Post by: Colin Frangos on January 03, 2006, 10:56:04 PM
| j.hall wrote on Sun, 01 January 2006 15:40 | ||
see, i actually have. |
I asked if you'd expand on this over there, but you don't seem to have been back.
So now I'm over here.
I'm genuinely curious about this. What records and why?
Post by: j.hall on January 04, 2006, 01:19:17 PM
i'll have to look and make a list but here is what i can think of just off the top of my head.
Refused - fanning the flames of discontent
The Get Up Kids - Four Minute Mile
Hot Snakes - Automatic Midnight
Fugazi - End Hits
there are many more, i'll have to look
Post by: pg666 on January 04, 2006, 02:05:26 PM
| Quote: |
Hot Snakes - Automatic Midnight Fugazi - End Hits |
???
the refused album does sound a little cheesy and the get up kids suck ass, but geez.. if those 2 other records are unlistenable to you (2 self-produced recordings made by studio-savvy veterans in pro studios) then i don't really know what to say. i mean, everyone has little things they'd like to change on any given record but to me those 2 recordings are exactly what the bands set out to acheive (fugazi's most experimental stage and john reis' wipers obsession). i also happen to love some of the snare sounds on end hits and the guitar sounds on 'automatic midnight' are huge, but that's not even that important.
i'll say more later i'm sure (and i'm sure many others will too)
Post by: Colin Frangos on January 04, 2006, 02:53:25 PM
| j.hall wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 10:19 |
i have plenty of records on my shelf that sound so bad to my i can hardly listen to them.....or i can't listen to them at all. i'll have to look and make a list but here is what i can think of just off the top of my head. Refused - fanning the flames of discontent The Get Up Kids - Four Minute Mile Hot Snakes - Automatic Midnight Fugazi - End Hits there are many more, i'll have to look |
I'm more interested in why the natural sound doesn't work for you, and what about these albums you think compression would fix - not about them being unlistenable per se, but them being unlistenable because they're "too natural" and "too much like the real thing".
I don't know the first two well, but I know the second two. And like both a lot, not just for the music but the sound as well. I wouldn't call End Hits "natural sounding", though, so it's probably not a good test case. Let's stick to Automatic Midnight, unless you want to try to establish End Hits as being "natural sounding". Other examples are fine if there's some glaring example out there that you think makes your case, but for now let's start with Auto Midnight.
Could elaborate on what you think more compression would fix? Or what "natural" elements of the recording ruin it for you and how? I realize that might be a bit vague, but I'd appreciate your thoughts on the subject.
Thanks.
Post by: pg666 on January 04, 2006, 03:13:32 PM
Post by: j.hall on January 04, 2006, 04:04:28 PM
so here it is.
end hits, yes i love the record as well, and have it in my "hard to listen to" category for these reasons. as the songs are awesome, the band is in a great place they have never been in creatively and emotionally....the "end mix" makes it difficult to fully hear the ideas as the entire band plays them live. it sounds like a record mixed by a guitar player and alas....the liner notes reflect that.
the drums are difficult to hear on some songs to the point of "why did they even try to mix them in". to me, the brilliance of fugazi on record has been it's clarity and "DIY" type approach. well they got one of those two better then the other on end hits.
so yes, i love it as well, but no i don't think it's a great sounding record that i can sit around a passively listen to. i have to actively try to pick pieces out.
so by using some compression and a some less biased blending, you can level out the dense rock mix to have some clarity like their other records.
copy and paste all the above for my same exact opinion on Automatic Midnight with the following.
yes the guitars sound awesome when they aren't clipping. the drums are hardly there at all. and what the hell is that mush of a bass tone. it's just awful.
i'm not sure i'd call john's practice space studio "awesome". they didn't cut that record at big fish.....
ben moore is actually a friend of mine and i've heard all about the making of the hot snakes records and the rocket stuff that ben has worked on.
what is interesting is you agree about the get up kids record, and that was cut by bob weston and was meant to be "natural" sounding....but does little else but sound like a rock band not rocking. and the get up kids (not a band i like) haven't been known for a rocking problem.
another record:
Shiner - Splay
Post by: Fibes on January 04, 2006, 04:11:19 PM
Some E/Ps are looked to to create gold from crap and others are looked to to capture a well conceived concept.
In the end we all have to throw our own bunny.
Post by: j.hall on January 04, 2006, 04:18:36 PM
some people haven't gotten that yet.
