Brandon, I disagree.

[Sock]

Yeah, I'm saying it.

Although I wasn't sure where exactly would be the best place to say it, so I chose this spot. Hope you don't mind, chief.

You've said (I think) that you believe the recording process and engineering can never "add" to music, that it's an "emulation" of the "real thing."

I really, really disagree. And that's because I think a live performance is incomparable to a studio recording. With what we have today they are two separate arts. Hell, we saw this back when multitracking was invented. One of my favourite early multi-track recordings is Bill Evans's Conversations with Myself. He could not possibly play that live because it was just himself improvising with himself over and over. I'll even reference Queen, who have created elaborate songs that are impossible to reproduce live just because of how extravagant they are. And sometimes they would just track their own vocals over and over to get their effect, not a choir. Then what is the "real thing" in their case?

Hell, look at Phil Spector (not recently though, what with the whole murder fiasco) with his Wall of Sound technique we hear so much today. This has spilled over from production to live sound. In this case would you say that the "Wall of Sound" is "real" in the studio and only an "emulation" live?

The point I'm trying to make is that how blurred the line between a live performance and studio recording can be at times and yet so distinct at others. I truly believe that we can "add" to music in the studio in the sense that we are creating a different form of art.

I should note that if we are trying to create a live-sounding performance in the studio then the engineer shouldn't serve to alter it... because in that sense it's not what they're trying to do then, is it? Haha

Hope I made sense, I typed this up later-ish at night after writing up a Spanish assignment.

However, I'm only 18 so feel free to slap me with finely-aged wisdom.

[Vulconizer]

You've said (I think) that you believe the recording process and engineering can never "add" to music, that it's an "emulation" of the "real thing."

This would be the only part of your argument I would have trouble with. It is probably best that you should know, to the extent that they make it clear, what the stance of the other party is and maybe even provide proof (a quote or link) before making your case to the contrary. It makes it easier for you to define what your oppositions are and for you to find areas where you agree with their argument.

The reason I say this is that I tend to go off half-cocked sometimes and find myself arguing with someone who essentially believes the same as I do. It just happens that maybe I hadn't listened closely enough in the first place and jumped to a wrong conclusion. Not saying this is what you have done, Sock, but that you have opened yourself up to this possibility. Go back, find out exactly what Brandon did say (if you feel like it) and then see where you stand.

Other than that, fire away. You make some valid points. Maybe I even agree with a few.

[Sock]

This would be the only part of your argument I would have trouble with. It is probably best that you should know, to the extent that they make it clear, what the stance of the other party is and maybe even provide proof (a quote or link) before making your case to the contrary. It makes it easier for you to define what your oppositions are and for you to find areas where you agree with their argument.

The reason I say this is that I tend to go off half-cocked sometimes and find myself arguing with someone who essentially believes the same as I do. It just happens that maybe I hadn't listened closely enough in the first place and jumped to a wrong conclusion. Not saying this is what you have done, Sock, but that you have opened yourself up to this possibility. Go back, find out exactly what Brandon did say (if you feel like it) and then see where you stand.

Other than that, fire away. You make some valid points. Maybe I even agree with a few.

I'm just here to learn and get to know the community, so if I happen to be wrong I see (hopefuly =P) no harm in it.

If he believes the same as I, then I can change my stance to "Brandon, I agree" and we can discuss the topic further and maybe it'll provide an interesting read for others?

... I didn't come off aggressive did I?

Edit: Thanks for the concern either way =)

[TonyB]

You've said (I think) that you believe the recording process and engineering can never "add" to music, that it's an "emulation" of the "real thing."

Sock,

It looks like your discussion will revolve around this statement.

We need to know in what context Brandon used that statement.

Reading the statement "as is" I take it as speaking specifically to what you do to the mix itself; not the overall production as "I think" you are referring to.

The way I read Brandon's statement is much like that law you learn in college physics class (forgot the name dagnabbit), that says you can't observe an event without impacting that event (it's related to Einstein).

Reading Brandon's statement the way I'm reading it, that's what he's referring to.

For example, take an acoustic guitar player's performance in the studio.
By using an SM-81 pair versus an SM-58 on that acoustic guitar makes a big difference in the outcome of the song.
To "improve" that performance I would used the 81.
Additionally, if the acoustic performance is very dynamic, then I would slap a compressor on it on the way in.
At this point, now we have an "emulation" of the real thing.....and I haven't even gotten into the mixing.

Now at the production level, which ""I think" you're referring to, I agree with you.
Freddie Mercury did umpteen tracked vocals for Bohemian Rhapsody. That mega-production added to the overall vibe and legendary status of that song.

Okay, back to my coffee and donuts now....

[Sock]

Upon searching I (embarrasingly) cannot find the source material I'm trying to reference.

Oh well, hopefully Brandon sees this and can clear up any confusion.

[j03]

I believe this is what you're looking for:
The Never Satisfied Metal Guitar Recording | Home Computer Recording

"Let me explain.

