The Metallica recorded slow then sped things up discussion

[László]

I also recall that many old singles from the 50s and 60s were sped up when mastered to vinyl. For one, it shortened the songs but also gave the effect of being more upbeat and fresh.
Nothing is off the table when doing a record or production, imo. It's an art piece, use the tools that get you what you want. Although I don't like the idea of A.I. music and folks calling it their own. But I'm being a bit hypocritical as I often use AI thumbnails for tracks I upload. I'm just being lazy because I can draw my own stuff.

Your work is terrific. Don't fret the thumbnails.

My thumbnails are taken from my brother's oil paintings. I can draw a little. I'm just lucky that he lets me use his incredible art. It's worth checking out:

www.robertschefman.com

Incidentally, I completely agree. A recording is an art piece - heck, it has its own copyright separate from the song being recorded. Whatever makes it good for the artist and the producer, great.

Great visual artists used all kinds of tricks that suited the technology of their day, such as the camera obscura, to be able to get perspective right in their paintings; this goes back to the early Renaissance. Yet it didn't detract from the validity of their work.

Imagine what Bach or Beethoven would have done with today's recording possibilities. They were true geniuses, and I'm guessing they'd have made use of them.

 

[DISTORT6]

I've always gone with anything goes in the studio as long as you can do it live.
A song that goes into the studio sometimes comes out completely different and it's like learning a new song.

 

[FuzzyAce]

Your work is terrific. Don't fret the thumbnails.

My thumbnails are taken from my brother's oil paintings. I can draw a little. I'm just lucky that he lets me use his incredible art. It's worth checking out:

www.robertschefman.com

Incidentally, I completely agree. A recording is an art piece - heck, it has its own copyright separate from the song being recorded. Whatever makes it good for the artist and the producer, great.

Great visual artists used all kinds of tricks that suited the technology of their day, such as the camera obscura, to be able to get perspective right in their paintings; this goes back to the early Renaissance. Yet it didn't detract from the validity of their work.

Imagine what Bach or Beethoven would have done with today's recording possibilities. They were true geniuses, and I'm guessing they'd have made use of them.

Your brother's work is fantastic!

 

[MirrorProfiles]

I've always gone with anything goes in the studio as long as you can do it live.
A song that goes into the studio sometimes comes out completely different and it's like learning a new song.

I don't even mind if it's not possible to pull off live, music is art and if it conveys something appropriate then just optimise it for whatever medium it needs to exist in. I have no issues with changing an arrangement or part around for live, as the context is different anyway and they aren't supposed to be the same thing.

 

[FuzzyAce]

I don't even mind if it's not possible to pull off live, music is art and if it conveys something appropriate then just optimise it for whatever medium it needs to exist in. I have no issues with changing an arrangement or part around for live, as the context is different anyway and they aren't supposed to be the same thing.

This is how I feel about it too. Countless bands and artists have had to reinterpret how a song is performed live based on limitations (or just because they want to). Even though it is cool to see some go through the effort to perform true to an album as well.

 

[Chocol8]

I would 100% prefer the live version to be at least a little different. Otherwise I might as well listen to the album. Studio tricks are fine with me, as long as they are used to take the music to a different place or higher level and not just to mask a lack of ability.

 

[László]

Your brother's work is fantastic!

On his behalf, thanks!

It's in several museums these days, and the painting on the splash page was shown at the Smithsonian's Portrait Gallery. He's the real talent in my family!

 

[Frodebro]

I've always gone with anything goes in the studio as long as you can do it live.

That would eliminate much of the Beatles’ output after 1965…

 

[Chocol8]

That would eliminate much of the Beatles’ output after 1965…

And Hendrix, and Millie Vanillie or whatever they were called.

 

[FuzzyAce]

On his behalf, thanks!

It's in several museums these days, and the painting on the splash page was shown at the Smithsonian's Portrait Gallery. He's the real talent in my family!

Haha, that's awesome. Both of you are talented though.

 

[FuzzyAce]

And Hendrix, and Millie Vanillie or whatever they were called.

Bruh, don't you dare put Jimi and Millie Vanilli in the same sentence!

 

[Chocol8]

Bruh, don't you dare put Jimi and Millie Vanilli in the same sentence!

That was intentional to point out there is both good and bad that can be done in a studio but not live. And to make people gag.

 

[FuzzyAce]

And to make people gag.

It worked!

 

[László]

That was intentional to point out there is both good and bad that can be done in a studio but not live. And to make people gag.

The good news for Jimi's audiences was that while Jimi couldn't do a lot of those tricks live, most of the audience was so loaded on psychedelics no one actually knew he wasn't doing the studio tricks!

"You speak from experience?"

"Stop that. There's a fifth amendment for a reason."