It is really all about the music....
The technical is important but THE MUSIC is where it's at!!!
Here's what I mean....
We must maintain a quest for the innovative, the experimental. I don't mean only in the technical aspect of what we do but, in the musical and production tecniques as well. We absolutly must have at our disposal a thorough working knowledge of the technical tools of our trade. This aspect of the industry is in a constant state of change, so a great deal of daily reading and experimentation must be a part of our life.
Skill, generally speaking, means using the tools at our disposal, both natural and technical, in combination to influence our technique.
Development of our recording technique, as individual recording people, then, it would seem, ultimately results from our recording"philosophy" but also, it actually evolves into philosophy as well. In other words, aren't the two, Technique and Philosophy, in music recording, actually dependent on each other?
To clarify the issue a bit, to me, in music recording, technique is philosophy put into practice, but at the same time it is also the practical display of the elements which produce our own individual recording philosophy. If you consider these things in the light of your own natural gifts and situation you will see how they can help to make you a unique recording person. An individual with your own special 'Sonic Personality'. Not just another average, bored, dead between the ears, recording engineer.
I think that in the human psyche there is a natural desire for music. I don't think there is a natural desire for the technical... For acoustics, for example....
I guess I would go so far as to say that I think that music is organic in the human animal. By that I mean that if we look back to mans' earliest musical attempts',(In Africa, for instance) music was an imitation of nature.(Bird calls, etc.) African rhythms, for instance, are a perfect illustration. They can be earthy and simple, or complex and involved. They definiltely come from the 'soul'.
A good illustration of this same line of thought is that a few years back the almost over-night success of video games made a serious dent in the 'Pop' music record industry. The entrance of Video games, like Dungeons & Dragons, was concurrent with a period of sloppy and lazy record production by many recording artists. For example; an artist would go into the studio and luck into a 'hit' album or single. That artist would then get very complacent and go into the studio and record virtually any old thing that came to mind. On top of that, the record labels were stupid enough to release these records. Many gloom-dooming, so-called moguls said that 'Pop' music was through, finished.
The fact is that music is basically organic in the human species. So when pop music makers got their act together, and came back with some significantly better product, pop music came back bigger and better than ever.
For one thing the intense interest in 'Thriller' got people going back to the record stores. They not only bought "Thriller" but many other records as well. In a few short months it was the video games that held a mere shadow of their former interest.
I think the engineers' function, or perhaps a better word is 'responsibility' in making music, is to present the image of the music to the record-buying public. In other words', to create a sound-field that will be an important part of the success,(or lack of same) of the music. I feel that part of the engineers function in making music is to make the music appealing and tasteful. An engineers' ability to create a sound-field that is unique and ear-arresting will help to make the music more entertaining. It is the engineers' unique presentation of the music that he works on, that will be the measure of his ultimate success. In other words, if his 'sound' or 'sonic personality' is so different from ordinary recordings that his clients can easily recognize that fact, and if he can participate in productions that are widely accepted by the record-buying public, then he will be in constant demand by successful producers.
My feeling on this point is that there seems to be two main catagories of music recording engineers. They are:
#1- The engineer that approaches his work from purely the
technical side.
#2- The engineer who approaches his work from mainly the musical
side.
In my opinion neither of these personalities will ever maximize his/her abilities by limiting his/her thinking to these distinc avenues of practice. The strictly technical personality will be in
limited demand because this very approach denies the basic reason for recording music in the first place.
The strictly musical approach to recording music will limit the engineers' ability to get the most out of his/her equipment and productions. By not having a thorough knowledge of the techniques, equipment, and their value in musical production, an engineer will not be able to satisfy that element in music recording production that demands innovative trend-setting technique.
Here's an axiom that I use daily... "It is much easier to be done than to be satisfied".
To borrow from nature has always been a good source of sonic inspiratation for me. If I am out somewhere and hear an unusual natural sonic ambience, I will have no problem remembering it and then I'll try to re-create it in the studio when an application arises. For example, if I'm in a small room listening to a musical sound source and the sonic quality of the room has an interesting effect on the music, I'll remember what the physical properties of the situation are and use that later in a mix, by re-creating the effect either with natural acoustics or electronic devices.
