Top Schools/Professors in the Country for CREATIVE Recording

[drleahy]

I'd like to see TapeOp do an article on some college professors that are teaching creative recording techniques around the country. Everyone knows about Full Sail, NYU, etc...but there are awesome schools out there, with many professors that are teaching their students very different and creative techniques that some of us have never heard of!

There are also many teens out there that read this magazine, and I have been reading since I was 16! I would love to see some type of article written on legit colleges for recording, or read about an awesome professor at a university that I have never heard of or something.

This fall I am attending the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, MI, for Performing Arts Technology. There are some really really cool and different professors there, and I know several of them pretty well!

[Brian Brock]

I think a couple people interviewed in TO have been at Evergreen's recording dept.

[mjau]

There's a very cool, and small, grad program in electro-acoustic music at Dartmouth College. I think it's more focused on composition (vs. recording), but lots of cool stuff happening within it seems.

[BrandomJR]

nice

[xonlocust]

maybe i'm not creative, or less than i once was - but the more i learn at this recording thing and get better (i hope) at it, the more i think of it more as physics and electronics. i think what's creative, is understanding how your decisions based upon those absolute, finite, physics and electronics characteristics - go to inform a creative decision. and furthermore being able to work seamlessly with people who don't give a flying fuck about the physics of the session, while all the while you have to have this silent conversation in your head about this nerd shit noone in the session but you cares about, but predicates "a good sounding record". and sooner or later you're gonna have to (or want to) learn those boring physics and electronics aspects of it to get better, and the exact same properties of physics apply whether you learn then at a community college or full sail or by going to the library and checking out a book.

does that even make sense? it's like, on one hand you have to be much more of a nerd than you ever expected you'd be in order to be really creative. otherwise it's sorta just dumb luck. (which can also be cool...) or maybe i dunno what i'm talking about.

what i enjoy about recording is the melding of those 2 seemingly at odds ways of making your mind work together. too much of either side and you're screwed.

congrats on UM by the way. everyone in my family went there but me, i went to UW madison instead. ann arbor is great - you'll love it there. also keep in mind whatever you learn there technology wise will probably be outdated by the time you graduate - hence pay attention to the basics. i'm sure they have a state of the art lab and fancy brochures and everything! i learned a whole lot about old step sequencers, samplers and MTC pieces in the late 90s that's all virtually useless in today's world. or, it is in my world at least. physics doesn't ever change though.

[Professor]

The catch to that idea, at least as I see it, is that creativity is really something that cannot be taught, it can only be learned.
At least as far as technique with the equipment goes, a good teacher for recording would be one who fills a student up on the basics so that student can apply or bend those basics when the need arises. Creativity with the gear comes from being presented with a problem and having the a large enough collection of tools that your are able to overcome that problem.
It's also important to remember that at least where the 'engineering' side of our task is concerned, we have to (as mentioned above) be the nerd that can translate the and interpret the language to bridge the gap between the artist and the technology. For example, the artist says he needs a "warmer" sound, and since there is no "warmth" knob on any of his gear, the engineer must translate the request to a piece of technology and often enough a numeric value - like perhaps bumping up 2dB at 180Hz, or more creative still, dipping down 2dB at 3kHz.
To a student who likes playing with the gear, it would probably seem great to have a teacher who just showed you nothing but specialty tools in weird combinations, but that isn't a good way to teach creativity to the student, because we have to show the process that caused us to arrive at that particular solution. It's certainly true that school is the time to be experimental because there is less on the line (hopefully) with each session. But without a foundation in the proven techniques and an understanding of the physics, electronics and other considerations, then the student is really just flying blind in an attempt to reinvent the wheel.

But I did run off on a tirade there thinking that you were necessarily talking about creativity as regards engineering technique.
It's possible you meant "creativity" in terms of coaching bands, creating the music & sound, or what is considered the 'production' side of the process.
Here again, this is a very difficult area to 'teach' because it really must be learned. If a teacher attempts to fill a student with all sorts of 'creative' techniques, without a foundation in the basics of critical listening, decision making, and how different sounds are achieved, then all the student knows are how to do a few tricks, but not how to develop his own.
Berklee tries to focus more on music 'production' in at least some of their courses. I've not studied there and neither have I really been able to discuss the outcomes of that approach from those who have been through it. I simply know that is a big part of their approach.
I've always considered production to be something into which you eventually graduate or advance. Skills in production come from experience with both the artistic side and the technical side, and an ability to bridge the two.

So yeah, while an article on the teachers who are teaching 'creativity' to their students would indeed be interesting, I'd be a little suspect of the approach if it tossed out fundamentals in favor of a crash course in the cool stuff. And to be fair, I would be equally suspect of a program that taught nothing but fundamentals without any regard for movement beyond those basics. I don't mind seeing a student using a ruler and protractor to setup an ORTF pair, but if I see a pro doing it, and it's not because they will be setting up several times for takes that will be edited together, then I start to get a little more concerned. There are times when it's smart to be able to reproduce results, and times when it's a bit overkill.

-Jeremy