Colin Frangos wrote on Fri, 23 December 2005 14:44 |
...a good deal of what I do involves color correcting photography for art galleries so that they can be reproduced, printed, and emailed with a degree of accuracy... ...does the band bring a completed work of art into the studio, or is the completed work of art what comes out of the studio and goes to the mastering house? Is my roll more parallel to that of a recording engineer or a mastering engineer? |
TotalSonic wrote on Sat, 24 December 2005 13:32 |
I think the role that Colin is describing most has its analog in audio engineering as the job I used to have - the vinyl master cutting engineer - being requested to do a "flat transfer". In other words - the only additional processing I would do would be to what was necessary to have the final delvery format sound as much as the original master - so the idea was to preserve as much of the original "image" and not to "enhance" it. I think the visual equivalent of what most mastering engineers seem to be expected to do today would be the equivalent of a graphic designer doing digital retouches of shots of models for the covers of slick magazines, where every single wrinkle or blemish is wiped away. One of my friends works as the Art Production Manager for Vanity Fair and guess what - Madonna doesn't look 28 anymore - but you'd never be able to guess this by photos that have been featured on their cover a few months ago. Best regards, Steve Berson |
rnicklaus wrote on Sat, 24 December 2005 15:02 | ||
There used to be bragging rights to "I didn't have more than a .5 db change to 2 songs on the last album I engineered and mixed and most went over flat". Things sure have changed. |
rnicklaus wrote on Sat, 24 December 2005 17:02 |
There used to be bragging rights to "I didn't have more than a .5 db change to 2 songs on the last album I engineered and mixed and most went over flat". |
Bob Olhsson wrote on Sat, 24 December 2005 15:12 |
A recording engineer is very much like a photographer or a painter. The music and musical performance is the subject. |
ivan40 wrote on Sat, 24 December 2005 01:58 |
My Old Man started Recording Classical music in the early 60's. At that point, he would simply collect the audio with three omni's and be done. The art here is spending time at rehearsals deciding where the hell to hang mics and which mic's to hang. |
Bob Olhsson wrote on Sat, 24 December 2005 07:12 |
Color correction is very much the role a mastering engineer plays, fixing unintended problems in final mixes. |
Bob Olhsson wrote on Sat, 24 December 2005 07:12 |
A recording engineer is very much like a photographer or a painter. The music and musical performance is the subject. |
Colin Frangos wrote on Wed, 28 December 2005 19:20 | ||||||
I don't see that as a creative task. Mic placement doesn't benefit by being done in an extremely unique way, it benefits from being done in a very well thought out way. So I see this as an analytical task.
My job isn't to fix unintended problems, though. It's to make sure the work can be reproduced accurately.
I couldn't disagree more. For someone who bills his hours as an Audio engineer I'm not sure what to make of your view of your roll. The band spends their time rehearsing, playing live, working on what they do. After they've sweated over it for long enough to feel like it's ready, they go in to record it. And... you consider their part of this the subject of your work? Did you misspeak or do you really consider the band's music nothing more than a still-life that you touch with your magic? What the band does is art. What you do is engineering. Your job is to document what they sound like, to tend to the technical elements that are necessary to document what they do. Nothing in your job description suggests that you're being hired to make their songs "better" or "more creative". I'm surprised by how many people who refer to themselves as engineers are looking to call what they do creative. There are creative elements to any engineering effort, but ultimately your job is to support the creative people, not to be them. |
maxim wrote on Wed, 28 December 2005 19:29 |
if i'm going to let anyone near my songs, they damn well better be creative |
ivan40 wrote on Thu, 29 December 2005 02:18 |
See, I think the fact that someone decides to use one tool over another is a creative decision. |
electrical wrote on Wed, 28 December 2005 23:34 |
I tried to change the spelling of "role" in this thread, but my all-powerful moderator status won't let me. I thought I had something here... |
electrical wrote on Thu, 29 December 2005 02:32 |
Oh, and I'm going to change the spelling of the word "role" in the title of this thread. I'm moderating this forum, and I don't want people thinking we're a bunch of illiterates. If you're actually illiterate, please excuse my bluntness. |
Colin Frangos wrote on Wed, 28 December 2005 19:20 |
What the band does is art. What you do is engineering. |
electrical wrote on Wed, 28 December 2005 23:32 |
Oh, and I'm going to change the spelling of the word "role" in the title of this thread. I'm moderating this forum, and I don't want people thinking we're a bunch of illiterates. If you're actually illiterate, please excuse my bluntness. |
