Good musicians and good recording equipment make daw editing unnecesary?

[jancivil]

I write in piano roll things I cannot, and never could play, in terms of keyboard prowess. Also, I write for instruments I've never even touched, but over the years have paid close attention to and studied. Some of this I'd have the choice outside of the DAW of paying someone a lot of money or abandon my idea altogether.

Here's a story about that. I had a sort of finished first draft so to speak of a composition. I wanted soprano sax, and a pretty virtuosic performance. I contacted someone that knew me (from here, though I shouldn't name him) who looked like he might coul cut this part. It didn't work out.

Then I contacted someone who has lots of experience as a studio musician (jazz emphasis) and is also a composer, who knew me from around and respected me enough to entertain the notion of cutting this. This individual does not do free work; he said $100 is the minimum to even set up to record. So I outlined the things I wanted ("exploding alien birds in outer space" and I said approach it kind of more Varese than jazz) and he said he could do all that, as though he can do anything. I knew his playing and had heard his compositions a bit, so I said okay, here's the hundred bucks. and went into the in closer detail.

I didn't write anything for him. So what he did was beyond what I was expecting (one bit he anticipated my theme with a melodic turn that is amazing. All I'd said was 'go lyrical' for this bit.). Ok, at some point in this I wanted him to double the last lick, so I found a way in Cubase score editor (I never do this) and managed a pdf of the notation. He told me this is impossible and to even try exceeded this $100 gig. So he did something else (in the exploding birds fashion) that fit ok. I think the part was idiomatic enough, but apparently the fingering was ridiculous.

So here is both sides of the argument. 1) the piece (before he improvised his parts) is rhythmically challenging to the point it will never have been feasible to be played live, if I, say composed it on staves with a 2B pencil (which was maybe the majority of things I ever did in the 'before times');
and 2) the piece exists because I had the sound(s) together first. It does not even begin to happen any other way. The other side is someone made a contribution that doesn't happen except for a real, live improvised event.

[Gamma-UT]

Overdubs are common for even the best performers on record.

Though rehearsing parts before committing them means a lot less aggro later, perfect is the enemy of good.

[jancivil]

Also, in consideration of piano roll (and confer 'impossible to do') there's a pretty famous composer, Conlon Nancarrow whose entire ouevre was done on a real piano roll, where you punch holes in a card for a mechanism to 'read'. I have heard one group do something of his live (it's on Youtube), but generally this music is considered quite impossible.

I had a piano-centric piece a few yrs ago where the last bit was probably as impossible AF to play, and someone commenting at YT likened it to Nancarrow. I can't play enough piano to really assess possible vs impossible. <Is it idiomatic enough> is my goal instead.

And, I have instruments that do not exist outside the technology or even close. The initial question of the OP poses a false and useless dichotomy.

[Michael L]

The two greatest rock albums:
Pet Sounds
Sgt Peppers
Good musicians & recording but still the “DAW” was necessary to fulfill the vision

[BertKoor]

I'm learning about stacking which (I believe) is the process of doing multiple takes, stacking them in a DAW, then taking the best bits from each to make one great track (usually vocal).

I thought that's known as "comping"
(but what do I know)

[osiris]

I think you're right. I guess I got stacking from the stacked vocals. I think comping is confusing because I always think compressor.

[Gamma-UT]

I think you're right. I guess I got stacking from the stacked vocals. I think comping is confusing because I always think compressor.

It also conflicts with the common term for playing accompaniment, which really doesn't help.

But the name for selecting good takes is indeed comping.

[marce]

Also, in consideration of piano roll (and confer 'impossible to do') there's a pretty famous composer, Conlon Nancarrow whose entire ouevre was done on a real piano roll, where you punch holes in a card for a mechanism to 'read'. I have heard one group do something of his live (it's on Youtube), but generally this music is considered quite impossible.

