Is recording in sections cheating?

Creating a home studio for recording the classical guitar. Equipment, software and recording techniques. Amplification for live performance.
Lovemyguitar
Posts: 3119
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:50 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Is recording in sections cheating?

Post by Lovemyguitar » Sun May 10, 2015 4:55 pm

Denian Arcoleo wrote:...Yes, Bream edited too. ...Doesn't stop those recordings from being wonderful listening experiences.
Indeed! Or, anyone's recordings, for that matter.

And yes, AndreiK, I agree, recording a studio album is a different process from playing live, and ought not to be compared. I like to think that the artists are trying to create something beautiful and lasting when they record albums, and I have certainly acquired tremendous enjoyment from so many of them.

User avatar
rojarosguitar
Posts: 4661
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:24 pm
Location: near Freiburg, Germany

Re: Is recording in sections cheating?

Post by rojarosguitar » Mon May 11, 2015 10:18 am

I concede that recording a CD is different from playing live - in many ways. Most importantly: if the concert as a whole is great, we tend not to remember the little mistakes, but when we hear the same mistake again and again on a recording, it becomes larger then life.

And secondly: purely from psychoacoustical point of view the senses have some kind of a synergetic effect and compensate for a large dynamics; very loud and very soft passages can be integrated by seeing what is happening. Not so when listening a CD. If something is too loud, we tend to lower the level, if something is barely perceptible, we crank the amp up, so what we basically do is to play the role of a very slow and dumm compressor.

So there might be edits (removing mistakes) and processings (helping the music to be manageable by ears only) that are legitimate. But I don't know what to think about CDs that have several edits per minute ... something is created that hasn't been played at all; from my own recording experience I would say, it was still truthful to what the artist was more or less able to do, but from what I have heard from collegues and musicians about other situations, I would say, hmmmm ... virtual reality has been created, to stay polite.
Music is a big continent with different landscapes and corners. Some of them I do visit frequently, some from time to time and some I know from hearsay only ...
My Youtube Channel is: TheMusicalEvents

User avatar
Tuomas Kourula
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:56 pm
Location: Turku, Finland

Re: Is recording in sections cheating?

Post by Tuomas Kourula » Mon May 11, 2015 6:20 pm

rojarosguitar wrote:I concede that recording a CD is different from playing live - in many ways. Most importantly: if the concert as a whole is great, we tend not to remember the little mistakes, but when we hear the same mistake again and again on a recording, it becomes larger then life.

And secondly: purely from psychoacoustical point of view the senses have some kind of a synergetic effect and compensate for a large dynamics...
I think you hit the nail on the head. I think this conversation exactly parallels the one about photography: is it wrong to retouch pictures of people, to 'photoshop' them?

In both cases, music and photography, it may be more real and honest in some sense to leave things unedited, unaltered; but in another sense, it's not realistic at all. Like Rojarosguitar said, in a recording (or an image) every little imperfection catches our attention and is magnified, whereas in reality, when listening to a musical performance or looking at a face, one tends to overlook such things.

In my opinion, editing is necessary and good, if it aims to present a performance or person as you would experience them live: but anything beyond that, and the effect is alienating and dehumanising.
of the guitar, by the guitar, for the guitar

User avatar
rojarosguitar
Posts: 4661
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:24 pm
Location: near Freiburg, Germany

Re: Is recording in sections cheating?

Post by rojarosguitar » Tue May 12, 2015 3:53 am

@ Tuomas Kourula :bravo:
Music is a big continent with different landscapes and corners. Some of them I do visit frequently, some from time to time and some I know from hearsay only ...
My Youtube Channel is: TheMusicalEvents

curtis e allen
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: Redwood City, CA, USA

Re: Is recording in sections cheating?

Post by curtis e allen » Tue May 12, 2015 4:20 am

There is a definite art to the mechanics of micing, recording and mixing section pieces. It has also been argued that recording at all is a step away from the organic nature of the piece and the interaction between performer and audience...
Curtis

2011 Christopher Carrington
2014 New World Player 650 Spruce

AndreiKrylov

Re: Is recording in sections cheating?

