Post by: copperx on February 28, 2006, 01:00:06 AM
Most of the questions I had were answered on the "documentary recording vs. band self-skewed image" thread, I just have one more question:
Where does the band judgement of "good" stops and becomes the engineer judgment?
For example, if I'm recording and feel like the bass guitar fluctuates a bit, I may apply compression. Do you ask the band, "hey, does it sound better now"?
How about a reverb level on the vocal? Should the band be "allowed" say in such matters? not because of artistic considerations, but because you may have a better ear for that.
I once worked with a band and they wanted a LOT of reverb on a vocal, effectively swamping it in mud. I just said, "I think it's a LOT for your style, but what do you think?" They said it was OK. Some days later they came (after they had their CD) and said that the reverb was way way too much. Probably they didn't know my monitors?
What I'm trying to say is that the band doesn't know how your room sounds. How your monitoring system sounds. So Steve, where do the band decisions stop counting?
You know, I once played back a drum recording to a band with overheads obviously and severely out of phase, and asked their opinion. What did they say? "It sounds great!".
Ok, I understand that as an engineer I should take care 100% of the technical details, such as mic phase.
But what about something that is on the technical/artistic border, such as compression and effect levels? is it the band's call or my call?
Post by: maxim on February 28, 2006, 02:38:43 AM
Post by: copperx on February 28, 2006, 03:51:16 AM
| maxim wrote on Tue, 28 February 2006 07:38 |
too many cooks... |
Are you saying it's 100% the band's call?
I really like Steve's philosophy, and I would want to put it in practice. But where do you draw a line? it's easier to see it when tracking, but when mixing it gets a little hairier I think.
Post by: electrical on February 28, 2006, 05:21:12 AM
| copperx wrote on Tue, 28 February 2006 01:00 |
For example, if I'm recording and feel like the bass guitar fluctuates a bit, I may apply compression. Do you ask the band, "hey, does it sound better now"? |
First, I would explain my concern to the band, and if necessary, show them the difference between the compressed sound and the straight sound. If they preferred one or the other, we would do what they preferred.
| Quote: |
How about a reverb level on the vocal? Should the band be "allowed" say in such matters? not because of artistic considerations, but because you may have a better ear for that. |
There wouldn't be reverb on the vocal unless the band wanted it. Given that, if they want more, they get more. If they decide against it later, then they get to have less. It's their record.
| Quote: |
I once worked with a band and they wanted a LOT of reverb on a vocal, effectively swamping it in mud. I just said, "I think it's a LOT for your style, but what do you think?" They said it was OK. Some days later they came (after they had their CD) and said that the reverb was way way too much. Probably they didn't know my monitors? |
They just made a mistake. If they had heard it later and loved it, it wouldn't have been a mistake. I don't have the predictive wisdom to tell what someone will think in the future, and I think the best course of action is to let someone make the record he wants while it's being made. Nobody will know if the decisions are all long-term durable until a long time passes. Don't pretend to be able to see into the future.
| Quote: |
What I'm trying to say is that the band doesn't know how your room sounds. How your monitoring system sounds. So Steve, where do the band decisions stop counting? |
The band's decisions always count. Always. Your uncertainty comes from the presumption that there is something the band shouldn't be allowed to decide, and you're trying to find out where to draw that line. I say don't draw it. Let them have exactly what they want, to the best of your ability.
| Quote: |
You know, I once played back a drum recording to a band with overheads obviously and severely out of phase, and asked their opinion. What did they say? "It sounds great!". |
You're not supposed to try to trick the band with esoterica. Don't do things you think are fundamentally wrong just to see if they'll notice.
| Quote: |
But what about something that is on the technical/artistic border, such as compression and effect levels? is it the band's call or my call? |
If there is a choice to be made, let the band make the choice. I can't make it any more simple. Much of the time you can proceed normally, but when you come to a fork in the road, you have to let the band make the call. If the band wants something, give it to them. If they don't like something, don't do it. If they prefer one thing over another, give them the thing they prefer.
Post by: copperx on February 28, 2006, 07:14:23 AM
Thank you Steve, much appreciated.
You know, I had been thinking a lot about what's what the artist wants vs what's what I want, as an engineer before I read/heard about your approach to engineering. I loved the idea of audiophile recording, where you just set a couple of mikes and let the orchestra do its thing. But then there was this question of making records sound like "records", like the stuff on the radio. Made my head hurt trying to take a stance on the matter. Your approach really seals the mental fissure that I had ... the craving for that "documental", a snapshot of a band's evolution.
Thinking about it, much of what most engineers do is to impart a sonic imprint of their preconceived notions of "what is right" to the artist's work. Slipperman says recording engineers are "secondary sound transduction ARTISTS". Artists? I don't know ... behaving like an "artist" when engineering someone else's work is, I think, the sign of a failed musician converted into an engineer. Of course, I've done it, and it feels GREAT to twist someone's else work to fit your notion of "good sound" or "good engineering". But then you begin to doubt: "hmm that record I did two years ago sounds dated, that distorted vocal sound was my choice, not the band's, perhaps I should leave it clean the next time ..." I would feel better saying "hmm that distorted vocal sounds dated, but that's what the band thought was good for them at the time." It becomes a piece of history. I get it. I would feel much better.
One last question, and perhaps you don't face this frequently at your shop, but what would you do if a band comes, brings a CD of of a a hypercompressed record and tells you: "we want to sound like that". I'm guessing that you'll do it? We're not trying to force "documental"-style records to everybody anyways, are we?
Post by: CRonan on February 28, 2006, 11:55:01 AM
Post by: electrical on February 28, 2006, 02:34:18 PM
| copperx wrote on Tue, 28 February 2006 07:14 |
what would you do if a band comes, brings a CD of of a a hypercompressed record and tells you: "we want to sound like that". |
That simple sentence, "we want to sound like that," is actually the beginning of a conversation you should have with the band. What do they like about it, specifically? Is it the balance of the band, is it certain instrument sounds, what? I have had this conversation many times, and nobody ever says "I like the way it sounds hypercompressed."
Find out what they really like about it, and try to get those elements to meet their approval. Don't get hung-up on the engineering aspect of it: "This record sounds compressed, so they must like compression." Get to the root of their appreciation of a certain recording rather than trying to mimic it.
