|
Post by Quint on Jun 1, 2022 12:37:09 GMT -6
Well there's always been that sort of battle between artist and engineer. It's one of the reasons that many artists have gotten into recording themselves, especially given the proliferation of affordable but good quality gear in the last 10+ years. I still maintain that transparency is the way to go here, but to each their own. My own experience mirrors Svart and Notneeson. I find that artists sometimes know exactly what their after sound wise, but almost never know how to get there. I've had plenty of guitar and bass players insist on one method or another (DI, no DI, real amp, sim, no sim etc), without any real understanding of how the methodology effects the end result. Guitar players especially get hung up on these things, and speaking as a guitar player myself, almost none of them really understand how to get good tone. For example, so few of them realize that those perfect tone settings on your amp won't sound the same once you setup your amp in a different room. As Svart said, there's a lot of psychology at play here and you need to be a master of it for sessions to run smoothly. Artists may say they want a certain thing, but what they really want is a great sounding end result, period. And that's +1000 for artists that are immature, insecure in their art, or just inexperienced. Does that mean you have Carte Blanche to do as you please as the AE? Sometimes yes, sometimes no...depends on the context and the individual situation, however "transparency" is a double edge sword. It'll often screw you. So if an artist asks me specifically how I got such and such a sound I'll tell them, honestly. But I don't volunteer that info, too many land mines there. But at the end of the day, if you're delivering great sound tracks to them, 99% of the time they stop caring. ymmv I agree. It's a total pain to deal with managing all of those expectations, biases, lack of understanding how to get good tone, etc. But my approach to that situation would be to try educate rather than obfuscate. Sure, that's also a pain in the ass, so it's just an all around pain in the ass. I got into the recording world via being on the artist side first and I still always try to keep that in mind because, ultimately, none of this would be happening were it not for artists trying to create something in the first place. To that end, I still feel like it should be best practice to be transparent about such things as replacing an amp with a sim. It might be a pain in the ass, but I say be transparent and let the chips fall where they may.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 1, 2022 12:51:04 GMT -6
I think my job is to use appropriate tools to deliver a great work product. Now, if I was recording some SRV wannabe, I’d def not use an amp sim. We’d have front loaded all the work to getting a great guitar sound in a real effing studio, otherwise I don’t see the point. By the same token, if I were recording modern metal I’d be totally confident in using samples and would not worry about getting permission. It’s where the genre is at. If I was recording someone with Quint’s strong feelings on the subject of what constitutes “cheating” (my word not yours, and no disrespect intended) it would be my hope that the artist would air their strong beliefs up front towards a mutually beneficial collaboration. In other words, if there are rules, that’s great… but the artist needs to express that they have a vision that does not include X widely accepted modern production techniques because, guess what, we are taking largely about 4 digit budgets in my world and we have to be hyper efficient to do good work, and taut absolutely might include an amp sim under certain circumstances. Yeah, I know that's kind of where a lot of metal tends to be these days but then, sure enough there will be a Tony Iommi acolyte that wants his real amps and only his real amps. For no other reason than "you never know", I'd still feel the need to ask everytime, regardless of genre. One thing I would say is that I would reverse this and say that the honus should be on the engineer and not the artist when it comes to expressing what rules might be "broken". If the artist plays through an amp, I think it's up to the engineer to propose a sim and get permission to do so rather than putting it on the artist to preemptively and expressly state that they are okay with it. If they played it through an amp, it should be assumed that that's how they wanted it and it should only be changed to a sim if it's discussed with them and they are cool with it.
