The Ethics of Recording

[Sinkharmony]

Beat doctor, sound replacer, auto-tune, etc....

We have the power to correct the intonation of a vocalist's lines, the timing of a drummer's take and actually replace the recorded sounds with pre-fabricated samples of our own.

The question...is this right?

As producers and engineers we are obligated to make the best sounding recordings that we can. So we work long hours and suffer through all the bad takes to take an artists' music to the next level. If they look good, we look good. It's as simple as that, but with some of the more recent developments in sound technology the line has become blurred.

More and more often you listen to a band on CD and they are tight and coherent but when you see them live they are a horrible mess. Do you think some of these producer tricks have created a level of dishonesty in the music community? When everyone can sing in key with auto-tune, does that mean that no one has to really try to sing in tune anymore? Are so-so takes now accepted because they can be cleaned up and given musical plastic surgery during mixdown? It is a sad state of affairs if that is true.

You know that it happens though. Record labels shell out tons of money and will not tolerate their hot new act being less than perfect. So what if he/she can't sing or play on time, they look great on stage and will sell albums with Pepsi commercials. We'll just have someone else write the song and correct their mistakes and put out a CD that's more CGI than PCM.

So, I just wanted to gauge everyone's feelings on this issue. How do you use those above tools or do you forsake them? Do you swear by them and have they done great things for you? Do we have an obligation to create the best sounding records that tell the truth or is the truth irrelevant?

[LTA]

During my first semester in the mechanical engineering program, we had a to read "The Ethical Engineer" by Eugene Schlossberger. It isn't directly related to audio engineering, but in a way, it is all similar.

This is a good discussion topic. Look for relevent information outside of the world of audio engineering. Outside perspective, they call it.

I probably will come back with a "rant" later, as soon as i figure out how not to offend people concerning the topic. I don't think many people have considered the ethics of being an AE (or even musicians and bands, for that matter). Ethics are for lawyers and doctors, you know ;)



Speaking of CGI vs PCM, have you seen "The Rundown?" The town in that movie was fantastic, as it was made for the movie. I bet it was expensive, but it was more real than any sort of computer magic could ever hope to achieve. Then there is the scene when the two main characters are rolling down a hill. Ouch! The don't make movies like that much anymore. The mudfight (deleted scene) was pretty intense too.

[conguero]

This is what steve Albini means when he says that digital does more harm than good. I beleive that digital has nothing to do with it. It's just the tools that come with digital and the temptation to use these tools erroniously is what can be destructive.
I beleive that these tools are helpful to us home studio guys that are tight on time and budget. Sometimes our ears may fall asleep and we may not notice a minor fopa in the tracking and the musician I.E. drummer, bass or guitar may not be available to re track the mishap so these tools maybe quite helpful. I think of these tools as an insurance policy, It is better to have them and not need them then to need them and not have them.
:banana:

[lvjazzman]

I think ethics only comes into play in our situation if use of these tools is covered up or lied about. I don't think use of these tools is bad in moderation, but then you do still have the whole problem when it comes time to perform live. If you can't perform live and sound descent, and end up lip syncing to canned "Cheater" tracks I think THAT is unethical. When I pay to see a live preformance, I want to hear a live performance, not the same CD I just bought last year.

[LTA]

Originally posted by lvjazzman
I think ethics only comes into play in our situation if use of these tools is covered up or lied about.

I'm just going to nickle and dime this as they come.

An "ethical" audio engineer would refuse to record a band that was not ready to be recorded at a certain level. If a band isn't ready to do anything but waste their money and everybody's time by showing up unrehearsed to a commercial studio session, the engineer should "ethically" send the band packing. Compromises could be made, but not at that level. Stereo recordings of a practice or live performance would be an option, but a multitrack session to 2" is just a waste of resources.

While every engineer should choose their minimum acceptable level of performance, they should choose it independently of getting paid. If an engineer feels they are light years ahead of a band, and can't respect both the band itself and the music they do, that engineer shouldn't be working on that project. Keeping one's mouth shut is not enough.

Is this approach good for the income if you don't have a line waiting for studio time? Nope. Perhaps a band turned down by an AE whose work they respect would be even more inclined to bust their butts to get to the expected level. More likely, though, the band would get mad and go find somebody else who didn't have as high of standards.

