The Secret To Great Recordings

Todzilla

Todzilla

New member
After 30+ years, I finally rediscovered the secret to good recordings.

It's not the gear (duh!)
It's not the engineer (wha?)
It's not even the room (heresy!)

It's the players.

This may seem obvious, but I swear, older recordings I made in shitty rooms with shitty equipment sounds better than newer recordings I made in a nice room with boutique equipment and better engineering skills with less than kick-ass players.

Now, either flame away in disagreement, or pummel me for my grasp of the obvious.
 
I'll join in here Todd, and then you don't have to worry about getting flamed because I have an unfortunate knack for attracting all the flames in any given controversial thread.

But I'm with you one hundred percent. It's the old axiom that seems to have become meaningless in the "me era"; one should have something worth recording before they decide to record.

G.
 
I don't think there is anything to argue here. A better player recorded with bad gear and a bad engineer will sound better than a worse player with good gear and a good engineer. Within reason, of course. The bad engineer attached to the better player has to remember to hit "record", for example. :D
 
There's also the "knowing enough to be dangerous" factor --

Years ago, I found a pile of cassette tapes that I recorded starting around 10-12 years old - And they sounded quite good.

I know the recordings in my mid-teens didn't sound that good.

Some of the recordings I made in my early 20's sounded like crap.

Then many of the best recordings I've ever made were in my late-20's / early 30's.

What really changed...?

When I was a kid, it was all about safety and logic - Get a decent core sound, put the mic where it sounds good to your ear and go - That's all I knew.

In the middle, it was all about using this or using that and "tricks" and trying to move the sounds in directions they didn't necessarily want to go, making sure my levels were 'hot' and all that goofy crap, etc., etc., etc.

Later, I went back to getting a good core sound and putting the mic where it sounded good to my ear - That's all I need.
 
omtayslick said:
I am almost having to sit on my hands to keep from adding un-needed plug-ins and tweaking material to death that already sounds good.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you all are saying about the performance being paramount--but I don't sit on my hands when it comes to plug-ins: I just use the Great Performance Plug-In.

Right now, all I've got is the light version, good for I-IV-V rock and roll, but I'm gonna upgrade soon--got my eyes on the Fusion/Funk version.
 
Todzilla said:
This may seem obvious, but I swear, older recordings I made in shitty rooms with shitty equipment sounds better than newer recordings I made in a nice room with boutique equipment and better engineering skills with less than kick-ass players.
Click to expand...

I mostly listen to the 50s, 60s and 70s stations on XM for that very reason. I find the recordings from these decades to be much more listenable than most newer fare.
 
clivus said:
I mostly listen to the 50s, 60s and 70s stations on XM for that very reason. I find the recordings from these decades to be much more listenable than most newer fare.
Click to expand...

That's funny--I'm just the opposite. As much as my favorite music may be 70's and 80's (some 60's) I definitely favor today's bone-crushing-in-your-face approach to recording, mixing & mastering.

My dream project would be to take a bunch of my favorite classic rock recordings of the 70's and produce them with more of today's sensibility: drums that crack the sternum, wall of guitars, voices that sound like they're sitting next to you--well, you get the picture.

I guess I'll never be accused of being a purist. :)
 
I almost agree with most things stated thus far.
My personal caveat is that I can't tell whether my stuff is worth recording until I've recorded a draft & played it back.
AND, I'll add that every rule needs to be broken:
Some of the greatest RnR I've heard has been by very limited players.
Some of the greatest players I've heard have recorded most of the pointless exercises disguised as music.
Some Stones made music in the 70's by getting good engineers to record good players playing non stop STUFF until something gelled.
Huddy Leadbetter wasn't too flash vocally or with his 12 string, his engineers weren't really engineers, his room was where ever he was (a cell? Is there an plug in to replicate his cell?) BUT everything gelled often enough for him to have enormous influence and make truly great music. It doesn't hurt that the sound of those old direct cuts seem to flick a switch in our collective born before 1980 comfort sensory regions!
No disagreement - just fudging around the edges of B&W to get a bit of sepia.
 
Last edited:
rayc said:
I almost agree with most things stated thus far.
My personal caveat is that I can't tell whether it's worth recording until I've recorded a draft & played it back.
Some of the greatest RnR I've heard has been by very limited players.
Some of the greatest players I've heard have recorded some pointless exercises disguised as music.
The Stones made music in the 70's by getting good engineers to record good players playing non stop STUFF until something gelled so I guess that is 2/3rd of the original
Click to expand...

Excellent point Ray! I'm in the middle of a pseudo-tune right now. It's got some cool riffage--but cool riffage doesn't make a song worth listening to. So I'm building it bit by bit, late at night, with a POD and drum loops, just to see if I've got something that's even worth recording.

