|
|
Post by bgrotto on Jan 23, 2023 20:13:36 GMT -6
From a professional perspective I could care less. That's work that was never coming to us in the first place. Nor should it. They're on some other path that doesn't require acoustic spaces & piles of microphones to say nothing of outside 'producer' style opinions. The stuff we offer? Not needed. This, 100%. It's also more or less the same answer I give when people ask me (and they seem to want to ask this often, multiple times a year, for the last twenty years or so that I've been working professionally😐): "But what about those home studios you're competing with? How do you deal with all the clients they're stealing away?" That question keeps getting asked every few months, those home studios keep disappearing year after year (to be replaced by new ones), the question gets asked again, and my shop gets busier every year. 🤷🏻♀️ |
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Jan 23, 2023 20:48:37 GMT -6
That question keeps getting asked every few months, those home studios keep disappearing year after year (to be replaced by new ones), the question gets asked again, and my shop gets busier every year. 🤷🏻♀️ Clueless zorches running around playing grabass in the dark & shopping by the lowest rate never would've considered professional services in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Jan 23, 2023 20:54:28 GMT -6
That question keeps getting asked every few months, those home studios keep disappearing year after year (to be replaced by new ones), the question gets asked again, and my shop gets busier every year. 🤷🏻♀️ Clueless zorches running around playing grabass in the dark & shopping by the lowest rate never would've considered professional services in the first place. 😂that video |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 12,701 
|
Post by ericn on Jan 23, 2023 22:14:56 GMT -6
I am such an internal contradiction on this subject, I realize the skills I have, most of all the problem solving skills were developed over years of having no choice but to live within limitations. Coming up in the analog age first with 2, 2-tracks, then 4, 8, 16 24 made me work, as good as I became at using a razor blade, I learned get it right in the tracking. Using those very basic Ampex mixers made me appreciate a Mackie 1604. If I were teaching intro to production I would be fighting to start on the 440-8 ( this is why I’m not), nothing to with the longing for the sound of tape or nostalgia. It’s all about learning to think, move the mics, get it right in the tracking, making the players well play.
On the other hand, any idea how often PT saved my ass? Unlimited tracks, being able to pull bass take 3 up after 30 takes, no I don’t want to go back to the days of deciding if we are going to keep it or not. For us old farts note by note with an Eventide punching in and out or auto tune? Wait better have at least one track left if you’re doing the auto tune!
The fun of syncing? Don’t miss it.
As an AE I don’t miss the limitations, as a producer I miss forcing the performers to perform. One of the reasons I have gravitated back to doing live is I don’t have to fight someone to sing instead of me pulling what hair I have left out trying to assemble a performance or a facsimile. Yet the live rack has 2 Anteras boxes because talent is hard to find.
The thing about the console is funny, not because I really disagree with JK but because in those days everyone was trying to get rid of those little differences between channels. Now I’m sitting here thinking OK for less than $2k you can have unlimited tracks, a mixer that makes a SSL 4K look limited and a virtual FX rack that rivals most decent 80’s rooms plus a handful of useable pre’s in a rack space and a laptop?
The thing is for most of us who had the opportunity to come up in decent rooms is the self imposed limitations of physics and particularly acoustics. Yeah all but a handful of us deal with it every day. Many think spending a couple of $k solves these issue’s, then you walk into a real room and realize the laws of physics are our cruel master limiting us.
