has the best sounding band you've recorded been that much easier?

osus

osus

New member
hello,

so i've been hacking away at this whole recording thing more because i'm a dork and i like buying shiny expensive stuff than because i ever hope to become anything approaching a sound engineer. i'm a distrusting musician--i just want to know enough so that i can spot the difference between a brilliantly skilled sound engineer and a 'pro' sound engineer in a dark alley.

so i was just reading some posts about mixing and mastering. i've pretty much concluded that i don't have the time, energy or money to sink into learning either when i still suck at playing and singing. but reading some of these posts, combined with my experiences with my band (both good and bad) have got me thinking more and more that if the band really has their shit together--not just accuracy of playing or skill of composition, per se, but perhaps more importantly if they're really aware of their sound to the same extent that a sound engineer is, and wrote and performed accordingly, that this would result in a much easier job for the engineer, and an end product that is closer to the beginning product.

So my questions to the experienced (to satisfy my curiosity.) :

a) have you ever recorded a band whose sound you felt you didn't have to do much to?

b) have you recorded bands that have serious problems with the 'pre-mix' qualities of their music--i.e, not necessarily compositional problems (although they're related) bur rather things like multiple instruments trampling all over each other's range and timbre, etc. if so, to what extent do you think it's possible to correct these problems in the editing/mixing/mastering process? (i personally agree with a few comments in the myth thread... that the idea that 'we can fix that in the mix' is not one condusive to successful music)

and here's the doozy...

c) do you think it's possible for a band to get good enough that they don't really need an expert sound engineer? That is to say, if a band had their sound worked out tight enough, how much of the mixing/mastering process can be avoided? This loops back to question a... have you ever worked with such a band? Have you ever recorded a band that you think a monkey with an sm57 taped to either arm could do an equally good job with? (the cables would, of course, be connected through the mouth to the mackie in it's little tummy, out through the bung-hole and into the DA-38 or whatever the nearby baboon is having a tough time deciding whether to smash into a rock or not).

Yeah.

Dunno what happened at the end there. Sorry.

Hope the questions are still valid.
 
yes, and no. ive had the pleasure to record what is probably one of tightest hardcore bands in rochester's live set for demo work. after recording we sat in front the of the shitty emac computer speakers and we were so surprized with how amazing it sounded pre mixing. this made my job a lot easier. but i still had to work at it. i think that an amazing band that knows what they are doing can make the job of the engineer much easier, but the engineer still has to perfect things. like the kick drum. theres no way that your gonna get the sound of a clicky super-compressed kick drum off the bat if thats what the band wants their recording to sound like. but, if the drummer knows how to tune his bass drum he can make the job of the engineer much more simple by creating a usable sound. on that live demo i used some terrible mics for the bass guitar and two guitarists. samson r21's. they were the only dynamics (besides drum mics) i had on me. but in the end the guitars sounded amazing because the guitarists both had all tube either 5150's or mesa boogies cranked to the ceiling. they were both using gibson guitars. the bassist also had a huge 8x10 cab and a rack head ( i dont know much about bass amps) but even with just a regular old dynamic on his setup, the bass was punchy and everything i wanted it to be.
I dont think that the job of the engineer can be outweighed by hwo focused the band is, or how much they have their shit together. but they can damn sure help!

heres a link to those songs i recorded

http://www.garageband.com/user/Matt_Avery/music.html
(its under how we are live sessions one and two)

i hope this helped, and happy recording!

-matt
 
osus said:
a) have you ever recorded a band whose sound you felt you didn't have to do much to?
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

That's when you can get into really creative/textural stuff. At that point it's more about creating "textures" and "layers" and sculpting the interaction of the various layers of "band" than trying to get shit that won't "gel" to come close to working and playing well with the other sounds. At that point you're working with some serious talent/skilled players... don't get in the way.


b) have you recorded bands that have serious problems with the 'pre-mix' qualities of their music--i.e, not necessarily compositional problems (although they're related) bur rather things like multiple instruments trampling all over each other's range and timbre, etc. if so, to what extent do you think it's possible to correct these problems in the editing/mixing/mastering process? (i personally agree with a few comments in the myth thread... that the idea that 'we can fix that in the mix' is not one condusive to successful music)
Click to expand...
That will depend on the band. If you have a bunch guys who all insist that their parts be heard throughout the entire song... that's what you give them. If you have a band that trusts your judgement, you pick out the ONE (01) relative event (besides the rhythm section) and display that ONE event that might occur at any given moment. You can weave things that flow through the song if you'd like, but generally if you give the audience more than one or two things on which to focus you're in deep shit.