Imagine a band of 18 year old unrehearsed non-virtuosoes with deep pockets trying to hire Eddy Kramer to record their album at some big-time studio.

The above opinions are based on an AE that has chosen to have absolutely no role in producing the band. This is an idealistic opinion, and probably not of practical consequence.

[michaelhoddy]

I gave up recording crappy bands after discovering that the amount of work required to "fix" the tracks was not worth the price of selling my soul and still being dissatisfied with the result.


Have you ever had to record a guy with a $200 Ibanez Strat knock-off and a cheap transistor amp and Digitech floorboard who wanted the tracks to sound like the Foo Fighters? I did once. The results sucked, I was pissed because the sound sucked and the performance sucked, and it still sucked after I was done. The guy was pissed at me because the tracks didn't sound like the Foo Fighters. No one's happy in that scenario.

Plus, guys with $200 guitars don't typically pay very much. Does anyone really want to have this kind of gig.

I can't think of anyone who became rich, famous, or sucessful by always recording crappy music played by bad musicians. I'm sure as heck not going to be any kind of exception.

So that's why I won't do it any more. It's no fun for anyone on either side of the glass, and it rarely pays very well.

[cmchamp]

I refuse to purchase software 'crutches' so that the client can feel better about a less than perfect performance in the studio. I work with Christian artists mainly, and as all Christian artists should know, any time you raise the Lord's name, it should be to our utmost for His highest. Meaning simply, giving your best always to further His name.
Anyway, when I work with secular groups, such as local college ensembles, jazz groups, etc., they ask what and if I can correct after the recording. I tell them what I will do and won't do for the standard fee. If they want time alignment, note stretching, pitch correction, etc. I tell them I do it manually at so much an hour. Sometimes they baulk, others bite. More income, and hey, if you've got the ear and the right tools, who needs the plug-ins anyway.
Furthermore, as a Sinfonian (music fraternity), we should be furthering the education and performance of music, not covering up shortcomings.
My 2cents worth.
C.

[LTA]

Come to think about it, I guess ethics in the recording industry have been based upon individual morals for so long that ethics of this industry are actually unethical. If that makes any sense.

Even a sample used without permission or simply recording a non-parodied cover song is pushing the limits of the law.

And while many studios are exempt from the FLSA, some take full advantage of free (or cheap) labor (unpaid assistants and long-term interns).

While working as a freelance IT contractor in a different industry, I ran into issues concerning employer-employee relationships. Back wages for me :) I learned to keep my own timesheets, even though at the time I was receiving a flat rate per job. Turned out that not only was a considered a full time employee, but I had also worked through many a lunch and put in much overtime. The company was circumventing/breaking the law, and thus was engaged in unethical practices.

[Sinkharmony]

Originally posted by michaelhoddy
I gave up recording crappy bands after discovering that the amount of work required to "fix" the tracks was not worth the price of selling my soul and still being dissatisfied with the result.


Have you ever had to record a guy with a $200 Ibanez Strat knock-off and a cheap transistor amp and Digitech floorboard who wanted the tracks to sound like the Foo Fighters? I did once. The results sucked, I was pissed because the sound sucked and the performance sucked, and it still sucked after I was done. The guy was pissed at me because the tracks didn't sound like the Foo Fighters. No one's happy in that scenario.

Plus, guys with $200 guitars don't typically pay very much. Does anyone really want to have this kind of gig.

I can't think of anyone who became rich, famous, or sucessful by always recording crappy music played by bad musicians. I'm sure as heck not going to be any kind of exception.

So that's why I won't do it any more. It's no fun for anyone on either side of the glass, and it rarely pays very well.

Ouch, that situation sounds kinda painful. Nothing like a strat knock-off and a digitech pedal to get that rich tone.

I wanted to throw my feelings in the whole matter out there. I agree with the tools not being the problem but the user. All the forementioned plug ins can really help in certain situations and generally can help engineers recording on a budget.

I do have a major problem when people abandon creativity and effort for taking the easy way out.

