Ethics in the Recording Studio

[PrimeMover]

I know that they say "anything goes" in the studio, but let's face it, we're all human. We all have our limits and reservations about what we are comfortable doing in the studio. I'm not talking about legal ethics like copying other's work, but little things like whether to pitch correct a vocalist, or how much to splice together takes on a lead guitarist's heroic solo. As a composer and musician, I'm mainly producing the work of myself and the musicians I play with, so I'm often faced with the dilemma, of how I, as a composer and musicians, feel about the production tricks I'm doing. Usually, I don't really have much reservation, I tend to have a "the music comes first" attitude, but once in a while I'm faced with the gnawing sensation that I've gone too far.

First thing's first... I, like many other keyboardists nowadays, record on a controller to MIDI tracks. Yes, that means I have access to EVERYTHING, and yes, I do my share of twiddling. Partially, I'm okay with this because I can really experiment with things after the fact, like changing synth patches later on in the mixing process. Also, I tell myself that if this were a real piano and not an organ weighted controller, I'd be a little more precise with my dynamics and timing. Mostly I'm playing complex progressive rock where I'm playing lots of notes with not a whole lot of dynamic change, so it's not too hard to lay down a precise keyboard track. But as of late, I've been recording subtle piano/vocal duets with a soprano vocalist, classical and celtic-influenced art songs. Somehow, it feels very different to twiddle the MIDI track of a soft classical piano part than touch up the lead line on a progmetal epic.

We all have our limits... what are yours? I'm sure all producers have had to face this at some point or another, I'm interested in your thoughts.

[Schweats]

With what you have described, for me, you're thinking too much. If the piece / performance moves 1 or 1000 with minimal or massive tweeking
then your job is done. I just read a story re : Bob Dylan's initial recordings and how the author opined that Dylan's debut in the 60's shifted everything in that
from that point forward a recording was not judged by how pretty the vocalist was , but how truthful.
If by tweeking you're more satisfied , then tweek away. If your gut feeling makes you hesitate, then don't tweek… at least for now. In a year you could go back
and decide that some imperfection you can't live with needs to be tweeked which I've personally done many a time.
So , in short , simply be as truthful as you can … (you can always do 2 versions)

HTH - Schweats

[nick danger]

I don't think it's a matter of ethics so much as what your intent is in making the recordings.

With one group I work with, nearly everything is comped (or as we call it, frankentracked) from multiple snippets from sometimes hundreds of takes, some no longer than a couple of seconds. Doing so drives me nuts, but I've got the two principal songwriters/performers trained to do most of it on their own, and if they enjoy doing it and like the results, it's OK by me-- although it may be a minor miracle if the CD ever gets done. But done this way, I see it as part of the composition process as much as a recording process.

Another group I'm currently working with only want to do one or two takes of anything, the closer to a live performance, the better. They actually prefer a few flaws because it sounds more "natural." And it's plenty "natural." To me, a recording done this way is more for personal purposes. Recordings with too many glitches of one sort or another just won't hold up to repeated listenings.

My personal preference would be somewhere in between these two, but as I have said, I don't really think it's an issue of ethics.

[banta24]

As a producer/engineer that only worked in the analog domain for a very short time before going digital, I think I tend to approach the possibilities of comping, switching virtual instruments after the performance is recorded etc. as wonderful tools and use them without reservation, when it's appropriate. I completely agree that if the recording isn't meant to be commercially viable that leaving imperfections/natural sound or whatever you want to call it, can be just fine. If the artist is trying to make a career for themselves, they must recognize the genre they are trying to compete in and use similar techniques for achieving the "sound' that puts them in that particular ball game.

