So, does anyone have any concrete experience and knowledge of what CDs recorded in the last five years or so have or have not made use of Autotune? And if so, with which instruments?
I can't imagine anyone recording a trad type music thing in any studio anywhere would use pitch correction on anything.
And while we're at it, I don't suppose they'd use a click track either!
When I'm in a recording situation I never use pitch correction at all. It just makes vocals sound like UK garage or that old Cher hit.
I lie! There was a track a year or so ago when we pitch corrected a jug being blown. It was supposed to be a C but it was actually a bout a C#. So out came the pitch correction. Mind you we also morphed the jug sound with a fart that was incidently recorded when the singer was singing so...
Now a bit or reverb, delay and compression used tastefully is a completely different thing.
I would think it's the player not the instrument. Saying, for example, the whistle is an out of tune instrument is like saying the flute is an out of time instrument. Autotune has very limited use in trad IMO but that's more down to the engineer. One thing is for sure, many players will have been auto-tuned to some degree without even knowing it. If an engineer/producer spots a note that sticks out as being out of tune they are going to repair it rather than getting the player in to do another take. As they say, at the end of the day you can't polish a turd.
Yes! But if you're in a studio and you are in charge (i.e. paying for it) you shouldn'yt let some idiot techie engineer use his toys indiscriminately.
Get a decent producer or insist on taking the helm yourself. Too many engineers inflict their digital madness on the world. They are there to make conditions, situations & sounds you require not have a rack fest!
That's all very well if it's a solo or small line up, and assuming you have the know how but if there are 3 or 4 leads + then you can't be there all the time and there is more than yourself to think about. AND, not all techies are idiots.
Yhaalhouse ;
Kevin Burke uses a click track on his studio Albums.
Just because you pay for something does not mean at all that you are in charge. Thats their job, that's what you hire them for, to produce or engineer a recording.
I posted this in the earlier thread about sessions goin sharp, but I absolutely detest the use of autotune unless it's being used to create a certain effect, like in that Cher song (the robot voice effect), and, of course, NEVER in trad music. Using autotune to correct pitch is not only reprehensible, IMHO, but is sapping the soul in music, as is over-compression. If you want perfect pitch and don't want any soul in your music, then stay away from folk.
Not so much autotune, although I know of more than one singer who should have used it, but rather deep editing to make the playing sound more natural and more accomplished, particularly with with ensemble playing. It's pretty much par for the course over this way.
Ionannas:
There is a huge diffence in the role of a engineer and a producer! (although your producer may also be the engineer)
An engineer is the technician who does the button pushing, the producer is the bloke who tells the engineers what sounds he wants. The engineer should just be the interface between the creatives (producer/ musicians/ arrangers/ composers) and the equipment.
Loads of cheap small studios used to be (& prob still are) run be engineers who badly double as producers! It's the love of all that hardware and how it works that makes them do it. And they often love adding FX just so they can play with their latest rack gizmo!
Creatives don't necc have to understand the hardware and so forth...that's what the engineer's there for!
In practice though, you'll get a better recording if the engineer is creative and the creatives have some technical knowledge. If you find yourself in a studio where there is a physical divide between the two, you'll never get a decent recording. Examples are when the engineer has a "don't touch the desk" rule. Or when the producer says something ultimately meaningless like, "I want it to sound fuller", without being able to elaborate.
One specific role of the producer which is relevant here is to make the call on whether to let a bit of bad intonation go, or to do something about it. Personally, I would first make every effort to get the player to play in tune. If eventually, they are unable, and the purpose of the recording is for them, i.e. it's their or their band's album, I'd let it go. They are who they are. If however, they were hired by a third party and there was no budget to sack them and get a replacement, I wouldn't hesitate in offering the third party the option of autotune.
That was the original intention of auto-tune - to repair one or two bad notes (which wouldn't be characteristic of the artist concerned) when it wouldn't be practicable to get the artist back into the studio for another take. Auto-tune used like this was the recording studio's little secret for many years - until it started being applied endemically in the pop world to give a spurious "perfect" intonation to whole songs, something many pop singers would never be capable of in real life.
