Über die Autorin bzw. den Autor

Steve Savage teaches musicology in the humanities department at San Francisco State University and is an active record producer and recording engineer. He has been the primary engineer on seven records that received Grammy nominations.

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

Bytes and Backbeats

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN PRESS

Contents

List of Audio Clips..................................................................xvIntroduction: Reproduction and New Paradigms.........................................1part one: Repurposing Presentation...................................................21Introduction to Part I...............................................................21one. Application Study: Rock Band....................................................25two. Studio Study: Lipsmacks, Mouth Noises, and Heavy Breathing......................48three. Art or Artifice?..............................................................61part two: Repurposing Performance....................................................79Introduction to Part II..............................................................79four. Application Study: Jazz Piano Trio.............................................81five. Studio Study: Capturing the Unintentional Performance..........................99six. Artist or Artisan?..............................................................107part three: Repurposing Participation................................................127Introduction to Part III.............................................................127seven. Application Study: African Folklore and Music Communities.....................129eight. Studio Study: From iPod to GarageBand.........................................150nine. Integration or (Dis)integration?...............................................174Conclusions: Reflections on the Future...............................................193Notes................................................................................197References...........................................................................219Index................................................................................229

Chapter One

"In Tune and in Time"

One of the first responsibilities that a producer of popular music takes on is the requirement that the final product delivered to the record company be "in tune and in time." That is to say, the musical performances are to realize a certain standard of technical proficiency in pitch and rhythm. The legacy of this central role for a producer may be found in the many rough performances that were a part of the early history of rock and roll. Along with a heavy reliance on attitude came some rather oblique relationships to musicianship on the part of some of the musicians. Thus, especially in the "band era" of the 1960s and 1970s, came the need for some QC (quality control) and the centrality of the producer's role as the arbiter of traditional musical standards. The long-dreamed-of tools for relatively easy pitch and rhythm "fixing" have now arrived along with the DAW. In regards to the direction of technological influence ("top-down" versus "bottom-up"), the realization of this desire suggests that the pitch and rhythm tools of computer-based audio may be seen as a striking example of agency driving technology (we needed to fix stuff, and now we can). However, as we shall see through this volume, there are always elements working in both directions. Perhaps some of what is generally considered to be excessive "fixing" of rhythm and pitch may be considered to be examples of technology driving agency (we can fix stuff, so we do). In any case, the ease and degree of control over pitch and rhythm have dramatically changed, so the new paradigm of music construction is in full bloom when it comes to realizing the producer's dictum that performances must be "in tune and in time."

Prior to the current computer technology the producer had relatively few options in the control of intonation and rhythmic accuracy in musical performances. The primary tool was, after a studio take that wasn't up to the desired standard, to get on the "talk-back" to the performing musician and say something like: "That was great, but can you do it one more time for me: It was a little pitchy" (meaning either too sharp or flat for use) or "It felt a little awkward" (meaning not good enough rhythmically for use). Here the final recorded performances were created through selective repetition. Bits of performances would be captured to allow a complete, musically acceptable performance to be pieced together. If the musician was very capable, then little or no such repetition would be necessary, but in the case of the relatively inexperienced rock-and-roll band member, this could be a long and tedious process. Over time certain techniques and technologies developed that could be applied after the performance, and these aided this process in small ways—tape editing, "flying in," and later judicious use of a harmonizer could correct problems in certain instances—but these options were time-consuming and only successful in a very limited number of circumstances. For the most part getting the required performance out of the musician, sometimes one arduous bit at a time, was the only viable option.

To explore the changes in the application of control over tuning and timing I undertook a project involving a song that I had recorded in 1994 for the band "The Jenny Thing." I had made the original recording using the dominant professional recording technology at the time, which was a 24-track analog tape recorder. This meant I had twenty-four individual tracks for recording on which to build the music for each song. The original sessions were carried out in the typical studio production style of the time. We recorded the initial "basic" tracks of drums, bass, guitar, and vocal together, but all of the performances other than the drum track were considered "scratch" tracks—that is, they were played as guide tracks to be later "scratched" or discarded in favor of new takes of these performances. All of the instruments, as well as each element of the drum set, were recorded on their own individual tracks. All of the instruments and the lead vocal were isolated from each other so that there wasn't "bleed" from one sound into the recording of the other, facilitating the replacement of parts later. Additional parts such as lead guitar tracks, harmony vocals, and percussion tracks were added later. By recording each part at different times I was able to focus the attention and the process of revision on the execution of each individual performance until it was considered acceptable. This was a relatively low-budget record, so the standard for "acceptable" had to take into consideration the capabilities of the musician along with the overall time that the budget allowed for the entire recording and mixing process. This remains the dominant procedure in pop music today, though the weight of performance control has shifted from being almost completely a part of the original recording to a balance between recording and the kind of postrecording manipulation that I was now going to apply to this production. My goal in this study is to apply to this older recording the process of rhythm and pitch "fixing" currently used in pop production, allowing me to compare the original master as it was released on record to what would probably comprise the master recording if this song were produced using contemporary technology.

My first task was to transfer from the analog tape to digital audio in the DAW. For the software needed to control the digital audio stored on the computer's...