Yeah I’m all over the place, I honestly tried twice to outline it, but in the end I think free flowing thought shows what I started with this subject is an internal conflict, probably easier to come up with an effective plan for world peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by tkaitkai on Jan 24, 2023 9:54:45 GMT -6
Along the way someone mentioned Ellish and the pop tart kids and hey, thanks to Letterman we get a 2 minute look at how they're making those records. Which yes indeed its working for them but its not at all typical which is also why its so polarizing. If it wasn't for that clip we'd probably have no idea of the sheer amount of editing they're doing. Those kinda kids... those projects aren't booking my shop or your shop or Benny's shop to make an album like that. They're gonna buy a mic & interface from guitardenter and make that record at home. And more power to 'em! You raise some good points here. That said — and I'm sorry in advance for nitpicking — this kind of vocal production is much, much more common than one might think. Even in commercial studio settings where time is of the essence. I do this kind of production all the time, and I learned a lot of it from bigger names in commercial studios that I hired as an artist. It's really not that tedious or time-consuming. Once you get the workflow down, it's pretty much just budgeting out your time wisely and knowing the best way to execute the task at hand. I will typically do 6 - 12 "keeper" takes per section of any given song, make a lead vocal comp, time-align, and tune. Sometimes specific words or phrases need to be punched in. Then track doubles/triples, harmonies, backgrounds, and adlibs. The amount varies based on the song. Is it work? Yes, but the end result is always worth it. When done correctly, it allows you to get very granular about every moment in the song. I think some find this distasteful because they look at recording as a means to capture a "real" performance, whereas I think of recording and performing as two discrete art forms. |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Jan 24, 2023 10:10:40 GMT -6
Along the way someone mentioned Ellish and the pop tart kids and hey, thanks to Letterman we get a 2 minute look at how they're making those records. Which yes indeed its working for them but its not at all typical which is also why its so polarizing. If it wasn't for that clip we'd probably have no idea of the sheer amount of editing they're doing. Those kinda kids... those projects aren't booking my shop or your shop or Benny's shop to make an album like that. They're gonna buy a mic & interface from guitardenter and make that record at home. And more power to 'em! You raise some good points here. That said — and I'm sorry in advance for nitpicking — this kind of vocal production is much, much more common than one might think. Even in commercial studio settings where time is of the essence. I do this kind of production all the time, and I learned a lot of it from bigger names in commercial studios that I hired as an artist. It's really not that tedious or time-consuming. Once you get the workflow down, it's pretty much just budgeting out your time wisely and knowing the best way to execute the task at hand. I will typically do 6 - 12 "keeper" takes per section of any given song, make a lead vocal comp, time-align, and tune. Sometimes specific words or phrases need to be punched in. Then track doubles/triples, harmonies, backgrounds, and adlibs. The amount varies based on the song. Is it work? Yes, but the end result is always worth it. When done correctly, it allows you to get very granular about every moment in the song. I think some find this distasteful because they look at recording as a means to capture a "real" performance, whereas I think of recording and performing as two discrete art forms. Are you a user of loop record, at all? I know a lot of (particularly younger) folks like it; I've always struggled to get along with it as a producer, because it makes organizing my thoughts about individual takes impossible. As an engineer, though, whoooooo-howdy it makes racking up lots of takes EASY. So long as the producer doesn't ask me to run PT for the comp 🤣 Anywho, if you are indeed a user of loop record, and you have any tips, I'd love to know them! |
|
|
|
Post by tkaitkai on Jan 24, 2023 10:29:06 GMT -6
You raise some good points here. That said — and I'm sorry in advance for nitpicking — this kind of vocal production is much, much more common than one might think. Even in commercial studio settings where time is of the essence. I do this kind of production all the time, and I learned a lot of it from bigger names in commercial studios that I hired as an artist. It's really not that tedious or time-consuming. Once you get the workflow down, it's pretty much just budgeting out your time wisely and knowing the best way to execute the task at hand. I will typically do 6 - 12 "keeper" takes per section of any given song, make a lead vocal comp, time-align, and tune. Sometimes specific words or phrases need to be punched in. Then track doubles/triples, harmonies, backgrounds, and adlibs. The amount varies based on the song. Is it work? Yes, but the end result is always worth it. When done correctly, it allows you to get very granular about every moment in the song. I think some find this distasteful because they look at recording as a means to capture a "real" performance, whereas I think of recording and performing as two discrete art forms. Are you a user of loop record, at all? I know a lot of (particularly younger) folks like it; I've always struggled to get along with it as a producer, because it makes organizing my thoughts about individual takes impossible. As an engineer, though, whoooooo-howdy it makes racking up lots of takes EASY. So long as the producer doesn't ask me to run PT for the comp 🤣 Anywho, if you are indeed a user of loop record, and you have any tips, I'd love to know them! Man I wish I could help, but I also HATE loop record lol! Something about it just doesn't sit right with my brain.
