Back To The Basics

[RollTape]

In todays high tech world of 'state of the art this and state of the art that' sometimes what is old becomes new again.The following videos give a great example of stepping back in time to show when stripping it all down to the basics the human factor plays a bigger role in the process rather than the digital world doing the majority of the work.

It also supports a great debate of why analog should return as part of the recording process.Kudos to David Grohl and the Foo Fighters for doing things in this manner and showing the hard line digital minds of what they may be missing,...and that doing things in a high end state of the art facility is not etched in stone as a law of the recording process.

It's all about capturing that raw energy of the performance,...and the artist is forced to be very good at their craft,...just like the ones of a few decades ago.

Dave Grohl reveals Foo Fighters' home studio - YouTube

foo fighters making of wasting light - YouTube

 

[Caddy65]

I have to agree with that. Back in the very early days of rock & roll (when I was growing up) the technology didn't allow for perfect recording and multiple punch-ins, etc. Just look at Chess and Sun studio recordings from the 50's. A couple of mics and record everyone in one room from start to end. There was a energy to that music that is lacking in the polished versions done today. We have better recording setups at home now than those studios had back then, but the music was great and had more feel and energy than much of today's studio recordings.

 

[Chilljam]

We have better recording setups at home now than those studios had back then, but the music was great and had more feel and energy than much of today's studio recordings.

How are you defining better? I would say many home digital studios are more versatile (more tracks, ease of editing, more effects) but the top end studios in the 50s and 60s had some amazing boutique/high end compressors, preamps and microphones which are much better than what you would find in almost any home studio.

With this whole Foo Fighters analog album thing, good on them for doing it but there are many artists and bands that do this these days and just go a long there business not making such a big deal about it. Some of my favorite artists these days are recording entire albums live to tape (full band and vox with none or very little overdubs) and they absolutely nail it (performance and sound).

Also, it is very impressive how they used to do it in the 50s and 60s like has been said with only a couple of mics and all in the same room... but that's because they had to! I bet if they had Protools in the 50s then 95% of them would use it, it wouldn't make them less talented.

 

[sweetbeats]

Yeah...i'm thinking the same thing. I appreciate that Foo Fighters are bucking the present norm, but they are tracking to a 32 track machine with some serious gear on the front-end.

The recording evolution from tracking straight to mono or stereo master to tracking to 4/8/16 tracks or more holds a similar regard in my mind to the wild versatility and power of the digital workstation. Multitracking was explored and exploited, in part, to answer the money-machine of the recording industry; being able to track instruments/artists separately so that conflicting schedules didn't hold up the project. The other side of the coin is, of course, that multitracking opened a whole new avenue of creativity and control...like digital recording and editing has done.

I really enjoy creating multitrack projects. I'm not some nose-in-the-air purist about what is the "right" way or the "best" way because, even for me, there are so many variables that shift from project-to-project. The argument is a waste of time. But what I DO stand by is that I am GREATLY humbled and impressed by so many hi-fidelity recordings of the 50's and 60's BEFORE multitracking took hold of the scene...what those people did, often sizeable ensembles, straight to mono or stereo master with maybe no more than a 6 channel mixing console...wow. The natural ambiance of the space and the art of mic placement teamed with real talent in both the artists and the engineering staff...the older I get the more I appreciate it.

I think the message I most appreciate about this whole Foo Fighters fad is the value of capturing the live energy of an ensemble together. There is real merit to that ideology vs. tracking everybody separate. I recorded a band for a 5-song EP a couple years ago. I had talked to them over a couple years prior to that trying to convince them to let me record them. They took over 18 months to record their previous EP in a home studio doing each instrument/vocal track separately due to their schedules and the end result sounded soul-less compared to their live energy which just ripped. It was always exhilarating to hear them live and I kept telling them "block out just two part-day sessions and let's just record you guys live in a relatively controlled setting to multitrack." They were convinced that the "right" way was one track/instrument at a time. I finally convinced them and we did it during two consecutive nights. We did use 3 large rooms to provide some isolation and we did track straight to daw (it was a location recording after all and even if my MM-1000 was operating at the time I wouldn't be hauling THAT thing in the back of the Subaru! ), but my point is that we captured them together along with the organic energy that happens when a group plays TOGETHER. And THAT is what I most appreciate about the process employed and touted by the Foo Fighters.