I've come to the conclusion that a studio sound is only found in ... a studio

DrewPeterson7 said:
Maybe the second two I'll grant you, but Opeth are pretty damned dynamic.

For kicks, do me this one favor - go out and buy Opeth's "Damnation." If you're even passingly familar with their sound, it'll blow your mind - it's the best album Pink Floyd never released...
Click to expand...


Well...I listened to Opeth's Gost of Perdition on Youtube...and it had the gutteral vocals in the very begining so it kinda turned me off right away...
...but later on it got a bit more interesting...with some of that Floydish quality to it.

Mind you...I was never a big metal freak...even though I said I prefered Judas Priest. I like the more "roots" Rock/Blues flavored styles.

Even a prog band like Rush from back in the past was never on my CD list.
I love Neil Peart...and Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson are great musicians too...but I could NEVER get past Geddy Lee's vocals.
They are like nails across a blackboard to my ears! :D

But then...if you wanna talk Crimson, early Genesis, Floyd of course....I love that stuff.
 
miroslav said:
Well...I listened to Opeth's Gost of Perdition on Youtube...and it had the gutteral vocals in the very begining so it kinda turned me off right away...
...but later on it got a bit more interesting...with some of that Floydish quality to it.

Mind you...I was never a big metal freak...even though I said I prefered Judas Priest. I like the more "roots" Rock/Blues flavored styles.

Even a prog band like Rush from back in the past was never on my CD list.
I love Neil Peart...and Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson are great musicians too...but I could NEVER get past Geddy Lee's vocals.
They are like nails across a blackboard to my ears! :D

But then...if you wanna talk Crimson, early Genesis, Floyd of course....I love that stuff.
Click to expand...

Yeah, go buy "Damnation."

I love Opeth precicely for that contrast - Mikael Akersfeldt does that cookie monster vocal thing that I'm not really too into, but I like his voice more than some. However, every once in a while they'll interject a more melodic section between the heavier bits, and when he doesn't growl, he has a voice like an angel.

Which brings us to Damnation. It's the second disc of a two-album conceptual work, the first, "Deliverance," being the heaviest thing they'd ever recorded (at least to that point), with almost none of the interludes they usually write, and the only clean song (an acoustic track) still had growled vocals. Damnation, meanwhile, isn't a metal album at all (well, maybe lyrically) - it's all clean toned electric, acoustic, and keys, just a very spacious, brooding, quiet album, where Mikael sings everything.

See if you can find "Windowpane," "To Rid the Disease," or "In My Time of Need" on Youtube. It's absolutely gorgeous, ethereal, haunting stuff, very much rooted in early 70's prog and folk.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Matt, I know she's your mom, so you think of her as ancient, that's natural. But when you consider that she's *younger* than Carly Simon, John Mellencamp, Roger Glover, Paul McCartney, David Gilmour, Grace Slick, Richie Blackmore, Peter Criss, every one of the Rolling Stones, and a bazillion other rockers, why wouldn't she like rock? ;)

G.
Click to expand...

Well, exactly. The only reason I pointed it out was because the reality is that so many people reach a certain age where their "new music receptors" just shut off. It's pretty sad, and frankly, it drives me batty. I see it happening to a lot of people as early as their 30's. The whole "it was better in the good 'ol days, and none of this new-fangled shit is worth a damn" mentality. Which, of course, has nothing to do with actually giving anything new a chance, and everything to do with applying sweeping generalizations as a cover for closed-mindedness (is that a word?) and/or general indifference towards music.

Which is why I always get a kick out of looking at my mom's iPod playlists: digital versions of Stones singles she used to spin on her mono record player when she was 15 right alongside everything from cheesy 80's Robert Plant solo material to stuff by the White Stripes and BRMC.
 
some of the music coming out today is some of the best Ive heard in a while..for caribou to modest mouse...theres some top tunesmiths out there..

i was just reading that how since 2007 musicians in the UK make more money from film, commercials and dowloads than they do hardware sold..the times they are a changing
 
mattdee1 said:
Well, exactly. The only reason I pointed it out was because the reality is that so many people reach a certain age where their "new music receptors" just shut off. It's pretty sad, and frankly, it drives me batty.
Click to expand...
Just wait until it happens to you...which it *will*, no question other than what year exactly it will happen. After a while one just get their fill, so to speak, and/or gets tired of chasing phantoms.

It's not so much "new music" as it is "new styles". You mom likes Jack White because it's new compositions in old styles. You guys may think he's avant guarde, but he would have made it just as well in 1965 as he did in 2005.

Some people grow a like for new styles further into their life than others. Personally went through my metal stage in my teens and grew out of it by my 20s. Others latch onto it as teens and then turn off the "new style receptors" and stay hooked on banging their heads until their in their 60s. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying that *everybody* has a point where they find what they're happy with and then stay there; for some of us it's just earlier or later than others.