Post by: Colin Frangos on January 04, 2006, 04:27:07 PM
| pg666 wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 12:13 |
fwiw.. 'end hits' does indeed have a lot of effects, but their sound guy pulls a lot of it off live, even though it's not exactly like the record.. |
There are effects on there, as there are live, but I don't think that was done in an effort to make the record sound like they do live, I think it's the other way. "Pink Frosty" and "F/D" as they are on the album (fer instance) cannot exist in a live context. They sound highly processed, and that's part of what makes them interesting. Live those songs sound nothing like that.
The original discussion was about whether someone would ever listen to a record and find it too natural sounding or too much like the band actually playing in a room.
I'm not implying it's "bad" to have effects on a record or anything silly like that. It's whether a record sounds worse because it's too "natural" and in the context of that thread, that would be a problem fixed with more compression.
And lest anyone think otherwise, I'm not here to prove j wrong or argue with him. I'm curious about his opinion. Personally, I can't think of a single record that was ruined by not being compressed enough, so his stand intrigues me. But it ain't about my opinion on the matter. I just wanna get that out there lest this start to turn into some sort of pissing contest, which seems to be happening a lot around here.
Post by: pg666 on January 04, 2006, 04:33:14 PM
) i don't like the way "pony express record" sounds at all, but i would never call it unlistenable. it's the type of mix the mastering engineer probably creamed his pants over. it's just an aesthetic i don't relate to (every note played perfectly and of the exact same timbre) and possibly don't understand. i dunno, maybe they were after a slayer bass drum sound from day 1...fugazi's drums have always sounded a bit 'thin'. i think that's just part of the sound and i just kind of accept it as inseparable. it's part of what makes them 'them'. {edit to expand on thought} i also know fugazi is heavily influenced by a lot of james brown and RnB where the drums are a lot thinner than your audioslaves or whatever. the point is to differentiate valid artistic choices from amateurish production. i like my preconceptions challenged.
'automatic midnight' would make a lot more sense to you sonically if you'd listen to the Wipers' 'over the edge'. it's a loving homage.
(i listen to these 2 records on vinyl if that makes any difference..)
i basically agree with you about 'splay', although no amount of production would have made Al sing on key.. or was antares around back then? i'd still rather listen to that record than 'the egg' though.. {another edit: Allan is a great singer now, just not back then..}
Post by: Colin Frangos on January 04, 2006, 04:49:36 PM
| j.hall wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 13:04 |
end hits, yes i love the record as well, and have it in my "hard to listen to" category for these reasons. as the songs are awesome, the band is in a great place they have never been in creatively and emotionally....the "end mix" makes it difficult to fully hear the ideas as the entire band plays them live. it sounds like a record mixed by a guitar player and alas....the liner notes reflect that. |
To me, that seems like the real issue - the mix, not so much the compression. If the mix is bad, no amount of compression is going to save it.
| Quote: |
the drums are difficult to hear on some songs to the point of "why did they even try to mix them in". to me, the brilliance of fugazi on record has been it's clarity and "DIY" type approach. well they got one of those two better then the other on end hits. |
| Quote: |
so by using some compression and a some less biased blending, you can level out the dense rock mix to have some clarity like their other records. |
I think we agree that this isn't a great example: your problems with it are the mix, not the naturalness of the sound.
| Quote: |
copy and paste all the above for my same exact opinion on Automatic Midnight with the following. yes the guitars sound awesome when they aren't clipping. the drums are hardly there at all. and what the hell is that mush of a bass tone. it's just awful. |
Again, this seems like a mix issue to me.
| Quote: |
what is interesting is you agree about the get up kids record, and that was cut by bob weston and was meant to be "natural" sounding....but does little else but sound like a rock band not rocking. and the get up kids (not a band i like) haven't been known for a rocking problem. |
I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you about that record, I just don't know it and haven't listened to it more than once. If you think it's a good example of an album which could've been saved by compression, I might even bother to pick it up and listen to it. But eeewww. Matter of fact, I'll go out and buy a copy if you think it illustrates perfectly an album that is ruined by it's natural-sounding recording, and could be saved by judicious compression.
| Quote: |
another record: Shiner - Splay |
Another record I haven't heard in forever and don't own. But if you think that's a better example I'd much rather track that down than Get Up Kids.
Post by: pg666 on January 04, 2006, 04:52:45 PM
| Quote: |
To me, that seems like the real issue - the mix, not so much the compression. If the mix is bad, no amount of compression is going to save it. |
this is a good point. i also think there's a big difference between "bad tones, poor recording decisions, etc." and "lack of production"..
Post by: Colin Frangos on January 04, 2006, 04:54:12 PM
| Fibes wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 13:11 |
This whole thing is getting a bit funny to me. it has made all of us look at our philosophical approach to this but really it boils down to what works for you and your clients. Some E/Ps are looked to to create gold from crap and others are looked to to capture a well conceived concept. In the end we all have to throw our own bunny. |
Yeah, that's a really uninteresting debate, and I don't really care about it personally.