Common sense is really the best tool with recording. A good take with a couple of mistakes? That can be a problem which these tools can fix and help you out of a small hole. When you have a mistake filled take with a couple of good moments... Well, it's time to hit some Apple-Z and go back for another take.

One other question, When you record a band and you have better equipment (guitar amps, drums, etc) do you suggest they use them if they have obviously subpar equipment?

[michaelhoddy]

One other question, When you record a band and you have better equipment (guitar amps, drums, etc) do you suggest they use them if they have obviously subpar equipment?

If it's going to make my job easier and yield a superior end result, then yes. There are times when it's simply a taste matter (like if I hate the cymbals or snare drum choice), but there are many other times when it's just an issue of overall quality.

A crappy drumset is still going to sound like a crappy drumset regardless of how many expensive things I mike it with. It's also going to make the band wonder why they don't sound like *fill in the blank* artist, so, as with the above scenario, it seems to make sense to go for higher quality and avoid angst, if it's not too sensitive of an issue.

One of the troubles of technology is that many younger bands think everything can be "fixed in the mix." Oftentimes, it's more of an issue of someone in the band needing to take some lessons, to practice more, possibly to be fired and replaced, or to realize that what kind of finances they put into their rig will directly corollate to the quality of sound coming out.

Technology isn't a panacea.

[>^-..-^<]

I suppose time and taste catch up with most of those "studio miracle" performers. I mean, who listens to New Kids on the Block anymore?

The audience for those flavor-of-the-week pop bands eventually grow up, and learn to recognize crap for what it is.

As for shows where lip-synching is taking place, the music is usually not the total focus of the performance, otherwise that concert ticket would be a ripoff. Usually, there's some heavy choreography going on, and the show is a total audio and visual entertainment package. My son rented a Backstreet Boys concert video once. I gagged and thought 'Whatever - you're only 8.' I ended up being truly impressed by the choreography and visual effect of the show, even if the music sucked. (My son is through that stage, and now likes the Beatles Ð Phew!)

Like I said, time will take care of most of these artificial studio creations. They won't credibly pull it off in 10 years in the autumn of their careers when they are at some smaller intimate venue. The Eric Claptons of this world will always stand out.

[>^-..-^<]

Originally posted by michaelhoddy
If it's going to make my job easier and yield a superior end result, then yes. There are times when it's simply a taste matter (like if I hate the cymbals or snare drum choice), but there are many other times when it's just an issue of overall quality.

A crappy drumset is still going to sound like a crappy drumset regardless of how many expensive things I mike it with. It's also going to make the band wonder why they don't sound like *fill in the blank* artist, so, as with the above scenario, it seems to make sense to go for higher quality and avoid angst, if it's not too sensitive of an issue.



I always wondered what the studio techs reaction would be to my kit. I have an old ratty Rogers snare drum that rings and rattles like crazy, but I love the sound. Would most techs cringe and just pull out another drum, or would they learn to love the sound as much as I do?

[michaelhoddy]

Well, there is a difference between "crappy" and "character." When I refer to crappy, I'm kind of thinking more of the beat-up Royce Pro kit with Camber cymbals, with the original heads on the toms, napkins duct-taped to the heads, no bottom heads, and the bass drum filled with mattress foam. That's more what I had in mind.

Old stuff that has a vibe is cool, even if it is a bit tempermental. The above example has no vibe.

[conguero]

Hey michael you just described the last kit that walked into my studio. BTW we finished tracking the songs with a roland V drum.
:banana:

[Ted]

Seems like people have always had ethical issues with recording technology. Many considered splicing together different takes of an orchestral recording unethical. Then when multitrack recording came about, many considered that unethical as well. Same for synthesizers, drum machines, etc...

-Ted

[gcjammin1]

When it comes to ethics, who is really being unethical? The engineer for making the best recording he can make with the gear that's out there, or the artist/band who is making a recording that they can't back up live? What's the difference in someone being able to afford some top notch studio players to lay down tracks for them, or the engineer fixing up the tracks they play themselves.

It seems like it should fall on the artist. IMHO I would rather hear a recording of a good song that is played well than hear a good song that is played poorly. If an artist has a great song out on radio/CD and they sound like crap live, word gets out and they don't blame the engineer. People just remark that the artist uses "studio magic" on their CD's, but if falls on the artist not the engineer. I would think the engineer would get credit for being able to make someone sound better than they are. Just my 2 cents.

