Print

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

[CHANCE]

Iain Graham wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 05:48

Ok then, how about this.....If that involves tuning, replacing, reamping, whatever because it was recorded badly, or played by a poor muso, then so be it.

This post reminded me of a remote recording I did on one of the nights of the NAMM show. It was a concert featuring Eddie VH, Rick Derringer, Ted Neugent, Tod Rungren, Darryl Mansfield, and many others. Peter Criss was on drums. I had no part in the stage set up and the first 2 songs, Peter took out 3 of the drum mics. (snare and two front toms) The concert was "Magic". When I brought the recording back here to the studio and listened, everything was great except the snare and 2 toms. The overheads captured those bad drums OK, but the producer of thar event wanted more. On the 3 mics that Peter destroyed, there was still a signal, but no usable tone do I took those signals and triggered a D-4 to replace those sounds. I replaced them and when the producer came in and heard them, he was not only pleased, but asked if I could replace the FL tom and bass drum as well. The overheads fused everything together. I guess recordings of this nature are the only time I would go to this length and replace the original instruments, because there is no "lets try it again" almost like live radio. That same night an amp blew up and Rick Derringer got on the mic and stated "Here we are at a musicial instrument show, showing off all this new gear and a F---in amp blows up. I still have the video of that night

[J-Texas]

Guys... fine examples of when it is useful to use samples and such. I don't think I'm beating a dead horse here, just not getting it over correctly.

The use of these samples and plugs, at the mixer's discretion (just to be using the latest and greatest or vintage replica or whatever), regardless of what the artist's performance requires, is a bastardization and irresponsible misuse of the technology itself.

I've always been talking about one of the questions presented here. That is, the ratio of e, a, p.

The question is, should a mixer take it upon himself to redirect a song and be an artist to the artist? See it's all subjective. Where's the line between tasteful and trashy? Every situation is different, I'm sure. I also agree that certain genres deserve more 'production'. Where is the line drawn between using the available tools and abusing the available tools? To enhance, not re-work.

[ATOR]

J-Texas wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 21:53

Where is the line drawn between using the available tools and abusing the available tools?

It's music man, there is no line  

[J-Texas]

ATOR wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 15:55

It's music man, there is no line

Come on man. Not the artist and his music. If someone wants to play the spoons and trigger that and then reamp his bagpipes... that's his decision. Do you, AS A MIXER, impose your artistry on it though and do the same thing because the spoons didn't have enough Umph... they needed a kick sample to drive the rhythm.

I'm going to extremes here, but I'm not talking from the artist standpoint here. I'll argue that there is a line being crossed, because yes... it's music, but not your music. Where is the line being crossed every day with what Fibes, I think, called the 'hyper-mix'.

We have lipo sucked, laser removed, Photoshop'd, remote controlled, wirelessly, corporate advertising ass-reamed, fad coated, super-sized, miniaturized, reality-based this country to death. That's spilling over to art. We as mixers are helping it along. (granted it really comes from the record labels dictating the industry standard 'louder is better' scandal)

[Iain Graham]

If done correctly, the samples or whatever don't change the artistic direction, they just make the recording sound better.

If you make that radical a change, you've missed the point. If that's the case, then you were probably the wrong person to mix the record or ignored what the artist/producer asked you to do. Or both.

Or were hired to do exactly the wrong thing.

[J-Texas]

J. Hall

the mixer's job is not to produce the record, but to fine tune the production.

Fibes

It's about giving the right people the right tools and the trust/motivation to exceed expectations. How many of us were given so many parameters and orders that they closed focus on the big picture?

J. Hall

the introduction of software to replace sounds with samples just makes life easier. auto tune, meoldyne, sound replacer.......these are tools. and like any tool, it can be used to make life easier, and it can also be abused. there is no accounting for taste...

Iain

Is replacement out of hand or is the advertising for it creating the impression... great tools when used in the right (or wrong) way.

Fibes

... more and more hacks are using magic bullets because they didn't learn what poor technique is; they just learned poor techniques... Then they hear the big guys are doing the SR thing and they hear immediate results. It's not about augmenting an already great sound or creating an amazingingly whacked out texture, instead it's about instant gratification...

