General Statement

J

Jack Simpson

New member
Let me make sure I have this right... Recording is an art more so than a science. There are no parameters, no guidelines, whatever satisfies you is cool. You can make your setup as simple as a guitar and an old tape recorder, or (without getting into too much detail) ADats, Digital Recorders, Mixers, 4-tracks, condenser mics, effects processors, etc. It took me a while to figure this out, but this is the most important part of recording.
 
Recording is a technology, as I see it, rather than a science or an art. It's not a product, but a tool. I wouldn't exactly say there are no guidelines, but:
whatever satisfies you is cool.
Click to expand...
I agree with that.

-Shaz
 
knowing the rules makes music.....

breaking them just right makes art......

i think music production is a combination of art, science, technology and all those other $2 words......of course there are general rules and guidelines...but like in life, sometimes the rules are made to be broken.....
 
Recording's a matter of knowledge and taste. You need both to be able to come up with something people will listen to with pleasure.
 
This may apply more to song writing then recording, but the way I see it, you're given this set of rules, like these are the chords that work in the key of D major. And then you break them. Not without care, but you break them, to get a cool sound.
 
While I don't disagree totally with the above statement, I would say that knowing the rules is a definate advantage wether you plan to break them or not.
 
It's very hard to throw chords and words together, to come up w/a truly great song.

Most songs that most average songwriters write are average songs, maybe good, but not great songs.

There's a craft to songwriting, [like rules], to writing good songs, but it's the element of art, [like twisting or breaking the rules], that makes a song more interesting, above average.

Beyond that, craft as you may, IMO, the gift of turning a great, memorable phrase, chord or lick, is an inborn, natural quality, not one that's learned, by craft or by book.

People like Hendrix, Dylan, Townsend & David Byrne, etc, are playing off a whole different page than the rest of us, and the difference is more a matter of art, not craft.

In another sense, I think the best songs come out of the heart, not the head.

-What the heck was the topic?
 
Re: Home Recording: I think it's absolutely great.

Songwriting aside, [see my previous post],...

The way I see it, is if you're playing, recording, mixing, etc, and you're happy listening to the results at the end of the day, then you're a successful recording artist.

============

whatever satisfies you is cool.

============

Within reason, that attitude is ok in the studio. Not everything works, in the end, but there's no problem with experimentation, to find what works best for you. It all depends on your perspective, what you like, personally, and what kind of sound you're looking for, or goal you have.

F/I, I do home recording, like most other members here. When I record and mix, I've generally been happy with the results. Therefore, by my own definition, I'm a successful recording artist. Nothing more, nothing less. Home recording is a fine hobby for me, and I enjoy doing what I do. Music and home recording is something I'd recommend that everyone does, on their own or together.

I've also recently had a big home recording cd project, a giant cd giveaway extravaganza, [ref: my other posts]. Some people may think I'm crazy, or that it's not worth it, it's hack music, I'm a ripoff artist, it's a waste, it's no big deal, or WHATEVER,... but for me to have given away ~80 4-cd sets, [by time of next post],...

By my goals and standards, I consider that a BIG SUCCESS, and I've had a lot of fun, and a great time doing it.

=================

So, yes. In music and home recording, do what you want to do, based on your own ideals and standards. Go for your own sound, and do your own thing.
 
recording is about making the band you are stuck with actually sound like the one in your head. Doesn't matter how you do it, but if you can do it , you are an engineer.

cheers
John
 
John Sayers said:
recording is about making the band you are stuck with actually sound like the one in your head. Doesn't matter how you do it, but if you can do it , you are an engineer.

cheers
John
Click to expand...

John, that is the most profound thing I have ever heard about being an engineer. Mind if I borrow it? :) I have tried to say that very thing so many times, but with nowhere the same efficiency you just did! Cheers mate!

Ed
 
John Sayers said:
recording is about making the band you are stuck with actually sound like the one in your head. Doesn't matter how you do it, but if you can do it , you are an engineer.

cheers
John
Click to expand...

I might slightly change that, and say that it is "making it sound like the one in THEIR head"....and STILL sound good. Then you're REALLY an engineer. (unless of course we are just talking about recording ourselves.....are we?:D )
 
Actually it's not mine Ed :) I heard David Tickle say it one night when he was over here recording at Music Farm. He was a young English producer and I've never forgotten it cos it was sooo good. :):)

cheers
John
 
Well then John, CHEERS to David Tickle for having the balls to tell it like it REALLY is in recording....;) No offense to anybody, or their rather "unique" ideas about this whole recording thing, but, most are just not ready to produce, and that is why producers get hired. Any producer worth their salt either engineers themselves or hires an engineer that can contribute in ways non-engineers will never fully understand, thus leaving the producer to work on performance and songwriting issues. Creating the sonic landscape that will carry a song is a special skill that few get, and many more don't appreciate. To elaborate:

I once approached John about me possibly coming on down to the land of Oz and working as an engineer on stuff that he produces. His flat reply was that it would never work. He likes working solo. It is not that John doesn't value my skills and talents, just that he is quite capable of engineering himself and achieving the sound he hears in his head and would pursue that route before bringing in another engineer who will most certainly impart the sound THEY hear in their head all over the place. In John's case, that wouldn't work well for how he likes to work. I have worked for many producers (of varying skills...the less the skills, the more I wind up doing THEIR job!) and without much exception, they hire me to engineer because they feel I get a sound going that they cannot get and want that sound. It is not neccesarily the sound they initially thought of in some cases, and they always have to sell the band on the sound the engineer is creating (musicians have this weird idea that they know what is best for their sound....I have seen very few cases where working towards that did anything worthwhile for their songs....:(). Anyway, I took no offense to John's reply. I totally understood where he was coming from based upon my experiences.

Engineering is, well, engineering. It is I guess sort of an art. Yup, definately some science. But bottom line is you either have ears, perseverance, and a vision, or you don't! sjoko2 is always saying I could mix the pants off many LA studio engineers, and I always reply that I am short of the "technical" aspects that many of them have. He always says "That is BS. You have the ears and the vision" or something like that. Took me a while to understand what that meant. It is so easy to do cookie cutter production, it is a whole other thing to bring out the sound you want to hear when you are hearing the songs for the first time.

Anyway, just a bunch of subjective BS on my part here! :D

Ed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top