ivan40 wrote on Thu, 29 December 2005 01:18 |
See, I think the fact that someone decides to use one tool over another is a creative decision. Ivan............. |
Dave Martin wrote on Thu, 29 December 2005 14:45 | ||
I wouldn't think so - the carpenter who built my room would occasionally choose to use one saw instead of another, or one hammer over another. Does that mean that he was the 'creator' of the room design? It's all a part of craftsmanship; knowing which tools are appropriate to a given task. Which brings me back to my original feeling - that engineers are (or should be) craftsmen, not 'artists'. |
ivan40 wrote on Wed, 28 December 2005 17:18 |
Mic placement is in fact an art form IMO... If it were not, there would be one way to mic everything. There is literally no end to the ways to mic everything. |
Bob Olhsson wrote on Wed, 28 December 2005 21:20 |
I think the words I would choose are "they damn well better be sensitive enough to what I'm doing to not screw it up!" |
bobkatz wrote on Thu, 29 December 2005 04:16 |
Music is ART. But an unmusical recording engineer can ruin a recording. |
Quote: |
Who determines the balance? Does the producer say, "raise the clarinet mike 0.25 dB, ok, now lower the bassoon by 0.5?" Any engineer who does not already know what the musical balance should be would be fired. |
Quote: |
As far as I'm concerned, the line between "art" and "engineering" is entirely nebulous. |
Colin Frangos wrote on Thu, 29 December 2005 16:13 |
But anything beyond creating a solid, balanced mix should be the realm of the band. What mics are used, where they're placed - these are generally analytical decisions. If there's creativity involved, it's pretty minimal. |
bobkatz wrote on Thu, 29 December 2005 16:50 | ||
Then I guess you haven't been on one of my sessions . For me it's far more than just putting up mikes and getting a clean sound to tape. The distance of the microphones from the performers during the tracking, their position, choice, the very acoustical environment I choose to use are all based on the concept of the band and the concept of the song. I can't stress how MUSICAL those decisions are. Yes, it's part of a craft, just as a musician's learning his scales are part of his craft. But just as a musician who has intuited his scales and turned them into muscle memory TRANSCENDS that knowledge to create his art, the same with the craftsman. I'm not saying that we play the notes for the musicians, but I am saying that an engineer having a holistic understanding of what the muscians are trying to create and going beyond the simple "put a mike in front of every instrument" is what distinguishes a great, artistic, sensitive enginer from the humdrum rest. BK |
bobkatz wrote on Thu, 29 December 2005 13:50 |
...I am saying that an engineer having a holistic understanding of what the muscians are trying to create and going beyond the simple "put a mike in front of every instrument" is what distinguishes a great, artistic, sensitive enginer from the humdrum rest. |
Colin Frangos wrote on Thu, 29 December 2005 17:25 |
I'm curious, though: since you're saying that you have a "holistic understanding of what the musicians are trying to create", does that mean you won't work with bands you don't like? Or that you know exactly where the band is coming from before you start in on work? That you understand their creative intent at least as well as they do? |
Quote: |
We work with an engineer for a matter of days. I don't see how in that period s/he can develop enough of an understanding of our relationships and individual personalities, let alone the music we make. |
maxim wrote on Thu, 29 December 2005 19:19 |
steve's choice of analogue is a message, as is my choice of digital, whether we like it or not |
maxim wrote on Thu, 29 December 2005 23:04 |
all life is a procession of choices, whether acknowledged or not the lack of consideration is what worries me |
maxim wrote on Fri, 30 December 2005 01:51 |
do you honestly mean to tell me that you don't make choices in your job, let alone your breakfast menu? |
bobkatz wrote on Thu, 29 December 2005 15:55 | ||
This is absolutely true, on a very detailed level. But you'd be surprised how well you get along with other musicians who play in your genre (whatever that may be) and likewise, how well you will get along with a talented and experienced engineer who also has done lots of work in your genre or in your style. |
Quote: |
For example, if Eric Clapton walked in and sat with your band for a few hours, how well do you think he'd do at a guitar solo? |
DivideByZero wrote on Fri, 30 December 2005 13:30 |
All that said, many bands would not be served well if you just printed them. |
Quote: |
They need alot of color correction, and sometimes the content needs expurgation. |
maxim wrote on Fri, 30 December 2005 19:11 |
our brains are very good at patterns, semi-automatic behavioural loops that allow us to rest our grey matter(some occur on the cerebellar level, others higher or even lower) when you allow yourself to go into pattern-mode, your brain is/should be still 'keeping an eye' on the proceedings the problem can arise beacuse every experience is different, so the patterns may need to be adjusted accordingly if you're running in automatic, that opportunity may be missed and the project may be impaired or ruined altogether |
