Why Do Musicians Get Replaced In The Studio?

I was reading one of Metalbob's posts regarding Winger's guitarist playing all the guitars on a Twisted Sister album, and it got me thinking - why does this happen?

I think I understand the reasoning in some of these instances - Hunter/Wagner replacing Glen Buxton and either Hunter or Wagner replacing Joe Perry and Hunter/Wagner replacing anybody whose ever been produced by Bob Ezrin except perhaps David Gilmour, but what are some of the other instances that you know of where this happened?

If you have seen this, how does the replaced musician generally take it? Or do they even know?

 

In a nutshell, they are not good enough. Paul McCartney used to replace other Beatles while recording his songs in the last years of the fab four.

 

What, all the Beatles sucked except Paul? I really don't think that stands up to scrutiny. More likely it was just easier for Paul to do his own songs. Not the same as a producer interjecting an outside player into the band, which is what I'm thinking of.

 

Basically, what makes an exciting live player can make a horrendous studio player. Other little anomalies can creep in. So much just flies past the audience in a live situation.

Other times, a producer may be looking for a specific feel or sound that the band member cannot provide. Others simply tense up, and therefore choke up, as the tape rolls.



Dan

 

Billy Corgan of Smashing Pumpkins did almost all the guitar/bass parts on the album Siamese Dream. I believe his reasoning was that he could do it quicker and better than the other two. Of course, he also earned a reputation as being a dictator. I think James Iha was quite resentful of this. It certainly caused a lot of tension in the band, probably all the way until the end.

 

In Paul's mind, maybe. But I dont mean to hijack your thread, so now that you narrow it down to the producer's role, just ignore my post.

 

Trevor Rabin replayed Chris Squire's bass parts because he was less than sober. He also replaced a lot of Tony Kayes cheap sounding synths.

Curt Cobain's guitars were replaced on Nevermind.

 

Really?? Who replaced them?

 

There is an art to producing records that many musicians who are fresh (or somewhat foreign) to the studio might not be able to understand, yet alone deliver. The time is very expensive and that usually is the reason.

Peace Love and Carol Kaye
Marky

 

yep, time is money when it comes to studio work. You need pros.

 

That's true, and then you have to balance out what paying a session player may or may not save you in terms of an hourly studio rate.



Dan

 

Rolling Stone just ran an article on the recording of Exile on Main Street, and it appears a studio guy played bass on most of the songs, Andy Johns (was this he of Chevy Van fame?) was playing guitar on some tracks, Charlie couldn't cut the drums on at least one song.

Quite frankly, it's like laws or sausage, if you wish to retain your affinity for either, perhaps the less you know about how they are made, the better.

 

With all due respect Jamie, I have never heard this and I fully doubt any of it to be ture, partly because Butch Vig was close to the band at the time and Kurt was a good guitarist, when he wasn't cooked. And at the time of Nevermind, he hadn't fully become the doper we all know today.

If he WAS replaced, don't you think it would have come out by now? And if he was, who replaced him? Kim Thayil per chance? lol...Mark Arm?

Just curious...

 

That would be Sammy Johns.

-Aaron

 

Just how often did that happen? In the last four years of the Beatles, Paul lived just around the corner from Abbey Road studios. He'd be the first to get there and the last to leave, and the guy loves to work.
Revolver? Paul plays lead guitar on "Taxman" and "She Said She Said" (?). What other parts were replaced?
Sgt Pepper? It seems George wasn't coming in a lot then, but I think Paul only plays guitar on two songs.
Magical Mystery Tour? I can't think of any changes.
As the "White Album" is concerned, Paul played drums on "Back In The USSR" because Ringo had left the group. Later in the sessions, there was a race to record 30 songs in a mistaken belief that it would fulfill all recording committments to EMI, and they were simultaneously using two studios, leaving Paul to play more than one instrument on a song because John or George couldn't be two places at once. John plays bass on a track or two, and plays lead on "Honey Pie", a Paul song.
"Ballad Of John And Yoko". Both George and Ringo were abroad, John wanted that song done that day.
Let It Be? They're all in their places without sunshiney faces on the LP, even though George quit for two weeks.
Abbey Road? John was gone for a while after an auto accident, and only Paul was coming in on time by that time. Still, I hear John, George and Ringo all over the album, with some guitar augmentation from Paul. Doubtless there are people here who will know all the details of the sessions.
When you say Paul used to replace other Beatles, are you saying he recorded over their parts?