Post by: Slipperman on February 28, 2006, 04:56:11 PM
| copperx wrote on Tue, 28 February 2006 07:14 |
Thinking about it, much of what most engineers do is to impart a sonic imprint of their preconceived notions of "what is right" to the artist's work. Slipperman says recording engineers are "secondary sound transduction ARTISTS". Artists? I don't know ... behaving like an "artist" when engineering someone else's work is, I think, the sign of a failed musician converted into an engineer. Of course, I've done it, and it feels GREAT to twist someone's else work to fit your notion of "good sound" or "good engineering". But then you begin to doubt: "hmm that record I did two years ago sounds dated, that distorted vocal sound was my choice, not the band's, perhaps I should leave it clean the next time ..." I would feel better saying "hmm that distorted vocal sounds dated, but that's what the band thought was good for them at the time." It becomes a piece of history. I get it. I would feel much better. |
Well.... As long as I'm getting quoted for my cockamamie theories... I'll say this...
Do what ya think is conscionable.
If you are not comfortable putting your idea of how things should sound on a clients mixes.
Don't do it.
Steve's viewpoint represents the exact polar opposite of mine on this subject.
And I understand and respect it wholeheartedly.
It works for him and his clients.
End of story.
Me.... on the other hand...
I feel I'm every bit as much as an "artist" as any of the loomers who bash and bang away on their shit and expect me to make it come out of little boxes with cones in 'em with some degree of uniformity and lucidity.
And just as a side note: Not fer nuthing... I sure as fuck ain't a "failed musician". Last gig I played was in front of 5,000 or so kids in North Germany who knew Every fucking word of the songs we were playing.
It was 2000. I was 38. A quarter century of conjuring the devil behind the skins. HOHOHO. Ignorance is indeed bliss.
Anyhoo.
Nope. I was the kid who stole the 1/4" Wollensak(still got it) from the school AV room in 5th grade to record anything and everything that moved or made a noise. In my late 20's I decided it was time to let my 'career' as a musician STOP INTERFERING with my first love.
Twisting knobs.
And twist I fucking will.
Twist until they love it.
And refuse to use anybody else...
Twist until they hate it.
And would rather endure a hot lead enema than listen to another of my mix abominations.
Twist until they go.... "meh"... and go find somebody more exciting...
Whatever.
Eventually we all choose our clientelle thru the way we hear.
Even Steve Albini.
It's unavoidable.
In the end:
I CAME TO MAKE A JOYOUS NOISE.
Not to sit on my fucking hands while somebody else does...
And just because I sit behind an audio desk and not a drumkit these days.... I gotta be a fucking "RECORDIST"?
My balls.
That works for Steve...... but it SUCKS for me.
I'll be fucking shit up until they kill me or run me outta the business.
Anybody who doesn't dig it is encouraged to go elsewhere with the absolute best of both my regards, and wishes.
There's room for all of us out here.
Best to all,
SM.
Post by: Harry Mooseknuckle on February 28, 2006, 05:23:24 PM
Post by: Slipperman on February 28, 2006, 05:56:47 PM
| Harry Mooseknuckle wrote on Tue, 28 February 2006 17:23 |
Being flexible and being able to get your mind around different perspectives doesn't mean sacrificing the art. Our job as an engineer is to be an artist- and it is to recognize that your job is to enhance and help the art that the band/artist/producer are in the process of creating. You work with them, you are inspired by them, you help them- that is your art. In the process, you confirm that what you are doing to help the art is also in alignment with the band/artist/producer. Harmonic alignment of artistic vision. That should not keep one from being creative- if it does, he is in the wrong session. |
This is a wonderful series of observations.
Just a great way of looking at it.
Every once in a while.... ya make something you feel is great... But... the bands not hearing it... Ya back off and give them something they can live with.
Happens. Can't get freaky about it.
Only time THAT scenario sucks, is when most of the people involved with the record call ya up over the course of the next year to tell you they've been listening to the original "rejected" mixes and they are genius.
Much better than the version in the stores with your name plastered on the back.
HOHOHO.
Ouch.
Ironically. It never feels like vindication.... It just feels like mortality.
Ahh me.
Bedlam.
SM.
Post by: maxim on February 28, 2006, 07:26:50 PM
"Are you saying it's 100% the band's call?"
no, that's what you're saying (wishing for/wondering about)
i'm saying that if you're going to have more than one cook (whomsoever it may be, "the band", the "engineer", the producer or the president's wife), you better make sure the combination will be a synergistic combination, or else you're gonna end up with swill
"But where do you draw a line?"
in the shifting sand
Post by: Ron Steele on February 28, 2006, 08:45:27 PM
You could ask the same question 3 days later and get 5 new answers.
Make them sound how you want, if they don't like it, they will tell you.
One way to tell when they do like it, is by the lack of response, or by their smiling faces on playback.
Post by: bblackwood on February 28, 2006, 10:40:58 PM
| Quote: |
"People expect the music we work with to sound real", says Tim Gilles, sound-mixer and president of Big Blue Meenie. Producing that 'real' sound, however, can entail some almost unreal technological wizardry. "My confederates and I throw an absolutely bewildering amount of tomfoolery and utter fakeness into the process to make it feel like a docudrama. It's an amazing, exciting, and fun process to be part of." |
Taken from here...
Post by: electrical on March 01, 2006, 02:26:46 AM
| Ron Steele wrote on Tue, 28 February 2006 20:45 |
I've found that every time you ask a band what they think, you'll get 5 different answers. |
I've found that this happens virtually never. Okay, actually never. I've never, ever had this happen.
| Quote: |
You could ask the same question 3 days later and get 5 new answers. |
Having never had this happen even once, I have a hard time believing it would happen twice in a week.
| Quote: |
Make them sound how you want, if they don't like it, they will tell you. |
Better yet, ask them what they want, then do it and and let them hear it.
Post by: Bobro on March 01, 2006, 06:35:51 AM
| electrical wrote on Tue, 28 February 2006 10:21 |
You're not supposed to try to trick the band with esoterica. Don't do things you think are fundamentally wrong just to see if they'll notice. |
This reminds me of something irksome- the classic
fake-knob-turning/bypass thing. All it does is prove that people have imaginations- haha, what losers!
