Is it all worth it in the end..(rant inside)

[pikachu69]

A comment I made on a different thread inspired me to start this one. I will start by quoting my own comment. I apologize if you have already read this:

I am really struggling with the idea that so many of you have no problem spending sooooo much time fixing and re tracking other peoples work.

You may be the one tasked to record and mix the project but it is the bands responsibility to play their own parts to the best of their ability, no matter how good or bad they are. If the finished product sounds like shit it is their problem entirely. If they came into the studio with parts wrong or sloppy playing and did not notice it before,(and unless you are paid to produce as well) chances are they won't hear it in the recording or notice a difference with the parts re recorded or programmed. If they don't notice the difference, what was the point of all that work and if they did notice im sure alot of musicians would not be too happy it was done without their knowledge. (I know I would be pissy for damn sure!)
From what I am reading here most of you don't tell....

Now if you are working with a major label or a bigger named band I would hope the musicians would be good enough to play their own parts and I understand that for major releases a bit of tightening is in order to keep it up to par but this is a different thing all together than re working/playing a bad performance to sound solid.
In the long run it achieves nothing more than giving a band false hope that what the do is actually worthy and if they don't know they need to improve they never will.
We around here are the first to complain when we hear how much our fav AE had to manipulate our fav band we thought were tight as hell, and lets face it, in this industry we (the AE) are about as close to quality control as we can have. If a label receives a demo that sounds tight and well played as a result of your hard work and that band ends up getting signed who looses out in the next phase? The record company and the next AE to deal with them is in for a nasty shock as is the disappointed fans that check out their first gigs.

It has only been in the last decade or so this seems to have become more prevalent and it has also been in the last decade that the overall quality of musicianship has dropped dramatically and since tuning into this and other forums and learning that this is what goes on I have lost a HUGE amount of respect for alot of metal musicians (and the genre in general) that I once admired, something I am really upset about to be honest.

We as AE's have the chance to screen any band that walks through our doors before we hit record. I ALWAYS make sure I see the band live first, attend at least 1 band rehearsal and ask for any demo recordings they may have done before I decide IF I want to record them. If after that I decide it may be more work than I am happy to do (so that I can enjoy my work) I will not record them, simple as that. I only want to work with real musicians that know their craft and have as much passion for music as I do. I have recorded bands that are not too skilled and I left their parts as is, a bit sloppy and they NEVER notice and won't until you point it out to them.

I know many of you will say 'but its better than not having anyone to record' but is it really? From what I can tell it just gives us more to complain about and gives us less time to do what we actually wanted to do in the first place.
Also, try getting work with musicians in a different style of music other than metal like jazz, blues or classical and see what is like to just have to mix and not play the parts for them. It will be a breath of fresh air for you and you will wonder why you ever did it any other way.
Sorry for the rant I could go on for ever so I better stop now.....

This topic made me think of previous threads I have read about bands dogging previous AE's and saying they have a natural sound and they don't use samples and so on. Then I realized I have lost or turned down a few projects lately because the band did not like the fact that I would not agree that their fav band does not use samples and I should be able to get their kit sounding just like it with no samples what so ever. It made me think, maybe it's not the bands fault if they themselves are not aware of the process that is truly involved.
Yes, some musicians take an interest in the topic but how many are present during the editing/re amping stage? If all they see is the recording take place, are not told how much editing actually took place and just hear the finished product what else are they supposed to think? Then a pimply fan hears them say they are 'all natural' and on it goes.
By 'going the extra mile' and wiping their asses what are we really doing?
And are we the ones that have the right to complain about it at the end of the day?

I would love to hear your thoughts.

And... go.

 

[tempe]

Well its a difficult line to tread, I know if I turned away all the bands I've worked with that I personally have deemed to not be ready to record, I wouldn't be able to do this for a living. It's just a sad state of affairs that the general level of musicianship has dropped, but it makes it a real treat when you get to work with people who are amazing musicians. As for bands saying that band x "didn't use drum samples or editing they are all natural" I call them out on their bullshit. I say, listen to the kick drum, it sounds inhumanly consistent. No amount of compression or EQ can get an average drummer sounding how we expect them to sound on recordings, its a sign of the times but the bar is a lot lower now for your average metal musician as the technology is available to get away with it.