I'm not here because I have a position to argue or even much of anything to share, I'm here because I'm trying to learn some things.
Post by: starscream2010 on January 04, 2006, 05:21:29 PM
| j.hall wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 15:04 |
another record: Shiner - Splay |
I love the songs on that record, but, every time I pull it out for a listen,I remember why I don't listen to it more often
It's mainly the drum and bass sounds but, I guess that, I've always just chalked up the production to it being recorded quickly or something along those lines... I mean I hoped that's what it was.
Post by: pg666 on January 04, 2006, 05:55:38 PM
..and just 'cuz they (and the get up kids too) were trying for 'natural' doesn't mean they actually acheived it...
Post by: j.hall on January 04, 2006, 05:57:12 PM
ok guys, simmer a bit. no one is going to turn my forum into a flame fest. this has always been the spot to come speak your mind and be respected for the ability to have and form opinions.
Colin, i agree that my examples are weak and better blending would have saved those records from being on my list.......
let's move this issue from "black and white" to more shades of grey. steve's whole thing is to be hands off. the compression issue just scratches the surface. let's broaden the scope to something i was really trying to get at in his forum.
EQ, compression, effects.....these are all tools and paint brushes like Ross has said.
i've heard countless records that are claiming "natural" sound that just plain sound bad because the AE thought he/she needed to NOT use any EQ, compression, effects in order to fulfill some dogma.
the records i've listed, and will list are of course my opinion, of records that suffer from this problem.
so let's strike end hits and automatic midnight and call them amateur attempts, which is exactly what they are.
Colin, pick up shiner splay if you want to really dig into a record.
please wait till tomorrow so i can look through my CDs and records and list more so we might find one you have.
Brian, it's funny about Al.....he's a classically trained singer since birth. his father is PhD in vocal performance and local liberal arts college. Al can sing circles around just about anybody. he hits harmony with little effort, and doesn't even rehearse them. the guy is seriously unbelievable vocally. very talented! Splay is just weird. i always thought that Al was trying to be "bad" so the scene would think he was good.....i'm sure you know what i mean.
pony express record is slick. personally i love it. i saw shudder on that tour and they sounded very similar actually. so one could easily say that andy wallaces tightly compressed, effected and EQ's version of shudder to think was a natural representation of them...........
you guys can kick me in the teeth as hard as you want.....lets discuss this topic....rip it up, rip me up, whatever.
i think guys that sit down in recording studios with "rules of engagement" are doing their clients and themselves a great disservice. i strive to make my clients happy, but i also strive to make records that i think sound good. why would i do something i think sucks? that makes no sense.
recording studios, rock bands, compressors, effects, EQ, amps....these things DO NOT exist in nature. you don't hike through the woods and stumble onto Ocean Way with Fleetwood Mac rocking out.
Natural is not a word i ever use in recording because it doesn't exist. we make records in buildings, with electricity with gear. everything about the process is manhandled to one extreme or another.
i just fail to understand why people seemingly strive for mediocrity, and some times utter crap.
i understand that the above statement is relative to taste, style and skill set.
so.........let's have it.
Post by: j.hall on January 04, 2006, 05:59:15 PM
but his sense of humor goes unnoticed at times while the man has put me on the floor laughing while starting flame wars......
he also adds interesting perspective that few around here have been able to deliver.
like i said, i'm not defending him, just helping to speed up your "interface" to his posting.
Post by: pg666 on January 04, 2006, 06:34:48 PM
| Quote: |
so let's strike end hits and automatic midnight and call them amateur attempts, which is exactly what they are. |
..which leads to the whole reason i posted in the first place. i think it's crucial to differentiate what i (and you/and everyone) personally don't have a taste for and what artists rationally conceive. i'm not saying you have to love 'guitar-centric' records or anything, i'm just saying you should be open to idea that it was deliberate and maybe even suggest that it enhances qualities you aren't noticing. MBV's 'loveless' had that effect on me. i would NEVER want drums to sound like that on any record i'm a part of. on the other hand, i eventually realized that euphoria-enducing guitar sound wouldn't be possible if the 'drums' didn't sound so small. i feel the same way about that hot snakes record; the guitars are shoved down my throat due to the way the other stuff was mixed.. and i have a feeling it was intentional. a more 'proper' mix would have taken that away from me.
