Outdated Techniques

[stinkpot]

joel hamilton wrote:
"I can hear the sound of people trying to hold on to outdated techniques as a front for lack of fundamental recording skills."

This is from the auto-tune thread. Can we discuss this? In particular, the outdated techniques that Joel is refering too and the updated techniques that are replacing the old.

I don't want to be "that guy"...

[Marlowe]

Aphex Aural Exciters!

joel hamilton wrote:
"I can hear the sound of people trying to hold on to outdated techniques as a front for lack of fundamental recording skills."

This is from the auto-tune thread. Can we discuss this? In particular, the outdated techniques that Joel is refering too and the updated techniques that are replacing the old.

I don't want to be "that guy"...

[Red Rockets Glare]

hmmm, well I used to put gates on tom-tom drums, now I just delete the PT file parts that do not contain the impact or decay.

[joel hamilton]

That was a part of a rant....

I was really just thinking of how people seem to glorify EVERYTHING old, even the stuff that doesnt sound good. Also when people that have a lack of experience CANT make a good "modern" sounding record and they seem to try and validate their recordings by claiming some unhealthy attachment to recordings with no top or bottom... Like if you only wind up with an "okay" mix, but then you claim it was a totally awesome aesthetic decision based on a very informed position.

Like we cant tell it was out of a lack of skills....

Or when people desparately cling to some approach like the old "the beatles used four tracks!!!" Again: validating a lack of equipment because of insecurity. No validation is needed for having a four track, yt when someone hauls out some full blown court case worth of examples, it makes me hate the four track and them.. (not really hate them, but yo know what i am saying)

Or how about out and out dissing of autotune, or digital recording at large, or synthesizers?

Is the future staring some people in the face and they get freaked out by it? Does a comment by a client (not an engineer) freak you out to the point that you HATE autotune? Why does this not happen when someone asks about a compressor on the snare? Should we do take upon take until everyone is so beat that they couldnt do ANYTHING good, let alone be creative!?!? Should we "accept" that some compression on the snare will help us bring the performance to the people with ever nuance hanging perfectly in the mix?

I dunno about "outdated," but Hearing people diss technology is kind of like hearing a parent diss punk rock, or some other "kids these days" bullshit. Hate the way autotune is being used? dont use it! Or show us how WELL it CAN be used!

If you hate compression "these days" the way it is used in mastering/mixing... DO IT YOUR WAY and show how amazing a record can be WITHOUT this stuff!

I love all the tools available to me and i use them to the best of my ability to make a great record. Why would anyone cling to a "retro" or [gag] "purist" approach to validate the methods used... I dunno why... Please tell me.

I just have yet to meet someone that is not hauling out "the good old days" as a crutch or positional facade to hide a lack of recording knowledge.

It would be like saying: " man, knives are bad! My pal tried to use one, and totally fucked up his had terribly. Screw that. i will never touch one of those."

We all know that used properly, a knife can be just fine, and realtively safe...

[joel hamilton]

[Gasp] AND FURTHERMORE

I think all of this depends on what you are willing to embrace as the "product" of your labours.

If what you are looking for sounds like stuff that used autotune and beat detective: Good luck getting humans to make a noise like that. Something THAT "perfect."

I have to mix stuff where the band wants it to sound like [name thing with autotune and beat detective here] but with my creative input and take on that style of music. I have to decide whether I try and play some BS (IMO) "purist" card and say I "refuse" to use those tools? Fuck that. that would be so lame of me. Who am I to NOT use these things?

Sometimes i have to do a project with band wants the product to sound like [name of thing with no autotune and beat detective here] and i can take a totally organic approach.

If I took the opposite approach to either project: I, personally am the asshole: not the tools themselves.

AND:

try pitch dctor by wave mechanics. it is what i use for pitch correction. you cant hear it when used properly. it incurs a HUGE processing delay, but reports the delay and you have to manually correct for it by slipping the track. It works AMAZINGly well.

[JGriffin]

excellent posts, Joel. I agree completely.

[joeysimms]

There's nothing about a well-made peanut butter and jelly sandwich to be ashamed of, it's every bit as good as any other gourmet cooking. I have only found a few engineers in my lifetime that are not so ego-driven as to not understand this in their hearts.

[chris harris]

I think that there are many cases (often illustrated on these and other forums) where it's not so much an indicator of a lack of understanding of modern techniques as an outright refusal to even consider acquiring those skills. Most times, it seems that many of these engineers feel some kind of obligation to preserve musicianship. I think that this is just as bad.
I don't feel that it's my responsibility to ensure that only quality musicians end up with a quality product. If I can help a band make a great recording, I don't really give a fuck if they can pull the songs off live.

If you get into a session with a band that can't pull it off without the use of edits/autotune/comps/etc, and you can't help them to make a good record anyway (whether it's your "ethics" or lack of skills or lack of gear), then it's your fault for getting into a session with them in the first place. I generally know the level of musicianship of artists I'm dealing with before they load in and warm up.

If you just can't stand dealing with less than brilliant musicianship, turn down the session and let them find someone who can help them make a good record. Don't try to "teach 'em a lesson" about practice and musicianship through a long, tense session.

