Recording Guitar Reverb

[Greg_L]

But what if the amp's reverb sounds awesome? You gonna dial it out because you have some preconceived notion that adding reverb later is better? Hogwash. Fooey. Bullshit. Go tell Duane Eddy or Dick Dale that they need to play with no reverb. Lol. Hey Ventures, can you back off the reverb a little? Hey Brian Setzer, your vintage sound can be done better if you just record clean and leave your Fender units, Roland Chorus Echos, and Gretsch's at home. We don't need them. Lol.

I say record the guy the way he wants to be recorded. If that's his sound, that's his sound. Your job is to capture it. If it sounds like shit, you can point it out. If he doesn't buy it, just record him shitty. Fuck it. Who cares?

 

[Greg_L]

Why is this exactly?

Because everyone is a pro at HR.com.

 

[Steenamaroo]

But what if the amp's reverb sounds awesome?

If it's awesome, it stays.

You've got me wrong, Greg. I'm advocating ITB reverb purely because the OP says the pedal sounds shit.

 

[Greg_L]

Well, I suggested tracking dry and adding verb later. This is based on the assumption that the OP's judgement is good.

That is true. But everyone's judgement has to be good. The player has to have good judgement too. So who's judgement is more important? I personally see the value in either way. I'm a big believer in miking the sound you want and keeping the mixing tricks to a minimum. But I also know that sometimes people just sound shitty and they don't know any better or like their shitty sound. That's the line you have to walk. When does the opinion of the guy making the music and paying the money become less important than the guy miking his shit and pressing record? It all depends on the egos, knowledge of the people involved, and the end goal of the recording. There's just too many variables to paint everything with the same brush. As far as the OP goes, maybe this guitarist's reverb pedal sounds like ass. In that case, recording dry and adding reverb later might be the best choice. How do you tell him that? And what if that shitty reverb is the sound he wants? Every player, ear, and scenario is different. You just can't say definitively which way to go.

 

[Greg_L]

If it's awesome, it stays.
All those guys you listed know what they're doing.
That's kinda my point, although I kindly used you and RAMI to exemplify it.

Lol. Well thanks for that. If I wheeled my drums or guitar stuff to someone else to record, they would record it the way I want it recorded. There would be no debate. I wouldn't be hitting them with shitty sounds though.

I don't have any preconceived notion. My itb reverb advice is based on the OP saying this guy's pedal sounds shit.

Yes, I agree with that. And for the record, I wasn't talking to you specifically. I was using "you" in the general sense and just making general statements. I apologize if you took it as me attacking what you specifically had said.

 

[Steenamaroo]

Sorry, I did a sneaky edit on you.

You're bang right though. Judgement is the key, and yeah the 'shit' reverb may well be what this guy wants.

I'm a big believer in miking the sound you want and keeping the mixing tricks to a minimum. But I also know that sometimes people just sound shitty and they don't know any better or like their shitty sound.

That about covers it really.

 

[Steenamaroo]

Yes, I agree with that. And for the record, I wasn't talking to you specifically. I was using "you" in the general sense and just making general statements. I apologize if you took it as me attacking what you specifically had said.

You made a point worth making.
Appreciated.

 

[Greg_L]

There's a punk guitarist named East Bay Ray. He plays guitar for the Dead Kennedys. He's no virtuoso. He uses solid state amps, cheap guitars, and tons of reverb and delay. It's like a surf guitar nightmare. Conventional wisdom and the uninitiated ear would say "holy fuck that guitar sounds like shit". But it's his sound, and frankly, it works awesome for DK's west coast punk rock. That screeching reverby delay sound is part of the whole package, and to me it's pretty awesome. I couldn't imagine DK any other way. That's just the way it is. So sometimes, sounding bad sounds just right.

 

[Steenamaroo]

There's a punk guitarist named East Bay Ray. He plays guitar for the Dead Kennedys. He's no virtuoso. He uses solid state amps, cheap guitars, and tons of reverb and delay. It's like a surf guitar nightmare. Conventional wisdom and the uninitiated ear would say "holy fuck that guitar sounds like shit". But it's his sound, and frankly, it works awesome for DK's west coast punk rock. That screeching reverby delay sound is part of the whole package, and to me it's pretty awesome. I couldn't imagine DK any other way. That's just the way it is. So sometimes, sounding bad sounds just right.

Yeah, fair play.
To be honest, it's rare that I have to get involved in that way, and if I do it's because I'm dealing with young guys who I'm certain have just gotten carried away with their toys. It's still a liberty, though. I can see that.


I was just thinking, it'd be really interesting to hear a clip.
I replied on the assumption that the OPs judgement was good here, but there's every chance the guitar verb is fine and OP just doesn't get it, or whatever.
It could even suck but in the way you describe!

 

[miroslav]

If it's just going to be a battle of their egos...then it might not work out either way.

