Drummer Cafe Community Forum

As many of you know, few major label records these days are produced without the adjustment/corrections  of pro tools rigs.  Auto tune the vocals, fix the grace notes, move the kick drum into the pocket.  Due to the perfection of the recordings, there is demand and expectation for this same perfection live.  Often, similar digital corrections are done in live settings.  Many major label artists could be accused of being frauds as their sound is completely reliant on digital correction.  Take away the bells and whistles and they have nothing to offer that sounds like the records.

Is this ethical?  Can we do better?  

How did we allow this to happen?  How did we get to this point?  For years and years,  perfect recording were made without these enhancements, why are they the standard now?   It must be built upon gaurenteed outcome; "if the vocals are perfect and the playing is perfect then how can you make the objective argument that it's not quality?"    .... would be an argument for guarenteed outcome.

At one time, the studio was a way to document a frame in time, a way to capture a moment like a photogragh.   This is still done on the indie labels, Jazz and classical recordings,  but what are big budget recordings doumenting?  The moment is cut, pasted, moved around, corrected, controlled and scrutinized.  Is this ethical?

Over the past few years, I have concentrated on collecting live recordings on CD and DVD.  Although I still like studio albums, I have taken more of a liking to live recordings.  To me, that captures the essence of a band.  A little feedback here, a little lead singer talking there, introduction of band members, etc.  I don't want live concerts to be "perfect".  It is the imperfections that make them unique, like placing a signature on them.

I was watching a live Yes concert on PBS the other night.  For one set of songs, all the musicians came down to the front of the stage.  Alan White left his monster drum kit to come down and play on nothing more than a kick bass, snare, hi-hat and ride cymbal.

That's what I love about live recordings.  I hope the music industry leaves that stuff alone and doesn't try to overproduce them into perfection.

Are the Beatles frauds for having created Sergeant Pepper?   ::)


This issue has spawned heated debate in the past - here's a lengthy thread exploring a similar topic.

http://community.drummercafe.com/index.php?board=7;action=display;threadid=3314 (http://community.drummercafe.com/index.php?board=7;action=display;threadid=3314)

But I'll take issue with your definition of recording as ONLY being "a way to document a frame in time" - since the advent of multitrack recording technology decades ago, it has been FAR more than that.

I wonder what 'digital corrections' you are referring to in the live setting?
I can't think of any, other than playing (or worse still...miming) to pre-recorded material.
Of course, for years live recordings have been altered.
I don't hold out much hope for DougB's live recordings, unless they are initially straight to broadcast, or bootleg's.
Finally, I think the Pro Tools demon is much over stated, but I agree, a certain brand of POP has become very clinical in it's execution.

(bear in mind ahead of time, that I will not be referring to classical music at all here as I give that a seperate set of "rules")


That pretty much sums up my feelings on the matter.   There are things youre capable of in the studio that arent entirely possible live.  I cant play guitar, bohdran and piano all at once for example.   So I view live and studio as two vastly different things.

I view studio recording as a way to make the absolute most of the material.   Since its the real permenant documentation of the music, why not make it exactly what you want it to be?

I view live perfomance as a way to bring the material to the public.  Live performances are never perfect.  Youre dealing with rooms, and people, and systems that aren't necessarily ideal.   So you take the core of the material, give that to audience.

To me concert recordings of non-improvised music like rock etc, are a little weak.   The crash/ride of the media world  ;)   They document unique performances, but without the immediacy and intimacy of being there (a HUGE part of a worthwhile performance to me).  And they document the material in an often less than ideal way.  

A 'live' studio recording is something else.  Like the Blues Explosion or some such act that is trying to capture a vibe doesn't bother me.  That falls into the realm of other studio work, trying to create an ideal version of the material.  In this case, a raw, one take thing flubs and all.    Improvised music falls into this catagory for me as well.  

As for people who tweak stuff live?  Their choice.  Not a choice I would make.  But not one I can argue with.  If they can pull off studio quality live, more power to 'em.  

Interesting.  Ok, the studio is a different place creativtely then live music.  Agreed.  There are things you can do in the studio that you can't do live.  Agreed.   My focus for this discussion is more based around ethical concern.  The studio has pushed limits for what is possible muscially.  In the late 70's and early 80's there was much discussion in the world of classical virtuoso musicans concerning modern recordings and live performances.  Classical piantists for example were coming under tremendous pressure to recreate the perfection of their recorded performances in the live arena.  With such critical audiences, they were feeling of the pressure of an audience scrutinizing mistakes.  Why perform for people who are there to see if you make a mistake?  

Perfection in the studio has created a gap between itself and the live setting.  Artists are expected to recreate the studio sound to perfection.  We have an array of corrective techniques being used in the live concert.   We also have resolved to some fraudulent activity.
I toured as an opening act with a hugely successful country group.  The group was centered around a couple of guys that were a band.  These were the stars.   Then there were the guys for hire playing live as well.  The "stars" of the group did none of the playing on their albums.  The vocals were all auto tuned.  In the live setting, one of the two frontmen's guitar was no even plugged in and his microphone was only on while he was talking between songs.  All of his vocals (which were background parts) were covered by background singers.  His guitar parts covered by a hired gun.
He didn't sing and his guitar wasn't plugged in.  Plus he wasn't playing on the album.  
The lead singers voice was suspicious.  Something about it night to night seemed a little strange to me.  I suspected his voice was being auto-tuned in the live setting.  He held out notes for amazingly long periods of time with absolute consistency.  Sometimes, not always, when something is auto tuned, you can just tell.
 I saw some other things that were suspicous as I'm not convinced that the drummer was actually playing either.
This group was playing for thousands of people every night.  It struck me as being at least somewhat fraudulent.  