-Bobro
Post by: rwj1313 on March 01, 2006, 01:27:24 PM
Thanks,
Rick
Post by: electrical on March 01, 2006, 02:27:26 PM
| rwj1313 wrote on Wed, 01 March 2006 13:27 |
Steve this ties in with the drum trigger replacement thread. If a drummer came to you and said I want to record my acoustic drum set and then use drummagog to replace every drum would you do that? If not drummagog how about triggering a D4? |
There is about a nothing-point-nothing percent chance of this ever happening, but if a drummer ever wanted me to record his drums just so he could replace them, I'd do it. He gets what he wants.
This will never happen, so I don't worry about it.
Post by: Greg Norman on March 01, 2006, 02:46:47 PM
| electrical wrote on Wed, 01 March 2006 13:27 | ||
There is about a nothing-point-nothing percent chance of this ever happening, but if a drummer ever wanted me to record his drums just so he could replace them, I'd do it. He gets what he wants. This will never happen, so I don't worry about it. |
Someone want to place a bet?
Post by: copperx on March 01, 2006, 03:25:57 PM
Slipperman,
Sorry for my poor english. I wasn't refeering to YOU as a "failed musician", I'm sorry if you got it that way. I was actually refering to me. After some long sessions of introspection trying to figure out why the hell do I can't sleep sometimes thinking about sound engineering I've come to some theories, one being that I'm a failed musician. I don't really know. What I do know is that I will probably not be happy in this life if I'm not turning some knobs. And in some ways, that sucks.
I'm trying to figure out where the hell do I belong in the recording process. Albini's "documentary recording" philosophy is sound. But also your "make audio yer bitch" philosophy makes a lot of sense to me.
I'll soon figure it out. In hell.
Post by: copperx on March 01, 2006, 03:45:21 PM
| electrical wrote on Wed, 01 March 2006 07:26 |
I've found that this happens virtually never. Okay, actually never. I've never, ever had this happen. |
Have you ever fired that AK-47? of just pointing it at them works?
Post by: rwj1313 on March 02, 2006, 01:03:12 PM
| electrical wrote on Wed, 01 March 2006 13:27 | ||
There is about a nothing-point-nothing percent chance of this ever happening, but if a drummer ever wanted me to record his drums just so he could replace them, I'd do it. He gets what he wants. This will never happen, so I don't worry about it. |
I do a lot of live work and recently a bands drummer was triggering just his kick drums. He had a double bass setup and sent me a signal from his Alesis DM5 (I think that's what it was) and it sounded awful. Me and the audience had to endure about 75 minutes of constant very clicky very fast kick drum on every song. The raw signal he sent to me had no bottom what so ever. I ended up retriggering a D4 to add to his sound. I now makeup excuses to not work for them whenever they ask me to run sound for them. Does this make me a bad person?
Post by: ironsheik on March 03, 2006, 01:10:12 AM
I also tell bands what I like in my recordings beforehand. That always seals the deal
BUT it's great for the band I'm about to record to know what I'm into as well. Someone I've worked with didn't want to work the way I usually do and made a point of having me listen to CDs they liked and discussing how the record would be approached. Basically just get EVERYTHING out in the open before the recording. You'll be doing everyone a favour.Josh
Post by: Gary Flanigan on March 03, 2006, 03:42:32 PM
Thanks
Post by: Tom C on March 06, 2006, 08:53:11 AM
| electrical wrote on Tue, 28 February 2006 04:21 | ||
First, I would explain my concern to the band, and if necessary, show them the difference between the compressed sound and the straight sound. If they preferred one or the other, we would do what they preferred. |
Wouldn't it be less trouble to NOT go into that much detail and
just present your final result?
If you ask for every little detail you're (as we say here)
'waking up sleeping dogs', they start to worry about things
you're much more competent to worry about.
If they spot something in the final mix or master (or some
intermediate state) then do whatever they want.
Tom
Post by: electrical on March 06, 2006, 12:38:11 PM
| Tom Crowning wrote on Mon, 06 March 2006 08:53 |
Wouldn't it be less trouble to NOT go into that much detail and just present your final result? If you ask for every little detail you're (as we say here) 'waking up sleeping dogs', they start to worry about things you're much more competent to worry about. |
This is a good question. My preference, before I change anything is to tell the band what I'm thinking, then let them hear the experiment of the change, and see if they agree that it sounds better.
The reason I do this is that I remember being in the studio a long time ago, as a band member, and the engineer always seemed to be doing things, but he never explained what he was doing. At some point, I realized that what we were working on sounded like shit, but it sounded fine a while ago. It was too late to say, "what did you do to it? It sounds like shit now," because he may have done twenty things, and I wouldn't know which of them made it sound like shit, and backtracking through everything might take all night.
So, I always want the band to hear and agree specifically that there is a problem that needs fixing or an improvement that can be made. I don't want to put them in the position I was in, of thinking, "It sounded fine a while ago, but it sounds like shit now."
| Quote: |
If they spot something in the final mix or master (or some intermediate state) then do whatever they want. |
I'd prefer to go straight to doing whatever they want and avoid having to re-mix things.
Post by: copperx on March 06, 2006, 03:49:59 PM
What I don't quite get is that all of the recordings made by Steve that I've heard sound quite nice. You would expect some records directed by some bands to sound bad, dated, with bad effect choices, bad amp choices, especially if the band is inexperienced or on a beginner level.
Steve, I know you don't speak much details about your recording methods, but, is it safe to assume that you get 95% or so of the sound that you want solely by mic choice, placement, preamp choice, room, etc, given that you've said that to you mixing is just "moving faders till it sounds right"?
I can't see you equalizing/compressing tracks to make them fit in the overall picture. On the other hand, I've never been able to make a decent mix without touching an EQ. This really confuses my little brain.
Even more confusing is the reality that both Steve's documentary approach and the more traditional "twist knobs like a madman" approach can yield equally excellent-sounding records. Not talking about authenticity here, but sound quality.
In any case, excellent food for thought.
Post by: AlexVI on March 07, 2006, 12:32:09 PM
Most of the work I do is classical, on location, and straight to stereo. Frequently, an artist will ask for rather more of the reverberant sound (of the church / hall / cathedral) than I would like to give them.
I tend to persuade them to not have too much and err on the side of dry caution - you can add a little later, but you can't take it away.
