Recording ethics: Is all fair in "fixing it in the mix?"

[Shooshie]

For years and years, I've always tried to produce the best possible recording for each person or group who has asked me to record them. In the past, fixing a live recording with MIDI wasn't much of a consideration, since the sounds were just so different. In recent years, however, the sounds of virtual instruments have grown so realistic that I've been able to fix errant passages with MIDI. Either those instruments have grown even better, or my skills have improved, because now even I cannot tell where I've done these things. Without my markings on the score to guide me, I could not tell you where I've MIDI-enhanced some performances. Sometimes it's a chord or melodic figure in the piano, just one or two notes in a run on a woodwind or brass instrument, other times it's a whole phrase. Using FFT meters, my ears, and EQ/Compression, I can usually make them match exactly in timbre, tone, loudness, and expression.

Some of these recordings could conceivably be heard by people who might want to recommend them for awards. A Grammy seems way out of my reach, but I've been recording some people who play in those circles, so let's just entertain the idea for the sake of argument. After all, it's not impossible. Does my participation in the performance — just correcting errors that would not be noticed in live performance, but which would be scrutinized by music lovers, reviewers, scholars, and students — make them somehow ineligible for such awards? It's not like I'm the first do major surgery on mixes. It's just an unusual method of going about it. These are busy people who cannot be assembled on short notice, and the venues in which I record often have to be booked months in advance. Why not just fix these errors myself? I only do it when I run out of options, as in thinking I have it covered in another take, only to find out that it was bad in every take! I've done many other tricks, like splicing strings of individual notes/chords together to sound as if they were played perfectly in linear fashion. That's not new to Classical music; Even Glenn Gould was doing that many decades ago with tape. Then there have been recording tricks such as the one James Galway used in the 1970's on Man With the Golden Flute album for Moto Perpetuo by Paganini. When asked if he circular breathed the 5 minute piece which has no breathing gaps, he said "ask my engineers!" Well, you could take that either way, so it was a bit of a disappointment to me to learn that indeed, the engineers had spliced it together, especially after I had learned to play it while circular breathing.

Then there was the case of a composer who wrote difficult music, and when he was the pianist on a duo sonata, he could not play his own piece. I simply had him get a running start at each measure until we got all the way through it. I spliced them all together, and I defy anyone to tell me it sounds less than musical and perfect.

But this MIDI thing even has me wondering if I have crossed a line somewhere. It's just so easy for me to pick up the WX-5 and play an instrumental part exactly as it should sound, or to play a few bars of a difficult piano part and clean up the notes in MIDI, and make it match the original. The point of the recording isn't a contest, in my opinion, but to make the best possible recording of a musical work. While it showcases the artists, too, the real intention is to showcase the actual music. Why would I sell a record that made people grit their teeth when the pianist hit a clinker in his left hand pinky? It may be the only time he/she ever did so. What's wrong with fixing it?

Nobody has complained. It's just that I've had some clients recently who are Grammy material, and this has got me thinking about it. When I listen to these recordings, I feel like cheering! Great music!

I remember a story from Chet Atkins years ago. Chet left his office door open to anyone who wanted to visit him there at RCA in Nashville. One kid came and played a difficult work for him. It was one that Chet had recorded, and the kid had almost gotten it perfect. Chet took him to the deli across the street and told him how impressed he was. The kid said "i know it's not good enough. I'm still working on that one part, but I even get THAT sometimes. I know I'm close! How did you do that?" Chet said he just smiled and said "you just always keep practicing." He ended the story with "I just didn't have the heart to tell him I had overdubbed it." After all, the kid was getting it! It inspired him to greater heights than the master himself!

Chet obviously didn't consider his recordings a measure of his playing ability, but a commercial product for listeners to whom he was obliged to produce the best possible listening experience. Is it any different now? Classical music has long been done the same way. In an orchestral session, we were always obliged to hold up a hand if we missed a note, and they'd do that section again. In an RCA session I played in the Dallas Symphony in 1981, a horn player missed a part about 5 times. On the 6th, he got it right, and everyone was so overjoyed that the clarinet player squeaked, and they had to do it a 7th time!