This sort of thing happens a lot.  Its not like these guys couldn't play alright and couldn't sing just fine, either.  The problem was that they weren't capable of reproducing the playing on the album to perfection, nor could they sing with the absolute consistency as the album.

Does there come a point where we draw the line?  With multi-track recording you are still able to capture a time frame.  Sure you might go back and redo the guitar solo or the vocals, but at what point do you draw the line on corrections?   And then if an artist or musician is completly reliant on some sort of alteration or correction  to produce their music have they crossed an artistic ethical boundary?  
Does anything go?  Do you guys accept these sort of things as just part of the modern bussiness?  Do you have a stance on the matter?

I'm just curious for discussional purposes, I'm not trying to rant or flame.  This seems like a discussion that the modern musician needs to have and I'm sure there are a variety of perspectives on this board.

As a musician, thats repulsive to me.

Unfortunately, technology has now provided the ability to cloak ones musical inadequacies with an all encompassing sonic cape.

You cant trust your ears anymore. Maybe you never could, Im not sure.

But just because some of us think its a wrong practice, at the end of the day, it doesnt mean much.

Something that Mr. A brought to light in that thread that he referred you to is that the fans (the ones funding things) just dont really care.

Most listeners only know that it sounds good to them and thats all that matters. They could give a rats rear end about how, where, or by whom a song was fabricated, adulterated, counterfeit or faked.

They just know that they like it.

I think its sad and unfair (and it sounds like you do too), but little in this world is just.

Especially when there are the obscene amounts of money involved, like in the record/music business.

I'm just going to say that the "over produced" (a subjective term, I know) albums I hear are not generally music I like in the first place.  If you like that sound, it's progressive technology.  If you don't, it's regressive.  If you don't care and you just like music, right on, but you're probably not a musician :D as we have incredibly pretentious oppinions on most things musical.

I did my last recording on 2" tape mixed down to 1/2" then mastered on a computer.  

"what's that sound?"
"that's tape hiss."
"can't you take that out?"
"we paid a lot for it, so no."

Ethics are an entirely personal thing, and as far as art is concerned, I personally only think it applies to interpersonal relationships and business.   I don't believe the things youre talking about are an ethical issue.   Who's being wronged?  Audiences want to hear music.  No matter how 'faked' the creation, the  audience gets the music.  

If you have an objection to a practice THATs what makes it an ethical issue, not the practice in and of itself.    

What I was attempting to say was that its about creating art, and ethics dont really come into play in that regard.

So intent has nothing to do with art?

Once again you've mentioned an
"array of corrective techniques being used in the live concert", but the only thing you've really put your finger on is Autotune and I'm not even sure that can be used in that context.
Ever since the 60's people have mimed guitars, or filled their bands with better singers and back up musicians.
I don't wholly disagree with your premise, I just disagree that this is a new phenomenon, or that it's a crisis.
I toured with an act some years ago with a reputation for musical excellence. There were no faking or 'corrective' techniques used, in fact there were plenty of slight errors every night and yet the reviews said the show was like listening to our CD.
 ::)

I will offer one possible explanation why this is so prevalent these days.

You have these young bands, really young.  They haven't had any time to develop their live thing before a label catches a whiff of a demo.  Then the obvious producer steps in, creates this lush beautiful sounding record using every digital trick in the book.  Then, when this band is instructed by their label to hit the road and tour, they end up sounding like poo.  Every time I see one of these "young dumb and full of rock" bands live, they are either so fixed up or so terrible that all credibility is lost.  Is it their fault?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  The labels are in it for the quick hit single and fast cash infusion.  We all know that artist development is an outdated concept.  Unfortunately, when these circumstances exist, the only way to sustain things long enough is to use the familiar tricks to make people sound better than they really do.

That, in part is why I have so much respect for certain modern performers such as Tori Amos.  She can get up on stage with just a piano and keep a crowd of thousands right in the palm of her hands.  There aren't many people out there that are able to do that anymore.  The few that can definitely get my vote.

Stan...

I can remember back in the 70's and 80's when my friend, who plays the trumpet, was incensed that the horns on most songs were starting to be synthesized.  The sound of real brass instruments so prevalent in songs by groups like Blood Sweat and Tears and Chicago became sterilized over the years.  Even Chicago in their later recordings were guilty of his practice.

People these days are so used to hearing digitally produced sounds in place of real instruments, including drums, winds, and brass - that is what they expect to hear.  Certainly someone who goes to a dance club does not expect to hear real instruments.

A couple years ago my brother dragged me to a Britney Spears concert as a birthday party for my niece (if he had to suffer, why not me too).  I couldn't tell who was singing or who was playing instruments on stage.  All the singers had headset mics, and all the instruments had wireless hookups.  The truth is, everyone is paying attention to the dance moves, and not even watching the musicians.  That's the real shame, if you ask me.  Unless you have all kinds of wild dancing going on, you can't usually make it in the pop music business.  The actual musicians take a back seat to the stage show, when 30 years ago the musicians WERE the show.

