Home Recording's Dirty Little Secret

[Bob's Mods]

Inspiration...writing working style.

So what have we learned so far....that many people (at least 1/3+ so far) who get into home recording think they are going to sound like their favorite big artist when they start their own recording adventure. But with an untreated inadequate room, el cheapo Chinese mics, cheap instruments and amps, limited recording experience and crummy simulators (talent set aside)....your mixes are just not going to come up to that commercial standard. You are only going to sound like what you got and how good you are musically. You are not going to sound as good as your favorite commerical artist who works with the pros. That does not mean that once you learn the technical ropes AND have some musical ability, that you still can't shine. I've done some wonderfully sounding mixes. My mixes may not go the extra mile in sounding Steely Dan great but the good ones sound good and the average listener is not the wiser and enjoys them just the same I find.

Another related subject....I have noticed that no matter how inspired my own works may feel, they do not always translate into a good sounding tune. Some do, some don't. I think thats how a really good artist works anyway. They get inspiration, they do demo recordings, they listen to a group of them then pick the ones that jump out of the pile. It can take some time to really impart that musical "stamp" to your mixes. Some of your grooves will have that swing and others will not. Sometimes its simply a matter of re-recording one or two of the core tracks in a new way that can make all the diffference. You've got to keep writing and recording then separate the good from the bad and the just plain ugly.

There are many artist that record everything they write thinking its inspired. They are too close to their own material and may not hear it as others do. As a result there will only be one or two good mixes on an album. This in not how I work. The idea is to write, write and write then cherry pick from your pile and put those on your album compilation. The Paul MaCartney's Cherry album mentioned earlier or whatever it was called was him digging through his pile of discarded ideas from his Beatle days. He wanted to release something after the break up of the Beatles and was not ready with material in the way he usually worked. That home recorded album had a one or two good mixes on it and that was it for my tastes. I think even one song was called Junk. My point here is that even once you perfect your recording environment and tecnique to whatever level you can live with.....your approach to writing will greatly effect how musical your mixes be (this is an oh so subjective subject).


Bob

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Another related subject....I have noticed that no matter how inspired my own works may feel, they do not always translate into a good sounding tune. Some do, some don't. I think thats how a really good artist works anyway. They get inspiration, they do demo recordings, they listen to a group of them then pick the ones that jump out of the pile.
...
There are many artist that record everything they write thinking its inspired. They are too close to their own material and my not hear it as other do. As a result there will only be one or two good mixes on an album. This in not how I work. The idea is to write, write and write then cherry pick from your pile and put those on your album compilation.

A lot depends upon how prolific of a writer the individual artist is...and of course how good they are. You are certainly right in your idea of pick only the best to put on an album and not to release an album full of junk just because it's there, so to speak.

However, a couple of caveats I'd add to that: the annals of popular music are filled with songs that became extremely popular that neither the artist or the producer either thought or intended to be hits, and vice versa, where title tracks or singles releases from albums bombed but the album did well. The classic example that everybody uses is the song "Piano Man" by Billy Joel. Joel considered that a throwaway track that almost did not make the album. The only reason it made it on was because they needed a filler track to fill out an album side. That song wound up buying him a couple of mansions.

Second, I believe much of the common current complaint "why should I buy a CD when the artist only has one or two good songs on it" is an empty argument based more upon the listener's laziness and short attention span more than lack of talent on the side of many of the artists. If the album format disappears, it's going to be a sucker punch to the gut of music quality.

I strongly lament the apparent upcoming demise of the CD or album. Not because of anything having to do with sound quality, but because I find that over time, it's many of the "filler" songs, and not the 2-3 tracks of obvious hook hits that wind up staying on my permanent playlists. Many of these "secondary" songs may initially seem like sunspots against the brightness of the obvious hit songs, but many of those obvious songs wind up diminishing in brightness quite quickly either because thay are ear candy with no lasting nutrition, or simply because one gets tired of it after the ten-billionth time they have heard it here, there and everywhere. As those songs wear out, oftien times the real gems from the album start popping out and catch you off guard with some real sonic interest and staying power that you may not have noticed before.