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Jun 1, 2022 13:06:20 GMT -6
I think my job is to use appropriate tools to deliver a great work product. Now, if I was recording some SRV wannabe, I’d def not use an amp sim. We’d have front loaded all the work to getting a great guitar sound in a real effing studio, otherwise I don’t see the point. By the same token, if I were recording modern metal I’d be totally confident in using samples and would not worry about getting permission. It’s where the genre is at. If I was recording someone with Quint’s strong feelings on the subject of what constitutes “cheating” (my word not yours, and no disrespect intended) it would be my hope that the artist would air their strong beliefs up front towards a mutually beneficial collaboration. In other words, if there are rules, that’s great… but the artist needs to express that they have a vision that does not include X widely accepted modern production techniques because, guess what, we are taking largely about 4 digit budgets in my world and we have to be hyper efficient to do good work, and taut absolutely might include an amp sim under certain circumstances. Yeah, I know that's kind of where a lot of metal tends to be these days but then, sure enough there will be a Tony Iommi acolyte that wants his real amps and only his real amps. For no other reason than "you never know", I'd still feel the need to ask everytime, regardless of genre. One thing I would say is that I would reverse this and say that the honus should be on the engineer and not the artist when it comes to expressing what rules might be "broken". If the artist plays through an amp, I think it's up to the engineer to propose a sim and get permission to do so rather than putting it on the artist to preemptively and expressly state that they are okay with it. If they played it through an amp, the expectation should be that that's how they wanted it and it should only be changed to a sim if it's discussed with them and they are cool with it. A lot of time this stuff comes up naturally. The same person who says they hate autotune might ask you to fix their pitch in one spot down the line. They may take pride in my doing it with varispeed vs. melodyne or whatever. I am managing their expectations real time. And by the way, I love early Black Sabbath and would pick up on the cues if that were the case. But if the general idea here is not to kill the vibe, my experience tells me that getting into a preliminary "boundaries" discussion is not something I would personally recommend. You have to turn it on it's head: Instead of "don't do this, don't do that" it's "do do this, do do that." I think what ultimately happens in a successful recording situation is as above, the engineer is picking up on cues and proceeding accordingly. The conversation I want to have isn't about gear or techniques, it's about the sound they're striving for. If you do that conversation right, the other things fall into place. I have had a guy tell me I got him the best capture of his guitar sound ever (amp>mics>Trident board>no EQ) and then show up to the next project with a Fractal.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 1, 2022 13:14:25 GMT -6
Yeah, I know that's kind of where a lot of metal tends to be these days but then, sure enough there will be a Tony Iommi acolyte that wants his real amps and only his real amps. For no other reason than "you never know", I'd still feel the need to ask everytime, regardless of genre. One thing I would say is that I would reverse this and say that the honus should be on the engineer and not the artist when it comes to expressing what rules might be "broken". If the artist plays through an amp, I think it's up to the engineer to propose a sim and get permission to do so rather than putting it on the artist to preemptively and expressly state that they are okay with it. If they played it through an amp, the expectation should be that that's how they wanted it and it should only be changed to a sim if it's discussed with them and they are cool with it. A lot of time this stuff comes up naturally. The same person who says they hate autotune might ask you to fix their pitch in one spot down the line. They may take pride in my doing it with varispeed vs. melodyne or whatever. I am managing their expectations real time. And by the way, I love early Black Sabbath and would pick up on the cues if that were the case. But if the general idea here is not to kill the vibe, my experience tells me that getting into a preliminary "boundaries" discussion is not something I would personally recommend. I think what ultimately happens in a successful recording situation is as above, the engineer is picking up on cues and proceeding accordingly. The conversation I want to have isn't about gear or techniques, it's about the sound they're striving for. If you do that conversation right, the other things fall into place. The problem with picking up on cues is that it assumes that it would even occur to an artist that such things as amp replacement with sims can or could happen. They may not give you those cues because it may never occur to them that you would even consider doing something like that. I'd rather get confirmation up front than rely on my interpretation of cues, in the hopes that I'm reading them right, if they're are even cues being sent in my direction in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 1, 2022 13:21:27 GMT -6
