Toys R Us plastic Drums, recorded in garage on analog tape - Win a Grammy? Yep.
yeah ..... because a grammy means your music is good!
And only grammy winners know anything.
I know what you mean and I was being a smart ass, but at the same time its a pretty big deal and the highest recongnition an artist, producer, song writer, etc. etc. can recieve. And remember the Producers and Engineers wing of NARAS make up a big part of the vote. Thats a bunch very talented people. Its just not record label people patting themselves on the back. I might be naive but I think everone likes to be told job well done by their peers and I think it does command some amount of respect.
But I could be wrong.
LDS
New member
aaronmcoleman
The truth is out there!
I do like what Dave said about real music coming from the head and heart, and that you're basically not a real musician if you don't write.
Pop is crap because it's corporate music. The "artists" don't do anything.
Whether or not he could have done better in the studio, I really like the whole philosophy behind this album...basically make music that has feeling and who cares if it's perfect. I also guarantee 99.9999% of people can't really hear the difference, but he did it because music is losing it's grounding in good solid songs.
Pop is crap because it's corporate music. The "artists" don't do anything.
Whether or not he could have done better in the studio, I really like the whole philosophy behind this album...basically make music that has feeling and who cares if it's perfect. I also guarantee 99.9999% of people can't really hear the difference, but he did it because music is losing it's grounding in good solid songs.
Melvin McSnatch
New member
Girl you know it's Foo.
J
jokerone
Guest
I would say its more the recording industry.
If you look sexy without your shirt, and can do a backwards summersault triple axle landing on your feet, then we’ll put a ball cap on your head backwards, give you a gold tooth and chains and we’ll vo-code, auto-tune your lip-synched song that someone else wrote, performed, and mixed.
Hell we’ll even smear peanut butter on your lips like they did with Mr. Ed to get him to talk if it will fool the public.
Well, you get the point.
fat_fleet
Swollen Member
lol @ "Dave Grohl has this theory...."
R
RAMI
Guest
When people insist on room treatment, 99% of the time, it's about the mixing room, not where you track. You can track in any room you want, if the room helps give you the sound you want for that particular track. I think the reason that the tracking room often gets included in the conversation around here is because most people track and mix in the same (usually small) room. So, when someone posts a picture of their basement set-up and we see the mixing desk in the picture, along with the guitar amp, drums, and mics....I can't see how it would ever be bad advice to suggest getting bass traps in the corners at the very least.
But I'm pretty sure that the Foos mixed that album in a well-treated control room. Correct me if I'm wrong because I didn't look it up, just a semi-educated guess.
But I'm pretty sure that the Foos mixed that album in a well-treated control room. Correct me if I'm wrong because I didn't look it up, just a semi-educated guess.
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
I'm sure their studio is what most of us would consider pro.
I really do understand the room treatment thing but .... and understand, we've already established that I do things MY way which doesn't seem to be the way ..... ummmm, anyone else does it
But ..... my rooms are always full of crap ... records .... amps ...... shelves of crap.
So they're always semi-dead.
But more important to me is that you 'learn' your room just like you have to 'learn' your monitors or, for that matter, everything you use that ends up in the recording.
And how it translates to other systems.
For example ...... my room in Baton Rouge was an awesome sounding room. Where I had my JBL monitors ...... they sounded like there was a sub pounding away. I loved that room.
My current room is thinner sounding ..... really light in the bottom end and a bit harsh in the mids. For listening for pleasure .... it's shit compared to the other room.
But for recording ..... it's just a matter of adjusting my mental compensation to make it translate.
aaronmcoleman
The truth is out there!
Yeah, you're probably right. Treating a room won't hurt and is probably a great idea. But, I think you can get some really nice recordings out of rooms that aren't great, and the same goes for mixing.
In the SOS article it says they mixed in a legit studio but didn't like it so it came back to dave's studio...i don't know if that room was treated or not, but I'd suspect it was.
But, you're right, it's never bad advice to treat the room...I just think there is a lot more to do before doing that.
People have been recording this way for YEARS and made similar quality.... its called indie music.