For these two reasons, what I might recommend is getting a second or third opinion from others as to what songs they like and what ones they don't, sometimes letting them listen only to the supposed "B side" filler tracks.

Add to that a trust of your own instinct. If there is a song that you are attracted to strongly in your gut but just doesn't make the cut, hang on to it. You instinct may be smarter than your ears at that moment. Or maybe, it just doesn't thematically or emotionally fit that album. Maybe it will wind up making much more sense on the next album and may even wind up sounding like more than filler on that album.

Ya gotta throw out - or at least archive - the stuff that just doesn't make the cut, that is for sure. Being honest with yourself and cherry-picking the good stuff is a must. But we seem to be in a swing these days of over-cherry picking. Any song that doesn't hit a home run on the first swing is unworthy of our precious time.

Ugh. Just imagine what will happen to the John Hiatts and Leonard Cohens and John Phillips of this world if they are not allowed to make albums and can only make a living by selling singles. And just imagine what would happen to the careers of those hundreds of artists who wind up making platinum-selling, grammy-winning albums whose hit songs are Hiatt, Cohen or Phillips compositions that were buried down on track 9 of their original release album when those original albums are no longer there.

G.

 

[Bob's Mods]

Its not just of recording tool, its also a writing tool.

All valid points. Yes save all your work. You may change it later to something else as your creative juices change. Bits and pieces of unused material could be used in other future songs. Unfinished material could be finished at a future date. Your HR rig, as the years go by, will archieve all your song writing ideas. This warehouse will expand in size and provide ever more song ideas as you yourself improve in your writing pursuits. Your digital HR rig will be a treasure trove of your writing ideas. I have tons of ideas in it as learned how to use it. I want to spend more time writing now and move away from the tecnical side. Its not just a recording tool for final released mixes, its also a writing tool. The ease of using digital as purely a writing aid cannot be understated. Its beats the old PortaStudio in this regard hands down. It won't inspire you, thats up to you, but it will make your writing endearvors more meaningful.

Bob

 

[CoolCat]

But with an untreated inadequate room, el cheapo Chinese mics, cheap instruments and amps, limited recording experience and crummy simulators (talent set aside)....your mixes are just not going to come up to that commercial standard.
Bob

BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA

 

[CoolCat]

Ugh. Just imagine what will happen to the John Hiatts and Leonard Cohens and John Phillips of this world if they are not allowed to make albums and can only make a living by selling singles. And just imagine what would happen to the careers of those hundreds of artists who wind up making platinum-selling, grammy-winning albums whose hit songs are Hiatt, Cohen or Phillips compositions that were buried down on track 9 of their original release album when those original albums are no longer there.

G.

yes, like the Beatles..Its Getting Better, Lovely Rita,, Sexy Sadie and Tomorrow Never Knows, wouldn't have been heard if it was all about singles...

thats another beauty of the internet HR self distribution now! The suits can't shutdown CD's and Albums...because the suits can't control the internet.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

thats another beauty of the internet HR self distribution now! The suits can't shutdown CD's and Albums...because the suits can't control the internet.

This is really getting OT (What??? moi get off topic in someone else's thread??? NEVER! ) but I always perceived the problem as reversed. It was the Napster/mePod Revolution who's war chant (among many) was, "We're not gonna pay fifteen bucks for a CD that has only two songs on it that we want to listen to. So to show "the suits" a lesson, we're just gonna take the singles we want until they wise up and stop shoving those overly-expensive and god-awful hour-long CDs down out throats." I see that being the culprit attitude that's digging the CD grave, not the "suits".

Yes, the new Internet indie music scene can come to the rescue as far as releasing stuff that Sony/BMG (just for example) may never sign themselves, but I can't see blaming Sony/BMG for the burial of the album format when it's the vocal anarchist wing of the music customer community that's actually holding the shovel.

