Cheating

I teach, and when I think about the use of the term “cheating”, I think about students violating the ground rules during an exam.  Examples may include looking at another student’s exam or using a concealed crib sheet.  Certainly, this definition and these examples are black and white and we could probably all come up with black and white examples of our own.  But, as we all know, the world is shaded in grey and often, what truly matters, is how we deal with the grey areas in life.

In the realm of music, is there truly a black and white?  Are there ground rules and am I really taking some kind of test?  So, I am wondering, in the context of writing, recording, engineering, producing and listening to music, is the term cheating really relevant or meaningful?  Or, do we really mean to say … “I do not like YOUR musical genre (or some aspect of YOUR music) so, in my opinion, the methods used to create it are again, in my opinion, unacceptable and, I am calling YOUR character into question”.  Here, I am substituting the word character for cheating with the intention of NOT using the words interchangeably to make a point.  Also, I am using “YOUR” and “I” to highlight the antagonistic tone I am trying to convey.   To my point, stating it this way at least in my mind, emphasizes the idea that when we accuse somebody of cheating in the context of the musical process (whether it be performance or production), we ARE NOT simply making an objective evaluation based on some defined ground rules but we ARE playing judge and jury and ultimately passing judgment on others.  As a side note, I once saw somebody wearing a T-shirt that said something to the effect of … “character – it’s what we do when nobody is looking”.

More specifically, and a bit less philosophically, I have been thinking about this topic in terms of technology and the use of modern digital production tools capable of manipulating music’s fundamental components: pitch, rhythm and timbre.  As with nearly every endeavor in life, music is a volatile interface between art, business and, relevant to this discussion, technology.  As such, it is a microcosm with every imaginable character from every walk of life residing in it with each resident having his/her own goals and aspirations ranging from despicable to grandiose (yes, I know, very subjective terms).  Think about it, it is a world populated by gun toting producers, tormented drug and alcohol addicted creative geniuses, MIT educated electrical engineers and the cliché unscrupulous record executives … oh, and bapu, but I digress.  Now, revisiting the question posed in the cheating themed discussion above but focusing on digital engineering and production tools, is there ever a situation when art and business meet the tools of technology where we are justified in vilify the tools used?

Certainly, an easy target for condemnation would be the latest generic pop star sensation that is nothing more than a pretty face slapped on a focus group approved corporate creation.  You may not like it but, by definition, it is music (yikes) and the final product, in all of its perfect perfectness is what is expected by the intended audience and yes, that audience has no interest in going into the kitchen to see how their food is prepared.  Is it fair to say that you don’t like and are even disgusted by the music at many levels? … obviously yes.  BUT, is it fair to say that using the “Perfectizer” plugin is the moral equivalent to cheating and essentially prosecute the tool?

I suspect that if we founded a new country on the premise of freedom of music (isn’t that in a song somewhere) and the framers of its constitution where drawn from the lot of characters in the music microcosm, we would have a second amendment that protected our right to keep and bear Audio Snap.  The population would be split, presidents would be elected based on their stance on the issue and many of us would be driving around with bumper stickers proclaiming “Audio Snap doesn’t suck the life out of music, it’s people who suck the life out of music”.

In music there is no cheating. If someone somewhere likes it (most importantly yourself) then you have done your job. Everyone else can suck a lemon.

slartabartfast


Did you know that Bambi could not speak English? 

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!

I'm saying nothing here that could be used against me later.

One of the key reasons you don't get these kind of disclaimers on records is that the overwhelming majority of the audience couldn't care less. And no, this isn't because they're the ignorant swinish idiot multitudes, it's because it has no bearing on whether they find something enjoyable and interesting.

meh...

I can't be arsed to cheat either....don't know how anyways

quantumeffect


I teach, and when I think about the use of the term “cheating”, I think about students violating the ground rules during an exam.  Examples may include looking at another student’s exam or using a concealed crib sheet.  Certainly, this definition and these examples are black and white and we could probably all come up with black and white examples of our own.  But, as we all know, the world is shaded in grey and often, what truly matters, is how we deal with the grey areas in life.

