joeystrange Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 [quote name='crez5150' timestamp='1349861072' post='1831327'] It doesn't have to be Sterile.... a lot of that is down to the engineer... not the technology. You can still track a recording in one take with digital technology.... it's just that people don't and in studio's time is money. [/quote] I know that but it just seems to be the standard these days. Pretty much all 'big' bands do it now. At the end of the day it's each to his own. Some people love perfect, polished records and others love more raw, human-sounding records. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51m0n Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 There is no direct correlation between using a digital system to record and sounding sterile. Thats just nonsense. However grid-iron production techniques (everything being laid on the grid exactly in time) does sound terrible. That isnt the fault of the fact things were recorded to a digital medium, thats a stylistic choice of the producer. I only ever track to digital, I never rely on a gridiron beat matching, preferring the sound of musicians squeezing time about to make something organic and full of life. Doesnt mean I wont edit the occasional timing error, or even tweak the tuning on a single note in an otherwise wonderful emotive take. Tape, 2" or otherwise, doesnt mean you have to get a take in one go either, I was dropping people in on the fly to fix a couple of notes in a track before anyone thought of digital recording on computers.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51m0n Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 [quote name='joeystrange' timestamp='1349861310' post='1831329'] I know that but it just seems to be the standard these days. Pretty much all 'big' bands do it now. At the end of the day it's each to his own. Some people love perfect, polished records and others love more raw, human-sounding records. [/quote] But gridiron editting isnt perfect, far from it, because it doesnt sound real. By the same notion there is nothing to stop a human performance being captured absolutely beautifully and rendered to a gorgeous and very polished sounding final mix/master. It is down to the wil lof the artist, and the vision of the producer in these caases. Nothing else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheddatom Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I record most rehearsals close-mic'd onto my computer. Only 8 tracks but more when I can. Normally I wouldn't edit this stuff, maybe just a couple of tweaks here and there. The sound I get is far better than if I was forced to mix on a desk with a couple of bits of outboard straight into a 2 track tape. There's nothing in a computer/DAW forcing you to edit everything until it's "sterile". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeystrange Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) [quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1349861530' post='1831334'] There is no direct correlation between using a digital system to record and sounding sterile. Thats just nonsense. However grid-iron production techniques (everything being laid on the grid exactly in time) does sound terrible. That isnt the fault of the fact things were recorded to a digital medium, thats a stylistic choice of the producer. I only ever track to digital, I never rely on a gridiron beat matching, preferring the sound of musicians squeezing time about to make something organic and full of life. Doesnt mean I wont edit the occasional timing error, or even tweak the tuning on a single note in an otherwise wonderful emotive take. Tape, 2" or otherwise, doesnt mean you have to get a take in one go either, I was dropping people in on the fly to fix a couple of notes in a track before anyone thought of digital recording on computers.... [/quote] Analogue recording can sound sterile, yes. Maybe I used the wrong word to describe what I meant. What I really meant was that it sounds like it cannot possibly be produced naturally by a human, because it can't. To me the grid-iron system just sounds lifeless. I think tracking to tape is a lot easier for everyone if it's done in one take, unless there's a gap somewhere to stop easily. Even the last Foo Fighters record had some bad punches in it. Edited October 10, 2012 by joeystrange Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51m0n Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Well that means Drastic Measures by Michael Manring must sound sterile then because it clearly cant have been played by a human being Oh no, hold on. it was though, and some of it was first take Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51m0n Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) I think applying the pressure of "This will be done in one take" makes things sound ten times worse, take twenty times longer and stress everyone out. Like anything there is a level of skill and due diligence required to perform drop ins really well to tape. On a DAW you can preprogram your drop in points with absolute accuracy, or just retake and then mix the takes after ward to ensure the join is seamless. The point is in order to capture an artist performing well the engineer and producer must remove the technology from the performance. The minute the artist is waiting for the engineer to catch up the moment is lost. Tape isnt conducive to this, IME, expecially because you are stuck with tricky drop ins rather than just banging out another take. However the beauty of a single take is the freedom of expression the artist has and the sense of performing the whole piece. Personally I like to get a couple of takes of a song down, then listen back very critically for any parts that are too far out to live with and rerecord those sections and mix them together later. If I lived in a perfect world that would never be necessary, but I would rather do that than force the singer to do fifty takes until I got the right one (which was probably take 3 anyway - most singers tire after 3 takes). Edited October 10, 2012 by 51m0n Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rapscallion Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) Jack White makes some very good points in 'It Might Get Loud' (doco on guitar on youtube), whilst technology indeed makes music easier, it destroys emotion in a song. It all makes me laugh while he's sat opposite the Edge and his forklift maneuvered rack setup [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uy3bs7zGez8[/media] Edited