If it is, I'll hand the resulting scratch track off to a real drummer--record him first, then build it for real.

If it isn't, I'll be tired. After a nap, I'll start all over! :D
 
clivus said:
I mostly listen to the 50s, 60s and 70s stations on XM for that very reason. I find the recordings from these decades to be much more listenable than most newer fare.
Click to expand...

That's funny. For me it depends. A lot of stuff from those years simply sounds to me well... old, tired, and stinking of mothballs :D

OTOH though, a good Baroque music performed by great musicians still gets me moving. And probably that's what it is. Because I like the relentless movement, and pulse of Baroque music appealing, the same way I find good Goa Trance stuff (Juno Reaktor for example) appealing in the same way.
 
This is a cool thread. I'll start off by saying that.

I wanted to put in my 2 cents on what deserves a recording and what a good musician is.

Last night I saw a drummer and guitarist, that's it, play a set. And even though it was only two people there was wayyy too much going on. The songs would go into different directions constantly, her hand was moving all over the fretboard, tempos changed midway into a song, missed notes were prevalent here and there, she would loop a simple riff then do a solo over it and although technically, for the most part, people might have been impressed with her guitar virtuoso display it felt as if i had just eaten the sun and asked for seconds.

It was way too much.

to quote rayc it was a "pointless exercises disguised as music."

The best music i feel is anything that is a true expression of a person's wit and essence. Anything other than that is just practice.
 
I think there are two somewhat different definitions of "good musicianship" going on here. I can't speak for everyone else here, but for me the definition does not limit itself to technical virtuosity - though it helps. Leadbelly was about as far as one coulgd get from technical virtuosity in vocals or guitar playing, but his musicianship was unquestionable. OTOH, there are a million ersatz blues boys, who will duplicate old Leadbelly stuff phrase for phrase and will do so with all the musicianship of a houseplant.

It's not how you play it, it's how you play it.

If playing it calls for some virtuosity, you sure want to have that ability. At the same time, if it calls for keeping it simple, then it takes the ability to do that well also. And it *always* takes the ability to know when either one of those is appropriate.

G.
 
noisewreck said:
That's funny. For me it depends. A lot of stuff from those years simply sounds to me well... old, tired, and stinking of mothballs :D
Click to expand...

I agree that there were lots of bad recordings made during those decades, and maybe I have filtered them out of my awareness to a certain extent. It just seems to me that there is a huge amount of generic-sounding music being made in recent years that is devoid of musical and lyrical hooks, signature riffs, dynamic changes, key changes, chord substitutions, etc. which are the elements that create interest for me.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
and will do so with all the musicianship of a houseplant.

It's not how you play it, it's how you play it.
Click to expand...

I pasted the above with a larger font because I think all of us can benefit from seeing it again.

In fact, I think we should chant it, in unison, every time we power up our gear. While Glen attracts enough flames to be collecting his fire insurance policy for the umpteeth time he does offer some real gems, the above being my new favorite.
 
funny thread.
I tend to think it's the recordist's ears. If they can't hear whether something is good or bad, they're sunk. Who cares how good the player is, the equipment. ...
 
Todzilla said:
...older recordings I made in shitty rooms with shitty equipment sounds better than newer recordings I made in a nice room with boutique equipment and better engineering skills with less than kick-ass players.
Click to expand...

Kinda reminds me of the expression, "you can't polish a turd."
 
It's definitely the musicians and...

the producer
the tracking engineer
the gear
the mastering engineer

I mean come on, if this was easily done by one person in one room recording all the parts, arranging, mixing and mastering then there would be many more new interesting recordings than there are. Great recordings are a consensus of many talented people working together.
 
i like music from every decade ive been alive in so far..I dont think any of it sounds particularly better than any other time as whatever shortcomings in technology, or style of recording, or instruments used, colour the music with each decades own particular flavour

and i like them left just like that


the common "modern equals rubbish" sentiment thats seems to get thrown about is just because we get older...whether we like it or not nostaligia and music go hand in hand...something else i wouldnt change


imo

:)
 
Middleman said:
It's definitely the musicians and...

the producer
the tracking engineer
the gear
the mastering engineer

I mean come on, if this was easily done by one person in one room recording all the parts, arranging, mixing and mastering then there would be many more new interesting recordings than there are. Great recordings are a consensus of many talented people working together.
Click to expand...
True enough, certainly. But remove just one of those titles form the equation. Which one when removed would have the greatest negative effect on the outcome? And which one could continue to survive without the others? The answer to both of those questions is "the musicians".

G.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top