So my band is attempting to record a full-length in the very near future, and we're in the process of choosing an engineer. It is a very serious choice for us at this point in our career, as you all can imagine.
So I come to the trusty TOMB looking for advice.
Our current plan is as follows:
Record drums, bass, guitar 11 longish songs - 2-3 days in "real" studio.
Record vocals, rhodes keyboard, piano, percussion, electronic elements - 2-3 weeks, at homes.
Mix - 2 days in real studio.
I'll be covering the middle part, but we need someone or some ones for the first and last step.
This person will decide the basic tone of our tracks. We've been obsessively noting those involved with our favorite albums of the last 10-20 years and have come up with a pretty substantial list, but I figure there's got to be some stuff we're forgetting about.
Does anyone have any input in this decision? Factors I may not be thinking about? Words of encouragement? naysaying? Curses?
I'd love to hear it!
Eric
Picking an engineer
Picking an engineer
Others say he could have been motivated by fear, anger or desire to breed.
-
knobtwirler
- suffering 'studio suck'
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:18 pm
- Location: NYC
Wow, 11 longish songs, basic tracks cut in 3 days, mixed in 2 days...I record and mix bands, and I have my own band. I don't think that's a realistic timeframe. Also, whoever is involved will have to be involved in serious preproduction time with the band to make sure everything goes smoothly in the "real" studio. However, I'm sure you've done the math, so how long are the studio days gonna be and how much time will be alotted for each song? Do you have the studio chosen already? If not, that's a lot of planning there to fit your band into a studio to get the right sounds for drums and guitars. Do you have rehearsal tapes or demo tapes to familiarize the engineer with your sound regardless of your favorite records' tones? Plan everything well and the engineer will have an easier time so your record will come out sounding better.
Yeah,
I was waiting for someone to make this point.
I should mention the fact that though we will record 11 songs probably only 7-8 will get mixed.
But beyond that, there's an interesting problem.
We want to hire someone really awesome, but can't afford to take much time with said person. If we hire someone cheaper, we'll have tons of time.
Which is better?????
I'm also an engineer and we've been making really great demos of these songs... we're really heavy on the preproduction angle. We're well-rehearsed and still have like two months before our projected tracking date.
I suppose the biggest danger is that the date comes and we're not feeling it that day. then we're screwed. Aside from that, I feel like we're not being totally unrealistic.
As far as mixing, we're planning on having it edited really tight before it touches a mixing console.
All these things will save us time... but am I deluding myself?
eric
I was waiting for someone to make this point.
I should mention the fact that though we will record 11 songs probably only 7-8 will get mixed.
But beyond that, there's an interesting problem.
We want to hire someone really awesome, but can't afford to take much time with said person. If we hire someone cheaper, we'll have tons of time.
Which is better?????
I'm also an engineer and we've been making really great demos of these songs... we're really heavy on the preproduction angle. We're well-rehearsed and still have like two months before our projected tracking date.
I suppose the biggest danger is that the date comes and we're not feeling it that day. then we're screwed. Aside from that, I feel like we're not being totally unrealistic.
As far as mixing, we're planning on having it edited really tight before it touches a mixing console.
All these things will save us time... but am I deluding myself?
eric
Others say he could have been motivated by fear, anger or desire to breed.
-
cgarges
- zen recordist
- Posts: 10890
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 1:26 am
- Location: Charlotte, NC
- Contact:
I say find a few people who are used to working efficiently enough to accomplish what you want. (For instance, someone who won't scoff at trying to get basics for 11 songs done in three days.) Then, talk to some people who have worked with those people and decide who you think will suit you personality-wise. Then, talk to those people and decide who has the best set of circumstances for you particular situation. (Affordability, location, etc.) That ought to be able to give you enough to make a well-informed choice and accomplish your goals.
Hope this helps.
Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC
Hope this helps.
Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC
-
Professor
- ghost haunting audio students
- Posts: 3307
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 2:11 pm
- Location: I have arrived... but where the hell am I?
