Character In Recording? Good or Bad?

[johnsuitcase]

I just posted a new article on my site about Character in recordings:

http://suitcaserecordings.com/character-in-recordings.html

I'd be curious to hear others' opinions on the issue. Do you try to create technically perfect, acoustically neutral recordings? Or do you make recordings that try to bring the listener to the space and time that the recording was made in?

I hope this isn't an obtuse question, it just seems to my ear that some recordings take you to a place, and others just sound like a bunch of musicians out in the void...

 

[miroslav]

Could be either or neither or it could be something else.

Obtuse right back at you.

 

[The Cancers]

While I tend to come down on your side of the philosophical spectrum here, I think there is something to be said for the home recordist trying to remove, if nothing else, the effects of a shitty room on his recordings.
Character is one thing, a big pile of low end mud that makes everything you recorded sound muffled and indistinct is another.
There are plenty of things that contribute to the character of a recording. Trying to sound exactly like whatever's big on the radio right now seems silly.
I'm all for trying new things and creating your own sound.
But that shouldn't mean putting up with unnecessary low quality (as opposed to purposeful lo-fi).

 

[grimtraveller]

I think the article is actually a very thought provoking one. I'm not sure that character and dating of a piece are deliberate though. I think that they are retrospective by-products. In some of the interviews I've read with producers and engineers, there's often a view that "you could tell which city such and such a record was made in because of the techniques used on the record...." but personally, I think that's romanticizing somewhat. You know, like New York compression would not have been the same if had it been applied in exactly the same way in Newcastle.
I think that people make a recording in whatever the circumstances they are in and there are a number of variables that go into the eventual released sound. (That's why outtakes are kind of interesting). I totally agree that perfection isn't the aim, but that's me. Obviously not everyone feels that way. Defining 'character' is also difficult unless we all subscribe to the same definition.
Any recording I've made takes me back to when it was made, should I think about it. Curiously, most songs by artists that I listen to that take me back would take me to when I first heard them or specific moments and memories connected with them, whether they are 'sterile' or not. In fact, I wouldn't really know what is sterile. So many tracks that I've thought were vibrant pieces of genius have been dismissed by the artist in question as utter tripe. Go figure. I don't think about it. I take a song for what it is. What if I thought a song was lifeless trash, but the artist was adamant it was drenched in character ?

 

[miroslav]

Some gear manufacturers reduced it down awhile ago to....do you want "transparency" or do you want "color"?

But it's not always just the gear or the process that will dictate the final result...a lot of it has to do with the music and the musicians. So while you may strive NOT to affect the music, but just "document" it in a transparent way...it can still have a lot of color...a lot of character.

I honestly never think of it in that manner when I'm recording..."Do I want to do this song with or without character?"...I'm just focusing on the sounds I'm getting and how they are working within the context of the music. But I guess there are guys that very deliberately/consciously try to capture a specific vibe that reminds people of a specific space or time.
For me, that's much more subliminal and it's already happened the minute I started writting a song.
I'm already doing pre-production for the recording as I'm writing it.
I find that when you try too hard to steer the music in some direction that you want it to go in, it fails.
I feel that every song has a life of its own, and my goal is to try and tap into that, and then flush it out to the max...nothing more.
After that...what comes out, comes out...but generally speaking, I tend to prefer darker and deeper textures instead of dry clarity.

 

[johnsuitcase]

Yeah, I wasn't sure whether what I was trying to say was coming through...

My point was that technically perfect, sterile, neutral sounds are the goal for a lot of engineers. We try very hard to neutralize the room, perfect the pitch, get a guitar sound that is direct, etc.

But in many cases, a slightly lower-fi representation would serve the song and performance better.

It's always a judgment call, but it's important to try to capture the excitement and vibe of the artist and song, without getting too caught up in perfect tones, and low noise, etc.

It's been said lots of times, that the song and performance are more important than the recording quality, but I think that gets translated into a characterless recording that is 'good enough' instead of a recording that is maybe technically imperfect, but jibes with the song and performance. Does that make sense?

Part of what got me thinking about this was how so much current 'pop' music is just dead to my ears. Not that Whitney Houston wasn't dead to my ears 20 years ago, of course!

 

[bouldersoundguy]

There's no meaningful answer to this without a definition of "character".

 

[miroslav]

My point was that technically perfect, sterile, neutral sounds are the goal for a lot of engineers. We try very hard to neutralize the room, perfect the pitch, get a guitar sound that is direct, etc.

Mmmmmmm....I wouldn't really say that.

Removing noises or weird room effects is one thing...going for sterile, perfect, neutral is another.
I hear a lot of stuff that doesn’t go for that...and instead is very raw and rough.

You'll find classic and jazz recording to lean more towards "neutral"...though not necessarily "sterile and perfect".

 

[dintymoore]

... technically perfect, sterile, neutral sounds are the goal for a lot of engineers. We try very hard to neutralize the room, perfect the pitch, get a guitar sound that is direct, etc.
...

