EQing Heavy Distortion

[Sonixx]

As a rule, I will not record anything that cannot be reproducd live by 4 or 5 guys playing intruments and singing. With that as a guideline, I agree with you 100%.

why

wizardry and magic are the studio's forte... otherwise it's called a live performance...

 

[thehymns]

I would have much rather recorded this band live, but unfortunatly a drum set takes up have the room I track in . The main problem is that the amp they used had a horrible high end hiss, but the band insisted it sounded better then my Fender Twin Reverb . Since I used Pro Tools, I decided to leave the tracks as they were with little/no EQ, just some fades, and I'm going to let a "professional" help me with the final mix and mastering of the songs and do a little noise reduction (at the bands expensive)...I could probably learn a trick or two from him and it ensures the bands demo is at an approriate volume. If you want to hear a rough mix of one of the songs, go to http://www.myspace.com/thekicking20s, the song is "Familiar Sounds". The other two I had no part on, they were done at a different studio (I think they spent $500 on something they weren't happy with...I think I'll make $80 ($20 a day) for 6 songs ).

 

[Zed10R]

you're missing a lot of great music if you won't record anything that cannot be reproduced live by four or five guys playing instruments and singing... some studio only shit is mind blowing

I disagree 100%.

I have little respect for bands or "artists" that rely on loops, samples, and automated equipment, and pre recorded ....stuff. I like it when it's used tastefully and in limited quantities, but RELYING on it is weak. It is, for lack of a better word, cheating. Those people cheat their way past a TON of critical lessons every recording musician SHOULD know, but most totally disregard. You will never fully acheive your potential if you rely on machines to play music for you.

I have heard "mind blowing" studio creations and to be honest they lack the emotional connectivity that (to me) metal is all about. Besides, if you need loops, samples, and automated equipment to make your point, you lack musical talent. Don't freak out now...that just my OPINION!! I have seen and heard countless examples of jaw dropping playing, song writing, and singing that has so much emotional impact that I cannot use words to explain. You cannot substitute real human talent and emotion with a programmed machine. But it sure is easier to learn.

But if you are speaking ONLY about the actual SOUND....then yeah, shit fabricated in the studio without the use of musical instruments has no noise, is always perfectly executed, pitch and tonality is always perfect, it is a superior SOUND. But music is WAY more than sound.

I'll clarify one thing: Keyboards count as an instument to me, as long as they not just being used to trigger sound bytes, loops, and other nonsense.

why

wizardry and magic are the studio's forte... otherwise it's called a live performance...

Not so. PERFECTION is the forte of the studio. Capturing a PERFECT performance is what I use my studio for. If it is not prefect you must do it again and again untill it is. If you do not WANT to do it perfectly, I will point you in the direction of several studios that will be happy to record sub-par performances. Good enough will not cut it. And if you cannot play it with your own hands, I will not record it. Once the performance is captured I embellish the sound with the typical techniques, but by no means am I or will I fabricarte something that is not already in the music. These guidelines benefit me AND the person/people I am recording.

But of course, I have been called a nazi, hardass, a perfectionist, and my points often go unrecognized as I try to explain the difference between "right" and "close". Most people just can't hear the difference and it makes me nuts. But the finished product always makes the people happy.

I'll stop now.

 

[KonradG]

As a rule, I will not record anything that cannot be reproducd live by 4 or 5 guys playing intruments and singing. With that as a guideline, I agree with you 100%.

thats stupid and confining. i play in a couple of bands and i got shit in the background that will blow your mind. just because it doesnt come out of an instrument with strings, drum heads, or keys doesnt mean it isnt music. for example, texas chainsaw massacre inspired me to write this one song, hardly no instruments at all, crazy shit, i found an interview of a crazy guy that said he could talk to ghosts so i put it on audio and put parts of it in the background where you subliminally hear some crazy fuck yelling at ghosts every once in a while. im not saying that instruments arent cool, but they arent everything. you need to listen to john cage, because i think he is the only crazy mother fucker who can get away with not using effects yet still having music that will blow your mind.