I believe that engineering NEVER adds to the music. Ever! It’s never happened! It never will happen. I believe that engineering can only apply a penalty. A recording never matches the real thing. You love the Lamb of God guitar tone? If you were stand in front of the real amp, your eyes would light up like you just saw a mushroom cloud. It would be jaw dropping. The recording is good, but there is nothing like the real thing. That’s like comparing your right hand and your girlfriend. A recording is an “emulation” of real life at best.

So, the only goal of engineering is to get out of the way. Maybe the best engineer in the world has found a way to let 99% of the music through. Maybe a beginning engineer assesses a great penalty to the noise. Maybe he only lets 40% of the music through. Your goal as an engineer should be to do the least damage possible to the music that’s buried in some kind of hidden dimension. When you can get out of the way enough, you are officially in major label big boy land. "

[chillowack]

Okay, having seen the original quote, I think I would disagree with Brandon, too.

Any time anyone says "NEVER," you already know they're off the mark. There's no "never," there's no absolute black-and-white. Who's to say live is always better than recorded? Isn't that a matter of opinion, taste, or individual situation?

Nor do I agree with the idea that the only goal in engineering is to "get out of the way". That statement, too, seems to emanate from one particular school of thought, but I don't think it's universally agreed. What about enhancing the music? Is that "getting out of the way"? Yet many enhancements have been made to all kinds of great music, and everyone here (regardless of their preferred style or genre) can point to numerous examples of it in his own music collection.

I respect Brandon's opinion, but those two paragraphs look a bit narrow-minded to me. I don't care if it's the greatest engineer of all time saying it, or a rank newbie--it still seems like a narrow view.

[Danny Danzi]

I believe this is what you're looking for:
The Never Satisfied Metal Guitar Recording | Home Computer Recording

"Let me explain.

I believe that engineering NEVER adds to the music. Ever! It’s never happened! It never will happen. I believe that engineering can only apply a penalty. A recording never matches the real thing. You love the Lamb of God guitar tone? If you were stand in front of the real amp, your eyes would light up like you just saw a mushroom cloud. It would be jaw dropping. The recording is good, but there is nothing like the real thing. That’s like comparing your right hand and your girlfriend. A recording is an “emulation” of real life at best.

So, the only goal of engineering is to get out of the way. Maybe the best engineer in the world has found a way to let 99% of the music through. Maybe a beginning engineer assesses a great penalty to the noise. Maybe he only lets 40% of the music through. Your goal as an engineer should be to do the least damage possible to the music that’s buried in some kind of hidden dimension. When you can get out of the way enough, you are officially in major label big boy land. "

Unfortunately, I too would have to disagree with that and here's why. When you hear a guitar tone or something in a mix, it is usually BETTER than the real thing ALWAYS. There has NEVER been an amp that I just threw a mic on that sounded fantastic as it was without tweaking it to sound like what the tone was supposed to sound like when I listened to it live. Or....it was sooo bad live, what I did literally enhanced it to where it made the song and the mix 100% better than if I would have settled for what was thrown at me right out of the box.

I just did some guitar tracks for a client that was doing a metal tune. His guitar tone in the pre-pro was pretty good. But we both had felt my guitar tone brought the tune over the top and gave it something that it didn't have before. What that was in a nutshell was my tone, and what I played opposed to his tone and what he played. Both were perfect for the song, but there was something extra in mine that literally brought the tune to a new level and improved it ten-fold. He was a blues man trying to get a metal tone using a tele....though it was good, he didn't think in the frame of mind of a metal guitarist and didn't have the tone or the arsenal of metal tricks to give the song the impact that it needed.

Another example...I'm producing a band that just landed a huge deal. The drummer is so high all the time and wasting time, I hired another drummer to come in and play on the song that the label wants to push as a single. When the band came to listen to the tune, they nearly passed out because they heard what it was like to have a real drummer playing on the material. The funniest thing was hearing the real drummer say "wow, I soo don't remember playing that!"

"Um...that's because you didn't you numbskull and if you slack one more time, you're outta here" is what I told him. He's been a VERY different man since. But, bringing in the new drummer improved the already good song, ten-fold. He breathed life and fire into the tune as well as a groove that was not present in the original. This made the tune go from good with potential, to spectacular and ready for major airplay release. The label was blown away by what we got as they wanted a preview of this song. There was no way in hell I was sending them the other thing, nor was I going to sit and edit drum parts for 4 hours because this guy is too busy snorting away all his advance money while sucking horribly risking the band's future.

So definitely...a performance, sound, mix technique, producer trick....to me, it all walks hand in hand. They make a total difference in how good a song can be in my opinion. Even Eddie Van Halen's tone in real life from his early days, is NOTHING like what you heard on that first VH album. The tone was loaded with mid range congestion and was VERY honky sounding. What you heard on the first VH album was the tone in control with some nice presence instead of all that honk. Would it have made a difference on the songs in THAT situation? Probably not since Ed was soo innovative. However, when you listen to live in Japan or live in Paris in 1977, or the Gene Simmons submission tapes, you sure are glad Ted Templeman changed up the tone because it made an unbelievable difference in my opinion which helped to really bring the songs over the top with killer tone that was original over that honky, mid-range congested "yonk yonk" while chugging type sound.