In the realm of music, is there truly a black and white?  Are there ground rules and am I really taking some kind of test?  So, I am wondering, in the context of writing, recording, engineering, producing and listening to music, is the term cheating really relevant or meaningful?  Or, do we really mean to say … “I do not like YOUR musical genre (or some aspect of YOUR music) so, in my opinion, the methods used to create it are again, in my opinion, unacceptable and, I am calling YOUR character into question”.  Here, I am substituting the word character for cheating with the intention of NOT using the words interchangeably to make a point.  Also, I am using “YOUR” and “I” to highlight the antagonistic tone I am trying to convey.   To my point, stating it this way at least in my mind, emphasizes the idea that when we accuse somebody of cheating in the context of the musical process (whether it be performance or production), we ARE NOT simply making an objective evaluation based on some defined ground rules but we ARE playing judge and jury and ultimately passing judgment on others.  As a side note, I once saw somebody wearing a T-shirt that said something to the effect of … “character – it’s what we do when nobody is looking”.

More specifically, and a bit less philosophically, I have been thinking about this topic in terms of technology and the use of modern digital production tools capable of manipulating music’s fundamental components: pitch, rhythm and timbre.  As with nearly every endeavor in life, music is a volatile interface between art, business and, relevant to this discussion, technology.  As such, it is a microcosm with every imaginable character from every walk of life residing in it with each resident having his/her own goals and aspirations ranging from de****able to grandiose (yes, I know, very subjective terms).  Think about it, it is a world populated by gun toting producers, tormented drug and alcohol addicted creative geniuses, MIT educated electrical engineers and the cliché unscrupulous record executives … oh, and bapu, but I digress.  Now, revisiting the question posed in the cheating themed discussion above but focusing on digital engineering and production tools, is there ever a situation when art and business meet the tools of technology where we are justified in vilify the tools used?

Certainly, an easy target for condemnation would be the latest generic pop star sensation that is nothing more than a pretty face slapped on a focus group approved corporate creation.  You may not like it but, by definition, it is music (yikes) and the final product, in all of its perfect perfectness is what is expected by the intended audience and yes, that audience has no interest in going into the kitchen to see how their food is prepared.  Is it fair to say that you don’t like and are even disgusted by the music at many levels? … obviously yes.  BUT, is it fair to say that using the “Perfectizer” plugin is the moral equivalent to cheating and essentially prosecute the tool?

I suspect that if we founded a new country on the premise of freedom of music (isn’t that in a song somewhere) and the framers of its constitution where drawn from the lot of characters in the music microcosm, we would have a second amendment that protected our right to keep and bear Audio Snap.  The population would be split, presidents would be elected based on their stance on the issue and many of us would be driving around with bumper stickers proclaiming “Audio Snap doesn’t suck the life out of music, it’s people who suck the life out of music”.

Awesome thread, great delivery, credible questions, Dave! I could write a book on this...but most of it has been covered, so here's the shorter version of my take on this.
 
I think that anyone who is not performing live can do whatever they want whenever they want. Music is music....how you get your ideas out of your head and how you decide to polish them is on you.
 
However, if you are an artist that plays live, I think you owe it to your fans that love you to shine as much as you can at all times. For example, I will NOT record anything that I can't physically pull off. When I DO do something like that, I learn the part or come so close, no one can tell.
 
I'm not a purist completely, but there are some things I just don't do that others do all the time. Like Karyn mentioned on the copy and paste thing, I do this for clients when I'm asked to perform on their material because time is money. For myself, I don't do this because I love playing my stuff and look forward to playing my parts. Now when I do my vocal parts, this is a bit different because I absolutely hate to sing. So when I sing a line that comes out right, I will copy and paste the line if it repeats. I just don't enjoy that aspect of recording, so the sooner I get it done, the better.
 
I don't pitch correct my vocals unless I get a really good take and a word or two may be out. I split the clip and only fix what may be wrong. Other times, I may lightly V-Vocal something just to tighten it up because it may sound strange to me, yet it may be correct without VV. I try my best to do as little correction as possible though and when I do correct, most times it's because I've been singing for 6 hours and don't have much voice left to re-sing the parts.
 
I will punch in a guitar solo 700 times if I have to in 10 second spots. If I have to construct a solo by comping pieces together, I will do it but after it's done, rest assured I will learn it in full or as close as humanly possible. But I will not allow the solo to be there if it's something that I will never be able to pull off or if it sounds like it was manufactured for effect purposes.
 