 

marky is the winnah!

 

There was a Fee Waybill interview I read on one of those classic rock sites about five years ago and Fee said that David Foster replaced ALL of the Tubes instrumentally on "The Completion Backward Principle" and "Outside Inside".
If you ever heard their earlier A&M albums, they weren't exactly the most commercially oriented musicians on the planet....but on 1985's "Love Bomb" album I think they made a pretty good argument that if given a chance they could've..that is if Todd Rundgren didn't draft in other musicians. But I guess since Todd produced it it didn't matter since the producer's credit "produced by Todd Rundgren" seems to be the commercial kiss of death more often than not.

 

Be that as it may, I am far more interested in hearing the actual band members play together (whatever the result) then hearing some producer's idea of idealized perfection. Just me, your tastes may differ.

 

In the case of Kiss and Ace Frehley on Destroyer, Bob Ezrin had studio pros do the guitar playing cuz Ace was always drunk.

 

I don't know if I'd call it an "art" - it's more like a military regimine and is often misguided. A lot of the time the producer has ambitions or perceptions that are independant of, or at cross-purposes to, the band. There are a lot of drummers who have been sacked over the years by 'bigtime' producers, but not always to good effect. If a modern producer were in the studio when The Rolling Stones started recording I'm sure Charlie Watts would have been seen as a liability and shown the door... "vee must have clik-trak!"

Just yesterday I was reading the liner notes to the reissue of Calenture by The Triffids (mid-80's Aussie band - literate baroque pop). The album was their fourth, but their first for a major label - Island Records. The leader of the group brought Craig Leon in from NYC and he pulled out all the producer tricks... alienating the other band members with divisive politics, bringing in outside musicians, etc. After blowing a wad of money the band, management and record company all concluded that the results were dire; they sent Craig back to NYC and proceeded to make a fine Triffids album with Gil Norton producing.

When it comes to producing radio-friendly fodder and corporate product there's usually only ONE SOUND allowed at any given moment. If a producer is in control and doesn't feel the band is towing the currently en vogue line, heads will often roll... and the band very rarely survives the heavy-handed svengali tactics.

 

Yup, I sure am glad the Beatles didn't cave in to George Martin's Svengali complex and kick Pete Best out of the band.

 

Per markytheM's post, I remember reading a very enlightening interview with producer Peter Asher, who apparently kept professional musicians on call when he was producing studio rookies.

I'm paraphrasing a memory over a decade old, but he said something to the effect that it isn't so much that the existing band members are bad, it's usually that they aren't musically trained well enough to take direction or instruction.

So if he'd suggest a different rhythm for a song, an untrained musician might have to rehearse something on the studio clock he might never get right, while a professional could lay it down immediately and get everyone back to work. Some untrained musicians may not even understand the producer's instructions, much less perform them on command.

To his credit, Asher complimented one of the bands who had been "substituted" on their own record, pointing out that they arrived for their next album much better musicians who didn't need pinch hitters.

 

I'll let one of the thousands of Beatles experts hereabouts fill-in the details, but it was RINGO who Sir George Martin didn't allow to drum on the first Beatles sessions he produced. If he'd had his way I'm sure Mr. Starkey would have been a live and pictorial mop top only for the first album... maybe longer.

 

In an old interview with Gus Dudgeon in East End Lights Magazine, he said the reason Nigel Olsson and Dee Murray weren't used on the first few albums (other than bg vocals) was that Elton felt they weren't ready then for the studio recordings...