Think of how many songs you've grown to love over the course of your life that break down to drums, bass and vocal or drums, bass, a tad of backing GTR/PNO and vocal for the verse? More than you think!! It's not an accident.

Have I worked with shitty bands? Hell yeah. You've gotta suffer if you wanna sing the blues... so you cut your teeth recording shitty bands for low dollars until you get your shit together to the point where you're either so busy you can tell the shitty bands you don't have time for their project at the moment... but you'll be happen to give them a call when your schedule opens up... or raise your rates to where anything less than "professional" can not afford to hire you [and if a shit band with a ton of money does decide to hire you... you walk in with all the skill and professionalism that affords you the opportunity to charge out the ass and apply those skills in any and every way possible to attain the goals of the artist... it's just that 99.9985% of the real mooks of the world won't have the like $12-1500+/day to hire someone from the major leagues, or even the $500/day to hire someone from "AA ball"].


c) do you think it's possible for a band to get good enough that they don't really need an expert sound engineer? That is to say, if a band had their sound worked out tight enough, how much of the mixing/mastering process can be avoided? This loops back to question a... have you ever worked with such a band? Have you ever recorded a band that you think a monkey with an sm57 taped to either arm could do an equally good job with? (the cables would, of course, be connected through the mouth to the mackie in it's little tummy, out through the bung-hole and into the DA-38 or whatever the nearby baboon is having a tough time deciding whether to smash into a rock or not).
Click to expand...
Most of the people with whom I work would sound great if you shoved that 57 up the monkey's ass and had him open his mouth... but the fact of the matter is that E-V-E-R-Y person attached to the production should be of the highest caliber possible.

When I work with a band it's because they've hired me to 'sit in' on the session. I play the instrument called "recording studio". Make no mistake, no matter what they try to tell you at the local Banjo Mart, a recording studio is an instrument that requires training and skill to be able to play with any kind of results.

Now this isn't to say that the "less skilled" of us shouldn't be recording... this is to say that they should be "practicing" their asses off to get to be the next level of player. Just like with any instrument, you have to start somewhere. Just like any instrument you have to learn how to play it, you have to learn your style of playing, you have to learn how to be the best/most appropriate player for whatever the gig may be... this takes some talent and a whole buncha practice.

At one time Billy Preston had the gig as 'keyboard player' with the Rolling Stones. Currently, Chuck Levell has the gig. At one time Jimmy Miller was producing Rolling Stones records... currently, Don Was has the gig... back in the dark ages Andy Johns was the Stones engineer of choice... currently it's Ed Cherney.

Don and Ed are as much a member of the band when they're recording as Chuck [or Daryll or Blondie or Bernard or Lisa]... they're there to complete the production. Chuck plays Keys, Daryll plays bass, Bernard, Lisa and Blondie do backing vocals. Bobby Keys has been playing Sax with the Stones for over 30 years... he's not part of "the corporation" [in fact, Ron Wood was a "Side Man" for the first 15+ years he worked for the Stones before they made him a member].

My point being that no more than you'd have my 12 year old daughter sitting in with your band playing drums would you be hiring a "monkey with a 57" to record your music [if you're smart].
 
To add to the above: I've recorded several bands that required almost nothing. Minimal, if any EQ, hardly any compression - anywhere - a touch of reverb on this and that and bingo. Everything sounds wonderful.

But as Fletcher mentioned in another way, *knowing* that those core sounds are "just right" and knowing what they *don't* need is just as important as knowing what they *do* need.
 
My only concern with the good band/bad engineer scenario is that the bad engineer would try to do too much, like use 252 microphones and 4,753 plugs or something . . . and then he might use a fixed "mastering" chain that does not take into account important variables, like for example the music ;)

Yeah, you can screw up anything . . . I bet I could make the Stones sound pretty terrible myself :o
 
osus said:
hello,

So my questions to the experienced (to satisfy my curiosity.) :

a) have you ever recorded a band whose sound you felt you didn't have to do much to?

b) have you recorded bands that have serious problems with the 'pre-mix' qualities of their music--i.e, not necessarily compositional problems (although they're related) bur rather things like multiple instruments trampling all over each other's range and timbre, etc. if so, to what extent do you think it's possible to correct these problems in the editing/mixing/mastering process? (i personally agree with a few comments in the myth thread... that the idea that 'we can fix that in the mix' is not one condusive to successful music)

and here's the doozy...

c) do you think it's possible for a band to get good enough that they don't really need an expert sound engineer? That is to say, if a band had their sound worked out tight enough, how much of the mixing/mastering process can be avoided? This loops back to question a... have you ever worked with such a band? Have you ever recorded a band that you think a monkey with an sm57 taped to either arm could do an equally good job with? (the cables would, of course, be connected through the mouth to the mackie in it's little tummy, out through the bung-hole and into the DA-38 or whatever the nearby baboon is having a tough time deciding whether to smash into a rock or not).

