Self-Sufficient artists

  • Thread starter Thread starter El Barto
  • Start date Start date
Testify, Lazyboy, that's exactly what I was getting at. I never said I wanted to get a billion dollar result. And like you said (and I said earlier), an amazing production doesn't make shitty music good. I've been thinking or noticing something, that the musicians themselves are the worst critics. The general audience of people are out to hear music, no matter what it is. Most teenagers (ESPECIALLY girls for some reason) say "I like all music." Then there's people like me who like a certain catagory (rock music!). Unless you're recording the whole album on a $40 mic, then your recording will be good enough for people to enjoy.
 
Ha, I know so many of those "I like all music" people. If you look through their music collection, though, you're likely to find: Aerosmith, Boys II Men, Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, and more than a few "MTV Dance Party" style CD's and maybe a couple "Fun Hits of the 70's"

At that point I realize that they don't like all music. They like shitty music. :)

Slackmaster 2000
 
lazyboy, you need to reread my posts here. You obviously took what I said out of context.

That is all I have to say in this thread.

Ed
 
It all depends what perspective you take.

One perspective is people who write and record thier own music. Why? I don't know, but for me it's what I like to do. I gave up playing in bands ages ago in favour of recording my own songs. Creative freedom maybe,ego, maybe a bit of both. Actually I don't have much of an ego, but anyway.

Using home recording gear as a songwriting tool is great. But it can be much more than that, SM2K points out that what sounds good to HIM is what really matters, and that's a valid point.

I can only comment on my side of the fence, but if keeping up with the Jones is what recording engineering is about.. I'm glad I'm not pursuing it.

Most of the music I listen to is from the 60's and 70's. Sounds as good or better than anything on the radio now.

This is where a good song always will sound good regardless of how it was recorded. If the point gets across, that's all that matters.
 
Were gonna take a quick commercial break at this time,stayed tuned will be right back.
 
> I just fail to see the benefit of this kind > of advice on a home recording website.

I'm not talking about engineer worship.
What Ed has to say is of value to every enthusiast with even $500 invested. Just read and listen carefully and apply it to the stuff you've got at hand.
 
Ed is right about using the best equipment and a professional engineer. That IS the best way to go... IF (and that's a big "if") you have the money, the talent, and the ability to promote your material nationally and internationally.
As for the rest of us, we are "do-it-yourselfers".
I don't have one fourth of the equipment Ed has, but I make some pretty damned good digital recordings despite the handicap.
The most important thing to me is the music itself. It has to be my best possible effort of writing, arranging, playing, and recording.
It might have sounded better if Ed recorded and produced it, but doing 25 re-takes for each recorded track would have costed me a small fortune on "his" time. I like recording on MY time.
Hell, most of my CD was recorded in my sweats and fuzzy slippers. That's the way I like it... slow, easy, and a familiar, comfortable atmosphere.
As for newer equipment being the "best", I don't really think that's totally true.
I've got several CD's that were originally recorded on tape that have killer sound quality. (Supertramp - Crime of the Century, originally released in 1974, is one good example)
Sometimes, this new equipment makes songs sound overproduced and too processed to be enjoyable. I'll take an old Supremes record over a new Brittney Spears CD any day of the week.
The most important thing here is the music.
Limp Bizkit and Kid Rock recorded with the "big boys", but they still sound like shit. There's no substitute for GOOD music, no matter what the recording quality is like.
 
Bravo dobro! Well said.

The music is what really matters. A bad song is going to sound bad no matter what the production quality is. A good song will sound good even without the best recording quality but Good recording quality will obviously make it sound better. I would love to have people like Ed record and produce my music but me don't have money so I make it sound as good as I can on my own.

Tucci
 
Actually, Fish, I asked:

>Does anyone know of any great (and/or popular) artists

And/or meaning mainstream...great meaning obviously talented and wonderful artists...such as GBV. I never really asked about getting a professional sound. And you were right, it's more of a "how do I use what I have to get a great sound" question. I don't really mind if the music comes out as something that sounds massively professional. As long as I feel it's really good and listenable, then I'll be happy with it. And it does matter more about the music. I love the quote ruebarb brought up from David Crosby. That sums up everything basicly.
 
dobro, I agree with you; there is never a subtitution for good music. I have recorded some less than stellar bands. No matter how good the quality of the recording is, many people would not care to listen to the music itself. A friend once told me, "You can't polish a turd." ... I guess that follows the David Crosby saying.

[This message has been edited by Fishmed (edited 03-09-2000).]
 
Yeah, at the risk of beating a dead horse, David Crosby always pumped the songwriting process. He'd say you could take one million dollars and make an expensive single, but if the song is bad, all you have is an expensive piece of shit.

One thing I do think is important. I do think you should get another set of ears outside the band in the process (make it a manager, anyone) - You need an unbiased opinion sometimes and certainly during Mixing it helps. I got lucky. I started recording myself because I could, but I spent 4 years in college as a broadcast major. So I got some ad hoc sound engineering training.

Now a small list of bands who have started out on DIY 4 tracks - Guided By Voices, Hayden, Kid Lunch, Anything by Lou Barlow (Sebadoh, the Folk Implosion) - many of them started, but once they got the budget and means, they moved out of the basement.
 
This thread was directed towards Great and/or Popular Musicians who are in fact on the mainstream level with professional studios.

All Ed was trying to say is that, at THAT high end level, musicians who try to produce themselves usually shoot themselves in the foot. At THAT level it takes several experts in various fields to create a product worththy of being "Mainstream" quality.

There is NOTHING wrong with homerecording, just realize that you cannot get the same quality as the "mainstream" folks. I think what ruffels Ed's feathers is that people often want advice on how to get that quality with what they have, not knowing the limitations of gear.