I use Reaper for self-recording vocals and it's AMAZING for this task. I create 10 - 15 tracks, set them to automatically record-arm when selected, and then place markers at every section of the song (usually 1 - 2 bars ahead of where the vocal comes in). I use a control surface iPhone app where I can easily jump between markers as needed. From my phone, I literally just select a track, record, move to the next track, record again, and so on. Pretty much no running back and forth to the computer. I have destructive editing enabled so I can easily record over garbage takes, and I'm not cluttering my session with takes I'll never use. |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 24, 2023 11:54:40 GMT -6
At some point I start duplicating the track and punching sections like it's tape, keeping all the versions so I can post-comp if needed, but it's mostly done as we go. Usually that's after an initial listen/comp after 3-5 complete passes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jan 24, 2023 11:56:14 GMT -6
Along the way someone mentioned Ellish and the pop tart kids and hey, thanks to Letterman we get a 2 minute look at how they're making those records. Which yes indeed its working for them but its not at all typical which is also why its so polarizing. If it wasn't for that clip we'd probably have no idea of the sheer amount of editing they're doing. Those kinda kids... those projects aren't booking my shop or your shop or Benny's shop to make an album like that. They're gonna buy a mic & interface from guitardenter and make that record at home. And more power to 'em! You raise some good points here. That said — and I'm sorry in advance for nitpicking — this kind of vocal production is much, much more common than one might think. Even in commercial studio settings where time is of the essence. I do this kind of production all the time, and I learned a lot of it from bigger names in commercial studios that I hired as an artist. It's really not that tedious or time-consuming. Once you get the workflow down, it's pretty much just budgeting out your time wisely and knowing the best way to execute the task at hand. I will typically do 6 - 12 "keeper" takes per section of any given song, make a lead vocal comp, time-align, and tune. Sometimes specific words or phrases need to be punched in. Then track doubles/triples, harmonies, backgrounds, and adlibs. The amount varies based on the song. Is it work? Yes, but the end result is always worth it. When done correctly, it allows you to get very granular about every moment in the song. I think some find this distasteful because they look at recording as a means to capture a "real" performance, whereas I think of recording and performing as two discrete art forms. You just stated most of my thoughts on the subject! I was going to add that I’m betting that Billie Elish (and others) are writing and producing the vocals as they go. That’s probably not mentioned in the video. But I, like you, have done this type of vocal comping quite a bit. And it’s not because the singer can’t sing or doesn’t know the part. It’s often because they want to try each part 3-4 different ways. Then we comp a take, creating a whole new style for the part, and the singer will then try to beat that in a few full takes. It easily adds up to 10-16 takes per part…which lands you in the 80-90 take range really easily. And then there’s doubles, harmonies etc… To me it’s just style of producing/writing. It’s less about capturing a performance and more about creating one. |
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Jan 24, 2023 13:02:39 GMT -6
It's so rare to see anyone have the focus or stamina to actually do this. Frequently it's hard to get people to sing something 3-5 times!