It's a machine that strips out dynamic range. Electric guitar players use it to give the effect of a very long sustain and to flatten the attack of the note (as well its particular flavour of distortion). It's used on whistles primarilly to bring the bottom notes up in volume and the top notes down. But it flattens other stuff too, the attack and the pop you get from crisp rolls and stuff. It also accentuates hiss and distorts.
Any half decent whistler will just use a bit of microphone technique instead. Lean in for the low notes and back off for the high ones
Like most effects compression is useful if used sparingly. For recording you do not want to relay only on microphone technique. Even with a great microphone technique modern playback systems need a bit of compression on whistle. Listen to an uncompressed whistle recording on headphones through your ipod and the top notes will take your head off.
Well to answer the original question ,I dont know about auto tune in particular commercial recordings .Personally I wouldnt hesitate to use it on say a fiddle which was playing the higher notes a little flat ,particularly if the take was otherwise good and the musician wasnt around to do another take.
When used carefully and appropiately it is hard to detect . Its useless, even dangerous if you dont understand musical keys and modes, (as just hitting the e minor button on say Morissons would yield unpleasant results,in this case you would have to set up an e dorian scale for it to work ).
This reminds me of something someone asked me once about how an engineer can improve things. In terms of the music, thats the producers role ,but the engineer is the person who does the sound itself. This acoustic organic sounding music people listen to has usually seen a lot of processing especially in terms of compression, thats why on pro recordings none of the instrumets will fluctuate wildly in level and the sound will be generally pleasing and balanced, the instruments have their alloted dynamic range and things sound right .People , including some musicians ,dont question this or appreciate the skill and judgement required to achieve it,You push a button and nice music comes out.some only associate signal processing with overkill, ,the type of techies who are mad keen to bang loads of effects on everythin and show how clever they are,People are distrusfull of this and rightly so but few realize that while they cant hear any overt effects on a recording ,the signal nonetheless will have seen some compression as well as some other stuff, even (or should I say especially) on those beautifull recordings were things just sound so right. Thanks to the skill of the engineer the end result will be listenable and playable on a wide range of systems with all instuments being clearly audible.
With this music the best engineer will use a light touch and not seek to impose themselves on the music. Part of me still thinks auto tune is cheating a bit but then so is eq ,reverb ,compression etc.most recorded music thesedays is like an illusion ,thats why I love sessions and the realness of recordings were someone has just stuck a mic ona pub table or something like that.
Music is about the vibe and no effect is going to give you that ,but if the vibe is there is it really such a crime to use a bit of trickery to make it more presentable and to help it become all it could be?
That is a very good post Peter. There seems to be some belief here that you should just leave whatever is recorded as it is - no reverb, no compression etc. The reality is than an sound has to do with the ambience as well as the instrument and for best results that has to be artificially created to a degree. If anyone with little recording experience thinks that they know better than the engineer then they have made a serious mistake in their choice of engineer.
It all depends on the type of recording you want. If you want it "presentable" then yes, it requires a skilled engineer to weave their subtle magic over it.
But what is "presentable"? Who are you presenting it too? If it's someone who wants to listen to it through their headphones on their ipod on the bus, then yes, compress the whistle a little. If it's a complicated multi tracked and highly arranged piece with many different instruments both acoustic and electric, then you are gonna need your digital reverbs and your parametric eq and your compression and probably your auto tune etc. And a good engineer you can trust.
But if you want to simply present a good player's whistle playing, record it in a bright(ish) room. Record it flat. And record it dry. And rejoice in the bonkers dynamic difference between the bottom and the top.
That is very true Llig, the thing is though that the vast majority of recordings, even of the masters, are commercial in their nature and most people now listen digitally. Unless an engineer has been specifically told otherwise he is going to try and balance a recording so that it works on CD, in a car, in headphones and on an ipod.