My own experience mirrors Svart and Notneeson. I find that artists sometimes know exactly what their after sound wise, but almost never know how to get there. I've had plenty of guitar and bass players insist on one method or another (DI, no DI, real amp, sim, no sim etc), without any real understanding of how the methodology effects the end result. Guitar players especially get hung up on these things, and speaking as a guitar player myself, almost none of them really understand how to get good tone. For example, so few of them realize that those perfect tone settings on your amp won't sound the same once you setup your amp in a different room. As Svart said, there's a lot of psychology at play here and you need to be a master of it for sessions to run smoothly. Artists may say they want a certain thing, but what they really want is a great sounding end result, period. And that's +1000 for artists that are immature, insecure in their art, or just inexperienced. Does that mean you have Carte Blanche to do as you please as the AE? Sometimes yes, sometimes no...depends on the context and the individual situation, however "transparency" is a double edge sword. It'll often screw you. So if an artist asks me specifically how I got such and such a sound I'll tell them, honestly. But I don't volunteer that info, too many land mines there. But at the end of the day, if you're delivering great sound tracks to them, 99% of the time they stop caring. ymmv I agree. It's a total pain to deal with managing all of those expectations, biases, lack of understanding how to get good tone, etc. But my approach to that situation would be to try educate rather than obfuscate. Sure, that's also a pain in the ass, so it's just an all around pain in the ass. I got into the recording world via being on the artist side first and I still always try to keep that in mind because, ultimately, none of this would be happening were it not for artists trying to create something in the first place. To that end, I still feel like it should be best practice to be transparent about such things as replacing an amp with a sim. It might be a pain in the ass, but I say be transparent and let the chips fall where they may. I guess I don't see how remaining neutral when it comes to revealing techniques is the same obfuscating. I had a session a little while ago. We had an entire song to track (drums, bass, guitar, vocals, wurlitzer etc) and about a day and a half to do it. We had, what we all agreed was a great vocal sound. When the singer started tracking she was started really belting, and the preamp/compressor combo I had was breaking up/distorting in a way I didn't like. So I quickly re-patched things and changed it. Did I tell anyone in the room that? Nope. It would have derailed the session. I did play her back a track from the new vocal chain and asked her to critique the sound... and she loved it. Was that obfuscating? In your book maybe so? IDK. In mine that's just called doing your job. Unless the artist has a clear, specific vision of the process they want, as in Martin's case, then it just seems minimally relevant at best, and completely detrimental at worst. And I don't think that's cutting the artist out of the process anymore than when I chose between a HW compressor and a plugin. Like I said before, it all depends on the specific context.
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 1, 2022 13:24:52 GMT -6
Yeah, I know that's kind of where a lot of metal tends to be these days but then, sure enough there will be a Tony Iommi acolyte that wants his real amps and only his real amps. For no other reason than "you never know", I'd still feel the need to ask everytime, regardless of genre. One thing I would say is that I would reverse this and say that the honus should be on the engineer and not the artist when it comes to expressing what rules might be "broken". If the artist plays through an amp, I think it's up to the engineer to propose a sim and get permission to do so rather than putting it on the artist to preemptively and expressly state that they are okay with it. If they played it through an amp, the expectation should be that that's how they wanted it and it should only be changed to a sim if it's discussed with them and they are cool with it. A lot of time this stuff comes up naturally. The same person who says they hate autotune might ask you to fix their pitch in one spot down the line. They may take pride in my doing it with varispeed vs. melodyne or whatever. I am managing their expectations real time. And by the way, I love early Black Sabbath and would pick up on the cues if that were the case. But if the general idea here is not to kill the vibe, my experience tells me that getting into a preliminary "boundaries" discussion is not something I would personally recommend. You have to turn it on it's head: Instead of "don't do this, don't do that" it's "do do this, do do that." I think what ultimately happens in a successful recording situation is as above, the engineer is picking up on cues and proceeding accordingly. The conversation I want to have isn't about gear or techniques, it's about the sound they're striving for. If you do that conversation right, the other things fall into place. I have had a guy tell me I got him the best capture of his guitar sound ever (amp>mics>Trident board>no EQ) and then show up to the next project with a Fractal. You summed it up better than I could. If you don't know how to "read the room" you're going to have a tough time recording/producing.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 1, 2022 13:45:05 GMT -6
I dunno. It makes me want to ask, if replacing a guitar is forbidden without permission, then what else do I need permission for? Using EQ? Compression? Editing?