Yeah.

Dunno what happened at the end there. Sorry.

Hope the questions are still valid.
Click to expand...

1. Yes, some bands do in fact sound great. Not even nescessarliy great musicians but their sound is dead on as a band and gearwise. They know what they want to sound like.

2. Too often. Too many cooks in the kitchen and general lack of experience. Try doing what you think sounds good for the mix when they are not around, play and compare with them.

3. Anything is possible. My bud at Workbook Studio(Columbus, Ohio) told me about recording New Bomb Turks at his place and he said that they were so good that they pretty much set up, played and left. Even after listening back he really could not find room for improvemant.
 
For me, a fairly good litmus test of how well a band will do in the studio and how well their stuff will stick to disc is to experience them live first. There's always fine-tuning that will need to be done to adapt to the space, of course, but if the sound check goes quite smoothly with not a lot of major level changes needed, no instruments out-of-tune, a tight "feel" to the performance (as tight as a sound check will get, anyway ;)), not a whole lot of fussing and moaning about monitor levels, etc., that's usually a pretty good indication that the band and it's members have their stuff together and will act like pros (and sound like pros) in the studio.

G.
 
it's my experience (much like everyone above's) that the good musicians will have their shit together and pretty much all you have to do is hang a few mics, hit the button and get out of the way (and try not to screw up their sound).

the crappy ones......no amount of "sweetening" or "fixing" will help. <insert turd polishing analogy here>

good musicians don't need an "expert" engineer--however, they will be frustrated with one who can't hold their end of the rope. the crappy musicians probably won't notice a thing.

and for those bands that really don't have their shit together in terms of a sound, it'll be a nightmare when it comes time to mix. everyone will want more of themselves b/c they don't understand what role they need to play in the overall picture. i try to avoid those bands at all costs. that's one of the reasons i'm glad i don't depend on recording for my income. :D


cheers,
wade
 
i love good musicians with good tone, much easier.

that sounds like an arrangement problem, and can only be made less harmful.
(and even that is very difficult, seems to me)

back to fletcher.
 
osus said:
b) have you recorded bands that have serious problems with the 'pre-mix' qualities of their music--i.e, not necessarily compositional problems (although they're related) bur rather things like multiple instruments trampling all over each other's range and timbre, etc.
Click to expand...

I forgot to mention earlier... that when you do get one of these bands that wants "everything all the time" [because "it's their sound, man"]... then you figure out a way to give it to them no matter how fucking shitty and confused it makes the song. The beauty of that is that it won't fuck with your reputation because nobody is ever going to hear the piece of shit besides their girlfriend's and maybe a couple of other guys at their day job... and none of those people will be shopping for an engineer anytime in the near future.

There is also the famed "Alan Smithee" credit.

If you really hate how something comes out and really don't want it on your discography for love or money... then you take your credit as "Alan Smithee".

Alan Smithee [one of Hollywood's most hired and infamous film directors] is the credit you take when you don't want your name associated with the project. In film, the "Producers" have the final say... often they have really dumbass ideas which should never see the light of day [see "Ishtar" for details]... it's at these times that the director [in an effort to try to work again sometime in the future... perhaps] will take his credit as "Alan Smithee".

There are more projects than I'd like to remember that have that credit where my name would have otherwise been placed.

Peace.
 
osus said:
c) ... ..Have you ever recorded a band that you think a monkey with an sm57 taped to either arm could do an equally good job with? (the cables would, of course, be connected through the mouth to the mackie in it's little tummy, out through the bung-hole and into the DA-38 or whatever the nearby baboon is having a tough time deciding whether to smash into a rock or not).
Click to expand...


I've always believed that the single most important factor in getting a high fidelity recording with great balance, punch, clarity, sonic impact, etc. etc. ... is to use good-sounding instruments and play them with good technique.