Most engineers who are pure engineers, and have a good deal of experience, know how to "massage" a sticky situation in the studio, and they aren't going to lose their paying client, but at the same time, will steer the session in the right direction. It's rarely a case of just telling the client what to do, or the opposite, just counting your money and not giving a shit if the client's ideas suck ass.
It's usually a case of, "OK, we can try that if you like"....followed by..."That was pretty good. How about we try it another way to see how it compares?"

In the HR world, the recording experience of the artists and/or the engineer may not be that extensive, so the decision making process could be limited by that alone, in which case both parties are doing a bit of trial-n-error as they progress through a session, but in the case of an artist who is a total studio newb and an engineer who's done his share of tracks...if the artist is out in left field, the engineer's job is to guide him in the right direction when it comes to technical choices/decisions.
I've seen some newbs try some of the silliest things, because to them it was new and a process of discovery...and that's cool when you do that in your own space. It's a great way to learn. However, if you are paying someone to record you and expecting a decent product, you would/should kinda expect a little guidance and support from the engineer...so there has to be some trust.

That said, there are times when it's all subjective, artistic decisions, so it can go either way...but if the artist and the engineer sat down and discussed the production goals and the end product with some detail before starting the sessions....I would expect that in most cases, a decent engineer will know how to get there better than the artist will, so there are times when the engineer has to speak up and at least point out why something is a bad idea and/or will not work. You don't just say "fuck it" and then watch the clock ticking away as the artists jerks around making bad decisions...IMO.

 

[Greg_L]

You don't just say "fuck it" and then watch the clock ticking away as the artists jerks around making bad decisions...IMO.

That would depend, once again, on egos. If having your "producer/engineer" name on some product is important, then yeah, you're gonna have to speak up and maybe even refuse the job if having your name attached to something shitty is a problem for your ego. I can understand that. I don't agree with it, but I do understand it. I'm from the camp that thinks "producers" are unnecessary baggage and engineers should shut the fuck up, just stick mics where they go, and let the creative people do their thing.

 

[ashcat_lt]

I'm kind of concerned here because I actually agree with damn near everything Greg has posted in this thread.

Steve Albini is another one whose guitar tone is just completely wrong by any reasonable standards but is completely right for the context. Big Black just wouldn't be the same...

The flip side of that whole thing being the experience of so many early punk bands. I've heard Ian from Minor Threat speak a couple of times about the first time they went into a studio and ended up with an engineer who completely didn't get it. So many of the local "cheap" studios were used to dealing with (wannabe) arena rock and focused on making their clients "radio ready" or whatever. They tried to shoehorn these folks into a box where they wouldn't fit, and applied some completely inappropriate techniques. It's a big part of the reason that so many of those early punk albums sound like such ass.

 

[Greg_L]

I'm kind of concerned here because I actually agree with damn near everything Greg has posted in this thread.
.

Yup, one of us must be wrong.

 

[wtfuhz]

let the creative people do their thing.

Wouldn't being a "producer" for the artist give you a pretty big part of the creative decisions as well? Not saying to take over of course, but it would make sense to put input where needed and this reverb issue seems like a good time to exercise that producer title.

 

[Greg_L]

Wouldn't being a "producer" for the artist give you a pretty big part of the creative decisions as well? Not saying to take over of course, but it would make sense to put input where needed and this reverb issue seems like a good time to exercise that producer title.

It depends. Again, what if the guy wants the sound of his reverb? Who are you to say no? Are you the "producer", the "engineer", or just the guy recording some tracks for some other guy? All that shit needs to be ironed out beforehand. The way I see it, as a producer you'd just oversee the whole process from mic placement to mixing. If your input is needed or asked for, you give it. As an engineer, your job is to place the right mics in the right spot and make sure everything is working and tracking properly. As the guy just recording tracks, just record the damn tracks. It just depends on the end goal and what the roles actually are. In today's commercial landscape, it's my opinion that producers are given way too much input and credit because marketing and making an easily digestible end product is the goal. The masses have been conditioned to accept that anything with the name "Rick Rubin" attached to it is awesome.

 

[miroslav]

Talking about what happens way up in the recording biz where people are known "names"...is not really applicable here.
I don't know why that's the only perspective that is being seen here when an engineer or producer offers up suggestions/decisions...like he's only doing it because of his "name"...???

We are talking about "artists" who may have zero recording experience, so having the experienced people in the room "STFU" and allowing that newb to make recording decisions (many that are technical in nature and tied into the whole producton)...is really an Alice in Wonderland way to look at it.

As though every newb "artist" given the space and decision making power...will shit out pure gold in the studio if the engineer stays out of his/her way.

Yeah, good luck with that!

Oh, and the big names like Albini have a LOT of input....regardless of what you read in the magazines about how he just "puts up some mics and gets out of the way".