Gcjammin1

[David Klausner]

Music used to be something that could only be experienced live. When recording first came on the scene, it was used to capture that live performance. These days, most of the CD's that come out are not a record of something that happened live, but rather something that was constructed in the studio. This allows us to do things that have never been done before (I like the CGI analogy above), but it is often at the expense of the magic that occurs with a group of people playing live together. I threw on an old Santana CD the other day, and I thought that it would never get released like this today. There are too many imperfections, and there would have been overdubs and edits, until it sounded 'perfect' and the spirit would have been lost. On the other hand, Sgt. Peppers couldn't have been done live, and there are plenty of other folks who have used he studio to great advantage.

Robert Fripp used to contrast studio recordings with live gigs, saying a studio recording was like a love letter (something you agonize over, read again and again, until it says exactly what you wanted to say), and a live gig was like a hot date. He used to hate the bootleggers, because he only wanted the carefully crafted material to be circulated (oh, yeah, and he wanted to get paid!), but in later years he has put out a lot of live stuff, realizing that the magic that can happen there is different from, and equally valid to, the material from the studio.

If the "artist" truly can't perform, it may be considered dishonest, but to me, that's just show biz. I don't expect the latest pop craze to be able to sing live any more than I expect Ahhnold to do his own stunts.

[LTA]

I know it is even more off-topic, but how about the use of cracked/pirated software?

When you install, you accept the user agreement, which is legally binding and "required" to use the software. There is no question concerning the legality of this practice.

But, many people that do it state the opinion that "everybody else is doing it" and "I need to do it to stay competitive." There are also some fairly well constructed rationalizations for why it is okay and that the programmers and companies don't really care.

So, on a technicality, if you were to use autotune/sound replacer/etc in a manner not in accordance to the user agreement, you would be using the software illegally and thus unethically. But you all pay for 100% of your software, so this is unapplicable to you honest guys ;)

Now, make a comparison to a plastic surgeon. Tools are tools. Imagine if they would take in a client that had no idea what they wished to look like post-op. So the surgeon starts cutting his ideas into the patient, with no clear goal state to achieve. With no destination set, it is impossible to know when you get there and thus when to stop. I'm sure you've all seen a picture of somebody that had about 5 too many nose jobs before. They turn into something akin to plastic mush (no offense intended towards the self-professed king of pop).

Now, while plugins and audio are nowhere near as traumatic as scalpels and stitches, they should be respected just the same. The engineer IS cutting up somebody else's "spirit and body." Just because you can't get sued over it (and audio doesn't follow the Hippocratic Oath) doesn't patently mean an engineer/mixer should have free reign over the manipulation of audio. And if an 18 year old couch potato wants liposuction, the doctor should hook them up with a personal trainer instead of the knife and auto-tune.

[Ed Belknap]

The whole concept of "ethics" in music production just seems a bit bizarre. Luring teenage bands to your studio with unbelievably low hourly rates just so you can kidnap them and sell them into slavery is unethical; autotuning a lead vocal is just part of the job, like feeding te piano to a reverb chamber or inserting a hipass filter on a violin track.

[lvjazzman]

Or letting an accordian player into the parking lot...

[lvjazzman]

Or a bagpipe player into the country...

[LTA]

Originally posted by lvjazzman
Or a bagpipe player into the country...

Be Respectful: Treat others with the utmost of respect. Regardless of differences, positions, titles, ages, or other types of distinctions, always treat others with professional respect and courtesy.