Shying away from the tools available in the digital domain is, to me, like a painter refusing to use more than the primary colours out of some sort of spite for new developments. Everything can be totally overused, but that's been true since the very first artificial reverb unit became available. That said, I tend to do things like pitch correction/comping when the client isn't around. It's amazing how touchy they can get when they see you doing it, probably because it hurts a bit to see their "errors", so I just do it and then play the track when they return, saying "I did some work to kick your vocals up a notch". They rarely, if ever, ask about pitch correction unless I've made a mistake and pulled a Cher

I agree with Nick that it's not really about ethics. One day there will be a vocal plug-in that can take a single note from the singer, analyze it, and turn that persons voice into a completely convincing amazing performance. When that day comes, I think there will be an ethical issue. As it stands now, especially with comping, I look at it as taking the best of a bunch of real performances and creating something that represents the artist "nailing it". Sure they couldn't do that live, but neither can Bono.

The song is king. If it's a great tune, it's a great tune with or without comping/pitching and using the digital toolbox on it just helps it compete in the marketplace. If the song is terrible, no manner of digital wizardry can save it.

[James Steele]

I think you're right about the middle ground between the two groups you work with. I face those things myself sometimes. For example, should I play that guitar track again, or just fix it by comping it, or say, apply a little pitch shifting to a string bend that just quite didn't make it. In those cases, if I'm trying to get a lot done or in songwriting mode, the goal is to get the tracks done and acceptable for mixing, and I don't feel bad about doing so if I know it's something that I could have played with more takes, but didn't want the hassle. On the flip side, what would be completely unethical to me would be to time compress a guitar solo so you're playing faster than you are capable of, or pitch shifting a vocal up higher to a note than you can actually sing. When you artificially improve your performance in a recording, but then you must perform, live this sort of deception is going to come out (Kanye West on SNL? Ashley Simpson too.). But I guess some of their fan-base will refuse to see this and it doesn't matter as they've hit critical mass with their "stardom."

I suppose though, if I were recording other people, my job would be to do what they ask, although I really pity the guy who makes me cut together a guitar solo that he could never play contiguously on his best day, because if/when they go out and play live for an audience that has heard the recording, at least SOME of the audience (the ones who aren't drunk or stoned) are going to realize something's wrong. If they wish to hurt themselves this way, that's their mistake I guess.

[James Steele]

P.S. This doesn't belong in the Digital Performer forum. Moving to OT.

[Shooshie]

There's nothing about mixing that falls into the category of "ethics" except possibly the decision not to participate if the content bothers you (example: nasty rap or right-wing christian or whatever might be your limit)


There is very little that is "truthful" about a recording. What comes out of the instruments does not fit onto a platter of any kind yet invented. The ambience of the concert hall cannot be recreated naturally in the studio. Multitracking is not like playing in a band. Monitors in the control room (and the amps that power them) are nothing like the consumer's stereo and speakers. Panning in the studio cannot be accomplished acoustically by setting people where they are supposed to go, unless you're just doing a simple two-track binaural recording with little or no mixing.

There are more reasons, but just taking those alone prove that what comes out on the platter you sell is entirely a series of choices made by the engineers and performers. From beginning to end. There is nothing truthful about it. It's an artistic creation -- the mix itself is an artistic creation just as much as the performance. Any sense of realism comes from informed choices from years of doing it. People who take some sort of moral highground and claim to make records that are true to the artist's performance are in fact making artistic statements of their own which claim, by proxy, that the engineer's tastes are so similar to the artist's that he can mix the way the artist sounded in concert. Or something like that.

No, the moment you decide to record in a studio, you have given up all claims to authenticity, accuracy, truth, etc. You have instead substituted engineering experience that creates spatial, acoustic, and amplified sounds that the engineer thinks will add up to a very enjoyable performance simulation. And that's what you sell. There is no if, and, or but about it. That is the only truth! That is the only ethic! There's live, and there's studio, and when you record either one of them, you are forced to make choices and compromises. Even if you make a "genuine" live recording, for whom is it genuine? The guys on stage? The girls in the front row? The couples in the back? You see what I mean? There is no authenticity on a platter of any kind. The technology to create "realism" or "truth" simply does not exist in audio recording. That's a fact. One must be a painter of sorts, and visualize the finished product before you start, then make choices at every step of the way that bring you closer to that initial visualization. It's a rare engineer who can achieve what he imagined, just as it's a rare painter who can paint the picture he first conceived.

