Studio 'Magic'

[rabies]

I've been thinking about this recently.

You know the common thought of people who are not musicians..or recording artists? The whole thought of 'They can make anybody sound good in a professional recording studio'?

I realize i used to believe that. Now that I am on the other end, doing the mixing and recording..I am thinking..you know...There is not enough studio magic in all the studios of the world combined to make MY recordings sound good.

So..whats the deal? Any ideas? What is 'studio magic'? Use of reverb and compression? EQ? What do the pros do to make bad tracks sound 'good'? For vocals, is it the use of Voice Modeling units? Would that not compromise the integrity of the singer? Do pros really use this stuff to make people sound good?

Listening back to some of our stuff..I certainly could have used 'studio magic' here and there..

 

[Mr. Hyde]

Rabies I don't think your recordings sound bad. We are using mp3's after all. Given that, I think we are really pushing the limits of what is possible.
I wish I knew of some magic myself.

I think I know what you mean though. When I listen to some of the bands out there today perform live they don't sound very good. They sound much better on cd. Live they don't play very well, sing out of key etc...and it makes me wonder how they did it in the studio.

They must have someone in the studio who has a decent ear to fix things up. Maybe the singer had to do a thousand takes until he got something that sounded ok.

Oh man, was anyone else unfortunate enough to catch Axl and the KFC backup band murder those songs last night?

(edit)
I changed some of the wording in this to try and make my point clearer.
Oh, and the part about Axl is a joke... kinda...I brought it up because he has always sounded horrible live when I've heard him but I used to like his voice on cd. (IMO) He sounded like an old lady singing Welcome to the Jungle.

 

[Eddies cellmate]

First of all Rabs, you're tracks have been great!

I think that the truth is that they can't make anyone sound great in the studio.

There are loads of great gear (with more and more everyday!) that can help a track sound better and fix a lot of common problems, but the truth in recording is that: a sound sounds the way a sound sounds. Any gear no matter how advanced can only alter a sound source. Without totally replacing the source (a different thing, IMO) there's only so much even the best studios and engineers can do.

Really I think it's where our tracks hit the wall. Without sophisticated sound booths and racks of top notch gear, there's only so much we can do to capture pure tracks. We can do awfully well with the setups we use, and that's a testament to modern computing, but in the end we still can't do what the studios do. They can tune an entire room/booth to emphasize the best overtones, etc of any given sound source. That's a tremendous advantage because thier masters are then very, very pure and capture the source at it's absolute best, allowing them to master the track without a ton of processing, thus rendering a clean, great sounding track.

Still, I think there is still alot of room for us to continue improving our mixes. I don't think that we've really yet approached the limits of our process yet. I think that with enough refinement, we can produce recordings that will somewhat rival studio productions.

 

[Eddies cellmate]

I was trying to think of a good example while typing that and I just did...

Eddie Van Halen - In his day he was imitated by 100,000 guitarists and his stuff was played note for note by all of them. And despite thier attempts at duplicating him, they never did. Eddie always sounds like Eddie because his sound is in his fingers. No studio in the world could make anyone no matter how talented they are, sound like Eddie.

 

[rabies]

Originally posted by Mr. Hyde

Oh, and the part about Axl is a joke... kinda...I brought it up because he has always sounded horrible live when I've heard him but I used to like his voice on cd. (IMO) He sounded like an old lady singing Welcome to the Jungle.

See...this is what I mean. I've heard him sing live as well..and he always sounds awful. However, in the studio, they make it work - kinda...I never really liked his 'singing'. How? Thanks for the perfect example.

 

[Eddies cellmate]

Originally posted by rabies


See...this is what I mean. I've heard him sing live as well..and he always sounds awful. However, in the studio, they make it work - kinda...I never really liked his 'singing'. How? Thanks for the perfect example.

Well, let's face it... live is where the men are seperated from the boys, so to speak. Axl's the kind of hit or miss borderline singer who totally benefits from the capabilities of the studio environment. He can't do it live, but give him 6 months and 100 takes in the booth and he sounds decent. In this case (which is a great example) the studio is a bit of "magic" for him, but I'd assert that it's due more to the multiple takes and controlled schedule than it is due to the engineer aiding his sound. I think Axl just simply doesn't have good control over his voice, and can only perform well when under the control of a good studio/producer/engineer. Once he's on the road, he goes to hell very quickly.

 

[rabies]

EC. I can buy that. I think Joe Elliot of Def Leppard is probably another good example. Sounds like crap live.. DL can never pull off live what they accomplish in the studio.

I always thought pro musicians went into the studio and pretty much only did a few takes to nail it. I never imagined that they would be in there for hours doing 900 takes to get the 1 take that sounds ok. In those circumstances anybody can sound good. Hell..I get pissed because I can't nail something within 6 takes or so. I get doubly pissed when I have to punch in. =(

How can guys like this become famous singers? There are so many others out there who can sing their asses off..and can do it live consistantly..who we may never hear. Kinda pisses me off.

 

[Mr. Hyde]

On Behind the Music Joe Elliot reminisces about recording with Mutt Lang where he had spent hours in the studio being told to give it just one more try.
I think bands like Maiden are very conscious of what they can pull off live and they keep that in mind in the studio (at least now they seem to) where other bands get really caught up in using every advantage that the studio provides.
I used to think that bands generally went in the studio and played the song live until they got a decent take. These initial tracks would be "scratch" tracks that they intended to use for timing etc...and they would record new tracks where they concentrated on getting everything perfect and discard the scratch tracks. I've read a couple of things over the last few years that makes me wonder about that. I always thought that the drums and maybe the bass from those initial sessions were used throughout but I've read about drummers going in later after other tracks had been finished and recording their parts. Tommy Lee talked about doing that. I guess in those situations they must use some kind of click track.