G.

 

[robin watson]

It works great unless you want something that will actually hold up in court.

It's still a valid (if not bulletproof) method. And stop winking at me.

 

[TerraMortim]

This is really getting OT (What??? moi get off topic in someone else's thread??? NEVER! ) but I always perceived the problem as reversed. It was the Napster/mePod Revolution who's war chant (among many) was, "We're not gonna pay fifteen bucks for a CD that has only two songs on it that we want to listen to. So to show "the suits" a lesson, we're just gonna take the singles we want until they wise up and stop shoving those overly-expensive and god-awful hour-long CDs down out throats." I see that being the culprit attitude that's digging the CD grave, not the "suits".

Yes, the new Internet indie music scene can come to the rescue as far as releasing stuff that Sony/BMG (just for example) may never sign themselves, but I can't see blaming Sony/BMG for the burial of the album format when it's the vocal anarchist wing of the music customer community that's actually holding the shovel.

G.

you are right and wrong all at the same time (wow what a concept that is! lol)

Yes, but that's not really the root of the problem, at least not in that argument. The root of that particular problem is record companies putting out albums that should be just singles, with an hour of filler on it so that they can justify the price. There are many albums, however that are wonderful, without any filler to speak of, but they thought it was too much work.

Basically, I think the music bigwigs are panicking a bit because they're so used to very easy money, from a completely controlled market, where they basically told people..this is what you'll be buying, the only thing you'll be buying.

 

[Tim Brown]

I expected to equal or better the quality of recordings I made compared to others I had paid for. I had been in several studios, spent LOTS of money, only to be dissapointed with the results. I learned that the guy who owns the gear, makes you sound the way he wants. Sure you can argue and cajole about sonic nirvana, but it's always on your dime.

My results today (read steep learning curve) are vastly better than sessions I paid for, I have less money invested, and I'm just plain smarter.

Same boat here.
My problem with the recordings I have made has nothing to do with the sound quality and everything to do with the musicians I was playing with. You know - that guitarist who thinks his Laney AOR that puts out 150Watts has to be played at full volume! And on top of that, he NEVER plays the same thing the exact same way twice. he thinks he's a great improvising guitarist, but the reality is, he's smoked so much pot that he CAN'T actually play the same thing twice.

So, I took a long break from music, and now my family is moving to another state and I'm going to build a new studio - an honest to goodness REAL studio. My mom and dad are buying a decent sized Farm and my dad told my brother and I - "if you guys move with us, we will give you enough land to build you places, and you guys can take the Barn and build a studio out of it. (and this thing is HUGE! it is easily twice the size of their current house.)

So I am extremely happy about that.



Tim

 

[Tim Brown]

you are right and wrong all at the same time (wow what a concept that is! lol)

Yes, but that's not really the root of the problem, at least not in that argument. The root of that particular problem is record companies putting out albums that should be just singles, with an hour of filler on it so that they can justify the price. There are many albums, however that are wonderful, without any filler to speak of, but they thought it was too much work.

Basically, I think the music bigwigs are panicking a bit because they're so used to very easy money, from a completely controlled market, where they basically told people..this is what you'll be buying, the only thing you'll be buying.

Totally true. People don't even have a chance at having careers these days - if you don't have a mega hit with the first song it's,"See ya!"
Then the band breaks up because some bean-counter didn't like the number of units sold.



Tim

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Yes, but that's not really the root of the problem, at least not in that argument. The root of that particular problem is record companies putting out albums that should be just singles, with an hour of filler on it so that they can justify the price.

Have you even READ the posts leading up to that one? We're not talking about CDs that are nothing but filler.

Actually, I think there's a few contributing factors, not the least of which has been the absolute demise of the radio station. The actual quality artists, the ones who can put out a decent album and not just a decent single, aren't getting airplay to the public.