I'm not suggesting that you don't try to get the best performance you can out of a client. But, sending them home with a recording that they can be proud of and a fun, rewarding experience is what I do for a living. Nobody pays me to be the guardian of musicianship.

Hell, I get frustrated when a client wants to "take it from the top" nineteen times, instead of punching in a couple of times and being done with it. It's as if some musicians believe that there's some kind of old-school glory in playing it all the way through in "one take" even if it takes nineteen trys to do it in "one take".

[jeddypoo]

I think most popular music recordings of the past 15 years, in an engineering and production sense, have been incredibly dull-sounding. To the point where it ruins my ability to enjoy the music. And as far as I can tell, it seems to be in direct proportion to the technology available to the artist/producer a lot of the time. I don't think it's matter of tape vs. hd, I think it's a matter of people making "documents of bands" as opposed to "records". I prefer the latter, personally.

Not totally on topic, but that's as close as I will get to commenting on this.

[Red Rockets Glare]

I hear folks complain a lot about the over-compressed, too-slick, auto tuned shit they hear on the radio, and yet when they are there on the front lines of music, they just want to give the client a sweet little cartoon of what they can sound like with some airbrushing, wheeeee! Let's all have fun in the studio!
Put the Eddie VanHalen Plug in on me! Yipeee!
But when the day is over, whom is the guardian of musicianship?

[chris harris]

when they are there on the front lines of music, they just want to give the client a sweet little cartoon of what they can sound like with some airbrushing, wheeeee!

I want to give the clients what they hire me to give them. I've never been asked by a client to provied attitude or condescension.

there IS NO guardian of musicianship. and, with they myriad of different tastes out there, it's pretty damned arrogant to think that you could be.

I like, and frequently enjoy, records by bands that suck live and aren't really great musicians.

[Red Rockets Glare]

when they are there on the front lines of music, they just want to give the client a sweet little cartoon of what they can sound like with some airbrushing, wheeeee!

I want to give the clients what they hire me to give them. I've never been asked by a client to provied attitude or condescension.

there IS NO guardian of musicianship. and, with they myriad of different tastes out there, it's pretty damned arrogant to think that you could be.

I like, and frequently enjoy, records by bands that suck live and aren't really great musicians.

Didn't say I was going to be the guardian, but we sure could use one dont'cha think?

I am pretty arrogant in my studio, but hey, it's my studio, I built it and run it how I like. That was part of the reason I decided to start learning about engineering, because I hate how most folks make records and was in band after band that let really poor excuses for engineers record us. I never provide attitude or condescension, only support and alternatives.

What are some of the bands you like that suck live?

we're all still smiling right?

[chris harris]

Didn't say I was going to be the guardian, but we sure could use one dont'cha think?

meh.. I don't think so. I still hear records I like all the time. And, I still see good live shows all the time. I just don't believe that just because major labels put out a steady stream of crap, that "music" itself is in trouble.

I've bought less than a dozen major label records since I got my TapeOp subscription about five year ago. I still manage to find new music that keeps me inspired all the time.

I am pretty arrogant in my studio, but hey, it's my studio, I built it and run it how I like. That was part of the reason I decided to start learning about engineering, because I hate how most folks make records and was in band after band that let really poor excuses for engineers record us. I never provide attitude or condescension, only support and alternatives.

that's really cool that you're DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT! But, we should all be careful about getting down on someone who is providing clients what they want, just because it's not what we want to hear. There seems to be a lot of resentment these days about "accessibility". It's just a fact of life now. A whole lot more people have the ability to make a decent record these days. I may not like all of them. But, I don't know how we're to decide WHO gets to make the call about whether someone is "good enough" to be recording.
As an engineer, I take quite a bit of pride in taking someone who may have some great ideas, and cool songs, but not necessarily the best chops, and making it possible for them to get good recordings of those cool songs.

What are some of the bands you like that suck live?

most of the bands that I'm really into are indie-type bands who are very recording and production oriented. some of them aren't necessarily incredible musicians. and, since many of those types of people frequent those forums, I'd hesitate to point out which ones that I think "suck live" in a public forum.

we're all still smiling right?

of course!

[joeysimms]

I think most popular music recordings of the past 15 years, in an engineering and production sense, have been incredibly dull-sounding. To the point where it ruins my ability to enjoy the music. And as far as I can tell, it seems to be in direct proportion to the technology available to the artist/producer a lot of the time. I don't think it's matter of tape vs. hd, I think it's a matter of people making "documents of bands" as opposed to "records". I prefer the latter, personally.

Not totally on topic, but that's as close as I will get to commenting on this.

I love this post.

[chris harris]

well... the operative phrase there is "popular music" recordings.

and, I totally disagree with the "direct proportion to the technology available" part. That's just BS. There are plenty of fantastic sounding records that have come out in the past 15 years that made use of plenty of modern technology... just maybe not on major labels.

I think that some of these arguments are valid when applied to major label recordings. But, you also have to factor in taste. I don't like that crap. But, there are millions and millions of people who like it enough to buy those records that sound shitty to me.