I think what these people should ask is, how can I squeeze the most out of the limited gear I have to get as close as I can to the "mainstream" quality? And to that affect, MOST people do ask that.

<Ed please let me know if I have misinterpeted you in this post. Thanx>

[This message has been edited by Fishmed (edited 03-09-2000).]
 
Fish,

I like your last sentence. I think it sums up what I thought this BBS is about when I first started looking at it and it certainly is how I try to approach it when I post the questions I ask.

I certainly don't expect much out of my $300 4-track, but I do want to wring all I can from it.

[This message has been edited by DaveO (edited 03-09-2000).]
 
My turn! I got three points to make.

There seem to be about three more or less professional engineers who crop up regularly on this site, and the main message that comes through their posts is this: "Better gear + experience = a better sound." My limited experience in this field supports this view wholeheartedly and provides no evidence that contradicts it.

Second, art takes precedence over sound every time. I got a Rode and I got a Shure, and if the take with the Shure was more inspired than the take with the Rode, the Shure take would be the one that went on the CD. No contest.

Finally, there's a great CD I've got called The Genuine Article - kind of a best of Howlin' Wolf put together by Chess. It's wonderful, wonderful music, despite recording quality :), but it would've been even better if Ed had been the engineer. See, it's not a matter of this versus that, it's a matter of including both views in a way that gets you home with the groceries.

Postscript: see, Howlin Wolf's problem was he didn't come round this page much...
 
I re-read threads sometimes (sometimes you have to - damn, there were some long posts in this one!) and my re-reading picked up something. I think ruebarb and sonusman are making a similar, possibly identical, point. Ruebarb talks about the value of having another set of ears to listen to the mix. Ed talks about smart bands that ask the engineer for feedback, if not guidance.

What you need is a second set of ears you can trust. I'd trust George Martin with my mix, for example. :) I'd also trust a few people I've met on this page, some of them engineers, some of them not. What I'll be looking for (notice the shift to 'will'?) is someone who knows how to listen to sound, and who knows how to listen to *songs*, to music.

Am I asking for much? Damn right. Can I get it here? Probably.
 
Minor tangent: El Barto brings up the example of Frank Black and the Catholics, a truly amazing band. Their first album was recorded live to 2-track ( granted, they did it in a great-sounding room at Sound City, where Nevermind and Rumours were recorded )and it's a really, really, really good album. Really.
[ Then, as I understand it, Rick Rubin heard the tapes, said "These are great demos, I can't wait to produce the album", and was told "That is the album." And he dropped the band from his label. When I listen to the album, I don't think that elaborate production would have helped the material. ]
If you've got the goods in the songwriting department, it's not going to be hard to make it sound good in the studio.

Not sure where I'm going with this post, but I'm desperately trying to avoid cleaning my apartment....
 
Okay, my two cents:
The gear I can buy now for a few thousand dollars is the technical match of Abbey Road in the Sixties (correct me if I'm wrong, guys!)
I absolutely guarantee that George Martin and Geoff Emerick's stuff on an average day still sounds way way way ahead of anything I could do on my best day.

I once recorded a short tune, pretty, nice piano line etc. and it was ok. On the same equipment, in about half an hour of tweaking, a professional producer/engineer friend of mine took pity on me and said 'Let me help you with that' and made it sound like someone who knew what they were doing recorded it. The difference was VERY noticeable.

But what it comes down to for me is the song and the performance. Howlin' Wolf still sounds great even though the gear was pitiful - but if we're talking about the quality of the recording, by today's standards it's terrible.
... and that's the difference - musician's go for the song, the 'techies' (and I'm not making a value judgement) go for the quality of the recording.

Sunday, Bloody Sunday sounds great even though the cymbals and the bass sound like they're blowing the meters way into the red (which I'm sure was the idea) - and didn't they deliberately overload the old tube boards in the Sixties 'cos it sounded good?

I guess it's like getting your house decorated - you can do it yourself, or you can get someone who knows what they're doing and get photos of it in Architectural Digest.

foo
 
A Frank Black fan also, Jay? Gotta love em...I would have to say Cult of Ray or Teenager of the Year is my favorite album, and between the two Catholics albums, Pistolero is definately the greatest. Actually, both Catholics albums were recorded live to a 2 track, and their upcoming album (should be out before summer, or during...they're recording it as soon as their small "tour" is over, with Eric Drew Feldman back on keys) will be also, I'm pretty sure. They are amazing albums, and (but?) you can kinda tell they are recorded live, but the sound quality is still very very great. Do you know exactly how they did it live? How most bands do it live? Are they all in the same room? This is how I wanna do most of my recordings is live guitar and drum, but I'm afraid it might affect the sound negatively...thoughts?
 
If the type of music that you want to record is highly dependent on energy ,attitude and a agressive emotion ...then "live in the studio"...A SSL.G or a Neve would be nice...LOL...is the way to go!Songs like ..Louie Louie from the Kingsmen were done with 1 mic hanging in the center of a garage in Seattle and no overdubs...Magic happens sometimes !!Like alot of folks on this site I'd like to catch lighting in a bottle too,even though my equpiment and my skill are tested just to make any of my recordings bearable to listen to by anyone with"ears". And I guess thats why we all try no matter how elusive it is.
 
If the type of music that you want to record is highly dependent on energy ,attitude and a agressive emotion ...then "live in the studio"...A SSL.G or a Neve would be nice...LOL...is the way to go!Songs like ..Louie Louie from the Kingsmen were done with 1 mic hanging in the center of a garage in Seattle and no overdubs...Magic happens sometimes !!Like alot of folks on this site I'd like to catch lighting in a bottle too,even though my equpiment and my skill are tested just to make any of my recordings bearable to listen to by anyone with"ears". And I guess thats why we all try no matter how elusive it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top