Keep your 'mind's ear' open and sensitive at all times... The difference that an engineer can make in the final product, is directly related to that person´s skills in the studio.
Bruce Swedien
:inn:
...Let me simplify...... What has happened is that almost every single early reflection near the mic has systematically been exterminated over the last 30 years in most recording studios.
You could say that - “The only good early reflection is a dead early reflection.” With this purge of early reflections nearly complete, today’s music is now completely composed out of separate sterile, dry tracks, spiced up after the fact with the FX rack. Mixing has essentially become the work of a sonic funeral parlor of mixing technicians, trying to bring dead sound back to life, for just one more show.
Taken from this thread:
http://acapella.harmony-central.com/for ... p?t=996583
I like the way that was worded. Only a man who has been there knows these things to be an alarming truth!
Firstly I agree, music is organic in nature and like hearing the voice of someone you love it should produce something emotional when you hear it the first time, and each following time.
Thousands are active everyday building, playing and recording music, interaction in forums, buying selling gear, tens of thousands. Worldwide this number must be hundreds of thousands maybe millions!!! With the estimated global population setting at 6.5 billion, that isn't too hard to believe.
The numbers say that there is a number 1 for a reason. There is also a number 100,000 for a reason. The first is the rarity of kind, singular in form. The latter is the clamoring public trying to find an edge or a way to cut through the 99,999 to the number 1.
I trust what you say. It has worked for you for decades and it has been accepted by the public for those same decades.
Your a number 1, a rarity, singular in form.
We are part of the 99,999 :)
What is it going to take to break down the sterile funeral parlor music making mindset of this generation? People are spending more money on gear and recording rooms then they are putting up for retirement.
Does it change? At an individual level it starts, corporate could give a rats eye less. By saying it, is that enough to produce the desired effect?
I'm rambling again :)
Thanks Mr. Swedien
What has happened is that almost every single early reflection near the mic has systematically been exterminated over the last 30 years in most recording studios.
Just to keep this in perspective, recording in a glorious large studio and recording in a bedroom require very different treatment. I agree that killing all early reflections is not needed or desirable in a large room. At the minimum, floors in big studios are almost always reflective for this reason. (As well as practical reasons.) But most home studios have reflections from multiple nearby boundaries. That's what makes a muddy indistinct mess of the sound reaching the microphones.
In smaller rooms a good alternative to over-absorbing is diffusion as shown in the photo below. The room is not huge, but it sounds huge!
--Ethan
Recovered from web.archive.org — originally hosted at http://www.realtraps.com/cust_andrews1.jpg
xSpace, I think you have touched on a major point. There are hundreds of thousands of individuals embarking on the task of creating and/or recording music now that wouldn't have done so 10-15 years ago, simply because it was financially out of reach. Advances in technology and manufacturing have put this capability into the hands of the masses. In their zeal to sell product, this industry fuels the notion that the only thing standing in your way of creating world-class recordings is lack of the latest gear. Most of the folks on this forum understand this is inaccurate, or they most likely wouldn't be here. But understanding that the surrounding acoustics come into play still doesn't give you the a ticket to "The Show".
What Bruce expresses so wonderfully is "the music's the thing". Unfortunately, affordable tools have now been placed within reach of folks who are, shall we say, less than musically inclined. There is a theory among some that this is not a prerequisite to being an engineer, because all that is required is the accurate capture of the artist's performance. I personally disagree with this theory. Bruce's statements lead me to believe he would also disagree. My point is there are people out there with the desire, motivation, and technology. But if they don't have the talent, their chances of experiencing success in this field is in question. I don't know with certainty that I have the talent. People have said I do, but I question it every single time I sit down behind the console, and try to develop it every chance I get. This is because I know it's the key. The technology is the tool, But the music is the thing.
Bruce, along with the others I am grateful for your insights and wisdom you have imparted here. It's very easy to get wound up around the details of the technology, and you remind us there is a reason why we do it to begin with.
Just to keep this in perspective, .......But most home studios have reflections from multiple nearby boundaries. That's what makes a muddy indistinct mess of the sound reaching the microphones.