I do notice that everyone seems to be apeshit about controlling the sound in their studio with lots of clouds and bass traps and when I look at the studios I like they have almost none. It reminds me of how obsessed everyone was in the 70's with putting as much duct tape and tampex on their toms and stuffing a 421 inside each one.

To me the ultimate studio would not be recognizable as a recording studio. There's a lot of "playing recording studio" going on and it reminds me of playing army when I was a kid.

 

[johnsuitcase]

Mmmmmmm....I wouldn't really say that.

Removing noises or weird room effects is one thing...going for sterile, perfect, neutral is another.
I hear a lot of stuff that doesn’t go for that...and instead is very raw and rough.

You'll find classic and jazz recording to lean more towards "neutral"...though not necessarily "sterile and perfect".

I wasn't speaking so much about correcting big problems, those should be corrected of course. I was saying removing the room to the point where it's a void.

Classic jazz recordings are mostly quite ambient, with a lot of room sound. Not acoustically dead or neutral.

As to what 'character' means, in this case I'm talking I suppose about interchangeability. That ineffable thing that makes a recording sound like no other recording. The opposite of generic or neutral.

 

[grimtraveller]

It's been said lots of times, that the song and performance are more important than the recording quality, but I think that gets translated into a characterless recording that is 'good enough' instead of a recording that is maybe technically imperfect, but jibes with the song and performance. Does that make sense?

Part of what got me thinking about this was how so much current 'pop' music is just dead to my ears. Not that Whitney Houston wasn't dead to my ears 20 years ago, of course!

In the last three or so years, I've acquired loads of albums, many of which have been private or 'vanity' pressings, late 60s / early 70s, in which the recording quality for the most part can't compare even with alot of the stuff in the MP3 mixing clinic here. But I don't care because alot of them are records with great feeling and great songs. Generally, I want the singers and instruments to be not out of tune but beyond that, perfection doesn't interest me. But neither does sloppiness and lack of effort. The way I like to put it is "neither slick nor slack".
But is it all still not hugely subjective ?

 

[johnsuitcase]

In the last three or so years, I've acquired loads of albums, many of which have been private or 'vanity' pressings, late 60s / early 70s, in which the recording quality for the most part can't compare even with alot of the stuff in the MP3 mixing clinic here. But I don't care because alot of them are records with great feeling and great songs. Generally, I want the singers and instruments to be not out of tune but beyond that, perfection doesn't interest me. But neither does sloppiness and lack of effort. The way I like to put it is "neither slick nor slack".
But is it all still not hugely subjective ?

It is hugely subjective, of course. I think that a lot of us get caught up in trying to think about what press, radio, other engineers, record label folks, etc are going to think about the recording quality, while forgetting that the fan wants something that sounds cool, unique and more than anything connects with them.

A recording should never detract from the song, and we shouldn't beat the life out of a song trying to serve a great recording, either.

 

[Paulie Jay]

Funny thing - I was listening to an old Kinks compilation yesterday and I really enjoy every song that appears on it. Then I listened closer to the actual production of the songs and realised that on a lot of songs the hi hats suonded like paint tin lids, the snare sounded very thin, the kick and toms were all but inaubible. I though to myself "Gee, if I was recording and my drums sounded like that I'd be wanting to fix them up", but of course, then the song wouldn't have the same character that it currently posseses.

So for me, character is an awesome thing for a recording to have. I just have to have the guts to allow it to exist in my own recordings

 

[grimtraveller]

Funny thing - I was listening to an old Kinks compilation yesterday and I really enjoy every song that appears on it. Then I listened closer to the actual production of the songs and realised that on a lot of songs the hi hats suonded like paint tin lids, the snare sounded very thin, the kick and toms were all but inaubible. I though to myself "Gee, if I was recording and my drums sounded like that I'd be wanting to fix them up", but of course, then the song wouldn't have the same character that it currently posseses.

So for me, character is an awesome thing for a recording to have. I just have to have the guts to allow it to exist in my own recordings

Same here. In the last few years, I've really listened to the recording quality of the songs I love and even by HR standards, many of them from the 60s ain't much cop. You're right, the kick on the drums can hardly be heard alot of the time. But the quality doesn't interest me. If I love a song then I love that song. I hate some of the drum, guitar and keyboard sounds from 80s songs, if I isolate them as individual sounds. But it can't stop my enjoyment of a song if I like it. My own stuff up until now hasn't been well recorded or mixed. But I still dig most of those songs.

 

[gecko zzed]

This is the way I look at it.

My first car was a Morris Minor. It wasn't new, but it did embody the automotive technology of the era. It was fun to drive then, and I have no doubt that if I still had it, it would be fun to drive now, despite its technological primitiveness compared to contemporary vehicles.

But for all the charm that it had, current vehicles are more powerful, more reliable, more comfortable, much more sophisticated, and are far better suited to my travelling needs. Were I to still have the Morris, I would drive it for novelty and character, rather than for function.

