So you want a tight mix?

Notuern said:
Well.. i wasnt that serious to begin with, even though i really dislike how most people seem to think that this is ok to do.



So what you are saying is that you wouldnt be impressed, because im not a computer triggering pre-recorded notes?
Anyways.. im not in to that type of music, and in all honesty, i would probably think that this type of music sounds like complete shit no matter how its edited/tracked/mixed etc.



Yeah, now lets take away the player and put a robot there instead, that is programmed to play the parts you feed it with, thats even better!
OR WAIT! Get rid of the robot! Lets use keyboards instead, because the guitars string doesnt oscillate evenly enough!

Nah, but seriously, to me, this is somewhat crossing the border of whats ok.
And tbh, id rather have a shitty sloppy as fuck player with some real emotion put in to his playing, then some downtuned computermade riff.

If you want to work this way, and the people you record think its fine, then fine!
Thats all great and dandy, but to me this is all about killing whats human about music.. kind of like redrawing a beautiful oil-painting in photoshop to get rid of the irregularities and brush strokes.
Click to expand...
i think photoshop was made for a reason

computers too

oh and daw's

oh and editing...

shit im crossing the line again...

back to the tape machine...
i mean oil painting

wait im all confused, where am i?

*yawn* back to formatting my new glyph drive!

dl-photo-to-oil-painting-finished.jpg
 
I rather have sex with a mediocre looking real girl than with a gorgeous rubber-girl.

the rubber girl might look more beatiful, but I just like the feeling of real wet pussy skin rubbing my schlong compared to rubber and lube.

I guess people that never really get laid anyway prefer pictures of over-photoshopped surgery "improved" Hollywood girls.....
but everyone who's had sex in his life will agree that the real pussy of a real girl (even if not the most beautiful in the world) feels much better than the rubber-skin of a sex doll....no matter how beautifully her face may be modelled.

now replace "sex" with "music" and "girl" with "band" and you get what I mean-.

I still think in the end it's about what get's the bills paid and once you made yourself a name for the manufacturing of plastic dolls you'll get good money from that....no real girls will have their hair done by the same guy, but that doesn't really matter...at the end of the day it's a job that pays the bills, so I'm the last one to blame anyone....

the problem will pop up once everyone went through puberty and is enjoying sex with real girls....that'll rid the need for rubber dolls....but I guess that won't happen too soon, so the rubber-doll-designers will be fine...they'll be able to pay their rent, so all is good.

and since there's the need for both techniques there's really no argumernt necessary....I just wanted to voice my opinion that (opposed to what the OP said) it is NOT necessary to take those measures to get a tight sounding mix.

there ARE real girls that look equally good as the rubber-maid....
the problem though is (as mentioned above) that if you're a rubber-maid-manufacturer those gorgeous girls won't be interested in working with you.
but as I also said...that's fine...it's a job...it pays the bills....all good.
 
Lasse Lammert said:
I rather have sex with a mediocre looking real girl than with a gorgeous rubber-girl.

the rubber girl might look more beatiful, but I just like the feeling of real wet pussy skin rubbing my schlong compared to rubber and lube.

I guess people that never really get laid anyway prefer pictures of over-photoshopped surgery "improved" Hollywood girls.....
but everyone who's had sex in his life will agree that the real pussy of a real girl (even if not the most beautiful in the world) feels much better than the rubber-skin of a sex doll....no matter how beautifully her face may be modelled.

now replace "sex" with "music" and "girl" with "band" and you get what I mean-.

I still think in the end it's about what get's the bills paid and once you made yourself a name for the manufacturing of plastic dolls you'll get good money from that....no real girls will have their hair done by the same guy, but that doesn't really matter...at the end of the day it's a job that pays the bills, so I'm the last one to blame anyone....

the problem will pop up once everyone went through puberty and is enjoying sex with real girls....that'll rid the need for rubber dolls....but I guess that won't happen too soon, so the rubber-doll-designers will be fine...they'll be able to pay their rent, so all is good.

and since there's the need for both techniques there's really no argumernt necessary....I just wanted to voice my opinion that (opposed to what the OP said) it is NOT necessary to take those measures to get a tight sounding mix.

there ARE real girls that look equally good as the rubber-maid....
the problem rthough is (as mentioned above) that if you're a rubber-maid-manufacturer those gorgeous girls won't be interested in working with you.
but as I also said...that's fine...it's a job...it pays the bills....all good.
Click to expand...

