|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 7, 2019 14:16:28 GMT -6
I actually think you guys may be saying the same thing just from different angles. I think John is thinking in old division of power terms. Where it was the producer that directed the mix and the engineer executed it. Today the recording engineer is the mix engineer who may be acting as the producer since the band has no clue! I thought he was saying that it's the musician's music, so pushing and pulling the tracks to create something bigger is no bueno. If that's the case, then I disagree. Musicians go to mixing engineers to get more out of the tracks. I don't believe that good mixes are just a sum of well recorded tracks. There is a lot more to it, more than I want to argue over at least. What I said was it's the musician's music, so their vision should be dominant. Musicians go to mix engineers because they, themselves, are incompetent recordists. Most of them learn what they "know" from other musicians on the internet who are also incompetant recordists. Most of them won't even listen to somebody trying to explain something if it doesn't agree with conventional ignorance. They have no concept of traditional techniques of good process. If your recorded track sucks the solution is not to attempt to "fix" it by piling on plug-ins. The solution is to do it again until you get it right. If you can't get it right maybe you should think twice about whether you should be doing it in the first place, at least for any other purpose than self amusement.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jul 7, 2019 15:46:56 GMT -6
I went from Motown where we had a lot of processing available to Wally Heiders where we had a lot less to KPFA radio where we had either a 1940s four input RCA broadcast console or a stack of three or four Ampex MX-10s all with zero eq. or compression available. I was shocked by how much better most of KPFA's live music broadcasts sounded than the same artists' albums. It was a major lesson I'll never forget.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jul 7, 2019 17:21:10 GMT -6
I think you all are taking sides too much.
I do mostly classical but do plenty of other stuff. I do lots of just "faders up" mixing and lots of processing too. The difference?
The genre, the artist, the goal.
That's it.
Ultimately as a real engineer you should be able to do both. Understand both and appreciate both. If you're fighting hard for one or the other then as far as I'm concerned you're a one trick pony and you've mixed yourself into a corner and that sounds boring. In which case I feel sorry for you and hope you try new things and to do it both ways. You might surprise yourself..
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jul 7, 2019 17:57:33 GMT -6
Imho, unless you’re recording with one of those binaural mannequin heads, and leaving the mix faders up with no processing, than it’s all illusion. Even if your using the illusion to achieve a sense of natural “realism”. Of course. But a lot of stuff that's around these days is all frosting and no cake. This also touches on some of the things that (IIRC) JohnKenn and others have said about the demise of the well crafted song in today's commercial market.
Answer me this - How much of, for example, a Sinatra recording is "real" and how much is "illusion"? Or Bob Dylan's first electric period?
The illusion should enhance the reality, not replace it. (Yes, that does open a discussion about "what is reality" when you get into electronica...)
It all comes down to how your “Use Your Illusion” (que axel rose)
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jul 7, 2019 18:09:20 GMT -6
I went from Motown where we had a lot of processing available to Wally Heiders where we had a lot less to KPFA radio where we had either a 1940s four input RCA broadcast console or a stack of three or four Ampex MX-10s all with zero eq. or compression available. I was shocked by how much better most of KPFA's live music broadcasts sounded than the same artists' albums. It was a major lesson I'll never forget. I think it can be easy to lose perspective by reaching for a bunch of plugins (just because you can) in the modern realm of DAW’s where it is not uncommon to run default ‘favourite’ plugins on certain types of tracks using session templates often to save time and improve efficiency. As recording/mixing rates get squeezed I understand the need to keep things moving as fast as possible but it can be at the expense of a ‘one size fits all’ or nearly fits all approach.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jul 7, 2019 19:01:39 GMT -6
Woha.
I think some missed that I never claimed to be a professional recordist. Please reread my avatar. I would call myself amateur with ambitions who takes pro advise for his Homestudio works.
Yes I know professional places and I know the borderline of homerecording and that's why I hire studio time.