Where does it stop?
I know artists that have weirdness about "too much EQ" or "too much compression" as well because they watched some YT video that told them the reason they don't like what they're hearing is not because of something they're doing wrong, it's obviously the amount of processing or some such nonsense..
It seems ridiculous to even consider asking permission to use as much EQ and compression as needed to get a guitar sounding right.. But why does using a simulation of a model/brand of amp that the artist already uses is some kind of heresy?
Both are clearly manipulating the tone to get something better and in some cases the EQ and whatever will affect it more than anything else yet I've never once heard an artist ask me if I used too much EQ after the mix was done.
Actually I've never had a single artist ask me anything about their mix once it was done.
Seems that people want to see the baby, not hear about the labor pains.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 1, 2022 13:53:01 GMT -6
I agree. It's a total pain to deal with managing all of those expectations, biases, lack of understanding how to get good tone, etc. But my approach to that situation would be to try educate rather than obfuscate. Sure, that's also a pain in the ass, so it's just an all around pain in the ass. I got into the recording world via being on the artist side first and I still always try to keep that in mind because, ultimately, none of this would be happening were it not for artists trying to create something in the first place. To that end, I still feel like it should be best practice to be transparent about such things as replacing an amp with a sim. It might be a pain in the ass, but I say be transparent and let the chips fall where they may. I guess I don't see how remaining neutral when it comes to revealing techniques is the same obfuscating. I had a session a little while ago. We had an entire song to track (drums, bass, guitar, vocals, wurlitzer etc) and about a day and a half to do it. We had, what we all agreed was a great vocal sound. When the singer started tracking she was started really belting, and the preamp/compressor combo I had was breaking up/distorting in a way I didn't like. So I quickly re-patched things and changed it. Did I tell anyone in the room that? Nope. It would have derailed the session. I did play her back a track from the new vocal chain and asked her to critique the sound... and she loved it. Was that obfuscating? In your book maybe so? IDK. In mine that's just called doing your job. Unless the artist has a clear, specific vision of the process they want, as in Martin's case, then it just seems minimally relevant at best, and completely detrimental at worst. And I don't think that's cutting the artist out of the process anymore than when I chose between a HW compressor and a plugin. Like I said before, it all depends on the specific context. For the example you are talking about with that singer, I don't disagree at all. As I mentioned before, it's already gone into the mic at that point so the sort of things you're talking about are taking place after that. That falls squarely in the engineer's court, I'd say. You don't get any disagreement from me on that. But I do just think there is a distinction to be made between the example you just gave and replacing an amp with a sim without it being discussed first.
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 1, 2022 13:55:14 GMT -6
I dunno. It makes me want to ask, if replacing a guitar is forbidden without permission, then what else do I need permission for? Using EQ? Compression? Editing? Where does it stop? I know artists that have weirdness about "too much EQ" or "too much compression" as well because they watched some YT video that told them the reason they don't like what they're hearing is not because of something they're doing wrong, it's obviously the amount of processing or some such nonsense.. It seems ridiculous to even consider asking permission to use as much EQ and compression as needed to get a guitar sounding right.. But why does using a simulation of a model/brand of amp that the artist already uses is some kind of heresy? Both are clearly manipulating the tone to get something better and in some cases the EQ and whatever will affect it more than anything else yet I've never once heard an artist ask me if I used too much EQ after the mix was done. Actually I've never had a single artist ask me anything about their mix once it was done. Seems that people want to see the baby, not hear about the labor pains. I think the line in the sand generally falls about where sound enters the microphone (or at least where it exits the speaker of the amp). I'd say that an artist's recorded amp falls on the artist's side of that line.
