Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bernardo]

I've been thinking about this post for a while, the "speed metal thread" touched on the subject, so I'll try to make a point, or at least raise some sort of issue here. I usually fail.

A central issue on this forum and on a number of discussions involving Steve, his methods and principles, touch on the subject of staying out of the way of the band and letting the music they make appear in a recording in a transparent way, trying not to let the engineer's work habits and aesthetical preferences blur the vision of the artist being recorded.

Well, if so, that implies that the way the band hears themselves bears at least some resemblance to the acoustical event taking place when said band actually sets up in a room and plays.

I'm thinking a big point of contention between Steve's point of view and most of the people who argue against it lies in the reality that most of us find ourselves recording bands whose skills and sonic choices are at least partially (when not completely) at odds with how they actually expect to sound like. I work mostly with hardcore (with and without a metallic slant), grindcore and metal bands, and more often than not they're looking for their records to sound at least fairly close to records of bands like Hatebreed, Nasum, Pantera, if the names are familiar you get the picture.

So, basically, by being able to capture the actual sound the band makes in very high fidelity, chances are I'm actually NOT DOING MY JOB, as they see it. If the person listening to the record at home hears the same thing I did in front of me at the studio, I may have failed to convey what the band expected me to. And that's the actual band, not a record producer (never had one in a session), label (most of these bands don't have one), A&R guy (most bands I work with ar unfamiliar with the very concept of an A&R person).

Those of you who find yourselves in that scenario, how do you deal with it?

I hope this was, uh, something.

[Ron Steele]

Your spot on.

Most band members expect that their instruments to sound like 'this record" or "that record"  in the studio with out understanding that they don't "play " or "sound" that way.

And that's the big underlying joke of of it all.

I love the Glynn Johns story about Don Henley saying to him,

"make me sound like John Bonham".

His reply was,

"you don't play like John Bonham".

Of course, most AE's are not in the position to speak this way.

It's just best to nod your head and say yes with a smile, because they usually don't no the difference anyways. And believe it or not, trying to mke them sound better is not a good focus. I usually try to take the shit they put out and make it sound intentional and planned by going for an even "further" shitty sound.

Let's face it, good is good, and bad is bad. Find somthing positive in whatever is good and swing it that way.

[rankus]

Ron Steele wrote on Fri, 27 January 2006 13:40

Your spot on. . It's just best to nod your head and say yes with a smile, because they usually don't no the difference anyways. And believe it or not, trying to mke them sound better is not a good focus. I usually try to take the shit they put out and make it sound intentional and planned by going for an even "further" shitty sound. Let's face it, good is good, and bad is bad. Find somthing positive in whatever is good and swing it that way.

Great post Ron!

Also what kills me is that these bands come in after my lecture on new skins and strings with shit for gear... then when your almost finnished the mix they bring in some CD's of their favorite band and say "make us sound like this".... at that point I remind them of the very first conversation we had.... and they reply "oh well that's something to think about for next time"... (bringing quality gear)

But, yeah.  Recently I take Ron's approach... nod and say "OK"...

[Adam P]

Well, for starters, I'd tell them that unless their names are Phil, Dimebag Darrell, Vinny Paul, and Rex, then they're probably not going to sound like Pantera.

Once you get that out of the way, maybe show them some records that have a more "realistic" production aesthetic that might appeal to them.  If they want to sound like Hatebreed, maybe show them some old Integrity records or something.  If they're into grind, play an Assuck record for them.  Perhaps they'll see that there are alternatives to a "cookie cutter" sound, that just because it doesn't sound like Hatebreed doesn't mean it doesn't sound good.

If they're not into it, oh well, at least you tried to expand their thinking a bit.

[scottoliphant]

most folks who go to electrical to record, I'd guess, go there for a reason. To work with steve and crew, not to walk in and request sounding like XYZ band. And I'm assuming that a lot of them know his MO. I bet engineers these days hear "make it sound like an albini record", add 20 ms delay to room mics? =)

[electrical]

If a band wants to sound like an archetype or other band, chances are their innate sound leans that way already. Your job then is to help them find those elements they like about their own sound, and present them in a way that is appropriate to the style.