Matt Carter

...to me, it all sounds like gimmicky ear candy and trying to make the song something it isn't.

McSnare

The engineer that has rarely or never gotten great drum sounds on the recording, and 'defaults' to samples, is the guy that won't know how to make samples work as elegantly as the pro...

Maxim

... the entry level into engineering and production has dropped SIGNIFICANTLY... previously, before one could produce a record of ANY sort, one had to have been a teaboy for a few eons, observing the process and rewinding tapes ("mad scientist makes a studio in his garage" sorts excepted)

Iain

If done correctly, the samples or whatever don't change the artistic direction, they just make the recording sound better. If you make that radical a change, you've missed the point.

I GUESS WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE AFTER ALL! DON'T USE IT JUST TO USE IT.

Peace. Love. HARMONY kids.

[j.hall]

ATOR wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 15:55

J-Texas wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 21:53 Where is the line drawn between using the available tools and abusing the available tools? It's music man, there is no line

that's crap.  there is clearly a line.  and the line is when your use of the tools either overshadows the band (hey guys, check out my sweet mix skills), or, your use of the tools, simply doesn't work.

you think nora jones would sound awesome auto tuned like blink 182?  that would CLEARLY be a case of abused tools.

this is why i keep stressing the importance of being an artist while you mix.  

BTW, Frengers was made by Rich Costey.  a producer/mixer in my top 3 favorite mixers.

i STRONGLY advise all of you to get many of his records and listen.  the man has an insanely unique ear from pushing a song forward, and for INSANE sonic vibe.

Muse Absolution is a master piece of making things sound wrong and having them be so right.  few guys do this as well as Rich.

[J-Texas]

j.hall wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 22:21

that's crap.  there is clearly a line.  and the line is when your use of the tools either overshadows the band (hey guys, check out my sweet mix skills), or, your use of the tools, simply doesn't work... this is why i keep stressing the importance of being an artist while you mix.

Thank you J.

I needed the reassurance that I wasn't stupid or an asshole.

Again. NOT A STAB AT ANYONE! Just a reminder to use your skill well. Yes! Be daring. Push yourself. Don't rewrite history though. Believe in what you do. Don't read the manual... listen!! Don't see what it can do... hear what it can add. If it doesn't need anything... be the mix! Na Na Na Na Na Na

"Goodnight, you princes of Maine. You kings of New England."

[maxim]

jason screamed:

"DON'T USE IT JUST TO USE IT"



if you don't use it, you lose it...

[ATOR]

j.hall wrote on Mon, 25 June 2007 05:21

ATOR wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 15:55 J-Texas wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 21:53 Where is the line drawn between using the available tools and abusing the available tools? It's music man, there is no line   that's crap.  there is clearly a line.  and the line is when your use of the tools either overshadows the band (hey guys, check out my sweet mix skills), or, your use of the tools, simply doesn't work. you think nora jones would sound awesome auto tuned like blink 182?  that would CLEARLY be a case of abused tools. this is why i keep stressing the importance of being an artist while you mix.   BTW, Frengers was made by Rich Costey.  a producer/mixer in my top 3 favorite mixers. i STRONGLY advise all of you to get many of his records and listen.  the man has an insanely unique ear from pushing a song forward, and for INSANE sonic vibe. Muse Absolution is a master piece of making things sound wrong and having them be so right.  few guys do this as well as Rich.

In mixing you can go from a pristine two mic setup that needs no touching up to abusing all the tools you have to create a vibe. There is no line there, it's only a matter of taste.

The last IMP song could have been done both ways and both versions could be great if done tastefully.

Of course I agree that it should work, that it should fit the song and blahblah but I just don't think you should draw lines because on the other side of the line might be something really great. We would have missed out on a lot of great sounding records if mixing engineers wouldn't have abused their tools.

[J-Texas]

ATOR wrote on Mon, 25 June 2007 05:28

We would have missed out on a lot of great sounding records if mixing engineers wouldn't have abused their tools.