So the option with which you're faced is to hire an incredible engineer for a couple days and hope you and s/he can squeeze all that awesomeness into your tracks in a couple of days, or to hire someone less well known at a rate that allows more time so you can potentially develop and find your way towards awesomeness over a more relaxed time frame. Then either way, you guys are planning on a large overdub/edit/prep phase to be done at home. And then you will repeat the process of either getting the amazing/wonderful/famous person to mix 7-8 songs in a couple days, or perhaps someone less famous/wonderful/etc. who might explore the mix with you over a longer span of time.
(Incidentally, I think it's interesting that bass would happen in the "real" studio while piano & Rhodes would happen at home. I mean bass should happen with drums, but I'd have figured the piano & Rhodes in a studio.)
I could see an engineer being comfortable with throwing down basics in a few days like that, and I'd certainly be much more happy trying to do that in a hurry than trying to mix in a hurry. I'd see the engineer's role in the blazing fast session being more of a 'documentarian' than a 'creative collaborator', which seems like a waste if s/he is really that amazing, but it may be all you guys are looking for. Some bands just want to be documented in their greatness and don't feel they need a 'fifth Beatle'.
Still, the whole thing seems kinda like making a road trip from NYC to LA. And you're choosing between renting a Ferrari and having Mario Andretti get you there in three days, or renting something like an Excursion and spending two weeks meandering the country side and finding your way west.
Both ways get you there.
And both would be their own particular kind of adventure.
But one will be taking a great master and hoping it all works out in time, while the other would be a journey you and the driver would embark on together... finding new routes and creating along the way. Maybe you get stuck at the Grand Canyon, maybe you get lucky in Vegas, but at least you had the opportunity to try.
There's a little quote I remember from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance that I never really expected to be quoting on the TOMB but here goes...
"To live only for some future goal is shallow. It's the sides of the mountain which sustain life, not the top."
Of course he does go on to say that the top is necessary to define the sides, so I'm curious about a few things:
Where are you guys and what's your genre? (mostly just for curiosity)
Is this a label project? (as in are they fronting the money and giving a deadline)
Is there some kind of deadline you need to meet whether for a contract or to have it done before the summer tour or whatever?
In case you couldn't tell, I would lean towards encouraging you to try the slower approach, even if it means you don't get that famous engineer that recorded Blankity-Blank. I think you would find the sessions more relaxing which can mean a better performance for you and the engineer. And I think you'd find there is room to create and discover sounds within the studio. Even when you have everything tremendously well rehearsed and down cold and can't imagine something changing, some dopey engineer might suggest taking the whole song down about 20-BPM and you might spend a whole afternoon creating some entirely new texture for a song that you never new was hiding just below the surface. And while the Wunder-neer might well have suggested the same thing, the stress of the clock might have kept it from happening.
But that's just my take on it. I don't like high-stress sessions.
-Jeremy
(Incidentally, I think it's interesting that bass would happen in the "real" studio while piano & Rhodes would happen at home. I mean bass should happen with drums, but I'd have figured the piano & Rhodes in a studio.)
I could see an engineer being comfortable with throwing down basics in a few days like that, and I'd certainly be much more happy trying to do that in a hurry than trying to mix in a hurry. I'd see the engineer's role in the blazing fast session being more of a 'documentarian' than a 'creative collaborator', which seems like a waste if s/he is really that amazing, but it may be all you guys are looking for. Some bands just want to be documented in their greatness and don't feel they need a 'fifth Beatle'.
Still, the whole thing seems kinda like making a road trip from NYC to LA. And you're choosing between renting a Ferrari and having Mario Andretti get you there in three days, or renting something like an Excursion and spending two weeks meandering the country side and finding your way west.
Both ways get you there.
And both would be their own particular kind of adventure.
But one will be taking a great master and hoping it all works out in time, while the other would be a journey you and the driver would embark on together... finding new routes and creating along the way. Maybe you get stuck at the Grand Canyon, maybe you get lucky in Vegas, but at least you had the opportunity to try.
There's a little quote I remember from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance that I never really expected to be quoting on the TOMB but here goes...
"To live only for some future goal is shallow. It's the sides of the mountain which sustain life, not the top."
