Myths

[mrT]

Actually, this is the height of snobbery iteself - essentially stating that musicians who do not compose are not musicians.

FWIW, I, and a great deal of others, are both composers AND studio musicians. I used to be a "studio musician", and have worked with many who are magnificent musicians but who do not feel the need to compose.

The fact that your average hip/hop rap artist isn't a studio musician speaks more about their musicial skills (note SKILLS not talent).

You do not make a living as a studio musician with creativity and musicality. In fact, one of the hardest things I find I have had to do as a musician is to make other people's crappy music sound good.

And to top that off, many of the world's greatest composers made their living as studio musicians.

Honestly, I don't think you get that I'm not busting on you. You do your thing in music and I do mine. In the simpilist terms I can I will reiterate that the only thing I wanted to get across with that is the FACT that knowing music theory is not a prerequisite to being a good musician. If you take musician to only mean a trained studio musician I guess you're right. But I think it means anyone who puts sound on tape with the intent of music making.

And let's not start bustin on reefer too. It's just a lowely weed for god's sake.

 

[Farview]

But I think it means anyone who puts sound on tape with the intent of music making.

Why would a musician have to record anything? Musicians play, recording engineers record, producers preside over everything.

 

[mrT]

Why would a musician have to record anything? Musicians play, recording engineers record, producers preside over everything.

IT'S A RECORDING FORUM. god you guys nit pick. OK anyone who performs and audible action with the intent that it be heard as a musical composition, imporvised or other...

 

[NDL]

As far as other myths, I bitched about a couple of them over the past couple of days, so I might a well put them here too: they both deal with loudspeakers in the home recording marketplace.

Myth #1: A "studio monitor" is better than a "stereo speaker".
The truth is - especially in the lower price ranges usually bandied about in ths forum - the term "studio monitor" has far more to do with marketing strategy by the manufacturer than it does with any necessary meaning of quality of sound reproduction. Most $150ea "studio monitors" are little more than glorified bookshelf speakers in both physical design and quality of sound reproduction, and one can find just as many good and bad quality loudspeakers in that price range at their local Tweeter as they can in the Sweetwater catalog.

If one can only afford $300 or even $500 for a pair of "nearfields", go with what works for your ears and your acoustic environment and don't worry about whether it's a "studio monitor" or not.

"But", you say, "what about the hyping?" Well, that's the second myth:

Myth #2: The difference between "studio monitors" and "stereo speakers" is that "stereo speakers" are "hyped" on the low and and the high end whereas "studio monitors" are flat and accurate.
Consumer speakers are not generally purposely designed to be "hyped" in such a way. Sure some designs deliver heaver-than normal bass (remember the old Realistic Mach One's with the 15" woofers?), others are hyper-crisp on the high-end (some overly-priced "audiophile" speakers), and so forth, but in general, the manufacturers are trying to design a relatively flat loudspeaker that they can build and sell with the materials they can find for a profit at a desired price point.

If you want proof of the myth, just listen to your average consumer speaker yourself, or for those tin-eared home "engineers" out there, look at their printed response pattern charts. Not only are they not hyped on the low and high ends, but more often than not they are extremely loose and lacking on the low and high ends.

Hyping on the low and high end is the job of the preamplifier's "Loudness" button, not of the loudspeaker.

Which brings up another myth buried inside of this one, that "flat" speakers sound accurate but unpleasant. This is a bunch of hooey as well. All "flat" means - and there is no truely flat flat - is that it's not adding extreme coloration to the signal. If the signal happens to be a Telarc recording of the New York Philharmonic, it's going to sound damn good thorugh a speaker as flat as Iowa, and will to most sound worse, not better, though an allegedly "hyped" speaker.

G.

I love having a store near me that has a wall of monitors and all the switching boxs needed --I spent 4 hours there with a couple different discs doing nothing but listening to all the different kinds of monitors --amazing the difference ---from the brand down to seperate makes of the same brands--from low cost to the "leaving an arm" type --in the end it is up to you as to which sounds "better" and "best"

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I spent 4 hours there with a couple different discs doing nothing but listening to all the different kinds of monitors --amazing the difference ---from the brand down to seperate makes of the same brands--from low cost to the "leaving an arm" type

Yep. And every one of them clams to be "flat" or "near flat".

G.

 

[Fletcher]

If you want Bonhams "sound", get a shovel. Then get on a plane to England. Dig him up. Set him in a room with some drums and a mic.

Didn't I read something like that in Tape Op once?

Hey Fletcher, I have an idea.....

Why don't we all put our minds together to develope myth busting software?

I think we're running some 'myth busting software' right now!!

Which naturally leads to the biggest myth of all:

"If I only had the gear I could make great recordings!"

Sorry, you don't ride there on your checkbook.

... and for the music theory geeks... IV-I

Some of my favorite musicians are Muddy Waters, Lonnie Brooks, Robert Johnson and the like, all of whom knew nothing about music theory whatsoever.