Autotune and compression etc are not a magic wand , in the right hands they are useful for the purpose they a designed. If you can hear them being used then they are in the wrong hands.
I think crackpots question was to reinforce his belief from another thread that the whistle is put through autotune more than other instruments. In my experience that is not the case.
Yes, it's a problem. People have become so accustomed to that smooth sound that is commercial (I don't mean it in any derogatory way, I like lots of commercial music) that when they hear an attempt that has been made to more faithfully reproduce the actual sound of acoustic music, they think it sounds a bit weird.
Reminds me of the old story about the hi-fi buff who was taken by a friend to a concert of orchestral music for his first time.
"So what did you think then?" his mate asks.
"Quite good, but a bit lacking in bottom end." was the reply.
On another tack, do you think that being accustomed to DJs playing auto-tuned recordings in venues, or sound-desk-engineered live performances, has made people less appreciative of unedited live music in pubs and small venues, including sessions?
Obviously a small proportion has become MORE appreciative, savouring the difference, but it seems to me that fewer people in general respond positively to live music than used to.
I'm not sure that the bulk of people who like live music, especially trad, listen to DJ's that much Bren, but i see your point.
Some pop music is extremely processed and some of it really has to be. With trad you have to have at least a fair bit of competence before you're on a recording than many people are going to hear so a great deal processing is needed. Some pop acts are really really sh*t but get played to millions. I recently played at a festival that were one of the top acts was the Lightning Seeds (famous for that England football song). They were unbelievably sh*t. You would put you cat down if it sang anywhere near as far out of tune as that guy. He would still be playing in pubs if it wasn't for autotune. In the trad world you get more or less what you put in, thank feck.
Sorry, cross post there Llig. It's interesting that some traddies are trying different ways of recording to try and achieve what they're looking for. Fiddlers Bid have just released an album where they sacrificed the separation of the fiddles to get a more live sound by recording all five with one mic. Chris Stout seems very happy with the results and joked that it was fine as nobody could tell where the mistakes were from. Also Zoe Conway did her album like that. I wasn't sure about the sound of it to begin with but it's growing on me.
I think it's true to say the modern ear has grown to expect a certain sound so it's good for trad players not to take for granted that there is one standard industry way.
A lot of trad players don't record in the "standard industry way." The majority of pipers I know who have recorded solo albums, for example David Power, Robbie Hannan, and Seamus Ennis, just sat in a room with a mike in front of them and played a whole bunch of sets. Very little high tech production went into it.
I love the old field recording. There is some great music out there, where someone just stuck a mike in front of the musician and off they went.
Compression dates back to the days of grooved recordings. If the amplitude was too big (i.e. too loud) then the needle would jump the groove and you'd get cross-talk between adjacent turns. Similarly with analog tape, and then you also have distortion coming into the equation. Playback amps would be designed to reverse the compression on playback, or most of it at any rate. Most orchestral music has an enormous dynamic range compared with pop or trad, so compression is essential during the recording process.
Many years ago my boss told me about when he was invited to his senior manager's house to hear recordings of classical music. The music room was acoustically designed, with just two carefully placed seats for the listeners, and start-of-the-art speakers, amps, and record and tape decks (no instruments, not even a piano). The whole setup was over £20K, which was a hell of lot of money in the early 70's. I was awed but not impressed; although I didn't say so (thinking about promotion prospects and all!), I felt that this fellow was more interested in a spurious perfection of sound than the actual music. Was he related to llig's hi-fi buff, perhaps?
When Spiro recorded their latest album earlier this year the four of them were lined up in Peter Gabriel's recording studio in the same way as they'd be live on stage, with the same mic setup. The engineer's mixing desk was in the same room just feet away, so there was direct voice communication between the musicians and him. Spiro's philosophy is to record as you would hear them live on stage, with no post editing or dubbing. I understand they never needed to do more than two takes in the recording studio.
