Demos vs Studio recordings

Ithe depends on your intended audience is. If you are doing it for yourself, and you care about the process, then the process matters.

If you are recording music for the general public, most of which don't realize that a band doesn't simply walk into a room-play the song and a cd comes out, the process doesn't matter at all.
 
Most people are worried about the finished product, but pure songwriters don't really care about the process as long as the finished product works. People who see themselves as engineers and musicians are the ones that do all the hand-wringing about what mic and preamp is used, what pickups are in what guitar, amps vs. sims, etc...

Obviously, there are people who fall somewhere in the middle.

Case in point: I did sound design and the cast album for an original musical a few year ago. The composer insisted on performing every single individual part in the orchestra. He wouldn't us a string section sound, he actually recorded all the separate violin, viola, cello and bass parts... Same with woodwinds and brass. There was no midi, he actually played all 70-some parts. He did this so that he could weight the parts against each other the way he wanted.

From a composers point of view, that is awesome. From an engineers point of view, it's a nightmare. Not because of the track count, but because solo violin sounds (for example) are close miked. So instead of something that sounds like an orchestra, I had 70-some individual instruments in their own room, separated from each other. He wasn't bothered by this.

There was also a few songs with guitar. He played the guitar parts on the keyboard and they sounded like guitar played on a keyboard. I replaced them with real guitar, for the most part he hated it. He hated that the tone changed when the part changed strings. (keys have the same timbre on all the notes, guitars don't) The only way for that not to happen on the guitar would be to play the part on one string.

He was very please with the finished product, because it sounded like what he intended. I wasn't happy with it because it sounded like a bunch of fake instruments attempting to be an orchestra. He is a composer, I am an engineer/musician.
 
Farview said:
People who see themselves as engineers and musicians are the ones that do all the hand-wringing about what mic and preamp is used, what pickups are in what guitar, amps vs. sims, etc...

Obviously, there are people who fall somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...

I agree.

IMHO...YMMV...etc...

I think that if you are competent as an engineer and/or a musician, either at the top pro levels or in your home rec basement...doing some edits/fixes is never going to feel like a "cheat", because you already know what you are capable of.
So then it comes down to either re-tracking/punching in those few bad notes or editing them, but in the end, it's going to be the same difference in the production and with your skill-set.

On the other hand, if you are struggling as an engineer and/or musician...then you are going to be relying and trying a lot of editing and fixing just to get something half-decent...or you will be determined to avoid anything that to you smells like a "cheat" because your conscience is nagging at you, and instead you end up doing 85 takes and then getting lucky on the 86th. :D
Neither of those options imply being "good" at either playing or engineering.

I think everyone knows where they fall...and I also think in the end, it will come out in their productions.
You can't play like shit, record like shit, and then edit great...and hope to sound really good. It just doesn't work like that.
 
mixsit said:
Only something similar, with the bands I've recorded often there is something cool in the roughs -mostly unprocessed, very raw. Then the transition, cleaning and fitting things out, making sound like a record'.
There have been a few times where I was asked to back track.. That no, we decided we liked it closer to the roots'..

I've used this Otis Rush album as a gold mine of good samplings of refs for mix/production values and insights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xx3oefo8YNw&list=PLNOYzhH-GslqdioFLzVVoNNOs__YzgdPr
Accordingly, it's been said it is not a fave' (as opposed to others from him) in some blues circles as being 'too far in that direction.
Click to expand...

Never listened to Otis Rush before, I've heard of him.

Diggin' it. Thanks
 
I kind know what the OP means.
I tend to prefer first albums to follow-ups - partly because bands often put too much glimmer on second/third albums (more budget = overproduced?) and partly (usually in the case of the third album after 2 well received ones) due to the material itself...
First albums tend to have a theme of struggle within the writing of them that gets lost with success and loses its authenticity for me when they attempt the same themes (and many do) on follow up albums.

That said... If a band makes it to a fifth album... It's normally pretty good...
 
The other part of that equation is that the band has their entire life to write the first album and (maybe) a year to write the second.
 
Farview said:
The other part of that equation is that the band has their entire life to write the first album and (maybe) a year to write the second.
Click to expand...

How fucking true!

Edit: and maybe a year to write the second while touring.
 
Third album always seems to have a mojo. So many bands find their voice there.
I could probably name like 50 dead nuts classic third albums.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top