I can't speak for others, but when I see a band live, I expect to hear what I heard on their albums that sold me on them. Meaning, they better pull the stuff off to where it sounds like the same artist that wasn't manufactured using studio trickery. I don't care how great the song is...if it doesn't sound right live, that artist loses all credibility with me.
 
If I hear cheating going on, or samplers playing parts because the artists can't pull stuff off live, I'll never go see them or support them again. Having this stuff as filler material...like a keyboard playing a track where they don't have a board player in the band, is a different story. But when they literally have assisstance as a safety net during the show, this is a turn-off.
 
Auto-tune used for effect is acceptable. Using it to make you sound like a singer is a total turn-off. Comping vocals is acceptable in the studio, but you better be able to pull it off live, hit all the high notes and make it sound like the singer I loved on the album. Granted, sometimes touring beats a person up and we're only human. So there may be times where someone can't hit all the notes...I'm forgiving there, but they better at least try.
 
Playing live has it's own set of cicumstances which I accept and expect to hear. I don't need to hear the album performed perfectly, but it has to sound close or I will feel I've been scammed. Once I'm scammed, I will not support that artist because anyone can be made to sound better in a studio. If you can't pull it off live, you simply can't pull it off unless you're sick or beat up from constant touring. That's just how I feel about this stuff. :)
 
-Danny

I don't cheat.

I simply find shortcuts........

Mesh, my friend, that's a great point!!

But I'm not sure if American Idol (or any other Idol show for that matter) is music talent scouting or a reality comedy show with a song competition in there somewhere, so I left it out
 
 
 
Well. not entirely...

So much for my next great hit using EZ Drummer, EZ Keys , and EZ Mix to get my EZ Song......ooohhh it's not EZ.

Daaaaamn...  Danny can pull off a guitar solo in only 700 tries?  I seriously need to improve...

I bet it's to make certain all of those squealies are done just so.

()

   Great subject here and very deep. I always seem to approach music by looking at historical changes over time and when looking at it that way I see things in a better light..

 In the same way that technology has brought us from the Wright brothers to super sonic aircraft in a very short time I have seen a similar thing happening to music over a short time.This has changed how many of us look at it.Just about everything regarding music has changed.

 Last night I watched Dead Meau5 who can pull in a quarter of a million people to his concerts. I first learned about him in Rolling Stone magazine, no doubt about it he is a big thing. I have to say I got absolutely zero anything from what he does. A guy in an led lit mouse mask, basically a DJ with a stage setup that would make any world renowned rock band gasp. He admits that he is basically a "button pusher". Noone seems to care about that. EMI is behind him and they are making money. I personally think the whole thing is absurd, but that's JMO.It would be hard for me to think that a person who considers themself an artist from the perspective that they know music and can play an instrument would find anything wholesome or redeeming about any of it, but this doesn't really matter does it? 

 Corporations have been at this for a long time. We see it in the fast food buisness . They use colors that will wow you and make you hungry. They add things to the food that are not naturally there in order to get your appetite and brain functions liking and wanting more of it.They use the assembly line. People eat it by the millions and keep coming back for more and getting fatter in the process. They don't care about that. All that concerns them is their bottom line.

 The same thing has been happening for a long time in music. They know the psychology behind getting the masses all onboard.From the very first recordings music became a commodity. We could sell it and therefore profit from it. Talent and so called "cheating" has nothing to do with it from their perspective. In many circles even if it is cheating and even if they know it  they will still do it because they can.

 Since music is now a commodity we can be selective in what we buy. This is about the only control we have over the direction of corporate music. I recently got a fairly substantial credit to my Itunes account. I have been browsing  on and off and I am having trouble making a selection. I have a pretty ecclectic taste in music, but I am also a little picky. 

 Things like auto snap and auto tune are here to stay. Even the people who were against some of that are using it to tweak out their tunes. I guess the question is, Is it possible to cheat in art? In the overall sense no, but since the big corporations made music a proprietary thing with ownership rights , then yes it is possible to cheat in that sense and rip someone elses material that was copyrighted. Can you do anything in any way you want and call it music or art? It would seem so.