My opinion is that my obligation as engineer is to the composer and listener, even if I flatter the performer in the process. If I can enhance the music to sound as the composer would have wished, I'll do it with whatever tools are at my disposal. It's not my concern whether the player could actually DO that or not. Like Chet said, it's just a matter of practicing. They CAN play it that way. They just didn't, not on that day.

What think you?

Shooshie

[Phil O]

I know it sounds like a cop-out, Shoosh, but I think the answer to your question is, "it depends."

What's the intent of the final product? If the intent is to capture a live performance, then perhaps after-the-fact editing is not appropriate. Or, perhaps it is, depending on what the artist feels is important. If the intent is to give the listener the best possible listening experience, then maybe another approach is best.

I think every recording has its own reasons for each decision made in the recording process, and we have to evaluate each accordingly.

Was that vague enough?

Phil

[begin anecdote] I did a recording a few years ago where a horrible male singer brought in a woman to do some harmonies. On one of her sessions she came into the studio alone and I asked her to try something. There was one song where this fellow's pitch was particularly bad and what I had her do was sing his part on a separate track. I used DP's pitch correction to copy her pitch data and paste it onto his track. The results were amazing. It only worked because his upper range and her lower range overlapped and it was possible for her to sing in unison with him on this one song. So, long story short, I cheated. But the client was happy. This lady was happy too because it made her job of singing harmonies that much easier. AWTEW (All's well that ends well.) I guess. [end anecdote]

[kwiz]

I completely agree Shooshie.

I recently was recording a vocalist who has an amazing voice, but in this session, she struggled to hit a low note that was at the edge of her range. After about 8 attempts and sensing that her frustration with herself might ruin the vibe for the remainder of the session, I told her to take 5 and pitch corrected that one note which was slightly sharp.
I had her come back in and listen to the corrected note which she first balked at due to pride, as well as being a perfectionist/purist.
I then explained to her that she could use the correction as a guide to sing with.
Long story short, we tried another take and she nailed it immediately!

Back when I started in the 80's, (dating myself) this could've been done with a Eventide H3000 but it would've been time consuming, and a major pain in the... Today, I have clients that are happy with a pitch correction solutions and are literally "lazy" singers/players. Because of that, there's more "fixing it in the mix" scenarios than ever. Fortunately, I'm all for it. If my name is on the recording and or mix, I want to deliver the best quality product I can.
Just call me "The Cleaner"!

[David Polich]

Wouldn't this thread belong in the "Off-Topic" section? But I digress..

My own mantra is do whatever it takes to make a good recording, pitch correction and instrumental replacement included. The only risk to that
is whether it will piss off the musicians whose parts you corrected or
replaced. But even if that happens, I can usually win by asking them
whether they want a good recording, and telling them that no one will ever
know what didn't end up on the track.

[Guitar Gaz]

I don't think its an ethical problem - autotune, overdubbing,samples, plug-ins etc. - its all part of the same game to polish performances. If you corrected Stevie Wonder's bum notes it doesn't matter to me - as long as the music is good. If it makes you feel better get the performer to do 100 takes to get it right (by which time the life will have been knocked out of it). Its all the same thing - methinks you are a good and moral guy who is worrying too much. At least your replacement performances were played by you rather than by computer!

[Freaky Freddy]

Interesting.

I think that when it comes to using technology to complete whatever task you need to complete, do what you need to do, make it the best you can within the goals of the medium. No one needs to know how you cooked a delicious meal, you just eat and enjoy it.

The fact is recording and live performance are really two different arts that just share the same dialogue foundation. The problem is people make the huge misconception that they are the same and they simply are not.

A good recording is something I can appreciate because it achieves its own goals separate from the goals of a live performance. Much like the inherent goals of pop music are fundamentally different from the inherent goals of classical, or much to my own taste contemporary music. So, comparing art forms using the value judgements
from one group (pop music) and applying them to a different group (Classical music) leads us being extremely biased and also fallacious in our judgements about the goals of which each is trying to achieve. Likewise saying that a live performance sucks because it doesn't sound like the CD is missing the point of the live performance. Or saying that recording is not a natural performance, therefore it is not real again misses the point of what the recording is attempting to achieve. The live performance has fundamentally different goals, as does the recorded music. So, whatever you need to make a recording sound awesome, you should because that is what it is trying to achieve.