In a situation where I feel very strongly that giving them the quantity they ask for will lead to trouble later when I am sure they will want to remove some (of course, there's never anywhere to setup monitoring decently in these places either, when on session...), should I let them have what they want? Or what I believe from experience will serve them best in terms of later crafting the end result? (bearing in mind that we can't go back and alter the mix)
AVI
_______________________________
Alexander Van Ingen
Post by: jimmyjazz on March 07, 2006, 12:41:42 PM
| AlexVI wrote on Tue, 07 March 2006 12:32 |
Most of the work I do is classical, on location, and straight to stereo. Frequently, an artist will ask for rather more of the reverberant sound (of the church / hall / cathedral) than I would like to give them. <snip> should I let them have what they want? Or what I believe from experience will serve them best in terms of later crafting the end result? |
Well, what format are you tracking to? If it's live to analog 2-track (which I seriously doubt), then I can see you are faced with a bit of a quandary. But if it's live to digital, then "safety tracks" are only a few mic/preamp/ADC rentals away. Track one microphone pair where they want it, and another where you want it. And maybe some spot mics for the hell of it. Figure out what to use in mixdown.
I've heard people say that they don't like too many options when mixing, and I think that's a copout. It's a copout I've abused, too, but it's still a copout.
Post by: AlexVI on March 07, 2006, 01:03:04 PM
| Quote: |
Well, what format are you tracking to? If it's live to analog 2-track (which I seriously doubt), then I can see you are faced with a bit of a quandary. But if it's live to digital, then "safety tracks" are only a few mic/preamp/ADC rentals away. Track one microphone pair where they want it, and another where you want it. And maybe some spot mics for the hell of it. Figure out what to use in mixdown. I've heard people say that they don't like too many options when mixing, and I think that's a copout. It's a copout I've abused, too, but it's still a copout. |
Format is usually DAT backed up to CDR.
There's no issue with multiple microphones - I would frequently use 14 - 16 mics on an orchestra, and record to stereo.
In some situations, saying "too many options when mixing" isn't the copout - it's the other way round. Saying "I'll go to multitrack because I'm not sure" is the copout from being certain your engineering is good. If you're good at it, you ought to be able to go to stereo right away (I'm assuming there's no overdubbing etc., just 'as is'). In many ways you can end up with a better result. It's all too easy with a multitrack machine running to say "well, it's OK isn't it, polish up nicely in the mix", but going straight to stereo you don't have that luxury. It forces you to get out and move those microphones about until you have a result that it somewhat better than "satisfactory"
Additionally, most budgets these days in the classical world just don't allow for mixing. They just about cover recording & editing - if you're lucky!
Post by: jimmyjazz on March 07, 2006, 01:12:10 PM
| AlexVI wrote on Tue, 07 March 2006 13:03 |
Saying "I'll go to multitrack because I'm not sure" is the copout from being certain your engineering is good. If you're good at it, you ought to be able to go to stereo right away |
I didn't suggest you "polish it in the mix". I suggested that you give yourself a second choice. You lamented the fact that you often have to make an "either/or" decision in the field, and even pointed out the less-than-stellar monitoring you typically have to use when making decisions. I'd say it's good engineering practice to give yourself options for when your monitor chain is better, but you obviously disagree.
Post by: bobby yarrow on March 08, 2006, 09:27:03 AM
It's a good posture, cause it's pretty unassailable. It also goes right to the normal (and sometimes super-sized) vanity of musicians.
I'm in the happy position of never having to take a gig. So I only work on music I actually get and care about. I took on an acoustic singer/songwriter a couple months ago. This is not my typical thing. We did preproduction for the whole record. The first song I fully mixed, the rest I just set the levels and printed. We'd agreed that's what I was going to do, cause there wasn't time to fully mix the whole demo but she did want to hear 1 song with an actual look at what a mix would sound like. The mix went out a few days before the roughs. When she heard the roughs, she was freaked out -- why did it sound like shit?
She's a pretty interesting example, cause (unlike most of the folks who come in) she doesn't want me to really fuck with her thing, she just wants a prestine, natural, perfect record. I definitely didn't ask her whether she wanted me to work the phase on the room mics, or where to set the compressors. On the other hand, I did suggest that she consider something like a d-28 or a hummingbird instead of the dull guild jumbo she brought in. She preferred the dull jumbo sound, and that's a decision she's in a great position to make.
Post by: howlback on March 09, 2006, 12:18:59 AM
Post by: Ron Steele on March 09, 2006, 07:47:51 PM
| howlback wrote on Thu, 09 March 2006 00:18 |
It seems to me that the "documentary" philosophy is a key difference between "rock" & "pop" production practice. If the REP applies a strong preconceived sonic vision to the music, it WILL undoubtedly become manufactured music (popular music). If the production style remains open & band driven it will hopefully remain rock, provided that the BAND IS GOOD, that they have a vision. If they don't have a vision, they shouldn't be a band (unfortunately I have come accross such projects, maybe Steve hasn't but I have). |
Excellent points.
Regardless of genre, I guess it all comes down to how you want to spend your time and what your willing to put up with, where an artist or group is concerned.
In the past I've cut a handful of great bands that really had there "vision"
in order. There was nothing to do but capture it. And they always seem to be open to an outside perspective as well. As I said before, all you have to do is look at the expressions on the faces of the band to know what there thinking.
On the other hand, I've tracked some hideous shit where I've felt that any
outside perspective wouldn't even be worth offering. Sometimes, it's better to get them in and out. Other times it's like, let's forget the clock when it's feels good and has it something going on.
If having an opinion about music you record is a bad thing, then why bother. You may as well be a plumber.
Post by: Samc on March 10, 2006, 03:23:55 AM
| Ron Steele wrote on Fri, 10 March 2006 00:47 |
If having an opinion about music you record is a bad thing, then why bother. You may as well be a plumber. |
Who stated, or implied this?
Post by: electrical on March 10, 2006, 04:23:41 AM
| Ron Steele wrote on Thu, 09 March 2006 19:47 |
In the past I've cut a handful of great bands that really had there "vision" in order. There was nothing to do but capture it. And they always seem to be open to an outside perspective as well. As I said before, all you have to do is look at the expressions on the faces of the band to know what there thinking. |
What bothers me about this is the presumption that there is a need for an outside perspective. Bands are like marriages, and I think they should be allowed to resolve their own dilemmas. Why does anyone else's opinion even warrant an airing?
Seriously, why? What makes you (or anyone) such an important figure that he should even form an opinion about what goes on within a band? It's not your band.