i guess what i'm saying is what can immediately strike one as 'bad' can turn around and be 'great' in another way. that's what art can do to you
p.s. sorry to Colin for completely derailing this thread
Post by: Colin Frangos on January 04, 2006, 06:42:21 PM
| j.hall wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 14:57 |
Colin and Brian........... ok guys, simmer a bit. no one is going to turn my forum into a flame fest. this has always been the spot to come speak your mind and be respected for the ability to have and form opinions. |
I don't think anyone's flamed anyone. Or even disagreed, particularly.
| Quote: |
let's move this issue from "black and white" to more shades of grey. steve's whole thing is to be hands off. the compression issue just scratches the surface. let's broaden the scope to something i was really trying to get at in his forum. |
Well... If you want to that's fine. But I'm really only asking about that initial suggestion you made, not the whole debate of whether compression and eq are legitimate tools. They are legitimate tools. They are also tools that can be abused to bad ends. Anyone who won't use them for some doctrinaire reason is an idiot. Steve uses them, he tries not to do what he percieves as over using them. You do, too. Your definitions of over-use are different. Fine. I think I have a pretty good understanding of both of your views of assorted tools, and I'm grateful for both.
| Quote: |
Colin, pick up shiner splay if you want to really dig into a record. |
I spent a lot of time hanging out at the Empty Bottle way back when, and saw them a bunch of times when they were coming up. Good band. I only remember that record as being a disappointing example of what they do. If you think that's a good example I'll find a copy. I might regardless.
| Quote: |
please wait till tomorrow so i can look through my CDs and records and list more so we might find one you have. |
Sounds good. I'm looking forward to it.
| Quote: |
Natural is not a word i ever use in recording because it doesn't exist. we make records in buildings, with electricity with gear. everything about the process is manhandled to one extreme or another. |
First up, I don't think that when the word natural is used in this context it's ment as "out in nature". It usually is used as short-hand for a recording that attempts to simulate a real setting in which a band would be heard. It doesn't mean an unoptimized environment, just a realistic one. Yes, of course, stereo is an illusion and you'd never really hear a band the same way as you would in a stereo field. It's impossible to perfectly recreate a band with just 2 speakers. Nobobdy's arguing about that.
This all makes me think that maybe you misspoke over on Steve's forum, or misinterpreted what you replied to.
Steve said:
| Quote: |
Have you ever listened to a record and thought, gee, this sounds too natural? Too much like the real thing? |
To which you said:
| Quote: |
see, i actually have. |
I don't really care about your opinion in relation to Steve's, or about some grander issue of The Right Way To Record (tm). I also don't really care about the definition of "natural". Assuming you didn't misspeak, I'd like to hear some examples of what you're talking about so that I can understand where you're coming from. That's it.
And if you did misspeak, that's fine, too.
[edited twice for stupidity]
Post by: Colin Frangos on January 04, 2006, 06:48:35 PM
| j.hall wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 14:59 |
BTW, take it easy on fibes (not that he needs defending) but his sense of humor goes unnoticed at times while the man has put me on the floor laughing while starting flame wars...... he also adds interesting perspective that few around here have been able to deliver. like i said, i'm not defending him, just helping to speed up your "interface" to his posting. |
Seems like a nice guy to me. I agree with everything he's said - in this thread, anyway. BUT MAN IF HE CROSSES ME OVER IN FLETCHER'S FORUM I WILL GUT HIM LIKE A TROUT!
As you were.
Post by: j.hall on January 05, 2006, 01:04:54 AM
i actually think the get up kids record i mentioned and the shiner record are perfect examples.
sure, they sound "natural" and rock band playing in a room. however, i think the "natural" representation of these records (that bob weston engineered) do the band a great disservice. both bands are varying degrees of thick rock. something that has been defined for a very long time and a full spectrum, in your face, guitar driven sonic ear candy experience.
i have yet to work with a rock band that said, "hey, recall that mix, we want less bass, thinner guitars, mixed back drums, and generally more room mics/verb on the whole mix so we can sound thin and non-confrontational or even remotely exciting"
rock n roll is supposed to kick you in the teeth, and i know for a fact that both of these bands 9both hailing for this town, and both of which i know members of) wanted to do exactly that.....kick you in the teeth with their brand of rock.....
shiner's follow up album was not very compressed (compared to current production and some of their own subsequent records) and it was vastly different for the weak, wimpy splay. a heftier version of the band came out and i'd call the second record "natural" to what shiner was and was trying to be.
so splay may sound natural to one specific person's view of what "natural" is for that particular band.
so when i say, compression is the sound of rock n roll. that doesn't mean you just go around and abuse it, then tell your clients, "j.hall says this is the thing to do"
led zep has made some of the most talked about and most celebrated records in rock n roll history. and those records are compressed.
