3 ms·
It's worth mentioning the recording process as well. I feel recording has taken over some of that "this is what this is" role from the rigid structures of class
by beat 10y ago
It's worth mentioning the recording process as well. I feel recording has taken over some of that "this is what this is" role from the rigid structures of classical composition. One can improvise and develop the music "on tape", and often does, but in the end, you cut a master and send it out into the world.
I also feel this has given listeners a narrow and unrealistic view of what music actually is. For example, complaining if the lead guitarist in concert doesn't play the guitar solo from the record note-for-note, even though that player improvised the studio solo and might have real difficulty replicating it - not to mention little interest in doing so.
This also leads to the phenomenon of "cover bands" that simply do live note-for-note versions of someone else's record. As a musician, the idea of doing that seems utterly bizarre to me, but it's obviously popular!
- S_A_P 10y agoAgreed re: note for note covers. I have covered other songs, and while I strive to play the original composition mostly note for note, it may be in a different key or have some other approach taken. Often the drums are changed, because a) recording drums in my music room is time consuming b) I'm a barely serviceable drummer and c) I can't always make that much noise for as long as it would take to get right without upsetting the wife and kids. Also to your first point, DAW software is now akin to a canvas and recording can also be part of the creative process. I used to try to record in stages, write, rehearse, record, produce, master. Now I find that I'm kind of doing it all at once and the results don't end up any worse except for one thing. The compositions are usually less complicated without having the time to think about it and practice it.