--Ethan
Recovered from web.archive.org — originally hosted at http://www.realtraps.com/cust_andrews1.jpg
I agree, "small home studios have reflections from multiple nearby boundaries. That's what makes a muddy indistinct mess of the sound"
yes, very bad, very painful, terrible, loud, no good.. especially for drummers.. :D but why you guys think only about the mics?
about humans ear:
the threshold of hearing matches the softest sound possible in air, basically it can't be more sensitive and perfect in this planet with air!
I'm felling really lucky for such perfect gift..
what make a good sounding room for the musician and not the mic?
"why musicians still remember the sweet sound of a simple egg cartons rooms for example?"
Not me. I always make the point that early reflections are damaging when a reflecting boundary is near to either the microphones or to the sound source.
--Ethan
Not me. I always make the point that early reflections are damaging when a reflecting boundary is near to either the microphones or to the sound source.
And we never know what we are writing about listening position 38% of the time. :)
I never hear about early reflections as being between the source emitter and listener and the distance from emitter to reflection surface to listener. :cry:
Reflectively,
Andre
let's put this in this way.. if I play my snare in a big church, at the end of the gig I feel good,
If I play the same snare in my garage after 10 minute I feel bad.
painful... definitely damaging .
xSpace,
Unfortunately, affordable tools have now been placed within reach of folks who are, shall we say, less than musically inclined. There is a theory among some that this is not a prerequisite to being an engineer, because all that is required is the accurate capture of the artist's performance. I personally disagree with this theory.
Bruce's statements lead me to believe he would also disagree. My point is there are people out there with the desire, motivation, and technology. But if they don't have the talent, their chances of experiencing success in this field is in question. I don't know with certainty that I have the talent. People have said I do, but I question it every single time I sit down behind the console, and try to develop it every chance I get. This is because I know it's the key. The technology is the tool, But the music is the thing.
Bruce, along with the others I am grateful for your insights and wisdom you have imparted here. It's very easy to get wound up around the details of the technology, and you remind us there is a reason why we do it to begin with.
Thanks Brian.....
It's all about the music....
We must begin by thinking of our musical sound-field as a piece of "MUSICAL REALITY". BUT - don't forget that our musical sound-field can also be a piece of "MUSICAL FANTASY" as well.... That's when what we do in music recording gets really important!!!
Bruce
8)8)
I never hear about early reflections as being between ... the distance from emitter to reflection surface to listener. :cry:
This is the start of the second paragraph in my EQ Magazine article about comb filtering:
"The main difficulty when recording in a small room is that the floor, ceiling, and walls are all close to both the performer and the microphones." (Source)
Also, the Comb Filter tutorial video on the RealTraps site shows both situations as we leave the microphone in one place and vary the distance between the sound source and a nearby window, and vice versa.
The well-known SBIR is also related to the sound source distance to a boundary. So it's not only the distance between a microphone and nearby boundaries that is discussed.
--Ethan
Mr. Swedien,
Back in the day, when you engineered for a musical artist, what was the process leading up to the first day of work like?
Did the company that employed you say something like "Hey, Brews, wake up, we got some unknown yahoo, John Melloncramp or something-the-other. We need you to work some magic on this cat."
Or was there an interview process, the artist to you and you to them? What would make you take a gig and maybe turn down another, other then not enough time in a busy life? :)
Mr. Swedien,
Back in the day, when you engineered for a musical artist, what was the process leading up to the first day of work like?
Did the company that employed you say something like "Hey, Brews, wake up, we got some unknown yahoo, John Melloncramp or something-the-other. We need you to work some magic on this cat."
Or was there an interview process, the artist to you and you to them? What would make you take a gig and maybe turn down another, other then not enough time in a busy life? :)
xSpace.... (Gimmee a break!)
What is your name? No more discussion without real names.. Please....
Bruce
O'Brien Holcombe, friends call me Brien, family calls me Brien-O...
Did you know that in 2006 NASA did a flyby of the moon "Lo", one of Saturn's 41 moons, and guided it's probe, Cassini, to within 2000km(1,242 miles) of the surface of that moon?
Saturn being somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 billion km away from us, how challenging that must have been!!!
