Just an idea....

  • Thread starter Thread starter qiktune
  • Start date Start date
TerraMortim said:
yeah, and this will also limit the beatles coverage... never saw what was so amazing about them, would like to see discussions that stray away from the usual bealtes and pink floyd dark side of the moon discussions... i.e. there's probably 20 books on both subjects available that list every detain, including what colour shits they were taking on each day.
Click to expand...

dudelysses said:
let me guess... you play metal.
Click to expand...
I vote no Beatles, Pink Floyd, Steely Dan, Metallica or Radiohead :D. Seriously, those have been talked about and written about to death, on these boards and in print.

Also - and I'm going to get flamed for this I'm sure - let's limit the metal, huh? I swear to god that if one listened to this board, there are actually only two types of music in the world: metal and heavier metal.

I have nothing against the genre, I grew up on my share of headbanging in my time. But even if the only thing one plays or records - or ever intends to play or record - is metal, they are doing themselves a huge disservice using only that genre for developing their critical listening and engineering skills. One cannot understand the shadows without the light, one cannot fully appreciate Picasso without understanding Rembrandt, and even the hardest headbanger has something to learn from listening to Lucinda Williams.

Every genre from acapella to zydeco has something to offer the ear of every would-be engineer, regardlless of their personal listening tastes.

Just an opinion. I've got my Ov Gloves on, so flame on! :D

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
I vote no Beatles, Pink Floyd, Steely Dan, Metallica or Radiohead :D. Seriously, those have been talked about and written about to death, on these boards and in print.

Also - and I'm going to get flamed for this I'm sure - let's limit the metal, huh? I swear to god that if one listened to this board, there are actually only two types of music in the world: metal and heavier metal.
Click to expand...

I agree on both counts. I am not against metal either, but its really all I ever see on this board, and it gets pretty frustrating after a while if you aren't a metalhead. And you're right there are loads of sources on those bands listed plus a few (I don't know if anyone frequents guitar geek, but I'm pretty tired of hearing about John Frusciante's rig).

I think something like this would be fun for figuring out how bands got some of their more obscure sounds though.
 
A related hijack, if I may...

Ah, good ol' Bob's Country Bunker! :D

One thing I can't say is "good ol'" though, is iTunes. I just went to buy me a copy of the Walter Egan tune that is the subject of the first thread and $%^&*&# iTunes won't let me grab it until I upgrade from my current Win version 7.0x to the up-to-date current 7.5. Problem is, for several unrelated reasons, my Internet PC here still runs Win2KPro (hush up!) and Apple claims that 7.5 needs either XP or Vista.

Does anybody know offhand if that requirement is actually true for music downloading (I don't care about the video and all that crap) with iTunes 7.5? Or know of another legal music download service that doesn't require a monthly subscription?

G.
 
qiktune said:
Overrated? In what respect?
Click to expand...

In the respect that they are... over rated... they were no where as good as their success dictated, they were lucky to be in the right place at the right time and were lucky to be more often than not doing what people were wanting to hear at the time they were doing it. There were so many other bands just AS GOOD or arguably more talented than them in which just didn't hit it at the right place and right time.

I mean, you have to admit, the beatles have gotten WAAAAAAY more recognition than any band should. They wrote some good tunes that aren't offensive to my ears, and some I quite like, but they've gotten exponentially more recognition than made sense for what they were doing.
 
TerraMortim said:
In the respect that they are... over rated... they were no where as good as their success dictated, they were lucky to be in the right place at the right time and were lucky to be more often than not doing what people were wanting to hear at the time they were doing it. There were so many other bands just AS GOOD or arguably more talented than them in which just didn't hit it at the right place and right time.

I mean, you have to admit, the beatles have gotten WAAAAAAY more recognition than any band should. They wrote some good tunes that aren't offensive to my ears, and some I quite like, but they've gotten exponentially more recognition than made sense for what they were doing.
Click to expand...

Lucky? Hard work,persistance,drive,attitude have nothing to do with their success? Just luck huh?

Talent means nothing to me - it's all about the right kind of hard work. Anyone can do it if they REALLY want to.

Nowhere near as good as their success dictated? As performers or songwriters? Who could even come close to Lennon-McCartney as a songwriting unit in the sixties? Performance wise who could blame them for their lacklustre concerts.....

Exponential recognition? I don't get into religious discussion too often, especially on a public board but I know a certain Red Sea pedestrian whose popularity runs along the same line. At least in the times you and I live in we have living proof of what they (The Beatles) did.
 
Last edited:
those traits aren't in about every band that ever existed? I tell you, often the drive and all the things you mentions are not only present in most bands, but often goes with hardly any fanfare as a result, just the passion of the music.

anyone can be "as big as the beatles?" Has anyone? Not as if they shouldn't have.

There are many songwriting teams/songwriters esp from that era that have matched or surpassed their ability, with some recognition, but nowhere as much as them.

Are you talking about Bob Dylin? He's probably one of the most misunderstood (by his fans) artists out there. Btw. he hated the kind of people that became his fans. . . . .
 
Saying the Beatles are over-rated ...