But I gotta tell you, one can't just sit back and blame Clear Channel, either. Whin I was a kid in the 60s, all we had was Top40 radio; there was no alternative, no FM to speak of. Certainly no XM radio channels and no Internet. It was arguably worse than it is now. What we did/had back then was the local record shop that acted kind of as our alternative radio station. We went out and found the good stuff.

The good stuff is still out there to be found. I just don't think anybody's looking that hard anymore. They are LETTING the big labels dictate what they hear by virtue of their own laziness. My god, when all I had was WLS and WCFL, that meant all I had was a 200- song playlist. That sure didn't stop me from discovering an entire rainbow of music that John records Landecker was never allowed to play on air.

Christ, there's a whole world of talent and music out there that the labels DO sign and put on CD. I have no problem still finding new stuff, along with a ton of hidden gems released over the years that are just waiting in the bins to be discovered, that have more than one or two tracks worth listening to. 90% of it is stuff that most listeners have never heard on the radio but gets printed to glass anyway.

But the buyers/listneners who want the CD to die because their radar doesn't reach much beyond Clear Channel, JackShit FM and Sam Goody are going to take all that away from me. Bastards.

G.

 

[DavidK]

But the buyers/listneners who want the CD to die because their radar doesn't reach much beyond Clear Channel, JackShit FM and Sam Goody are going to take all that away from me. Bastards.

G.

The CD has 5 years left. It's a goner. So is the "concept album".

If there is a bright side, its the fact that many CDs were too long The classic rock albums were 20 minutes a side. 40 minutes is the length of a symphony. 60 minutes is the length of an overblown symphony with filler.

The down side: Gone will be the tracks like "Close to the Edge" that take 20 minutes. The iTunes generation will never get those, they wont know that a song is allowed to be longer than 4 minutes.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

The CD has 5 years left. It's a goner. So is the "concept album".

If there is a bright side, its the fact that many CDs were too long The classic rock albums were 20 minutes a side.

It depends upon the album and the artist. Here are two classic albums (maybe not classic *rock*, but classic nonetheless as both are in every top 200 best of all time list I have ever seen):

"Rain Dogs" by Tom Waits runs 19 tracks in some 54 minutes, and there's not a stinker in the bunch. A real tour de force of a thematic album chock full of great songs. How does one crop that album down by 20 minutes? Which 5 or 6 songs do you leave in the closet? How the hell can you choose? It's not enough to make a second "Rain Dogs II" album out of.

OTOH, Randy Newman's "Sail Away", also a classic, also with not a stinker in the bunch, but originally made for vinyl, has 12 tracks but only runs for some 30 minutes (he wasn't known for long compositions back then ). Definitely a great album, but one that tends to leave one unsatisfied if only because of it's lack of length. One wouldn't mind utilizing that extra space, even if it were for a couple of filler songs, just to stretch out the experience. Even a filler from early Randy Newman is better than a hit from most other artists.

G.

 

[DavidK]

It depends upon the album and the artist.

Sure, there are always exceptions. Maybe it's me, maybe 40 minutes is all I want to hear. That's somewhat inconvenient when you play 3 hour operas for a living.

I feel the same way about movies. There is no story that takes more than 90 minutes. Maybe the Bible. How long would it really take to tell the story of Titanic? Boy meets girl, gets girl, ship sinks, boy drowns. It should have been twenty minutes, that way we wouldnt have to hear Celine Dion.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Sure, there are always exceptions. Maybe it's me, maybe 40 minutes is all I want to hear.

Hell, on some albums, 3 minutes is more than I want to hear! (did you say something about Celine Dion? )

Even with "Rain Dogs", it can be difficult to listen to the whole thing all the way through, that's true. But the point was that without the album format, many of those songs might never make it to the surface. It's not so much a matter of having to listen to them all in one go, as it is having them available to put in one's playlist at all.

Like Coolcat alluded to, just Imagine (pun intended) how much of the Beatles extensive catalog might never make it to the public if there were no album format. Releasing songs one or two at a time would mean that there'd be a whole iceburg of Lennon/McCartney material below the surface that we'd never get to hear before Yoko showed up.