WORD!

++
 
joeymusicguy said:
take that same riff, remove all the fret buzz, unwanted finger noise (some is wanted), and everything else wrong with how you're playing it, and SHIT you've got that totally possible playable riff sounding like a million bucks.

now add the rest of the band and the vocals, and WOW who is that band?
Click to expand...

To be completely honest, this is part of the reason I haven't been getting the WOW-feeling in quite a long time. It's more like "Oh, it's the same old, perfecty polished, utterly boring band again. This must be the 1000th time they change their name!" They just don't excite me. They don't seem the least bit interesting in any way. I'm in no way an oid-school purist or anything, I do understand that our job is to make the band sound good no matter what it takes, and I certainly won't rebel against that if I'm going to try and turn this into a living. It's just my personal musical preference, and in my perfect fantasy world, a band still has their own sound they are easy to recognize from.

The last bands that really made me get the WOW-feeling were Clutch and Down, and they both sound pretty organic and grooving to my ears. Definitely not polished to perfection, but in these cases it serves the music.
 
joeymusicguy said:
Yadayadayada...
Click to expand...

You where missing my point completely i see.. im not against editing, im against removing the part where the musician actually perform their songs, instead of simply cut'n'paste every single note through an entire song.

The recordings posted in this thread at least sounds completely unnatural, not polished, but unnatural/inorganic.

But still as i said, if thats what you want to do, then thats fine.. its not me doing all that cutting and pasting for such a bland and boring sound(IMO).
 
Not directed at anyone in particular.... I don't understand why every time this comes up the thread turns in to every person on this forum saying it's "wrong" to produce music this way. It's not jval's or joey's fault the industry standard has become what it is, they are simply conforming because that's what you do if you want to stay afloat in this business. They got where they are because they played along, this is what it takes to get to where you can tell a label you want $15k+ for a project and they are totally comfortable giving you that money - because they know you will give them a product that is competitive. It's really simple and been explained 1,000,000,000 times now. The huge majority of people that aren't willing to play along won't be making a living recording/producing music. That's just how it is. You don't get to where joey/etc. are by being a little girl about punching in. While you are being on your high horse and refusing to do what is necessary, the jobs will go right past you to the next guy that will do what is needed.
 
I think that it is really all about making the best record possible. If you record a song and it's a good song, people will like it. But if you painstakingly punch in every cord and edit it down so that everything is together perfectly in time, and you have this amazing sounding guitars, these punchy drums that just hit you in the face, etc. and for that amazing riff or breakdown or whatever it all just works together perfectly, and you can just feel it. It would have been the same part of the song regardless of what you did, but it wouldn't have the same impact if the snare was a little late or the guitars were a little flat or whatever. It's because you took the time to edit it that it really hits home.

And I would think that what we are all here really working towards, taking songs and making them as great as we can. We can't always control how good the songs we are recording sound, but we can make them sound as good as they possibly can, that's what being an audio engineer is about.
 
Yeah, some good posts there while I was sleeping! Thanks for helping to make the point Joey. It's not that we don't care about feeling and want to make everyone robots, it's just that we have a certain goal in mind and we do what it takes to get there.

And for what it's worth most of the bands I work with leave the studio better musicians. The process really makes them realize pretty quick that maybe they weren't so hot after all... for young guys it's opens them up to a whole new world and they're usually better when they come back.
 
Nauru said:
I think that it is really all about making the best record possible. If you record a song and it's a good song, people will like it. But if you painstakingly punch in every cord and edit it down so that everything is together perfectly in time, and you have this amazing sounding guitars, these punchy drums that just hit you in the face, etc. and for that amazing riff or breakdown or whatever it all just works together perfectly, and you can just feel it. It would have been the same part of the song regardless of what you did, but it wouldn't have the same impact if the snare was a little late or the guitars were a little flat or whatever. It's because you took the time to edit it that it really hits home.

And I would think that what we are all here really working towards, taking songs and making them as great as we can. We can't always control how good the songs we are recording sound, but we can make them sound as good as they possibly can, that's what being an audio engineer is about.
Click to expand...