As for the bass issue, its a sad that most bands bass players are the weakest musicians in the band. Which is annoying for the hugely important role that bass plays in music. I often retrack stuff as its just quicker for me, than editing every note. Ethics aside its get my job done quicker so I do it. I always tell the band though and give them the option of retracking and its even more dissapointing that they always agree to just let me do it.

Another thing that really frustrates me is bands saying "we don't do re-amping, its not the real thing, its fake etc." when really its just a safety thing. I always take a DI just incase, although most bands I record track with live amps, because of the hate of reamping around here. Its really just misinformation being given out by more famous bands, trying to gain street cred saying, "we dont use samples, reamping, protools or any of that shit." Which just isn't true, so basically it boils down to this fact;

Average musicians in a famous band get engineered to death to sound a million dollars, say that its all natural. Impressionable kids in a band hear this and set themselves unreasonable standards, but at the same time when they record these things happen to them against their knowledge and then they think they sound fantastic. But if you don't do these things you lose work because, "band x recorded naturally and it sounds amazing, we did it and it sounds like shit"

I'm sorry if my rant made no sense, I'm very tired but I hope some of it made sense!

 

[Ascendant]

Interesting read both of you, I'm no ae but I can understand the dilemma.

I think there was a topic around here a while ago about the same subject where someone linked a Trivium studio diary. They were apparently doing "all natural drums" and "no reamping", turns out the drums were sample replaced to hell and back.

By the by, I've always wondered what's so wrong with reamping? It's not like you're running it through pod farm, it's stilla real amp with a real cab and all. I guess some people edit the DIs to perfection and it isn't trve anymore? But it's not like they wouldn't edit it anyway if they didn't reamp.

 

[Donovan S.]

I do whatever it takes to get the best production possible. If that means re-tracking the guitarists and bassists parts/programming drums/etc. I will do it. End of story.

Most metal musicians just simply have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to production.

 

[pikachu69]

I know if I turned away all the bands I've worked with that I personally have deemed to not be ready to record, I wouldn't be able to do this for a living.

I am not saying don't record them, I am saying don't edit them to hell and back.
If they can't play tight that is not our problem. Mix what they provide you during your tracking sessions. No editing will save you far more time than the difference between heaps of editing or re tracking. Saying it saves time in the long run is not true at all.
Let the rest of the world get an honest look at what they are truly capable of and then the real musicians that put in the hours and hours of real work into their craft can finally shine through again.

 

[Donovan S.]

I am not saying don't record them, I am saying don't edit them to hell and back.
If they can't play tight that is not our problem. Mix what they provide you during your tracking sessions.

But if they can't play tight it IS your problem. The mix will not be as good as it could have potentially been with tighter guitars, which will lead to you not getting as much work.

EDIT: Who wants to listen to a mix with terribly played guitars? Sadly, most people will coin this issue on the engineer as it is their job to make sure everything is recorded well.

 

[pikachu69]

I think the average listener can tell the difference between a good mix and a bad guitar/bass player etc. In any case a CD with bad playing is not likely to get exposure to more than a few family and friends so giving your studio a bad name is highly unlikely. If the quality of the musician was in proportion to how successful they become (as it should be and the point of my rant) then you would not have to worry about as it would no longer be your problem again. You are there to get their ideas and capabilities onto CD, not to become Bob Rock or turn them into machines behind their backs.

 

[Ermz]

Depends what you consider yourself. As producer it's your job to make sure the music is represented in as best/most fitting a way as possible on the record. In metal this involves drilling peoples' performances until they want to kill themselves. This is the only way they improve - through you showing them just how hard it actually is. So you may just scrounge through the first record by the skin of your teeth, but you can bet your ass they will be damned well rehearsed for the 2nd one.

Then again you may follow the Albini philosophy and just like making records that sound like shit. To each their own.

 

[MarcusGHedwig]

But if they can't play tight it IS your problem. The mix will not be as good as it could have potentially been with tighter guitars, which will lead to you not getting as much work.

