classical music edits

[rhizomeman]

Hi everyone,

I was wondering if anyone here has worked with some relatively well-known classical musicians that involved a fair amount of editing - or how exactly the recording and editing process went. I am doing research for a paper and am collecting info on specifically "classical" music editing practices today.

BTW I realize that many classical artists don't like talking about this stuff so it can remain anonymous...

Thanks!

[Marik]

Originally Posted by rhizomeman

Hi everyone,

I was wondering if anyone here has worked with some relatively well-known classical musicians that involved a fair amount of editing - or how exactly the recording and editing process went. I am doing research for a paper and am collecting info on specifically "classical" music editing practices today.

BTW I realize that many classical artists don't like talking about this stuff so it can remain anonymous...

Thanks!

I have worked with some of the greatest pianists and there is always a fair amount of editing involved. Mostly, it is not 'making all the notes correct' (although this is too), but realizing entire picture of musical image. Usually, the greater the artist, the greater demand to himself/herself and the greater responsibility as for how their art will be preserved for the history, so the more editing involved. Very often I got into situations when after all the mastering is already done, because of changed sound I had to get back and change quite a bit of musical intentions.

It is interesting to remember, Glenn Gould--man of impeccable technical finesse and huge fan of technology--spent COUNTLESS hours editing his performances, while he could just sit and toss from one take with ALMOST equal perfection.

Best, M

[The Byre]

That reminds me of a story!

Many many years ago and in a land far, far away (Germany) I got my very first remote / location recording gig -

There were two of us: D (sorry, no names) and myself. D was the boss because he had the VW bus to carry our kit. The kit was a couple of Sennheiser 441s, some home-made microphone pre-amps and a Studer reel-to-reel (A60 I think). We got the gig through a local music shop to record a pianist in his piano salon somewhere on a Sunday.

D was knocking off some girl called Maria at the time. She was rather small and fat - well, to be honest, she was very small and very fat and for some reason he wanted to take Maria (I annoyed him by calling her ‘Stumpy’) with us to the gig to impress her. She had very short hair and she was so, well, how shall I put this - ‘backstage’ - that talking to her was like drawing teeth. But D insisted on dragging this girl around with us because he claimed she gave the best BJs known to man. (He was recovering from being jilted by a highly intellectual zoologist with large breasts called Petra!)

The pianist-come-salon-owner was an imperious man with a beaky nose who made it quite clear that he did not suffer fools gladly. He gave us the impression that having us as his recording team meant he had definitely drawn the short straw. One look from the beaky-nosed pianist was enough to persuade D that ‘Stumpy’ had to stay in the VW bus.

D could not read music, so I got the job of following the score. The drill was that if the pianist was not satisfied with what he had played, he would stop and play it again. I would then have to write down on the score exactly where on the tape this had happened so that we stood a fighting chance of finding the spot and cutting out the unwanted bit. Remember this was many years ago and editing involved razor blades and bits of sticky tape. There was no ‘undo’ button on a razor blade, so making a mistake was just not an option.

There was just the three of us (not counting Stumpy in the VW bus), the beaky-nosed pianist, myself and D. The little equipment we had was placed on a table about five yards from the pianist. The imperious pianist with the nose limbered up with some exercises and scales on a magnificent Steinway that had been set up in the middle of the room for the occasion. A test drive was called for and we listened on headphones to ensure that all was well and that the recording was clean, undistorted and as far as possible free from background noise. The idea was that we would edit that tape and send it and not a copy to the mastering and pressing plant and therefore get as clean a recording as possible.

The imperious pianist with the nose listened to what we had recorded on the test drive and seemed satisfied. But he still looked at us with a kind of ‘sniffy’ air: jeans, T-shirts and long hair, we were just a bit too rock and roll for his liking.

"You can, er, read music?" he asked me, looking me up and down.

"Oh yes!" I assured him. "And I do know the piece."

"Hmmm!" he said in a very marked sort of way.

So off we went. The pianist played and I followed the score. The first less-than-perfect passage came and he stopped, raised his eyebrows, closed his eyes and did it again. No problems there. I marked the score ‘05:32’ (or whatever time it was) and we pushed on.

