Is recording music in parts cheating?

[Megadebt]

Is recording music in parts cheating?​

 

[Sebastian]

Define "parts".

 

[Megadebt]

Instead of doing a play through all at once, like as in a live setting, you multi-track it in smaller sections, a section at a time.

 

[Sebastian]

I would not consider this cheating. It's kind of established practice and putting the possibilities of technology to use.
If you have section A with an acoustic guitar and section B with an electric guitar, would you consider it cheating if you record it one after another because you need time to switch instruments?

IMO, cheating begins when you record something in slices because you can't play it, but it sounds as if it was played in one take and you surely would have to play it like that on stage.
On the other hand, recording is an art by itself. There are no rules creating your piece of art.

 

[Will Schut]

No.

 

[Ava96]

Absolutelly no

 

[Immanuel]

Using the term cheating assumes the value of the music should be judged by anything else than the music's ability to induce an emotion or a state of mind.

 

[Immanuel]

Using the term cheating implies a musician centered view over a sound centered view.

 

[Megadebt]

IF it's cheating, it helps me learn the parts, and I can practice the parts later, to get better.

 

[Megadebt]

I feel like when playing for a recording, it makes me want to play the part very clean and precise, so perhaps it is a better way to go about it.

 

[Megadebt]

It also helps me learn the recording software, and the techniques that can be applied. …and it's fun… so it's all good!

 

[grandinq]

Whatever gets you to the place where the song sounds like you want it to.

One could call recording itself cheating. Before recording music was only live performance so the idea that you could hear a song the exact same way more than once is pretty radical.

The book Perfecting Sound Forever is a great history of recorded music and hits on all these issues.

I think at some point we all draw out own lines.

Watching the Get Back documentary, the Beatles were committed to capturing a completely live take of every song. It’s interesting as a concept but I think it added to some of the oddness of that project. At the very end of the last episode as the credits as fading, you hear Paul saying something like “should we do one more?” because he always had this nagging thought they could do even better.

 

[TSJMajesty]

Dude. It's an art form. However you get there.

 

[EdgE]

Did a lead in a studio in Boston couple years ago , the main lead was one take , the end he wanted me to slide a chord longer, did a couple takes and he just punch in the one he wanted . They do all the time

 

[USMC_Trev]

No. It's already a recording. Alchemy has already occured. Might as well do everything you can to make it sound the way you intended. Unless you want live, then do live. If you think it you got it in one take, vaya con dios brochacho.

 

[Budda]

Is recording music in parts cheating?​

No

 

[ScottyB]

Umm, no.

 

[Tahoebrian5]

No but using an Axe Fx is definitely cheating

 

[ruso]

Is recording music in parts cheating?​

No. People have been punching in and comping takes since we had the ability.

I prefer a “live” performance, but if the clock is ticking and you’re burning through studio time trying to nail a part, comp it.

 

[Sixstring]

I vote no!

Recording in parts or "Takes" is nothing more than making sure it sounds the way you want it to sound in playback for ever!