Do you really need expensive stuff?

[DavidK]

I know what you mean 100%

99.9% of music recorded today is all bells and whistles and no content... I don't know if we'll ever see another "dark side of the moon" or something of the like..

I think it is still there, it has just moved to the movie screen or the broadway pit. The movies still have good scores here and there. The financial rewards are obvious, and there are no "advances", one is paid to do a job.

I think a lot has to do with society. In the 60s and 70s, it was easy for a band to live with a place to crash, a van and a bag of pot. You cant do that anymore, you have to pay internet bills and buy blackberries.

Broadway has an advantage in that every show is somewhat like the "concept album", you need to see or hear the whole thing. You can have things like song reprises and alternative versions of songs, like "The Wall" does. I would like to move that way eventually, of writing some kind of show where you have the ability to write more involved music on an "album" scale. I did that with my new CD which will come out in November. We shall see if it sells...............

 

[eeb]

although my reference being floyd the concept album comes up... which isn't nessisarily what i mean... an album doesn't have to be a concept to be a great album... what i see lacking in modern music is that quality of songwriting, and the pride of the album... hell my band is even guilty of just "wanting something released" all my attemps to convince them that we're not in a race... to take more time on our album as a whole are even more in vain now that i'm the drummer.. i guess that's what solo projects are for right?

 

[Harvey Gerst]

After being in this forum for 7 years, it is good to see a thread like this. I often find too much emphasis on high-end gear, and not enough on creativity, musicianship etc.

I sometimes find my rather modest setup to be an advantage. I have a very nice project studio yet nothing outrageous, and a handful of mics. When I get something good, its due to the idea and the playing. Since I don't have the high end stuff, I know that I better be DAMN GOOD to compensate.

I probably have to work a lot harder. My philosophy is to get the best possible work done with my modest gear, and when it is actually a hindrance, I have earned an upgrade. I did that with my synths, and recently got a few nice ones. I was better than my synths. I can't say that for my recording gear yet, it is what I am striving for.

And I guess that's the reason for the bulk of my posts on these forums; to help people get the best out of what they already have, or to offer low cost solutions to common problems.

Having a great song, great instruments, great musicians and a great arrangement are topics that are really outside the scope of this forum, but how to record it all, what to use, and where to place everything, is exactly what this forum should be about.

The single most important decision I hafta make is whether I want flattery or accuracy for a specific track; that narrows my choice of mics, mic placement, what outboard gear might be involved, and getting it to the recorder as close to my primary vision as possible. That's the engineering part.

The second, but also important, decision that I must make is to try and guess how all these individual parts and pieces are gonna fit together when it's all done. That's where you put on two hats: engineering and producing.

These are things we all must deal with, whether we're in a world-class studio, or a 10' x 10' bedroom. Obviously, the bedroom imposes some restrictions on what and how you record, but for a lot of music, you can get surprisingly good results with a minimum of equipment.

And that's what home recording is all about to me.

 

[DavidK]

an album doesn't have to be a concept to be a great album... t?

Of course not. But is speaks volumes that their demise is iminent. It's about the artistic freedom to decide if you want your song to be 2 minutes or thirty.

I have very few moments lately where I hear something and I think "Wow, I have never heard anything like that". I remember hearing stuff in the 80s like Thomas Dolbys "She blinded me with science" and having that feeling of hearing something new. The only thing I can think of recently was a piece by Imogen Heap.

I dont think we are doomed, merely on a haitus. It will come back, it has been for 300+ years.

 

[Fishmed]

My Thoughts

for the debate of using quality gear for recording, I like to think of it in the following analogy:

Part One - If someone is writing a book they can do it using high end gear, low end gear, or somewhere in between. The high end gear here would be a computer using a word processor with an online spell check & thesaurus, access to the internet for research, etc. The wirter would have everything at his finger tips… literally.
- The middle technology could be a typewriter. All of the research would have to be done looking through books and other materials that can be found at a local library. If a word is misspell, the writer may not know until later during proof reading and even then he may have to crack open a dictionary. To make any changes to the material, he would have to retype that page or more.
-The low end would be a pencil and paper. The research and editing would be the same as the middle technology, but the work would be handwritten instead of typed.

Although one could write the same story using any level of technology, getting the lower levels of technology to the print quality of the upper technology, if possible, would take MUCH more time to do. Also if the person is a skilled writer, that time could be reduced by not having to look up every word for spelling or for alternate words, and if their knowledge is great enough on the subject, they could reduce the time spent for research. Therefore, the time lost by using lower technology can be recovered by experience.

Part Two – A handwritten paper will get less circulation than the same information written on the internet.