D now had nothing to do, so he silently sneaked off to the VW bus and the welcoming arms of voluptuous Maria. But it was cold outside and Maria had been complaining, so he sneaked her silently into the salon. We were more or less behind the pianist, so as long as we were completely quiet, he could see what we were up to. D took Maria into a mop-and-bucket room that was right behind us and very silently closed the door. Where he stood the voluptuous Maria on an upturned bucket against the door to have sex. This, he had reasoned, would protect them from someone coming in unexpectedly and literally catching him with his pants down.

Then it happened. All this creeping about had distracted me and I managed to loose my place. The pianist stopped and played a bit again. I wrote the time down, but had no idea where it was supposed to be. In desperation I thumbed through the sheets looking for the passage, trying to find out where we were.

The music was spread out flat across the piano, so, very, very quietly, I tried standing on the table to see if I could which sheet he was reading from. It was no good, it was too far away and I could not see the music. Then I had a bright idea, Petra’s binoculars were still in the bus. I sneaked out to get them and returned to silently remount the table.

I was standing on the table, looking at the top of the piano through a pair of binoculars, when Maria’s backside, in a moment of extreme sexual ecstasy, pushed the door handle down and with a scream, she fell off her bucket and into the room.

The pianist looked up sharply to see me standing on the table, looking at him through a pair of binoculars. A naked girl was lying on the floor behind me with her legs in the air and in the doorway of the-mop-and-bucket room, stood D with his trousers round his ankles.

I would love to tell you that everything ended in hilarity and disaster, but the pianist saw the funny side. He looked at us for a while, smiling. Once I had got down off the piano, Maria had put her clothes back on and D had pulled up his trousers, he just said, "Some things, Gentlemen, are just very hard to explain."

He made us start from the beginning again, Maria went off somewhere and as it turned out, hitched hiked home (which is how she met D in the first place) and we had to keep going until about ten at night.

Yes, we did get paid on delivery of the finished tape.

The sequel was that two weeks later we were sitting in the workshop that was attached to the studio and D went to lavatory. I heard a certain about of shouting and the words "Oh dear God!"

He returned to the workshop, red in the face and uttered the classic line (later to be immortalised by Frank Zappa):

"Why does it hurt when I pee?"

[Plush]

There are many reasons that some projects go into the realm of hundreds of edits. These rarely include not being able to play since the artiste is usually outstanding at playing their instrument.

Some reasons include insecurity, technological compusion (where the artiste demands more edits because they know it is possible), noises, interpretation differences or various neurotic tendencies.

In my opinion light editing is always part of the job of the producer / engineer.

The more edits, the more likely that the project can be considered a failure.

I don't allow the client to push me to over edit. I make them replay it at the original session.

[Hannes_F]

@ The Byre: Priceless story

[ray_subsonic]

Originally Posted by The Byre

That reminds me of a story!

"The Truth is ALWAYS stranger than fiction" thumbsup Byre .. Have you thought about publishing your memoirs?

Originally Posted by Plush

I don't allow the client to push me to over edit.

That would take a skill worth bottling. I'm sure you have it. Both persuasion and a velvet fist would be needed to convince SOME conductors, 1st violinists or soloists/divas. Particularly if their mind is set on an outcome.


Cheers RAy

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by The Byre

That reminds me of a story!

Wonderful!

Glad to read this again (after the Off-Topic Forum was deleted on SOS).

[rhizomeman]

Thanks everyone for all of the replies - and highly entertaining stories!

A few follow up questions if I may:

Is it fair to say that most classical sessions involve the perfomer(s) playing through the entire piece, or most of it, a number of times and splicing together the best parts from the different versions?

What type of post-production have you guys done on classical sessions - compression, eq, limiting, stereo imaging, etc...?

If it is a famous artist, do they ever have a producer working with them on the session - if so, what is that experience like?

Again, I really appreciate all of your feedback. This is the kind of first hand knowledge from actual sessions that my paper needs.

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by rhizomeman

Is it fair to say that most classical sessions involve the perfomer(s) playing through the entire piece, or most of it, a number of times and splicing together the best parts from the different versions?

That's how I tend to do it; but maybe recording shorter sections if the performer is having trouble.

Originally Posted by rhizomeman

What type of post-production have you guys done on classical sessions - compression, eq, limiting, stereo imaging, etc...?

Nothing like this at all - I just edit the bits. Stereo imaging is done with correct mic. placement at the session and I avoid as much as possible doing anything else than the knitting.

Originally Posted by rhizomeman

If it is a famous artist, do they ever have a producer working with them on the session - if so, what is that experience like?

