Making a recording

I'm making a recording next week.

Recordings tend to sound perfect. Does that mean the recording sessions were perfect? If a performer sounds a certain way on a recording, does that mean s/he sounded that way in the raw footage? Or can the performer just play and let the editor fix anything that's not right?

Well, of course we know it's the latter. But who decides what's "right?" In a few cases, I have heard a thrillingly hair-raising recording and then heard the performer live and was deeply disappointed. And in very few cases, I have heard live performances that sounded like recording quality.

Athletes get one shot to win the race or the game. Assassins get one shot (literally). Performers get one shot on stage for each gig. Why, then, don't recording artists do it in one take? I suppose because of the "replay factor" -- if it isn't right, it will still get played over and over by hundreds of listeners. But some people would argue that you lose a little more "edge" in your performance with every additional take. One of my teachers was convinced of this, and so he made his first recording in single takes. For subsequent recordings, he decided that multiple takes were OK, but he wasn't going to allow piecing together of tiny bits, so he would re-record entire sections or entire movements, just to fix one note or one errant phrase. That is a high work ethic, indeed, and the procedures for steeling yourself in preparation for those recording sessions are mind-boggling. Maybe that's why I haven't recorded much.

So why do people record? If they don't sound that way on stage, then why bother? If they have plenty of publicity already, why bother? Well, perhaps some people want to promote themselves. Some want to promote a new instrument. Some want to promote the builder or the institution or raise charity funds. Some just have a lot of music in their fingers, and they want to get it recorded. Some want to celebrate the complete works of X. Some just have something to say, and they say it well on recordings.

Why am I recording? In this case, to celebrate a great city of great organs, and to say something I've been saying on stage with these pieces. But I am determined to sound as good in those sessions as I possibly can, so that when I play live for any recording listeners, I will sound the same. This is the sonic version of keeping one's publicity photo updated -- you want to look like your photo so people can identify you when they pick you up at the airport!

I have found that the more the recording sessions look like a recital, the better I play. If I can play a group of pieces before stopping, I play better. I am more "on" that way, like I am on stage. I once made a full recording in two takes. (Then I decided not to use any of it. We are usually our own worst critics that way. And I am the worst.)

Steps to preparing for a recording:

1. Practice every note, every movement, every glance at the score, every piston.

2. Do all the other legwork, and good luck with it all: venue management, graphics, scheduling, paying for it, etc.

3. The best way to prepare for recording sessions is to record yourself, plain and simple. Listen back, mark problems, fix things, re-record. You'll save a lot of time, and the sessions themselves won't be so foreign or intimidating.

There probably won't be a blog post next week. If you're wondering why, see the first line of this one.