Not to be out done, the probe actually landed on the moon Titan! What? People here worry about too much or not enough acoustic treatment with all their math, and this consortium is putting spacecraft on a planet 1 billion kilometers away!!! :)
These guys know the "x" in space and study hard the fingerprints of God!
Sorry, seldom does one get the opportunity.
O'Brien Holcombe, friends call me Brien, family calls me Brien-O...
Did you know that in 2006 NASA did a flyby of the moon "Lo", one of Saturn's 41 moons, and guided it's probe, Cassini, to within 2000km(1,242 miles) of the surface of that moon?
Saturn being somewhere in the neighborhood of 1 billion km away from us, how challenging that must have been!!!
Not to be out done, the probe actually landed on the moon Titan! What? People here worry about too much or not enough acoustic treatment with all their math, and this consortium is putting spacecraft on a planet 1 billion kilometers away!!! :)
These guys know the "x" in space and study hard the fingerprints of God!
Sorry, seldom does one get the opportunity.
yea!!! that's what I'm talking about , !!!! where are the scientists??
I don't like fiberglass panels , foam, and slats, I want something else , easy and cheap
I want 1/2 sec reverberation time and 100% coverage of walls and ceiling.
room is made with concrete floor and drywall
what's wrong with me?
Mr. Swedien,
Back in the day, when you engineered for a musical artist, what was the process leading up to the first day of work like?
Did the company that employed you say something like "Hey, Brews, wake up, we got some unknown yahoo, John Melloncramp or something-the-other. We need you to work some magic on this cat."
Or was there an interview process, the artist to you and you to them? What would make you take a gig and maybe turn down another, other then not enough time in a busy life? :)
Brien....
Here's an article I found in my stuff that kind of explains how it worked in those days when I was at Universal in Chicago....
This recording event happened in 1962.
"Duke, Duke, Duke, Duke of Earl, Duke, Duke…"
It’s one of the most famous openings of any song from the rock ’n’ roll era. And from its chart debut in mid-January 1962 all the way through the summer of that year, the song was inescapable. Not that there were any complaints–is there anyone who was not charmed by its graceful doo-wop pace, by the basso profundo opening and lead singer Gene Chandler’s tenor soaring into those unearthly falsetto "oo-oo-oo’s" near the end?
Actually, by 1962 the Golden Era of doo-wop had already passed, so the success of "Duke of Earl" was something of a surprise; even then it felt a bit like a throwback to the late ’50s.
Although the song was written and performed by the 21-year-old, Chicago-based Chandler, when the Vee-Jay Records 45 was originally released, it was credited simply to the Duke of Earl, and there was an air of mystery surrounding this odd character. Where was Earl, his "dukedom"? Who was this cat? Indeed, when Chandler would appear on TV and onstage to sing the song, he’d often wear a top hat and tuxedo to make him look like he might be a real duke. In one publicity photo, he even wore a monocle!
Chandler was born Eugene Dixon in 1940 on Chicago’s South Side, where he grew up singing doo-wop on street corners with his friends and listening to the R&B and blues that saturated the area. At 17 he joined the Army, and upon his discharge in 1960, he joined an already-established Chicago R&B group called The Dukays, who scored with a minor hit on Nat Records called "The Girl Is a Devil" in 1961.
It was A&R man Carl Davis, discoverer of The Dukays, who suggested changing Dixon’s name to Gene Chandler, after the popular actor Jeff Chandler. "Duke of Earl" was Chandler’s solo debut, though he was backed on the track by The Dukays.
"Duke of Earl" was cut at Chicago’s Universal Recording Studios, with Davis producing an arrangement by Riley Hampton, and a young staff engineer named Bruce Swedien handling the technical end of the session. (TEC Awards Hall of Fame member Swedien also engineered Michael Jackson’s "Billie Jean" nearly two decades after "Duke of Earl.")
"Studio A was a great-sounding room," Swedien recalls. "It was designed and built by my mentor, Bill Putnam. Bill’s the guy who brought me from my home in Minneapolis to work in Chicago, and actually, the studio wasn’t finished until a year after I got there, so I ended up working for RCA for a year, where I recorded the Chicago Symphony and a number of other things for them. But Studio A is one of the legendary big rooms of that era.