You can't turn a sausage into a trout, but the band know this already. They are leaning a certain way with their sound au natural, and you just nead to help them get to the end of the process.

I have never had to re-invent a band's sound for them. Once they know what they like and want, I can usually demonstrate some things that emphasise the elements they're looking for, and they can make the choices that suit them.

I'm being uncomfortably vague here, but that's unavoidable. I'll throw-in a specific: If the drummer wants to sound like Pantera or Anthrax, but he plays like a cross between Neil Peart and Animal from the Muppets, you only need to demonstrate that what he's playing matters more than the sound of the individual drums, and he'll get the point. Simply playing some of the "target" music and some of his playing back-to-back will make that clear to him.

The same goes for the other instruments. If the band is playing style-consistently, then you just need to listen for the things they want to hear but aren't, and help them get there. None of this can be done without having a conversation and running some experiments for each element.

My point about making faithful recordings isn't that the band shouldn't change their own innate sound, but that the engineer shouldn't, unless that's what's asked of him. Don't start with phony, start with real.

Once the band hear what they really sound like, they can usually decide what parts (if any) of that they want to tinker with, and you should be versatile enough to help them do it with any and all of the tools at your disposal. Having an assortment of amps, drums, cabinets and microphones will help in these situations, and you must be familiar with all of them.

If the band decide they don't like their own playing and music, there's little you can do other than let them work it out amongst themselves. There's little you should do, as well. Don't make the record yours.

[Ron Steele]

Steve, I hate to say it but your slightly contradicting yourself.

Most of what you just laid out is what many would call "production" technique's.

Quote:

Your job then is to help them find those elements they like about their own sound, and present them in a way that is appropriate to the style.

Assuming they know what their sound is.

Quote:

They are leaning a certain way with their sound au natural, and you just nead to help them get to the end of the process.

Yes, you know this is naturally happening, but again,

do they?

Quote:

I If the drummer wants to sound like Pantera or Anthrax, but he plays like a cross between Neil Peart and Animal from the Muppets, you only need to demonstrate that what he's playing matters more than the sound of the individual drums, and he'll get the point. Simply playing some of the "target" music and some of his playing back-to-back will make that clear to him.

This obviously could be considered an outside "influence" that works toward the right sound of the drummers vibe with in the context of the band,  but you are the one bringing the musician down that path. I find nothing at wrong with that, but once again, we have a  "production" technique.

Quote:

The same goes for the other instruments. If the band is playing style-consistently, then you just need to listen for the things they want to hear but aren't, and help them get there. None of this can be done without having a conversation and running some experiments for each element.

I agree, but I would call that, an informed outside "influence" as well.

No different then "production", as even the smallest amount of influence could change the way a musician or band preforms and plays their material for better,

or worse.

Quote:

My point about making faithful recordings isn't that the band shouldn't change their own innate sound, but that the engineer shouldn't, unless that's what's asked of him. Don't start with phony, start with real.

To me, this in direct conflict with the comments you laid out above.

Quote:

Once the band hear what they really sound like, they can usually decide what parts (if any) of that they want to tinker with, and you should be versatile enough to help them do it with any and all of the tools at your disposal. Having an assortment of amps, drums, cabinets and microphones will help in these situations, and you must be familiar with all of them.

Whats interesting in this statement is that your assuming you figured out what the band sounds like for them by using your skills and technique's.

I think it would be safe to say that any number of AE's tracking the same band, even in the same room, with a minimal amount of influence would create a different "sound or "snap shot" just because of how they approach things.

Shit, you could fart in the control room and that would effect the outcome.

For me it's all about the interaction and the events that occur during the process, And this interaction inevitably leads to the final outcome, like it or not .

[electrical]

Ron Steele wrote on Fri, 27 January 2006 23:09

Steve, I hate to say it but your slightly contradicting yourself.

I'll bet you don't hate to say it. It's something of a pastime in these parts. And no, I'm not.

Quote:

Most of what you just laid out is what many would call "production" technique's.

Then we have different definitions.

