Mistakes in Music CD

College Majors Music Major
21

<p>No one expects a prescreen audition CD to be perfect. (It is rare that any live performance is ever flawless.) My opinion is that the recording reflect the ability of the performer at that point in time on the requested selections. </p>

<p>It may take one, three, or thirty takes to get there. The key is to begin practice and prep well enough in advance to be able to be as close to "perfection" as is possible within one's talent and ability.</p>

<p>Time constraints, deadlines, tough material, recording cost issues may all well seem legitimate reasons for editing or piecing together a number of takes on a recording, but it doesn't reflect the truth. </p>

<p>An edited prescreen may get one to an audition. They may well play a near perfect audition, or they may repeat the same errors they could not overcome during recording takes. Mastery of the material, musicality, intonation, technique, and stage presence are part of the deciding factors in determining those who get in.</p>

<p>IMO, it does however speak to issues of integrity if one is willing to bend the rules to their advantage. The music world is small, and doors open based on one's reputation as well as one's ability.</p>

<p>My $.02, and just something to ponder for those embarking on this journey.</p>

22

<p>Depending on what type of audition the kids are making, we use a sort of sliding level of errors.</p>

<p>We always include a "live" performance whenever possible, from a recital or performance. The judges know it's live because of the clapping at the end. That way, if there are some little bumps, and there always are, they know it was a one-shot live, unedited performance. Hopefully, it is a piece with great musicality, which the judges will weigh together with it being a live performance and against the errors.</p>

<p>Next level is the recorded accompanied pieces. When recording these, we are usually limited to the 3 takes of each movement that the accompanist will stay for and that my child can play before his chops start to wear. But these are naturally split according to movements, so there you can choose the best movements of each. This type of recording, hopefully will have less errors than the "live piece" because you have the ability to choose.</p>

<p>The last level is the unaccompanied pieces. Of course, in an unaccompanied recording EVERY, EVERYTHING is apparent, down to the clicking of the keys or the breaths they take (or even the slight sniffle of a sick musician), and in our personal sliding scale of error allotment, this type of recording should have the least number of errors, only because each one is more glaring. This may seem like the option to achieve the best recording as your child can record as many times as they can do it until they get it correct (or fall over from exhaustion), but experience has shown us that this type of recording is, by far, the hardest because the bar is set so high. Every note has to be centered, clear and resonant, all intonation is apparent..it's all out there.</p>

<p>I do think, however, there is some ambiguity in recording those unaccompanied pieces where there is a very long gap in which the accompanist would have been playing a solo, because you absolutely NEVER include those gaps in the recording. It begs the question whether it is legitimate to treat the different sections much like different movements. Usually, my kids will jump back in for the next section after a few seconds, but if they are winded from the from the first section, they have been known to continue with the next section on a separate take... If the piece were to be live or accompanied, the musician would have had more than a few seconds to recover and prepare for the next section. I'm not so sure that it is clear how to legitimately record this situation. This is how we have interpreted it.</p>

<p>Finally, we try to have more selections than we need in order to choose the best. My best "trick" is to try to schedule recitals for January so that we have recent, live recordings to choose from by Feb. 1, which is the date most of their audition CD's are due around.</p>

<p>I would be interested if others have a different perspective for assessing errors.</p>

23

<p>Obviously i feel that editing every single detail to make a recording perfect is wrong, but say for example, you missed a CRUCIAL note. in my recording session, i missed the LAST note of my fingered octave run. that also happened to be the highest point of the whole piece. To edit that i believe is okay. and as long as you know you can master a piece by the live audition date i see no reason to record in chunks. And yes, i actually know of MANY students who edit their recording CDs. that's not saying they are bad musicians, but there are so many things you can't see in a recording. even with my editing, my CD didn't sound like me. I was still displeased with the result. Why? Because recordings don't capture as much emotion and contrast a live performance can. If the musically beautiful part of the piece is gone, what else is there left besides technique?</p>

<p>Of course I've heard of those kids that struggle at camps because of their too professionally recorded CDs, however it should be a teacher's job to honestly explain where the student's level is at, and whether or not he/she is suited for that camp/audition/competition. </p>

<p>I do agree there are certain kinds of editing that are wrong. I believe as long as you DID play everything, that kind of editing is fine. Afterall, the live performance shows all. Professional musicians edit their recordings too, thats why everyone likes to listen to them live- you never know what is going to happen. If you missed a run, as long as you are the one re-played the run for the edit, then that's fine. If one of your crucial notes are out of tune, as long as you're the one who played that passage again and got it right, editing that is fine too. It's just not okay to modify the notes themeslves to make them higher/lower, etc whatever else you can do with edits.</p>