October 10, 2012 by rapscallion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeystrange Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 (edited) [quote name='51m0n' timestamp='1349862176' post='1831343'] Well that means Drastic Measures by Michael Manring must sound sterile then because it clearly cant have been played by a human being Oh no, hold on. it was though, and some of it was first take [/quote] That's what I said, unless it's way out it sounds perfect anyway. I meant that a human being cannot physically play [b]every single[/b] note [b]exactly[/b] on [b]every single[/b] beat. It's not possible. It's when it sounds too perfect that it doesn't sound human. Edited October 10, 2012 by joeystrange Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilbo Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Manring is s freak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle psychosis Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 [quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1349816324' post='1831024'] The studio is an instrument to be played just like any other. It's all subjective. One mans "groove" is another mans unacceptable timing imperfection. Also what's good enough for a live performance isn't always good enough for when you're going to be hearing it over and over again on a recording. Besides unless you are recording live direct to 2-track everything in the studio is fake to a degree, so quit being so precious and embrace the possibilities. [/quote] +1. Technology isn't the problem. People's use of technology is the problem. Better to have a great vocal track with a bum note that you can fix electronically than a mediocre but pitch-perfect take. Arguing that studio technology leads to decreased musicianship is like arguing that having frets on your bass leads to decreased musicianship. "Real bass players intonate by ear, these new fretted basses are for lazy untalented people..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51m0n Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 First and only take, single bass guitar, no overdubs, doesnt sound possible to me either:- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKIh_b9tdtE Something can sound perfect, in that it is absolutely spot on from start to finish, and be performed by a human. This is different from gridiron production, in that the human act of applying a groove/feel is there, and that groove/feel is manipulated throughout the performance to further the emotive response in the listener. Its still perfect playing, it just hasnt been rendered less emotive by the use of this production technique in order to get things in time at the expesne of expression. Analogue recording, is not what allows this to be captured, the choice of the recordist and producer are what allow this to be captured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51m0n Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 [quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1349862679' post='1831353'] Manring is s freak. [/quote] +1, but a lovely chap too, hd a nice chat with him when he played in London a couple of years ago, and he couldnt be more humble and genuine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.Dave Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Look - this one's really easy. Once upon a time there was some caveman type wanting to shift a big lump of rock from here to over there. He tried to lift it and it was too heavy so he thought 'f*** this for a game of soldiers' (probably in Greek) , went off and invented the wheel. He then proceeded to easily shift his lump of rock using his new wheels. Trouble is - he set his fags down on top of the rock and didn't miss them till he got back to where he started from so he had to go back and get them. Filled with joy at his recent invention he made another pair of wheels and nailed them to his feet thinking it'd be better. His mate piped up ' You dozy twat , you have a perfectly good pair of legs for that job'. The guy realised his mate was right. He could manage some things perfectly well but new technology helped him with others. Next time......... Scales and Modes explained using a tale about a lady boy , 2 milk bottles and a dog turd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilbo Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 [quote name='uncle psychosis' timestamp='1349862874' post='1831357'] "Real bass players intonate by ear, these new fretted basses are for lazy untalented people..." [/quote] That is, of course, entirely true and all fretted basses are just real basses with stabilsiers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheddatom Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I think that maybe the problem we're describing here is sometimes caused by young musicians themselves. Everyone now has a DAW on their laptop or a USB condensor mic, and they all fancy themselves as producers. One band I had in last year asked me if I had a plug in which could align all of the guitar "chuggs" with the kick drum. Apparently they'd seen it used on a documentary so wanted me to use it. The same band wanted to play to a click and quantize all the drums. Similarly another band asked me to use melodyne on all of the vocals. They didn't even want to listen to it without pitch correction. These bands were pretty much asking me to make them sound exactly like the other bands in their genre, and to force the sterility we're talking about on to their recordings. As an amateur engineer, i'd rather record a performance, then listen back and analyse it. Maybe it needs editing, or another take or whatever, but you don't know what you need until you listen to the performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fumps Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I think it depends on who you are & how you want to use the technoligy. I'm just finishing off my outdoor studio (Not as posh as it sounds) and will use some of the modern technoligy but I just want to make music & sometimes I will have to use it. but I will definatley not be enhancing or fabricating anything i'm planning on playing live. I will definately be playing the stuff accurately. It just depends on how you use the technoligy . thats my opinion anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalMan Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Technology is here to stay, but to nail a track is in many ways more satisfying. I still have a track we recorded