Going for a sound or CREATING a sound

  • Thread starter Thread starter mrhotapples
  • Start date Start date
M

mrhotapples

New member
A lot of us are dealing with subpar equipment and oftentimes abilities; I was thinking, might it be more useful when we cannot achieve a 'commercial' or professional sound to go for something unique?

I can't mix a metal track like Andy Sneap, and probably won't until I've learned a lot more. Should I strive for a sound like his to come closer to what's an accepted production of that type of music, or do something original and come up with a different sound?

I was listening to The Queens of The Stoneage's album Songs For The Deaf the other day, after years, and noticed, unless I've got a bad CD or something, that it's got a very narrow sound, but all the instruments have their own space and none of them fight. It's also pretty quiet for an album released in 2002. Their other albums are like that too. A unique, kinda vintage approach. At least in 2002...

Thoughts? What's more important for an amateur recordist? A good quality recording that comes as close to the popular guys mixes, or a good quality recording that was mixed in a manner that still complimented the music but didn't sound so much like the other guys?
 
mrhotapples said:
A lot of us are dealing with subpar equipment and oftentimes abilities; I was thinking, might it be more useful when we cannot achieve a 'commercial' or professional sound to go for something unique?
I am no pro..but I think "the sound at the source" will dictate the sound of the recording. finding and complamenting the voice of the recorded tracks will always yeild a better sound that making the tracks (via eq, or other effects) sound the way you want it too. IMO...:cool:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Find a good reference sound that you like and go for it. If you can't find one, or can't get it to sound like it, then just mix the song to where it sounds best to you.

Who cares about if you do it like some other engineer and it sounds like his work? That's stupid. I think it's important to be original in being both a musician and an engineer.

Mixing is an art also. What is you opinion on bands who just try to sound like another band?
 
I don't like them most of the time. That band they're trying to sound like has already done it as best as it can be done, so they're just riding coat tails. It's kinda the same question; mix like someone, sound like someone, or go your own way, which is going to yield more success and sense of accomplishment in the long run?

There's a difference between being influenced by someone and attempting to replicate them. I'd prefer to be influenced and assimilate a way of thinking and acting in certain areas and integrate those ideas with my own, rather than to copy someone and consciously mimic everything they do and drop my own views and natural graces at certain things.

I personally think that if a band comes to me, and wants to sound like Killswitch Engage, that they're asking for an impossibility because they aren't Killswitch and that I should mix them so that it sounds good and matches their own personality, not someone else's. BUT there's a reason why some people work on so many projects. Their style appeals to the people who market it and the people who buy it.

Sometimes you won't make a band happy if you mix them like they sound live; they want a mix like their favorite artist. Where do you draw the line between your own sensibilities and trying to copy someone else's?
 
mrhotapples said:
A lot of us are dealing with subpar equipment and oftentimes abilities
Click to expand...
I think you should replace "subpar equipment" with "subpar acoustics"... then you'll be closer. Most of the time with recording mic'd instruments it's not necessarily the equipment that's holding you back, it's the recording environment. Which is why home recording is a lot better suited to electronica, where you don't have to deal with the acoustics of the recording space.
 
some of my favorite albums are by independant artist using home/low budget studios, i almost prefer that sound to a commercial album ina $500,000 studio, they have more of a warmer intimate sound, it sounds like the music is being made, not created,

with that said, try to get it to sound like it does in your head...
 
I don't have great recording gear, but I do have a very good sounding room (2 0ther rooms for when I need isolation) so I usually tell people to "dial in" the sound they want then I try to capture that sound on the recording. I tell people up front that I can't make them sound like someone else and I can't make a Strat copy through a little solid state amp sound like a Les Paul through a wall of Marshalls. My objective is to record what is being played as closely to the way it originally sounds as possible. This may disappoint a few people when they hear the playback but there is only so much I can do with EQing and compression (and a few other efx) to make anyone sound better than they really do.
 
Trying to sound like a particular band or engineer? Shit... kids these days have lofty aspirations right out of the gate these days... I've been working on getting a good acoustic guitar recording for 6 months now with the new digital stuff... I'm not trying to get a sound like anyone in particular because I am still trying to get a good sound period.

Sure, they might be making the assumption that a "good" sound is one similar to a particular group's or artist's, but that is quite silly. At the same time, I think you have to learn how to get good, clean sounds before you can go about creating "unique" recordings that don't worry about meeting conventions. I have always disliked art for the sake of art... and have also always disliked it when people can't get what they were going after, so they rethink their plan of attack and say that whatever shortcomings a piece exhibits were intentional.

The fact that even with a thin-sounding acoustic, my recordings are still explosively bass-heavy is NOT intentional - it is a combination of my inability and the low quality of the room I'm in... at least at this point I have mics and pre's I like :) Now to learn how to make good recordings... then perhaps I'll start to experiment.
 