And it works in both directions, too. The young (including me, when I was there) reject the old stuff just as much as the old reject the new stuff. There's always going to be a generational tension where the young folks thing their parent's generation are morons and the parents think the next generations are idiots, and use music as a tatoo to mark their generational territory.

G.
 
tikitariki said:
I was thinking of upgrading my guitar, but I read something on this forum, that kind of changed my approach on the whole home recording thing: A home recording is just that. A home recording. I was told I could get studio quality recording with a Toneport, yes, maybe a $100 studio recording (Great clean settings and such though). I think I may have set my expectations too high.

I must admit that my friend and his Macbook + GarageBand + Guitar and me and my Toneport have really exceeded what is to be expected, but I decided to not spend any more money on recording and just drop it till I'm done with school and have a good paying job. I could be spending that money else where, rather than a dream that may require a collective amount of money. Besides, I plan to major in computer/electric engineering, might come on handy in some aspects.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much the conclusion I came to about 3 years ago. It's also about the time my activity on this and other online music sites dwindled. The realization was simple - people buy near-studio-quality gear, house it in their homes, record with it, then come on here and post it as home recordings. Technique aside (good gear doesn't obviously equate good recordings) having studio grade gear (amps, mics, preamps, consoles, etc) essentially IS what makes something a fucking studio.

What I am always impressed to hear are people, like myself, who have shit for gear but who make a decent and enjoyable recording. When I joined this forum over 7 years ago there was more focus on making due with what you had. Now it seems the bar for home recording is set too high thanks to people with tons of money to piss away essentially building home studios and flaunting their impressive tracks. If you took a survey of most regulars here you will no doubt discover their investment in gear is borderline extravagant. This is good for music, and good for their personal recordings, but bad for this forum.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
It's not so much "new music" as it is "new styles". You mom likes Jack White because it's new compositions in old styles. You guys may think he's avant guarde, but he would have made it just as well in 1965 as he did in 2005.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree with the "new styles" thing, but even still, I was talking strictly about "new music", completely irrespective of style and defined only by date of release.

I can't even count the number of friends, family members, co-workers, and general acquaintances I have encountered over the years who shut off their receptors at an absurdly young age. It's always "screw this new crap man, put on some Floyd, put on some Zeppelin, some Beatles, some Van Halen, some Stone Temple Pilots, some Metallica, some <insert defunct or long-ago established band here>." Heck, you even see it happen within the discographies of the very bands these people deify: "Ah, turn this shit off, put on the old stuff!"

I mean really, name any band you want, old or new, and even if you are hell-bent on keeping your stylistic tastes narrower than narrow, you will find something else out there with many of the same elements if you just take some time to look, or ask people for suggestions. But no, these people are more than content to keep rotating the exact same 10 or 20 albums until kingdom come.

And it works in both directions, too. The young (including me, when I was there) reject the old stuff just as much as the old reject the new stuff.
Click to expand...

In general, you're right, but I'd say the old-rejecting-new is more common. I mean, I see far more 15 year-old kids walking around wearing Zeppelin or AC/DC shirts than I do 55 year-olds indicating any interest whatsoever in modern, young bands.
 
mattdee1 said:
In general, you're right, but I'd say the old-rejecting-new is more common. I mean, I see far more 15 year-old kids walking around wearing Zeppelin or AC/DC shirts than I do 55 year-olds indicating any interest whatsoever in modern, young bands.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's because old people are... well... old. And this is coming from a 100 year old. We are all grumpy. :mad:

The need for Viagra doesn't help either. :o
 
mattdee1 said:
In general, you're right, but I'd say the old-rejecting-new is more common. I mean, I see far more 15 year-old kids walking around wearing Zeppelin or AC/DC shirts than I do 55 year-olds indicating any interest whatsoever in modern, young bands.
Click to expand...
That's partly because they don't make Count Basie or Jelly Roll Morton T-shirts for young-uns, and partly because people over thirty no longer need to wear branded t-shirts to express their identity ;) :D. Nah, j/k, You're probably right that it's disproportionate.

But when you get older, one of two things happens, Either you have far too much else to worry about to worry about whether Joe TeenIdol '09 will get the girl or not (besides, he never does), or Ted HeadBanger '09 will win another imaginary sword fight with Death's minions (besides, he always does), or you *really* get into music and start exploring the very deep ends of the catalogs and the challenges of musicianship because 40 years of rock and roll or 40 years of banging heads just gets boring.