Myself I find the modern way to produce music acceptable to a certain degree. When a song is full of fake instruments - I can't stand it anymore, my ear stoped buying it. One reason why I can't watch german movies anymore. Full of fake instruments.
There is a reason why I love music by great Songwriters and I know when, and why to hire professional advise.
One last thing on taste because that's the reason for the topic.
I get the feeling that some modern ARs lost every sense for music/taste, the sense for the experience - becoming a great human being / musician. Because learning never stops in our field and mistakes are part of the game.
I am with Jack White. Sometimes I feel too that I am more from the 1800. Sometimes everything is too fast for me. A world of constant change overloads what my brain can process. At the age of 44 I miss the 90s. Crazy.
Please do not get me wrong with my post. Processing is OK as long it sounds good. I just had the impression that it can be a timesaver to think longer about the goal / idea / song / sound etc.
In other words. Some of my works would benefit by making things slower. Like in the 90s.
Love and Peace Holmes
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 7, 2019 21:41:29 GMT -6
I think you all are taking sides too much. I do mostly classical but do plenty of other stuff. I do lots of just "faders up" mixing and lots of processing too. The difference? The genre, the artist, the goal. That's it. Ultimately as a real engineer you should be able to do both. Understand both and appreciate both. If you're fighting hard for one or the other then as far as I'm concerned you're a one trick pony and you've mixed yourself into a corner and that sounds boring. In which case I feel sorry for you and hope you try new things and to do it both ways. You might surprise yourself.. I agree, mostly. But in any genre or style, the simpler you can keep it, the better and more musical it is. I'm not at all opposed to a lot of processing when it's appropriate. However when the processing takes precedent over the song, or there's no real song there it goes back to all frosting, no cake.
Ubnderstand, when working in certain styles (or "genres", I hate that word) I'm more than a bit of a reverb and delay freak. And I currently have 16 channels of working hardware compression, all of which gets used, plus a Valley People Dyna-Mite that's awaiting service and two dbx 166s that I've deemed not worthy of use but won't sell because I don't want to inflict them on some unsuspecting fool. So i'm not some anti-processing "purist". I just believe that ignoring traditional techniques and trying to make up for that with tech gimmicks is, well, for lack of a better word, stupid. And you can get a lot farther a lot easier by following those traditional techniques that by trying to fake it with gimmicks.
YOU HAVE TO START WITH THE FOUNDATION.
And the foundation is the old lore that is being rapidly lost with the demise of the traditional studio system and the flood of "information" spread by tech companies that are trying to sell you (in general, not specifically) something.
You have to bake the cake first, THEN add the frosting. If you even need frosting.
|
|
|
Post by Blackdawg on Jul 7, 2019 21:52:27 GMT -6
I think you all are taking sides too much. I do mostly classical but do plenty of other stuff. I do lots of just "faders up" mixing and lots of processing too. The difference? The genre, the artist, the goal. That's it. Ultimately as a real engineer you should be able to do both. Understand both and appreciate both. If you're fighting hard for one or the other then as far as I'm concerned you're a one trick pony and you've mixed yourself into a corner and that sounds boring. In which case I feel sorry for you and hope you try new things and to do it both ways. You might surprise yourself.. I agree, mostly. But in any genre or style, the simpler you can keep it, the better and more musical it is. I'm not at all opposed to a lot of processing when it's appropriate. However when the processing takes precedent over the song, or there's no real song there it goes back to all frosting, no cake.
Ubnderstand, when working in certain styles (or "genres", I hate that word) I'm more than a bit of a reverb and delay freak. And I currently have 16 channels of working hardware compression, all of which gets used, plus a Valley People Dyna-Mite that's awaiting service and two dbx 166s that I've deemed not worthy of use but won't sell because I don't want to inflict them on some unsuspecting fool. So i'm not some anti-processing "purist". I just believe that ignoring traditional techniques and trying to make up for that with tech gimmicks is, well, for lack of a better word, stupid. And you can get a lot farther a lot easier by following those traditional techniques that by trying to fake it with gimmicks.