Is using the spell checker cheating?

In my very humble opinion, you can't cheat if there are no rules.  By definition, cheating is an attempt to circumvent the rules in an improper or unethical manner.  Anything I consider to be a cheat is violating a self-imposed standard or rule.

I think many artists have a different set of rules for live performances than for recordings.  Not all home recording artists are fluent in every instrument, flawless in their vocal delivery, or a world class songwriter.  Most of us are just trying to record some songs.  Many of us only play one or two instruments.  Some (but not all) of us can sing.  Sometimes, we use tools, loops, virtual instruments, pitch correction, timing correction, etc. to fill in the pieces we would not otherwise be able to produce in the comfort of our own homes.  We use EQ, delay and reverb tricks to overcome the inadequacies of our relatively poorly constructed studio environments.  We use every plugin, vst, or trick we can afford to make our recordings as "Professional" as we possibly can.

I know it's not the same thing, but this reminds me of the arguments I used to hear when "real" musicians (orchestral musicians) bitterly complained that braindead morons with guitars were outselling them.  People with just enough music theory knowledge to play Louie Louie were multi-millionaires and violinists with 30 years experience were working as waiters.  "It's not Fair!!!" they'd cry.  "They're cheating!"  The Musician's Union had a meldown when Barry Manilow played live with a few synths instead of a symphony.  Personally, I had a meltdown when I had to listen to Barry Manilow.  Skip forward a few years, and musicians with just enough music theory knowledge to play Louie Louie were complaining that rappers couldn't play or sing, but were putting them out of work.  Skip forward a little more, and rappers who couldn't play or sing were complaining that celebrities who couldn't even rap, lip sync, dance, or stand upright were taking all their gigs.

The reality is that we, as artists, agonize far more over the minutiae than the public ever will.  They don't care whether we recorded a $20,000 guitar made out of fairy wings and unicorn manes or if we triggered flugelhorn samples from a $49 keyboard and ran it through a freeware amp sim.  They just kinda like the noise.

That's my opinion.  Your mileage may vary. 

Have a burger...

daryl1968

UbiquitousBubba


In my very humble opinion, you can't cheat if there are no rules.  By definition, cheating is an attempt to circumvent the rules in an improper or unethical manner.  Anything I consider to be a cheat is violating a self-imposed standard or rule.

I think many artists have a different set of rules for live performances than for recordings.  Not all home recording artists are fluent in every instrument, flawless in their vocal delivery, or a world class songwriter.  Most of us are just trying to record some songs.  Many of us only play one or two instruments.  Some (but not all) of us can sing.  Sometimes, we use tools, loops, virtual instruments, pitch correction, timing correction, etc. to fill in the pieces we would not otherwise be able to produce in the comfort of our own homes.  We use EQ, delay and reverb tricks to overcome the inadequacies of our relatively poorly constructed studio environments.  We use every plugin, vst, or trick we can afford to make our recordings as "Professional" as we possibly can.

I know it's not the same thing, but this reminds me of the arguments I used to hear when "real" musicians (orchestral musicians) bitterly complained that braindead morons with guitars were outselling them.  People with just enough music theory knowledge to play Louie Louie were multi-millionaires and violinists with 30 years experience were working as waiters.  "It's not Fair!!!" they'd cry.  "They're cheating!"  The Musician's Union had a meldown when Barry Manilow played live with a few synths instead of a symphony.  Personally, I had a meltdown when I had to listen to Barry Manilow.  Skip forward a few years, and musicians with just enough music theory knowledge to play Louie Louie were complaining that rappers couldn't play or sing, but were putting them out of work.  Skip forward a little more, and rappers who couldn't play or sing were complaining that celebrities who couldn't even rap, lip sync, dance, or stand upright were taking all their gigs.

The reality is that we, as artists, agonize far more over the minutiae than the public ever will.  They don't care whether we recorded a $20,000 guitar made out of fairy wings and unicorn manes or if we triggered flugelhorn samples from a $49 keyboard and ran it through a freeware amp sim.  They just kinda like the noise.

That's my opinion.  Your mileage may vary. 

Have a burger...

Very well said Bubba

See, this where I'm going to have to disagree with you Daryl.


He did NOT say have a double becan and double patty and double cheese burger.