Another way to look at your question might be to ask: "If I were to hand someone a recipe and a whole bunch of quality fresh ingredients -- we're talking only the freshest, highest-quality stuff flown in from all over the world ... is it possible that the ingredients could be so good that anyone would be able to make a quality meal with it? ? "

Well, someone who doesn't know the first thing about cooking could certainly screw things up pretty good by overcooking it or accidentally skipping a step in the recipe, etc. But by and large, any decent cook in a decent kitchen should be able to make at least a pretty good dish with it all. And if you give it to a great chef, he/she could probably make a world-class dish out of it.
.
 
thanks for the responses everyone. i've decided to return the MR-3000 monkey/baboon recorder i just purchased from musician's friend and continue paying for the talents of a skilled engineer.

i've had some serious frustration with members of my band, which is part of what sparked this question. we had the whole home-record versus studio-record argument for considerably longer than a group of our skill and education level should have, in my opinion. i was strongly on the side of going to a studio. my guitarist at one point suggested that if i really thought recording in a studio was going to be that much better (because of the superior equipment) than he thought that we should just track in a studio, take home the individual tracks and "mix everything on my sony vaio laptop." i was quiet for a while. actually, i don't think i ever responded. pity he's pretty good at guitar.

so reading these responses got me thinking about another question, which may have been asked here before, but i figure i only have my fledgling reputation to lose by asking it again (plus i just like how i phrase things, egomaniac that i am). So here goes:

Speaking from a sound-engineers perspective, how much and what kind of education do you think a band should have in the recording process before stepping into the studio? What are the key things that they should work out musically before recording. In other words, what are the most common mistakes that bands make in writing and playing that bitch your jobs up.

Come on, be brutal.
 
osus said:
Speaking from a sound-engineers perspective, how much and what kind of education do you think a band should have in the recording process before stepping into the studio? What are the key things that they should work out musically before recording. In other words, what are the most common mistakes that bands make in writing and playing that bitch your jobs up.
Click to expand...
Look up any one of Massive Master's posts and read his signature line. That says it all in a nutshell. :).

Absolutely #1, behind which any #2 is only a distant spec in the rearview mirror, is to be READY. Pretend that walking into the studio is the equivalent of playing a grand performance live at the White House. Only one take, no safety net, no room for mistakes. If a string breaks you have three replacements in hand. You have two spare, fresh batteries for every battery-powered pedal and device you bring with you. Have al drums and guitars perfectly tuned before strapping on and sitting down. And you leave the meth at home.

The band has to be so practiced in what they are going to record that they could still play it tight and right (and I mean TIGHT) even if they each had one arm cut off. Practice until you are perfectly happy with your performance, and then take that as a sign to practice a little more. Even though in a studio you can always do re-takes, don't lean on that capability as a crutch. Think of it more as a fire extinguisher behind the glass, to be used only in case of emergency.

Not only will this all save you money in a per-hour rental situation, but it will help ensure that your performance on take one or take twelve will be something worth sticking to disc. Plus, the more professionally prepared you are, the greater you'll get along with the engineer.

G.
 
osus said:
Speaking from a sound-engineers perspective, how much and what kind of education do you think a band should have in the recording process before stepping into the studio? What are the key things that they should work out musically before recording. In other words, what are the most common mistakes that bands make in writing and playing that bitch your jobs up.
Click to expand...

:D You have a great way of phrasing your questions, and I mean that as a compliment.

Honestly, I think a great way to bring the home studio back in to the equation would be to use it for pre-production. Figure out your parts in advance, and take notes. Like as far as guitar parts go, if you're planning on doing a few layers, then make sure you know what amp settings you want to use for each one (or at least have a general idea), and then just have your stuff down for each part when you go to track it.

Ditto for background vocals. If you do enough pre-production on background vocals, then it will give you and the entire band plenty of time to figure out that your drummer and bassist are tone deaf, and you should keep them as far away from a microphone as possible. And it will be better to have all that hashed out in advance, because it will give you more time to figure out how to let him/her down easy (which is difficult to do in a studio setting).

I'm a big believer in experimenting in the studio, but only to an extent. "Happy accidents" are the best form of experimentation, and by that I mean that if you have your stuff down cold in advance, then you leave yourself more open to them.

I know that sounds totally counter-intuitive, but think of it this way: If you don't know exactly what you're planning on laying down for a given part (be it a guitar solo or layer, harmony vocal, kazoo track, etc.), then sometimes it can turn in to a stressful situation if you run in to a creative block. On the other hand, if you have everything mapped out and you lay it down efficiently ... then you can always look at the clock at the end of the session and say: "I've still got a couple hours left yet. Why don't we go back and re-visit the guitar part (or vocal or whatever) on this one track , because I just had an idea for it."

Or you can take the board mix back home with you, and muck around and see if you can come up with something better in your spare time. You could even schedule another session specifically designated for noodling time. "This session is for noodling and noodling only. If I only get 2 seconds of something useful out of the 8 hours I'm there, then I'm fine with that." Really, if you've got the initial takes done and you're reasonably satisfied with it, then the pressure and urgency are basically off, because you don't necessarily "have" to come up with something better, more brilliant or spontaneous to add to it. You can just let it happen ... or leave knowing that at least you exhausted your options.