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Jun 1, 2022 14:25:38 GMT -6
I don't know the context of Svart's situation is that he described above but I feel like, in many cases (guitar "tone" guys are a perfect example of this) there is this sort of unspoken expectation (or maybe even explicitly stated expectation) that what happens before the microphone is their domain and what happens from the mic onward is the engineer's domain. I only bring this up to say that, to the extent that any artist is "dictating process", I don't feel like they are necessarily in the wrong to dictate what they want, as they are the paying customer and, more specifically, the tone of their guitar/amp combo is part of their art. I get that the artist may have made demands that were difficult or even impossible to reach ~~~ The shops that are up to par call it demanding. The ones that aren't up to par call it difficult. Impossible? I'll make you a record if it takes every penny you have! This is not a problem. First time I worked with Warren Haynes I asked if he had any preference in microphones... he goes "nope my job ends here" - and pointed at the speaker. Stark contrast to Joe Bonamassa who carried his own SM57's. Its a big stage and I'm only the sound monkey. I'll reamp/software guitar sounds once in a while if the tracks are provided at mix. Maybe 70/30 split..? Most of the time I go with whatever was tracked but sometimes... sometimes people are a little misguided or not hearing things right and that DI saves the day. When producing from scratch I won't pull a DI guitar track unless someone requests it. I took 'em for a couple 3 years before I realized that ya know? I never used 'em. Not once. Only burning inputs for data collection so it stopped. Maybe I'm lucky in that most of the time, at this point in my career I get great players who kinda know what they want. Even if they don't know exactly how to get it they know exactly what they're going for. And so most of my world is real amps displacing air with pressure capture devices.. aka microphones. Very few times has someone said ya know, I wish I had used the blonde Jr instead of the Boogie or whatever. Sorry I used that fuzzface? And if that does happen its easy enough to back out & retrack a part or two. Those calls are always pre mix... not mix revisions. Funny. I'm reminded of a session several years ago... Artist said he wanted to bring someone in for guitar solos Ok cool. Day of the guy shows up and literally in the first 90 seconds... he asks what kinda software we use. No no... what guitar software? Guitar software..? That's what your here for! He wanted to know if we had amp farm or whatever, a software pedal/amp platfrom because he plugs right into his interface... Oh no man. We've got all the real stuff that emulates. Your welcome to use all of it! Here's a 66 deluxe reverb... 69/70 basketweve 4x12 slant... silvertones... fuzz pedals... couple wahs... look at all this! You'd think most people would get really excited but this guy? He looked like he just got punched in the dick.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 1, 2022 14:32:21 GMT -6
I don't know the context of Svart's situation is that he described above but I feel like, in many cases (guitar "tone" guys are a perfect example of this) there is this sort of unspoken expectation (or maybe even explicitly stated expectation) that what happens before the microphone is their domain and what happens from the mic onward is the engineer's domain. I only bring this up to say that, to the extent that any artist is "dictating process", I don't feel like they are necessarily in the wrong to dictate what they want, as they are the paying customer and, more specifically, the tone of their guitar/amp combo is part of their art. I get that the artist may have made demands that were difficult or even impossible to reach ~~~ The shops that are up to par call it demanding. The ones that aren't up to par call it difficult. Impossible? I'll make you a record if it takes every penny you have! This is not a problem. First time I worked with Warren Haynes I asked if he had any preference in microphones... he goes "nope my job ends here" - and pointed at the speaker. Stark contrast to Joe Bonamassa who carried his own SM57's. Its a big stage and I'm only the sound monkey. I'll reamp/software guitar sounds once in a while if the tracks are provided at mix. Maybe 70/30 split..? Most of the time I go with whatever was tracked but sometimes... sometimes people are a little misguided or not hearing things right and that DI saves the day. When producing from scratch I won't pull a DI guitar track unless someone requests it. I took 'em for a couple 3 years before I realized that ya know? I never used 'em. Not once. Only burning inputs for data collection so it stopped. Maybe I'm lucky in that most of the time, at this point in my career I get great players who kinda know what they want. Even if they don't know exactly how to