From what I know of Ennis through people who knew him, he was pretty crusty and probably would have recorded himself in the exact same way, even with all of today's technology available to him.
The guy loved field recordings -- that was his job, working for the BBC, going out to far flung parts of Ireland and recording songs and tunes and stories for the Folklore Commission.
Maybe cause I am getting crusty, but I think the unaccompanied, unproduced solo pipes recordings, just chanter, drones, and regs, are really incredible and more pipers should make them. I'm waiting for Jarlath Henderson to do it.
There's a story, and I believe it. Ennis got a recording contract to make three albums. He signed the contrac, had lunch and then went into the studio and recorded all three in the afternoon.
Autotune? The Truth?
Autotune? The Truth?
So, does anyone have any concrete experience and knowledge of what CDs recorded in the last five years or so have or have not made use of Autotune? And if so, with which instruments?
# Posted on October 7th 2009 by Crackpot
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
I can't imagine anyone recording a trad type music thing in any studio anywhere would use pitch correction on anything.
And while we're at it, I don't suppose they'd use a click track either!
When I'm in a recording situation I never use pitch correction at all. It just makes vocals sound like UK garage or that old Cher hit.
I lie! There was a track a year or so ago when we pitch corrected a jug being blown. It was supposed to be a C but it was actually a bout a C#. So out came the pitch correction. Mind you we also morphed the jug sound with a fart that was incidently recorded when the singer was singing so...
Now a bit or reverb, delay and compression used tastefully is a completely different thing.
# Posted on October 7th 2009 by yhaalhouse
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
"And if so, with which instruments?"
I would think it's the player not the instrument. Saying, for example, the whistle is an out of tune instrument is like saying the flute is an out of time instrument. Autotune has very limited use in trad IMO but that's more down to the engineer. One thing is for sure, many players will have been auto-tuned to some degree without even knowing it. If an engineer/producer spots a note that sticks out as being out of tune they are going to repair it rather than getting the player in to do another take. As they say, at the end of the day you can't polish a turd.
# Posted on October 7th 2009 by bogman
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
Yes! But if you're in a studio and you are in charge (i.e. paying for it) you shouldn'yt let some idiot techie engineer use his toys indiscriminately.
Get a decent producer or insist on taking the helm yourself. Too many engineers inflict their digital madness on the world. They are there to make conditions, situations & sounds you require not have a rack fest!
# Posted on October 7th 2009 by yhaalhouse
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
That's all very well if it's a solo or small line up, and assuming you have the know how but if there are 3 or 4 leads + then you can't be there all the time and there is more than yourself to think about. AND, not all techies are idiots.
# Posted on October 7th 2009 by bogman
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
Yhaalhouse ;
Kevin Burke uses a click track on his studio Albums.
Just because you pay for something does not mean at all that you are in charge. Thats their job, that's what you hire them for, to produce or engineer a recording.
# Posted on October 7th 2009 by the wicked hacker
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
I posted this in the earlier thread about sessions goin sharp, but I absolutely detest the use of autotune unless it's being used to create a certain effect, like in that Cher song (the robot voice effect), and, of course, NEVER in trad music. Using autotune to correct pitch is not only reprehensible, IMHO, but is sapping the soul in music, as is over-compression. If you want perfect pitch and don't want any soul in your music, then stay away from folk.
# Posted on October 7th 2009 by Jimmy B
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
Not so much autotune, although I know of more than one singer who should have used it, but rather deep editing to make the playing sound more natural and more accomplished, particularly with with ensemble playing. It's pretty much par for the course over this way.
# Posted on October 7th 2009 by Patkiwi
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
Crackpot, do you have a particular reason for asking this question?
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by greg n'sheils
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
Ionannas:
There is a huge diffence in the role of a engineer and a producer! (although your producer may also be the engineer)
An engineer is the technician who does the button pushing, the producer is the bloke who tells the engineers what sounds he wants. The engineer should just be the interface between the creatives (producer/ musicians/ arrangers/ composers) and the equipment.