Quote:

Quote: Your job then is to help them find those elements they like about their own sound, and present them in a way that is appropriate to the style. Assuming they know what their sound is.

The whole thread is about a band knowing precisely what they want to sound like, and not getting it.

Quote:

Quote:  They are leaning a certain way with their sound au natural, and you just nead to help them get to the end of the process. Yes, you know this is naturally happening, but again, do they?

Of course. Every decision they make is based on trying to get their shit together. Give them credit for being awake during the process.

Quote:

Quote: I If the drummer wants to sound like Pantera or Anthrax, but he plays like a cross between Neil Peart and Animal from the Muppets, you only need to demonstrate that what he's playing matters more than the sound of the individual drums, and he'll get the point. Simply playing some of the "target" music and some of his playing back-to-back will make that clear to him. This obviously could be considered an outside "influence" that works toward the right sound of the drummers vibe with in the context of the band,  but you are the one bringing the musician down that path. I find nothing at wrong with that, but once again, we have a  "production" technique.

I beg to differ. If a guy says, "I want it to sound like this," (plays Pantera record),  I can play him his own music and ask what he would like to be different. Then we try to satisfy that request.

Quote:

Quote: The same goes for the other instruments. If the band is playing style-consistently, then you just need to listen for the things they want to hear but aren't, and help them get there. None of this can be done without having a conversation and running some experiments for each element. I agree, but I would call that, an informed outside "influence" as well. No different then "production", as even the smallest amount of influence could change the way a musician or band preforms and plays their material for better, or worse.

The band gets to decide what they like and don't like. The band gets to decide "better" and "worse." Where's my influence again?

Quote:

Quote: My point about making faithful recordings isn't that the band shouldn't change their own innate sound, but that the engineer shouldn't, unless that's what's asked of him. Don't start with phony, start with real. To me, this in direct conflict with the comments you laid out above.

To me it isn't. So there.

Quote:

Quote: Once the band hear what they really sound like, they can usually decide what parts (if any) of that they want to tinker with, and you should be versatile enough to help them do it with any and all of the tools at your disposal. Having an assortment of amps, drums, cabinets and microphones will help in these situations, and you must be familiar with all of them. Whats interesting in this statement is that your assuming you figured out what the band sounds like for them by using your skills and technique's. I think it would be safe to say that any number of AE's tracking the same band, even in the same room, with a minimal amount of influence would create a different "sound or "snap shot" just because of how they approach things. Shit, you could fart in the control room and that would effect the outcome. For me it's all about the interaction and the events that occur during the process, And this interaction inevitably leads to the final outcome, like it or not .

Whatever you just said there, that's fine, I guess. Where did I contradict myself?

[t(h)ik]

Sorry, didn't see the contradiction....just more incite.

Great thread too.

This is really the heart of the matter, and of course being competent and applying it is as well...

I think it's pretty hard to call someone a hypocrite unless you work with that person or know him well.  Trying to understand someone, let alone put them in a certain box based on these fukken threads is a waste of time...

lemme nouugh


besides if you can't contradict yourself, who can you contradict.....

Not to be contradictive...

[scottoliphant]

Quote:

Steve, I hate to say it but your slightly contradicting yourself. I'll bet you don't hate to say it. It's something of a pastime in these parts. And no, I'm not.

hah
some folks here in this forum do seem somewhat bent on catching steve saying something they can wave around later...

[Adam P]

I move that the title of the forum be changed to "Taking Steve Albini to task for his beliefs", as it does seem to be the thing to do..."Hey Steve, love your work, glad you're offering up your time to moderate this forum, but hey, you're wrong".

My apologies to Steve if I sound brazen, but I really don't see what is so difficult to grasp about his approach to recording.  His studio is a place where working, self-sufficient bands go to make good sounding records.  They book the time, show up, Steve listens to their sound and uses his few years' experience and knowledge of his tools (his mics and outboard) to best represent that sound, he presses the red button on the Studer, and moves the faders around on the Neotek, and somewhere in there a record gets made.  Through it all, the band calls the shots and dictates how things go.  I wholly doubt that he or any of his staff are telling the band that they need to add some tambourine during the second chorus, or that the intro would sound killer if they gave it that tinny low-fi telephone effect.  I don't think they're in there rewriting the band's material or secretly overdubbing the lead guitar themselves after the band has gone home for the night.