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 24, 2023 14:13:32 GMT -6
This just sounds so counter to the joys of creativity and the reason I got into music to begin with. Seems more akin to factory work at that point. My greatest memories in the studio are as a young engineer, setting up a mic, getting levels to tape, adjusting the compressor, and then realizing that I just screwed up and missed capturing one of the most inspiring vocal takes I'd ever heard in my life. Then apologizing, and the artist saying "no problem man, I was just warming up." Then getting the second take complete, and having it turn out even better!! The DAW has killed off musicianship to the point that we are accepting of taking 100+ takes to get a vocal "right". Y'all can just call me old.....  NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!! |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 12,701
|
Post by ericn on Jan 24, 2023 14:27:08 GMT -6
This just sounds so counter to the joys of creativity and the reason I got into music to begin with. Seems more akin to factory work at that point. My greatest memories in the studio are as a young engineer, setting up a mic, getting levels to tape, adjusting the compressor, and then realizing that I just screwed up and missed capturing one of the most inspiring vocal takes I'd ever heard in my life. Then apologizing, and the artist saying "no problem man, I was just warming up." Then getting the second take complete, and having it turn out even better!! The DAW has killed off musicianship to the point that we are accepting of taking 100+ takes to get a vocal "right". Y'all can just call me old..... NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!! We are old Bro!, but then we remember when the singer actually had to be able to sing and there would be a discussion of “ yeah that session player put down an awesome solo, but can the guitarist pull off something exceptable live?” |
|
|
|
Post by tkaitkai on Jan 24, 2023 14:35:42 GMT -6
This just sounds so counter to the joys of creativity and the reason I got into music to begin with. Seems more akin to factory work at that point. My greatest memories in the studio are as a young engineer, setting up a mic, getting levels to tape, adjusting the compressor, and then realizing that I just screwed up and missed capturing one of the most inspiring vocal takes I'd ever heard in my life. Then apologizing, and the artist saying "no problem man, I was just warming up." Then getting the second take complete, and having it turn out even better!! The DAW has killed off musicianship to the point that we are accepting of taking 100+ takes to get a vocal "right". Y'all can just call me old..... NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!! I can see why it might seem monotonous, but it honestly doesn't feel like factory work to me. It actually feels very satisfying to end up with a vocal where I have zero complaints about the end result. And the workflow itself gives me a ton of confidence as an artist, knowing that I have everything I need to make a recorded vocal sound exactly as I hear it in my head. Which, ironically, tends to make my performances better, requiring less editing than they used to... 
As Tbone81 mentioned, it's really more about creative experimentation than anything else. It's like moving a mic around a guitar cab, or auditioning different snare samples in a mix to see which one gels the most. Sometimes you do 15 takes for a chorus, and there's one where your voice did some cool raspy thing on literally one word, and comping that single word is what makes the whole friggin chorus. |
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Jan 24, 2023 14:38:26 GMT -6
Are you a user of loop record, at all? I know a lot of (particularly younger) folks like it; I've always struggled to get along with it as a producer, because it makes organizing my thoughts about individual takes impossible. As an engineer, though, whoooooo-howdy it makes racking up lots of takes EASY. So long as the producer doesn't ask me to run PT for the comp 🤣 One of the only things I really miss about working on analog tape is rewind time. It gave everyone a few seconds to catch their breath & collect thoughts before hitting the next take. Now its spacebar / spacebar ok go again! I've been on sessions as a guitarist where its like woah... ya gotta slow down. Gimme a second to check my tuning & grab a swig of vitamin water. Geez. Yet another element that's kinda gone from modern workflows. Couple years ago I produced an EP for a group called Planets of Grace out of Florida... did that at Big Blue North in NY... mixed to 1/2 tape 30ips... 5088 desk to an actual ATR102. Listening back to prints & banging the mixes over to 96kHz the guys were like... what's that sound?? Jeff and I are like, huh? What sound? It was the sound of rewinding tape going over the heads. They had never heard that before. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 24, 2023 14:55:48 GMT -6
This just sounds so counter to the joys of creativity and the reason I got into music to begin with. Seems more akin to factory work at that point. My greatest memories in the studio are as a young engineer, setting up a mic, getting levels to tape, adjusting the compressor, and then realizing that I just screwed up and missed capturing one of the most inspiring vocal takes I'd ever heard in my life. Then apologizing, and the artist saying "no problem man, I was just warming up." Then getting the second take complete, and having it turn out even better!! The DAW has killed off musicianship to the point that we are accepting of taking 100+ takes to get a vocal "right". Y'all can just call me old..... NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!! I can see why it might seem monotonous, but it honestly doesn't feel like factory work to me. It actually feels very satisfying to end up with a vocal where I have zero complaints about the end result. And the workflow itself gives me a ton of confidence as an artist, knowing that I have everything I need to make a recorded vocal sound exactly as I hear it in my head. Which, ironically, tends to make my performances better, requiring less editing than they used to...