YOU HAVE TO START WITH THE FOUNDATION.
And the foundation is the old lore that is being rapidly lost with the demise of the traditional studio system and the flood of "information" spread by tech companies that are trying to sell you (in general, not specifically) something.
You have to bake the cake first, THEN add the frosting. If you even need frosting.
Of course. Put good shit in. Get good shit out. Simple as can be. But there are a ton of "styles" that work based off of simple recording and massive processing too. There is not right or wrong way no matter how you want to think there is. Plenty of people have had #1 songs being a bed room producer with one microphone. Not saying your wrong at all. But you also have to see there is more than one way to bake a cake and sometimes that cake has more frosting than cake. You might not like that, which is fine, but others do/will. That's all I'm saying. This argument is pointless since you can point to success and disaster doing it either ways. The original point of the thread was if possibly lightening up on the processing can help. And sure, it can. But it's all dependent on what the song calls for, what the artist wants from the song, and what you can extract from those to get that. Sometimes it's easy, sometimes it's hard. I'm certainly a fan of doing all the really hard work in the tracking process to keep mixing simple. But not always an option or possible.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 7, 2019 22:53:06 GMT -6
I agree, mostly. But in any genre or style, the simpler you can keep it, the better and more musical it is. I'm not at all opposed to a lot of processing when it's appropriate. However when the processing takes precedent over the song, or there's no real song there it goes back to all frosting, no cake.
Ubnderstand, when working in certain styles (or "genres", I hate that word) I'm more than a bit of a reverb and delay freak. And I currently have 16 channels of working hardware compression, all of which gets used, plus a Valley People Dyna-Mite that's awaiting service and two dbx 166s that I've deemed not worthy of use but won't sell because I don't want to inflict them on some unsuspecting fool. So i'm not some anti-processing "purist". I just believe that ignoring traditional techniques and trying to make up for that with tech gimmicks is, well, for lack of a better word, stupid. And you can get a lot farther a lot easier by following those traditional techniques that by trying to fake it with gimmicks.
YOU HAVE TO START WITH THE FOUNDATION.
And the foundation is the old lore that is being rapidly lost with the demise of the traditional studio system and the flood of "information" spread by tech companies that are trying to sell you (in general, not specifically) something.
You have to bake the cake first, THEN add the frosting. If you even need frosting.
Of course. Put good shit in. Get good shit out. Simple as can be. But there are a ton of "styles" that work based off of simple recording and massive processing too. There is not right or wrong way no matter how you want to think there is. Plenty of people have had #1 songs being a bed room producer with one microphone. Not saying your wrong at all. But you also have to see there is more than one way to bake a cake and sometimes that cake has more frosting than cake. You might not like that, which is fine, but others do/will. That's all I'm saying. This argument is pointless since you can point to success and disaster doing it either ways. The original point of the thread was if possibly lightening up on the processing can help. And sure, it can. But it's all dependent on what the song calls for, what the artist wants from the song, and what you can extract from those to get that. Sometimes it's easy, sometimes it's hard. I'm certainly a fan of doing all the really hard work in the tracking process to keep mixing simple. But not always an option or possible. Well, there are people who work in bedrooms and living rooms who are in fact good, experienced people. But I think we both know that's not what I'm talking about. Heck, Rudy Van Gelder recorded all his famous jazz albums in his living room.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jul 8, 2019 2:40:00 GMT -6
Well, there are people who work in bedrooms and living rooms who are in fact good, experienced people. But I think we both know that's not what I'm talking about. Heck, Rudy Van Gelder recorded all his famous jazz albums in his living room.
I doubt that Kind of Blue was done in Van Gelders living room LOL.
Its sad taht I am not a native speaker. I try again.
I think I want to express that I accept and use modern technology too. If someone would have told me -ten years ago- taht LogicX will have a virtual drummer which can play good drum parts I would have thought that he is not right in his mind.