Loads of cheap small studios used to be (& prob still are) run be engineers who badly double as producers! It's the love of all that hardware and how it works that makes them do it. And they often love adding FX just so they can play with their latest rack gizmo!
Creatives don't necc have to understand the hardware and so forth...that's what the engineer's there for!
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by yhaalhouse
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
In practice though, you'll get a better recording if the engineer is creative and the creatives have some technical knowledge. If you find yourself in a studio where there is a physical divide between the two, you'll never get a decent recording. Examples are when the engineer has a "don't touch the desk" rule. Or when the producer says something ultimately meaningless like, "I want it to sound fuller", without being able to elaborate.
One specific role of the producer which is relevant here is to make the call on whether to let a bit of bad intonation go, or to do something about it. Personally, I would first make every effort to get the player to play in tune. If eventually, they are unable, and the purpose of the recording is for them, i.e. it's their or their band's album, I'd let it go. They are who they are. If however, they were hired by a third party and there was no budget to sack them and get a replacement, I wouldn't hesitate in offering the third party the option of autotune.
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
That was the original intention of auto-tune - to repair one or two bad notes (which wouldn't be characteristic of the artist concerned) when it wouldn't be practicable to get the artist back into the studio for another take. Auto-tune used like this was the recording studio's little secret for many years - until it started being applied endemically in the pop world to give a spurious "perfect" intonation to whole songs, something many pop singers would never be capable of in real life.
# Posted on October 8th 2009 by lazyhound
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
As a whistle player - I'm intrigued. What's "Compression"?
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by MartinJongleur
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
It's a machine that strips out dynamic range. Electric guitar players use it to give the effect of a very long sustain and to flatten the attack of the note (as well its particular flavour of distortion). It's used on whistles primarilly to bring the bottom notes up in volume and the top notes down. But it flattens other stuff too, the attack and the pop you get from crisp rolls and stuff. It also accentuates hiss and distorts.
Any half decent whistler will just use a bit of microphone technique instead. Lean in for the low notes and back off for the high ones
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
Like most effects compression is useful if used sparingly. For recording you do not want to relay only on microphone technique. Even with a great microphone technique modern playback systems need a bit of compression on whistle. Listen to an uncompressed whistle recording on headphones through your ipod and the top notes will take your head off.
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by bogman
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
Well to answer the original question ,I dont know about auto tune in particular commercial recordings .Personally I wouldnt hesitate to use it on say a fiddle which was playing the higher notes a little flat ,particularly if the take was otherwise good and the musician wasnt around to do another take.
When used carefully and appropiately it is hard to detect . Its useless, even dangerous if you dont understand musical keys and modes, (as just hitting the e minor button on say Morissons would yield unpleasant results,in this case you would have to set up an e dorian scale for it to work ).
This reminds me of something someone asked me once about how an engineer can improve things. In terms of the music, thats the producers role ,but the engineer is the person who does the sound itself. This acoustic organic sounding music people listen to has usually seen a lot of processing especially in terms of compression, thats why on pro recordings none of the instrumets will fluctuate wildly in level and the sound will be generally pleasing and balanced, the instruments have their alloted dynamic range and things sound right .People , including some musicians ,dont question this or appreciate the skill and judgement required to achieve it,You push a button and nice music comes out.some only associate signal processing with overkill, ,the type of techies who are mad keen to bang loads of effects on everythin and show how clever they are,People are distrusfull of this and rightly so but few realize that while they cant hear any overt effects on a recording ,the signal nonetheless will have seen some compression as well as some other stuff, even (or should I say especially) on those beautifull recordings were things just sound so right. Thanks to the skill of the engineer the end result will be listenable and playable on a wide range of systems with all instuments being clearly audible.
With this music the best engineer will use a light touch and not seek to impose themselves on the music. Part of me still thinks auto tune is cheating a bit but then so is eq ,reverb ,compression etc.most recorded music thesedays is like an illusion ,thats why I love sessions and the realness of recordings were someone has just stuck a mic ona pub table or something like that.