Yeah, +1
When a band brings me a song, my goal is to make a recording of the best possible version of that song. I want people to hear the drum parts. I want breakdowns to hit together and make people nod their heads. I want that techy guitar riff to be clean and clear and not covered up by string noise so that it conveys what it's supposed to convey.... and when the guy starts singing I want all those chords underneath him to be perfectly tuned so that the melody can shine.
 
is everyone forgetting that bands go to Joey and Jordan specifically for their "perfect" production style?
They're not taking the easy way out, they're doing everything it fucking takes to meet the standard of perfection the bands demand.

Band - we wanna sound as tight as x band
engineer - let me hear you play
band - CHUGa CHUGaaa DJENt ggg DJENTTeh
engineer - well you don't sound like x band but if that's what you want pay me $$$ it will sound like CHUG CHUG DJENT DJENT
band - we have $80
engineer - FML
 
joeymusicguy said:
no offense, but please send me a di of you playing one of those string skipping palm on palm off riffs

i'll run it through the recording with all the same settings

you simply can't get a fully palm muted single note, then a full note right after it, then repeat that 16 times over the riff, at 190 bpm

i've seen guys that CAN do this for real, and live, and it still sounds like shit haha.
Click to expand...

:OMG: I could be in that song?! hah.

No but really, I understand. When everyone complains about it being so "fake", I don't think they realize that the bands can play their parts legitimately. I was just curious and wanted to clarify, it just came out wrong. When it's said that you are punching in and out that frequently, its almost assumed, or so it seems, that the band sucks and can't play what they have written. Its just the bar has been raised so high on the production side, you can't record it through traditional ways and expect the same marketable sound. Yes, I am beating a dead horse in saying that.
However, like you said, in the case with Miss May I and probably many of the bands you are doing, the end result, the consumer, has the say in what is the quality and standard. People who aren't guitar players hear string noise and think, "ew wtf was that ugly non musical noise?" The casual listener has become so accustomed to the quality of recordings and that forces the standard to obviously be raised.

*I am just an innocent bedroom AE. lol don't take anything I say with much weight. Only small ill informed opinions. :saint:*
 
AdamWathan said:
Curiousity just another question jval (sorry :lol:)... Is there any reason why the second guitar track was duplicated from the first aside from just being quicker to copy over i/o settings and stuff? I know you can't duplicated a track and pan it, we all know that but it just brought to mind a couple other copy/paste related questions. I know you spend forever tracking guitars, do you actually track through the whole song, like if a riff repeats you will record it again piece by piece even if the shitty player took 2 hours to record that riff the first time, or are you doing a lot of copying and pasting of completed sections? Also, are you copying and pasting from Gtr 1 to Gtr 2 using different takes to save time?
Click to expand...

I just duplicate the tracks because it's faster than making new tracks! Maybe this isn't in LE but when I select those tracks and hit 'duplicate' I have options for what it's duplicating... i uncheck everything so that the new tracks are blank, it jut keeps my i/o settings in tact so I don't have to reset it for each new set of guitar tracks.

Yeah I copy and paste a lot for sure. To me, if a part is written to be the exact same, I don't understand why you wouldn't make it the exact same. If there's a 2 bar riff that repeats 4 times, i am absolutely recording it once and looping.

I work on guitars section by section mostly, so I get the guy to do the first guitar and then do the double (or harmony or whatever) immediately after. This saves time especially for melodic stuff... if you're tuning a chord by itself it makes sense to tune once and get it down on both guitar tracks.
.... although sometimes you're still tuning twice, or 5 times... :heh:

as far as pasting parts from gtr 1 to gtr 2, yeah I do that if they're going back and forth between parts or whatever. Actually one of my biggest pet peeves in the studio is having to switch guitar players... i hate when there are 2 players on a rhythm part, technique is always different and it doesn't sound as good. Especially on chuggy breakdown parts. Plus there's always one guy who is better than the other. I hate when a dude complains about not getting to play his part when it's an exact double of what the other guy just did!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
can you critique my mix?
Replies
1
Views
447
F.O.H.
SocialNumb
S
I
Super tight punchy bass tone?
Replies
0
Views
1K
F.O.H.
infectdsniper
I
acappa
Dimefest IV is here! Possibility to mix various songs for the upcoming dvd!!
Replies
0
Views
474
F.O.H.
acappa
A
Emdprodukt
Getting a fresh mindset for Masterin AFTER the mix is done
Replies
4
Views
951
F.O.H.
Emdprodukt
E
B
Tight Piccolo Snare And Kick Drum Sample
Replies
4
Views
5K
F.O.H.
whitedoormixing
whitedoormixing
Top Bottom
Back