compression, when used musically and appropriately affords you the chance to get things up front, in your face and aggressive. rock bands want that. they want their music to explode and make people raise their fist in the air and shout, "hell yeah this ROCKSSSSSSSSSSS"
so yes, i believe there are records out there that sound to natural as it relates to the style and goals of the music. i believe there are records out there that the band had dreams of it sounding huge like an andy wallace mix but simply didn't know how to express that, or that they were even allowed to express that. and sadly tey were stuck in a room with a guy how's dogma about recording reserved him to thinking his only role was to capture this band in a room, and wait for them to direct him on his every move from there on out. here-in lies what i consider a great idsservice to one band's dream, creativity, and art.
another great example. (and this is a testament to an engineer honing his craft)
jimmy eat world - static prevails (cut by mark trombino)
sounds like crap to me.
jimmy eat world - clarity (cut by mark trombino)
only a few years later then static prevails mark trombino has honed his craft and presents a beautiful record. brilliantly compressed, IMO. full of vibe, full of charm....that record is amazing. it's tender, yete rocking, just like the songs.
jimmy eat world - bleed american (cut by mark trombino)
this is kick you in the teeth rock n roll
the band is presenting a much harder edge and mark just slam dunks the mixes. are they compressed? practically crushed......and it just explodes out of the speakers and makes you smile and think "now this is rock n roll"
Low - Trust.....to me that sounds natural. sounds like a slow-core band playing in a 150 year old catholic cathedral.....guess what, that's exactly what it is. steve obviously disagrees, but i think this is one of the most gorgeous sounding records i've ever heard. tchad blake is easily one of the best mixers i've heard. he's spent his life time honig his craft. NO ONE can mock his style. he is truly unique. many people try to get low-end like tchad's and fail. many people try to do "his thing" and can't. bands seak him out to get that. they want it and honestly, it's awesome.
Post by: j.hall on January 05, 2006, 01:14:54 AM
| pg666 wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 17:34 |
i'm just saying you should be open to idea that it was deliberate and maybe even suggest that it enhances qualities you aren't noticing. |
i'll give you automatic midnight....that could be deliberate as john always make very guitar heavy records. however, keep in mind that suicide invoice and audit in progress are just as guitar heavy and still have tight drums and decent bass and those records were cut and mixed by ben moore.
honestly man, i've been doing this a long time, and it might sound arrogant, but there is a difference between deliberate and straight up amateur. to me, the fugazi record sounds amateur. it sounds like they just kept pushing the faders up. "oh now i can't hear the bass, more bass......oh now i can't hear the vocals, more vocals......oh now i can't hear the................."
skilled trained chefs can taste food and tell you what's in it, if it was prepared well, if it's any good. i don't see myself any different then that. sure, i can be fooled, i'm not some robot.....but for the most part, i can pick out an amateur attempt from a deliberate one. and i say both of those records are amateur.
i've done records when i first started that sound 10 times worse then both of those. i've also cut records that sound 10 times better....yeah, i said it!!!!!!!!!
sure, i love both those bands very much, and both of those records. but that doesn't make them easy to listen to
if you have ever seen hot snakes live you'd agree with me that the band sounds like suicide invoice and audit in progress.....they really do sound like that live.
so i guess ben's compressed version of them is.....oh dare i say it.......natural
Post by: pg666 on January 05, 2006, 09:27:15 AM
i basically agree with your points about shiner and the get up kids. to me it sounds like they were both going for 'raw and gritty' more than 'natural', which was probably not in good taste. whichever the case, bob weston's same 'approach' has yielded great results (to me) on records by Shipping News, Mission of Burma, June of 44, Rachel's, New Brutalism, etc.. so i wouldn't just dismiss it and start squashing/heavily EQing things by default. i wouldn't let the sound of '4 minute mile' (mostly the fault of tguk) sour an approach that can work for many (but certainly not all) records.
Post by: Fibes on January 05, 2006, 10:06:35 AM
| Colin Frangos wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 18:48 | ||
Seems like a nice guy to me. I agree with everything he's said - in this thread, anyway. BUT MAN IF HE CROSSES ME OVER IN FLETCHER'S FORUM I WILL GUT HIM LIKE A TROUT! As you were. |
As a former Bard student you sould know not to bring a fillet knife to a gun fight.
In case you were wondering Rusty James is my little brother.
eh heh.
It's not as black and white as one might suggest in todays music climate but in a lot of respects the stuff that merely needs to be invisibly captured tends lean closer to art than commerce.
First and foremost--"Do no harm."