Is kind of like trying to say Bill Gates is over-rated as a business man. :D Or just over-rated as a rich guy.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion and/or your point of view ... but some topics aren't exactly open for debate or interperatation like that. I mean, it is what it is. They sold the records, made the money and have remained relevent. Their music has sufficiently entertained enough people through the years.

Whether or not you personally feel the success is justified or deserved ... history has pretty much already spoken, voted on and settled the matter, and I'm sure it's considered your point of view :D But the floor is not open. Move on to something else if you actually want to carry on a legitimate debate.
 
I've often heard that Jimi Hendrix is overrated too. I think the real question is, how many other people have they influenced?

As far as audio Geoff Emerick is one of the greats, not only with the Beatles but other work he has done. He was a pioneer in the 60s breaking old established "rules" and creating new techniques that we now take for granted in plug-ins. As said, no use re-hashing it here though, read the books.
 
Thanks for chiming in Daisy and Tom, I'm done on this one. I've already recieved neg rep (like that's so important) for my opinion. :p
 
See, mention the Beatles & threads go off topic.
Pick something neutral but common enough for folk to have access to. Otherwise you'll be debating the merits artistic & serendipity of the act and not dissecting the recording process.
Now something for everyone mind - how about The Birthday Party's Deep In The Woods?
Kidding.
You probably need to pick an appropriate era so that the technology has some chance of being replicated in a bog standard home studio - & determine whether you're looking from an anlogue perspective or digital: you know a goodish mic, so so pre & a daw with plugs or 8 track with a good mic, so so pre and a bunch of outboard stuff.
Where was I? Oh, yeah so how about...you nominate something.
 
How about someone explains to me how your generic '90s hardcore punk band like The Unseen or The Casualties records and has their music mixed?

As it's been said, there's plenty about the fucking Beatles. What about music like is popular today? If Rob Thomas were to record an album, what would go down in terms of micing, drum tuning, guitar amp setup...Stuff that can be controlled of course.

How was Reel Big Fish's last album tracked and mixed?

Hall & Oates!? Anything but the same old generic compression ratio/frequency range mixing stuff and 'point a mic' and 'tune it 'til it sounds good.'

Does anyone in here know how the hell the Red Hot Chili Peppers achieved their drum sound on Blood Sugar Sex Magik? How about Killswitch Engage?

Really heavy, modern metal is hard to work with; how the fuck do you successfully track a band like The Human Abstract or As Blood Runs Black or Waking the Cadaver or..

ANYTHING but the classics?

I've read about or seen hardly any modern production techniques aside from on Andy Sneap's forum. Someone wiser give me some information, 'cause I'm getting busy and if there's some secret to some of these things, divulge.
 
As I see this exericse, in an ideal world this should be about the ear, not the gear. The point should be (IMHO, FWTW) not whether they used a Neve or a Mackie, but rather HOW they used it to make the recording, and HOW one figures that out by actually critically listening to the recording.

The point of this exercise - as I see it, anyway - is not to pick a genre or a song and give some recipe for how to do it; recipes don't work that way. Two albums by the same band are often done entirely differently, let alone same genre. Hell, often two songs on the same album are done entirely differently. There is no recipe.

I think it would be of far more value to take these recordings and be forced to HEAR them ourselves, to actually LISTEN to them. Them figure out and discuss WHAT do we actually hear, and from there deduce perhaps WHY we hear it. Not just the gear, but how it was tracked and how it was mixed, and why it sounds like it may have been done that way (e.g. what did the producer have in mind when they gave that instrument that property in the mix?)

Keeping our ears trained to "listen like an engineer" and to be able to forensically analyze what we hear will go a much longer way to being able to produce our own sounds the way we want - as well as perhaps give us a few more ideas - than any magic recipe or printed production recollections will.

I'd also like to point out that when it comes to many of the finer and final attributes of a recording, much depends upon the source we are listening to. For example, that Walter Egan recording is one that is available from *many* different compilation and anthology CDs, each with it's own ME, each with it's own source recording, each with it's own decisions as to how much to master/remaster the recording, and each with it's own print to glass master. Not to mention different MP3 encoders and settings should one be listening to an MP3 version. Gotta be careful on some finer points ("that guitar is lacking the punch") that may be as much a result of the mastering version as anything else; and maybe cite the source which we are listening to when we give our analysies.

I do have a candidate song or three for analysis that I think would make interesting and useful discussions. In the meantime I'm still trying to get that Egan tune on my system... :(.

G.
 
iTunes 7.3.2 for Windows 2000

SouthSIDE Glen said:
I do have a candidate song or three for analysis that I think would make interesting and useful discussions. In the meantime I'm still trying to get that Egan tune on my system... :(
Click to expand...

wow glen you've really been dedicated to this Egan tune.
try this
http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/itunes732forwindows2000.html

now lets get on with the song analysis! the beatles debate just about made my eyes bleed. remember: your favorite band sucks

if no one else has suggestions, i love the sound of flaming lips' "yoshimi battles the pink robots" and "the soft bulletin" albums. but i dont even know where to start with breakin these down... im a noob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top