The dark side of all thie tech beleivers is the lack of colaboration. That puts tons of preassure on one shoulder.
If I have a song and I think its good (most of the time I think its not good enough) I ask people better than me for advise.
Spirits can meet in a Song.....
Cheers. H.
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Jul 8, 2019 3:50:49 GMT -6
van gelder didnt record kind a blue. that was done at rca in new york.
van gelder did many recording sessions in the lounge room of his parents house. eventually he moved into his own studio. part of what made van gelder so good was his ability to get the best from any space. like jazz clubs.
|
|
|
Post by forgotteng on Jul 8, 2019 4:40:16 GMT -6
I want to be clear to state that I'm not a big fan of making rules for other people to follow. When I make rules for myself it is to strategically limit myself so I grow in my skills. I am fully committed to the craft of recording so I am committed to learning as much as I can. Back when I transitioning from live sound to owning my own studio the rest of the world and my town was using EZ drummer and other things to replace drum sounds. I refused to use these techniques even though I had the software. This wasn't because I thought it was evil to use these tools but because I thought they would be crutches for me. I wanted to learn how to record real drums. And I laboured over poorly recorded drums for years learning what I did wrong so I could make it better. Now my studio is one of the places locally to go if you want natural sounding acoustic drums. I support drums with samples and replacements occasionally when appropriate but it's the exception not the rule. I go through seasons of learning and breakthrough where I place limits on myself. It doesn't mean I will sell all my EQ's. I love that this craft is so wide. I love albums that were recorded by Al Schmitt and Daniel Lanois and many others that were using various techniques and disciplines. Back in the day the Beatles broke the rules by doing something new. In this day I am often breaking the rules and exploring new ground by learning old conventional techniques. It's a great time to be recording. Enjoy it.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jul 8, 2019 4:58:43 GMT -6
van gelder didnt record kind a blue. that was done at rca in new york. van gelder did many recording sessions in the lounge room of his parents house. eventually he moved into his own studio. part of what made van gelder so good was his ability to get the best from any space. like jazz clubs.
See there I always thought he did KInd of Blue. Ouch.....
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Jul 8, 2019 5:55:21 GMT -6
Of course. Put good shit in. Get good shit out. Simple as can be. But there are a ton of "styles" that work based off of simple recording and massive processing too. There is not right or wrong way no matter how you want to think there is. Plenty of people have had #1 songs being a bed room producer with one microphone. Not saying your wrong at all. But you also have to see there is more than one way to bake a cake and sometimes that cake has more frosting than cake. You might not like that, which is fine, but others do/will. That's all I'm saying. This argument is pointless since you can point to success and disaster doing it either ways. The original point of the thread was if possibly lightening up on the processing can help. And sure, it can. But it's all dependent on what the song calls for, what the artist wants from the song, and what you can extract from those to get that. Sometimes it's easy, sometimes it's hard. I'm certainly a fan of doing all the really hard work in the tracking process to keep mixing simple. But not always an option or possible. Well, there are people who work in bedrooms and living rooms who are in fact good, experienced people. But I think we both know that's not what I'm talking about. Heck, Rudy Van Gelder recorded all his famous jazz albums in his living room. I’ll go out on an unpopular limb here and say that the records he made (Rudy) generally didn’t sound great. The music is great, but man some of those sounds that are his calling card are just awful.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jul 8, 2019 6:41:18 GMT -6
I guess there's a lot of folks on here that love the way old home videos look more than Hollywood movies, at least based on their belief that "real" is better.. That seems like a derogatory POV, based on a personal sense of style. You seem to argue that no classical or other acoustic music recorded with a purist approach is listenable. That's a style preference......you have made it abundantly clear that you like a lot of processing....that's fine....for you. That's not what I argued at all. John was insinuating that purity is the ONLY way to mix something GOOD. I was just riffing on that trope to prove a point of hypocrisy on his part.. You know, since HE was the one who continues to say that modern methods are not listenable.. The point I was making is that mix engineers add something to every mix, and we should be making it a bigger and better version of itself. That's why they call it a "mix", because even if it's as simple as balancing levels, we're changing something for the better. But I'd also like to get this straight in my head.. because his doublespeak is confusing to me.. Musicians are idiots that can't/shouldn't mix.. But their vision must be upheld and not damaged by someone else mixing..? Tracking everything *right* is the only way, but musicians can't be trusted to perform things correctly anymore.. Right?