"It had one of the consoles that Bill built, with 12 inputs and rotary faders. That console was one of the first to have echo send and echo return. Bill Putnam was also the man that invented the system of using artificial reverberation for artistic effect." Additionally, Studio A had two echo chambers.
Swedien doesn’t remember many specifics about the session that produced "Duke of Earl," except that he used a Neumann U47 to cut Chandler’s lead vocal. "It was just another session," Swedien notes. "At that point, in a three-hour session you’d wind up with four songs if things were going well. Mixing was not a part of it. Everything was live, of course, and I think I did that one direct to 2-track and mono.
When we did that record, it was still a time in the industry when there was very little effort to achieve separation. The object of recording was to present to the listener a sort of unaltered acoustic event–a performance. That was also just before the record industry was interested in stereo, and the moguls of the industry didn’t think there was any future in stereo.
The director of engineering for RCA Victor came out with this great statement: ‘There’s no future in stereo. I wouldn’t take a shower with two shower-heads, would I?’ That was his analogy," Swedien says with a laugh.
Swedien has fond memories of working with Chandler on this and other occasions. "He was a big, tall fellow, a wonderful singer, very easy to work with," he says. Though he is still best known as the singer of "Duke of Earl," which hit Number One on the charts in the winter of 1962, Chandler was no one-hit wonder. He managed to land songs on the R&B and pop charts all through the ’60s, ’70s and the first half of the ’80s. His most popular R&B numbers included "Rainbow" (1963), "Man’s Temptation" (’63), "Just Be True" (’64), "What Now" (’65), "Nothing Can Stop Me" (’65), "I Fooled You This Time" (’66), "Groovy Situation" (’70), "You’re a Lady" (’71, with Jerry Butler) and "Get Down" (’78). Chandler still lives in the Chicago area and performs occasionally. This should not be surprising–after all, "nothin’ can stop the Duke of Ear-r-r-l."
by Blair Jackson
There Brien.... A little slice of my studio life from 1962....
Bruce Swedien
:inn:
The director of engineering for RCA Victor came out with this great statement: ‘There’s no future in stereo. I wouldn’t take a shower with two shower-heads, would I?’ That was his analogy," Swedien says with a laugh.
The director of engineering for RCA Victor came out with this great statement: ‘There’s no future in stereo. I wouldn’t take a shower with two shower-heads, would I?’ That was his analogy," Swedien says with a laugh.
...Let me simplify...... What has happened is that almost every single early reflection near the mic has systematically been exterminated over the last 30 years in most recording studios.
You could say that - “The only good early reflection is a dead early reflection.” With this purge of early reflections nearly complete, today’s music is now completely composed out of separate sterile, dry tracks, spiced up after the fact with the FX rack. Mixing has essentially become the work of a sonic funeral parlor of mixing technicians, trying to bring dead sound back to life, for just one more show.
Taken from this thread:
http://acapella.harmony-central.com/for ... p?t=996583
I like the way that was worded. Only a man who has been there knows these things to be an alarming truth!
Firstly I agree, music is organic in nature and like hearing the voice of someone you love it should produce something emotional when you hear it the first time, and each following time.
Thousands are active everyday building, playing and recording music, interaction in forums, buying selling gear, tens of thousands. Worldwide this number must be hundreds of thousands maybe millions!!! With the estimated global population setting at 6.5 billion, that isn't too hard to believe.
The numbers say that there is a number 1 for a reason. There is also a number 100,000 for a reason. The first is the rarity of kind, singular in form. The latter is the clamoring public trying to find an edge or a way to cut through the 99,999 to the number 1.
I trust what you say. It has worked for you for decades and it has been accepted by the public for those same decades.
Your a number 1, a rarity, singular in form.
We are part of the 99,999 :)
What is it going to take to break down the sterile funeral parlor music making mindset of this generation? People are spending more money on gear and recording rooms then they are putting up for retirement.
Does it change? At an individual level it starts, corporate could give a rats eye less. By saying it, is that enough to produce the desired effect?
I'm rambling again :)
Thanks Mr. Swedien