Of course he does go on to say that the top is necessary to define the sides, so I'm curious about a few things:
Where are you guys and what's your genre? (mostly just for curiosity)
Is this a label project? (as in are they fronting the money and giving a deadline)
Is there some kind of deadline you need to meet whether for a contract or to have it done before the summer tour or whatever?
In case you couldn't tell, I would lean towards encouraging you to try the slower approach, even if it means you don't get that famous engineer that recorded Blankity-Blank. I think you would find the sessions more relaxing which can mean a better performance for you and the engineer. And I think you'd find there is room to create and discover sounds within the studio. Even when you have everything tremendously well rehearsed and down cold and can't imagine something changing, some dopey engineer might suggest taking the whole song down about 20-BPM and you might spend a whole afternoon creating some entirely new texture for a song that you never new was hiding just below the surface. And while the Wunder-neer might well have suggested the same thing, the stress of the clock might have kept it from happening.
But that's just my take on it. I don't like high-stress sessions.
-Jeremy
-
knobtwirler
- suffering 'studio suck'
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:18 pm
- Location: NYC
If you're well rehearsed(no ambiguous tempos, last minute guitar tone decisions, fully committed to the drum beat, etc...) then I'd say you could do basics for all 11 songs on one day if you have the stamina. It just never really works out that way in the real world, so I was being skeptical(but when you say you hope you will be feeling it that day, I guess that is some esoteric band mood thing? Don't let that kind of stuff creep into your psyches). I've been in with bands that say they've been rehearsed and it took over 25 takes of a 5 minute song to get it right, and then months later it actually wasn't right. I'll assume you're telling the truth, and remember like Professor said, something might change that you can't foretell until you get in the studio and you realize what is actually happening, or some problems may arise in the studio that slow everything down. Instead of an Excursion I'd prefer taking the slower approach in a Maybach so you can step on the gas with confidence when needed ans still be comfortable. There are plenty of great engineers out there that are willing to work out your budget who are fantastic. Lastly, I hope you guys don't get demoitis during the mixing.RuudUnit wrote: We're well-rehearsed and still have like two months before our projected tracking date.
I suppose the biggest danger is that the date comes and we're not feeling it that day. then we're screwed. Aside from that, I feel like we're not being totally unrealistic.eric
wow, first of all thank you all for your thoughtful responses. So cool that people will offer free advice to someone they don't know.... and thanks in advance for reading this beast of a post.
If I can distill some of the points here:
1) A rushed session means increased stress
2) A rushed session means an engineer who performs great feats won't have time to do what they do best.
3) A rushed session means no time for experimentation and will thusly prevent sonic/musical epiphanies in regards to arrangement, tempo, instrument tones, etc.
4) A rushed session will place undue emphasis on the product at the expense of the process thereby preventing band members from achieving enlightenment.
5) A rushed session means no room for error, which means that more than likely when (not if) errors occur they will not be correctable.
I agree with all of the above for the most part.
In our case, they are all applicable to some extent.
However, a lot of the pros you all suggest for taking one's time have a lot more to do with production than engineering. Narrowly defined, the engineer's job is to make sure the sounds that get to tape/disk are the best possible. Best could mean a lot of different things. For some it is distortion-free, for others it is having a certain kind of distortion (tape, tube, etc.), having the right frequency balance, right amount/kind of ambience, imaging, dynamics, and a million other factors....
Granted, often in the tape op world (and beyond) people take on producer/slash engineer status on the records they make, and an engineer never has absolutely zero influence on how a song gets played. Often the simplest/best solution for an engineer is to ask the performer to play something slightly differently. But we're definitely not looking for that "5th beatle."
Our project is currently without a label, but we're looking to get picked up. (THIS IS A WHOLE OTHER ISSUE!)
It's marketable and in my humble opinion very good music. Could be compared to Dirty Three, Blonde Redhead, King Crimson, Unwound, The Shins, Hella, The Bad Plus (man I'd love to have tchad blake, but I fear this is just a bit too much too ask), Radiohead, Cream, Persian music.... but overall it's kind of its own thing.
I'm still sort of figuring out exactly what's driving our decisions...but here's the basic reasoning.