Famous or not, a Producer on the session watching the score is a good idea - and I have liked working with the producers I have so far.


Sent from my iPhone using Gearslutz

[fifthcircle]

Originally Posted by rhizomeman

Thanks everyone for all of the replies - and highly entertaining stories!

A few follow up questions if I may:

Is it fair to say that most classical sessions involve the perfomer(s) playing through the entire piece, or most of it, a number of times and splicing together the best parts from the different versions?

What type of post-production have you guys done on classical sessions - compression, eq, limiting, stereo imaging, etc...?

If it is a famous artist, do they ever have a producer working with them on the session - if so, what is that experience like?

Again, I really appreciate all of your feedback. This is the kind of first hand knowledge from actual sessions that my paper needs.

As Plush said, a good producer will generally push the project to have fewer edits than more... The more edits, the more likely to loose musical continuity. When I edit, as a generality, I'll do more edits that clean up a minor issue than "fix" a bigger issue. Sure, there will be a few, but I'll do more work to trim attacks that aren't completley together and similar things than anything else. Of course, the best performers don't even need that.

In the classical world, there is virtually no processing other than perhaps a little EQ or perhaps a bit of reverb thrown on to help deal with a room that otherwise may not support more ambient micing. If there is a problem that dictates more processing, you should fix it in the session through mic/preamp use and placement. In the end, mic position and choice in a classical session is everything.

When I produce a session, I usually try for a couple full runs on whatever it is that is being played. The nature of better musicians is that they don't make the same mistake twice. If at the end of those couple runs, there are still places that need covering, we will run extra takes of those sections that need work. I usually try for takes with multiple phrases- the musical continuity will be much better as a result. In the end, I will always choose musical content over technical. Listen to the recordings of old and you'll hear technical mistakes made on absolutely stellar musical performances and it is ok.

In a session, if I'm engineering, I will always request somebody else be there to produce. This is really important as the production allows me to concentrate on the technical issues including production noises, room sounds, mix, etc... I will follow score and talk w/ the producer but it is great when somebody else who knows the group/person helps take care of the musical housekeeping (score coverage, etc...)

--Ben

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by fifthcircle

I usually try for a couple full runs on whatever it is that is being played. The nature of better musicians is that they don't make the same mistake twice. If at the end of those couple runs, there are still places that need covering, we will run extra takes of those sections that need work. I usually try for takes with multiple phrases- the musical continuity will be much better as a result. In the end, I will always choose musical content over technical. Listen to the recordings of old and you'll hear technical mistakes made on absolutely stellar musical performances and it is ok.

Yes, this is basically how I like to do it. A couple of complete takes, sometimes three, then cover problem areas.

The important thing Is to keep the musician "performing" and not just "playing notes". It's only by getting a great performance that the resultant CD will actually be listened to.

And keep the edits to a minimum.

Sent from my iPhone using Gearslutz

[Marik]

Originally Posted by rhizomeman

Thanks everyone for all of the replies - and highly entertaining stories!

A few follow up questions if I may:

Is it fair to say that most classical sessions involve the perfomer(s) playing through the entire piece, or most of it, a number of times and splicing together the best parts from the different versions?

More or less. I usually let good and experienced performers to be on themselves for a couple takes or so and let them go the way they want without interrupting (unless there are some problems to be addressed). Sometimes they would go over a certain passage or tricky place a few times. I just make notes (including hall and other noises) and mark tracks. After that I'd give suggestions and point out the places which 'did not get covered' and need attention and try to cover everything in no more than three takes. Sometimes I'd invite them to the booth to have a listen when some particular place is not clear enough.


I edit only myself and usually find that splices rather enhance the performance (otherwise, why to bother splicing at all ). For the the first draft I usually make larger picture, following my notes and listening some places again. I take the best takes, passages, phrases, or places played particularly well, paying very careful attention how well they "fit" together and follow general musical context and performer's intention. After that I edit details. If there are a few notes in an otherwise well played passage if possible I rather prefer to replace only those notes. That might increase the number of splices, however, it greatly helps to keep the "larger picture" undisturbed.

What type of post-production have you guys done on classical sessions - compression, eq, limiting, stereo imaging, etc...?

As others say, EQ and a little touch of reverb. Never compression or limiting.

Originally Posted by rhizomeman

If it is a famous artist, do they ever have a producer working with them on the session - if so, what is that experience like?