Ah, I dissagree.  The audience is being wronged.  They have paid for a live performance.  They are not being told that portions or all of this performance were pre-recorded.  Without a disclaimer like that, it not only is unethical, but I would bet it borders on the legal definition of fraud (at least in the US).

In the early 80's I saw Queen live.  They performed "Bohemian Rapsody".  When they got to the operatic portion of the song, the band left the stage, and let the light show be the show.  That was obviously prerecorded, and they didn't fake it.  Nice touch I thought.  As a fan, I "trusted" the rest of the performance.

Is the audience being wronged, or simply being given what they expect to see? MTV bombards them with images of gorgeous, ultra-fit singers essentially doing aerobics routines while apparently singing their hit song (an impossible task). So when these acts perform in concert, the audience expects to see the same, or even something more extreme.

But fraud? I don't know - where is there any code dictating what a "true" performance is? Many, many acts use recorded tracks and sequences - sometimes these are essential to reproduce the sounds of their records, which may themselves include elaborate loops, samples, etc.

I know how this rankles, when you're working hard at mastering an instrument. But I advise you to take a hard look at your audience (or your potential audience) and start really seeing what they do and do NOT care about.

For years, artists have gotten up on stage and sung over pre-recorded tracks - check out some old American Bandstand-style shows. For years taped vocals have been used to supplement or replace live vocals - I did Disney shows in the early 80's that did this, to allow the singers to dance around the stage. Remember, that dancing is part of how they entertain the audience. And entertain is the key word here.

In most pop music, your audience doesn't care about art, or about HOW you create a performance, or how hard it is, or how "genuine" it is. They just want to be entertained. The continuing success of acts like Brittany Spears should confirm this for you. Is she my cup of tea? Absolutely not. But is she succeeding in entertaining her audience? Yup. Bigtime. And apparently that's enough - I see her on the cover of magazines far more than any musical "purists" I can think of.

I'm not defending this stuff. But I am accepting the fact that the audience cares far less about this stuff than we do, and I recommend you learn to accept this, too.

Mr. A,

Point well taken.  However, it begs the question: If you put a disclaimer on the performances, and openly notified the audience, would they be as receptive?  My guess is, no.  I suspect that if you asked audiences, most of them don't suspect that Ms. Spears is lip syncing.  Realistic expectation or not.  As musicians, we know how impossible and unrealistic it is to expect acts like Britney Spears to dance like that and sing.  However, Joe consumer probably has no idea.  I would bet there would be a lot of angry people if put a disclaimer on the ticket stub.

Well, I would strongly disagree with you on this.  But we won't argue semantics and finer points of law, other then to say this:  When you pay $50 to see Britney Spears live, that's what you get; Britney Spears, live on stage.  There is no promise that she is going to actually sing her songs live.


Really?  Well, how many times did the Funk Brothers play live?  How many people can actually say they saw the Funk Brothers live, in concert?  Who are the Funk Brothers, you ask?  Surely you know who they are, they recorded over 100 number 1 hits in the 60's!!!  They are one of the bigggest selling bands in modern pop music history.    

In the 80's, Cinderella was a huge success, as were a number of other Hair bands.  However, on many of these records, studio musicians were used.  I cite Cinderella because I was in the studio with my then teacher, who cut the drum tracks for one of their records.  The worst part about it was the drummer for the band didn't even know!!  Apparently, he had trouble playing to a click (surprise).  They had my teacher replace what the drummer had cut, note for note, on the same kit.

The point is, since the dawn of "pop music", industry types have used every trick in the book to maximize their profit.  Just like the hokey pokey, thats what it's all about.

I have to address a couple things regarding this thread. If you live in or around the Nashville area and are involved in the music business, it is well known that the live musicians normally do not play on the studio album of the artist they play for. Why? Because when a producer is hired, he wants to bring in the people he is comfortable with to get the job done quickly and efficiently as possible. This does not mean the live guys are any less capable. I play for a lot of producers in town, just not the one that is producing the CD of the artist I play for.

You were out warming up a major act? Cool. I'm guessing that if there were any pre-recorded tricks, or sequencing going on, you would know that since you would be backstage and seeing all the backstage activity going on. Surely you would know if the drummer was really playing or not. Maybe he was triggering his drum sounds  etc...

Pro Tools can make anyone sound great, I agree 100%. However, I am in the thick of things with releasing a single on Dec 6th, and a major full release after the first of the year. Our label is sending the band on a radio tour. This to accomplish a couple of things. One to promote our new single. The other .....now....listen....is to prove to the major radio markets that we can reproduce what we are selling on the CD live! Some radio stations we will be on air doing interviews and singing, others we are just going to sit in a boardroom and sing acoustically. Again, the programmers want to know that we are the real deal, not some Milli Vanilli act. Lot's of money is put into promoting a major label act, not only from the labels but also from radio markets that are going to use that artist for the promotion of their stations.

Whew!!....okay....off my soapbox... :)

BTW- My band is WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). The only thing I use is a click track. :)

Of course there have been musical "acts" since the 50's that have been more of a show than anything else.  Especially in the pop genre as mentioned in the Bandstand realm.  But if you look back, for instance, at the 1969 Woodstock concert, how many of those acts were propped up by prerecorded vocals, drum tracks, etc?  Unless I'm mistaken, it was mostly pure raw musical talent being played on stage (whether you like that kind of music or not is a different issue).  When I saw Huey Lewis and the News in concert back in the 80's, I saw Huey singing, his lead guitarist ripping through blazing solos, and the Tower of Power horn section blasting away.  It was all real as far as I know.  I felt like I got more than my money's worth.

