Interesting story on home produced album....

[FALKEN]

I have really been pondering this myself lately. really. I have been making recordings that sound "cool" more than "commercial". at least that has been my goal. I choose gear and techniques based on the kind of sound it makes more than the functionality, as I don't need the functionality to record whoever-comes-in... I want to create a certain sound. and that sound is sort of trashy-garage-punk like. I would rather make music that a few thousand really love than music that a few million will like for 6 months.

But I have to wonder if taking that "sound" out of my home studio into a pro studio of my choosing would not make that "sound" better. and I wonder why some bands first "home" recordings aren't as successful or even known in "indie" circles when their later big-budget albums are always talked about.

I really want the DIY ethic to work. I just don't have any proof that it makes a difference either way. And I am beginning to feel it is an uphill battle. But I haven't tried any other way. Maybe it really is better this way. I just wish I knew.

Then there is the problem of everyone and their mom having a home studio now...sifting through myspace to find bands you like is a mission. I guess in the end though there is more opportunity to find stuff you actually do like. you just have to be really devoted

 

[scorpio01169]

i disagree there are lots of successful groups with crappy low budget home recorded cds out there...it's all about pussing your cds at your shows and creating a following

 

[scorpio01169]

i just watched it....she's not the best...but she aint the worst i heard either

 

[cusebassman]

I guess I'm just a perfectionist... why not strive for the best sound possible? More people will listen if the content you put out is actually enjoyable. If it sounds like crap, Im sure as Hell not going to keep it on, and a lot of people I know are the same in that regard.

It also comes down to musical style. Sure, if you are handing out free demos of your hardcore punk band, a little noise, poorly mixed drums and distorted vocals aren't going to matter much - in fact, in that example, I think it would enhance the recording.

But what you're talking about is noticeably sub-par recording quality across the genre board. If I were given a tape/CD/whatever of an acoustic act that had those same problem (maybe minus the drums since its an acoustic act ), I wouldn't want to listen to them, because that certain "unique" sound would detract severly from the music.

Ya gotta make it work for your style. Even in folk, the old Bob Dylan songs have an interesting edge to them because they have a little noise in the background, and there isn't a ton of bottom end... the song "Don't Think Twice" isn't going to win engineering awards, and in fact, it has those problems, and they work for the image the song presents. However, a million things could've been done wrong in recording that song that would make it unlistenable. For example, add an overbearing bass part, or do the vocals with a shitty Chinese condenser with waaay too much mid-range, and that abbrasive cutting sound would make me shut it off.

A song from the same catalogue, "Girl From The North Country", has a harmonica solo somewhere in the middle that at one long=held note, distorts the mic, and just pierces the eardrum... its one of the most shrill sounds I've ever heard on a widely-known recording... and for that reason, I rarely listen to that song, despite loving it so much. So, even little things can make or break it.

As I said before, I just think you should strive to do your best, because otherwise, what the Hell's the point in trying? I know I didn't invest thousands in recording gear to make a set of crappy recordings no one would want to hear... I want them to stop listening because the music sucks!

Now, perhaps most are only spending a few hundred bucks. To record a full band at that cost at home makes me shudder, but hey look, we're back at my point. Do the best ya can, and people will want to listen. If you work your hardest to make good music, why not work your hardest to get it preserved in some form that people will want to come back to, again and again

 

[scorpio01169]

i agree with you about the best sound possible...but like i said we are in the industry....most other peeps arent. they just get off to music regardless of the quality.

 

[DavidK]

Interesting read. Not entirely factual:

The classically trained pianist from Brighton said she built up a fan base by putting her music onto her MySpace page and eventually persuaded iTunes to sell it.

You dont persuade i-tunes to do anything. Send a CD-r to CDbaby and it will go to i-tunes if you pay $40 bucks or so. She also probably spent 16 hours a day for months working on myspace, its not like she just put a song up and bam! Yes, if you take a LOT of time and hard work, you can have some success doing that. The kicker:

Her big break came as a result of iTunes promoting her music online and giving her the "single of the week's spot".

Millions of people see this. Its a great story though, somebody achieves something through a lot of hard work and some luck getting picked for the single of the week. The article pretty much avoids the hard work aspect of it, it was probably not nearly such a fluke as it seems to be.