I prefer to do everything myself, esp. when things concern performing aspects, clarity of musical intentions, and questions of execution. I also pay very close attention to the piano tuning and voicing, but then I am a concert pianist myself (well, besides other things ), and have a Doctoral Degree in piano performance, so most of the music I whether played myself, taught, or just know from memory.



Best, M

[Yannick]

Just a few random thoughts:

1. there are typically two sorts of productions: those which limit themselves to getting a correct version, and those that go beyond that and try to get the "ultimate" version.
2. both can involve heavy editing, but the first kind needs more editing more often.
3. I do not agree that a good session does not need much editing - unless it is quasi live. There is always a way to make the editing better (musically) than the finest take. I've never met the perfect take in the last 15 years ...
This includes one or two discs with a pianist that plays no mistakes, but still considers editing a necessity, as he cannot control the perfect take - musically - from beginning to end over the entire 10 minutes or so !
4. The better recordings have more complete takes and less correction takes.

[The Byre]

Quote JW - The important thing Is to keep the musician "performing" and not just "playing notes". It's only by getting a great performance that the resultant CD will actually be listened to.

That's pretty much it, in a nutshell!

But back to your questions -

1. Is it fair to say that most classical sessions involve the perfomer(s) playing through the entire piece, or most of it, a number of times and splicing together the best parts from the different versions?

Yes. We do a lot of piano and piano with voice and the usual drill is to record the whole thing in one go and then go through the thing, phrase by phrase. There can be hundreds of edits in a single piece!

If it is an orchestra, then we must decide beforehand, whether they are going to be technically excellent every time, or if we are dealing with semi-pros or amateurs.

If they are pros, then they SHOULD be note perfect and it is only a question of picking the best bits. They run through the piece a few times and the producer (or whomsoever is calling the shots) blows the whistle for 'time' when he feels that there is enough material to be bolting a recording together. Soloists can be recorded live.

If they are less than excellent, then it is usually best to record the orchestra without the soloists and slot them in afterwards. That way, you can autotune the flutes and voices and do take after take, until the turkey sits.

I have just done a church choir with organ and piano like this and the final project will be a mixture of all types of methods.

2. What type of post-production have you guys done on classical sessions - compression, eq, limiting, stereo imaging, etc...?

If it's up to me, WAAAAY more than anybody expects. Autotune, compression, LF bass enhancement, you name it and it goes in. On the more cheesy MOR stuff, I may even use stereo widening on some sections or parts. The trick is to do just a little to give the piece a satisfying feel, without having people realise that you have done something to the music.

Remember, most classical is being consumed like pop, in three minute bits on some dreadful Classic-FM style of radio station. On button one, it's Lady Gaga, on two, it's Queen, on button three, it's Rammstein and then it's your button. The piece you recorded and mixed follows 32 bars of the theme from Lord of the Rings, so you have to sound good!

3. If it is a famous artist, do they ever have a producer working with them on the session - if so, what is that experience like?

Great. It absolves me of all responsibility - if the guy knows what he is doing! Most nowadays do not, so you become like Jeeves, nudging Bertie into doing what you want him to do.

There still are great producers out there, who understand the music, understand the performers and understand the technology. The problem is that classical has no money any more, so there just is no money to pay a producer. That means that you often get saddled with the star, the conductor or the composer. These divide themselves into three groups -

a) Brilliant people, who have spent their lives devoted to their craft and from whom I learn so much every time.

b) Brilliant young people, who, although they have much still to learn, also bring talent and ability with them and inspire with fresh and new ideas.

c) The rest, most of whom should have been drowned at birth.

I'll give you an example of class (c) - a great and well-known soprano came to record a 20-minute solo piece and brought the composer, who had somehow been (self)appointed to the position of producer. I put up a mic at the place I always put up mics when recording classical sopranos, i.e. in front of her face. It's a method I have used a thousand times. I find putting the microphone behind the left ear or in front of the right kneecap to be not as good as putting it in front of the face. It is, after all, where the mouth is!

The pianist limbered up, spread his music across the Bosendorfer, put his fingers on the keys and looked up like a puppy, waiting for someone to say 'Walkies!' The whistle was blown and the ball was in play. I pressed REC and she yodelled faultlessly for 20 minutes.

Then the producer insisted that we spent the next half an hour, listening to the piece. Why, I don't know, we were after all, listening when she sang.