:D


How long would the above attitude keep somebody employed in this business? (rhetorical question, and it is NOT refering to bagpipes. *tries to imagine a polka being played on bagpipes*)

[lvjazzman]

Good point, actually one of my fovorite people I have ever met is Johnny Bagpipes, a Canadian Bagpipe Comedien. He plays a mean AC/DC immitation on the pipes.

http://www.johnnybagpipes.com/frames.html

Click on the "Rock n Roll Fantasy" link...
Also the second two sort clips in the "Audio and Video" link

Again, no offense intended to anyone, even accordian or bagpipe players, no matter the nationality:D

[tchipman]

I really like to read all your takes on this. It doesn't seem to me that anyone is really disagreeing with anyone here. I've only been recording for maybe 3 or 4 years in my basement. I called Sweetwater and bought some equipment and just started out. I had no idea how different things are now that I've gotten old. (50) When I was a kid I toured with bands from one midwest management company one of which was a nine piece show band. I was the guitar player and singer. We did recordings in an eight track studio that I thougt was very cool, and things did sound great when we got done. However when I did the background vocals, we sang the parts over and over so it sounded like a choir in some places. Also the horns were doubled and tripled. Big sound, but was it ethical. We didn't sound quite like that live. But if you couldn't sing, you weren't there,out the door. If you couldn't play in time, same door. But the one that really gets me to thinking is the autotune. I'm not sure I like that one. Now I'm always listening to performances even live, to see if I can tell whether the vocals are real or being corrected in real time. Listen to Allison Krause and her boys, man it's just pure sweetness. Is it real? In her case I desperatly hope it is. But it does make you wonder whose using it. Like Cher. All of sudden she's not singing flat on her recordings like she's done all her life. I'm not sure I like that. I had one for about 4 days and sent it back. I guess when I can no longer sing the parts I'll get a new singer. As for fixing a couple of mistakes in an otherwise beatiful take (instrumentally) that doesn't bother me all. This is a great forum. I haven't been a part of it very long, but I have learned a mountain of stuff here. Thanks to all you pro's. You know who you are.
Tim
PS. One song that we recorded in that 8track studio took 52 takes. We knew that song frontwards and backwards but we weren't studio pro's. After we were done the producer said he thought it might take us even more takes. It was a hard song. "Piece of Mind"

[LTA]

Exploring the studio space vs playing only what you can do live.

I believe Jimi Hendrix said something to the effect of, if you want to hear it played like it was on the album, listen to the album.

Playing a flute part on a keyboard and then crediting a flautist would be pushing it.

I can think of a few power trios (plus vocalist) that would have the rhythm guitar drop out on the guitar solos, since there was only one guitar player. But they'd double/triple track the rhythm guitar parts, and also use different amps for the different sounds (something they didn't do live). Where do you draw the line?

And just because it is your live amp is not a reason to bring in a Blue Voodoo or Titan complete with 2 4x12 cabinets.

In the spirit of the music is pretty much up to interpretation, but it is oftentimes blatant when something isn't.

[m_yount]

I certainly don't qualify as a recording professional, but just a short take from a full time music educator. I agree that it is fine for a recording to be different from what is live. It is the engineer's job to make it all sound as good as possible. And like many of you say, it does catch up with those that can't back it up live. However, from my point of view (education) I wish there was a way to communicate what is being done to an artist (especially vocalists because they are the worst) to people purchasing and listening to the recordings. I can't tell you how difficult it is to convince my students that just because it sounds ok on the CD that doesn't mean that a person is a great singer. We listen to mostly live recordings of great artists and we talk about "signs" that a person may not be as good as their recording. I certainly don't put any responsibility for this on the engineer, because they are just trying to put food on their table. It does seem that somewhere along the line that it falls into the category of false advertising. Just my take from the Music Ed world.

[Ed Belknap]

Originally posted by m_yount
I wish there was a way to communicate what is being done to an artist (especially vocalists because they are the worst) to people purchasing and listening to the recordings. I can't tell you how difficult it is to convince my students that just because it sounds ok on the CD that doesn't mean that a person is a great singer.

Maybe we should have warning stickers on CDs? A Parental Advisory: "Caution, this recording makes extensive use of AutoTune; some material may not be suitable for fans of real singers."

[lvjazzman]

Sweet!:D

[spencer]

That's some funny stuff!!

I used to be down on singers and bands for not being able to pull it off live, and I still am to a smaller extent. The thing is, ever since the late 60's and 70's great singers and great bands have been pushing their own boundaries in the studio. I consider Rober Plant to be one of the all time best rock vocalists, and Jimmy Page one of the all time best guitarists. As good of musicians as they were, we may never have had a "stairway To Heaven", "Battle Of Evermore", or "Going To California" if they hadn't been able to layer all those extra tracks. Of course these songs weren't nearly as orchestrated and full sounding live, and many people thought Zeppelin "sucked live" because of it. Truth is, for one guitar player,one bassist/organist, one drummer and one singer they were truly incredible live. So much of their music wouldn't have been so magical if they had held back in the studio.