Post by: j.hall on January 05, 2006, 10:15:32 AM
| pg666 wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 08:27 |
it was just initially odd seeing that record listed as 'unlistenable' with all the utter shit out there to pick from) but oh well. |
i never said it was unlistenable......what i said was, and i'll quote myself:
....sound so bad to me i can hardly listen to them.....or i can't listen to them at all.
so, that doesn't mean either records are "unlistenable", it means i have hard time listening to some of the records i listed, and others are down right unlistenable........i never itemized it.
| Quote: |
to me it sounds like they were both going for 'raw and gritty' more than 'natural', which was probably not in good taste. |
to me it sounds like they chose the wrong guy to cut a record with.
| Quote: |
whichever the case, bob weston's same 'approach' has yielded great results (to me) on records by Shipping News, Mission of Burma, June of 44, Rachel's, New Brutalism, etc.. |
i won't argue with that. i never said bob sucks, or should never cut another record again......i just think on these two examples bob actually did the bands a disservice
| Quote: |
so i wouldn't just dismiss it and start squashing/heavily EQing things by default. |
i've never promoted that in this thread, nor anywhere else.
| Quote: |
i wouldn't let the sound of '4 minute mile' (mostly the fault of tguk) sour an approach that can work for many (but certainly not all) records. |
i could not disagree more with you saying GUK is responsible for the sound of that record. i think that's a gross over sight. trust me, i shared a practice space with them, i know how dissapointed and heart broken they were.
the interesting thing to me brian is your own personal example i have yet to bring up till now. we've spoken on the phone about the RRoT EP that you are unhappy about. that was recorded "natural" at electrical audio by greg norman. the two thing i remember most are you saying something to the affect of:
"the guitar amp in the room sounded great, just like i wanted, but the tones put to tape are totally different"
and
"now that i've been through the process at electrical i knew what to expect and that i needed to be much more hands on when i cut the full length"
so you yourself have experienced the exact same dissapointment. and i highly doubt you'd put 100% of that blame on yourself. so it's really not fair to do it to the get up kids, if you like them or not.
Post by: pg666 on January 05, 2006, 10:37:00 AM
| Quote: |
so you yourself have experienced the exact same dissapointment. and i highly doubt you'd put 100% of that blame on yourself. |
i actually do. it's no ones fault but mine for not being more honest with myself about the kind of production that i thought made me look 'cool' and what i actually wanted. i'm remixing a few songs this weekend actually!
but back to the get up kids, my 'faulting them' was more due to me not liking their songwriting and thinking their playing was really sloppy. should they record with someone who can tighten them up a bunch? absolutely! cuz the 'truth' isn't pretty..
i don't think anyone would argue that bands shouldn't get exactly what they want in the studio. my only point to posting initially was that if a band actually acheives that it should be respected (at least on some level) and not "it would be good if it fit my definition of good and had the amount of compression and EQ as i see fit". anyway, i'm not gonna beat this into the ground anymore.
Post by: j.hall on January 05, 2006, 11:15:55 AM
can't wait to hear the RRoT re-mixes.
Post by: Colin Frangos on January 05, 2006, 12:57:44 PM
| Fibes wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 07:06 |
As a former Bard student |
Who sent you? WHO SENT YOU?!?!?
Post by: j.hall on January 05, 2006, 01:06:42 PM
| Colin Frangos wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 11:57 |
Who sent you? WHO SENT YOU?!?!? |
the syndicate surrounds you, and watches you.
you can not escape the syndicate.
the syndicate has you!
Post by: Fibes on January 05, 2006, 01:43:04 PM
Post by: Colin Frangos on January 05, 2006, 01:53:57 PM
| "Fibes" (if that is your real name) wrote on Thu, 05 January 2006 10:43 |
The dog is turning grey. |
This is some kind of NSA code, isn't it?
Post by: j.hall on January 05, 2006, 04:58:32 PM
Post by: mcsnare on January 11, 2006, 08:25:32 PM
I couldn't agree with you more om all the points you have made. You've saved me lot's of time typing.
I'll add one more thing: I think S.A. does have a style whether he admits it or not, and that is very much like a documentary film maker. That's not a bad thing in my book. I love a good documentary. I also like to see stuff like King Cong.
Dave McNair
Post by: pg666 on January 12, 2006, 10:00:57 AM
| Quote: |
I think S.A. does have a style whether he admits it or not, and that is very much like a documentary film maker |
i can see this for a lot of those records, but i've also heard Albini recordings with some pretty outrageous effects and overdubs going on too. hardly 'mere documents'.
basically, i think people hear 'surfer rosa' and 'in utero' and conclude that's 'his sound'. that's probably happened to all of you too (and it's definitely happened to me.. on a musician level at least). i like to assume most people are more complex than that...
