What is 'cheating' in recording a demo?

[Jim Nazium]

I'm recording a few little demo tracks to put on a web page. It got me thinking about what constitutes 'cheating', or to be more specific, at what point does it not really represent how well I can play? I think most people would agree that recording multiple takes is fair game - make a mistake, just record it again. What about punching a mistake (just re-recording that one section)? What about changing the tempo - say, record it at 120 bpm and then do the mixdown at 160?

Where do you draw the line?

 

[whitespike]

I draw the line nowhere. As long as the end product i good. The great Les Paul used to speed up his tracks to high notes that don't even exist on the guitar. Because that's what he heard in his head. Experiment.

 

[Exploiter8]

As long as it's not a band demo CD to give to a bar owner for possible gigs, I say it's your creative license to do what you want.

I'm against changing the tempo thing, but that's just me.

X8

 

[Tim C.]

The point of a recording is to have a quality sound file, not demonstrate how well you play live.

 

[Rickett Customs]

As long as you know what you're doing, when you punch in, you're gold. Don't make a damn bit of difference to anyone but yourself.

I used to punch in on 2" tape, in a digital domain, there are no lines to cross.

 

[Bassmunnky]

Man this was funny in light of the overuse of Auto-Tune!

Make it great! Piece it together and then learn the 'new part'

 

[WayneS]

The point of a recording is to have a quality sound file, not demonstrate how well you play live.

Then what if you cant reproduce live whats in the demo?

 

[Rickett Customs]

Then what if you cant reproduce live whats in the demo?

Time to Woodshed until you do. If there are additional tracks, that 1 person cannot produce live, then it's either time to improvise, sample or leave out.

Do you think def leppard was able to reproduce all of the tracked guitar parts on any of their albums?
Nope. They had to pick out "one or the other" when it came to the extra parts.

 

[KsPiNeSh]

Then what if you cant reproduce live whats in the demo?

Agreed. IMO it's one thing to have a couple of different guitar tracks and only 1 guitarist (meaning only 1 "track" can be played live), but my band's opinion is that if you can't play it live, it doesn't go on the recording.

 

[WayneS]

Time to Woodshed until you do. If there are additional tracks, that 1 person cannot produce live, then it's either time to improvise, sample or leave out.

Do you think def leppard was able to reproduce all of the tracked guitar parts on any of their albums?
Nope. They had to pick out "one or the other" when it came to the extra parts.

Thats not what I meant. I meant like speeding up the demo tempo or something like that.

 

[WayneS]

Agreed. IMO it's one thing to have a couple of different guitar tracks and only 1 guitarist (meaning only 1 "track" can be played live), but my band's opinion is that if you can't play it live, it doesn't go on the recording.

Agreed. Same as mine.

 

[Rickett Customs]

Thats not what I meant. I meant like speeding up the demo tempo or something like that.

Well I do agree with you there, but it would fall into the improv category. Though sometimes these types of things can improve a player as well. But, If it's done, for say a vocalist and it's a bit out of his range for live, then he's in deep Do DO.........

 

[tZer]

I know where you're coming from - and all I can say is it's up to your gut. If you feel like a fraud, you're cheating (yourself). In other words, if you're modifying your recording to compensate for your lack of ability (mistakes are mistakes, can't play it is can't play it) and trying to pass off the results as something you can do, then you're "cheating".

I've done all of what you described and not considered it cheating. In the old days on my Tascam 4-track, I'd recorded some songs then mixed them down at a higher speed because it smoothed out the overall sound of the song. I'd also purposefully recorded very slowly with the intent to speed it up in order to get that 'chipmunks' sound.

I've also written songs entirely using the 'piano roll' midi note entry system which clearly represented my song writing ability but in no way represented my own playing ability. Mind you, I could play the bass lines that I wrote using midi, but I could never have played the other instrument parts.

The purpose of all those recordings was to demonstrate the songs - not to demonstrate my ability to play the instruments, so I was not cheating.

[EDIT/ADDENDUM] I have purposefully created songs that were above my own playing ability with the intention to get buy in from my band that we wanted to attempt such a song then learn how to play it. There's something sort of cool about having to learn one of your own songs!

 

[NKUSigEp]

I'm recording a few little demo tracks to put on a web page. It got me thinking about what constitutes 'cheating', or to be more specific, at what point does it not really represent how well I can play? I think most people would agree that recording multiple takes is fair game - make a mistake, just record it again. What about punching a mistake (just re-recording that one section)? What about changing the tempo - say, record it at 120 bpm and then do the mixdown at 160?

Where do you draw the line?

IMO, the only cheating that ever occurs is if you don't practice enough to be as good as the recording you make.

 

[Breslin dp]

I am guilty of having to be punched in on my last bands demo. I would make minor mistakes and have to redo my parts here or there. I didn't speed up the bass lines, but now that I think back on it I wish I would of. It would have saved me a lot of time and money. Trying to throw in fills in a progressive metal band can be a challenge but I know how to do it now lol.

 

[whitespike]

Then what if you cant reproduce live whats in the demo?

Who gives a toss? DO you think Led Zeppelin could reproduce half the crap they did ... many songs with an acoustic and several electric tracks, keys, strings etc????

Do not let the live gig hinder your studio gig. They are two totally different creative endeavors and do not have to match ... just translate... Many bands play more raw versions of their songs live. I always have because I come from the Beatles school of production.... lots of layers...

Just make sure you live compositions have the most important parts/hooks/etc.. Most people don't even know the difference..

 

[Breslin dp]

I know Metallica punched in every drum beat on every one of their albums.

 

[DrSmaggs]

Do as you wish when recording! It's not the same as playing live, anyway and sometimes certain things that you do live don't sound the same recorded, it seems.

 

[trunkshope6]

dude there is no cheating,no matter what recording takes work patience ,and the willingness to stop smoking weed for an hour or two,cuz that just screws stuff up hahah jk

 

[invader3k]

It's your recording. I would say as long as the song as recorded and presented as a whole isn't radically different from how you'd play it live, it's fair game. No bar owner is going to notice you didn't play that funky bass solo in the middle of the third track that was in your demo when you're doing it live.