I don't know if this is true, but the rumor is that Cheap Trick got its name by using backstage prerecorded music to aid in their concerts.  If so, they certainly aren't the only ones.  I've seen many concerts where all the music coming out of the sound system is not being produced by the three or four guys on stage.  I'm still not sure that Geddy Lee is getting help from someone behind the scenes when trying to juggle keys and bass.  Is it unethical to have someone backstage filling in on bass or keys for a song or two?  Does the audience care, or even know what's going on?  In most cases, I think not.

There is auto-tuning equipment used is live concerts.

I dug up a Nashville Scene  article relating to this discussion:

http://www.nashvillescene.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?story=Back_Issues:2004:June_10-16_2004:News:Cover_Story


and another one:

http://www.nashvillescene.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?story=Back_Issues:2004:June_10-16_2004:News:Cover_Story:No_Foolin

Well, ask any 14 year old girl (or their Daddy, for that matter ;D) if they got their money's worth when they went to the last Brintney concert.

Pure raw talent?  I can name a dozen local alt rock bands that are full of pure, raw talent.  That doesn't mean they are more legitimate to me then an entertainer like Britney, and it certainly doesn't mean a record company is going to take notice of them.  Unfortunately, talent is only a small factor in the decision making process when it comes to the entertainment industry, in which music is a part of.  

As for Geddy Lee, he used footpedal driven keys live in the past, now all their keyboard parts are sequenced.  But Neil's drum tech actually has control of the sequences; they are intergrated into his V-Drum setup.

That's one statement I'm sure we can all agree on.  Unfortunately.   :'(

I will say one thing, though.  During the Britney concert, there was about a five minute interlude between songs when the dancers were changing costumes backstage.  The drummer filled the time by doing a wicked solo, much to my surprise.  That was the highlight of the concert for me.  I guess talent still counts for something these days!

Mr Squeeze...

My point was not about using studio musicans.  The point was that the guy was a "center piece" of this group yet he doesn't really play or sing on the albums or in concert.  
In Nashville you get hired to learn the parts of a session player.  That's fine, IF you are really playing.   This guy is pretending that he's really singing and playing.  Milli Vanilli lost their Grammy.

I think it all boils down to what we value.

We, as muscians, generally value the ability to play. We hold the players to a higher standard than the average listener. We know what it takes to play a certain part, hit a certain note, etc. And, the honest work that goes into honing the ability to pull those things off.

The audience values the experience of the musical end product, the show, the record, the DVD.

I view Britney pretty much the same as a can of soda. She's a product. I'm not surprised to hear of her lip syncing or using backing tracks, etc.

Take AC/DC on the other hand. There's a band of musicians. I personally hold them to a higher standard and would be very surprised if I heard Brian Johnson's vocal start to skip during a live version of "Back in Black" for example.

Poser,
Those URL's don't go anywhere.  :'(

Excellent points!

If I were to watch my Led Zeppelin concert footage DVD, and noticed that Robert Plant's lips were not matching the song, or that Bonham's solo was being supplemented somehow, I'd be really ticked (and shocked) because I hold them to a higher standard.  However, if I watched N'Sync in concert, I would EXPECT some of this to be taking place, because I don't hold them to much of any standard.

Not at all ... not sure how you got that from my comment (posted below).    Please quote specific sections of my comment to illustrate what youre talking about.

I'm pretty sure they didn't have autotune or most of the other technological advances that let the entertainers of today slide by without having to do what they appear to.  But yeah, different times.  Pink Floyd was once the biggest band in the world right?  Would they have done this?  I think not.  They built the show around the music.  Now we have Britney who's music works around the show.  

If you told every kid at a pop show that their favorite singer wasn't doing what it seemed, would they denounce them on site?  Most wouldn't.  Most wouldn't pay any attention, or believe you, or care.  It's a fantasy environment.  It's their Batman or Superman or Wonderwoman.  There was a point when you Knew they weren't the reald deal, but you didn't care.  You don't flip off every guy in a santa suit, and he's pretending to be more than he is right?

Pink Floyd have used a lot of pre recorded material live!
They took their recording studio engineer out on tour to make sure it worked every night.
They also toured with an enormous band of session musicians, backing up Gilmour and Mason.
Do I think they were concsiously trying to cheat the audience?
Nope, they were (are!) perfectionist guys who wanted the live show to be as close as possible to the recorded work. Due to the complex nature of the material, they couldn't achieve that without a large backing band and additional portions on tape.

That is quite common.  Many bands these days hire session musicians to supplement the "original" or key band members on tours.  Sometimes it is because original band members are no longer around or available.  Sometimes they need session musicians because their studio recordings were performed mostly by studio musicians, not band members that also tour with them.  Steely Dan is a case in point.

I watched the Bee Gees One Night Live DVD (I know, I know...) and they are another band that relied heavily on studio musicians during their recordings.  During the concert they had about six supplemental session members (mostly from the Miami area) on stage, including Barry Gibbs' son on guitar.

Exactly was my point. I don't know of one act in Nashville on the national stage that isn't really playing. Are sequencers used at times to add percussion? Of course. You imply as if the players here don't really play.