Post by AndreiKrylov » Tue May 12, 2015 3:01 pm

Ok.
So it seems that the main purpose of Art is Honesty.
And the Art itself is ability to make and perform exact copies of something which was made some time ago by you, or by somebody else. And audience is necessary to control performer if he is not cheating today.
I think that following this logic we should completely reject such arts as paintings, or cinema, or sculpture.
Or at least we should demand that painters will honestly draw their picture (the best will be if all of them will draw the same picture - it is good for judging them) in certain time (1 hour maybe)
and audience should control them in process, so they do not cheat, do not make any extra brush etc. ,and
cinema producers must make their movies in one take (one hour maybe) (the best will be if all of them will make the same movie - it is good for judging them) , because art like this is honest and otherwise they all cheaters...
Or if it is not like that,then classical guitar music is not art, but sport...
and maybe, maybe that is what it is?

curtis e allen
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: Redwood City, CA, USA

Re: Is recording in sections cheating?

Post by curtis e allen » Tue May 12, 2015 3:44 pm

AndreiKrylov wrote:Ok.
So it seems that the main purpose of Art is Honesty.
And the Art itself is ability to make and perform exact copies of something which was made some time ago by you, or by somebody else.
Well, you seem to have two definitions of Art (honesty and exact copy), and only write about one definition (copy). Maybe the approximate equivalents are self expression and technique?
Curtis

2011 Christopher Carrington
2014 New World Player 650 Spruce

AndreiKrylov

Re: Is recording in sections cheating?

Post by AndreiKrylov » Tue May 12, 2015 3:54 pm

No Curtis,
it is not my definition.
I just summarized prevailing opinion here.
Please read my other posts in this theme.

AndreiKrylov

Re: Is recording in sections cheating?

Post by AndreiKrylov » Tue May 12, 2015 4:42 pm

In this one I did not edit anything. Just played live to notebook PC camera.
But one guitar is acoustic another is midi.
Is this cheating ?
and if not - anybody dare to copy it? repeat it? :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ckbd4L_gcnw

RoryJohn
Posts: 668
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:49 pm
Location: (Ireland)

Re: Is recording in sections cheating?

Post by RoryJohn » Tue May 12, 2015 4:45 pm

Birds do it, Bees do it
Even Glenn Gould did it
Let's do it, let's fall in love (...with editing)
The horse, he kept running; the rider was bread.

curtis e allen
Posts: 117
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 6:12 pm
Location: Redwood City, CA, USA

Re: Is recording in sections cheating?

Post by curtis e allen » Tue May 12, 2015 5:38 pm

AndreiKrylov wrote:No Curtis,
it is not my definition.
I just summarized prevailing opinion here.
Please read my other posts in this theme.
Got it !

:-)
Curtis

2011 Christopher Carrington
2014 New World Player 650 Spruce

glassynails
Posts: 5616
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:20 am
Location: Westbrook, Maine

Re: Is recording in sections cheating?

Post by glassynails » Tue May 12, 2015 6:00 pm

When I record for my channel, it's purely to see what I can do honestly, whether good or bad, and so that's why I myself am against editing. I have no problems though with someone editing to make something that's enjoyable to listen to, which of course is usually the whole point to music.

Now if I'm recording and say the whole piece works really well (to myself anyways) and then the very last note you screw up and then go back and re-record that note or chord and edit it in, I see nothing wrong with that, although I always just live with the mistake and keep it in the recording, because I'm going for a live take to guage my own progress.

Recording offers a way to sit back and see what we're doing in reality and be an honest critic of our performance. When we're playing we don't normally see these things or think that we're playing better than we actually are - A RECORDING NEVER LIES!
"GLASSYNAILS" on Youtoob for my "no edit" - "no fakery" audio recordings. Just me, my Alhambra 7p spruce, and an Olympus ls-10 portable recorder.