Post by: scott volthause on January 12, 2006, 02:02:49 PM
I like to see bands in smaller clubs.
The dude at FOH is practically deaf. The kick pounds you in the chest, the bass rumbles under your feet. The guitars rip your head off.
This is the "natural" sound of rock and roll to me.
Post by: pg666 on January 12, 2006, 02:32:37 PM
the 'live' sound you hear at a club and the raw sounds that actually come out of people's instruments are two very different things.
i'm more interested in the latter, personally.
Post by: xonlocust on January 12, 2006, 02:36:17 PM
| scott volthause wrote on Thu, 12 January 2006 13:02 |
This whole idea of a rock band sounding "natural", e.g. "a band in a room" is really a load of crock, no? |
well, no more so than your definition of it. what if the context is seeing house shows or other super small venues with nothing but the vocals going through a PA?
your taste may be informed by the "small clubs" vs "arena size" - and there's yet another level smaller than that. to each his own totally - everyone has thier own idea of what sounds badass.
| Quote: |
The dude at FOH is practically deaf. The kick pounds you in the chest, the bass rumbles under your feet. The guitars rip your head off. This is the "natural" sound of rock and roll to me. |
i'm just messing with you here - so, you like your records to sound like they were made by a deaf guy?
Post by: scott volthause on January 12, 2006, 02:46:37 PM
| xonlocust wrote on Thu, 12 January 2006 14:36 |
well, no more so than your definition of it. what if the context is seeing house shows or other super small venues with nothing but the vocals going through a PA? |
Using this argument, then, one would never need more than a band, a PA for the singer, and a binaural recording system to capture that. As soon as you start close micing instruments to achieve this goal, you've completely broken down the paradigm of "band in a room."
| Quote: |
i'm just messing with you here - so, you like your records to sound like they were made by a deaf guy? |
I've heard quite a few good sounding shows mixed by a guy who literally can't hear much of anything anymore. Would he make a good record? Probably not.
(edited for spelling)
Post by: pg666 on January 12, 2006, 03:06:30 PM
| Quote: |
Using this arguement, then, one would never need more than a band, a PA for the singer, and a binaural recording system to capture that. As soon as you start close micing instruments to acchive this goal, you've completely broken down the paradigm of "band in a room." |
[to anyone] raise your hand if this type of purist recording has genuinely made you feel like you were there in the room?
*crickets chirping*
there's more to live sound than what goes in your ears. the sound vibrates through your bones. your ears are probably reaching their maximum spl capabilities. you are able to make sense of individual sounds simply because you can actually see the people making them.
this is why i don't think multi-mic'ing/multi-tracking/etc is automatically abandoning reality. to me, they help you get closer (if that's what you want)
Post by: scott volthause on January 12, 2006, 03:52:47 PM
Post by: j.hall on January 12, 2006, 04:11:03 PM
Post by: pg666 on January 12, 2006, 04:13:55 PM
[edited for stupidity]
Post by: NelsonL on January 12, 2006, 04:53:01 PM
| scott volthause wrote on Thu, 12 January 2006 11:46 |
I've heard quite a few good sounding shows mixed by a guy who literally can't hear much of anything anymore. |
Make sure to let him know!
Heh.
Post by: syncopation on January 12, 2006, 07:25:49 PM
| j.hall wrote on Wed, 04 January 2006 22:04 |
jimmy eat world - static prevails (cut by mark trombino) sounds like crap to me. jimmy eat world - clarity (cut by mark trombino) only a few years later then static prevails mark trombino has honed his craft and presents a beautiful record. brilliantly compressed, IMO. full of vibe, full of charm....that record is amazing. it's tender, yete rocking, just like the songs. jimmy eat world - bleed american (cut by mark trombino) this is kick you in the teeth rock n roll the band is presenting a much harder edge and mark just slam dunks the mixes. are they compressed? practically crushed......and it just explodes out of the speakers and makes you smile and think "now this is rock n roll" |
Wow, you went the absolute opposite direction I would have taken. Yes, Mark's mixes get slicker each time, but I think it took something away. Ditto for getupkids. Yes, its more rock 'n roll, but some of the rawness, the real edge, is gone. Good for them, now they have radio play. Is it due to compression? Maybe to some extent. Its almost as if Tom L-A mixed the last one. I'm sure they got what they were looking for on bleed american. It's done real well for them.
J.-Do you feel the same way about Braid? I mean unlistenable.