get it they know exactly what they're going for. And so most of my world is real amps displacing air with pressure capture devices.. aka microphones. Very few times has someone said ya know, I wish I had used the blonde Jr instead of the Boogie or whatever. Sorry I used that fuzzface? And if that does happen its easy enough to back out & retrack a part or two. Those calls are always pre mix... not mix revisions. Funny. I'm reminded of a session several years ago... Artist said he wanted to bring someone in for guitar solos Ok cool. Day of the guy shows up and literally in the first 90 seconds... he asks what kinda software we use. No no... what guitar software? Guitar software..? That's what your here for! He wanted to know if we had amp farm or whatever, a software pedal/amp platfrom because he plugs right into his interface... Oh no man. We've got all the real stuff that emulates. Your welcome to use all of it! Here's a 66 deluxe reverb... 69/70 basketweve 4x12 slant... silvertones... fuzz pedals... couple wahs... look at all this! You'd think most people would get really excited but this guy? He looked like he just got punched in the dick. Yeah, it's horses for courses. I've worked with folks that demand the real thing. No problem. Most of the time we get a tone and everything is good. As I mentioned, sometimes folks demand radical changes and it just becomes a can of worms. I've also had a guy show up with a digital pedal and vehemently refuse to sit around testing amps and mics. His pedal was what we were going to use and that was just that. Back then I wasn't bold enough to go the extra mile on mixes so it stayed as-is. He and his band were happy enough but I never thought it lived up to possibilities. Anyway, people are fickle. All we can do is try to make them happy and fulfill their desires in some form or fashion.
|
|
|
Post by notneeson on Jun 1, 2022 14:54:27 GMT -6
I had a guy ask me why his amp sounded so far away one time.
He was running his guitar into a quadraveb set 100% wet.
The mic and preamp I was using had nothing to do with it. And yet, it was a shitty interaction and eroded good faith.
I was talking to a friend about an acquaintance— a guy who worked with some decently well known indie bands.
He sells insurance now.
I get it.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 1, 2022 16:32:18 GMT -6
I dunno. It makes me want to ask, if replacing a guitar is forbidden without permission, then what else do I need permission for? Using EQ? Compression? Editing? Where does it stop? I know artists that have weirdness about "too much EQ" or "too much compression" as well because they watched some YT video that told them the reason they don't like what they're hearing is not because of something they're doing wrong, it's obviously the amount of processing or some such nonsense.. It seems ridiculous to even consider asking permission to use as much EQ and compression as needed to get a guitar sounding right.. But why does using a simulation of a model/brand of amp that the artist already uses is some kind of heresy? Both are clearly manipulating the tone to get something better and in some cases the EQ and whatever will affect it more than anything else yet I've never once heard an artist ask me if I used too much EQ after the mix was done. Actually I've never had a single artist ask me anything about their mix once it was done. Seems that people want to see the baby, not hear about the labor pains. I used to let it get to me when folks would change their minds after tracking, or try to nitpick everything. I realized exactly what you're saying, they have no idea what they're asking for so they try to control everything. Mostly it's just fear of failure I believe. That's why I try to figure out what they want, not listen too closely to what they're saying because what they're saying is usually muddied by lack of knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jun 1, 2022 16:35:47 GMT -6
I realize you can't always choose not to work with someone you have reservations about from the beginning , but it sure is better for your health if you can afford to stay away. I've been lucky to mainly work with people I know and get along well with since I went solo. I feel for the guys here who have to suffer fools. I had the worst experiences imaginable when trusting musicians when I was in a band.
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Jun 1, 2022 18:32:06 GMT -6
Just my experience....
Pros come in with a great guitar, a great amp, small pedalboard or none at all, sound great, kill it on the recording, need like 3 takes max, joke around and have fun for a bit and bounce out. They never have a problem with me taking a DI and don’t really ask too many questions. They set up a great tone that fits the SONG, because it’s all about how the tone fits the song and the part. You throw a fader when it’s time to mix and go... well shit that sounds great. Brent Mason sort of shit. Warren Haynes. Josh Smith.