Dave Grohl did nothing special... "OMG he recorded in his garage!?!?!?!?"
oh wait... he still used amazing gear and a top engineer?....
When people hear garage they think there's shit in there and it slike a normal garage.... that was not the case when it was recorded.... what they DID have was a decently sized rectangle room with minor treatments.
Dave Grohl did nothing special... "OMG he recorded in his garage!?!?!?!?"
oh wait... he still used amazing gear and a top engineer?....
When people hear garage they think there's shit in there and it slike a normal garage.... that was not the case when it was recorded.... what they DID have was a decently sized rectangle room with minor treatments.
jimmys69
MOODerator
He is only a 12 pack short of finishing. Just spoke to gianelli280 yesterday, he was drinking them.
Sigh, I am not trying to be a smart ass, but you guys, if you have time, need to read the link that was posted.
It was recorded and mixed in Grohls house/home studio whatever you want to call it. They did start to mix in a "real studio", but went back to the house when they realized they were losing the sound they wanted. And the article isnt just Grohl tooting his own horn, they interviewed the producer, engineer and mix engineer. The way they mixed it was pretty amazing. No computer edits, no automation etc.
It baffles me why people dont seem to really believe it? All the info about the process is on the web.
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
I believe it ..... but I don't get why it seems incredible to anyone.
An awful lot of the worlds best recordings were done with no computer edits or automation. Probably a majority of them.
guitaristic
prophet of Dave
I just fail to grasp how they started "losing the sound they wanted" simply because they were tracking digitally...
EXACTLY, What 10 -15 years ago this was the norm.
What I find refreshing is they could of went to their state of the art studio played their parts, grid it up, edit the shit out of it to make it perfect and no one would have blinked twice.
Instead they created and performed their music, a computer did not perform the music, and I think thats pretty cool in this day and age of , its ok if your parts arent perfect, we can put it on the grid, fly in a trigger, or edit your mistakes out and auto tune your flat vocals.
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
there is a difference in the sound ...... digital vs analog.
But at the money levels those guys have to throw at it ...... there's plenty of gear to add an analog warmth to the recording if they wished.
A home studio, when you have the money they do, isn't anything but a studio in a home ...... pro level gear and pro level set-up and treatment.
miroslav
Cosmic Cowboy
While there are sonic differences between tracking to tape VS direct to digital (not necessarily a good VS bad thing, just different)....I think another point about "losing the sound they wanted" by tracking to digital has to do with the whole SOP of working primarily in digital.
It can get very surgical and lab-like, with a certain parts-is-parts "assembly line" methodology, and how you work can easily affect what the sound is like. It's not just the gear changing the sound, it's the working method. That is one of the "dark sides" of being immersed In The Box....IMO. From my own early experiences with digital, I know it's also a very addictive way to work. If you are not careful, the digital process can take over. It takes some consious effort to let go of the addictive shit and just work the production with a set plan, rather than letting the process take over.
Tracking to a tape deck imposes certain limitations and there is a somewhat raw/alive/linear feel to the whole process, that just seems to move forward until you finish, VS jumping around all over the place in bits-n-pieces.
Now...you can tailor your digital SOP to be similar to tracking/mixing with a tape deck, and you can also get lost in endless "takes" and bounces with tape...so neither is totally immune to certain "negative" influences on how you work...but generally speaking, they each have their working process that does affect the sound...and again, that's apart from the effect of the actual gear on the sound.
That said...what FF are calling a "garage studio" is rather laughable, as they have the cream of analog gear, with old Butch at the controls, not to mention that there had to have been some sort of post-production work done during the mastering stage that wasn't done in their "garage"...so that's a pretty slick setup, and a well tuned SOP for working with that setup.
I mean...they're a bit disingenuous if/when they try to sell it like some "old-school, lo-fi, analog-based, garage studio recording".
leaningpine
New member
It's incredible nowadays because no one does it anymore. Everything on the radio is auto tuned, copy and pasted, loop beats, drum samples, etc..... It's not a band playing in a studio anymore recording takes.