Do pop acts such as Britney, and Jason Timberlake use sequencers with pre-recorded lyrics and music? Yes. It is a combination of live music and sequenced. This is nothing new. With the overhead involved with some of these acts, they cannot afford to carry 20 piece bands to cover all of the parts.

This does not mean that I support this sort of thing, but as a working musician, it is a part of lilfe.


Again, my point exactly. I know MV lost their Grammy, that is why I brought it up.

Do I think the audience is being ripped off? No- as Mr. A pointed out, it is entertainment, and the audience comes to hear their favorite singer,or band, the way they hear them on the CD. This of course is not true in every genre, but more so in the pop-rock category.

but pink floyds prerecorded material was mostly background stuff right?  It wasn't vocals to use in place of a real singer while a person lipped it right?  And all their session musicians were used to enhance the music not to replace any worthless band members.

How much of the Monkees music was written, sung and performed by the guys on the TV show?

That's a completely different issue.  We're talking about live performances.

There's a side to this that is being missed ...

Playing along to tracks, loops, sequences, etc., is part of re-creating the sound that was achieved on the albums. That's the biggest reason why you'll see artists and bands use technology to support their performance. To re-create the entire studio album in a live setting would be too costly. In a sense, over producing an album can cause real problems when it comes to the live performance.

Are some people using technology as a crutch? Yes. But that doesn't mean, or at least shouldn't be assumed, that EVERYONE is using it for the same reasons. Today's audience basically expects to hear live what they hear on the album.

Some artists, such as Britney, Madonna, etc., use vocal tracks to cover for them because they are doing so much choreography (dancing) that it's tough to sing JUST like it is on the album. For the other musicians, technology allows them to play the same show, night after night, with the same sound and polish.

One particular Rock band I toured with (twelve years ago) used tracks. The lead singer (artist) was not able to go night after night and hit all these high notes. If he was tired on one particular night, the vocal track was added into the mix, and he would just sing (live) down an octave. There BGVs (background vocals) were also on tracks. The band members were singing and playing, but the BGV tracks were added to give the same vocal fullness as on the album. It's a reality of live performances ... depending on the genre. It's tough for an artist, especially a vocalist, to perform night after night, and sound like a million bucks every time.

Yes, artists and musicians can use technology to make them sound better than they really are. However, just about every major act you'll see perform live CAN do it just like the album. Whether you like her or not, Britney (as one example) CAN sing. As far as ethics ... I have a greater concern for those making albums who either can't or don't perform live. But on the other hand, if you like the album, who cares ... right?

This whole discussion is kind of ugly.  Because what it really points out it that it is getting tougher and tougher to perform live in a way that will appeal to the mass audience without using technology to cover the inadequecies of the human body.  I'm not talking about enhancing the performance.  Because this kind of technical argument could be used against amplification, or any other electronic aid.  Rather, I mean things such as voice overs that actually cover for singers who are just tired.

Pretty soon the little musicians at the corner bar are going to be held to this standard.  And, in many ways we already are.  How many of you know DJ's who get as much money if not more for "performing" in a club on a Friday night.  That's because their music "sounds just like the record".

I suppose this is just me whining, because it is what it is, and there really is no way to change it.  Boo Hoo.  >:(

563,
this is the sentence that led me to intent.  I do believe that intent has a lot to do with art despite your disagreement.  Let me explain:

Let's take Jazz for example.  Jazz has two primary characteristics:  it swings and there is improvisation involved.  Both of these characteristics can be found in other music, but most will agree in order to be Jazz there must be some improvisation prsent and it must have a swing feel.  If it doesn't have these two elements then it must be another type of music.

Let's have the Bill Evans Trio play a piece of us.  Let's say its standard ABA form with 32 bar choruses with solos.  It's Jazz- it swings and they imrpovise their solos.  So let's have that piece transcribed accurately (solos too).  

Now let's take a different ensemble of players and have them play the transcribed tune note for note.  The solos are not improvised, they are played as transcribed.   That's not the intent of Jazz.   It has become something else, I don't know what it is, but its something else.  Intent.

Jazz musicians hold themselves to a certain ethic that is tied to their intentions.  Often times, they will play completly different solos with different thematic material each time they play a chart.  That's intentional.  That's setting a standard to cahllenge themselves and express themslves differently each time they play.

Public Enemy had something to say when they emerged.  I think that was art becasue of where their intentions were.   I don't want to be dropped off in Compton, but I understand where they were coming from. Fifty Cent has different intetnions.  His intentions were to get rich and be a thug-star.  I call Bullsh*t on him.  

Using technology to enhance your performance is different from faking your performance in order to be a star.  I also call bullsh#t on the guy  who didn't sing or play on his album and who fakes his singing and playing live.  His intentions are questionable.  How is he expressing himself as an artist?  He's faking it from every angle.  he's a fraudulent artist.

The question emerges, how much of a role does intent play in art?
At the end of the day maybe it does matter.  Nat King Cole to Fifty Cent.  You call that progress?   Robert Johnson to a guy having his guitar playing be done for him and then faking it live.  You call that progress?
Hank Williams didn't need auto tune and Tim Mcgraw reportedly can't perfrom live without it.  You call that progress?  Ray Charles never lip synced and Usher probably always does.  You call that progress?

I've heard a few live albums where I wished the band used vocal tracks to help out.  Sometimes the live vocals just sound lame compared to the studio version, and it takes away from the performance.  I always wondered how some of these singers can keep banging out high notes by the end of a year-long tour (guys like Geddy Lee, Brad Delp, Barry Gibb, etc).  So there are cases where I can understand that live vocals need help from time to time.

