some recent thoughts of mine

so recently i've started working with an assistant and some (largely boring) things are really reigning true. I guess I'm writing this as I wish I was told these things repeatedly until they really were engrained.

organising files:

this goes with naming tracks, colouring tracks, putting pictures if your DAW has that option. consolidating, naming conventions etc too. It's often possible to work your way around a project when its just you that's familiar with it but its much better practice having thing's laid out so that anyone could open the project up in the future and make sense of it. not only is this going to make your life easier, someone further down the line may need to open it and it suits everyone to be able to work out what's going on.

concentrating on one job:

its very easy to fall into the trap of thinking you can handle EVERY single aspect of a recording. sure some people not only like working like that but have become very successful at it. the reality is most people aren't cut out for working like that, and furthermore, when recording is essentially a billion different little jobs if you're working alone you'll be too tempted to do them in whatever order suits.

doing things in a conventional order means your brain can concentrate on doing one job at a time - something we as humans are far better at doing. if you're subconsciously thinking about a bad edit that may exist when you're mixing, you won't be doing as good of a job on the mix. mixing is far easier when that's ALL you have to think about.

if you are doing a project completely by yourself, its likely that by the time you get to mixing the song, you'd have heard it that much that not only will you have lost perspective on it but you'll be unable to pick out the things that make the song good. there's a reason all the big mixing engineers have teams of people prepping their files and setting up their templates. a lot of those big guys do their mixing very quickly while the song is fresh. they're not worrying about little decisions or spending time making sense of the project. things are laid out the way they like so they can come in and immediately mix.

now then - if you combine those first 2 points you'll realise how important it is to organise things RIDICULOUSLY well so that anyone can make sense of them. if different people are coming in and out of a job then its essential everyone know's what's what.

committing to sounds and making decisions

you'll often see this mentioned a lot, and particularly by the big names. there's nothing worse than mixing a song and wondering if the guitar tone should be reamped, or if you should use some different samples on the snare. as far as I'm concerned these are tracking decisions that should be made earlier in the process that are well thought out and intended WELL before the mixing stage. if you're worrying about these at the mixing stage (not uncommon), it likely means that someone's been scared (or incapable) of capturing what they need at the point they should have.

with using plugins, its easy to track very raw and worry later on. there should be an understanding of the plugins that are used as part of the essential sound of an instrument, and the plugins that are being used at the mixing stage to balance/mix the parts together. ALWAYS AIM TO MAKE THINGS SOUND AS THEY SHOULD ON THE RECORD.

room treatment/monitoring

now, if you're going to be making decisions and committing, its pretty damn important you can hear accurately. room resonances/nodes are going to make your life difficult. you may even spot recurring frequencies that a room exaggerates, or frequencies where its difficult to perceive what's going on. all basic stuff but can't be emphasised enough.

having several different monitors and flipping between them is not only a good way of making sure your mix translates over different speakers, it will keep your ears fresh and saving you from going down the wrong path mix wise. flipping monitors every so often and checking references regularly is a great tried and tested way of making sure your balance is good. on top of that, mixing on a small speaker like an auratone will mean you can mix quieter and therefore for longer hours each day. lots of big names do a large percentage of mixing on small speakers at low volumes, using the larger and midfield monitors for checking and playing back loud to the band/label etc.

using a dedicated mastering engineer will mean that (hopefully) they'll have an incredibly well treated room and amazing monitors to check over any deficiencies you may not be aware of, or that you may have missed due to focussing so much on one part of the job. they'll likely have a room and equipment (as well as the actual skills) that's far more suited to that part of the job than you. there's nothing wrong with doing rough masters or attempting yourself, but its far more advisable having another set of ears checking over it.

hopefully the points seem somewhat related, I'm slightly wary of the post lacking a bit of coherency. they're all kind of boring things but the importance has really hit home recently. its so easy to overwork yourself in this line of work, to lose perspective and to try to do to much. as much as possible its good to narrow down what you are good at and really concentrate on that, and to bring in other people who are skilled at different things and work together.

its quite incredible what you can achieve working with other people, and there is absolutely a reason that the variety of different recording jobs in professional situations exist as they do.
 
as an aside to the post, I'd also like to make a point about artistic standards and what people are aiming for. none of this is aimed at being negative/critical and are merely opinions that I'm happy for people to disagree with.

obviously everyone wants to do every aspect as cheap as possible and no one wants to pay for anything any more. sure it can save costs and benefit creativity (in some cases) by tracking at home.

what I feel many people miss (particularly prevalent in metal) is what the initial intention is. what is the point in this song? what is it trying to achieve? why does it exist?

metal as a genre is largely a "musicians" genre of music - you'll get far more listeners of it who play an instrument. this in turn means that technical proficiency at an instrument has a key and defining role in the purpose of the band. largely more so than the lyrics (who listens to metal for the lyrics?!). so what purpose does a metal band have? metal has survived decades because it has evolved and pushed boundaries to new levels. this could range from being the loudest, heaviest, fastest, most technical, grooviest, most ambient, sludgiest, most extreme, most emo, ugliest, offensive, brutal, whatever.