Would I degrade the features of my current car to attempt to recreate the technology of the past? I don't think so. Designers in the past were not aiming for character, novelty or limited performance; they were doing the best with the technology available, as are designers today.

Both are creations of their respective eras. In forty years time, there is every chance that people will be commenting on how quaint the vehicles of 2010 were, possibly taking out their 2010 model for a Sunday spin.

I believe this applies to recording as well. Character is applied by commentators after the event.

 

[Paulie Jay]

Both are creations of their respective eras. In forty years time, there is every chance that people will be commenting on how quaint the vehicles of 2010 were, possibly taking out their 2010 model for a Sunday spin.

Or if they own a Prius, pehaps the car will be taking itself out for a spin...

 

[noisewreck]

Great article! Just got around to reading it. However, "perfect" and "boring" are not necessarily things that go hand in hand. Neither is "characterful" and "imperfect". In fact, I'd say that "boring" and "imperfect" go hand-in-hand better, because what makes something "perfect" isn't necessarily about accuracy. To me, the moment of perfection is when all things magically click together to make a whole. It can be a pitch accurate vocal performance, yet at the same time have all the feeling and emotion behind it, grab the listener and take him on a journey.

There is a fine-line between "imperfections" and simply "bad".

 

[johnsuitcase]

This is the way I look at it.

My first car was a Morris Minor. It wasn't new, but it did embody the automotive technology of the era. It was fun to drive then, and I have no doubt that if I still had it, it would be fun to drive now, despite its technological primitiveness compared to contemporary vehicles.

But for all the charm that it had, current vehicles are more powerful, more reliable, more comfortable, much more sophisticated, and are far better suited to my travelling needs. Were I to still have the Morris, I would drive it for novelty and character, rather than for function.

Would I degrade the features of my current car to attempt to recreate the technology of the past? I don't think so. Designers in the past were not aiming for character, novelty or limited performance; they were doing the best with the technology available, as are designers today.

Both are creations of their respective eras. In forty years time, there is every chance that people will be commenting on how quaint the vehicles of 2010 were, possibly taking out their 2010 model for a Sunday spin.

I believe this applies to recording as well. Character is applied by commentators after the event.

I agree with what you're saying, that nobody in 1965 was intentionally making sub-par recordings. But, I think that the great recordings are from people trying to squeeze a little too much out of the gear.

I guess part of what I'd call character is taking chances. It's the Peter Gabriel/Phil Collins SSL Comp thing on In The Air. The thing most of us would do, would be to say, wow, that's cool! Then go ahead and record the drums properly. But they actually went to the trouble to rewire things so they could record the cool sound they were hearing.

I listen to Song 2 by Blur, and I hear a great, characterful song. The willingness to record something that sounds cool, and not back off from that is what I'm talking about.

Sometimes things sound completely wrong from a technical perspective, but they sound great in context.

And I'm also talking about trying to capture the vibe in the room. It's hard to articulate, but it's that thing that live recordings often have, that is missing from studio recordings. Not just the audience, or the room, even. I'm talking about that feeling of being there, with the band, in a real place.

I realize these are two kind of different issues, but I'd put them both under 'Character' as being things that mark a recording as distinctive.

Something to think about (for me, anyway!)

 

[johnsuitcase]

Great article! Just got around to reading it. However, "perfect" and "boring" are not necessarily things that go hand in hand. Neither is "characterful" and "imperfect". In fact, I'd say that "boring" and "imperfect" go hand-in-hand better, because what makes something "perfect" isn't necessarily about accuracy. To me, the moment of perfection is when all things magically click together to make a whole. It can be a pitch accurate vocal performance, yet at the same time have all the feeling and emotion behind it, grab the listener and take him on a journey.

There is a fine-line between "imperfections" and simply "bad".

Good points, for sure!

I was thinking more along the lines of technical perfection, not so much artistic perfection, if that makes sense.

I like the 'goosebumps' test. When I get goosebumps, I know it's right, even if there are things I might like to fix. Something about the way it sounds at that moment is working, and it's important to pay attention. Not that I print the mix immediately, but I'll work hard to make sure not to lose that magic!

 

[dintymoore]

... My first car was a Morris Minor...

My brother had an early 60's Morris Minor, the woody wagon and he leant it to me for a summer once. I loved that car and still think that it was overall one of the best cars ever made. English leather smelled great. The glovebox manual had how to lap the valves. The front bumper had a hole you stuck the jack handle through and you could turn the crankshaft with it.

My brother has had some serious health issues in this last year and last week he bought a 1970 Morris Minor wagon, white with wood just like he had before, in really good shape.

That car had more character than almost any other, and one time I heard someone say that the most important thing for a drumset to have is character, and I like that concept.

I've played some "perfect" sets of drums that were totally limp for me and some POS sets that for whatever reason were fun to play.

Of course there's good character and bad character but I'd rather have a drumset, a song or a recording with some character, hopefully good, than "perfect". Perfect sucks because it's boring and boring is probably the #1 thing I try to avoid. There's no need for it because life isn't boring.