[DeadDiscoDildo]

When I do experimental stuff, like my shitty attempt at "noise tracks" or something that usually doesnt have a melody I do first takes only, to capture whatever mood I was in.

For songs with my band however, I'll usually do a few demos by myself, and then keep fine tuning them before I even show them to my band, parts and all....and most of the time keep it in that order, or with their input we might move sections around or come up with new sections by accident. But for the most part, I do alot of demoing, show it to them, and they add their own colors of paint to the house I built.

[StevOK]

I demo. I'm sure I'll polish them up some time.

[Kloriel]

I'm just stunned chillax is real.

op - demoing makes sense. Not more to add than what's already been said. The only thing I can think of that is a creative output that might not be conducive to demoing is canvas painting. But that is mostly ignorance - I suspect painters sketch stuff out prior.

Always a place for improv too

[Death & the Maiden]

I used to be a play-it-once-and-that's-it kind of person (well, one take per instrument, since I usually have to record three or more instruments myself), and it'd be quite lo-fi, but I recently decided that I was going to put more effort into what I do - that means doing multiple takes to get it right.

This also seems to coincide with my decision to make the music I write/record more difficult - before it used to be standard major/minor chords on guitar or keyboard, but now I'm writing stuff that relies more on melodies and playing accurately, and I think this would benefit from me putting more effort into recording.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Death & the Maiden

I'm writing stuff that relies more on melodies and playing accurately, and I think this would benefit from me putting more effort into recording.

I'd say the opposite - spend more time practising, and the recording will follow. It's a fetish that strikes too many 'rock' musicians - If I get the right sounds, the right instrument, the right microphones, the right room, it'll sound alright. I'm not saying you should neglect any of these things, but if you don't practise it doesn't mean a great deal.

I'm talking about one sort of 'instrumental' music, namely music that relies upon an instrument. The concréte tradition only requires good ears, which is why Herr Marras gets away with not being a 'musician' in the classical sense but someone who can manipulate sound in an interesting way.

I'm not sure if I've articulated this very well, I'm not criticising anyone particularly, except people who have the wrong idea.

[atsonicpark]

Do you think this is the first time in twenty years that anyone has mentioned EBN-OZN's "AEIOU Sometimes Y"?

[Death & the Maiden]

Originally Posted by Glice

I'd say the opposite - spend more time practising, and the recording will follow. It's a fetish that strikes too many 'rock' musicians - If I get the right sounds, the right instrument, the right microphones, the right room, it'll sound alright. I'm not saying you should neglect any of these things, but if you don't practise it doesn't mean a great deal.

I'd definitely agree that practising is necessary, I spend more than an hour playing my keyboard or guitar every day. The thing I was pointing out was that my recordings just weren't very good, mainly because I didn't put much effort into it; they were lo-fi, but not in a good Norway-1994-black-metal way, just a lazy way. But it probably come off as one of those rock musicians who worry about everything except the music, since my guitar of choice is a Les Paul.

hmm
tough question...
I am putting a lot of time into my stuff till I think its "fiished", I think that qualifies for contra-demo. but I often sound like a demo, what I like. so it equals again.
sometimes I am finishing tracks from scratch till end in under 2 or 3 hours, its rare but it happens...

in the end I would say that I am never 100% satisfied with the outcome, so my tunes are demos. but on the other hand who is satisfied with it for 100%?