Natural, raw and minimal VS. Multi-tracked, multi-effects and over-dubbing??

O

Obstacle1

New member
I was just wondering whether people prefer recordings to be base, minimal and replicate the raw natural elements of a song or whether they prefer a song with plenty of effects, over-dubs and layers to it? Or even a balance of the two? I understand that genre comes into play here but just interested in other people's thoughts... :)
 
I think in general: the better the song the more raw it can be recorded/mixed, but not nescesarily...eh, yeah
 
Generally, I think that when I listen to music, I prefer it to sound stripped-down (even when it isn't).

It's often a revelation to hear a song done stripped down. Example - Bowie doing a live, acoustic version of Heroes. It can shine.

If a song can't be done that way, I'm not sure it is something I would want to listen to cluttered up to be honest.

I am pretty new to recording, and I was initially tempted into trying to dress stuff up that couldn't stand alone by adding bits - thinking it would improve it. I was trying to polish a turd.

Now I am focusing on trying to record something simply and well. And it's a steep learning curve for me!

When I can do that, I may start to add other bits (keeping them simple too). I would hope that the end result retains that uncluttered feel.

Maybe it does depend on genre though, as you say.
 
I prefere the raw vibe no matter how it gets there (one take or 40,000 over dubs). I do believe that a band playing/recording as much of a tune "live" to tape produces that vibe much more easily than going in one instrument at a time. The way a tune ebbs and flows when musicians play off of each other that can produce those happy accidents. I think I've tracked some very cool tunes both ways however.
 
live essence

whenever i record our band.... sometimes at gigs, sometimes in my living room.. i always prefer to capture the live essence of the band..... when i first started recording i tried to record each instrument by its self . it worked ok ... but something was missing there was no magic.. it sounded dead.... after that i started recording the band as one....... now when i listen to my recordings i can feel the hair on the back of my neck stand up..... and i think damm how did we do that................. :D
 
Obstacle1 said:
I was just wondering whether people prefer recordings to be base, minimal and replicate the raw natural elements of a song or whether they prefer a song with plenty of effects, over-dubs and layers to it? Or even a balance of the two? I understand that genre comes into play here but just interested in other people's thoughts... :)
Click to expand...
KISS.

That's "Keep It Simple Stupid", not a reference to a bunch of idiots dressed up like Power Rangers In Goth Drag. :D

G.
 
Poor KISS... hehe

I think whatever sounds good works. Usually, a busy song will sound just that, but I know particular bands that put out what you would call 'busy' music, but it is done tastefully, and the songs still sound great live. Two artists I can think of are the Barenaked Ladies and Lindsey Buckingham's solo work. Buckingham's stuff is a little out there, but it is quite good, and the guitar work is pretty impressive.
 
I enjoy the technicalities that can come with recording a bunch of sounds, in order to create a song. If a song of mine requires 57 tracks of guitar in order to convey a feeling or thought, or even to create it's very structure, I will do it.
The fun part is then getting all those sounds to work well together!!

I'm often cursed for sounding too busy, in my mix downs.....but it's the most fun I'll have, after the initial thought for the song.

I guess my point is that my music is for me, so I can't afford to care too much for a commercial response.

But then again, a well sung 'koombayah', with one acoustic, on a beach late at night, half tanked can also be most enjoyable. :D

So, on that basis.....whatever!! ;)
Kindest Regards
Superspit.
 
If you listen to the - let's say, top 100 - most successful records of all time, there aren't many that are recorded bare naked, so to speak. A smashing record will have a great song, a great singer, but will usually have lots of fairy dust sprinkled over the top to make it even more compelling. Why not? Do you want the thing to be 77 on the appeal scale, or 91? So, you do the raw, naked thing as well as you can, then get out the fairy dust.
 
lol correct.... I almost always use fairy dust :D In hip-hop/rap, it depends on location. The west coast usually likes to keep their music less processed than the east, and certainly the south. Also that london sound is um... one of a kind lol. Some people say that if it sounds good to you, than that's it... but for me, I want more than good. I want great. Processors seem to help out...
 
To refer to ancient history: Sir George Martin said that any Beatles album up to Sgt. Pepper could have been produced by any competent producer, given the Beatles talent. On Sgt. Pepper though, Martin took charge, more or less, put his music degree and orchestral experience to work, and embellished the snot out of what were a batch of very interesting songs. To paraphrase a certain poster, they wanted more that good - they wanted great, so Sir George got out the fairy dust and laid on a few kilos of the stuff. The rest is history.

Of course, some simple songs work well with sparse production, but someone is still very very careful about the sound, the timbre of the the thing.
 
Just for the sake of conversation, not for argument...

I always get a little uneasy when people start judging the quality of something by its popularity. I also get a similar feeling - and I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but bear with me - whenever I see the Beatles being used as the benchmark for such judgements, which happens virtually every time this kind of discussion ensues.

Don't misunderstand this very important point; I mean no disparigment of George Martin or the Beatles. I'm right with everybody else as far as considering Sgt. Pepper as one of the pivotal (and great) productions of the 20th century. That's not my point.