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jul 8, 2019 7:23:44 GMT -6
That's not what I argued at all. Someone just told me something like 5 planets are in retrograde this month (I don't know), and we'll all misinterpret and mistate everything......watch out! : )
|
|
|
Post by adamjbrass on Jul 8, 2019 8:35:42 GMT -6
After a while of being in audio, I have grown extremely tired of the amount of "schegma" people slather on their productions.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 8, 2019 9:18:43 GMT -6
Sure - "Natural" which is in the title of this thread is quite often best accomplished with minimalism. Plug-ins, Outboard and Mics included.
But there are many times - one could argue "most" times - that natural is not what we are after. Since English is not Holmes native tongue, I think we can cut him some slack.
There is room in recording for BOTH methods as Blackdawg mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jul 8, 2019 9:35:26 GMT -6
Sure - "Natural" which is in the title of this thread is quite often best accomplished with minimalism. Plug-ins, Outboard and Mics included. But there are many times - one could argue "most" times - that natural is not what we are after. Since English is not Holmes native tongue, I think we can cut him some slack. There is room in recording for BOTH methods as Blackdawg mentioned.
This and there are two ?? in the subject LINE.
It works a lot of opinions I like it.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jul 8, 2019 13:47:47 GMT -6
That seems like a derogatory POV, based on a personal sense of style. You seem to argue that no classical or other acoustic music recorded with a purist approach is listenable. That's a style preference......you have made it abundantly clear that you like a lot of processing....that's fine....for you. That's not what I argued at all. John was insinuating that purity is the ONLY way to mix something GOOD. I was just riffing on that trope to prove a point of hypocrisy on his part.. You know, since HE was the one who continues to say that modern methods are not listenable.. The point I was making is that mix engineers add something to every mix, and we should be making it a bigger and better version of itself. That's why they call it a "mix", because even if it's as simple as balancing levels, we're changing something for the better. But I'd also like to get this straight in my head.. because his doublespeak is confusing to me.. It's not the ONLY way. There is no ONLY way, that should be obvious. But there are an awful lot of people who seem to believe that slathering on processing and FX is the ONLY way. And that's wrong, too. Music is an acoustical phenomenon. It starts with waves in the air. Without that music doesn't exist. So you begin with that. (EDM aside, but that's not what I'm talking about. And, at least to me, EDM gets tiring REAL fast.) And if you get a really great capture of a great performance you've got 90% of the work done.
That's a sweeping generalization and, like most sweeping generalizations isn't true as stated, although there's a grain of truth in the root.
The fact is that these days most self-recording musicians ARE idiots because they are attempting a specialized technical process for which they have no training or experience. Most of them have never even been near a studio, let alone have even attended a session or working in one in any capacity. And for information they rely on salesmen whose motivation is pushing product and the opionions of others with little more experience or training than themselves. People who wouldn't think of fixing a faucet or changing the oil in their car think nothing of trying to engineer a record.
It's like a guy who thinks that just because he's a great doctor it qualifies him to pilot an airplane. I think that eveybody would agree that's pretty idiotic, right?
Therre are lots of engineers who are also great, or at least very good musicians. There are far fewer musicians who are even competent engineers, especially tracking engineers because the skills and ear training involved aren't really obvious to people who don't have experience doing that.
If those musicians put half the time they put into learning their instruments into learning how to record (assuming they could find a facility to learn at, which is harder these days because nobody thinks they need to record in a real studio anymore) lots of them could become competent, if not very good engineers. But they think they don't have to do that. At best they might take a class or correspondance course in how to run a DAW. But, as everybody here probably knows, how to run a DAW is not how to actually record a session. It's like trying to learn to drive out of a book.
