Does overediting spoil a band recording?

Discussion in 'The Rehearsal Room' started by Andy_Euph, May 18, 2004.


Does the use of overediting spoil a recording?

  1. Yes

  2. No

  1. Andy_Euph

    Andy_Euph Active Member

    Just listening to some music and have just had BT band playing Bramwyn on. However I think there is far too much reverb on and the bass has obviosly been turned up, that aside though its a canny performance.

    Just wonder what people think about recordings and wether they should be left as near the original band sound that goes into the mikes or wether its ok to add stuff during editing to make the band sound better... personally I prefer the former
  2. I know diddly squat about recording technique etc.

    However I think the best recordings for me are the ones that happen to get created in the right hall with the right piece of music. personally one of the best band acoustics I have heard on disc is the 2002 europeans, particularly concerto grosso, just seems to work doesnt it? the crispness of the music and the room acoustic seem to go hand in hand...

    Similarly, I think Black Dyke and Cory's revelations' are great examples of how the hall can work for or against a piece to varying degrees.
  3. Dave Payn

    Dave Payn Active Member

    When you say overediting, I tend to think of too many 'joins' to get the best which sometimes robs the listener of the feel of a natural performance rather than a manufactured one. Good topic, though! I'm not one for adding reverb where none existed. It sounds too false.

    Mind you, all recording companies have produced some editing 'howlers' over the years. There was that Grimey CD which began with Force of Destiny where the unison descending semiquavers suddenly morphed into the next bar before the previous bar had finished!

    On Black Dyke's Planets CD, listen out for the first movement repeat in Moorside occurring three times!

    Regionals 99, Leighton Lucas's Symphonic Suite comes out on the recording a whole tone too low!
  4. Aidan

    Aidan Active Member

    if its over-edited its probably done for a reason! unless its a dodgy sound engineer. Bands should hire a decent hall to record in and play the pieces right ;):p
  5. flugelgal

    flugelgal Active Member

    'Tis a leading question! :shock:

    Overediting implies that it has been edited too much which implies that it has spoiled it...
  6. NeilW

    NeilW Member

    If they edit out my "personal" wrong note, then no :oops:

    (no, you won't find it, it was a very long time ago - and on one of those funny vinyl things that noone can play anymore!)

    They did actually record us in a hall that was "alive" - i.e. quite a lot of echo - as the company thought it sounded better than completely "dead" studio sound.

  7. here here - no need to include those rare euphonium slip ups[/quote]
  8. eckyboy

    eckyboy Member

    No one would want to listen to me splitting all the top notes so in my case I'd welcome some editing :cry:
  9. Andy Moore

    Andy Moore Member

    Well our youth band has got the world famous Cowley Hall for ours, this weekend!
  10. Andy_Euph

    Andy_Euph Active Member

    I don't mean overediting in the sense of covering wrong notes, thats ok everyone puts duffers in. What I meant was artificial tampering to make the band sound better than what it is
  11. eckyboy

    eckyboy Member

    OH!-They dont do that do they :lol: Agree with you that they shouldnt as it gives a false impression and then when you hear them you wonder whats happened. :?
  12. Andy_Euph

    Andy_Euph Active Member

    As for question of duffer notes, one way to solve that editing problem is don't make any mistakes :twisted:

    This is a LOT easier said than done, my bands recording of Songs of the Quay... knackered after full day recording... went for top D and put that big of a split in it, it would be voted mayor of splitsville :!:
  13. ian perks

    ian perks Active Member

    Only ever done 1 recording many yeras ago and it became very tirering in the end as we had to do bits of this piece and bits of that piece again &again.
  14. mikelyons

    mikelyons Supporting Member

    A little - a very little - bit of messing with reverb can make a recording sound better. However, most engineers I've come across seem to think that brass bands should play in a huge cave underground.

    You often hear ridiculous echoes reverberating around on brass band recordings. It's a definite no-no.
  15. brassneck

    brassneck Active Member

    ... have to agree that reverb is overused in many recordings. For me, detail and clarity is lost in the recording. However, I think that editing, generally, is a good thing. Anyone remember having to run a piece a couple of times (or more) in the studio when silly errors on the day were produced? As many others on this thread have admitted, it can become a long and tiring session when things just don't seem to go right. A well produced recording can attract new listeners in my opinion.

    TIMBONE Active Member

    As usual, I will just mention some 'bits & pieces' that I have picked up over the years which relate to the topic. As far as realistic sound is concerned, there is still a large body of people who hark back to the old vinyl recordings, (which of course were mastered from magnetic tape), because they retain the 'atmospheric ambience' which is lost in digital recording and CD's.

    My second point concerns a recording by Neil Young and Crazy Horse, an album called "Zuma", which I think is an early seventies album. He insisted on recording the band 'live' in the studio, which included keeping the mistakes.
  17. mikelyons

    mikelyons Supporting Member

    There is definitely a place for editing. As everyone will admit things can go wrong on the day(s) of recording - not just wrong notes either. We had a man cutting metal pipes outside the studio when we did our last CD :ranting2: However, other than ironing out extraneous noises and the odd wrong note/split, sound engineers shouldn't really mess with the sound. Nobody plays perfectly all the time and these little imperfections help to give the feeling of being in a live concert - up to a point :)
  18. Aidan

    Aidan Active Member

    personally I think part of the job of being an engineer is to mess with the sound..
    It is their job to make the band sound as good as possible with the material (ie. master-tape) provided.
  19. Syrup

    Syrup Member

    I remember doing a 2-day CD recording years ago with B&R down at Abbey Road Studios. It was obviously a historic venue and great to play in, and we got all the tracks down eventually after some re-takes. But when the conductor listened to the demo tape a couple of weeks later there were some mistakes left in and some of the balance was out. They said they wouldn't go back over it cos they weren't used to doing so many edits and it would cost £100 per hour to do some more! So thats how it ended up, some mistakes still included due to cost, plus a few backing notes by Dusty on 2nd horn drowning most of the band out in Carnival Romain!! Best to aim for 1 take, don't leave it in the hands of editors.
  20. Sparky

    Sparky Member

    Having been closely involved in the editing and production of our two CD's (Andy_euph was playing on both) I think that editing is a good thing, people are paying money for our product and it should be the best quality possible. The main problem with editing is if the music to be recorded is under rehe*****. This can lead to lots of retakes and lots of edits which can spoil the flow of the track. I think what Andy was referring to was over production, adding too much artificial reverb and EQ etc. I believe that too much electronic tweaking of the sound can make it sound very artificial. The best reverb is the natural reverb of the venue where the recording is made. A good sound engineer will be able to set up microphones and recording equipment to get an acceptable sound balance and quality without having to rely on post processing.