Then he said "Let's try this with the microphone off-axis and further away." and this we did and the poor woman had to sing the whole thing all over again. This was followed by one hour of listening to both recordings.

"I think it would be a good idea, if we tried a more intimate position for the microphone." said our knowledgeable producer and off we went for a third round of pointless torture.

The new recording was listened to, followed by an entire hour of listening to bits of all three.

"Well," he said, with a voice as grand as if he were announcing the judgement of Solomon. "it's pretty clear, I think, to all of us. The first recording is the one we are going to use."

We had pent all day, recording something that, sans 'producer' would have been nailed home and dusted in half an hour.

The soprano called me that evening to arrange the next day's recording.

"Will your producer be attending?" I asked, tentatively.

"No." she said firmly. "He has to go back to London tomorrow morning. It's a great pity, but we shall just have to make do without him." and I knew how she felt.

[Soniferous]

these are all great. I myself have done a fair amount of editing for high profile live recordings as well as many many of my own "audition tape" recordings. There are always edits in all recordings. I happen to have the advantage of recording a very specific and talented pool of young classical musicians (as a result of being pseudo staff @ their school).

When an audition tape is going out to a college (i.e. high school level students) there are fewer edits because they are not aware they can have me splice twice in a bar.

When the tape is for a festival, competition, or orchestra placement the student often has a lot of recording experience and knows how much editing they're looking for. On one particular piece I made over 80 edits in three movements for solo violin. On the other hand some students only want to have a few edits because of some sort of ethical qualms or worry about not measuring up to their audition tape. Which I can usually ease by informing them that nearly everyone edits.

For professional recordings there is no limit to the number of edits a producer might ask for. I made over 200 edits in one achingly long night to a pair of live recordings of Sibelius II. I find that if a veteran producer is running the show there are always fewer edits, both for studio and live recordings.

[rumleymusic]

On a recent live recording I made with a well known pianist and quartet of the Brahms piano quintet, there were only about 40 edit points in this rather long work between a performance and dress rehearsal. Just to clean up major problems.

If you can get two complete run throughs of a well rehearsed piece, it is pretty easy to get a nearly perfect compilation. With only a few spots for nit-picking.

[rhizomeman]

You guys are awesome! Thank you so much for your responses - very helpful and useful info for my paper.

BTW just so everyone is aware, if I use any quotes I will run them by you first to make sure you approve and/or that they are accurate. Nor will I name you if you wish to remain anonymous.

[Kees de Visser]

Plenty of good information in this thread. I can just add a few eurocents.

When recording singers or wind/brass players it is important to avoid fatigue, so recording short takes can be the better option. String players and pianists e.g. can go on "forever", which can be a disadvantage since it can be difficult to stop them. Like Plush said, a good producer will decide when there is enough good material and call it a day.

In the old days, when recording budgets were more comfortable, it was possible that a separate editing engineer would do pre-editing during the recording sessions. This enabled the artist(s) to listen to the result and decide if retakes were needed. I have no idea if this is still done nowadays.

In general the aim of editing is to improve the overall result. Edits should technically be inaudible, but sometimes a musical correction can be so important that an audible edit is tolerated to some degree. In 1986 I attended a piano recital by Richter in Amsterdam where he performed the Beethoven Diabelli variations. A great performance, but with some small mistakes. Apparently there have been retakes after the concert to cover them. During the concert however the piano became increasingly out of tune, not so during the retakes. Despite a great editing job this didn't remain unnoticed. The cd review in the Gramophone praised the "amazing self tuning piano".
Sometimes you just can't win

[rhizomeman]

Kees de Visser, thanks for the Richter reference! That is actually something I am very interested in also. Can anyone recommend classical recordings that have audible, obvious edits?

[sonare]

Originally Posted by rhizomeman

Kees de Visser, thanks for the Richter reference! That is actually something I am very interested in also. Can anyone recommend classical recordings that have audible, obvious edits?

I can actually recommend the opposite-- the last movement of Scerazade with Reiner/Chicago-- and it serves to illustrate another point. The musicians are (hopefully) human and a human can only do so many incredible takes. Aside from the odds against another long take with a 95-piece orchestra playing almost flawlessly-- could they do it again better or with more emotional commitment? If the answer is close to NO then it is a waste of time (money) and chops to try again. Many pointless takes are done as a result of insecurity or incompetence on the part of someone who is unfortunately in charge.