EDIT: Who wants to listen to a mix with terribly played guitars? Sadly, most people will coin this issue on the engineer as it is their job to make sure everything is recorded well.

+1, seriously - just stop giving a shit about these losers who can't play, think of them as living, mentally-challenged paychecks and go about your bidness

 

[MarcusGHedwig]

And I highly doubt any label would sign a band simply based on the quality off their demo (containing their musical turds you spray-painted gold, to quote Andy) without first sending an A&R guy to see them live, so you can sleep at night knowing you haven't sabotaged the industry by putting fellow AE's and the label out of business with the deceptive illusion of talent you've crafted

 

[AdamWathan]

I think the average listener can tell the difference between a good mix and a bad guitar/bass player etc.

No, they can't, trust me. Your average listener is never going to think "Man the drummer doesn't hit hard enough, and listen to how his kick flams with his snare in that blast, it makes the whole mix sound messy and uncontrolled." They are going to think, "Man the drums sound shitty, they should've recorded this at a better studio."

In any case a CD with bad playing is not likely to get exposure to more than a few family and friends so giving your studio a bad name is highly unlikely.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Did you not consider the other side where if the CD DID sound good it would have a lot of exposure and a lot of other bands would want to record at your studio? Being a successful engineer is all about word of mouth and your portfolio. If nothing you do is good enough to build a portfolio out of it, then you are fucked. I would never hire an engineer who didn't have a single good mix under his belt even if it was all the bands' fault.

 

[AboutBlank]

haha, of course they'll blame you for poor quality in any kinds...

You get payed for your work and you have to max out your abilities to the max.
Not only for the customer, mainly for yourself. I wanna get better and MY name is on the product.

I don't know, but you have to give the best you can, and if it means that you have to edit the fuck out of smthg, fine...

 

[dcb]

i think producing is the only value you can actually sell to people nowadays,
because everyone thinks he/she is a mixer anyways....
thats actually how i see my strenght : i work on their music, so it has an impact on the listener... THAT translates into a great mix (at least for the general listener..)
there is really no need for engineers sitting there and press record anymore. thats what people will be able to do at home.
you gotta sell your experience and knowledge.
not your right index finger for clicking the red button.

so to me, engineering without producing on the low level that we are all working here is pointless (nowadays).
these bands will not return. be a sturgis : go clean up that mess!
bands on the low level just cannot afford a guy to record their stuff, a guy who edits, a producer,
a mixing enineer, a mastering engineer. you gotta be all in one... when there is money involved, totally
different though.

 

[jipchen]

Well, I charge per day, but more importantly for "tracking and editing". I mostly edit right after a part has been played, that's the most bearable way to do this shit.
And when the band/artist is watching you editing they will realize how fucking bad they are, and be like "wow, that's a lot of work.. and shitty work, too".
They will understand pretty quickly that you're investing a shitload of concentration, nerves and time on making their performance shine.

I think it's the best way to handle the "not getting any credit for the whole editing aka cleaning up their mess" and "longing for suicide after editing for hours".
And it makes sure you get paid for this very boring and very necessary part of the work.

 

[::XeS::]

Depends what you consider yourself. As producer it's your job to make sure the music is represented in as best/most fitting a way as possible on the record. In metal this involves drilling peoples' performances until they want to kill themselves. This is the only way they improve - through you showing them just how hard it actually is. So you may just scrounge through the first record by the skin of your teeth, but you can bet your ass they will be damned well rehearsed for the 2nd one.

Then again you may follow the Albini philosophy and just like making records that sound like shit. To each their own.

The problem is that 90% of the times, if you drill someone to play hard during the recording session, in my opinion it's useless, because he's not comfortable to play harder and after few seconds he returns to play sloppy and soft as usual. This is the reason why I tell to the bands to work on their playing some months before they enter in the studio. And if someone comes to the studio and doesn't know the songs or how to play well, I do what I did last time it happened: I called the guitarist and I said "the bassplayer sucks so you have 2 options: 1. I re-record myself everything 2. Come here and record the bass parts.