Hope that is confusing enough for you all....

Freaky

[Prime Mover]

I'm with David and most people here. Your job, ney... your responsibility... is to make the best damn music you can. People talk about a slippery slope, but I say there isn't one, because pretty much all is fair game. On a studio recording, you should be able to do anything.

What music really should be about is how it moves us and makes us feel, not how godly the musicians are. Musicians/composers/producers, they are all just tools toward creating the "perfect" sound. If we decide to worship musicians because of their virtuosity, that is secondary. Therefor, maybe it's not so much a fault to perfect a musician's recording, as it is a fault in us for creating hero worship out of something that's supposed to mean something completely different.

The one time I do think ethics is relevant is in "Live Recordings". I'm no purist here either, but to a certain degree, they are supposed to represent a window into a more raw side of a musician/group. I'm all for splicing takes, maybe even the odd studio re-recording of a few notes... but by in large, fans listen to live recordings to get a sense of what a group really is like in a live setting. Give the group the "best live night of their life", but it should be real. I know some live albums are little more than a studio album with crowd noise added, this is where I start to get a bit sick.

[kgdrum]

Give the group the "best live night of their life", but it should be real. I know some live albums are little more than a studio album with crowd noise added, this is where I start to get a bit sick.

It's funny you mention that,many years ago(gulp 1980!) a band of mine recorded at the Record Plant.
They gave us free time to record live to tape to give interns practice.
The intern we worked with told us about a very famous "live" album from the late '70s, the bands actual live recording got ruined,so the band actually went into the studio,re-recorded the entire album in the studio and mixed in crowd noise etc.... And the released "live" record was a very big seller and one of the bands most famous releases!
All recorded in the studio and released and promoted as live in concert! lol

[MIDI Life Crisis]

As usual, I'm gonna take a simplistic approach to the question.

Recording and performing are two different forms of expression. Closely related, but I dare say I've never heard a perfect performance nor have I ever heard a perfect recording.

There is no such thing as perfection except maybe in a vacuum. There is the pursuit of excellence and there is the illusion of perfection. The former trumps the latter as it is both attainable and actually exists.

As Obwan might say: this isn't the perfection you're looking for. Move along.

I DO think players should be able to play what's in their head (or on a composer's page). But given the technology, every effort that might preserve "the most definitive" and enjoyable performance should be strived for. For me personally, that sometimes means leaving in minor "mistakes" as they are as much a part of the pursuit of excellence as a "perfect" performance. They can provide both insight and character, not to mention humanity and a bit of humility to a performance.

Maybe that's not as simplistic as I thought.

[Shooshie]

Wouldn't this thread belong in the "Off-Topic" section?

DOH! I thought that's where I left it! When I came back to see if anyone had responded, I went to the Off-Topic forum and couldn't find it. I sort of panicked! I tried to think back if there was anything offensive that I said which would have caused James to have to delete it. Then I looked in this forum, and there it was. Colour me embarrassed.

James, please feel free to move this whole topic to where it belongs. I honestly thought that's where I created it. Unfortunately, my magical forum powers are limited to the two DP forums, so I can't move it myself. My apologies for the mistake. It was unintentional.

Shooshie

[HCMarkus]

I just like it when things sound good. If they don't, I fix in the mix. If there is a mistake that doesn't sound bad, I prefer to celebrate it, and enjoy the energy it creates. But I don't deal with classical "live" music as Shooshie discusses.

"Integrity" is definitely a context-sensitive word.

I did a cut for a band recently, adding the live audience later as sort of a joke. To my surprise, they loved it. I have to admit, it was fun "performing" the audience... three tracks: Close small group; mid-sized clapping group; and stadium mayhem, mixed in "response" to the music. Instant rock-god status was created for the band: virtual lighters illuminated ecstatic faces in the imaginary crowd as it swayed to the music.