 

[Sonixx]

Not so. PERFECTION is the forte of the studio.

for some clients wizardry and magic is called for

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

But there is a good chance that YOUR name is going on that CD jacket. If the final product sounds bad, do you not worry about loosing business?

Not really, for two reasons.

First, I always leave open the option of having my name NOT put into the credits...though I've not exercised that option yet. I'd still get paid for the job w/o incurring the association.

Second, and more realistic I think, is that those who listen to the final product will fall into one of four categories:

1.) They will like the band, in which case it's fine to have my name on the credits as the mixing engineer.

2.) They will think the band sucks and will steer clear of them regardless of who mixed it.

3.) They will know the difference between the band, the producer, and the engineer and will dislike the job I did mixing regardless of the performance or production. In such a case they simply dislike my work and there's nothing I can do about that.

4.) They will know the difference between the band, the producer, and the engineer and will like the job I did mixing regardless of the performance or production. In such a case the fact that the band or the producer is or is not to their liking is irrelevant; if they like the way I mixed it, that's good enough for me.

There can be a danger in getting "stereotyped", perhaps. If I engineered and got credited for two awful mullet rock albums in a row, the next fusion artist to consider me might pass me by for someone else. But I have been lucky thus far (knock wood) that most of my work has been via word-of-mouth among musicians with wide tastes and better-than-average talent. In those cases one of two things has happened for me more than not; either I have been asked to have at least some hand in the production decidsion-making (they have asked me for my opinions or input, or downright put me in the driver's seat there), or where the band has produced themselves or had another producer, the person in the producer's seat has had an educated ear and has made mostly good decisions.

But the bottom line is, if it has not been explicitly discussed, at least try and feel out just where and when they want your opinion; in other words what are they paying you for. If they're paying you to get the sound they want even if you think it sounds like crap, then so be it. You can always ask to have your name off the list.

G.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

As a rule, I will not record anything that cannot be reproducd live by 4 or 5 guys playing intruments and singing.

As a rule, I will not listen to anything that cannot be reproduced live by 4 or 5 guys playing instruments and singing...but I'll record anything that's a paying job.

G.

 

[Zed10R]

for some clients wizardry and magic is called for

That is true. Sometimes it is. But considering that fact that I do not make my living from my studio (I just do this because it is fun and I enjoydoing it) I prefer to focus on the human performance. We all have our preferences.

thats stupid and confining. i play in a couple of bands and i got shit in the background that will blow your mind. just because it doesnt come out of an instrument with strings, drum heads, or keys doesnt mean it isnt music. for example, texas chainsaw massacre inspired me to write this one song, hardly no instruments at all, crazy shit, i found an interview of a crazy guy that said he could talk to ghosts so i put it on audio and put parts of it in the background where you subliminally hear some crazy fuck yelling at ghosts every once in a while. im not saying that instruments arent cool, but they arent everything. you need to listen to john cage, because i think he is the only crazy mother fucker who can get away with not using effects yet still having music that will blow your mind.

wow. yer one highly educated, well spoken, and classy dude, huh?Ummmm..... ...I think you and I have a vastly different definition of what music is. One piece of advice I commonly give out when faced with your type: "Good" music will always be far superior to "different" or "crazy" music. What purpose does a nonsensical crazy person yelling at ghosts serve when delivered subliminally? What value does that add to your music? If it is subliminal, it does not accentuate anything, it has no rythmic or melodic properties, it has no soundscape quality, hell - you can't even hear it. So what exactly is the point, and how exacly does that blow my mind?

I find your last statement to be very telling. You believe that John Cage is the "only crazy mother fucker who can get away with not using effects yet still having (what?? do you mean "has"? Do you mean "yet still writes"?? WHAT?? ) music that will blow your mind". So according to your wisdom, it is nearly impossible to create really moving music without using effects. So how did Mozart do it? How does Yo-Yo Ma do it? How do the literally thousands of gifted classical guitarists do it? There is music that has been in existence for over 100 years that is more beautiful and emotionlly moving than any sample, loop, or effects generated soundscape will ever be.