Shooshie

[Shooshie]

Here's another branch of musical ethics: when creating renditions of classical recordings, what is considered ethical? Classical recordings are traditionally judged by the performer's ability. Unfortunately, we often hear recordings that bend the composer's will toward the performer's ego. Is that ethical? Must be; those kind sell very well. Ok, then what about a performer like Glenn Gould, who despite being a great performer, was also determined to produce an accurate recording of the composer's will? To achieve this, he had his engineers splice a lot of tape. Sometimes as many as 80 splices in a single piece. I've spliced together two performances in four or five places to get the phrasing I liked better, but to the average person, they would not have noticed any difference. I did those splices for ME. But to go back and reperform over and over, and splice measures, notes, phrases... is that ethical? Must be; Glenn Gould sells very well.

Ok, now we get to MIDI. I was doing some Chopin and Skryabin the other night, mostly as an exchange with my friend, Frodo, commenting on each others' interpretations. There were things we each liked and disliked about the other's work. But Frodo is a pianist, and what I was hearing was what he was playing. I'm not a pianist, so what he was hearing was an interpretation on my part, created in MIDI. Sure, I can play the pieces, and pretty much at the tempos indicated. But not with the smoothness and accuracy you hear in these recordings. I was sculpting Chopin in MIDI. Is that ethical? I'm not selling them, so why not? They represent what I want to hear in these pieces. I'll post some:

Frederic Chopin: Prelude #3
Frederic Chopin: Prelude #2

Then there's this one by Skryabin: I cannot play this one at tempo. I simply haven't put in the practice time. I created it in MIDI so that I could HEAR it. I had ideas about it that I want to hear, and I wanted to render those so that others could hear what I was thinking. Is that ethical?
Alexander Skryabin: Opus 42 Etude #7

So, where do the ethics fall in those? Is what I did any more or less ethical than what Glenn Gould did? Is it the performer we are aligned with? or the composer? If it's the composer (and I believe it is), then why not use the technology available to create interpretations as you'd like to hear that composer's works played? Performer's have exhausted the physical capabilities of human beings in bringing these works to levels of perfection and control -- and all sorts of interpretations -- so that as a performer there is very little you can add to the oeuvre. MIDI gives us a new ballgame. We can sculpt a performance to the way we want to hear it, and not be bound by the interpretations set upon us by performers, many of whom are playing as for judges at a competition, which adds a certain dimension to piano recordings that is not always pleasurable or accurate. Is there really anything wrong with creating your own?

Shooshie

[davedempsey]

Lately I've been listening to Herbie Hancock's River the Joni letters. On the title track, River, Corinne Bailey Rae (a voice I absolutely adore) sings a tight harmony to herself on a couple of lines towards the end of the track. It's the only point in the album where you loose the illusion of the band playing in the room with you - it also sounds just fine - a musically excellent overdub. I can imagine the discussion about the idea - and afterwards: should we keep it in? It's there because it sounds great, but from a particular "ethical" perspective it has marred the recording. I think ethics had no valid place in that decision just as perspective has no place in art - the overdub stayed in because it was judged to have sounded better that way.

[James Steele]

Hey Shooshie... you make some good points. In my response, I was trying to confine my thoughts to the example where a musician might use technology to produce a performance that he/she isn't truly capable of delivering, yet in some way or another letting the impression be created that the musician played the part in real time. If it's clear that it's a recording and a piece of "art" and all sorts of studio technology has been used to aid in its creation, that's one thing. Unfortunately, I look the the prism of my own genre, and if say a hard rock or metal act made an album and had a song where the guitar solo was cut together or time compressed so it was faster than a guitarist could actually play live, but passed off as an actual performance, I think that would be unethical as it would commonly be considered "cheating" since it takes a advantage of the assumption of live performance that is prevalent in that genre.

I hope I'm making some sense.