If you can honestly tell what someone is thinking by looking at him, then you should hit the poker circuit. The payouts are much bigger than you'll ever see making records.
The implicit arrogance of the engineer-as-overlord mentality has offended me from the first time I encountered it, and if I contribute nothing more to my profession, I would like to see it end.
Post by: John Ivan on March 10, 2006, 05:17:55 AM
| electrical wrote on Fri, 10 March 2006 04:23 | ||
What bothers me about this is the presumption that there is a need for an outside perspective. Bands are like marriages, and I think they should be allowed to resolve their own dilemmas. Why does anyone else's opinion even warrant an airing? Seriously, why? What makes you (or anyone) such an important figure that he should even form an opinion about what goes on within a band? It's not your band. If you can honestly tell what someone is thinking by looking at him, then you should hit the poker circuit. The payouts are much bigger than you'll ever see making records. The implicit arrogance of the engineer-as-overlord mentality has offended me from the first time I encountered it, and if I contribute nothing more to my profession, I would like to see it end. |
Interesting. I really do understand your Idea that we as engineers should, I'll say, "stay out of the way" but this whole idea about not having an opinion or being an outside influence makes no sense to me. We are talking about using our ears and our gear to collect a sound being made by a bunch of musicians. How am I not going to form an opinion about it? Fine so, if the guitars are all 2-K with no bottom at all, do we not say,,"hey, here's the tone I recorded, is this what you want?" That has a HUGE influence. I'll bet you don't want that to stop, right?
I know you know this already but I'll say it for the sake of clarity. In most cases , an engineer will speak up when we hear something that sounds bad to us. This IS sticking our nose in ,right?
I'm saying I don't think having and sharing ones opinion about the audio is a bad thing at all. Bands are glad we do this for the most part.
But then, I think being a huge part of shaping the sound of a band can be a great thing when one is invited to do so. I don't think it's inherently a bad thing at all.
Ivan............................................
Post by: maxim on March 10, 2006, 06:24:17 AM
"that was a great take"
or not
Post by: Ron Steele on March 10, 2006, 11:36:37 AM
| Samc wrote on Fri, 10 March 2006 03:23 | ||
Who stated, or implied this? |
the reference came from steve in another thread:
electrical wrote on Mon, 30 January 2006 01:55
| Quote: |
When you are emotionally involved with the music, you are not doing your job completely. Enjoy the record (or say it sucks) when you buy one at the store. You're supposed to be working now. A plumber should be working on installing the toilet, not assessing whether or not it matches the tile. |
Post by: Ron Steele on March 10, 2006, 12:10:23 PM
| electrical wrote on Fri, 10 March 2006 04:23 | ||
What bothers me about this is the presumption that there is a need for an outside perspective. Bands are like marriages, and I think they should be allowed to resolve their own dilemmas. Why does anyone else's opinion even warrant an airing? |
Never a "presumption". An emotional response due to being inspired, or not, in the moment?
Yes, I do formulate ideas and opinions, but I don't implicitly dictate. I ask, "what do you think of this or that." Depending on the response I proceed accordingly.
| Quote: |
Seriously, why? What makes you (or anyone) such an important figure that he should even form an opinion about what goes on within a band? It's not your band. |
My time and who I choose to give it up to, paid or not paid for. But that is just me. On the other hand, there are alot of professionals who probably think their experience and past contributions are worth being considered a valuable resource to a band.
| Quote: |
If you can honestly tell what someone is thinking by looking at him, then you should hit the poker circuit. The payouts are much bigger than you'll ever see making records. |
What does this have to with anything?
Are you saying that after being locked in a small room with a band for a few days, that you don't pick up on the vibe, good or bad?
| Quote: |
The implicit arrogance of the engineer-as-overlord mentality has offended me from the first time I encountered it, and if I contribute nothing more to my profession, I would like to see it end. |
Who what where and when. This place is filled with pros. I don't see many threads about how bands suck and need to be controlled.
Does everybody else have an" implicit arrogance of the engineer-as-overlord mentality".
Or is that an assumption on your part?
Post by: groucho on March 10, 2006, 12:58:48 PM
He has said many times that if the band wants his opinion he will provide it, or if they are searching for a sound he will make suggestions as to how they might achieve it.
His bottom line seems to be "make the band happy".
Why on earth does this cause such a ruckus every time he mentions it?
Chris
Post by: Ron Steele on March 10, 2006, 01:18:48 PM
| groucho wrote on Fri, 10 March 2006 12:58 |
Maybe I'm missing something, but I honestly don't see why Steve's point of view is so contraversial. All he seems to be saying is that the engineer shouldn't attempt to IMPOSE their point of view on the band. He has said many times that if the band wants his opinion he will provide it, or if they are searching for a sound he will make suggestions as to how they might achieve it. His bottom line seems to be "make the band happy". Why on earth does this cause such a ruckus every time he mentions it? Chris |
I have absolutely no problem with Steve's thoughts on this subject.
I'm only trying to offer another perspective, and nobody has to agree with me or Steve. Many here work differently. There is no rule of thumb or standard on how to operate.
It's just conversation.
Post by: John Ivan on March 12, 2006, 03:30:56 AM
I do think however,I can switch my emotional side on and off fast enough to be engineering in a complete way. I guess it's how I've always done it.
I can't help but think that I'll be both a better player and engineer thanks to the reading and posting I do here.
I agree that making the band happy is the most important thing.
Ivan...........................
Post by: copperx on March 12, 2006, 06:37:24 AM
| groucho wrote on Fri, 10 March 2006 17:58 |
Why on earth does this cause such a ruckus every time he mentions it? |
A thing that I don't understand either.
It's impressive the closed-mentality of some engineers
that try to prove Steve "wrong". Why don't they try to
UNDERSTAND Steve's point of view? It seems that it is
too much to ask. I saw some sad posts in other threads
when discussing Steve's approach to recording.
At least this thread hasn't turned into that
Great thoughts everybody. Keep 'em coming.
Post by: acorec on March 13, 2006, 08:51:08 AM
All bands, in their first experience in a recording studio,listen to the engineer for direction. It is natural because of the unfamiliar surroundings and lack of recording experience. I have never heard a first recording of any band that dint suck eggs royally. I am not specifically talking about quality of sound or songs. I am talking about a real clash between the two.