1) I can't tell you how many people have said to me recently, in regards to engineers, "you get what you pay for." There is absolutely no substitute for experience. I know, partly because in my naivete I have sort of fucked up some of my past projects. At the very least these projects took far too long (only about 20% of that was the bands' fault). If we're going to pay someone to be the steward of our electronic representation, we'd better be able to trust them. It's not just about trusting them with money, either. It's not having to worry about the work on our end being for naught.
2) Engineers have a sound. There are certain exceptions to this rule, and you are free to argue it, but in our searching we've been doing a lot of side by side comparisons... and it's pretty clear. Certain engineers always seem to have a super-saturated low end, certain engineers always have a tape breakup on the guitar, certain engineers always have things right in your face, others seem to have very nuanced spatial sound. All of the sonic qualities I mentioned above come into question here, and more often than not an engineer has certain tastes and hears sound a certain way. If we're entrusting someone with our debut full-length, then we better have a good idea how they hear before we go into it. Every choice they make (mics, placement, preamps, compressors, level to tape... if we go to tape) will be based on how they hear sound and we can't possibly micromanage this. As far as I know, the only way to tell this ahead of time is to listen to their past work. People can talk in their crazy sonic adjectives all day and not even know how to use an EQ.
3) I sort of feel like we're getting the best of both worlds by taking it home to work on it ourselves after recording basics with a highly competent engineer. This would be one thing if we had just gone out and bought a DAW because we decided we'd like to get into it and we thought "hey that can't be that hard, right?"... but our sometimes collaborator on the rhodes and I are both experienced engineers with great mics and preamps. I have a portable rig to record any piano, including the steinway at my work. THIS is where all this exploration comes into the picture.
We really need someone who can give us the sonic foundation to build on though. We need to be in the best possible mindset when we do it, and it certainly wouldn't hurt us to have someone with a great discography listed in our credits.
What am I not mentioning?
-----------------------------
In terms of mixing, you have convinced me that my initial plan is probably unrealistic. It's important to have some time to rest and reset and try different approaches, especially after making such a huge investment already. However, I still think there's something to be said for an experienced engineer who has great instincts who will probably nail it on the first iteration.
Anyway, my fingers are out of breath. I'd love to hear your responses.
Eric
If I can distill some of the points here:
1) A rushed session means increased stress
2) A rushed session means an engineer who performs great feats won't have time to do what they do best.
3) A rushed session means no time for experimentation and will thusly prevent sonic/musical epiphanies in regards to arrangement, tempo, instrument tones, etc.
4) A rushed session will place undue emphasis on the product at the expense of the process thereby preventing band members from achieving enlightenment.
5) A rushed session means no room for error, which means that more than likely when (not if) errors occur they will not be correctable.
I agree with all of the above for the most part.
In our case, they are all applicable to some extent.
However, a lot of the pros you all suggest for taking one's time have a lot more to do with production than engineering. Narrowly defined, the engineer's job is to make sure the sounds that get to tape/disk are the best possible. Best could mean a lot of different things. For some it is distortion-free, for others it is having a certain kind of distortion (tape, tube, etc.), having the right frequency balance, right amount/kind of ambience, imaging, dynamics, and a million other factors....
Granted, often in the tape op world (and beyond) people take on producer/slash engineer status on the records they make, and an engineer never has absolutely zero influence on how a song gets played. Often the simplest/best solution for an engineer is to ask the performer to play something slightly differently. But we're definitely not looking for that "5th beatle."
Our project is currently without a label, but we're looking to get picked up. (THIS IS A WHOLE OTHER ISSUE!)
It's marketable and in my humble opinion very good music. Could be compared to Dirty Three, Blonde Redhead, King Crimson, Unwound, The Shins, Hella, The Bad Plus (man I'd love to have tchad blake, but I fear this is just a bit too much too ask), Radiohead, Cream, Persian music.... but overall it's kind of its own thing.
I'm still sort of figuring out exactly what's driving our decisions...but here's the basic reasoning.
1) I can't tell you how many people have said to me recently, in regards to engineers, "you get what you pay for." There is absolutely no substitute for experience. I know, partly because in my naivete I have sort of fucked up some of my past projects. At the very least these projects took far too long (only about 20% of that was the bands' fault). If we're going to pay someone to be the steward of our electronic representation, we'd better be able to trust them. It's not just about trusting them with money, either. It's not having to worry about the work on our end being for naught.