I gave up on using reference material to judge my recordings by. I'm always going to end up disappointed that way. In fact I won't listen to any music before mixing. I'll generally go outside and listen to the birds in the trees to clear my head an reset my ears, then just do what sounds pretty good to me. I listen to music constantly, so I feel I have a pretty good imprint in my head of what I want a recording to sound like, so I just go with that.
 
mrhotapples said:
A lot of us are dealing with subpar equipment and oftentimes abilities; I was thinking, might it be more useful when we cannot achieve a 'commercial' or professional sound to go for something unique?

I can't mix a metal track like Andy Sneap, and probably won't until I've learned a lot more. Should I strive for a sound like his to come closer to what's an accepted production of that type of music, or do something original and come up with a different sound?

I was listening to The Queens of The Stoneage's album Songs For The Deaf the other day, after years, and noticed, unless I've got a bad CD or something, that it's got a very narrow sound, but all the instruments have their own space and none of them fight. It's also pretty quiet for an album released in 2002. Their other albums are like that too. A unique, kinda vintage approach. At least in 2002...

Thoughts? What's more important for an amateur recordist? A good quality recording that comes as close to the popular guys mixes, or a good quality recording that was mixed in a manner that still complimented the music but didn't sound so much like the other guys?
Click to expand...


Well you gotta realize a ton of thought goes into these things during preproduction. During rehearsals, the band and producer will usually end up communicating their ideas on how the album should sound long before they even set foot in a studio. It's not uncommon for major bands to refer to someone elses material as a base for thier own. I guarantee you, there's no major/indie/any artist who doesn't have another artist to drive thier influence in terms of thier own music.

All the music we create, in some shape or form comes out of trying to mimick someone else. That's the way it goes, and that's the way it will always be.

But to be honest, and this is strictly my belief, referencing mixes is a very big deal. Probably the most important deal. It's almost like free hand tatooing vs tracing. Alot of people claim to freehand tatoos well, but only a select few actually are actually proteges of the craft.

The same goes for mixes. If you've been doing it for a while, you already know what frequencies and settings to hit on just about anything. It's all about ear training.

You see, the issue is not know what sound you want. The issue is developing your ear-hand cordination. I guarantee you know exactly what you like, it's just the ability to make it happen outside your head. That's why referencing mixes is important. You may freehand a mix and realize 3 days later, your EQ desicions where way off the mark. So a reference is strictly that: a starting point.

Even if I was a 40 year veteran, I'd still reference mixes just to know where I stand in todays market. And I hate to put it like that, but remember that you are trying to sell an idea to a public body (or just to yourself).

After a while, you become more efficent in being able to say, "ok, this guy wants a big fat meaty kick...so boom, 60hz boost here, 8khz boost there, perhaps cut a little off your lo mids between 300-500hz, shave off your excess his and lows with your hipass and lo pass respectively" done. That took like 30 seconds.

To be honest, most of the great sounds out there don't take rocket science to achieve. Just proper EQing, some dynamic processing and a lot of times just very simple time-based FX. If you can work on mastering those, along with continous ear training, then I'm sure you'll get some results. Believe me, I still feel like an amature every single day, but that's better than feeling invincible.

My two cents.
 
LeeRosario said:
Even if I was a 40 year veteran, I'd still reference mixes just to know where I stand in todays market. And I hate to put it like that, but remember that you are trying to sell an idea to a public body (or just to yourself).
Click to expand...
I agree with a lot of the points you bring up, Lee, but not with the main thesis you draw from it. This is, of course, subjective opinion; there is no one single right answer.

But IMHO its the kind of thinking quoted above that leads to swarming beahvior like the volume wars and "reality TV".

I personally couldn't give a rat's ass what the Latest Big Thing CD sounds like or what the lasted fad is in music or sound; it has absolutely nothing to do with whatever I'm working on at the moment.

One exception might be if someone comes to me and says specifically that they want to sound just like Band X. But then I'll ask them, "Do you feel you have to sound like someone else to have any kind of legitimacy? Isn't your music good enough to stand on it's own?" If it is, then f*ck Band X. if it isn't then why are you talking to me?"

But on the production/engineering sid, if one has properly trained ears and an image in their head as to the sound they want, then there is absolutely no need to reference it to someone else's work.

If what you do is good, it's good. The whole idea that it won't sell because it doesn't sound like Band X is just baloney.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
If what you do is good, it's good. The whole idea that it won't sell because it doesn't sound like Band X is just baloney.

G.
Click to expand...

I didn't intend it that way at all. I think what I was trying to say "sell the artist" musically.

I've been in the habit lately of saying, "that show either sold me or it didn't".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top