Now, I've never made a record with Steve.  I've never even met him, and I've only ever seen him in person once, yet I'm able to hold what I feel is a firm understanding of his methods of record making.

[Ron Steele]

Quote:

Where did I contradict myself?

No where Steve.

Quote:

help them find those elements they like about their own sound, and present them in a way that is appropriate to the style. and you just nead to help them get to the end of the process. you only need to demonstrate that what he's playing matters more than the sound of the individual drums, and he'll get the point.

To me these methods could be construed as.

"leading the witness"

or even

"meddling".

AE's with experience have learned alot of methods and tricks to make somebody else think it was their idea or decision. Even if you don't consider certain things "meddling", there is know way to get the job done with out some level of guidance.

I guess there are different definitions for "meddling".

I guess Steve's would be an analytical approach, while he tells others they are taking an intrusive approach.

I guess there is good and bad meddling to.

[t(h)ik]

Adam P wrote on Sat, 28 January 2006 17:03

I move that the title of the forum be changed to "Taking Steve Albini to task for his beliefs", as it does seem to be the thing to do..."Hey Steve, love your work, glad you're offering up your time to moderate this forum, but hey, you're wrong". My apologies to Steve if I sound brazen, but I really don't see what is so difficult to grasp about his approach to recording.  His studio is a place where working, self-sufficient bands go to make good sounding records.  They book the time, show up, Steve listens to their sound and uses his few years' experience and knowledge of his tools (his mics and outboard) to best represent that sound, he presses the red button on the Studer, and moves the faders around on the Neotek, and somewhere in there a record gets made.  Through it all, the band calls the shots and dictates how things go.  I wholly doubt that he or any of his staff are telling the band that they need to add some tambourine during the second chorus, or that the intro would sound killer if they gave it that tinny low-fi telephone effect.  I don't think they're in there rewriting the band's material or secretly overdubbing the lead guitar themselves after the band has gone home for the night. Now, I've never made a record with Steve.  I've never even met him, and I've only ever seen him in person once, yet I'm able to hold what I feel is a firm understanding of his methods of record making.

Badda Boom

Badda Bing

[electrical]

Ron Steele wrote on Sat, 28 January 2006 11:43

Quote: Where did I contradict myself? No where Steve. Quote: help them find those elements they like about their own sound, and present them in a way that is appropriate to the style. and you just nead to help them get to the end of the process. you only need to demonstrate that what he's playing matters more than the sound of the individual drums, and he'll get the point. To me these methods could be construed as. "leading the witness" or even "meddling". AE's with experience have learned alot of methods and tricks to make somebody else think it was their idea or decision. Even if you don't consider certain things "meddling", there is know way to get the job done with out some level of guidance. I guess there are different definitions for "meddling". I guess Steve's would be an analytical approach, while he tells others they are taking an intrusive approach. I guess there is good and bad meddling to.

Well, if you don't see the distinction between asking someone what he would like to change and telling him what I would like to change, then this conversation is pointless. It appears to be important to you that you be able to classify what I do as "meddling," so as to equate it with conventional production. Okay, whatever. You're stretching it awfully thin to get there, and the difference is obvious to me, but if that's how you must think to mute my critique of an arrogant, intrusive engineering/recording culture, then enjoy.

I only hope that others reading this get the point that conventional production has the producer as the final decision maker, with his ideas implemented from the top down, and what I'm espousing is allowing the band to occupy that position, with nobody telling them they are wrong about their own music. That doesn't mean nothing ever changes, but that it is directed by- and instigated by- the band. Do you see the distinction?

[rankus]

scottoliphant wrote on Sat, 28 January 2006 06:58

Quote: Steve, I hate to say it but your slightly contradicting yourself. I'll bet you don't hate to say it. It's something of a pastime in these parts. And no, I'm not. hah some folks here in this forum do seem somewhat bent on catching steve saying something they can wave around later...

And that is REALLY REALLY un-cool when you are guest in a mans house....