[Dixielandjazz] The Perfect Recording

[Ken Mathieson]

Hi Jim et al,

My comments came in response to the announcement of the forthcoming new software which claims to enable editing of individual notes played by polyphonic instruments. I'm not a Luddite/purist about these things, and so much time (and therefore money) in studios can be saved by skilful editing. But we've all heard about recordings which owe more to the engineer's skills than to musical talent. I guess that applies more to the pop world, where improvisation needn't be central to the performance, than to jazz. However every bandleader/producer will have have encountered the great take spoiled by a weak solo or clams, when the culprit turned in a better performance on another, but poorer, take. Do you cut and paste to fix it, and would the fix result in a loss of overall musical continuity, or do you go with the better take as it was played? Ultimately I guess it comes down to a question of how bad was the offending passage, so it's very subjective.

My response, which admittedly wasn't very well enunciated, was really about the dilemma of where jazz musicians draw the line. Studio technology and engineers' skills enable all sorts of "patching" to rescue performance faults, but playing jazz is always a highwire act and even the greatest players fall off from time to time, so the musicians kind of expect it to happen. Producers and labels can be less tolerant though, so there's sometimes pressure to "improve" a performance and sometimes that might impair musical continuity.

Regards,

Ken Mathieson

 

>I'd rather hear a recording played with conviction, originality and
passion, but with imperfections, than something that had all the soul edited
out of it in the studio in the pursuit of perfection.
Ken Mathieson

Hi, Ken. I haven't noticed your name before on the list, so I had a look at
your web page to find out more about you.  I'm just a little curious as to
what brought on your above remark?
Have I missed some posts?  I didn't know this theme had once again raised
its head on DJML!

Anyway, as a sound editor, I would only like to say that if you can notice
that something has been edited, then the job hasn't been done well.  I have
often said to record companies "here's my bill. I know it seems like a lot
since you can't really hear what has been done.....".  However, that is the
trick of the trade.  It's not a sinful trade when performed well.

An imperfection on a live gig happens, is heard (or not heard), and is over.
On a recording, you get to hear it over & over again.  That can be fun, in
some cases (*), but is normally just annoying.

(*)  I'm referring to a recording by a big band trumpeter (leader)...name
escapes me at this moment, that did this great cadenza on a live recording,
then the band didn't come in.  You can hear someone say "try it again", and
the trumpeter goes off on more cadenza & leads the band back in.  Great!
Fantastic!  Something like that should never be cut (& it could so easily be
done!).  However, numerous other things can disappear from a recording
without effecting the magic.

Jim Kash