Life is too short to waste time on childish wanking. Good luck in you persuits.

 

[giraffe]

uummmmmmmmmmmm......


Queen???

 

[giraffe]

i guess i tend to seperate what i consider to be "studio" bands and "live" bands

some bands can't reproduse what they've done in the studio, simple as it may be.

take the pumpkins, i'm personally very happy they existed, and they really kicked ass, but live
they sucked, ohhhhhhhhhhhh it was bad.

studio band.


oh, and i guess you must hate radio head, they do a lot of stuff that can't be reproduce with any instrument at all. (vacum tube computers, shite keyboards etc....)
the nerve of them. (they do, however manage to reproduce it live)

and so what if a band uses a percussion sequence in the mix, if it makes the song sound better THATS THE POINT.

 

[Zed10R]

i guess i tend to seperate what i consider to be "studio" bands and "live" bands

some bands can't reproduse what they've done in the studio, simple as it may be.

take the pumpkins, i'm personally very happy they existed, and they really kicked ass, but live
they sucked, ohhhhhhhhhhhh it was bad.

studio band.


oh, and i guess you must hate radio head, they do a lot of stuff that can't be reproduce with any instrument at all. (vacum tube computers, shite keyboards etc....)
the nerve of them. (they do, however manage to reproduce it live)

and so what if a band uses a percussion sequence in the mix, if it makes the song sound better THATS THE POINT.

I saw Smashing Pumpkins live too. That is who you were talking about, right? The music sounded really good. Billy's singing was off, but the rest was ON that night. Good stuff.

I know many bands cannot do live what they do in the studio no matter how simple it is. I don't hate them, I just don't think they have anything worth listening to. Like Radiohead. I know I am in the minority when I say they have done nothing that impresses me. In my opinion they are the most over rated band of the 90's. Again...the 90's. As in the past. As in thier time has passed and it is time to move on. In my world they contributed nothing and will not be missed. But I DO give them a lot of credit for being able to pull off their recorded sound while playing live.

I think you may be misunderstanding my meaning. I enjoy SOME samples and sequences when done in a way that SUPPORTS the music. I love Strapping Young Lad, Fear Factory, and Type O Negative. They ALL use sequences and samples to SUPPORT their music. But, I find no musical value what so ever in "bands" that base their entire sound on such things.

IMO, if you are a "Studio band" then you are the lie that was discussed earlier. It all fabrication and deception. I place a lot of meaning on the ability to actually PLAY the music that you create. But I do recognize that no matter how the music reaches the listeners ears, it first has to be created in the musicians mind. I just don't value it very much at all. It is one of my irrational yet defining issues. I don't think that will ever change.

 

[giraffe]

you're missing some really good music.

 

[Sonixx]

... IMO, if you are a "Studio band" then you are the lie that was discussed earlier. It all fabrication and deception. I place a lot of meaning on the ability to actually PLAY the music that you create. But I do recognize that no matter how the music reaches the listeners ears, it first has to be created in the musicians mind. I just don't value it very much at all. It is one of my irrational yet defining issues. I don't think that will ever change.

wow...

I'd surely want to know this before ever recording in your studio...

you must have a real hard time watching movies...

 

[KonradG]

wow. yer one highly educated, well spoken, and classy dude, huh?Ummmm..... ...I think you and I have a vastly different definition of what music is. One piece of advice I commonly give out when faced with your type: "Good" music will always be far superior to "different" or "crazy" music. What purpose does a nonsensical crazy person yelling at ghosts serve when delivered subliminally? What value does that add to your music? If it is subliminal, it does not accentuate anything, it has no rythmic or melodic properties, it has no soundscape quality, hell - you can't even hear it. So what exactly is the point, and how exacly does that blow my mind?