Part Three – If the content being written is uninteresting and/or written in a poor manor, the method of technology it was printed will not make a difference to the reader who will most likely stop after the first paragraph. On the other hand, if the content is extremely interesting and presented well, the print will be less important, but it would need to be legible enough to read. The better the print technology used the more people will accept it; some people cannot decipher poor penmanship.

 

[DavidK]

Having a great song, great instruments, great musicians and a great arrangement are topics that are really outside the scope of this forum, but how to record it all, what to use, and where to place everything, is exactly what this forum should be about.

I do not see why the focus cant be on both, one is futile without the other. Maybe the mic forum is not the place, but this thread has taken many twists and turns, enough that I added my own 2 cents.

We (or at least "I") have seen the results of having one without the other: we have a bunch of crap on the radio. Some day, humanity will come to a conclusion that there is more to music than a 20 year old blonde with big tits and a well-placed mic.

As for the topic of "Do you really need the expensive stuff"?, my opinion is:

YES, if you do not have the creativity and talent to make music. If the music sucks, you might as well make it sonically superior. If the music isnt good and the playing isnt good, one can put the mic in any place or orifice they want, it wont make a difference.

To ME, it is the one thing that is sorely MISSING from this forum. Having all the info about gear is of course very helpful, but not as helpful as a theory book or some fingerings for scales.

 

[Harvey Gerst]

Having a great song, great instruments, great musicians and a great arrangement are topics that are really outside the scope of this forum, but how to record it all, what to use, and where to place everything, is exactly what this forum should be about.

I do not see why the focus cant be on both, one is futile without the other. Maybe the mic forum is not the place, but this thread has taken many twists and turns, enough that I added my own 2 cents.

We (or at least "I") have seen the results of having one without the other: we have a bunch of crap on the radio. Some day, humanity will come to a conclusion that there is more to music than a 20 year old blonde with big tits and a well-placed mic.

As for the topic of "Do you really need the expensive stuff"?, my opinion is:

YES, if you do not have the creativity and talent to make music. If the music sucks, you might as well make it sonically superior. If the music isnt good and the playing isn't good, one can put the mic in any place or orifice they want, it wont make a difference.

To ME, it is the one thing that is sorely MISSING from this forum. Having all the info about gear is of course very helpful, but not as helpful as a theory book or some fingerings for scales.

Most of the people here already believe their music has value, or they wouldn't have invested the money into the equipment they have. The problem lies in seeing their vision come to life at an acceptable quality level.

Most of the people who visit "home recording" are basically musicians, hoping to improve their recording skills. Their goal, as I understand it, is to share their experiences, and/or seek help in areas where they might feel less confident about their abilities.

A good example of how this forum can help might be my statement about deciding between a mic that's "accurate" or a mic that's "flattering". Let's just look at those two choices and how that relates to the final product.

Is an "accurate" mic always the best choice? Some of the most expensive mics made are very accurate, but there is an equal number of expensive mics that are anything but accurate. Knowing when each should be used is a vast subject, even when low-cost ("accurate" or "flattering") mics are the point of the discussion.

Everyone faces the same question when they record multiple instruments; Do I wanna use a mic that's "accurate", or a mic that's "flattering"?

"Flattering" may not be the exact term to use. Does the microphone "enhance" the instrument being recorded? Should every track in the recording be "enhanced" to make each instrument sound as rich or full as possible? How will this sound at mixdown time? Can you use a particular microphone to create a niche for the instrument's sound, so that it doesn't create overlap problems when blended with other instruments?

I think understanding how that works to make your recordings sound better is most important here. The same question shows up here, over and over:

"What's the best mic for $___?"

They're really asking for help in improving what they have, but they don't understand how to ask the right question, so our answers are always the same:

"What do you want to use this mic for?"

And the underlying question about "accuracy" vs. "flattery" finally surfaces.

I can recommend mics that may work for them in any dollar range from $20 to $20,000, but, until I know how a mic is going to be used, my recommendations will be meaningless. And equally important, is that the person asking my advice understands how to use that microphone, and the mics they already have.

Over the years, I've posted many examples of recordings - all using inexpensive microphones. They've ranged from blues to rock to funk to jazz to bluegrass. All with the purpose of showing how you can use inexpensive mics to achieve good results - if you understand some of the basic underlying principles of recording. And that's what I'm trying to show in this forum: those principles.

And no, I don't hold myself up as some kind of "mic god" or "guru"; I'm just an old guy who's trying to share what I've learned over the 55 years that I've been doing this recording stuff.

 

[fraserhutch]

What I have come to realize is that every time Harvey (and a select few others) post, it makes me think and re-evaluate.