I think we have to be careful at pointing the finger at someone unless you know for a fact. Many assume the worst, but don't have all the information in place to make a clear call on this. Perhaps you do have all the evidence. Making accusations without factual evidence doesn't help your case. I understand that perhaps you can't be specific, or simply don't want to ... to maintain your own privacy. In either case, it's hard for us to consider anything as being truthful when there is no disclosed evidence to support the claim. If there is, it has not been shared or revealed in this thread.

All of this starts sounding like a bitter, vicious attack ... even though I'm sure that's not your heart on the matter. If we can't have the facts ... perhaps we should just drop the topic. All that has happened thus far is spread (or start) rumors.

I dont disagree at all ... thats why Im confused.   Intent is what makes Duchamp's "Fountain" art and not just an uninstalled urinal.  


His intentions arent questionable at all.  They are to entertain the audience.   He is expressing himself as an artist in the creation of the music from the beginning.  He is presenting that creation to the audience in a way they will appreciate (figuring lowest common denominator).

I have a habit of playing unpopular music.  So the question often comes up, why?  If Im writing entirely for myself, then why leave the bedroom?  Because I want to share that stuff with the public.  Therefore, I DO have to take the audience into consideration.   If you ignore the fact that your music will be put in front of an audience, then you might as well just stay in the bedroom.   So you do, to some intent, have to make decisions with the audience in mind.  

People creating popular music are often the ones called into question, because they have a larger audience to cater to which makes for larger decisions.   Are they making "ethical" decisions?  Maybe.  If their personal belief system finds no wrong in it, then they are doing what they feel is right.   Which gets back to my initial point that ethics are a grey and totally personal area.

I wonder if these same people feel that in order for a written piece to be poetry, it must rhyme?

Poser, you need to be careful. You are making accusations that are way out of line.  You have nothing to back this up- that I can see. What is your evidence? You live here in Nashville the same as I do and Bart. Bart and I have been pretty open about who we are and what we do. I know several people in the Tim McGraw camp. Are you part of that entourage? What is it exactly that you do here, that you would know that kind of information? Spreading rumors is not needed on this forum.

You initially ask a question, and throw in accusations while you are at it. Until you can back up your statement, I suggest you refrain yourself. BTW- putting up links to The Scene is not a way to present evidence. They are about as reputable in their investigative work as The National Enquirer.

I think the real question here is, How does anybody elses actions in the studio and on stage affect you as a musician personaly?.  

For me, I don't know that it does.  I've never been in a project that was rivaling for any of the fans that seem to follow these genres or types of entertainers.  I do my stuff for me, and if others enjoy it, awsome.  I've no real intention on making music my career so maybe I have a different POV.

I think Pulse is a pretty good example of just how big Floyd's compositions are: they have horns, percussion, backup singers, guitars. I really wouldn't enjoy that record as much if it was only Gilmour, Mason, bass and keys. Gilmour has lost some voice, there are lots of vocal harmonies, etc.

As for backing tracks, well, there'd be no Money without them.

I do not enjoy limiting myself as a spectator. So I know when I'm going to see pure musicians do their thing, and when I'm going to see entertainers do their thing. A "non assisted" live band that doesn't cut it is much worse to me, as far as entertainment, than an assisted one that does. Yeah, I love monster musicians playing awesome music just like that, but I also enjoy the lights, the pyro and the big sound. I assume most people do.

563,
I mis-read  or mis-interpeted your words as it seems we agree on the intent.

Joe,
Do you disagree about from in art?  Do you disagree that there are not certain inherent characteristics in Jazz?  or any art form?  Generally There's a theory behind it, a way to deconstruct it.  Jazz has inherent qualities that make it the unique art from that it is and those qualities are that it swings and there is imporvisation.  Do you disagree?

Delta Blues use a 12 bar blues form (sometimes stretched or compacted but still implied).  There are qualities inherent to Delta Blues that make it distinct from say Jazz.  


Poerty?  I don't know.  It doesn't have to dead on ryhme, but there is a rhyme scheme in place.  Iambic pentameter for example.

Squeeze and Bart,
I apologize for being out of line and if I offended.  I've been thinking about the essence and aesthetic of art lately.  The idea of progression occurred to me as I was listening to some old Jazz records.  You can trace Jazz through its history going back to New Orleans Brass Bands, ragtime, Blues, Tin Pan Alley tunes etc.  You can listen to early Dixieland stuff by Armstrong and progress through the years to BeBop and Cool Jazz and you can notice a progression:  More emphasis on viruoisity, more emphasis on arranging, more emphasis on form (32 bar choruses, aaba, etc) more emphasis on soloing....etc.  

Its not that Coltrane is better than Armstrong,. its that the music has progressed to somewhere else between 1917 and 1950.   Sometimes art forms reach a dead end, sometimes there may be inherent limitations within that particular art form that prevent it from progressing past a certain point.  Once that point is reached, what happens?  Artists look for different intent?  Artists start to attempt to install gimicks to freshen it up?  Artists try to appeal that form to a larger audience? What?  

I think that this is a worthy discussion that we are having.  Once again, I apologize for the rant.  