But they did so because they needed a certain type of sound that they were searching for.

Not because the preset said: "kick ass setting".    ...and then used it every time.

[J-Texas]

Maxim wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 23:17

jason screamed: "DON'T USE IT JUST TO USE IT"

Maxim wrote on Sun, 24 June 2007 23:17

if you don't use it, you lose it...

Then, if you use too much:

You use it and then you booze it!  

[spoon]

j.hall wrote on Tue, 19 June 2007 14:04

bring your strongest opinion on these subjects, i want to go to the mat on some of this. 1.  assuming that enginner is a technical thing, artist is artistic, and producer is marrying the two, and bringing third party focus.  what would your ideal blend of a mixer look like (i. e. one part engineer, one part artist, two parts producer)

Four parts engineer, one part artist.

j.hall

2.  as a mixer, is it better to go into a mix completely cold (never hearing the song or having artist input) or going in with a lot of input from the client?

A lot of input from the client.

j.hall

3.  as a mixer, is it better to work alone, or with clients in the room while you mix?

Assuming the band are fairly cohesive (minimal arguments) with the clients would be quickest to their vision.  (Alone would be quickest to my vision.)

j.hall

4.  assuming you have free reign on a mix, is it appropriate to add tracks should you feel it really makes a difference?

Unless there is a _very_ liberal free reign, it would be inappropriate to add anything not requested by the artist.  (Who am I to determine what makes _their_ vision or _their_ song better.)

j.hall

5.  if you were to listen to your work as a third person, how would you describe your style as a mixer?

I really dont know...you guys tell me.

j.hall

6.  how do you, yourself, describe your style as a mixer?

I like bass heavy (indie) rock mixes, if that can describe a style.  So, if left to my own devices, I would mix things that way.  Sometimes, if I feel it from the track, I can get fairly experimental.

If it is not obvious, I subscribe to the thinking that the artist is the producer.  They have the vision and unless the vision specifically requires otherwise, I try to keep technical errors from the recordings.

I will offer ideas if asked and if something seems irregular (base on my experience) I will mention it to determine if the artist intended it.

See, I cannot possible know (exactly) what the artist hears/meant when they created their work, so I am in no position to make "corrections" or add parts that are "better".  Even if it is as simple as playing a guitar part better...that may be their intention (to play sloppy or whatever) if it was not, it is still _their_ playing which makes it _their_ band playing _their_ song.

Obviously others differ in their thinking (as evidenced by various comments on the forum in general, and specifically in the IMP threads).  That is "Hit Making" mentality, and not my cup of tea (Earl Grey, thanks).  

Nothing wrong with that (if fact, it may be very financially rewarding, right...), just not the way I think of serving the art and artist.  (Unless the intent is a boat-load of cash, then, fair game.)


Regards,
David

[J-Texas]

spoon wrote on Mon, 25 June 2007 12:16

and not my cup of tea (Earl Grey, thanks).

With milk? I love it with milk.

[Fibes]

mcsnare wrote on Sat, 23 June 2007 08:04

I don't think that quality at the pro level has suffered all that much in recent times. but I'd rather get down to business and keep the flow going, knowing that I can tweak the drums later. It makes the recording process a lot less stressful for me. I don't consider this attitude to be 'throwing in the towel' or delaying the decision as far as getting good sounding drums.

Three great points that are worth reiterating and disagreeing with.

heh.

1. I think the quality of popular musics recording has become plastic, hyper-real if you will. It's like my fantasies for the chick in The Fifth Element or a cotton candy sandwich. The socialisation of recording has done both good and bad, i wish more artists used it as a tool to grow/develop a sound rather than a method to prematuregasm cd releases.

2. Moving quickly is more important than anything IMO. The key to getting good drum sounds is experience and the more experience you have, the quicker the sounds happen. This is so important with the shrinking budgets. I'm guessing that when you "step off/throw in the towel" the fight is already 90% over which leaves 10% for later. Sure, this is a game of inchs but ya gotta pick your battles and battle one is session flow.

3. There were two points.

I keed.