There are intrusive ways to "tell" an artist what to do...and subtle suggestive ways that can explain what works and what doesn't. There are lots of great producers and engineers who do that every day...it's not just about putting their "name" on someone else's work. It's about helping the artist realize their full potential.
A lot of the "great" artists have had their asses saved by the producer and/or engineer...without whom they wouldn't have a decent product in the end.

Unitl you record other people enough times....you don't see that. It's not the same thing as when you only record yourself.

 

[Greg_L]

Talking about what happens way up in the recording biz where people are known "names"...is not really applicable here.
I don't know why that's the only perspective that is being seen here when an engineer or producer offers up suggestions/decisions...like he's only doing it because of his "name"...???

We are talking about "artists" who may have zero recording experience, so having the experienced people in the room "STFU" and allowing that newb to make recording decisions (many that are technical in nature and tied into the whole producton)...is really an Alice in Wonderland way to look at it.

As though every newb "artist" given the space and decision making power...will shit out pure gold in the studio if the engineer stays out of his/her way.

Yeah, good luck with that!

Oh, and the big names like Albini have a LOT of input....regardless of what you read in the magazines about how he just "puts up some mics and gets out of the way".

Being the defender of the recording "art" and an apologist for "engineers" and "producers" isn't applicable either. You brought up the "name" thing, didn't you? You're worried about having your name on some piece of music that might sound bad? We're talking about "artists" that may have little to no recording experience, yes. We're also talking about home recorders that equally have little to no experience making decisions, right? I'm operating under the assumption that none of these guys know anything. Lol. So if it is the blind leading the blind, my point is that the guitar player in question doesn't have to have recording experience. It's his song, his sound, his choice. If he's open to being told that something doesn't sound good, then great. If he isn't and wants his sound recorded, and he's paying for it, then just shut the fuck up and do it. What's so hard to understand about that? Why has this even become a debate?

In my realm of music, the stuff I like and listen to, the albums produced by the bands themselves are always the best ones. So I will never buy the cliche that a producer is a necessary part of the equation. A "different set of ears" is not always a good thing, and many times is a bad thing. I will agree though that a good engineer is needed for miking things up and keeping things running properly.

 

[Greg_L]

There are intrusive ways to "tell" an artist what to do...and subtle suggestive ways that can explain what works and what doesn't. There are lots of great producers and engineers who do that every day...it's not just about putting their "name" on someone else's work. It's about helping the artist realize their full potential.

Talk about a fantasy world.

A lot of the "great" artists have had their asses saved by the producer and/or engineer...without whom they wouldn't have a decent product in the end.

And lots that have suffered because the producer ruined their sound and style. It goes both ways.

Unitl you record other people enough times....you don't see that. It's not the same thing as when you only record yourself.

Is this directed at me?

 

[RAMI]

Glyn johns was wrong for the Eagles. Now, even though I don't like the Eagles, their situation is a great example. On their first album (or two), Glyn put a lot of echo on the vocals and also didn't let them rock out whenever they wanted to rock up a song a little bit. They told him that they wanted a drier sound. His response was a pompous "That echo is MY sound and MY signature. Don't you dare question it". As for letting them rock a little bit, he said "You are not a rock band. The Who is a rock band. Stop trying to be The Who". Needless to say, they got rid of him, started producing albums the way they wanted them to sound, and their career went just fine thank you. I think they even invented a sound. Listen to "Already Gone", it's a country song that rocks, with some ballsy lead guitar, etc....

Sometimes the best thing a producer can do is let the sound of the band happen and stop trying to put his signature on it. Ted Templeman with Van Halen is a great example. He didn't do very much. He just let them play live and all he did was capture their sound.

What's my point? I'm not sure. I got bored and lost interest half -way through typing this post.

 

[Greg_L]

Glyn johns was wrong for the Eagles. Now, even though I don't like the Eagles, their situation is a great example. On their first album (or two), Glyn put a lot of echo on the vocals and also didn't let them rock out whenever they wanted to rock up a song a little bit. They told him that they wanted a drier sound. His response was a pompous "That echo is MY sound and MY signature. Don't you dare question it". As for letting them rock a little bit, he said "You are not a rock band. The Who is a rock band. Stop trying to be The Who". Needless to say, they got rid of him, started producing albums the way they wanted them to sound, and their career went just fine thank you. I think they even invented a sound. Listen to "Already Gone", it's a country song that rocks, with some ballsy lead guitar, etc....

Sometimes the best thing a producer can do is let the sound of the band happen and stop trying to put his signature on it. Ted Templeman with Van Halen is a great example. He didn't very much. He just let them play live and all he did was capture their sound.

What's my point? I'm not sure. I got bored and lost interest half -way through typing this post.

In my Ramones fanboi world, everyone knows that the legendary Phil Spector produced one Ramones album. They were big fans of his work, his credentials are second to none, and they wanted a hit record. The result? An absolute trainwreck. Lol.