I find your last statement to be very telling. You believe that John Cage is the "only crazy mother fucker who can get away with not using effects yet still having (what?? do you mean "has"? Do you mean "yet still writes"?? WHAT?? ) music that will blow your mind". So according to your wisdom, it is nearly impossible to create really moving music without using effects. So how did Mozart do it? How does Yo-Yo Ma do it? How do the literally thousands of gifted classical guitarists do it? There is music that has been in existence for over 100 years that is more beautiful and emotionlly moving than any sample, loop, or effects generated soundscape will ever be.

Life is too short to waste time on childish wanking. Good luck in you persuits

your missing the point kid, your biased opinion of what you think music is cuts half of the music out there in your opinion of music. You ask me how did Mozart and other great classical musicians make music without effects? When was the last time you had talent such as Mozart in your hobby "studio".
Until you try to argue my intelligence... get some of your own.
Peace

oh wait, for comical purposes, can you give me a paragraph on NIN ?

look forward to you making a fool of yourself

 

[Zed10R]

you're missing some really good music.

In YOUR opinion......

 

[Zed10R]

wow...

I'd surely want to know this before ever recording in your studio...

you must have a real hard time watching movies...

eh.....Like I said, I do this for my own reasons and for fun, not for a living. I have certain preferences that I like to focus on, and I offer to record bands that I like so I get more experience that can be directly applied to my own recordings and they get a decent cd so they can promote them selves.

Why would I have a hard time watching movies ? I'm not following that line of thinking. You WATCH a movie. There is sound and music to support the action on screen, but you WATCH a movie. You LISTEN to music. These days I admit that 90% of the general population cares more about the stage show than the music, but in my small underground metal world, the music is still what matters most, and you LISTEN to it. You don't WATCH it.

So.....I'm confused about that movie thing.

 

[Zed10R]

your missing the point kid, your biased opinion of what you think music is cuts half of the music out there in your opinion of music. You ask me how did Mozart and other great classical musicians make music without effects? When was the last time you had talent such as Mozart in your hobby "studio".
Until you try to argue my intelligence... get some of your own.
Peace

oh wait, for comical purposes, can you give me a paragraph on NIN ?

look forward to you making a fool of yourself

Please reference this link before you attempt to express yourself in words again. http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'm confused about that movie thing.

Without taking sides in this mostly useless argument, I think his point was that in movies there is so much "artificial" production and post-production work done before the movie hits the theaters that any sembelance to a "live" performance is mere illusion. This is analogous to much of the "studio work" done in audio recordings. To finish off the analogy, the question would be, "How come it's OK to watch heavily-processed movies and not just a videotaping of a live theater performance, but it's not OK to accept those same standards in audio performance productions?"

G.

 

[Zed10R]

Without taking sides in this mostly useless argument, I think his point was that in movies there is so much "artificial" production and post-production work done before the movie hits the theaters that any sembelance to a "live" performance is mere illusion. This is analogous to much of the "studio work" done in audio recordings. To finish off the analogy, the question would be, "How come it's OK to watch heavily-processed movies and not just a videotaping of a live theater performance, but it's not OK to accept those same standards in audio performance productions?"

G.

hehe...this is pointless, but it's fun.

The answer then (since I did not understand the queation the first time) would be: I don't think heavily processed movies are ok unless, like music, the processing is there to support the story and the actors and not to actually BE the point of the movie. I very much prefer a great story and great acting over a movie that relies on special effects and computer generated envoronments. To me, movies like the new Star Wars trilogy (they depend on effects to be a movie) are little more than mindless visual entertainment mixed with nostalgia. I got annoyed in the theater during each one. Movies like Braveheart are far suprior IMO because they rely on great acting and a great story with minimal special effects. The Lord of The Rings is a great compromise because it has a great story, great acting, and the effects that are in it (it IS mostly effects) are there to SUPPORT the story, not so much BE the story.

 

[KonradG]

its not even worth trying to enlighten you. for any others who want to try, one piece of advice...

"dont argue with a stupid person, they bring you down to there level and beat you with experience"