24

<p>I'm confused about the inclusion of a recital type of performance on a prescreen CD--for most of my son's schools, this was prohibited. Maybe jazz is different,but I don't know why it would be. </p>

<p>But musicalfeet, near as I can tell, each performance on a prescreen needs to be recorded live at one time, not gone over to re-record even one note. When I described take after take in my post above, I meant to get that one live one that was the best of the day.</p>

25

<p>Sorry to be unclear, jazzzmomm,
I was referring to audition CD's in general, but mostly for summer programs and competitions. All my D's college auditions were live or regional, so I wouldn't presume to know what is allowed on those CDs and my kids do not play instruments that require prescreen CD's, so that is an area I know nothing about.</p>

26

<p>jazzzmom, I'm a firm believer that a live recorded performance is oft times the best representation of one's ability, particularly in small ensemble play. Interaction between players, musicality, interpretation are easily determined. Again while rarely if ever "perfect" these live captures be it dvd or cd are as best as you'll get as a representation of overall ability.</p>

<p>I can see the arguments both for and against soloist (or with single accompaniment) recitals being used. On one hand, recital material is normally prepared to the highest level, and is not necessarily indicative of overall level of play. On the other hand, one would expect as much prep in preparing the requisites for an important audition, be it undergrad, camp/festival, grad or pro audition.</p>

27

<p>Just to add one thought to the prescreen considerations... (although this may be common knowledge)</p>

<p>I have been told by multiple parties involved in the audition prescreen process, that it is very rare for a CD to be listened to in its entirety. Perhaps the opening of each track, random spots while skipping through and maybe the end of a movement. It has become a standing joke with S - if there's something minor that he decides to let stand, he says "Oh well, maybe they won't hear that part. And if they do, they'll know I didn't edit!" </p>

<p>Disclaimer: I'm talking violin and prescreen - the above may not be true for voice or other instruments or for admission to programs in which the CD is the only or deciding factor.</p>

28

<p>i think that would depend on the requirements on the pre-screen. obviously if its requested for it to be live then you can't do much about it. I'm just saying that even if a pre-screen CD isn't supposed to be edited, the pieces that you do record on your own can still be edited, and enough people do that anyway.</p>

29

<p>about a month ago, i was watching/listening to joshua bell on live at lincoln center for new years. after starting the tzigane, he was out of tune at several notes (long held notes mind you) high on the g. although he quickly fixed his intonation, you could see the orchestra chuckling to themselves in the background... almost like, "hah we wouldn't even make that mistake." yet... he's still considered one of the premier violinists of our generation. </p>

<p>live performances are not perfect, and neither are amateur recordings. moral of the story.</p>

30

<p>I am going to be sending in an audition cd/dvd (not sure yet) for an audition to UNT since I missed the live audition deadline. Correct me if I'm wrong when I say this but should I send the cd/dvd as is and not edit it at all? There aren't any guidelines regarding the format for the cd at all that I've found and the admissions officer told me that it would be included in the info on the site, which only said, cd, dvd, or tape...Now, when I say edit, I mean in terms of tracks. So, for example, if I messed up on a recording, then I could just use a different track? For a cd that is....or is this taboo? Also, does it matter whether I use a cd or dvd in terms of my audition, like, will one reflect better than the other?</p>

31

<p>Most schools want to hear entire works (if they are short) or entire movements of larger works unedited. If you do several takes of each work or movement, it is expected that you will submit the best take of each one but that you will not take bits and pieces from different takes and edit them together. They only want one take per piece - you do not have to send them the ones that you do not select as the best.</p>

<p>If they did not specify the order for the pieces, you can put them in the order you prefer. Realize that they may turn off the recording at any time, so you want to start off with your best if you have that option.</p>

<p>A DVD with video of your singing will give them added confidence that you did not edit the pieces within a take and can also give them some idea of your appearance, stage presence and how you move. These things are of concern when they cast operas and can work for or against you. If you think these elements reflect positively on your overall presentation then, by all means, send the DVD. If you are just using the DVD to hold audio files without video, or if you prefer that the judges not be distracted by the visual aspects of your presentation, then go with the CD.</p>

32

<p>although plenty of students do cut and paste regardless (especially if it is only you in the recording, no accompanists)... its not as if they can tell. although that in itself is a tedious amount of work. and the students that do..well they get lazy too. although I admit to cut and pasting, i also admit to getting lazy and not completely editing it so that it is flawless..</p>

33

<p>
[quote]
its not as if they can tell

[/quote]

One of my piano students tried to edit her CD for a summer program (on a different instrument), and I pointed out that the editing had created different tracks on the CD. Each time she spliced, it was a new track. Although it sounded smooth to listen to, it was very obvious on Media Player that she had more tracks than pieces.</p>