Ron Steele wrote on Fri, 30 December 2005 19:25 |
So what makes a person or group an artist? |
maxim wrote on Fri, 30 December 2005 20:45 |
what i'm saying is that your decision not make a choice is also a choice |
maxim wrote on Fri, 30 December 2005 22:53 |
not doing is a subset of doing, not the other way around |
Ron Steele wrote on Fri, 30 December 2005 19:25 |
"the role of an engineer in relation to art " I think the word..art or artist....has been to loosely floated around. I mean, is a person or persons, who are all of sudden inspired and influenced by the ramones to pick up a guitar and thrash and scream, all of sudden a musical "artist" just because of a new found inspiration? It could be considered a copy, in the same way we have Les Paul GTR copy's. So what makes a person or group an artist? |
Quote: |
and that is not a series of discrete choices. It is a process. |
electrical wrote on Fri, 30 December 2005 19:27 |
"Just" printed them? If only that were the easy way to do it... It is incredibly difficult to "just" print them. Accidentally fucking-up a record is the biggest pitfall, and it takes constant awareness and ingenuity just to avoid doing it. It is infinitely easier to assume that part is a no-brainer, and then fuck around forever being "creative" and doing a bunch of fancying-up and producing. |
Quote: |
They need alot of color correction, and sometimes the content needs expurgation. |
Quote: |
That's incredibly presumptuous of you. Bands "need" you and your smarts? Otherwise, what, they're nothing? You get to decide what someone else's music is supposed to sound like, based on what you think is "good." Why would any band who actually liked their own material allow themselves to be subject to that? |
DivideByZero wrote on Mon, 02 January 2006 09:16 When I talk to people I worked with [i |
much later[/i], they still thank me for my ideas that made it, and they tell me they have regretted not using other ideas I brought, so I must also be doing something right. M |
DivideByZero wrote on Mon, 02 January 2006 14:57 |
Yes, but the head butting thing doesn't have to be angry. I have a way of getting people excited about something, it's part of the skill set I have developed, it's one of my strong points. My attitude is probably the strongest, I bitch (a LOT) and people laugh. It's all fun! (or not..) M |
electrical wrote on Wed, 28 December 2005 21:58 |
I think it's worthwhile to make a distinction between ingenuity (or resourcefulness) and creativity. Creativity (as I see it) is making something utterly new. I don't think engineers do this (or should do this) very often. Engineers must be resourceful and ingenious, otherwise problems (sometimes unique problems) un-dealt-with will derail a session. Creative, no. I think that leads to many wasted hours and ugly impositions. |
electrical wrote on Wed, 28 December 2005 23:31 |
I think it's a choice relating to technique. Choosing whether to paint a duck or a typewriter is a creative choice, but having decided to (rather, having been assigned the task of-) painting a duck, doing it with a brush or a hot dog dipped in paint is a choice of technique. The difference is not subtle in my mind. |
J.J. Blair wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 15:52 |
Steve, your girlfriend is a film maker, right? Ask her if she thinks whether or not a photographer is an artist. |
Quote: |
I do a lot of landscape photography. Does that mean that only Nature is the artist and my decision which film to use, which depth of field to select, which lens type, etc. is merely a choice of technique and is not creative? |
Matt Drums wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 12:40 |
Many engineers or producers operate under the role of artist because they intend for their recordings to be aesthetically considered. |
electrical wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 14:49 | ||||
I don't know about Heather, but I think photographers are artists. For christmas I bought her a really nice print by Jen Davis, who I think is brilliant.
I don't see the parallel between making a photograph (creating an image) and recording someone else's music. This would only be an apt anaolgy if music existed in nature and it took my recording of it for it to be audible. Nature is beautiful, but it is not the product of a creative mind, not a piece of work (fundamentalist biblical students, forgive me in negating your beliefs this way). Music is. Your photograph is art, because you made it. The band's music is art because they made it. My recording of music is merely an avenue for their art. If you photographed a painting, you'd be closer to what I described, and you would be wrong to take credit for the painting's quality. There has actually been a school of conceptual art that does things very much like this, and in this case the art is the commentary on the perception of the role of the artist. Thought-provoking at its outset, but trivial in my mind. As an aside, I don't like the "audio photography" euphemism. I think they are distinct tasks and not particularly related. |