Consistency on the part of the players is very helpful to the editor (often the producer) who must judge whether the architecture of the phrasing is edited in a musical manner that does not call attention to itself. I once did a string quartet CD that looked like a barcode when it was done, but the repertoire (Ives) was such that the final result was superior-- and the players were so consistent in their interpretation that in the end it did not matter that there were hundreds of edits. In the digital age a monkey can make inaudible edits-- but a musician must use his judgment to maintain the musical integrity.

Rich

[Marik]

Originally Posted by rhizomeman

Kees de Visser, thanks for the Richter reference! That is actually something I am very interested in also. Can anyone recommend classical recordings that have audible, obvious edits?

From top of my head, E. Gilels with Zubin Mehta Tchaikowski First Concerto--just listen to the famous octaves episode.

Martha Argerich with Rostropovitch, Chopin Cello works--remember a few.

Barbara Hendricks with Dmitiri Alexeev--Negro Spirituals--quite a bit of what my two year old calls "Oooopsis".

The audible edits were much more common in analog era. The computer editing has completely different possibilities. What I was doing some 15 years ago splicing reel-to-reel tape in 10 hours, on a computer I can do literally in 15-20 minutes, with much better results.

Originally Posted by Kees de Visser

In 1986 I attended a piano recital by Richter in Amsterdam where he performed the Beethoven Diabelli variations. A great performance, but with some small mistakes. Apparently there have been retakes after the concert to cover them. During the concert however the piano became increasingly out of tune, not so during the retakes. Despite a great editing job this didn't remain unnoticed. The cd review in the Gramophone praised the "amazing self tuning piano".
Sometimes you just can't win

That recording is EPIC!!! When you listen to it, it seems Richter played the piece for centuries to come. Am I ever envious of you to be lucky enough to attend that concert and see it live!!!

Best, M

[Ozpeter]

I've found that around 600 edits per CD is typical. The good players want them for total perfection, the bad ones to spare themselves embarrassment.

A couple of anecdotes -

During the recording of the first CD project I engineered back in 1984 the producer said to the pianist at one point, "Please, don't play that passage again. We have 17 takes, several are excellent and that last one was the best"

"Yes" replied the pianist, "that last one was perfect. This next one will be better". I think he finally chose the bulk of take 21.

On another occasion, the solo violinist in a baroque concerto had failed to study how a slow movement should be played with ornaments and improvisations. (He's now the leader of one of the world's principal orchestras). Time was running out. The only way to complete the movement was for the violinist to be tutored passage by passage by the continuo player, and rehearse record each little bit. The result is none the less a movement which I've played for my own enjoyment as least as often as anything else I've recorded. Heavy editing doesn't necessarily kill a work if it's well executed (though I say so myself!).

Gould felt that the purpose of a recording was to present the most perfect realisation of the composers' intent as seen through the interpretation of the performer. If the technical demands of the music required heavy editing to achieve that perfect realisation he felt it was perfectly justified. He felt that audiences shouldn't be watching for technical errors like a ghoulish circus crowd awaiting the fatal fall from the high wire (hence his retreat from the concert platform). I think I go along with that approach.

[Plush]

No, I most certainly reject allowing a performer or producer to push me to do 600 edits. I used to allow it, but no longer because it's a dead end.

YOu're a tool if you allow it. Often I will act as the producer to prevent it.

In that role, I demand that they spend more money and time actually doing the playing correctly and then I can direct all of our (their) attention to putting together very musical sections.

After all the recording people deserve to be paid and I prefer to be paid to record rather than to edit.

In the past two weeks I have been editing a Beethoven 9 that I recorded with a good orchestra. I find that I have between 20-40 edits per movement in order to turn out a first class version.

That is a long way from the numbers being discussed here.

Almost all of the "super records" I've done have required very little editing.

[Marik]

Originally Posted by Ozpeter

Heavy editing doesn't necessarily kill a work if it's well executed (though I say so myself!).

Indeed that's true! The editing is an art and if the editor has a clear music image and keeps in head final goal of the work then it will enhance it, if does not, then most likely will kill it. So it is up to the editor...

Best, M

[krs]

Originally Posted by Plush

No, I most certainly reject allowing a performer or producer to push me to do 600 edits. I used to allow it, but no longer because it's a dead end.