Music is about the vibe and no effect is going to give you that ,but if the vibe is there is it really such a crime to use a bit of trickery to make it more presentable and to help it become all it could be?
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by peter wsll
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
This loudness war though, that's another thing.............!
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by peter wsll
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
That is a very good post Peter. There seems to be some belief here that you should just leave whatever is recorded as it is - no reverb, no compression etc. The reality is than an sound has to do with the ambience as well as the instrument and for best results that has to be artificially created to a degree. If anyone with little recording experience thinks that they know better than the engineer then they have made a serious mistake in their choice of engineer.
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by bogman
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
It all depends on the type of recording you want. If you want it "presentable" then yes, it requires a skilled engineer to weave their subtle magic over it.
But what is "presentable"? Who are you presenting it too? If it's someone who wants to listen to it through their headphones on their ipod on the bus, then yes, compress the whistle a little. If it's a complicated multi tracked and highly arranged piece with many different instruments both acoustic and electric, then you are gonna need your digital reverbs and your parametric eq and your compression and probably your auto tune etc. And a good engineer you can trust.
But if you want to simply present a good player's whistle playing, record it in a bright(ish) room. Record it flat. And record it dry. And rejoice in the bonkers dynamic difference between the bottom and the top.
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
Oh, and you still need a good engineer of course
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
That is very true Llig, the thing is though that the vast majority of recordings, even of the masters, are commercial in their nature and most people now listen digitally. Unless an engineer has been specifically told otherwise he is going to try and balance a recording so that it works on CD, in a car, in headphones and on an ipod.
Autotune and compression etc are not a magic wand , in the right hands they are useful for the purpose they a designed. If you can hear them being used then they are in the wrong hands.
I think crackpots question was to reinforce his belief from another thread that the whistle is put through autotune more than other instruments. In my experience that is not the case.
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by bogman
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
Yes, it's a problem. People have become so accustomed to that smooth sound that is commercial (I don't mean it in any derogatory way, I like lots of commercial music) that when they hear an attempt that has been made to more faithfully reproduce the actual sound of acoustic music, they think it sounds a bit weird.
Reminds me of the old story about the hi-fi buff who was taken by a friend to a concert of orchestral music for his first time.
"So what did you think then?" his mate asks.
"Quite good, but a bit lacking in bottom end." was the reply.
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
On another tack, do you think that being accustomed to DJs playing auto-tuned recordings in venues, or sound-desk-engineered live performances, has made people less appreciative of unedited live music in pubs and small venues, including sessions?
Obviously a small proportion has become MORE appreciative, savouring the difference, but it seems to me that fewer people in general respond positively to live music than used to.
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by Bren
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
"a bit lacking in bottom end" - lol.
Knowing what sound you are looking for and being aware of most of the possibilities is the answer (or AN answer) I would think.
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by bogman
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
I agree, and there's nothing wrong wanting to the technology to create something which would not be impossible acoustically.
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
nothing wrong in wanting to use
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
Doh, I'll start again:
I agree, and there's nothing wrong in wanting to use the technology to create something which would not be possible acoustically.
(although this is also nothing wrong in wanting to use the technology to create something which would not be impossible acoustically.)
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
I'm not sure that the bulk of people who like live music, especially trad, listen to DJ's that much Bren, but i see your point.
Some pop music is extremely processed and some of it really has to be. With trad you have to have at least a fair bit of competence before you're on a recording than many people are going to hear so a great deal processing is needed. Some pop acts are really really sh*t but get played to millions. I recently played at a festival that were one of the top acts was the Lightning Seeds (famous for that England football song). They were unbelievably sh*t. You would put you cat down if it sang anywhere near as far out of tune as that guy. He would still be playing in pubs if it wasn't for autotune. In the trad world you get more or less what you put in, thank feck.