About the other things, I think that a good album can be not 100% grid etc... I spoke with different famous producers and no one edits 100% to the grid with BD and I can say that I often listen famous albums full of mistakes but no one cares.
Of course, if the album is a total shit it's a different situation but we can live with some mistakes.

 

[dontletmedrown]

...but more importantly for "tracking and editing". I mostly edit right after a part has been played, that's the most bearable way to do this shit.
And when the band/artist is watching you editing they will realize how fucking bad they are, and be like "wow, that's a lot of work.. and shitty work, too"...

...there is really no need for engineers sitting there and press record anymore. thats what people will be able to do at home.
you gotta sell your experience and knowledge.
not your right index finger for clicking the red button...

I agree completely with these guys. Any moron can hit the record button. It takes some serious patience to keep saying, "Let's try it again! One more time! Almost there! I know you can do it better!" After they've given me their absolute best, then I'll edit if I still think it can be better. A lot of the people I've worked with (mostly non-metal) honestly have no idea how hard I'm going to push them, but they seem to appreciate it in the end and they do improve as a result.

Aside from drums, I do all other editing with the performer present. If I'm going to go through the trouble, they are too! It's like: Welcome to my world fuckers! Also, it is contagious once you start scrutinizing hard and get the band in on it, they'll start busting each others' balls so I don't have to be the only "bad guy".

 

[-Noodles-]

No, they can't, trust me. Your average listener is never going to think "Man the drummer doesn't hit hard enough, and listen to how his kick flams with his snare in that blast, it makes the whole mix sound messy and uncontrolled." They are going to think, "Man the drums sound shitty, they should've recorded this at a better studio."

as much as it saddens me, this is fact.

 

[drew_drummer]

No, they can't, trust me. Your average listener is never going to think "Man the drummer doesn't hit hard enough, and listen to how his kick flams with his snare in that blast, it makes the whole mix sound messy and uncontrolled." They are going to think, "Man the drums sound shitty, they should've recorded this at a better studio."

Dude, it isn't even that. Their response is "this band sucks." then they move on to the next band.

 

[pikachu69]

If someone cannot play a part by the time they get to your studio, standing over their shoulder with a 2 x 4 is not going to turn them into guitar gods in minutes. Editing in front of the band is a good way to show them what is required and with luck it MAY encourage them to practice next time, may.

And I highly doubt any label would sign a band simply based on the quality off their demo (containing their musical turds you spray-painted gold, to quote Andy) without first sending an A&R guy to see them live, so you can sleep at night knowing you haven't sabotaged the industry by putting fellow AE's and the label out of business with the deceptive illusion of talent you've crafted

Really? Quite a few signed bands have been talked about on this very forum about being sloppy as shit live compared to their obviously doctored CD. I didn't say a band will be signed from their demo alone, but it is often the first experience a label will have with a band and it can give them a false idea of what they can do.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Did you not consider the other side where if the CD DID sound good it would have a lot of exposure and a lot of other bands would want to record at your studio? Being a successful engineer is all about word of mouth and your portfolio. If nothing you do is good enough to build a portfolio out of it, then you are fucked. I would never hire an engineer who didn't have a single good mix under his belt even if it was all the bands' fault.

of course there is always that other side, I am not an idiot but taking an obviously shit band that is not prepared to work as hard as others, wiping their asses and fixing there shit is not teaching anyone anything and is only going to continue the issue we have today and that is the OVERWHELMING amount of un talented 'musicians' that are all round us, becoming successful in the place of other much more hard working musicians. If something is not going to be good enough to build your portfolio, DON"T RECORD THAT BAND.
It would be the equivalent of an artist becoming famous for 'painting by numbers', its not fair to the real artists that can conceive the entire art work themselves from start to finish. This seems to be one of the only art forms where it is OK to take ownership of work that is not entirely yours.

I understand replacing samples is necessary for consistent level and tone etc, or moving the ODD part round to tighten up hits etc but I am talking about re playing parts or programming drums without telling the artists you have done so, or slip editing every note, or playing a solo that is too hard note by note by note... THESE things are just wrong, in my humble opinion.

 

[drew_drummer]

Well YOU'RE wrong. In my not so humble opinion