Maybe we should invite Harley back to MOTUNation to rehash his thoughts on tape speed manipulation and related subjects... he always seemed able to offer definitive answers to thorny questions.

[Shooshie]

The group I'm working on at the moment is a classical ensemble with varying members, that is, out of a core of members they use whomever the music calls for. While they perform live regularly, this was by no means a live recording. Quite the opposite. They called me because they wanted to "get it right." I record classical groups in concert halls. They perform better there, because that's where they are used to playing, but I close mic them and try to reject the other instruments as much as possible in each mic to give me more flexibility in the mix. Then I add the hall with Altiverb, and it sounds damned good. Some of this music is hard to grasp in one hearing. I record with a score in front of me, and I catch 99% of the mistakes, rhythmic or harmonic. But it's that 1% which leaves me sometimes without a take to splice. Sometimes I can find the exact notes elsewhere, as in exposition and recapitulation (if the key hasn't changed), or by chance those same notes will appear somewhere in the music. But once in a while there's one that I just can't fix. So, after discovering that the clarinetist wasn't just getting buried, but simply wasn't THERE on the first three staccato notes of a run, I fired up the WX-5 with WIVI and a MIDI track, hit record, and played a perfect segue into what WAS there. A little shaping with a C6 and HEQ from Waves, and even I could not tell the difference. Likewise on some piano parts that were simply missing, or a flubbed chord which might have been just as good as the one written, except that it wasn't the one written. So, a few seconds with Ivory and my Kurzweil 2600, and we had a new Steinway track with several little fixes. These places were unique because the pianist had missed them in every take, but never the same way twice.

Honestly, it never even occurred to me to question the ethics of that until later when I was listening to a preliminary CD of it and realized that this thing sounded better than all the similar recordings I'd heard, and was literally exciting, and sometimes tear-jerking, to listen to. I realized that the group might receive awards for it. Maybe not Grammies, but other types of awards. I sure didn't want to be the one to disqualify them. But I think what I'm hearing from you guys is what I also believe, that the engineer's role has expanded these days, and that Job One is getting the best possible recording into the hands of the listeners. It's not a live recording, not a "recital" or any sort of thing created to be judged for auditions or whatnot. It's just what it is: a recording.

So, I'm pretty sure I'm within the bounds of ethical engineering to have done what I did. But if anyone has the contrary view, I'm still all ears. (But at this point I probably won't go back and put the wrong/missing notes back in. Anyway, how can you put missing notes back? Is that a one-hand-clapping kind of question?


Shooshie

[kgdrum]

"Integrity" is definitely a context-sensitive word.



Maybe we should invite Harley back to MOTUNation to rehash his thoughts on tape speed manipulation and related subjects... he always seemed able to offer definitive answers to thorny questions.

I remember him being able to offer definitive answers for ALL questions & subjects.
Very entertaining between the extreme mood swings and ever changing alias's!

[MIDI Life Crisis]

Way back when, I was an assistant to a high profile engineer for a string quartet. We recorded at the Academy of Arts and Letters in Manhattan. Great acoustics but a large concert hall, for sure. I had little to do with most of the recording, but I learned a very important lesson that I carry with me always.

The quartet was very well known and played several Mozart quartets that they've played a hundred times before. After one movement was recorded, the engineer played it back. In the middle of a hot and heavy Prestissimo section he turned to the quartet and said: "Are you guys all playing F natural as a choice? The music has an F# there."

He was right. It taught me to never assume things are "correct" or "perfect" or that they ever can be. Performance is more about averages than absolute precision. This may be a bit o/t to S's thread, but then again, maybe not. Put another way, I listen for the bleed thru in 'Whole Lotta Love' and THAT is what makes the song work for me (well, that and some kick ass rock).

Another "mistake" is in the original release of "She's Not There." A giant "inhale" sound just before a few prominent phrases. Today, it would probably be edited out. Maybe I wouldn't miss it, but it brings the "human" part a little closer to this listener and I enjoy that a lot.

Please Mr. Gould, don't ever stop singing...

[kgdrum]

The bleed on Whole Lotta Love for me made that song incredibly psychedelic and flashback inducing! lol

To this day it's my favorite Zepplin album.