, like finding out that Superman used hidden jets in his boots to fly.

In the end, though, if the music hits the spot then mission accomplished. The issue then comes down to taste, what hits the spot.

I'm increasingly drawn to music with the nuances of organic-sounding drumming more than songs with ultra-smooth quantised pavement. As Spectron put it, raw rather than pristine. The latter can be cool but often it simply doesn't press my buttons. Not sure if it's just me or something that's common in ageing dinosaurs.
 
Back
Top