As Tbone81 mentioned, it's really more about creative experimentation than anything else. It's like moving a mic around a guitar cab, or auditioning different snare samples in a mix to see which one gels the most. Sometimes you do 15 takes for a chorus, and there's one where your voice did some cool raspy thing on literally one word, and comping that single word is what makes the whole friggin chorus. Oh I get it. Understand it completely. I miss where the industry mostly made music happen spontaneously - where musicians were put on the spot in front of their peers, and there was no real "fix it in the mix" - or worse, fix it with a couple hundred overdubs, with 3 alt amp options for each of the 20 guitar parts, and DI's for everything so we can reamp scenarios. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 24, 2023 14:57:41 GMT -6
Listening back to prints & banging the mixes over to 96kHz the guys were like... what's that sound?? Jeff and I are like, huh? What sound? It was the sound of rewinding tape going over the heads. They had never heard that before.  |
|
|
|
Post by tkaitkai on Jan 24, 2023 15:27:27 GMT -6
Oh I get it. Understand it completely. I miss where the industry mostly made music happen spontaneously - where musicians were put on the spot in front of their peers, and there was no real "fix it in the mix" - or worse, fix it with a couple hundred overdubs, with 3 alt amp options for each of the 20 guitar parts, and DI's for everything so we can reamp scenarios. I think that's totally valid. There are tons of classics that wouldn't make any sense if they'd been recorded with a modern approach. I wouldn't want to hear a version of Pink Moon that was recorded in 100 takes and comped/edited to the grid with virtual acoustic guitars, no pitch drift, no noise. That would be insulting.
But for a Dua Lipa record? That's exactly what I want. I know I'm nitpicking here — I just think it's important to point out that modern pop vocal production doesn't have to be drudgery if you don't want it to be. I have a ton of fun with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 24, 2023 17:31:05 GMT -6
I see the way Eilish works as a simply recording a practice session. She tries various versions of something and keeps the best one to create a finished track. Then she performs live, and uses that version as the benchmark.
The benefit of having so many tracks is it's easy to do, so people do it. Take a classic song like "Bridge Over Troubled Water". Art Garfunkel did a ridiculous number of takes, and then left it to the engineers to splice a performance together. No one would argue that invalidates the work somehow. I don't see why Billie Eilish should be held to a different standard since she can reproduce what she does on an album live.
That to me is the criteria. If you're a fake, you can't do it well live.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 12,701
|
Post by ericn on Jan 24, 2023 19:18:34 GMT -6
I see the way Eilish works as a simply recording a practice session. She tries various versions of something and keeps the best one to create a finished track. Then she performs live, and uses that version as the benchmark. The benefit of having so many tracks is it's easy to do, so people do it. Take a classic song like "Bridge Over Troubled Water". Art Garfunkel did a ridiculous number of takes, and then left it to the engineers to splice a performance together. No one would argue that invalidates the work somehow. I don't see why Billie Eilish should be held to a different standard since she can reproduce what she does on an album live. That to me is the criteria. If you're a fake, you can't do it well live. I don’t know Martin, think back about 20 years ago and all the Art Garfunkel jokes, wasn’t there even a running SNL gag about him. |
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Jan 24, 2023 20:00:36 GMT -6
Yeah... Art Garfunkel? Really? That's the example we're gonna use? Ok.
(...yes I agree lets move on...)
|
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Jan 24, 2023 21:48:19 GMT -6
Oh I get it. Understand it completely. I miss where the industry mostly made music happen spontaneously - where musicians were put on the spot in front of their peers, and there was no real "fix it in the mix" - or worse, fix it with a couple hundred overdubs, with 3 alt amp options for each of the 20 guitar parts, and DI's for everything so we can reamp scenarios. I think that's totally valid. There are tons of classics that wouldn't make any sense if they'd been recorded with a modern approach. I wouldn't want to hear a version of Pink Moon that was recorded in 100 takes and comped/edited to the grid with virtual acoustic guitars, no pitch drift, no noise. That would be insulting.