the most successful bands and productions in metal are the ones that have combined both elements into something coherent. the production should never be "technically" perfect, it should rather perfectly reflect what the intention of the band is. no one who's serious about recording should enter a job without an artistic vision, as well as high enough standards to achieve that mission.

i'm not trying to say that every band needs to hire out 6 months at abbey road to achieve what they set out, but its incredibly important to consider the aspects of what makes a band stand out and how best bring out the nuances. constantly ask yourself what the purpose of what you're doing is, and base the decisions you make off those. good studios exist for a reason. they have acoustically designed rooms where instruments sound their most sonically pleasing. they have superior monitoring so you can make informed and correct decisions quickly and easily. they are designed with the intention of capturing and committing to what you want a piece of music to end up like.

unfortunately far too many bands set out with low artistic standards. they're happy to regurgitate unoriginal riffs, copy a production style of someone else and end up with a watered down version of something that already exists. worse still, these bands will want to cut corners as far as working on it/paying for it. if a band isn't truly devoted to their songs and creation, then what inspiration would they have to invest time and money into the production?

as I'm sure many of you are aware, its far easier to work with bands that can play, that have their own sound, and that aren't trying to copy something else. the production is invariably better on these jobs largely because of the attitude and intention of the bands.

this forum has been an incredible source of information and discussion for me for over a decade. for at least half of that time, the culture of amp sims/impulses/drum samples has gone absolutely wild with the development of technology. I'm a huge fan of technology improving but its hard not to ignore the legion of hangers on it inspires. it massively feels like there's a lot of people with no desire to push themselves beyond recording DI's and programming drums in their bedroom as long as they can record their bands album for free. I can include myself as someone who's written demos with programmed drums and DI'd guitars and tried to make them sound as good as possible - there's absolutely nothing wrong with that - I just find the mindset of those that aren't looking to push themselves right to the top slightly infuriating. if the art has no value from the beginning then how will it ever have any value, beyond personal sentiment to those involved?
 
Organization and perspective are key to any creative project. While having a system may seem uptight or like work, good production is a lot of work. Reamping is a hot with folks, but I prefer to work to find a sound before rolling. In some cases, I print fx. I am not saying reamping is bad, but it can be like chasing the wind. Band preparedness can not be discounted. Unless time and money is no object, stay home until you are ready or are willing to come out with an inferior product had you practiced and demoed more. I do disagree with one point, programmed drums are a creative life saver. Quality recordings can be made with them. However, the person programming needs to understand drumming well and program tastefully, patiently inserting details.
 
Gold! Great points! And I admit that some of them make me think in a way different way. Thanks.
 
I do disagree with one point, programmed drums are a creative life saver. Quality recordings can be made with them. However, the person programming needs to understand drumming well and program tastefully, patiently inserting details.

I'm a huge fan of programmed drums and have SO many different sample libraries. I can't think of any classic album that has programmed drums, emulating a real drummer.

there's something about a drummer hitting drums in a certain way to emphasise parts of a song that can't be replicated from the way a drummer is going to generically hit a drum when making samples. cymbals and hi hats will never be as good.

then there's the fact that you can choose particular drums/heads/tuning/dampening/mics/positioning/rooms/baffles etc to really suit what's required. with drum samples you might find some that are close but you'll never be able to completely tailor the characteristics to what you want, let alone portraying the same emotion in a performance when using MIDI vs live instruments.

I'm a huge fan of sample libraries and use them loads for all sorts of things. sometimes its a wise compromise to make. IMO it's either a stylistic choice (open to interpretation if its a success or not) or its a compromise.

I'd be welcome to hear suggestions on albums to prove me wrong, but I don't envisage an example where a real drummer wouldn't have done a better job (when trying to use MIDI drums to sound like a real drummer).
 
I saw this a few days ago while I was on a quick break at work. I just wanted to add a hell yeah to all the points you mentioned.

Im particularly a fan of the concentrate on one job bit.

I made a demo for my band like 6 years ago and decided that I could also perform, track, and mix our first actual record. BIG MISTAKE. I ended up mixing myself in circles for a year plus and then just punting the job like I should have in the first place. Still, listening back, there are tons of performance related things that bother me, not because its my own work and Ill always be critical, but because I know if I had just focused on maybe tracking and performing with an outside mixing and mastering engineer in mind it would have turned out way better and eaten less of my soul overall. I could have focused on the things that I had an absolute vision of and left the other aspects to people with fresh ears whom I trust. I think very few people have the skill, discipline, and perspective needed to see their own projects through all of the stages that go into making an album. Its like every other day on this forum that someone really needs that advice, and ironic considering this is no doubt the largest community of talented engineers online for a specific genre, most of whom will work for fair rates.