My point is more along the lines of the general tendancy by many to judge what is "good" by what has "worked" in the past, to almost the point of excluding any other metrics including - more to the point - objective, original, and personal analysis. Let me put it this way; it starts having the feeling of the television programming executive who wants to pick shows just like one that got the highest ratings last week, instead if viewing and judging programs by their intrinsic merit. Do we really need the US version of "Show Me The Money" as someone's idea creating another "Deal Or No Deal" and sprinkling it with the fairy dust of "Dancing With The Stars"?

And does anybody really think that the most widely successful or popular songs of the past 20 years are the touchstone of real *quality* in music and music production?

Now, as far as the George Martin reference, the pivotal part of that is not the comment on embellishing, it the part on "what were a batch of very interesting songs." Sgt. Pepper was not, IMHO, the huge success it was because of Sir George's contribution. Rather, St. Pepper was a success because of the songs; it was Sir George's contribution that put it over the to and into the category of seminal. But without those songs, no amount of his countribution whould have had near that effect. If George Martin had done the Sgt. Pepper treatmet to the latest Cowsills album instead of the latest Beatles album, it would have never been the legend that Sgt. Pepper turned out to be. Sgt. Pepper is what it is because it teamed innovative production with great material; material that may not have been a legend in as amany dimensions, but would hav been a pivotal album filled with quality material nonetheless. Martin was the 5th Beatle, not the only Beatle.

Nor was his contribution what I would disparigingly consider "fairy dust". It was truely creative, innovative, and original production that became the 5th character on the album. To call what he did "fairy dust" would be like saying that Quentin Tarintino sprinkled fairly dust on the B heist flick to create "Resevoir Dogs." No, Martin did not sprinkle any fairy dust, he created a coherant, unique, and emotional composition. There's a huge difference.

Earlier when I said to keep it simple, I did not mean necessarily to keep it small and documentarian (though there's definitely something to be said for that when appropriate.) What I meant was to let the song and the arrangement carry the day. Some of my favorite stuff is very complicated arrangement-wise and track wise. For an example, see the band Poi Dog Pondering or some of the more recent Paul Simon or David Byrne equatorial stuff. I would absolutely LOVE to have an opportunity to mix and produce some of that; I could see no better and more fun challenge, or more rich opportunity to create something really special behind the glass than to work complex music and rhythms with a 20-piece+ band.

But I most certainly would not want to, IMHO, attempt a Phil Spector or George Martin, Cecil B. DeMille-ish superproduction out of any of that. Nor would I even get enamored with the idea of even fairy dust. There's already pleny to work with in the songs and arrangements themselves, and to try and over-produce it would be like adding too many water colors together; you end up with mud. OTOH, Martin with Pepper had a very simple 4-piece rock combo presenting a new dimension in song writing. he had both the rich material and the arrangement room to run with it on the production side.

So, it boils down IMHO to these salient points:

- Get the song and the arrangement right first. No amount of fairly dust can help if those are below par to begin with. And if they are above par, the fairy dust is not needed.

- Don't over-produce anything. Keep it raw and simple if/when the song and arrangement call for it; and for busy arrangements, work the arrangement, not the production.

- If you are in the position and have the objective and creative talent, and there is room in the song and arrangemet, go ahead and make a production to Martin-esque proportions. I am all for the producer/engineer as artist when called for. (And those can be the most fun to work ;) )

- But whichever way you go - sparse or lush, documentary or avant garde - don't just try and copy George Martin, Quentin Tarrentino, or even Howie Mandel. Go with what the song really says to you, however it may move you, and use that as a creative spark to build upon with absolutely no regard for what others have done before. There is a deficit of truely creative folks behind the glass thes days, and a surplus of lemmings trying to judge the quality of what they do by whether it recreates the right successful formula already beaten dead by someone else.

And for god's sake, stay away from the fairy dust otherwise; that's just trying to polish a turd.

Rant over. :o

G.
 
If you start with a good song, add good musicians, work out a good arraingement, use a good recording environment with good gear it is very possible that a good recording can be made very simply. For example, some blues recordings just wouldn't have that "magic" unless they were recorded in that all at once, in one room sort of thing. On the other hand some of the more progressive music would never have happened without the mass of processing nessassary to create the complexities. I don't think there is any set rule about which way is best, or even better. Each song has it's own properties which determine how much or how little is needed to bring out the mood/message that the particular song is ment to convey. For me, I like to start as simple as possible then add only what is nessassary to make a song the best it can be. I like a comment I heard from Gary Rossington, "We never do anything in the studio that we can't do live."
 
I think that post 13 is a good summary, with the exception of the last sentence. [If I thought that I could do a "studio" song which would sell 6 million units, but which I could not replicate live without the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra on stage with me, I'd do it.] Yes, each song has its own requirements to be set in the best possible light, some simple, some complex. That's a good way to put it. Big Yellow Taxi, MacArthur's Park.
 
i always keep things as simple as straightforward as possible

that being said, it just happens that the desired sound often necessitates adding elements to the signal chain
 
just to add my two cents,

I think it's entirly up to the producer or client. It's just a matter of opinion. In some respects it's better not to overdue things. However, sometimes it calls for extras. You know if your hearing a song and say " that would be so awsome with some percussion backing it up".

It really just comes down to however the person making that call feels it needs to go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top