The engineer's job is to record what is present like a documentary photographer versus a playboy shoot where the photographer tells the cute little hottie exactly how to stand, smile etc.
You can argue that the playboy presentation is art and done well, but done well in comparison to what?
The truth is in the second, third album. you can tell who drove the sessions by the way the albums sound. Some bands change dramatically from album to album with no consistency at all,some bands have a dull, dark sounding first album and find their sound after a hard lesson. Plenty of bands who have been in the biz for years often build their own studios because they know what to expect in sound and can have control over the process better than in a commercial studio.
So, I think that if a engineer, producer, whoever makes many award winning albums in his/her career, then he/she is either a total genius, can read the public for how the band should sound and predict it to be award winning OR he/she has given control to the artist to bring on a great album with the band's vision intact.
Post by: Ron Steele on March 13, 2006, 10:43:55 AM
| acorec wrote on Mon, 13 March 2006 08:51 |
Let any engineer make a record his way and I guarantee that you will have a record that makes that particular engineer very happy. All bands, in their first experience in a recording studio,listen to the engineer for direction. It is natural because of the unfamiliar surroundings and lack of recording experience. I have never heard a first recording of any band that dint suck eggs royally. I am not specifically talking about quality of sound or songs. I am talking about a real clash between the two. The engineer's job is to record what is present like a documentary photographer versus a playboy shoot where the photographer tells the cute little hottie exactly how to stand, smile etc. You can argue that the playboy presentation is art and done well, but done well in comparison to what? The truth is in the second, third album. you can tell who drove the sessions by the way the albums sound. Some bands change dramatically from album to album with no consistency at all,some bands have a dull, dark sounding first album and find their sound after a hard lesson. Plenty of bands who have been in the biz for years often build their own studios because they know what to expect in sound and can have control over the process better than in a commercial studio. So, I think that if a engineer, producer, whoever makes many award winning albums in his/her career, then he/she is either a total genius, can read the public for how the band should sound and predict it to be award winning OR he/she has given control to the artist to bring on a great album with the band's vision intact. |
The opposite could be said about an artist or group, or even a groupie. The singers girl friend could contribute to how bad, or how good shit turns out.
Quite honestly, if the "engineer as dictator" messed up things for so many for so long, why do bands still seek out engineers and studios?
It seems to me that if this is such a huge problem, times would have changed by now, especially when you consider all the home studio gear they could buy to make DIU recordings?
How could everybody that posts in these forums still be business if all they do is dictate and control the future of the artists that pay them an hourly rate?
Post by: electrical on March 13, 2006, 12:50:21 PM
| Ron Steele wrote on Mon, 13 March 2006 10:43 |
It seems to me that if this is such a huge problem, times would have changed by now... |
Look around. This conversation wasn't being conducted twenty years ago. There weren't then the large numbers of peer-operated studios that there are now. Of course times have changed. Thank heavens for that.
Post by: Ron Steele on March 13, 2006, 11:13:39 PM
| electrical wrote on Mon, 13 March 2006 12:50 | ||
Look around. This conversation wasn't being conducted twenty years ago. There weren't then the large numbers of peer-operated studios that there are now. Of course times have changed. Thank heavens for that. |
Correct, the dx7, emulator, fairlight, synclavier, adat, roland, cubase, o2r, logic, protools etc..etc... paved the way to make it possible for the peer-operated studios
to even exist.
It's hard to imagine where most would be with out this shit. The peer-operated studios only exist because of it. The price of admission is what a used japanese car cost.
Times have changed, some followed and adapted, some tried to, failed and have just gone away.
Of course now it's just an analog versus digital discussion now that we have concluded there is no longer a serious engineer dictatorship that exists due to the peer-operated studios .
I can't wait to see the day we all become obsolete, when the band or artist can completely fulfill his vision with out any plumbing assistance at all.
I can't wait to hear it.
Post by: Bobro on March 14, 2006, 03:34:43 AM
| Ron Steele wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 04:13 | ||||
Correct, the dx7, emulator, fairlight, synclavier, adat, roland, cubase, o2r, logic, protools etc..etc... paved the way to make it possible for the peer-operated studios to even exist. It's hard to imagine where most would be with out this shit. The peer-operated studios only exist because of it. The price of admission is what a used japanese car cost. ...... . |
IMO Ebay and internet communication paved the way for "peer-based" studios far more than the gear you mention. And the 4-track cassette. And before that, the 1/4" four-track reel-to-reel, and so on.
And these things are only the physical manifestations of what really "paved the way", which is attitudes. And those attitudes are probably better addressed in, for example, the Sex Pistols thread.
-Bobro
Post by: maxim on March 14, 2006, 03:47:40 AM
"... the dx7, emulator, fairlight, synclavier, adat, roland, cubase, o2r, logic, protools etc..etc... "
3 out 10 ain't bad
Post by: Ron Steele on March 14, 2006, 07:52:23 AM
| Bobro wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 03:34 | ||||||
IMO Ebay and internet communication paved the way for "peer-based" studios far more than the gear you mention. And the 4-track cassette. And before that, the 1/4" four-track reel-to-reel, and so on. And these things are only the physical manifestations of what really "paved the way", which is attitudes. And those attitudes are probably better addressed in, for example, the Sex Pistols thread. -Bobro |
I missed mentioning a bunch of others. Sorry....... but that was really not the point.
" Attitudes", that manifested because of any gear, had nothing to do with the sex pistols, which came well before the cassette 4trk. I don't really recall anything about the sex pistols trying to self-record themselves or even giving a shit about it.
The "peer-based" " attitudes or the sex pistols have nothing in common. Two completely different attitudes.
I'd be hard pressed to believe the sex pistols have anything to do with the reason why pro, pro-sumer or home studios exist today. That's just taking it back to all that "who's more important" bullshit.
Post by: acorec on March 14, 2006, 08:11:42 AM
"....Quite honestly, if the "engineer as dictator" messed up things for so many for so long, why do bands still seek out engineers and studios?..."
Bands end up seeking out a producer. It is the producer's job to shape the band into a cohesive unit that works.
Post by: Slipperman on March 14, 2006, 02:15:50 PM
| acorec wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 08:11 |
Bands end up seeking out a producer. It is the producer's job to shape the band into a cohesive unit that works. |
Whose zooming who here?
A bunch of people get together and work on a record. Ya almost never see a record completed without some change on the totem pole along the way if you look closely enough.
