This particular case I'm making isn't about Periphery specifically, but it stems from the idea that was brought about that comps and overdubbing is vital to making and recording music, when it simply isn't. There are elements of creativity that go into making performances like the one I linked that go beyond anything you will ever hear on a record that has been digitally produced. Subtleties in dynamics, inflection, text painting, all sorts of things that modern mastering completely ignores. Like I said, its a different school of thought. I think Periphery are great musicians, and I think that they do bring a lot of creativity and energy to a watered down, generally boring sector of the music world. My qualm about methods of production apply across the board and I would make the same case against any band at all that presented their music as if it weren't modified in some way. Perhaps I misinterpreted what Spencer was saying, but the vibe I got was that he was proud of the fact that his vocals weren't corrected. I was excited to hear that myself and wanted to see what he did. I listened and within a minute I heard a place where the vocals were spliced, and based upon what I consider to be correction in music, I was let down.
I feel like you have been arguing over the last page so that you wouldn't have to admit you were wrong. Nowhere have we ever said that there is no editing on the album (that was the word you have been looking for btw) because the main difference between a studio album and a live album is the editing really. But we did say there is no pitch/time correction on the main vocals which is extremely common on modern recordings, and that was something that was mentioned because Spencer was adamantly against using that, so that it would yield a certain sound. By your definition of what is "acceptable" a tiny tiny percentage of bands albums over the last few decades would be acceptable. Sounds like you are live performance kinda guy and that is okay, but to say that we are misrepresenting our work or that this is going to encourage music to be shitty is such a fallacy. Sure there are a ton of people who will use it to make shitty music, but there are a lot of people who will use technology and the studio to make good music better. Either way, i'd just say cut your losses dude, you sound like you know what you are talking about to some degree, but the things you are saying make very little sense, and at very best are just expressing your opinion as if they should be fact, and although this is the internet, you seem like a smart enough guy, you should know better haha.
People are pretty stupid, I recall somebody referring to one part of the new album teaser as auto-tuned, due to the two tracked vocal harmony.
I'm not trying to present my ideas as a fact. It if comes across that way, I apologize. The only thing I feel I have stated that is factual is that you don't HAVE to use editing (I'll use your term) to make and record music. Based on what I have learned in school, editing and processing and any form of 'enhancement' is essentially a very bad thing. Maybe my school's philosophy is outdated and oldschool, but for the past 4 years I've been guided under the attitude that one should avoid any sort of outside, synthetic, non-human influence when making music. I obviously think good music is good, and I listen to tons of recordings all the time, so I understand the influence that the technology has on the industry, but I suppose I have developed a bit of a vendetta against artists who can't duplicate their recordings and use the studio as a crutch. (I'm also the same guy that was on Spencer's facebook talking about getting kicked in the face at a BtBaM show, btw)
I understand what you are trying to get at, but the flaw in your argument is that the majority of those bands CAN recreate it live. Half of what comping is, is trying to get the right emotion, getting every aspect of the take perfect. And even correction on vocals is used when a take has all the character and vibe that you want, but some notes arent perfectly on. And that is pretty commonplace. Spencer worked his ass off to get takes that were everything he wanted them to be, and if the pitch or time was off even a bit on an otherwise great take that could have been fixed, he would just do it again till it was done correctly. Also, the part you claim to have heard a split on around 1 minute is part of a solid take, so i am not entirely sure what you are hearing there as i was there when that part was tracked, and when that song was comped as well.
Listening to Systolic argue was like watching Goku power up his spirit bomb. Painful and ultimately pointless.
People need to just get over the autotune shit. It's here, and it's not going away. One aspect that Systolic fails to consider is that studio time costs money. If I'm working with a client on a strict budget and I need to tune or otherwise correct a part to make it sound the way it should in the time available, I either do it or give them a sub-standard product. Guess which one I choose. Sure, you can argue that it's the client's responsibility to deliver on their performance. True, but it's my reputation as an engineer on the line too, not just theirs as an artist.