The performance of the artists helps to make a good song a great song. The selection of the instrumentation and how they are executed makes the artist. The production makes the artist, the song and the instrumentation all sound better. One without the other is cutting corners and sub-par.

Listen to a pre-production copy of a song...then listen to the finished one with all the bells and whistles if you have any. The song impact improves with the right stuff. Sure, we can tell a good song even if it's live tracked on a Radio Shack micro-cassette player in pre-pro format. However, the song WILL change with production, instrumental and arrangement values via producer. Anyone in denial of that has never produced an album or has been a part of a project from its infancy stages of pre-pro to post pro. I mean no one any disrespect, but in my experience, I have to whole-heartedly disagree.

[brandondrury]

Let me give this some better context because the people who are disagreeing with me are really agreeing with me. One analogy I've made has been taken entirely out of context. The original thread poster All my guitars sound horrible!!! had already provided “the rules”.

Let's say you are recording Sammy Lee Jackson's character in Pulp Fiction. So Sammy takes you out into the live room and says, "Mic my shit up, mutha fucka. If it don't sound fuckin' bad ass like it does right now, I'm gonna be pissed." So you go toss your Royer R121 > Neve 1073 > Distressor > Apogee Converter rig up. Hell, maybe you toss up a few dynamics and condensers just to give you more options.

After quoting scary parts of the Bible, Sammy Lee Jackson then walks into the control room where you've gotten the best sound you can. He then calmly asks, "Is this going to sound as badass as it does out in the room?". You say, "I think it's going to sound good.". He then raises his voice to sick ass levels and says, "ALRIGHT MOTHA FUCKA! IT BETTER SOUND BAD ASS!" In exactly 132 milliseconds you see the blur of his arm and hear the click of gun as he tosses the magazine into the pistol and puts the end of your life in the chamber. He then puts the gun about 2 inches too far into your mouth and says, "Are you SURE this is gonna sound just as badass as it does out in the room?".

THIS is the context I'm talking about.

No layering. No blending tracks with other instruments. No producing of any kind. Simply put, does the full stack that massages your back when Sammy plays sound as exciting as when you hit play on your monitors with 6” woofers playing at 75dB?

The answer to THAT is usually pretty obvious and that's the ONLY issue I was commenting on.

It would make more sense to me to argue about the existence of gravity than to debate the effects of producing.

Any time anyone says "NEVER," you already know they're off the mark.

Not a bad concept, but "always" is implied in this statement by the "any time" and that's just as bold of statement as "never". Of course, there are exceptions to the rule, but my extreme emphasis on the issue is meant to imply my seriousness and to save the frustrated kids some time. It was meant to be over the top and not necessarily supposed to be taken 100% literally. I think it's safe to say that the times we've heard an instrument in the room , tossed a mic on that instrument, and then compared the recording to the real thing have been humbling most of the time.

Brandon

[Bjorgvinben]

Not a bad concept, but "always" is implied in this statement by the "any time" and that's just as bold of statement as "never".

Brandon

Haha. I like that comment, although the Sam Jackson parable was a bit extreme

[Nathanael]

Extreme? Yes
Hilarious? Yes as well!
Lol, Thanks for clearing things up Brandon, this started out as a "huh?" type thread, but it got really interesting really fast.

[brandondrury]

although the Sam Jackson parable was a bit extreme

Dude, have you not seen Pulp Fiction? Have you not recorded a militant guitar player? THIS is EXACTLY what it would be like if you combined the two worlds.

Would you prefer I write the Encyclopedia Britannica edition?

Extreme? Yes
Hilarious? Yes as well!

Ha! At least you thought it was funny.

[Nathanael]

Ha! At least you thought it was funny.

Hey I am all that matters Brandon, So it's all good

Lol, I love how this forum is like a family, not a bunch of smelly guys sharing recording secrets

[Vulconizer]

I don't smell.




























much...

[chillowack]

Not a bad concept, but "always" is implied in this statement by the "any time" and that's just as bold of statement as "never".

That's true, but in this case it doesn't matter how "bold" the statement is, since it's a universal axiom, easily proven. That there are no absolutes is evident from the fact that everyone has a different opinion. Once you see that, the rule "any time anyone says NEVER, you know they're off the mark" cannot be denied: it follows as a logical deduction, regardless of how paradoxical it sounds.

Anyway, this is all wide of the subject--I'm veering off into a logic debate now, which (while interesting for me) really has little to do with the original topic. So I'll shut my cake-hole now.

Just one more thing though: I'm afraid I don't get the whole Samuel Jackson thing. Is anyone else in the same boat? (I did think it was funny though!)