[nick danger]

The Beatles never performed Sgt. Peppers live-- and at that time, it probably wasn't even possible.

[James Steele]

The Beatles never performed Sgt. Peppers live-- and at that time, it probably wasn't even possible.

I'm not talking about quantity of overdubs. That's too broad. I'm talking about something like George Harrison editing together a guitar solo that sounded like he played it, but was something too difficult for him to play in real time. I don't know why I'm having such a difficult time communicating clearly today.

[Shooshie]

I think the words we're looking for are "intent to deceive." Were I to post a marvelous piano recording and say "yep, that's me. I did it in one take," then that would be deceiving, and thus, unethical.

But if I'm putting it out there so that people can hear what I think that piece should sound like, and I explain that it was created with technology, not a virtuosic player, then that's not deceiving, but demonstrating a form of artistry that the general public is only vaguely aware of. On a lucky day, I might be able to play the first two pieces that I posted and make them sound like what you hear. I have done that in the past. But that's not how they were recorded. I played them probably at about 90% of the tempo, and I played them in sections. At the end of the fast one (prelude #3), I had a few notes to correct and realign. So, I could almost say I played it in as you hear it, but not quite. Five or ten years ago, I may have played it that way.

But that's beside the point, I guess. The point is really simple: is the artist deceiving anyone or not? And back to multi-tracking; there was no disclaimer on Sgt. Pepper that told us "The Beatles really can't play this. This is a studio project." But somehow we just knew that, and nobody cared a bit. It was wonderful trying to figure out how they did it.

So, they didn't deceive anyone, but there was never really any question about that. Somebody DID play those solos; maybe 60 times till they got the right one, but someone DID play them. But nowadays, a kid can produce something that virtuosic studio players cannot produce. The game has changed, and thus we're asking ourselves, where do we draw the line?

Shooshie

[chamelion]

Regarding ethics in the recording studio, it's interesting to stop for a moment to consider this simple statement of fact: Nothing in life has any meaning except the meaning that you or I give it. Nothing is good or bad, right or wrong, desirable or undesirable, until we as individuals decide it is. This is why highly intelligent people can passionately argue diametrically opposite points of view until they're blue in the face. Nobody is right, and nobody is wrong. Everything is 100% subjective, and that is how there can be such a diversity of opinion regarding the subject of this thread.

My philosophy of life, and my moral code as a professional musician/producer is based on three points of reference that make the most sense to me:

1. "The purpose of life is to be happy"
The Dalai Lama
....If it pleases me to approach a track in a certain way, even if it flies in the face of convention, then that's how I'll do it.

2. "Believe not because some old manuscripts are produced, believe not because it is your national belief, believe not because you have been made to believe from your childhood, but reason truth out, and after you have analysed it, then if you find it will do good to one and all, believe it, live up to it and help others live up to it."
Buddha (563 BCE- 483BCE)
....This quote from Budda applies not just to religion, but to any of life's endeavors, including music production. Believing as little as possible, and letting my conscience by my guide, has served me well in a long career in the music industry.

3. "If it sounds right, it is right"
Don Sebesky
....As music has evolved over the years, many of the traditional, iron-clad rules of music theory I learned decades ago have gone out the window. On that basis, I have no compunction whatever about breaking a few more rules or conventions if I like what I hear. I remember a great old music teacher of mine commenting on the decree that parallel fifths should be avoided because they stick out like a sore thumb. But, he suggested, if you happen to be writing "Concerto for Sore Thumb", parallel fifths may be just what you need.

So edit, splice, pitch correct, tempo change, fudge, cheat and be merry, as long as it comes out sounding the way you want it - as long as you don't hurt anyone else in the process.

Well that's it from me,

Cheers,

Geoff

[James Steele]

Nobody is right, and nobody is wrong. Everything is 100% subjective...

How about "Murder is wrong." Anything subjective about that? Is it a value judgement based on perception?

I think you're definitely going down the road of philosophy/religion, and that's one of the topics that's not allowed here. Thanks.