Some people here are acting like a fucking JOB TITLE is gonna dictate what goes down.
HOHOHO x 6 zillion.
As if.
Shit can happen 60 ways to Sunday.
And does. All the fucking time.
Period.
I've seen the fucking DRUMMER take over and run the show.
Glad he did.
He had the best vision for the thing... and after a while this became increasingly apparent. And eventually everybody pretty much got the fuck out of his way.
Bless his pointy head. Got a platinum record for it.
BTW. It was the bands FIRST RECORD.
Let's face it fellaz: During the course of making a record... some people STEP UP... and some SIT DOWN.
Which camp are you going to be in? It's your decision. And you should feel perfectly comfortable with what you're willing to lay out there.
2 things happen when you ascend to the podium.
1.) You get to project your dulcet tones over the unwashed rabble.
2.) You make the best target in the room.
No way to separate risk from opportunity.
Pick your battles, stand your ground when ya gotta... and try to put your love of music and yer best intentions for the record first.
SM.
PS. As to "acorec's" earlier post.... Your theory is malarkey. MANY, MANY rock bands are DEFINED by their first record, and though they may make better sounding records as their careers, budgets and choices of who to work with, blossom(erm.... big surprise there). A ton of them never match the "vibe" they got with the awkward and haphazard production(or lack there of) arrangement of their freshman offering. The list is GIGANTIC.
Post by: maxim on March 14, 2006, 06:44:54 PM
"A ton of them never match the "vibe" they got with the awkward and haphazard production(or lack there of) arrangement of their freshman offering."
interesting phenomenon
i wonder why
Post by: Slipperman on March 15, 2006, 01:39:27 AM
| maxim wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 18:44 |
slippy wrote: "A ton of them never match the "vibe" they got with the awkward and haphazard production(or lack there of) arrangement of their freshman offering." interesting phenomenon i wonder why |
Parity.
And purity of purpose.
In all the concerned parties.
The parade starts later.
SM.
Post by: jimmyjazz on March 15, 2006, 02:06:45 AM
Post by: Bobro on March 15, 2006, 03:40:47 AM
Post by: maxim on March 15, 2006, 03:42:36 AM
"a lifetime to write your first record..."
i think there's definitely something to that
plus the unfakeable enthusiasm when you first explore a medium
Post by: Bobro on March 15, 2006, 03:56:04 AM
| Quote: |
title=Ron Steele wrote on Tue, 14 March 2006 12:52 .... (Bobro wrote: IMO Ebay and internet communication paved the way for "peer-based" studios far more than the gear you mention. And the 4-track cassette. And before that, the 1/4" four-track reel-to-reel, and so on. And these things are only the physical manifestations of what really "paved the way", which is attitudes. And those attitudes are probably better addressed in, for example, the Sex Pistols thread. -Bobro ) I missed mentioning a bunch of others. Sorry....... but that was really not the point. " Attitudes", that manifested because of any gear, had nothing to do with the sex pistols, which came well before the cassette 4trk. I don't really recall anything about the sex pistols trying to self-record themselves or even giving a shit about it. The "peer-based" " attitudes or the sex pistols have nothing in common. Two completely different attitudes. I'd be hard pressed to believe the sex pistols have anything to do with the reason why pro, pro-sumer or home studios exist today. That's just taking it back to all that "who's more important" bullshit. |
Two teenage kids go to their first recording gig, cash in hand from working manual labor all summer. This is about 21 years ago. They've been listening to the Stooges, the Stranglers, and Joy Division, and have a fair dose of Eastern European music thrown in (bass lines ripped off from Mussorgski etc.) having grown up with it. Not directly inspired by the Sex Pistols per se, but, same idea, who cares who is more important than whom? that depends on the individual.
Anyway, the engineer is a big guy with a Steely Dan t-shirt and a "schlong" haircut, long in back and short on top. One earing, smoking pot. Try to get started and the guy starts freaking out for no apparent reason, going on about "real music" like James Taylor or something, and some craziness about the hour the session was supposed to start.
The kids stand there with their mouths hanging open, having sat excitedly in the car for half and hour, being early and all for their first ever "real" recording session. They say "fuck you, man!" after recovering from shock, and split.
If I recall correctly, my brother had bought a four-track by the end of the week, the kids being he and I.
You have a hard time believing in....reality?
-Bobro
PS. I'm going to send this thread to an old friend, a fine musician and sound guy these days, who got his first 4-track via the inspirational lineage of Sex Pistols/Wire/Big Black. Come to think about it, there's another old friend with a studio who'd be more Stooges/Bauhaus/Cure... hell man we could barely shave and we were fully aware, and enthused, about having "DIY" idols who didn't give us speeches about how the drummer from the Dixie Dregs was the greatest musician on earth, etc. And who cares if some of those bands were "manufactured" or whatever, the attitudes lived on as reality for lots of people.
Post by: Ron Steele on March 15, 2006, 09:02:12 AM
| Bobro wrote on Wed, 15 March 2006 03:56 | ||
Two teenage kids go to their first recording gig, cash in hand from working manual labor all summer. This is about 21 years ago. They've been listening to the Stooges, the Stranglers, and Joy Division, and have a fair dose of Eastern European music thrown in (bass lines ripped off from Mussorgski etc.) having grown up with it. Not directly inspired by the Sex Pistols per se, but, same idea, who cares who is more important than whom? that depends on the individual. Anyway, the engineer is a big guy with a Steely Dan t-shirt and a "schlong" haircut, long in back and short on top. One earing, smoking pot. Try to get started and the guy starts freaking out for no apparent reason, going on about "real music" like James Taylor or something, and some craziness about the hour the session was supposed to start. The kids stand there with their mouths hanging open, having sat excitedly in the car for half and hour, being early and all for their first ever "real" recording session. They say "fuck you, man!" after recovering from shock, and split. If I recall correctly, my brother had bought a four-track by the end of the week, the kids being he and I. You have a hard time believing in....reality? -Bobro PS. I'm going to send this thread to an old friend, a fine musician and sound guy these days, who got his first 4-track via the inspirational lineage of Sex Pistols/Wire/Big Black. Come to think about it, there's another old friend with a studio who'd be more Stooges/Bauhaus/Cure... hell man we could barely shave and we were fully aware, and enthused, about having "DIY" idols who didn't give us speeches about how the drummer from the Dixie Dregs was the greatest musician on earth, etc. And who cares if some of those bands were "manufactured" or whatever, the attitudes lived on as reality for lots of people. |
So you bought a 4trk because you met an AE who was a stoned asshole?