Yes, I do—at least, I disagree that this is the case all of the time.  I cite your use of the word 'generally' as reasonable proof that even someone such as yourself would see that there is no exclusive group of "set-in-stone" boundaries (even within the context of certain generalities), despite professing the opposite.

Improvisation is indeed a big part of jazz; I recognize this as near-fact until I am educated otherwise.  I do not feel that jazz has to 'swing'; moreover, I am inclined to say that it does not have to at all.


Not always, no.  In fact, rhyme in English poetry is historically rare.  The existence of "free verse" poetry is a rebuttal to your views as to poetry.  Likewise, the existence of "free jazz" (as well as other forms that eschew swing as a needed asset) disagrees with your assumptions as to jazz.

Free Jazz contains imrpovisation and almost always swings.  Even when Jazz doesn't swing, it is still implied are there are elements or characteristics of swing.  There are characteristics of Jazz present becasue Jazz has inherent or intrinsic qualities.

"Free Jazz" is also still built on form and structure because they are building off modes, scales and other aspects that can be deconstructed.

Much the same as my example with the Delta Blues, those guys don't always play 12 bar patterns, sometimes they stretch it out or compress it, but the 12 bar Blues pattern is still implied.   Their pharses are built off the 12 bar blues form.

In the poetry, there is still a rhyme scheme in place.  Even if the words don't ryhme, there is meter to the syllabels.  There is form present.
Even free verse has some sort of structure to it, otherwise what's to distinguish it from a bunch of words thrown together?  It can be deconstructed.  Sure there are exceptions, but all all of these exceptions still have implications of form.

What happens when you remove form?  Cage and other have tried that, but pure aleatoric aspects become unintersting to most people becasue there is lack of some sort of form or structure.  There's nothing to deconstruct in "4'22".  Even Schoesnberg's rejection of the Western system of music is a rigid form.  He wanted to replace our system with a new more rigid system that doesn't discriminate to certain forms such as tonic and dominant.  It's only palatable to  a few highly trained ears who are cpable of distinuishing the form.  To understand Schoenberg, Berg and Webern is to understand their form and structure.  

This is not just a human tendancy, it happens in nature.  Are you familar with The Golden Mean?  It exists whether we call it that or not.  It exists whether we apply a system to it or not.  We make sense out of art by deconstructing it to some extent.

I certainly can't (and oughtn't) argue with your personal opinions, Poser.

I don't want to drag this farther of topic, but....  Words can be put together and structured by meaning, regardless of rhythmic or rhyming patterns, and still be defined as poetry.  Often the reader determines the meter of poetry in that accents aren't written and can be interpreted differently.

4'33" can and has been written down, and is deconstructable that way.  Shoot, its in three movements, take away two and you've done it.   Plus it can be considered improvisatory under a time structure.   Making each instance of it unique.  Those instances can be broken down even further if you like ... man coughed at 1'03" ...  

And since when does public interest have anything to do with the validity of art?

All this has to do with ethics... how?

It seems that this topic has traveled all over the map...   :o

My 5 cents...

I recently went to see Brian Wilson perform SMiLE,
and people were talking about Autotune.  (I think there are some that just invoke it).  Brian is in his 60's now, and singing parts that bordered on impossible even when he was in his 20's. There were enough shaky notes for me to be convinced that Autotune was not involved.
That got me to thinking though....when does technology become a crutch?  When a singer does a vocal punch in the studio?  Sound Replacer in Pro Tools? A triggered snare sound?  A Mellotron sample? To me, it is 100% subjective.

I think ethics doesn't even begin to enter into this particular equation. Someone who goes to see Britney, at least the teeny bopper audience, couldn't care less about the "why's" of the show, as long as there are more dancers onstage than in the audience.
I can't believe that anyone would be bothered if they knew that Britney wasn't singing; I don't know anyone that thinks she is even passable as a musician.  It's not like she is Yo Yo Ma.
Personally, I expect more from jazz musicians as well as rock musicians.  Ticket prices are often ridiculous.  I don't want to blow an entire paycheck and take a day off from work to go listen to a Gateway computer.  Additional musicians and even a little sequencing is fine to me.
To pop concert goers, I say "caveat emptor"(this from a BIG fan of pop music, BTW).  96 people onstage dancing to a MIDI'd chain of samplers and sequencers doesn't entertain me.  However, I don't think that most pop fans or the general public are that discerning.  I don't think that most of the cars leaving the Britney concert are listening to Return To Forever or Art Tatum.
Someone mentioned Tori Amos before.  I'd like to add Vanessa Carlton to the list of performers out there who can get the job done with just her and a piano.  It's even more courageous of her to play solo, because her contemporaries ARE Britney, Justin, et al., and I did see her take the stage following  a forgettable pop act with the requisite army of dancers.  To me, Vanessa's a cut above. She writes and performs her own material...*slaps head* who knew?


Dan

That reminds me of Milli Vanilli.  Or possibily the Monkees, although in the Monkees' defense, they were supposed to be just a TV show, then once they got big, demanded that they play on the albums and live.  Sorry, a little off-topic  ;D

Who descontructs and organizes random sounds?  I agree that you could consider this sort of piece from this perspective, but if you subscribe to that then you are essentially re-enforcing my argument by putting emphasis on form and the ability to deconstruct being tied in with aesthetics.