-Brian
Post by: j.hall on January 13, 2006, 11:00:49 AM
that braid album is pretty rough, but it isn't unlistenable.
j.robbins has come a long way since he cut the frame and canvass. have you heard anything he has done recently?
you can like raw uncompressed records all you want, i'm not trying to convince people that comrpessed rock n roll is for every body.
i will tell you this......comrpessed rock n roll is here to stay. i haven't cut a record in 2 years that the band asked for less compression. i'm fairly light on it as it is, and they are always asking for more.....louder, more aggressive, in your face. honestly, you can't deliver what they want without compression, you just can't do it.....i've tried.
Post by: pg666 on January 13, 2006, 11:44:24 AM
| Quote: |
j.robbins has come a long way since he cut the frame and canvass. have you heard anything he has done recently? |
i LOVED the recordings he was doing in the late 90s personally (d-plan 'emergency and i', first BA record, bluetip 'polymer', jets to brazil 'orange rhyming dictionary', etc). the stuff he's done recently just reeks of pro tools to me; just tepid and 'overproduced'.. but no sense in arguing preference.
i agree that compression is here to stay and sympathize with engineers who are persistently asked for more, more, more. i know when i use it i'm very careful to compare the before and after effects (AND COMPENSATING FOR BEFORE/AFTER VOLUME, very important). what's interesting is when i've asked people you think would be compression hungry (metalheads, rockers, bassists) a lot of the time they prefer it without compression after carefully showing them what's actually happening to their signal.
i don't think it's wrong to assume the biggest squashers out there are probably not asking musicians what they think, at least in a way that's fair. "look, it made it louder!!"..
Post by: j.hall on January 13, 2006, 11:55:30 AM
it's easy to hide behind a statement like, "i merely serve the band". but in reality, i think we all serve our clients as best we can. it's simply good business to make the people who pay the bill happy.
so in many cases, the guys we all name and drag through the mud are working for record labels. sure they might default to using loads of compression, but then again, i'd like to think they understand what the client is going to want and they are merely saving themselves the time of doing a lot of recalls.
you can't keep clients by pissing them off.
Post by: pg666 on January 13, 2006, 01:20:30 PM
| Quote: |
it's easy to hide behind a statement like, "i merely serve the band". but in reality, i think we all serve our clients as best we can. it's simply good business to make the people who pay the bill happy. |
at the end of the day, it's the band that pays for it, indie or major.
*morphing into steve albini as i sign off*
brian
Post by: syncopation on January 13, 2006, 01:39:49 PM
| j.hall wrote on Fri, 13 January 2006 08:00 |
j.robbins has come a long way since he cut the frame and canvass. have you heard anything he has done recently? you can like raw uncompressed records all you want, i'm not trying to convince people that comrpessed rock n roll is for every body. i will tell you this......comrpessed rock n roll is here to stay. i haven't cut a record in 2 years that the band asked for less compression. i'm fairly light on it as it is, and they are always asking for more.....louder, more aggressive, in your face. honestly, you can't deliver what they want without compression, you just can't do it.....i've tried. |
The last j.robbins stuff I got was the jets to brazil, which I loved. Would you recommend any of his newer stuff as a good/bad?
I guess my point is that sometimes compression can be overused and kill the unique sound of a band, or the environment that the record is created in. I guess we are in a period of creating singles and striving to be louder (can you make it louder?) than our contemporaries. Do we really need everything on the radio to sound like Blink182? Sure it's here to stay. Bands want that sound, label want that sound. It's the sound of success to some.
~Brian
Post by: j.hall on January 13, 2006, 05:23:44 PM
i'm actually pretty "easy on the compression" compared to some.
j.robbins has recently done
Mock Orange
Clutch
The Life and Times
Nakotomi Plaza
Drop Sonic
Maritime
Post by: pg666 on January 13, 2006, 05:45:58 PM
| Quote: |
i'm not saying you just crush everything and walk away with your money. i'm actually pretty "easy on the compression" compared to some. |
oh, i know. my post was channeled towards the 'big name' smashers and their A&R chimps.
[edit: just realized that probably wasn't a response to me]
other recent examples of J. Robbins' work (more on the smashee-smashee side):
-pilot to gunner
-murder by death
-actionslacks
Post by: Ryan A. Mills on January 14, 2006, 10:38:55 AM
Post by: spankenstein on January 17, 2006, 01:01:54 AM
| j.hall wrote on Fri, 13 January 2006 16:23 |
Mock Orange |
"Mind is Not Brain" is a great album. It's slick and interesting. As far as natural, other than the effects that are impossible in shitty little clubs it sounds like them. A best case rendering of a band performing.