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by bogman
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
Sorry, cross post there Llig. It's interesting that some traddies are trying different ways of recording to try and achieve what they're looking for. Fiddlers Bid have just released an album where they sacrificed the separation of the fiddles to get a more live sound by recording all five with one mic. Chris Stout seems very happy with the results and joked that it was fine as nobody could tell where the mistakes were from. Also Zoe Conway did her album like that. I wasn't sure about the sound of it to begin with but it's growing on me.
I think it's true to say the modern ear has grown to expect a certain sound so it's good for trad players not to take for granted that there is one standard industry way.
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by bogman
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
A lot of trad players don't record in the "standard industry way." The majority of pipers I know who have recorded solo albums, for example David Power, Robbie Hannan, and Seamus Ennis, just sat in a room with a mike in front of them and played a whole bunch of sets. Very little high tech production went into it.
I love the old field recording. There is some great music out there, where someone just stuck a mike in front of the musician and off they went.
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by TheSilverSpear
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
That's very true Spear but we don't know how Seamus Innis would have recorded if he was doing it today.
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by bogman
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
Compression dates back to the days of grooved recordings. If the amplitude was too big (i.e. too loud) then the needle would jump the groove and you'd get cross-talk between adjacent turns. Similarly with analog tape, and then you also have distortion coming into the equation. Playback amps would be designed to reverse the compression on playback, or most of it at any rate. Most orchestral music has an enormous dynamic range compared with pop or trad, so compression is essential during the recording process.
Many years ago my boss told me about when he was invited to his senior manager's house to hear recordings of classical music. The music room was acoustically designed, with just two carefully placed seats for the listeners, and start-of-the-art speakers, amps, and record and tape decks (no instruments, not even a piano). The whole setup was over £20K, which was a hell of lot of money in the early 70's. I was awed but not impressed; although I didn't say so (thinking about promotion prospects and all!), I felt that this fellow was more interested in a spurious perfection of sound than the actual music. Was he related to llig's hi-fi buff, perhaps?
When Spiro recorded their latest album earlier this year the four of them were lined up in Peter Gabriel's recording studio in the same way as they'd be live on stage, with the same mic setup. The engineer's mixing desk was in the same room just feet away, so there was direct voice communication between the musicians and him. Spiro's philosophy is to record as you would hear them live on stage, with no post editing or dubbing. I understand they never needed to do more than two takes in the recording studio.
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by lazyhound
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
Isn't that just a live recording though. Having only live recording is fine as long as that's all people want.
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by bogman
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
From what I know of Ennis through people who knew him, he was pretty crusty and probably would have recorded himself in the exact same way, even with all of today's technology available to him.
The guy loved field recordings -- that was his job, working for the BBC, going out to far flung parts of Ireland and recording songs and tunes and stories for the Folklore Commission.
Maybe cause I am getting crusty, but I think the unaccompanied, unproduced solo pipes recordings, just chanter, drones, and regs, are really incredible and more pipers should make them. I'm waiting for Jarlath Henderson to do it.
# Posted on October 9th 2009 by TheSilverSpear
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
There's a story, and I believe it. Ennis got a recording contract to make three albums. He signed the contrac, had lunch and then went into the studio and recorded all three in the afternoon.
# Posted on October 11th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
What a bonus for the record company!
# Posted on October 11th 2009 by bogman
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
Aye, Michael. I have heard that as well. I think it's probably true.
Though some of the stuff I think on 40 years of Irish Piping were other field recordings he made. Tentative suggestion there.
# Posted on October 11th 2009 by TheSilverSpear
Re: Autotune? The Truth?
I think autotune has no place in trad music. But it has a HUGE place in the news and politics.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0OzxvClwoU
# Posted on October 12th 2009 by jwvansteenwyk
from rambling house article ~
Seamus Ennis being recorded by Jean Ritchie, winter 1952-53
http://www.iol.ie/~ronolan/ennis.gif
# Posted on October 12th 2009 by Random_notes