Art has form.  Your ability to deconstruct this form is related to your level of understanding and ultimately how much you appreciate it.  
Words are organized into groups, generally called sentences or phrases (in poetry).  Sentences are organized into larger phrases or paragraghs, etc.  Your ability to decontruct the meaning of individual words along with the meaning of combinations of words and phrases will determine your understanding of those words.   How those words are organized, how they are structured and used will determine how interpetable they are.  Some  writing is easier to decontruct than others.  For example, a childern's story os going to be easier to decontruct than the writing of Nietzsche of Faulkner.  It is the same with music.

As to the public having interest in the validity of art.  There has always been a presence and a lack of presence of interest in this subject.  A riot ensued at the premier of The Rite of Spring.   Andy Warhol and  John Cage were both prominent artists who forced people to consider the validity of art.  Even to this day, artists like Robert Maplethorpe  force people to consider the validity of art.  Though there is little emphasis in pop culture, there is a presence.  Stripping Milli Vanilli of a Grammy has to do with validity.   But, perhaps it is in this area (concerning the validity of art) that pop culture has regressed.  Would an artist loose a grammy today for the same thing?  Probably not.  Maybe, but probably not.   Musicianship and artist validity has been de-emphasized.  Though, this will probably go as far as it can go and there will be some sort of reactionary movement against it.  

Its not that technology is evil and how we use it.  The disipline of Photograghy  has been suffering the same battle with the advent of digital photograghy.  The ability to capture quality and/or artistic photos has been de-emphasized by the ease of technology.   It will continue to struggle until there is balance reached.   This sort of balance will not occur until the culture demands it.

All of us as musicians/artists have the ability to create art (music) that is valid.  Art that has integerity and is not driven by selfishness.  Music that is driven by the need to create.  You give them the real thing so that they don't have to go see a guy who doesn't really sing or play.

Wow, what a lot of time went into these posts.  I missed out on all the fun because I was so busy playing my drums all weekend.  What a strange concept.

That's the beauty of the forum.  If everyone had identical opinions,  there'd only be one post per topic!

If you talk to photographers, they most often say the most important factor in any photograph is the eye (as in the vision to compose and click the shutter), nothing to do with equipment. I look at photography boards and many are rejoicing in the immediacy of digital however.
Much is the same in music I think.
Digital (and technology) has brought the luxury of record making to the masses.
There is still a skill in composing....and it's sometimes more complex these days, with a myriad of choices available at any moment in the process.
If it were easy to 'fake it', as you seem to be implying, half of Drummer Cafe would be out there having hits and counting up the $$$.
Essentially, creating art (or music if you like) is just as difficult as it ever was.

As I type this I'm listening to a live recording of the Who from their July gig in Sydney this year.

I find it quite enjoyable hearing Roger Daltry forget the lyrics to "Substitute" and some of the tempo's don't quite seem where they should be.(but then, they have always been thus)

As much as I think they could possibly benifitted from the use of some "live" tools to make them sound better, at least I know I'm getting a raw, live performance.

Ok, we say the public doesn't care about these voice overs, but here's a very recent article that indicates otherwise.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=487&e=5&u=/ap/people_ashlee_simpson (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=487&e=5&u=/ap/people_ashlee_simpson)

I really think that public does not yet comprehend what is technologically possible in the live setting.  I really do think that a lot of them feel dupped when the find out this kind of information.  With these pop acts, it is more about the dancing that the music, but people in general don't like to have the wool pulled over their eyes, unless it's a magic show.

Edit: I fixed the above link

Isn't it interesting that we've been talking about all of this, and then something like the Simpson/SNL incident pops up.

Saturday Night Lipsynch!

The other beauty of the post is when someone takes the time to read all of it. I guess my sarcasm was lost on some folks.

Yep.  Sounds like you had a busy weekend playing.  Excellent.

I just saw that article and ran over to this website, but someone beat me to it!  Very interesting indeed.

This may not be directly related to the topic, but I can remember back in the 70's when Boston came out with their first couple of albums.  Tom Scholz included a disclaimer on the record jackets saying something like "No Synthesizers Were Used To Make This Music".  There is no way you can convince me that electronics did not play a big role in playing and recording their music.  Perhaps the word "synthesizer" is just a game of semantics in their disclaimer statement.  For heaven's sake, Scholz invented the Rockman to lend a unique sound to the guitars.

Would I care if Boston used synthesizers in making and recording their music? Would I feel duped if they used them during a live concert?  Not in the least.  As a matter of fact, I've heard some of their concert recordings and I WISH they had used some instrument and vocal supplements to make the music sound better.

After all these years, I'm not sure why he felt the need to include that disclaimer.  Then again, I don't think anyone could figure out a "genius" like Tom Scholz.

ah umh.......

You weren't cheating now by using sequencers or sampling?   ;)

Well, since he was ripping off Brian Mays' guitar sound he probably felt the need to use Queens' disclaimer of "no synths were used in the making of this album" ::)

On the same line as the synths comment, Rage Against The Machine posted the same disclaimer, in their first record at least.

Which always made me laugh, since Tom Morello usually plays one note, stomps four pedals and ends up with something totally different, that lasts for minutes.

BTW, I really enjoy Morello's stuff. But I still thought the disclaimer was uncalled for.

What are you talking about?

I'm glad I'm not the only one who was wondering that....

I read this late night joke by David Letterman from a few weeks back and thought it was funny relative to the subject here:

On Saturday Britney Spears got married. No date has been set yet for the divorce.  It was an emotional ceremony. There was one moment where Britney lip synched her "I do."