But dude... Robert Johnson hasn't had a hit in years... neither has Mckinley Morganfield... in fact, neither Johnson nor Morganfield have even done a gig in years... bad example dude... bad example.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In a rant I scribed on the Tape Op Message Board earlier this evening I referenced on of my favorite Steve Albini quotes... "Tape machines ought to be big and cumbersome and difficult to use, if only to keep the riff-raff out."

The quote is from an essay Steve wrote called "The Problem With Music"... if you have a few minutes, I think it's an excellent read.

The rant is on the second page of a thread called "Mixing Yourself" which in someways can be likened to this thread but more from a "humhead" perspective than the "muso" perspective this thread has taken.

BTW, it has always been my experience that you can't make a good record without talented musicians... period. If they "know theory" that's all well and good as theory helps the communication process... and if you're writing "serious" works then knowing theory inside and out is mandatory because you can't break the rules until you know what the rules are and when/how it's cool to break them.

I think there is a whole course of study in this at Berklee... being from the Boston area I hear far too many of those jag offs breaking the rules so needlessly... which I dare say probably stems more from ignorance than premeditation.

Keep it going guys... this has taken a direction I hadn't thought of... which seems pretty cool [to me... but I'm a serial asshole so what do I know].

Peace.

 

[eraos]

... and for the music theory geeks... IV-I

Amen?

Edit: or maybe that could be implying half-assed?
Edit again: wait, no, that would be IV-V

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

IV-I

See! I told you kids if you kept roughhousing back there that Flecther would turn this buss around and bring us right back home again!

But dude... Robert Johnson hasn't had a hit in years... neither has Mckinley Morganfield... in fact, neither Johnson nor Morganfield have even done a gig in years... bad example dude... bad example.

Ah, but Lonnie is still jammin away to packed crowds. And Both Johnson and Mr. Morganfield (I still think that sounds more like a Catskills standup act than a blues musician...) have gotten far more recognition and sold far more records in the age of digital than they ever did when their hearts were still keeping a beat.

Besides, they are still rockin' together with Stevie Ray and Sonny Boy Williamson down at the Crossroads...or so my spiritual mythology would like to believe . Shhhhhh...I think Gatemouth just joined them. Maybe he can teach them some theory...

G.

 

[EDAN]

Because we all know that there is only one true way to record an acoustic guitar.

There are countless ways to record an acoustic, he could use some pointers.

 

[EDAN]

I agree with most of your post, however, this statement isn't really true. As an artist, you can do what ever you want, but as soon as the artist desides what he wants the outcome to be, he can only acheive it by using the methods that will have the desired result.

Says you. This stuff isn't rocket science! If you can't pick up an instrument and eventually make music on it all by your lonesome without anyone interfering and messing YOUR technique up than it's not meant to be. Now, this does not mean you don't put in the work, the practice, but if you need someone to teach you fingering techniques on guitar or piano, etc., or babbling about "theory" then maybe you should try a sport instead. There is no right technique for any instrument, just get a sound out of it, man, just make some noise, your noise! that's what it's about! A true artist has his own methods, that's what makes Eddie Van Halen Eddie Van Halen and not Steve Vai or any of those other over the top tasteless hacks with all the learned technique in the world but NO SOUL. That's what made Bonzo Bonzo and not Neil Peart or those other over the top tasteless hacks with all the learned technique in the world but no SOUL! Get my drift? Art is all about the individual finding his own way though and out of the forrest on his own!!! or better yet, never finding his way out!


Eddie Van Halen:

"If you go by the book how are you supposed to come up with anything new? I guess I'm writing my own book .. or trying to"

 

[EDAN]

Until it rots your brain to the point that you don't know the difference between to and two. It's too bad you have gotten to the point where you can no longer tell the difference between to and two.

Um, in this context that would be .. "to the point WHERE (not "that") .. you don't know the diff......"

 

[xloon]

Until it rots your brain to the point that you don't know the difference between to and two. It's too bad you have gotten to the point where you can no longer tell the difference between to and two.

I thought this was a home recording site, not a grammer test. Get a life.

 

[SuperGeek]

Another myth, expensive microphones make you sound better...total bullshit from my experience.

I will agree with this 100% .....all depends on the sound you want.

Some mics work better at certen frequencys then others

But at the same time I like to try different mics on different sound sources never know what will happen (just watch the max SPL level the mic can handle.)

Great thread here

 

[CoolCat]

I love having a store near me that has a wall of monitors and all the switching boxs needed --I spent 4 hours there with a couple different discs doing nothing but listening to all the different kinds of monitors --amazing the difference ---from the brand down to seperate makes of the same brands--from low cost to the "leaving an arm" type --in the end it is up to you as to which sounds "better" and "best"

So how can all these brands be nearly identically per the specs, but yet sound so different to the ear?
zum zing's not rite yah? zum zing stinkz vith thiz picturz???


Unfortunately, there's no law preventing lying about audio stuff, specs etc.. or calling yourself a Mastering Engineer and posting beautiful web-sites.


MYTH: Specs can always be trusted.

 

[Fletcher]

Another myth, expensive microphones make you sound better...total bullshit from my experience.

I missed this one before... and, yes!! It is totally spot on... but not for the reason your statement implies.

Expensive microphones aren't there to "make your sound", they're there to "capture your sound". YOU have to make the sound for the microphone to capture, not the other way around.