Dear Bulb, I would like a Dragonball Z themed track on the next album. Make sure it has at least 10 minutes of completely pointless and repetitive screaming.
People seem to think Melodyne or whatever other method of autoune you care to discuss is this magic wand that can make any lazy bum sound like a singer. Not so at all. You can change the pitch and timing to an extent, but not the expression or the delivery. As wonderful as technology is, you still can't polish a turd, and the further you have to push it the more fake it will sound.
To be Dragonball Z themed, it would have to be a build up that lasts a whole album, and continues to build up further over the next few albums, only to climax after a few albums with a disappointing result.
I bet even those "100% natural" performances have some light compression thrown on there to keep the level under control and thicken out the tone. ONOEZ.
Systolic, I think I found some metal that also follows your philosophy regarding vocal production/performance
Im not sure exactly what he is saying but at the :58 mark there is something sung in the background that is obviously dubbed or comped. And as to your first point, I've only physically seen (as in gone to a show and not youtubed a live recording) maybe 4 bands live that were equally as good as they sounded in studio. Zappa Plays Zappa, Three, Tool, and The Bad Plus. I love Dream Theater, but James Labrie has some serious inconsistency issues live (and yes I know dead horse is dead), if it werent for him DT would be on the list. I havent seen you guys live, so I don't know what to think yet. I've seen some rough youtube recordings people have shot that muddy things up a lot, so I'm not going to judge based on that... I've probably seen 30 live bands or so and most of them have been huge disappointments to me with the types of expectations that their studio recordings set, which is probably the biggest fuel for me in this discussion. That and being graded (and NOT being paid) for my efforts that are judged upon an EXTREMELY high standard. Maybe I'm just jelly, I dunno
If the performers arent being miced (as is standard in romantic/classical literature/opera), then any modification done via recording is probably just use to eradicate background noise/white noise. Its a BIG nono to modify classical literature via modern production standards.
Systolic I hope those 30 bands don't include Devin Townsend. Now that he has really gotten a good mix and monitoring setup going the performance sounds godlike. Scale the Summit are impeccable as well.
I've never seen Devin, but I have seen Scale the Summit and I was VERY underwhelmed. This was a few years ago though, so maybe they have changed. It also wasn't so much the quality of the sound, moreover that their music's energy didn't seem to covert well to a live setting. I got kind of bored.
Have you seen them after The Collective was released (March 1, 2011 release)? They have gotten MUCH better since that record was released. I saw them open for DT before that CD and then I've seen them probably 4 or 5 five times since. They are extremely good now and they convey their sound/energy/emotion very well.
No, I haven't but I will definitely give them another shot based on your recommendation. Thanks. EDIT: I know they are talented, and I liked their music in studio, so I am glad to hear that its worth giving them another shot.
I thought they were great since I first saw em, maybe around the time of CDC's release, and they have always been able to play everything spot on but their headline tour late 2011 was where I thought the music really surpassed what it sounds like on the albums because the attitude and articulation shined through more than ever.
Chris attributed it to having a really good guy on tour with them to do the mix, but I think a big part of it was how much they themselves put into it knowing that it was a headline tour and they wanted to step their game up.
If I'm honest, I don't even enjoy listening to the old Periphery album, anymore. The vocals are really boring. But I have really high hopes for the new stuff
not even gonna read this page. btw, did you guys know Periphery has a new single? check it out. sounds pretty damn good. i am drunk tho
Music of the Romantic Era, Impressionist, Renaissance vocal music, Progressive Rock, and some (very limited) pop music from various eras.
So you realize that anything you listen to that isn't one-shot Classical music is...comped like shit and recorded in a way that it will never be performed then....right?
I'd always consider it a plus for a record to at least be heavily based on a live take. But I'd never consider it a minus for bands who don't that.
Rock music should be about conforming to rigid traditional norms. A true purist would be against the recording of any and all musical performances anyway.
