Brief Summary

In this article Steve DeMott, with help from Julian and Ashea, asks whether duplicating sections of audio in projects rather than recording an entire performance during production, either copying elements or sections or using audio loops is in some way ‘cheating’ . Does it matter, and are there rules which can be ‘cheated’ anyway?

Going Deeper

In a recent session there was a discussion between the songwriter and the singer about the background vocals in the track. The songwriter wanted to “record through”, having the singers sing each part/section from beginning to end, and have the parts grow. In essence having them build and change their performance with the song. The singer suggested we get one good take for each part and then fly them. In essence, looping the background vocals. While the songwriter preferred the organic nature of the performance evolving through the song, the singer felt that having them exactly the same was the right approach.

I felt the question came down to genre, and applies to more than just background vocals. When questioned, my reply was that each approach was valid, but it came down to the intent. The loop approach is very pop-centric, while the play through approach is much more organic, and rock and roll. When relaying the story to some of the experts, our own Russ Hughes posed the question: is cutting and pasting audio cheating?

If we wanted to be pedantic, we could say that anything that isn’t a 1:1 representation of what happened in the studio is cheating. Every overdub and every edit is cheating. One might even go so far as to say that using an EQ or compressor on a source is cheating, because it is not how the source really sounds in the room. Should we stop doing any of these things because they could be considered ‘cheating’? Is that really the concern?

I don’t think it’s a question of cheating. It’s a question of vision, intent, objective. Call it what you will, but I think the determining factor of recording anything is to make people feel something when they hear it. The objective of recording is to create art. To serve the song in the best way possible that conveys its message and emotion. After all, we are artists first. Everything we do needs to be filtered through the lens of art. The best recording in the world means nothing if it doesn’t make you feel something. 

So, to return to Russ’ question: is cutting and pasting cheating? I think the answer is yes, but it doesn’t matter. Whether it’s a looped part or recorded through, as long as it conveys the emotion of the moment, why does it matter? I don’t think we should shy away from ‘cheating’, if it creates a stronger emotional reaction. I believe that should be the real litmus test of how we approach things. Which approach makes you feel something. Which approach hits you harder. That’s the one to go with.

After all this, if you’re still wondering where we went with the song, in the end we went with the organic background vocals. Not because we thought we were cheating with the duplicated sections, but because they worked better for the song. The organic background vocals, with all their minor differences, created a bigger sense of movement in the arrangement. There was a visceral reaction that disappeared when we looped the best take over and over. For a second opinion what does Julian think? Over to him.

Julian’s Take

Is it cheating? Well using a loop as in a drum loop or sample as the basis for a track certainly isn't cheating. It's a stylistic choice and one which is really well established. For example the drums on the Bee Gees’ Staying Alive' were a tape loop, presumably looped impractically over mic stands and other studio paraphernalia to accommodate it. The effect of repeating exactly the same sound over and over again is an excellent arrangement device.

I'm a real fan of awkward, slightly out of time or out of tune loops as found in 90s hip-hop. The squeal at the end of the loop in Public Enemy’s Don’t Believe The Hype isn’t time or in tune and if it only happened once it would sound bad. But repeated over and over its brilliant, and it works precisely because it’s exactly the same every time. It has a hypnotic quality which increases with repetition. There’s a good reason repetition is used in some meditation practices. So loops being obvious loops are great.

What isn’t so straightforward is what Steve is describing, copying sections of a song which occur more than once and using them every time that section occurs. I have to agree with Steve that whether or not that is a good or a bad thing really depends on why its being done. If it’s because its quicker or easier then that can’t be a good thing. If I can’t be bothered to record it then it’s hard to see why someone should be bothered to listen to it. If its a stylistic choice then fair enough, though I’m not sure I can see the merit in that. Difference is engaging. When we create synth patches we go to significant efforts to introduce variation using modulation and performance controls to escape the kind of sameness which will quickly lose the attention of the audience. Not taking an opportunity to introduce development, change and subtle variation in a performance seems counterproductive unless it's for deliberate, stylistic reasons.

That said, when I record vocals I’ll invariably have a complete first pass but I’ll also drop in for stacks of doubles and harmonies. Each pass isn’t an uninterrupted performance but it is a complete performance. I won’t say I’ve never copied and pasted backing vocals between sections but I’d certainly say my preference is for unique takes for each section.

As Steve says, this approach is seen as more of a pop production approach and I asked Ashea for her opinion, her work being closer to pop than either Steve or myself. She said that:

Ashea’s Opinion

I occasionally find myself with the temptation of copying and pasting, certainly with drums, copying, pasting and looping can work to an extent, however, I always go in, add fills, and change up the beat in key areas. 

Even with chorus vocals, where the melody and lyrics are the same, I find this method doesn’t transmit enough emotion, and in order for the track to grow, each chorus needs to feel and sound ever so slightly different, be it by using ad libs, or just emphasising or shaping the performance in subtle ways.  

With vocals, the only time I feel that copying and pasting would actually benefit the track, is where a vocal has been diligently comped, processed and turned into a feature hook that sits well sonically within the mix, like a synth lead part or a vocal sample, a signature sound for the track

Is it cheating? No. But I do wonder why someone wouldn’t record unique passes unless there is a practical reason why that isn’t the best choice. I’ll leave it to Steve to conclude.

As you can see, we all are in agreement that this really isn't a question of cheating. We do things that could be considered “cheating” all the time in modern music production, and that brings me back to my mantra of “we are creating art.” Art needs to stir an emotional reaction. We serve the song best when we remember that. Our lives are bombarded with information that requires us to think. Music, and art on whole, is a respite from that, because it makes us feel.

Photo by Jerson Vargas