Or like me trying to get a job as a seceretary or a stenographer when, as everybody here probably knows, I can't type.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2019 15:19:44 GMT -6
I think it's best not to be dogmatic about stuff like this. I like a balance. I try to preserve the fundamental tone/sound/whatever of the band and instrument, save for whatever needs to be done to get things to blend in a complimentary way. From there I like to pepper in a little hyper-realism, but only if it serves to enhance the overall intent. Create a world for the song to live in. That said, if I get disgusted with my work, it's almost always because I stepped on it too much. I spend a lot of time getting things "right" when tracking, so nothing should need too much muscle, and I often end up dialing things back before the final mix is complete. Lots of small moves, rather than big sculpting stuff. Gotta read the room too. If I know the band wants what I lovingly refer to as the "dudes in a room" sound ™ , then that's what they get.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jul 24, 2019 14:21:17 GMT -6
I think it's best not to be dogmatic about stuff like this. I like a balance. I try to preserve the fundamental tone/sound/whatever of the band and instrument, save for whatever needs to be done to get things to blend in a complimentary way. From there I like to pepper in a little hyper-realism, but only if it serves to enhance the overall intent. Create a world for the song to live in. That said, if I get disgusted with my work, it's almost always because I stepped on it too much. I spend a lot of time getting things "right" when tracking, so nothing should need too much muscle, and I often end up dialing things back before the final mix is complete. Lots of small moves, rather than big sculpting stuff. Gotta read the room too. If I know the band wants what I lovingly refer to as the "dudes in a room" sound ™ , then that's what they get. So true in the end of the day there was some more processing than I thought. For a natural sound I was surprisssed that some tools just work perfectly even when heavy processing is going on. I can say I proofed myself wrong. MÖPPP
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jul 24, 2019 20:23:26 GMT -6
I probably should have been a little more open with my comments earlier. I mean, for a pro... #1 goal is to have to do less work, haha! So you WANT to get it as close to done as early as possible. In the old days before my time, -oh darn 3/4 tracks - and that was it. So they had to be creative during the tracking. And then they HAD to make it work. I can hear often where most things were great like Elvis’s voice... and some things weren’t so great and they’d fade it way into the background. I’m willing to bet you could take Elvis’s 50’s vocal track, multi it and do a vocal tuned version as a double- and add 808/ clap and he’d probably be as clean and smooth as anyone today! Oh man.. way off course... point is: the pros on here know all the tricks, tried them all already, have their method.. and I admire when someone can make it happen from the source. To me I hear the old stuff and it floors me! No way on earth could anyone today match what they were able to do! Today we like distortion... but George Martin and others were intentionally using distortion back in the 60’s, (I saw some raw footage following John Lennon around where Martin is talking to staff about adding more or less distortion to the horn section and deciding whether they like it or not. He also gave JL an earful when John complained it was too way bright, John just walked away... probably my fav behind the scenes moment ever lol). Anyway.. yeah we wish it was all the first take and that’s it. But I’m sure all of us would use whatever trick we needed to if we had to make something work. Even the Eric V drum video he says “no samples.. expect for one hit., oh and this one and this one too and ok.”.. we all forget sometimes because we do stuff without thinking.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jul 25, 2019 2:34:44 GMT -6
I probably should have been a little more open with my comments earlier. I mean, for a pro... #1 goal is to have to do less work, haha! So you WANT to get it as close to done as early as possible. In the old days before my time, -oh darn 3/4 tracks - and that was it. So they had to be creative during the tracking. And then they HAD to make it work. I can hear often where most things were great like Elvis’s voice... and some things weren’t so great and they’d fade it way into the background. I’m willing to bet you could take Elvis’s 50’s vocal track, multi it and do a vocal tuned version as a double- and add 808/ clap and he’d probably be as clean and smooth as anyone today! Oh man.. way off course... point is: the pros on here know all the tricks, tried them all already, have their method.. and I admire when someone can make it happen from the source. To me I hear the old stuff and it floors me! No way on earth could anyone today match what they were able to do! Today we like distortion... but George Martin and others were intentionally using distortion back in the 60’s, (I saw some raw footage following John Lennon around where Martin is talking to staff about adding more or less distortion to the horn section and deciding whether they like it or not. He also gave JL an earful when John complained it was too way bright, John just walked away... probably my fav behind the scenes moment ever lol). Anyway.. yeah we wish it was all the first take and that’s it. But I’m sure all of us would use whatever trick we needed to if we had to make something work. Even the Eric V drum video he says “no samples.. expect for one hit., oh and this one and this one too and ok.”.. we all forget sometimes because we do stuff without thinking.