I think of recording like painting a picture of sound. The more colors and textures, the more magical and moving the painting is.

Now when it comes to poor musicianship, that's a different matter. It doesn't bother me too much when a singer has to take a few high notes down now and then because they can't sing it like the record night after night. It's when they can't sing it at all that gets under my skin,ex. Axl rose, Billy Corgan just to name a couple.

Pushing yourself and your music to the limits in the studio is fine, you have to be able to compete with everyone else who's doing it that way. I don't think it is unethical for an engineer to use whatever tools he has on hand to make the best record he can, that't his job in my opinion. But you should really be able to sing if you plan on making a record. I don't blame the engineers for using autotune, I blame the people who aren't ready to be in the studio.

Of course, a "good singer" is one of the most subjective phrases out there. I mean, who ever told Bob Dylan he coud sing? And even though I know he's probably the most renowned singer today, I never listen to Pavarotti. But I have the utmost respect for both of these guys, because their music has touched millions of people.


Wheweee, man sometimes I get to rambling waaaay to much.

Just my two pesos.

Take care everyone,
Spencer

[psycopyro182]

Ok here we go, i feel this is going to be a long one.

I can still remember the day. I was barely sixteen and my girlfriend comes in the door holding a cd.
"what is that?"
"its my album, i just got done recording at the music store where you bought that 2x12 laney guitar amp you have."
"oh really? how did that work out for you?"
"well it was me and my electric keyboard and a mic. we did everything live one take and its all here."

I listened to that cd and realized thats what i wanted to do.
I listen to that cd NOW. and hear so many imperfections i cant count them. BUT... That is The number one reason i liked the album. it was the 'feel' of it because you could hear the page turning when the verse was about to change, and you could hear the cracked notes every once in a while. The album felt "real" to me.

I listen to alot of music now and i can hear all of the 'plastic surgery' done to it. most of the 'radio rock' is like that. and it makes me cringe. Its why i like alot of older analog recording, because there was no auto tune or special effects or insta verb or whatever else you wish to 'real time effect' into your track.

I use a Digital setup because i can afford it. If i could use an analog tape machine and not have to pay what it acctually costs i would prefer it.

As far as multi tracking, it is a Great tool i am recording a demo for a local band's Side project its three guys and each song ends up with about 6 or 7 different instruments from each person, plus many layers of vocals. This is deffinitly a "studio cd" because it would not be able to be reproduced live. But in any case The Music is still All created by the Musician and not "auto tuned"

I hate it when i hear a cd and i listen to a guitar riff in a first verse and i can tell it was cut/pasted onto the next 2 verses.
Or hearing a singer who you know is not capable of doing things he does on an album.
That is takeing it to far

Some of these tools are Great. If used correctly. but some tools such as the 'auto tune' take all the musicianship out of being a musician.

just my .02cents

Max Mahoney.
3 a.m. Records

[djui5]

Originally posted by conguero
This is what steve Albini means when he says that digital does more harm than good. I beleive that digital has nothing to do with it. It's just the tools that come with digital and the temptation to use these tools erroniously is what can be destructive.



Not quite..

He say's that the digital platform and it converters is flawed in it's design......

He's speaking of digital as a whole.....


Personally I've never heard anything from his camp that would stop me or should stop anyone from using a digital recording medium........

[Ernest Buckley]

This is a good topic but I`m afraid those of us in it are not the ones violating "ethics" were they to exist.

With that said, IMHumbleO, anytime an artist is aided into sounding like something they are not, we have gone into that grey area.

I`m all for using a compressor to smooth out levels but when we use auto tuners and heavily edit rhythms, we are distorting the performance. I`m old school, if you don`t get it right, DO IT OVER!

Lots of engineers will say, "That was aweful. Come on in." Thats a PT joke but its so true.

Anyway, the question arises, where do we drwa the line?