Per Lindhof
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:32 pm

Re: Is recording in sections cheating?

Post by Per Lindhof » Thu May 14, 2015 7:30 am

The short answer: No...

If you have played a wonderful once in a lifetime 3 minute passage and you make that little single mistake, that messes it up, and you have the possibility to undo it wihtout anybody (even yourself) ever noticing it - then why not.
The alternative is often that you play safe and without dynamics for the sake of surviving.
I have recordings that i know I have "repaired" but now that I have forgotten where I can't even hear it myself.

A mistake in a live performance is ONE mistake. A mistake in a recording will be repeated over and over again.
The big question is often whether editing will be more complicated than recording again.

What I do when I edit a mistake is that I stop - and continue immediately from a safe place in the piece (a naturel break a little earlier than the mistake). This gives the same dynamics, tone and feeling in my playing. And sometimes editing is done in five minutes.

How many paintings are made without "editing", or photographs, movies etc...??

If it sounds good - it is good :-)

:D :D I actually just edited this reply :lol:

Regards
Per Lindhof

Mick the Ramirez Man

Re: Is recording in sections cheating?

Post by Mick the Ramirez Man » Thu May 14, 2015 7:34 am

No, it's not. In fact, I think that most people today assume that what they're hearing in the studio is edited to some extent. :casque:

AndreiKrylov

Re: Is recording in sections cheating?

Post by AndreiKrylov » Thu May 14, 2015 6:16 pm

Actually, people listen the music itself!
Edited or unedited...nobody care really...
If they like it - they do not care if it is edited , and if they do not like it - they do not care if it is unedited...
Hey, who do you like to listen (honestly)?
- Someone, not edited, player whose sound is not good, playing not professional, who is making many squeaks and noises, who do not reflects of composers ideas, or plays his/her own (boring) compositions with bad sound, uneven, without rhythm etc.
- or work of master, with great sound, lot of expression, which also happens to be slightly edited?
Who would say that he/she prefer "honest" but ugly sounding unprofessional playing, to work of master, which also happens to be slightly edited - and if they say that - then wouldn't it sound like not honest answer by itself ?... :)
It is an absurd to prefer "honesty" in such way...
Honesty is absolutely irrelevant term here.
It is only relevant if recording is done with the purpose of comparing your own playing - if one improve or not... and even that is very strange... - why someone need to record himself for that? Can't he/she compare him/herself with himself using his/her ears?
Maybe he/she needs advice how to play better? OK. that is legitimate purpose.
But why someone like that want to compare his/her attempts in process of learning with finished works of ART?
It is probably necessary to distinguish here:
1. recording of pupils for teachers
2. and recording as producing finished work of ART.
in the first case - yes honesty is necessary for progress
in the second case - honesty is irrelevant, because ART is not a process of learning, or sport competition,
ART is not reality, or not an exact reflection of reality, but creative, ARTIFICIAL construction,mix of ideas, visions, emotions etc.
It is a good article in WIKI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
but this article got it wrong too!
WIKI claims that Music , theatre, film, dance - performing arts.
Not true.
Not anymore.
Music was performing art (except for composers who wrote music on paper) before recording and editing were possible .
Now it should be separated into performance of music and recording of it.
It is to different arts, even it is necessary to be professional musician even if you do only recording!
It is also great blessing, because it is possible now to reach wide audience even without playing concerts all the time as it was necessary even in very recent time.
It is possible now for one person to work alone in this ART and to complete your ideas and present them to listeners, as a finished Audio piece of Art.
You do not depend any more on agents, producers, managers, critics, publishers, who otherwise would impose on you their agendas, and push you to satisfy appetites of public and their, not yours, understanding and conceptions about art and music.
Therefore recorded music is not performing art, but ART more like painting, except if it is recording of actual performance.

Return to “Classical guitar recording and amplification”