I had a piano-centric piece a few yrs ago where the last bit was probably as inpossible AF to play, and someone commenting at YT likened it to Nancarrow. I can't play enough piano to really assess possible vs impossible. <Is it idiomatic enough> is my goal instead.

And, I have instruments that do not exist outside the technology or even close. The intial question of the OP poses a false and useless dichotomy.

is ok, as original poster, was not my intention to state something, instead of it, i enjoyed reading your experiences. Thanks your several shared ones!

[tapper mike]

My favorite band was a non band made up of studio musicians. The best the industry had at the time. The "producers/artists would go through not just a single musician but all the band members for a single perfect take. They would spend not just days or weeks but sometimes months to complete a single song.

Steely Dan.

The reason why they didn't do any touring was they couldn't get a touring band that could pull off the performances matching the recording. Watch the videos live videos from the 70's and you can tell everyone was lip sync'ing. Their stuff was recorded in the 70's and it took till the mid 90's to get a group of musicians who could properly recreate the songs.

[osiris]

Two bands I saw live that sounded EXACTLY like the albums were Foreigner and Fleetwood Mac.

[Starbright]

Appear to me that the more time you invest in the raw recording -good instruments, making your record perfect before record, good vocals because your singing is good- make mixing much easier....

If that were the case, mixing engineers would've never existed.

Oh they certainly needed to. I think they still can be valid, but a great mixing engineer has ears, knowledge, taste and craftsmanship that can enhance your recording but never the song.
But this is the thing only with the right mixing engineer for the genre. If they haven't got too much experience in your genre, THEIR results won't be the best or at least unfamilliar (which sometimes can be a good thing)
But i think with some experiences, you'll definetely don't need. Good song + good recording (good leveled and played well) + good mixing = excelent song (but mixing is really the last part of the chain imho).

[VOODOO U]

a great mixing engineer has ears, knowledge, taste and craftsmanship that can enhance your recording but never the song.

Yep. It's a producer's job to enhance the song. However there have been jack of all trades where one individual did double duty. I think Mutt Lange did mixing duties along with production.

But this is the thing only with the right mixing engineer for the genre. If they haven't got too much experience in your genre, THEIR results won't be the best or at least unfamilliar (which sometimes can be a good thing)

It definitely helps to know the genre. I'm not a pro mixer in any way yet i got hired by a death metal band to mix their E.P. because as a fan, I know what I want to hear and it comes across. Whereas the recording engineer for the studio they recorded in was clueless to the genre so the mixing was subpar. Every now and then we get a Roger Nichols who can mix a variety of genres. I had the pleasure of meeting Roger when I was around 19 or 20. What a f**king super cool humble kick back guy. As far as I'm concerned he never let his legendary status get to his head. So rare in the industry.

Good song + good recording (good leveled and played well) + good mixing = excelent song (but mixing is really the last part of the chain imho).

And then there's Ween! 4 track Tascam recordings done in non-standard methods (meaning unprofessional) mixed by Andrew Weiss and that equaled success.
Like language, there's always exceptions to the rules right?
I feel what is most important is to be honest when you record. Be honest. Then all else doesn't matter. An honest recording sounds good regardless of the mix. An honest song mixed well is.....a hit. And that doesn't mean Billboard. It'll connect to thousands.

[jlgrimes11]

I'd say Yes/No

It is dependent on genre and what is needed expected.

At some points it will come in handy knowing how to edit stuff, but yes in general the more acoustic something is generally the less likely editing will be needed but it depends on alot.

[stoopicus]

Two bands I saw live that sounded EXACTLY like the albums were Foreigner and Fleetwood Mac.

Probably lip syncing. I remember thinking that even at the time for Foreigner, and I was like 13.

[osiris]

Don't know about Foreigner but FM definitely not lip syncing. Funny thing about Foreigner is Cheap Trick was the opening act and they weren't real well known at that time (but I knew) and they came on and just wasted everyone, and it made Foreigner seem so....