2) Engineers have a sound. There are certain exceptions to this rule, and you are free to argue it, but in our searching we've been doing a lot of side by side comparisons... and it's pretty clear. Certain engineers always seem to have a super-saturated low end, certain engineers always have a tape breakup on the guitar, certain engineers always have things right in your face, others seem to have very nuanced spatial sound. All of the sonic qualities I mentioned above come into question here, and more often than not an engineer has certain tastes and hears sound a certain way. If we're entrusting someone with our debut full-length, then we better have a good idea how they hear before we go into it. Every choice they make (mics, placement, preamps, compressors, level to tape... if we go to tape) will be based on how they hear sound and we can't possibly micromanage this. As far as I know, the only way to tell this ahead of time is to listen to their past work. People can talk in their crazy sonic adjectives all day and not even know how to use an EQ.
3) I sort of feel like we're getting the best of both worlds by taking it home to work on it ourselves after recording basics with a highly competent engineer. This would be one thing if we had just gone out and bought a DAW because we decided we'd like to get into it and we thought "hey that can't be that hard, right?"... but our sometimes collaborator on the rhodes and I are both experienced engineers with great mics and preamps. I have a portable rig to record any piano, including the steinway at my work. THIS is where all this exploration comes into the picture.
We really need someone who can give us the sonic foundation to build on though. We need to be in the best possible mindset when we do it, and it certainly wouldn't hurt us to have someone with a great discography listed in our credits.
What am I not mentioning?
-----------------------------
In terms of mixing, you have convinced me that my initial plan is probably unrealistic. It's important to have some time to rest and reset and try different approaches, especially after making such a huge investment already. However, I still think there's something to be said for an experienced engineer who has great instincts who will probably nail it on the first iteration.
Anyway, my fingers are out of breath. I'd love to hear your responses.
Eric
Others say he could have been motivated by fear, anger or desire to breed.
-
TheStevens
- pushin' record
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 9:19 pm
- Location: Chicago
Well then it's not really a humble opinion, is it?RuudUnit wrote: It's marketable and in my humble opinion very good music.
Anyway, that sounds really interesting, and I'm definitely looking forward to hearing the results. Good luck with it however you go about it, and I suppose hiring a more expensive engineer might not be such a bad idea, since you're taking over the "middle chunk" with a more relaxed timeframe. then again, your basic tracks and mixing are definitely crucial, and i wouldn't rush them at all. that's just my "humble" opinion.
-Steve
-
cgarges
- zen recordist
- Posts: 10890
- Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2003 1:26 am
- Location: Charlotte, NC
- Contact:
While I agree with most of these, I don't think that five or six days of studio time automatically means a "rushed" session.RuudUnit wrote:1) A rushed session means increased stress
2) A rushed session means an engineer who performs great feats won't have time to do what they do best.
3) A rushed session means no time for experimentation and will thusly prevent sonic/musical epiphanies in regards to arrangement, tempo, instrument tones, etc.
4) A rushed session will place undue emphasis on the product at the expense of the process thereby preventing band members from achieving enlightenment.
5) A rushed session means no room for error, which means that more than likely when (not if) errors occur they will not be correctable.
Examples that immediately come to mind:
The first Beatles album.
Aretha Franklin's "Respect"
Pretty much anything recorded by Rudy Van Gelder.
John Coltrane made two of the best albums of his life on the same day.
The story as it's been told to me by people involved was that James Brown's band got off the bus, walked into Arthur Smith Studios, played "Papa's Got A Brand New Bag," and got back on the bus in 45 minutes.
Don't freak out over your record getting done quicker than Kid A.
As far as your specific points, I can offer these thoughts (and I'm partially playing Devil's advocate here):
1) I just covered my thoughts about number 1.
2) There are some engineers who excel at working quicky. Funny that you mention Tchad Blake, as he is one of them.
3) Under the cirucmstances, I think a record that represents the band as the band is a perfectly noble thing to strive for. If something unexpected happens, awesome. If not, you made a record under the same circumstances as most music recorded thus far.