But for a Dua Lipa record? That's exactly what I want. I know I'm nitpicking here — I just think it's important to point out that modern pop vocal production doesn't have to be drudgery if you don't want it to be. I have a ton of fun with it.
Allow me to plug Joe Boyd’s White Bicylces here, great book by Nick Drake’s producer. Although notably, he did not do the most popular of Drake’s records. |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Jan 24, 2023 23:05:12 GMT -6
Are you a user of loop record, at all? I know a lot of (particularly younger) folks like it; I've always struggled to get along with it as a producer, because it makes organizing my thoughts about individual takes impossible. As an engineer, though, whoooooo-howdy it makes racking up lots of takes EASY. So long as the producer doesn't ask me to run PT for the comp 🤣 One of the only things I really miss about working on analog tape is rewind time. It gave everyone a few seconds to catch their breath & collect thoughts before hitting the next take. Now its spacebar / spacebar ok go again! I've been on sessions as a guitarist where its like woah... ya gotta slow down. Gimme a second to check my tuning & grab a swig of vitamin water. Geez. Yet another element that's kinda gone from modern workflows. Couple years ago I produced an EP for a group called Planets of Grace out of Florida... did that at Big Blue North in NY... mixed to 1/2 tape 30ips... 5088 desk to an actual ATR102. Listening back to prints & banging the mixes over to 96kHz the guys were like... what's that sound?? Jeff and I are like, huh? What sound? It was the sound of rewinding tape going over the heads. They had never heard that before. Ha that reminds me. A tech here in town has a great story about his early days as an assistant at a local famous studio. He was officially there as an assistant engineer, but was very capable with electronics, and noticed the tape machine transport was rew/ff a bit slow. So he opened it up during some downtime, fixed it, and then let the boss know of his good deed. Boss tells him, "WTF is wrong with you...put it back right away....don't you realize we get paid by the hour?!?" Turns out, the boss had rigged that tape deck to shuttle a bit slow to burn more time on sessions 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 25, 2023 0:23:23 GMT -6
Yeah... Art Garfunkel? Really? That's the example we're gonna use? Ok. (...yes I agree lets move on...) Yeah, that's the example I'm using. Bridge Over Troubled Water is undeniably one of the most beautiful songs written and recorded in the 20th century, and that guy sang it. I never commented on Art Garfunkel personally, only that he left engineers to cobble together what we know as Bridge Over Troubled Water's vocal. He's by no means any kind of benchmark or important person in my own musical DNA. My point was that splicing a lot of tape was a big part of that particular recording process and the success of that song. I see someone like Billie Eilish doing dozens of passes of different phrases as much the same thing. It's really not very different, just digital and therefore, much easier. So, if it's OK musically for great artists like Peter Gabriel to do massive overdubs and comps, or The Beatles to make magic by using all sorts of engineering tricks to get more out of only four tracks, there shouldn't be a different standard for a new and young artist. They're just using what's available to them. |
|
|
|
Post by ragan on Jan 25, 2023 0:30:51 GMT -6
Good points, Martin.
I've often had that thought too. We tend to lionize people from the past (I'd be willing to bet I'm more guilty of this than anyone here) and the 'pure' ways they did things, but you better believe that if they had the capabilities we have now, they'd have been exploiting the hell out of them. You can also make the case that one of the central things that made some of the greats great was that they didn't have these capabilities, and thus they had more incentive to kick arse with minimal editing. I mostly subscribe to that view, being someone who thinks limits are good for skill and creativity in general. But there's no real answer there, because it's asking the question "what if the past was totally different than it was?" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 25, 2023 10:35:55 GMT -6
Thanks Ragan. My goal is always to get the absolute best version possible of any track I'm working on. If I could choose any way to work, I'd choose doing the main tracks live in a great studio, like Chris Stapleton did on Starting Over, but I'd reserve the possibility of doing vocals later and maybe a few overdubs.
|
|