Non pros - come in with an attitude of particularity. Their tone isn’t particular, their playing isn’t particular, but their attitude certainly is. They think they know what they want but they’ve barely been in a situation to know what they want. They don’t have the tools to know how to give you what you need. The moment that comes next is essential in any session you are a part of. You can decide to scoff and put on the boxing gloves for the rest of the session, or you decide to meet it with kindness and as a learning experience for them.
Now, 70% of the time when you give kindness in a situation like this, it’s met with genuine interest and the player thinks you’re fucking awesome cause you’re helping them out and showing them the way. You make them look good, feel good, sound good. Smiles abound, session is going awesome, songs are coming together, they even pay on time!! This is great.
The other 30% of the time they are getting reamped through a sim or I’m replaying the parts when they’re gone 😁
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2022 18:45:46 GMT -6
I dunno. It makes me want to ask, if replacing a guitar is forbidden without permission, then what else do I need permission for? Using EQ? Compression? Editing? Where does it stop? End of the day if it doesn't sound good you'll get flack for it. I mentioned the limiting thing before, I've had people insist on using an old messed up Crate amp when I've had Mesa's and Peavey 5150's out on the floor because it's "there sound", then of course they give me flack when they don't like it. All this amounts to a bunch of lemon faces as I'm trying my hardest not to utter the words "I told you so".. Bigger bands were easier to deal with (sometimes). As someone who's finicky about sounds I do empathise with those who want something grandiose but can't afford it. I started out with an LE / 58 and to get my 4 track mixed / mastered by anyone worth mentioning it would have set me back a years wage. I love music but survival comes first.. Anyway my point is there's a fine line between difficult and those with a vision who need help. It's generally attitude which defines that.. However artists should realise that they're paying for expertise, if they know better than why are they there exactly? In today's market? No comment..
|
|
|
Post by jmoose on Jun 3, 2022 13:19:26 GMT -6
[
I heart mini amps. Use 'em all the time. Secret weapons.
Transistor radio in a shrimp boat. Love that. Sometimes that's the sound the music needs...
Great shootout here. Everyone needs a little transistor shrimp boat amp. Or two or three.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2022 17:28:38 GMT -6
I heart mini amps. Use 'em all the time. Secret weapons. Transistor radio in a shrimp boat. Love that. Sometimes that's the sound the music needs... Great shootout here. Everyone needs a little transistor shrimp boat amp. Or two or three. Ha, that Blackstar and Orange is pretty freaking sweet.
|
|
|
Post by the other mark williams on Jun 4, 2022 0:41:40 GMT -6
Just my experience.... Pros come in with a great guitar, a great amp, small pedalboard or none at all, sound great, kill it on the recording, need like 3 takes max, joke around and have fun for a bit and bounce out. They never have a problem with me taking a DI and don’t really ask too many questions. They set up a great tone that fits the SONG, because it’s all about how the tone fits the song and the part. You throw a fader when it’s time to mix and go... well shit that sounds great. Brent Mason sort of shit. Warren Haynes. Josh Smith. Non pros - come in with an attitude of particularity. Their tone isn’t particular, their playing isn’t particular, but their attitude certainly is. They think they know what they want but they’ve barely been in a situation to know what they want. They don’t have the tools to know how to give you what you need. The moment that comes next is essential in any session you are a part of. You can decide to scoff and put on the boxing gloves for the rest of the session, or you decide to meet it with kindness and as a learning experience for them. Now, 70% of the time when you give kindness in a situation like this, it’s met with genuine interest and the player thinks you’re fucking awesome cause you’re helping them out and showing them the way. You make them look good, feel good, sound good. Smiles abound, session is going awesome, songs are coming together, they even pay on time!! This is great. The other 30% of the time they are getting reamped through a sim or I’m replaying the parts when they’re gone 😁 Bro. You had me at hello.
|
|