YOu're a tool if you allow it. Often I will act as the producer to prevent it.

In that role, I demand that they spend more money and time actually doing the playing correctly and then I can direct all of our (their) attention to putting together very musical sections.

After all the recording people deserve to be paid and I prefer to be paid to record rather than to edit.

Interesting! Plush - at the level you work at, how much of the time do you work simultaneously as Producer and Engineer?

[Yannick]

Originally Posted by Plush

No, I most certainly reject allowing a performer or producer to push me to do 600 edits. I used to allow it, but no longer because it's a dead end.

YOu're a tool if you allow it. Often I will act as the producer to prevent it.

hmmm. I wonder, what do you do when the composer pushes you to 600 edits ?
Never done contemporary music, that is sometimes almost unplayable ?

I agree sometimes it is foolish to allow, but other times if not 600, then 300 for 75 minutes seems justifiable.

I really cannot imagine doing eg. an entire Xenakis disc (say with the cello pieces) with just a few edits. You can show me that player if you want, I would like to meet him/her ! I'm sure a few of them can do a believable job live, but on CD with the score next to it

I have plenty of discs with big names and not-so-clean playing. Does it matter to the listener ? Probably not. But some musicians do care, and they don't want to neglect this part of the performance. In these times, when your name is not so big, it can come over as being arrogant: look, the way I play it sounds great, I don't need to play everything as written ...

But here you are right: it seems like a thin line, this line between respect for the music and respect for the editor

[John Willett]

Originally Posted by Plush

No, I most certainly reject allowing a performer or producer to push me to do 600 edits. I used to allow it, but no longer because it's a dead end.

YOu're a tool if you allow it. Often I will act as the producer to prevent it.

In that role, I demand that they spend more money and time actually doing the playing correctly and then I can direct all of our (their) attention to putting together very musical sections.

After all the recording people deserve to be paid and I prefer to be paid to record rather than to edit.

In the past two weeks I have been editing a Beethoven 9 that I recorded with a good orchestra. I find that I have between 20-40 edits per movement in order to turn out a first class version.

That is a long way from the numbers being discussed here.

Almost all of the "super records" I've done have required very little editing.

Thank you Plush.

This is more the number I am used to.

A double CD of all of Chopin's Nocturnes had less than 80 for the complete project - and that includes the edits to join the 40 tracks together.

The sort of figures you mention are what I am used to.

[Marik]

Originally Posted by John Willett

A double CD of all of Chopin's Nocturnes had less than 80 for the complete project - and that includes the edits to join the 40 tracks together.

This is possible ONLY on a perfectly voiced and regulated piano with a perfectly smooth action. It seems on your side of the pond it is much more common than here in US.

When we have standing by technician from Steinway factory the amount of edits is drastically lower. Unfortunately, not always the budget permits it.

Best, M

[Plush]

[QUOTE="Yannick"]

hmmm. I wonder, what do you do when the composer pushes you to 600 edits ?
Never done contemporary music, that is sometimes almost unplayable ?"

Yes the contemporary stuff is a tough stuff area. I do know engineers who specialize in this type of material. It's usually happening where the piece can't be played by anyone(including the composer--Messiaen style!)

But with this stuff you already know you'll have to "construct" the piece.
It's a pursuit for the specialist


Sent from my iPhone using Gearslutz

[Ozpeter]

If you're talking about recording familiar warhorses, then you've got a better chance of getting clean performances and low edit counts. However, my experience has often been that the record company have selected unfamilair works (why release the 200th version of a Beethoven piano sonata?) and engaged a soloist or chamber group to learn and perform them just for the CD. The performers may rarely if ever perform the works again. Therefore the recording is a join effort by the performers and recording team to realise the works to the highest standard in the most pragmatic way - and with nobody getting particularly rich in the process.

I did record one CD where we had no budget for editing. It was put together in whole movements with deft use of a pair of DAT machines, except for one, or maybe two, actual music edits that I had to take to HHB (in the days when they ran an edit suite). But that was artist-selected standard(ish) works.

Worst case was editing out the second half of the note value of every chord for several staves which the the pianist realised after the sessions had been played at half tempo. Performed from manuscript. Fortunately it was technically possible to fix, otherwise location, piano, piano tech, and self would have had to be rehired to re-record it.

But like an elderly uncle at a family party, I'm retelling my favourite stories for the umpteenth time...