What the hell does that have to do with the Sex Pistols/Wire/Big Black.
I get the part that you wanted to record after saving up, but after meeting the guy, you made the broad assumption that all AE's and studios were going to be jag-offs like that dude?
The fact is, you could of been into steely dan and ran into AE that was into punk
that might of told you they sucked and were "manufactured".
You would have then gone out to buy a 4trk for the same reason.
If anything, you owe that jag-off a big thank you, if he wasn't a prick you might not have bought a 4trk. where would you be today without that experience?
Post by: Bobro on March 18, 2006, 04:48:27 AM
| Ron Steele wrote on Wed, 15 March 2006 14:02 |
So you bought a 4trk because you met an AE who was a stoned asshole? |
Considering the guy as a symbol, or ambassador, of prickliness- yes.
| Ron Steele wrote on Wed, 15 March 2006 14:02 |
What the hell does that have to do with the Sex Pistols/Wire/Big Black. |
Inspiration. Lots of bands at that time were sounding great with recordings and music that were obviously...well I don't know how to describe it.
| Ron Steele wrote on Wed, 15 March 2006 14:02 |
I get the part that you wanted to record after saving up, but after meeting the guy, you made the broad assumption that all AE's and studios were going to be jag-offs like that dude? |
Straw that broke the camel's back? Frat boys would jump out of BMWs to beat the shit out of kids who listened to "fag music" like Joy Division, I remember running for my life, hahaha!
| Ron Steele wrote on Wed, 15 March 2006 14:02 |
The fact is, you could of been into steely dan and ran into AE that was into punk that might of told you they sucked and were "manufactured". |
Yes that's completely true, and I don't like the skilled=sucks attitude either, reverse snobbery or whatever.
| Ron Steele wrote on Wed, 15 March 2006 14:02 |
You would have then gone out to buy a 4trk for the same reason. |
Could be, but I doubt it because a big expensive studio, lots of editing, etc., is, or was at that time, obviously a part of the recorded sound of a lot of bands.
| Ron Steele wrote on Wed, 15 March 2006 14:02 |
If anything, you owe that jag-off a big thank you, if he wasn't a prick you might not have bought a 4trk. where would you be today without that experience? |
You're absolutely correct. Been fortunate enough to do some documentary live recordings of awesome musicians, it wasn't in actual practice any different than recording teenagers in a garage- listen, put up some mics, listen, press record, listen, the end.
-Bobro
Post by: jamiehowarth on April 14, 2006, 01:47:04 AM
One caveat comes to mind, which is that recorded music is more lingua franca than it is singular vox. An engineer or producer with a long and varied background of observing how certain chronic recurring issues are resolved by the bands with which he's worked may have a little more insight than the insulated group of 5 guys who are stumbling through their career, reinventing the wheel of social cybernetics. Particularly if they're related. I've seen brothers in bands drive into the wall repeatedly and NOT be able to resolve it. And the ability to state clearly the issues on the table sometimes was the job of a neutral party, whom they hired and fired until they got somebody they trusted to state their case for them. I think it 's the band's decision to make whether to solicit those opinions, and it's the engineer's sacred responsibility to assure that his own fucked-up biases are not what's driving the insight he might impart...the old Kant Critique of Pure Reason deal of knowing thoroughly yourself and your idiosyncracies as the best road to the tightest-knit relationship between intention and effect. I hate the idea of an engineer as dictator, but if I were the artist I'd strongly consider anything Phil Ramone might have to offer. OTOH there's a whole shitload of other guys I wouldn't even want in the room, that have worked on a lot of hits.
What about the fact that for better or worse, stylized sounds are part of the vernacular? If the band dictates that they want the drummer to sound like Bonham, then i'm not going to ask them if I should use an LA-2A set just so, I'll just expect the engineer patch one in and twist it until they're happy. And if they're unhappy I'll ask them to clarify what they're hearing through specific examples, metaphor or sign language. If they're unhappy when Mr Engineer's happy too often he's gone. But I don't agonize over what they mean at the outset, because much of the time we're quoting other sounds from other players from other days. I'm paid to know the language. I don't resist using what I know to be the common moves in the trade, if they're requested.
Here's a gnarlier case: If the band is now thrilled and the drummer looks uncomfortable, i don't know if it's my job to passively leave the thing patched in if he hasn't the verbal chops to dictate another approach. I'm not sure in that case it's correct to just let the band (not) work it out. I think it's possible (without falling into the poker metaphor) to be aware of the stone fact that speaking through an instrument is a direct communication often in a language that is the only mode the artist can manage. He might be a deaf-mute who plays beautifully, and can't express a coherent thought. It's still my job to help him achieve his goal. So self-consciously maintaining the purist neutral zen master may potentially fail to fill a vacuum, and that is not, by my lights, always the best service I can give the artist. That, too, is a self-referential stance, and I'm not sure that i completely endorse it therefore. I would presume there's a nuanced POV that you'd interject here that would help me understand.
My concern is when I observe a band dynamic that is crushing the daylights out of one very creative and key but conflict-aversive member... because the singer is verbally adroit and a bit of a bully... and loved Ron Nevison's hairstyle from some old magazine... or dreams of dripping concrete crypts because of some lyric he's working on that we won't see until next month and he's forcing that environment on the drummer... Isn't it in their best interest for me the producer (or absent that me the engineer) to help make the best record possible by reading the drummer's facial expression and asking if he (not they) might like to try a different approach? Maybe you find out 2 days into it that for better or worse the domineering singer has the band's sound in his head and he's right? Isn't it our job to also read that and switch tactics and respond accordingly? Or is it just to stay out of all of that, put up a neutral set of flat mics and press record and let the kid get run over by his bandmates, to their forever-edified deficit? Are all we to do is document potential failure, or are we allowed by dint of varied and carefully earned experience to occasionally intervene? Again, not meaning to be argumentative: I'm sure there's an answer and we could learn from hearing how you cast the response.
I dunno. I'm asking. Speaking plainly, i don't see how one can be too aggressively recessive and still do a good job. Overbearing? Fuck That. When I feel that coming on, i reread the Kant.
Curious to hear your thoughts.
jh