4) I think the enlightenment that comes from having your shit together well-enough to knock out a good record in a few days can be pretty fucking rewarding, but that's just me.
5) If you work with someone good in a good working enviroment, there's generally far less error, period. Again, five days is a luxury to some people.
Frankly, it sounds like the kind of band I might enjoy. I'd much rather hear a good recording of a band like that playing well than one that's frought with "cool studioness" at the expense of the playing. There's enough of that out there already.
Find a person and a working environment that come highly recommended and will most likely be comfortable for you. If you feel good about that person and what they offer and they're on the page with what you want to accomplish, it should be a no-brainer for you to make a great record.
Chris Garges
Charlotte, NC
-
knobtwirler
- suffering 'studio suck'
- Posts: 464
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:18 pm
- Location: NYC
I don't have much more to offer after all that was said and so many great points and views have been expressed, but I love to listen to a record that I know was done quickly and at least the rhythm section was done simultaneously, no matter what kind of music it is, so I'd look forward to hearing it! To comment on finding an engineer it sounds like you should really really try to get Tchad Blake. You and your band sound like your are intune with the sound of your music on such a nuanced level that you want and need both a name that would lend recognition to your music and a studio environment that wouldn't make a no-name engineer uncomfortable when you try to force him to be Tchad Blake(hahaha). Good Luck!
-
@?,*???&?
- on a wing and a prayer
- Posts: 5804
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 4:36 pm
- Location: Just left on the FM dial
- Contact:
The basic tracks should be a snap in that tracking timeframe. I usually count on 3 hours per song with any band I produce. Don't forget to leave time at the end of tracking for back-up as that does take several hours. If your days are around 14 hours each at the front side, you should be able to achieve this.
Overdubbing at home is the way to go. Affords much extra time.
Mixing 11 songs in 2 days is a deficient amount of time. Most great mixes can be had within 6 hours times. I'd plan on spending 4 to 6 hours per song to mix and I think you'll be happier with the result.
As for the real studio mix, are you going to be working on an SSL or some other equivalent with regard to automation?
If you get your tracks in a .wav file format, shoot a song my way and I'll give you a sample mix. Where are you guys located?
Overdubbing at home is the way to go. Affords much extra time.
Mixing 11 songs in 2 days is a deficient amount of time. Most great mixes can be had within 6 hours times. I'd plan on spending 4 to 6 hours per song to mix and I think you'll be happier with the result.
As for the real studio mix, are you going to be working on an SSL or some other equivalent with regard to automation?
If you get your tracks in a .wav file format, shoot a song my way and I'll give you a sample mix. Where are you guys located?
-
soundguy
- ghost haunting audio students
- Posts: 3182
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
I would consider tracking vocals in the studio, not at home, not unless you have an excellent sounding room, an excellent mic and signal path and really know how to track vocals. Next to an amazing drum sound, Id be thinking about an amazing vocal sound, do the guitars at home or something...
One thing that nobody has really touched on is the human experience here. If you go into the studio to record in two days I really dont think its gonna matter much who you hire. They are not going to get to know you, you are not going to get to know them and everything the band and the engineer does on a limited schedule has less to do with style than it does with just making the days and getting the shit done. If you hire a good engineer and you do your rehearsels, you should get goood results but I wouldnt expect to see a wall of style come out of the experience. Many of the engineers I consider to be "good" have made an impression on me based on their style and interaction with the band and that just doesnt happen in a few days unless you have worked together a bunch in the past. For a job like that, it really doesnt matter who you hire at all, so long as they are competent. There are a million engineers who can make a recording and keep you on schedule, dont kill yourself trying to figure out who is "best" when you wont have any time to grow together into the project in the first place.
gear doesnt make records, people do. People are human, humans are social. Dont overlook this aspect to your recording, I feel its way more relevant when it comes to getting the right vibe on a record than whatever you plug into.
