Most people who cheat probably would prefer not to see it as cheating. I say have the balls to put what you can really do out there.

I'm not sure it's got much to do with having balls either. That argument takes you back to the "don't use reverb, or compression, or gating, or whatever" position. The balls to put out what you can really do adds up to only ever recording no-overdubs live performances. Anything other than that, is to some extent "cheating".

I heard several years ago someone suggest that using session musicians was 'cheating'....

I think the whole 'cheating' thing is overwrought. If I was to use a VST of a particular symphony does that constitute 'cheating'? Because I do not have access to a full scale orchestra?   

trimph1


I heard several years ago someone suggest that using session musicians was 'cheating'....

I think the whole 'cheating' thing is overwrought. If I was to use a VST of a particular symphony does that constitute 'cheating'? Because I do not have access to a full scale orchestra?   

If you played the notes yourself, then no. It would be nice if you could afford an orchestra, but that's no different from playing a digital synth on stage. The fact that you aren't making the actual sounds doesn't mean you don't have to perform it correctly. It's PERFORMANCE enhancement that's the issue, not sonic enhancement.
 
If you used session musicians and claimed you didn't, then yes, that would be performance enhancement and you'd look like fool if it was found out.
 

Regarding performance, what about punch ins and comps? They're cheating, surely?

The trouble is with claiming some tools are 'cheating' is where does the cheating start? If you re-record a take is that cheating? Drop ins are they cheating? Using your standards they must be.
What's the difference between using audiosnap to tweak some timing and re-recording it? Not much.

If that's the case I'm pretty sure that'll make just about every musician that has ever stepped foot in a studio a 'cheat'.

If audiosnap and the like were some sort of magic process that took any old garbage and polished it into some virtuoso performance you'd have a point but the fact of the matter is they don't.

John T


What about sequenced material? Is that all bad?

See above...

wasn't there a VST called Turd Polisher at some point?

John T


You know that battle at the end of Star Wars, with the Death Star? They're not really in space. It's a scandal.

Actually that's a good point. Everyone KNOWS they aren't in space. They aren't misrepresenting anything. OTOH, if a star in a movie publically claimed (or even by omission allowed it to be believed) that he did some amazing stunt in a movie when in fact he didn't, and that was found out, he would be ridiculed for that. And for good reason.

Well, the thing is, you yourself frame it in an all-or-nothing way. You raise it basically as an ethical objection. People using these tools are "cheating" and lacking "balls". You further say that you think people should just put out what they can really do. So the reason people are pointing out these exceptions is that your own argument sort of demands that they don't be exceptions. Where you've actually ended up at is "there are some tools I approve of the use of and some I don't". Which is okay, as a preference, but I don't think you can reasonably stretch that preference the distance you have done, ie: the claim that people using a tool you wouldn't are talentless con artists.

Here's an example of spirit of the law vs letter of the law. Rush, when doing La Via Strangiatto in the studio, tried to do the bed tracks all in one take. They couldn't ever quite get it, so they did it in three parts. Now the appologists might claim that that's equivalent to just putting down a semi-close part and using a bunch of tools to fix it up, but that's really ludicrous IMO.

They are excellent musicians, taking on a very challenging piece, which would of course have been new to them at the time. The three parts are all freaking amazing, and they COULD perform it live once they had the time to get it under control. There is no moral equivalency there with what is going on these days. That's amazing performers putting a piece together in parts, each one of which is as long as your average song, and 20 times more difficult to play. And they then went out and smoked it live.

John T

Well, the thing is, you yourself frame it in an all-or-nothing way. You raise it basically as an ethical objection. People using these tools are "cheating" and lacking "balls". You further say that you think people should just put out what they can really do. So the reason people are pointing out these exceptions is that your own argument sort of demands that they don't be exceptions. Where you've actually ended up at is "there are some tools I approve of the use of and some I don't". Which is okay, as a preference, but I don't think you can reasonably stretch that preference the distance you have done, ie: the claim that people using a tool you wouldn't are talentless con artists.

No. I've made it completely clear. There is PERFORMANCE enhancement, and there is SONIC enhancement. And there's making small exceptions to retain amazing performance vs. using tools to create good performances out of bad ones. These are not really blurry lines. One is way on the other side of the room from the other, and the only people who can't tell them apart are the ones who don't want to put in the work to get to the right side of the room.
 

On your "create good performances out of bad ones", you seem to be the only person on the thread who thinks this is even possible.

John T


On your "create good performances out of bad ones", you seem to be the only person on the thread who thinks this is even possible.

I mean create performances that seem perfectly in time and on pitch when they weren't either as performed. How 'bad' they were originally isn't the point, it's how much better they were made to seem than what the person could actually do, without any admission of that fact.
 

OK, so you're saying "even fine tuning already-good performances is wrong" it seems. This is all a bit hair-shirted for my tastes, I have to say.