years back on 8 track that was a bit fiddly in one of the fills at the end and was tracked as a band that ends, there is a short pause & then the drummer can be heard to shout "NAILED!" Still makes me chuckle & I have never bothered to cut it off the mix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 [quote name='joeystrange' timestamp='1349860478' post='1831318'] A friend of mine recently got fed up of this kind of thing and converted his studio to analogue. We recorded some b-sides for our last single there on 2" tape and had a lot more fun than recording to a computer. It demands a lot more of you than digital recording but somehow it's more relaxed having to play a full take faultlessly than it is when you're sat staring at a computer screen for most of the day watching different coloured blocks being moved exactly into time. Obviously the timing can never be 100% perfect, like you can make it on a computer, but IMO that's a lot of the reason that music sounds so sterile these days. When every single instrument is exactly on the beat it just doesn't sound human. Tape isn't perfect but unless you're way off the beat it's not noticeable. Records we fine like that for years anyway! [/quote] I know which studio you are talking about and I've recorded there and was very happy with the results. However the live recording space isn't big enough to comfortably record a live band in a single take, so we still had to track the instruments in separate takes which IMO looses some of the vibe that you get from going onto analogue tape. Also I'd forgotten how nerve-racking doing a drop-in on tape was compared with just recording another track on the DAW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thumperbob 2002 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I had a studio in the 80s- used an analogue Akai 14 track machine- 12 track analogue, two track SMPTE. Sounded great, though I must admit I hated all the sequenced work we had to do. I got into playing to play- not to deal with computer nerds ( I ended up being one ) But talking about cheating- had one band in and the bass player was a bit dodgy. The band knew I could play so asked me to do his part ( he wanted me to ). Couple of takes later it was done.They ended up getting loads of work in America from this demo. I like technology and the convenience of it but I still think there is no substitute for the human touch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
51m0n Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 You want to track a band truly live all at once, then there is a world of difference between a great job and a demo. Starts with the live space, its got to be easily big enough (which will look far bigger than you would think in most cases), and properly acoustically treated or it wont sound great. There must be seperation of the instruments, to a degree that is dependant upon the intended mix, but you cant really have a load of bass swamping the low end on everything, or have the singer in the same room really. It can be done, but boy have you got to get everything right on the way down to tape to be able to live with it come mix time. Typically guitar and bass amps are in their own seperate isolated spaces - difficult if the guitarist uses feedback alot (guess where he's going to be - yup in the isolated room with his rig, and to hell with his hearing, but he still needs line of sight to the band to be able feel the connection with them. The instruments must sound perfect in the room (whichever room they are in), from every mic that may be picking them up, and the playing has to be perfect too. Your going to be using upwards of 16 tracks to get down a drums, guitar, (probably guide) vocal, bass and keys like this - easily. Does this sound quick or cheap to anyone? Didnt think so.... Sounds like we have stepped out of the land of the demo somewhat to me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheddatom Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Si - this [url="http://soundcloud.com/kilta/sets"]http://soundcloud.com/kilta/sets[/url] was done live on about 14 channels, no acoustic treatment but a massive room. Obviously the lack of vocal helps a lot, but I reckon it sounds pretty good. Hopefully not what you'd refer to as a demo but i'll defer to your superior judgment [quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1349873089' post='1831565'] ...we still had to track the instruments in separate takes which IMO looses some of the vibe that you get from going onto analogue tape... [/quote] Surely the "vibe" you get from tape is all to do with the sound of recording to tape, rather than the performance going on to the tape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thumperbob 2002 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Sounds pretty good pal- very large indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigRedX Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 [quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1349876070' post='1831626'] Surely the "vibe" you get from tape is all to do with the sound of recording to tape, rather than the performance going on to the tape. [/quote] What I was trying to say was that we got a great recorded sound pretty much straight away, but the vibe of being able to play all together as a band was lost. As opposed to the single which was recorded live with just some vocal and guitar over-dubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheddatom Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 [quote name='thumperbob 2002' timestamp='1349876530' post='1831633'] Sounds pretty good pal- very large indeed. [/quote] ta, probably more to do with the unnavoidable massive reverb in that room. [quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1349879706' post='1831701'] What I was trying to say was that we got a great recorded sound pretty much straight away, but the vibe of being able to play all together as a band was lost. As opposed to the single which was recorded live with just some vocal and guitar over-dubs. [/quote] yeh, I see what you mean. What interests me is the effect of mic-bleed when doing live recording. Something about it seems to add to the sound in a good way. One of the songs on the new creepjoint album is recorded all live with loads of bleed, but it doesn't sound any less "professional" than the other songs on the album, and fits well. We just couldn't get the right feel by playing it seperately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.