 

[groovyisland]

well yes of course.. I realize that completely but i'm talking in more of a "engineering" sense.. a good song by good players will still be a good song on a freakin ghetto blaster recording (won't sound pretty but it'll still be good)




on another note

"GROOVYISLAND"

You are likely posting on the wrong thread... this thread is about using less expensive gear to get great results recording.. .. it's in the "microphone" section..

you might wanna make a post in the "guitar" section then it would be relevant

im not the one who broached the subject

perhaps you should bitch out someone else

 

[groovyisland]

If you play a C Major chord on the guitar with 3 C's, a couple of E's, and a G, the distortion of any odd harmonics of the C note are gonna be off to the tempered G's and E's in your original C chord.

It's annoying as hell to listen to.

thats why we have power chords i think

 

[mshilarious]

thats why we have power chords i think

I think you ought to study music theory on your own rather than posting your internal dialogue on this board. But I'll give you some hints: G is the fifth of C

The idea to create a softsynth that dynamically shifts pitch as chords change to maintain perfect intonation is interesting, but it would certainly have its distractions. For example, a chord progression that held, say, the fifth as the root note in inversion would cause that note to shift pitch as the notes around it changed, even if you didn't ever lift your finger off that key. And if you threw a complicated enough chord progression, say with lots of substitutions, at the plug, I can imagine pitch jumping around like an R&B vocal with the autotune set to 'robot' mode.

Read up on the 'comma'.

 

[groovyisland]

thanks for the advice asshole...

oops...

i mean opinions are like...

nevermind

i wasnt talking about dynamic intonation nimrod

i was talking about beatless tuning systems

in my experiments with soft synths they did not work as expected

I think you ought to study music theory on your own rather than posting your internal dialogue on this board. But I'll give you some hints: G is the fifth of C

The idea to create a softsynth that dynamically shifts pitch as chords change to maintain perfect intonation is interesting, but it would certainly have its distractions. For example, a chord progression that held, say, the fifth as the root note in inversion would cause that note to shift pitch as the notes around it changed, even if you didn't ever lift your finger off that key. And if you threw a complicated enough chord progression, say with lots of substitutions, at the plug, I can imagine pitch jumping around like an R&B vocal with the autotune set to 'robot' mode.

Read up on the 'comma'.

 

[groovyisland]

harvey, i believe, looks at a mic in terms of what type it is and whether it can render a desirable result rather than what brand name is on it or how much it costs

i believe that there are many people here who care much more about brand names and pricing than about results. many people posting here in the equipment forums spend much more time acquiring and dreaming about gear than they do making music.

its the gearslutz phenomenon and i see nothing at all wrong with it.

 

[DavidK]

thanks for the advice asshole...

You go Girl.

i was talking about

It's pretty damn clear that you don't know what your talking about. Why don't you spend a little more time in the SAS forum and come back when you are a little less messed up.

 

[mshilarious]

i wasnt talking about dynamic intonation nimrod

i was talking about beatless tuning systems

in my experiments with soft synths they did not work as expected

Let me guess, you tune your guitar with harmonics so your power chords sound lovely. It probably doesn't do wonders for your pitch elsewhere.

A 'beatless' tuning system (just intonation) would only sound consonant if you stick to a single diatonic key (or its very close relatives), and more importantly, avoid at least one chord in that key (including extensions of certain other chords). Thus, the need for a 'dynamic' system to retune to those chords to make them 'beatless'.

All tunings systems are compromises; synths do give you the ability to use just intonation, and quickly retune as you change keys, which diminishes the disadvantages that system. If you were previously disappointed, it was probably because you played pieces that were too dissonant, or were in keys too far distant from C, and the resulting dissonance annoyed you. Or you were playing with other instruments that used equal temperament.

 

[groovyisland]

Let me guess, you tune your guitar with harmonics so your power chords sound lovely. It probably doesn't do wonders for your pitch elsewhere.

good god...

i dont usually play power chords at least not on purpose. sometimes its convenient to "2 note" chords

i use a peterson v-strobe and i strobe nearly every fret above the 12th and lots of them below also

i dont know why you would make such silly assumptions about me

thanks for the laugh

 

[groovyisland]

what the hell is this?

the bitchout forum?

LOL

reminds me of my first trip to florida. beaches beaches everywhere!


do you need expensive gear to sound good? nope

 

[bubbagump]

A 'beatless' tuning system (just intonation) would only sound consonant if you stick to a single diatonic key (or its very close relatives), and more importantly, avoid at least one chord in that key (including extensions of certain other chords).

Makes for some phat ass Renaissance tuning. Anyone seen my crum horn laying around?

 

[mshilarious]

i dont know why you would make such silly assumptions about me

thanks for the laugh

Because you said that power chords don't beat. If your guitar is perfectly intoned in equal temperament, they will.

 

[mshilarious]

do you need expensive gear to sound good?
nope

PS: I thought the drums would have sounded much better with KM84s on overheads. Also, it should have been recorded in Dobly