It reminds me on a story about Jimi Hendrix by Kramer. He said sometimes it was take #27 and not the first one, nor the second one.
Your post also reminds me on something diffrent. Knwoing my limitations in lesser ideal tracking situations.
I wanted to track ACG at a freinds pro-studio, but the sapce was blocked for 2 weeks.
I decided to DI the Acoustic guitar and to fake it - as far as it goes with artficial reverb.
To my surprise, in the end the first decission, fake DI-Acoustic, gave the whole thing the right vibe. Around this strings and some organ / banjo adlibs. Up front LV telling the story.
The song teached me -one more time- to let things happen, to go with the flow.
I cant controll evertyhing. If the circumstances dont work I have to make a decisssion - move on and on.
Otherwise my arrangement/mix/song never ends.
It sounds somewhat crazy but the answer to the topic maybe is:
Let things go/happen, go with the flow.... moving on is very very important.
Most of the time I think its important to be in charge of everything in the first place. For a nice song the opposite seems to be true.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jul 25, 2019 4:47:57 GMT -6
What an entertaining read. Of course, the range of responses is predictably varied ..as it should be because therein lies the answer.
Pro's know the sound they want and know how to get it efficiently, and their methodology is as varied as there are genres of music.
Sure, amateurs like myself stumble around, make a lot of ill-advised and even poor decisions, and often have to re-discover the wheel. But we have tools that the pros of the past could never have imagined in their wildest dreams. With a motion of ours hands we can effortlessly slap an EQ on a track, tweak an out of tune or misaligned note. We can audition a dozen different compressors without touching a wire. Moreover, there are banks of gear pre-ordered and programmed that we can use as a starting point so we don't have to re-invent that wheel. We have access to a seemingly infinite array of video tutorials made by pros that are tailored to the type of music that we want to record and mix. I could go on.. But the bottom line is that reasonably high-quality recording is no longer the sole domain of audio professionals. Don't get me wrong, there will always be a need for them, at least in the foreseeable future, but the shape of the hierarchical pyramid is changing.
Truth be told, I'm often thankful that my music isn't in the hands of an engineer. I make musical decisions that I would rather not trust to an engineer. I know because I've seen them work, and they do make 'musical' decisions. Make no mistake; I understand there's admittedly a trade-off. Yes, they can EQ and get things to sit in the mix better and WAY faster than I can, but these days they work too fast (because they have to). I, on the other hand, can futz with a mix for days ..weeks if I want. I can go back and re-record things, micro-manage automation. In other words, I have the luxury of working the way musicians did back in the day when they could spend six months in the studio.
I would be remiss if I didn't mention the significant advantage the pros have regarding the actual recording. Today's musicians have better access to high quality gear, but pros can place mics better, gain stage and get the chain sounding better on the way in. This is critical for acoustically oriented music, which is unfortunately what I create, but in this day and age musicians are expected to know engineering basics. Even back in the 80's when I went to music school, I took an engineering course. I've got to believe it's a requirement for a music degree these days.
Now, back on topic: What's the definition of natural?
|
|