Do most trad. flute players play the whole set all the way through when recording...and just keep doing it 'till they get it right? Or, is it more common to edit recording in the middle? I've been having a difficult time finding a "zero point" (i.e., a point in the track in which there is zero sound) when recording.
I can't speak as a flute player, but generally, if you can do a take all the way through it will sound better than trying to put it together from "bits" of takes.
This is not about technically being able to edit it, as anyone who calls themselves an editor should be able to do that in their sleep! The problem is that a phrase won't have the musical coherence when assembled from different takes.
Now wasn't I hearing of an Cavan tradition, going way back, of only playing selected fragments of a tune at a time? No? Okay, then, yes, traditional flute players do in fact play the tunes all the way through. And they keep doing it, session after session, so I suppose they never get it "right", do they?
For your technical question, a more serious answer: if you're trying to splice two tracks together, look for a phrase that you play the same in both takes, and make your splice there - overlap the whole phrase, in adjacent tracks, so you can line up the peaks, and either crossfade from one to the other or jump cut if you have a nice sharp attack after that phrase. Which you choose will depend on what you have to work with.
Marco, you never have tp breath?
If you want to cut n' paste your tune from a few takes you should record with a metronome, but that takes out the life otf a tune anyway...
Recording the flute.
Recording the flute.
Do most trad. flute players play the whole set all the way through when recording...and just keep doing it 'till they get it right? Or, is it more common to edit recording in the middle? I've been having a difficult time finding a "zero point" (i.e., a point in the track in which there is zero sound) when recording.
# Posted on December 21st 2008 by MarcoTam
Re: Recording the flute.
I can't speak as a flute player, but generally, if you can do a take all the way through it will sound better than trying to put it together from "bits" of takes.
This is not about technically being able to edit it, as anyone who calls themselves an editor should be able to do that in their sleep! The problem is that a phrase won't have the musical coherence when assembled from different takes.
# Posted on December 21st 2008 by Mark Harmer
Re: Recording the flute.
I wouldn't know for sure, but I'd imagine most players who are so talented as to be recording artists don't have a problem "getting it right."
# Posted on December 21st 2008 by polkageist
Re: Recording the flute.
er zero sound ,you mean silence?
# Posted on December 21st 2008 by bazouki dave
Re: Recording the flute.
I would say all the way through. They do it in concert that way, so I guess they would record that way too.
# Posted on December 22nd 2008 by pipersgrip
Re: Recording the flute.
Now wasn't I hearing of an Cavan tradition, going way back, of only playing selected fragments of a tune at a time? No? Okay, then, yes, traditional flute players do in fact play the tunes all the way through. And they keep doing it, session after session, so I suppose they never get it "right", do they?
For your technical question, a more serious answer: if you're trying to splice two tracks together, look for a phrase that you play the same in both takes, and make your splice there - overlap the whole phrase, in adjacent tracks, so you can line up the peaks, and either crossfade from one to the other or jump cut if you have a nice sharp attack after that phrase. Which you choose will depend on what you have to work with.
# Posted on December 22nd 2008 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Recording the flute.
Marco, you never have tp breath?
If you want to cut n' paste your tune from a few takes you should record with a metronome, but that takes out the life otf a tune anyway...
# Posted on December 22nd 2008 by swisspiper