dave
One thing that nobody has really touched on is the human experience here. If you go into the studio to record in two days I really dont think its gonna matter much who you hire. They are not going to get to know you, you are not going to get to know them and everything the band and the engineer does on a limited schedule has less to do with style than it does with just making the days and getting the shit done. If you hire a good engineer and you do your rehearsels, you should get goood results but I wouldnt expect to see a wall of style come out of the experience. Many of the engineers I consider to be "good" have made an impression on me based on their style and interaction with the band and that just doesnt happen in a few days unless you have worked together a bunch in the past. For a job like that, it really doesnt matter who you hire at all, so long as they are competent. There are a million engineers who can make a recording and keep you on schedule, dont kill yourself trying to figure out who is "best" when you wont have any time to grow together into the project in the first place.
gear doesnt make records, people do. People are human, humans are social. Dont overlook this aspect to your recording, I feel its way more relevant when it comes to getting the right vibe on a record than whatever you plug into.
dave
http://www.glideonfade.com
one hundred percent discrete transistor recording with style and care.
one hundred percent discrete transistor recording with style and care.
I'd suggest that you narrow your search to those who are genuinely available and interested, given your time frame, your budget, your location, and your music.
Then meet a few actual candidates, or at least speak on the phone, and see who seems to 'get" you and who you get on with. (in THAT order, i might stress)
I'd also suggest that you make this decision sooner rather than later and consult with the engineer you end up hiring as regards studio choices, scheduling, how you should approach the overdubs you'll do on your own, and so on.
I also think that you, with all due respect, should not think you know TOO much about an engineer's "sound" based on the records you know and like... and spend more time looking for someone who is available to you and just GOOD.
The record ultimately will sound more like the BAND and the producer (which I take it is also you) taste than the engineer.
listen to The Outfield and then to Dinosaur Jr. and tell me what John Agnello "sounds like".
lastly, I think that you should be careful about what you spend and what you hope to get out of this and be realistic.
Part of the deal with a good engineer si that he really captures what you are doing... be certain you're READY to spend more money on this project and at this time, and that the result will be worth it to you.
Then meet a few actual candidates, or at least speak on the phone, and see who seems to 'get" you and who you get on with. (in THAT order, i might stress)
I'd also suggest that you make this decision sooner rather than later and consult with the engineer you end up hiring as regards studio choices, scheduling, how you should approach the overdubs you'll do on your own, and so on.
I also think that you, with all due respect, should not think you know TOO much about an engineer's "sound" based on the records you know and like... and spend more time looking for someone who is available to you and just GOOD.
The record ultimately will sound more like the BAND and the producer (which I take it is also you) taste than the engineer.
listen to The Outfield and then to Dinosaur Jr. and tell me what John Agnello "sounds like".
lastly, I think that you should be careful about what you spend and what you hope to get out of this and be realistic.
Part of the deal with a good engineer si that he really captures what you are doing... be certain you're READY to spend more money on this project and at this time, and that the result will be worth it to you.
William Wittman
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, Hooters, The Outfield...)
Producer/Engineer
(Cyndi Lauper, Joan Osborne, The Fixx, Hooters, The Outfield...)
Very astute Mr. Whitman...
I've been having some conversations with some of the more well-known folks on our list (no we have't decided yet...) and to be honest it gives me the willies a little bit. The biggest factor is money. If we wanna work with some of these people, they're asking for weeks, which works out in the 10,000 range (way over budget).
But the other factor is our own readiness. I have a lot of faith in my band, but in some ways it feels like its something for which we're uprepared. Like we need to pay our dues a bit more. Hard to explain....
I guess in a sense I'm wary of working with a producer/engineer who is vastly more well-known than we are. That seems like an inversion of the proper relationship to me.
Anyway, I'll keep y'all posted.
Eric
I've been having some conversations with some of the more well-known folks on our list (no we have't decided yet...) and to be honest it gives me the willies a little bit. The biggest factor is money. If we wanna work with some of these people, they're asking for weeks, which works out in the 10,000 range (way over budget).
But the other factor is our own readiness. I have a lot of faith in my band, but in some ways it feels like its something for which we're uprepared. Like we need to pay our dues a bit more. Hard to explain....
I guess in a sense I'm wary of working with a producer/engineer who is vastly more well-known than we are. That seems like an inversion of the proper relationship to me.
Anyway, I'll keep y'all posted.
Eric
Others say he could have been motivated by fear, anger or desire to breed.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 104 guests