Imperfect Realism or Fabricated Perfection - which would you rather hear?

[Slyonbass]

I've started studio sessions for my upcoming album of solo bass pieces and I'm debating with myself....should I choose whole takes that have a good general feel and flow but with a few technical flaws (fret buzz, mildly imperfect picking) or take the best parts from multiple takes and put them together digitally??

What do you think??

[bassteban]

I think you should add a poll- and I'd vote *imperfection w/good feel*

[tZer]

Personally I prefer music that's clearly human and "imperfect". It's much harder to make perfect music humanly imperfect than it is to make humanly imperfect music perfect, IMO.

[Longhair]

I'd vote for "Imperfect Realism within Reason".

As long as the imperfections don't sound "planned" or "strategically placed", it would probably go unnoticed to by most people.

[WalterBush]

Is this really an either/or choice?

By all means, don't let a tiny imperfection stop you from using a track with good energy and a performance that just works.

On the other hand, that's exactly why comp tracks were invented...so that you could punch in to an otherwise perfect take and remove the blown note or change something that sounded great when recorded, but just isn't working in the mix.

Jimmy page's performance on the Heartbreaker solo's a great example. Good take, great energy, got the point across...and he's still hearing about the part where his pick missed the strings 40 years later. Just saying, do what works for the song. There's an awful lot of ground between The Rolling Stones and Kraftwerk, you know?

[Slyonbass]

Originally Posted by bassteban

I think you should add a poll- and I'd vote *imperfection w/good feel*

Thanks for your response...

I'm still a newbie here...How do I go about adding a poll??

[T-MOST]

There is nothing wrong with digitally cutting and pasting parts as long as "you" played the parts. It's still "you" performing. Everyone does "punch-ins" or records solos or complicated lines "in sections" so this isn't any different in my opinion. If I were releasing a recording I would certainly want the best takes possible as the final product. A "flawed live performance" is one thing but a "flawed recording" is forever. "Sometimes" imperfections add character and work out great. But There is no way to calculate that. Most times you won't get kudos or props for having mistakes or imperfections (if that is whats meant by honesty) on a recording. I simply wouldn't do it if there was a way around it.

[JimmyM]

Case by case basis. If it works to leave in the imperfections, leave them. But if it works to fix them, fix them. Nobody will ever know but you and the band. People complain about the lack of "honesty" in fixing parts digitally. Honesty schmonesty, that's what I say!

[bassteban]

Originally Posted by Slyonbass

Thanks for your response...

I'm still a newbie here...How do I go about adding a poll??

Glad to help, and welcome to TB.
On polls- the option is toward the bottom of the page when you *start a new thread*- you might be able to add one by *editting*(go advanced).
I'd suggest maybe 5 options, ranging from *always this way* to *never* w/a couple in between, plus carrots...

[TomA1234]

I would personally go for imperfect music, without blaringly obvious mistakes such as wrong notes, I think it gives it some character.

[Russell L]

My bass thinks it's a person, so...

[tZer]

When I was younger and much more into prog-rock, my idea of 'perfection' was defined by playing significantly challenging music that was rife with the potential to 'fail' and not messing up. To play Rush or Yes true to form, it meant no 'blurry' licks, gaps or other instances of physically meeting the challenges of the song.

The advent of more computerized music that featured sequencers locked to a metronome redefined 'perfect' as music that was programmed and robotic. Interesting and impressive on some levels, cold and impersonal on others - but 'perfect', technically speaking.

Now I can listen to old Stones songs, Zeppelin, Beatles (although I would argue that for as superficially simplistic some of the Beatles' songs sounded, they all, in hindsight strike me as stunning perfect!) -

So - 'perfect' - what's perfect? As many have said - it's song-dependent. There is no single definition of what perfect means, but you certainly can recognize what is not perfect and should be fixed a lot more readily than what is and shouldn't.

[cjmodulus]

Listen to victor wooten's a show of hands cd. He chose to leave in all of his various mistakes and errors because it lead to a more natural sounding record. It still blows me away every time I listen to the vision or overjoyed.

[Skitch it!]

I'd leave the character in, if it's a good take I wouldn't be overly conscientious about it if it doesn't detracty, I like the 'live feel' of flow personally.

[VincentSalizeri]

Go with the imperfections, I say. There's something I like about music that has a human quality to it.

[teleharmonium]

perfection is flawed

[Russell L]

Attaining perfection would take away all the joy found in aspiring to it.

[ShredderMaximus]

Originally Posted by TomA1234

I would personally go for imperfect music, without blaringly obvious mistakes such as wrong notes, I think it gives it some character.

+1, adds sort of a living element thats lacking in alot of modern music, though in the case of genres like modern technical death metal, where accuracy and cleanliness is a trademark of the genre, maybe not so much.

[Slyonbass]

Thanks for all the comments.

One of the main themes of the album is self-acceptance and honesty -so when the tech mentionned that we could paste together the best parts I wasn't quite sure if that's what I want to do...

The songs being solo bass pieces is a new and major challenge for me - it requires alot of focus to stay in the music and not let my mind wander...

I'll probably do a few more sessions and see how it goes...