One of the things that is a bitch about being an amateur recording engineer is that I need "sound sources" to record and/or mix. At this point in time I am an amateur.

I have been a professional, and I could go back to being a professional anytime I want. I still have my 'sponsor exemption' and can get back on the PGA Tour with a couple of phone calls if I wanted to [but I don't wanna... while the money is way better than what I make now I'm enjoying the quality of life I have now... I'm able to spend time with my kids/family... shit like that... but I digress].

Could I make an excellent sounding record for you using nothing but a Mackie desk and Shure SM-57's? Depends... are you giving me excellent sounds to record? The tools are only there to help, not to create. I have a couple of somewhat famous friends... it's always amusing to me when people ask them what ____ did you use on ____?

The answer to that question is actually "my talent"... but the question is phrased so it's "hardware specific" like the tools created the sound. I can tell you from experience that Keith Richards with a Gibson ES-355 and a Fender Twin [with a serial number under 50!!] sounds e-x-a-c-t-l-y like Keith Richards with a Telecaster "Custom" into an Oahu Amplifier. It's the same sound. No shit!!

A slightly different texture, and that textural difference can slightly change the way the performer approaches the track from an emotional perspective... but the fucking sound is the same.

As for the microphone that is used to record that sound... again we get into the realm of textural difference that can slightly change the way the performer approaches the track from an emotional perspective... on a good day the sound is so fucking good in the headphones that it can inspire the performer to play the part better than the performer is actually capable of playing the part because they're so inspired by the tone they're hearing.

There are delicated textures and balances that can be achieved in the recording process that will give the recording a better sense of depth and emotion that will better assist the artist's vision/statement/etc. to be presented as "product"... but there ain't no motherfucker ever walked down the street humming the mic-pre. Never happened, never will happen.

So while "expensive microphones make you sound better...total bullshit" is an absolutely 110% correct statement... the fact of the matter is that "expensive microphones" when used in a proper context can inspire the performer to make a better sound, or can perhaps capture some of the texture and nuance that elevates a performance to the level envisioned by the performer... but they can't make a sound "better"... only the musician can do that particular bit of alchemy.

Peace.

 

[famous beagle]

but if you need someone to teach you fingering techniques on guitar or piano, etc., or babbling about "theory" then maybe you should try a sport instead.

What the hell are you smoking?

So if someone can't learn something on their own, they should give it up? That's got to be the stupidest thing I think I've ever read on this board.

I don't even know where to start.

Are you honestly going to sit there and try to tell me that every "good" musician to you has been totally, 100% self-taught? That's laughable.


And by the way, your Mr. Eddie Van Halen studied piano as a youngster. Sure, he quit because he didn't like "the rules," but I GUARANTEE that he's put to use some of the things he learned while he was taking those lessons (such as ... basic keyboard technique, for instance).

 

[Farview]

Um, in this context that would be .. "to the point WHERE (not "that") .. you don't know the diff......"

I'm forced to work with too many potheads. It's rubbing off on me.

 

[Farview]

Says you. This stuff isn't rocket science! If you can't pick up an instrument and eventually make music on it all by your lonesome without anyone interfering and messing YOUR technique up than it's not meant to be. Now, this does not mean you don't put in the work, the practice, but if you need someone to teach you fingering techniques on guitar or piano, etc., or babbling about "theory" then maybe you should try a sport instead. There is no right technique for any instrument, just get a sound out of it, man, just make some noise, your noise! that's what it's about! A true artist has his own methods, that's what makes Eddie Van Halen Eddie Van Halen and not Steve Vai or any of those other over the top tasteless hacks with all the learned technique in the world but NO SOUL. That's what made Bonzo Bonzo and not Neil Peart or those other over the top tasteless hacks with all the learned technique in the world but no SOUL! Get my drift? Art is all about the individual finding his own way though and out of the forrest on his own!!! or better yet, never finding his way out!

You missed the entire point. It wasn't an argument for good technique or bad technique. I was only stating that once the desired outcome is decided, not just 'anything' will give you that outcome.

You can't make a painting with stone and a chisel. Once you decide you want to paint a picture, you have narrowed your options.

 

[Beck]

If you want Bonhams "sound", get a shovel. Then get on a plane to England. Dig him up. Set him in a room with some drums and a mic.

He just doesn't play like he used to.

 

[fraserhutch]

Honestly, I don't think you get that I'm not busting on you. You do your thing in music and I do mine. In the simpilist terms I can I will reiterate that the only thing I wanted to get across with that is the FACT that knowing music theory is not a prerequisite to being a good musician. If you take musician to only mean a trained studio musician I guess you're right. But I think it means anyone who puts sound on tape with the intent of music making.

And let's not start bustin on reefer too. It's just a lowely weed for god's sake.

My argument, and I stand by it, is that without as certain amount of knowledge of music theory, you cannot be a good musician. I am not saying that it has to be learnt in school or university, but without it, you're not a good musician.

Being musicial, or having a good ear, or knowing how to play around with fruityloops or reason and being able to regurgitate and ape the current trends in popular music does not make you a good musician.