<p>She hadn't realized it wasn't okay to edit within a piece, and went back and chose the best overall. (She got in, too. This was last summer.)</p>

34

<p>binx: Obviously a really, really inexperienced audio editor; a potential audio editing example of Darwinian evolutionary extinction that was saved by your observation.</p>

<p>Incomprehensible to me why someone would burn all tracks, original and edited, to a CD if they were going through the trouble of editing. Of course, many people shoot themselves cleaning a gun, another thing that seems incomprehensible...</p>

<p>If they did a good job editing and assembling the tracks for the CD, which includes making sure the date and time stamp on the tracks are appropriate, it would be very, very difficult to tell the product was edited. And with the computers and software of today, this is within reach of anyone with a good ear who is computer savy.</p>

35

<p>my H, an amateur recording engineer (does this evenings and weekends fairly often) says he can tell when a CD has been cut and pasted (a tiny pop, a tiny deadspace, I think). But mostly that's when he uses earphones and certainly when he uploads it into a sound editing program--he can SEE the pasting. But he means locally produced, I'm guessing not CDs from big recording companies, which are all heavily and mostly skillfully edited, I'm sure.</p>

<p>That said, I don't know why anyone would feel compelled to edit within tracks when it's specifically prohibited (I'm responding to musicalfeet here). Trying to sound better than real life won't get an musician very far, I'd guess.</p>

36

<p>Neumes,</p>

<p>Your husband is describing the kind of splice that is not properly done. High school students who are in a hurry to get something out the door tend to make those kind of mistakes.</p>

<p>I have produced, edited and mastered several commercial CD's from a project studio in my home. It takes a bit of practice to learn how to do, but once you have the knack it is possible to create a track with a splice every couple of seconds and neither the engineers nor the musicians who recorded the original tracks will be able to tell where the edit points are. It does not require the kind of resources that a major studio can provide, but it is exacting, painstaking work that takes patience and attention to detail to get just right.</p>

<p>Given the level of competition for the available slots at top schools, it does not surprise me that some people cheat and then try to rationalize having done so. I do not approve of it, but I see how tempting it might be. There may indeed be consequences down the line, but all they see is the immediate need to get through the prescreening round or to audition into a program via a recording. Many of them would be the first to complain if they found out that someone else who cheated even more elaborately took one of those precious spots away from them.</p>

<p>When the objective is not an audition or a competition, using various technological enhancements to make someone sound better than real life is the norm in the recording industry and has been for quite some time. It does not happen often in classical music where you cannot lip-synch to your own (or, in a few cases, someone else's) recordings on stage, but there are successful recording artists out there who would have gone nowhere without major assistance from recording and editing technology.</p>

37

<p>Am I wrong in my assumption that the prescreen really only screens out students who are way out of the league of the school to which they are applying? I guess not, since some of you have reported instances where very good musicians were rejected. I continue to prove my naivete here with those of you who have much more musical experience--but, I went into this thinking that by virtue of the fact that my S had been studying improv jazz at a Conservatory precollege for two years, his level of playing would assure him through all the prescreenings (it did). The really hard part would be the live audition when he was competing with other musicians at his level and above. We never really sweated about the quality of the prescreen CD. I thought a kid who actually played real jazz was a little bit on the rare side at this age, so I DIDN'T WORRY. That should teach me to ever be comfortable about this process! (Just kidding,of course.) What ARE the differences, if any, for a student applying in jazz as opposed to classical?</p>

<p>This may need another thread--sorry for digressing.</p>

38

<p>I don't know about other instruments, but with regard to voice, the prescreen is definitely more rigorous than screening out those way out of the league. Using the same CD, a good friend of my D was rejected by Mannes, NEC and Carnegie Mellon, but got auditions at MSM, Curtis and Peabody. Some heard something that others didn't or some wanted a particular sound that others didn't. They can be quiet discerning.</p>

39

<p>Even if you did cut+paste and edit your music, if you can't play as well as you did on the recording, then you just simply won't be admitted. So at least on my part I don't think what I did was wrong, and other players that may have edited their CDs aren't exactly committing the worst kind of cheating ever. It's like bringing a cheat sheet with all your math formulas into a math test. If you don't even understand how to do the problem, you're going to fail anyway. I played better live than on my recording, even though my recording was edited. In that 4 month gap window my progress on that piece improved greatly. It simply wasn't ready to record/perform at the time I had to submit my CD. There's nothing wrong with that.</p>

40

<p>If you feel that there is nothing wrong with it, would you be willing to enclose a note with each CD describing the edits that you made?</p>