G.
 
geez man I wish you were in the same city..it would just take five minutes to show you but it seems to take 100 posts to explain..I admire your tenacity mate...its got to be "eureka" soon
 
A lot of whats being discussed here isn't new, the home studio vs. pro studio argument , the pop/sellout music vs. true, artistic music argument, etc. I think what we have to realize is that a 'studio' can be a pretty relative term. There's no definitive line separating a home studio from a pro studio. At least not quality wise. Anyone could go out, buy thousands of dollars of equipment and open a commercial studio today, and not be able to get the same sound a lot of people here can in their home studios. And i really have heard home studio recordings better than studio recordings. That just proves that studios can be crappy. It's more about who's behind the equipment than anything else. Another major factor is why you're recording music. When recording artists go into studios they have a record label and thousands of fans to answer to. Naturally, their recording process will be different. But the comparison of price to quality ratio isn't linear. The quality of music they'll make in $100,000 isn't necessarily 10 times better than what we can make with $10,000 at home. The recent burst in technology has definitely made it easier to get close to their quality.I would think most of us here just want to make a decent sounding song with our band in our studios, some do it just for themselves, some do it for their friends, and some do it to boost their popularity in their local music community. And we can definitely make a good enough recording for all these needs in our own studios. Because a home studio isn't just a cheaper alternative to going to a studio anymore, it's a whole new art. Infact, if you want to cut an album with your band it'd be cheaper doing it in a proper studio. So i don't know about others, but i think we make studios not just to compete with pro recordings (sure, we like to get as close to them as we can) but we do it because we like to play around with all the equipment, experiment with the sounds, hang around the place, etc. It's a hobby. And plus, owning a studio is pretty fucking cool :)
 
darrin_h2000 said:
Not trying to take us from the Nascar topic but;

I read in "Behind the glass" that most of the engineers interviewed were very impressed with some of the stuff they hear from home studios nowdays...so it isnt out of reach to any of us...all we have to do is get the right stuff and learn how to use it.
Click to expand...

Actually, a friend of mine who is big in New York City and who owns a studio told me that he has had home studio engineers come to apply for a job. They bring recordings that they spent months on that were blow mind. The problem is that in real pro studios, they must do this 20 or more times per year. The fact is that pro recording/mix/mastering houses have to crank out acceptable product very quickly and on budget. They do not have the luxury of endless time and need the tools to fix any recordings they did not track. There are so many things that go wrong that are out of control of the houses, yet they are expected to deliver acceptable product on time and budget. Home recording cannot be put in the same light as pro recording. One is a hobby and the other is a business.
 
MCI2424 said:
They bring recordings that they spent months on that were blow mind. The problem is that in real pro studios, they must do this 20 or more times per year. The fact is that pro recording/mix/mastering houses have to crank out acceptable product very quickly and on budget. They do not have the luxury of endless time and need the tools to fix any recordings they did not track. There are so many things that go wrong that are out of control of the houses, yet they are expected to deliver acceptable product on time and budget. Home recording cannot be put in the same light as pro recording. One is a hobby and the other is a business.
Click to expand...

I had not thought of it this way before. This is a valuable insight. There are some recordings I spend a lot of time on . . . because I can. I am part-hobby, part business. But if I were totally dependent on studio income for a living, I would not have the luxury of beig able to painstakingly craft every recording into the final, polished product . . . I would have to be able to do this in the minimum amount of time, repeatedly.
 
Pinky said:
This is pretty much the conclusion I came to about 3 years ago. It's also about the time my activity on this and other online music sites dwindled. The realization was simple - people buy near-studio-quality gear, house it in their homes, record with it, then come on here and post it as home recordings. Technique aside (good gear doesn't obviously equate good recordings) having studio grade gear (amps, mics, preamps, consoles, etc) essentially IS what makes something a fucking studio.

What I am always impressed to hear are people, like myself, who have shit for gear but who make a decent and enjoyable recording. When I joined this forum over 7 years ago there was more focus on making due with what you had. Now it seems the bar for home recording is set too high thanks to people with tons of money to piss away essentially building home studios and flaunting their impressive tracks. If you took a survey of most regulars here you will no doubt discover their investment in gear is borderline extravagant. This is good for music, and good for their personal recordings, but bad for this forum.
Click to expand...

I've been recording at home for years. I started with 4 track tape recorders, then switched to my DAW and used Sony Acid, then went back to cassette recording and went through a period of buying lower end hardware to supplement my cassette multitrack (lxp, fmr, alesis), and last year switched back to using an imac and garageband/m-audio solo interface exclusively. For me it's not about digital vs. analog, or about spending money on expensive gear, it's about home recording. That's where my expectation lies. I'm really happy with my current set-up. It's very simple to use, garageband rocks, there is no huge investment, and I think I get some really good sound of this set-up. I think I got some really good sounds out of my cassette set-up as well. I've gotten some really positive feedback about my recordings on this forum, I didn't spend a lot of money on the gear I have to record it with. So I agree with Pinky, it's all about making a decent, enjoyable recording with what you have. Most of the enjoyment comes from writing something that you and others like anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top