One other thing I'd like to add: When doing any overdubs ... give the guy who's tracking a little space. Nothing is more painful for me to watch, as an engineer, than someone trying to play a guitar or vocal line, and the entire band and all of their mothers and aunts are staring at them the whole time (or worse yet, unsolicited coaching). Just go take a break or something. At the very least, read a magazine and pretend you're not listening. Be encouraging i.e. "That sounded great. But maybe you might want to try it this way -- just a suggestion. Oh yea, that was perfect. Good job." Stuff like that. Keep it positive. Absolute worst-case scenario: something sucks and you/they have to do it over again. Not the end of the world.
.
 
Last edited:
Every now and again I get complimented on the sound for a live mix. I respond by saying, "thanks, but it wasn't me, mate. The band did it themselves!"

The point of that little anecdote is that bands who treat their music with respect and professional care virtually mix themselves, because they are aware of what they are playing, who is doing what, who needs to back off, when they are going to finish and so on.

I think the same thing applies in the studio: bands that understand the machinery of music will result in smoother, more productive sessions. That is not to presume that what comes out the other end will be good . . . they could be really slick at produce ordinary results.

Scatty musicians can make sessions trying. I can understand and cope with scattiness when it relates to ideas and experimentation, but I find it more difficult when it relates to, say, not being able to keep in time, sing in tune, or demonstrate other qualities we would expect of a reasonably accomplished musician.

I appreciate musicians who understand the recording process, who are not afraid of microphones, and who will appreciate the suggestions you make. I worry about ones, though, who know enough about the process to want to take over, but not enough to make a take-over work.
 
gecko zzed said:
I worry about ones, though, who know enough about the process to want to take over, but not enough to make a take-over work.
Click to expand...

Ah yes. Knowing just enough to make you dangerous to yourself and others.

.
 
Oh golly... if my last response bummed you out in the slightest... you're really going to hate this one!!


osus said:
Speaking from a sound-engineers perspective, how much and what kind of education do you think a band should have in the recording process before stepping into the studio?
Click to expand...

About 500 gigs and/or 2000+ studio hours.

Huh? You just asked what kind of education I think a band should have BEFORE stepping into a studio and I said like 2000+ studio hours? WTF?

Bro, nothing gains you education like experience.

Now, let me share a bit of wisdom with you that my father shared with me and I think you'll understand where I'm going with this: "Experience is what you get when you didn't get what you wanted in the first place". In other words... this shit [that we call "life"] is all trial and error. The more errors you make the more "experience" you get. The more successes you have the more "seasoned" you are, and less likely to make the mistakes that gave you the experience where you can become seasoned.

How much education do you need to eat pussy like a pro? A bunch of face time with a pussy or seven. After a while, you'll get it figured out and be the most in demand tongue in the whole church choir... but until then you're just going through the motions until you really get your technique down. [BTW, if this is getting "offensive" to you, let me quickly welcome you to the real world where there are a hell of a lot more guns than roses].

My point is that if you want to learn to make records you have to jump into the deep end and start making records... as well as working in [actual] professional environments with actual professionals so you can start to assimilate technique and some of the theory behind those techniques.

If you're serious about this... get yourself some 57's and a recorder of some kind and make yourself the best quality "demos" that you can... but go to a joint like "Electrical Audio" in Chicago or "Big Blue Meenie" in Jersey City, NJ and get your record made.

They can both do bang up jobs for low dollars in seriously professional environments with seriously professional practitioners of the craft. The engineers at these [and I'm sure tens of other fine establishments that run in a similar nature though less famous... like Craig Shumaker's "WaveLab Recording" in Tucson; or Harvey Gerst's "Indian Trail Recording Studios" in Texas] will be glad to discuss/explain what they did and why they did it [when you're taking them out for food/beer/both AFTER the session].

After a few rounds with some pro's and a bunch of experience making mistakes with your own rig you'll be ready to give it a go "recording your own record at home".

Sex and music are inseparable... a recording studio is an instrument like a keyboard or a guitar... they take time [and experience] before you can play either... so, while it's really impossible to learn about how to have great sex from a book or a video, it's equally impossible to learn how to make great recordings from the internet [or a video]... you just have to dive in and do it... and hopefully you'll find partners who will help you define not only what pleases you but what you can do to please others [which is the basis of what music is... entertainment product which is produced for the pleasure of others]... if you please a lot of people you can actually get to "rock star" status where you get to please a whole lotta people [with both sex and music!!!]

Best of luck with the quest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top