Things are a bit different with classical and opera, as those are often pretty much "theme albums" with the different pieces meant to go together (but the same can be said of "Rain Dogs" and many other modern composition albums), but imagine being allowed to hear Vivaldi's "Spring" and never getting to hear it morph into the other three seasons because the audience only had the patience or attention span to hear only one season at a time.

G.

 

[TerraMortim]

Have you even READ the posts leading up to that one? We're not talking about CDs that are nothing but filler.

Actually, I think there's a few contributing factors, not the least of which has been the absolute demise of the radio station. The actual quality artists, the ones who can put out a decent album and not just a decent single, aren't getting airplay to the public.

But I gotta tell you, one can't just sit back and blame Clear Channel, either. Whin I was a kid in the 60s, all we had was Top40 radio; there was no alternative, no FM to speak of. Certainly no XM radio channels and no Internet. It was arguably worse than it is now. What we did/had back then was the local record shop that acted kind of as our alternative radio station. We went out and found the good stuff.

The good stuff is still out there to be found. I just don't think anybody's looking that hard anymore. They are LETTING the big labels dictate what they hear by virtue of their own laziness. My god, when all I had was WLS and WCFL, that meant all I had was a 200- song playlist. That sure didn't stop me from discovering an entire rainbow of music that John records Landecker was never allowed to play on air.

Christ, there's a whole world of talent and music out there that the labels DO sign and put on CD. I have no problem still finding new stuff, along with a ton of hidden gems released over the years that are just waiting in the bins to be discovered, that have more than one or two tracks worth listening to. 90% of it is stuff that most listeners have never heard on the radio but gets printed to glass anyway.

But the buyers/listneners who want the CD to die because their radar doesn't reach much beyond Clear Channel, JackShit FM and Sam Goody are going to take all that away from me. Bastards.

G.

sorry if I missed anything..I skipped over a bit..a lot to keep up with lol

 

[TerraMortim]

Sure, there are always exceptions. Maybe it's me, maybe 40 minutes is all I want to hear. That's somewhat inconvenient when you play 3 hour operas for a living.

I feel the same way about movies. There is no story that takes more than 90 minutes. Maybe the Bible. How long would it really take to tell the story of Titanic? Boy meets girl, gets girl, ship sinks, boy drowns. It should have been twenty minutes, that way we wouldnt have to hear Celine Dion.

I kind of liked how long Amadeus was. Such a cool movie in my opinion. I don't mind a long movie if it's particularly well done. There are some movies I love so much that I almost feel that 90 minutes is just when it's getting started lol

 

[Beck]

How long would it really take to tell the story of Titanic? Boy meets girl, gets girl, ship sinks, boy drowns. It should have been twenty minutes, that way we wouldnt have to hear Celine Dion.

Yeah, Prepubescent little boy meets woman… gets woman (what to do with her now he does not know because he’s 12 years old). It should have been twenty minutes and she should have gotten 20 years.

What a miscast. DiCaprio should be doing Peter Pan and Lord of Flies remakes… stuff like that. At least until he’s shaving.

 

[DavidK]

Yeah, Prepubescent little boy meets woman… gets woman (what to do with her now he does not know because he’s 12 years old). It should have been twenty minutes and she should have gotten 20 years.

What a miscast. DiCaprio should be doing Peter Pan and Lord of Flies remakes… stuff like that. At least until he’s shaving.

I am still waiting for Titanic II: the Sequel. Jack doesnt really die, he is just really cold. He marries the girl, and on the honeymoon they go on a cruise on the new Titanic II ship. It also sinks. Cher sings the hideous song.

 

[robin watson]

I don't know why Titanic gets so much flak. Sure, it's a sappy story, but what a production job, and the concept of coming face-to-face with something set deep in your past is a mind boggling one. But then again, the final scene of City Lights gets me almost every time, too.

Am I getting old, or trying to stay young? Both, I guess!