[Gizzmo0815]

Originally Posted by flmason

I've considered the general question for years. And I continue to find examples where studio results differ, with the same artist doing the playing, year in and year out, from the live and "live recording" results.

That's because one is "live" and the other is "in studio". Duh.

Originally Posted by flmason

I disagree on the percentages and believe so should any thinking person. I don't think folks are clearly drawing a line between intrinsic tone and playing gestures.

What you're so casually dismissing as "playing gestures" are the things that make a guitarist unique. Gear will process sound...but gear cannot make intelligent unique, artistic musical decisions for you. Sorry dude.

Originally Posted by flmason

Here's that Satch video again. Despite his awesome playing the tone is not there. So it still sounds like crap overall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9v5e1TTwts

I personally disagree that it sounds like crap. And here is where you and nearly everyone else on the thread diverge. When I watch that video, I see a guitarist who I could recognize anywhere as Joe Satriani. Because only he plays with his style. And I view the video itself as a piece of art. The recording is not "poor quality" to me, since it was done with a camera of some kind. It is actually quite good, for that medium. If it were recorded on a $20,000 microphone, through a Marshall stack with a professional video team there and it looked like this. I would first wonder if it was an artistic decision...and THEN wonder why the quality was so poor for that medium. And the answer would likely be because the recording engineer, and the video team did not know what they were doing, and do not understand the proper techniques to use the equipment.

Most gear available at reasonable prices today is capable of outstanding recordings. If you can't make it work...IT AIN'T THE GEAR.

Originally Posted by flmason

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeupLXuoWko

This video...is a perfect example of an artist who knows what to do with his gear in order to achieve his sound. His playing may be simple, but the decision to play THOSE chords, using THOSE voicings, with THAT pick, on THAT guitar, with THOSE pedals, with THAT amp and in THAT room are decisions made based on a vision. But I can guarantee that The Edge didn't spend 10 years trying to figure it out. He very likely took his available gear (which to him is a vast selection) and chose pieces that would allow him to realize that vision. But the "vision" is something that is vague at first ("I have a general idea of what I want this to sound like") and as he creates the tone becomes more clear ("Ahh yes...that sounds good").

You NEED vision. And that entire process can NOT be summed up with a formula, no matter how much you want it to be so.

Originally Posted by flmason

I have a friend who's worked with a number of big names in Nashville over several decades. I asked her about what happens in the studio with her singing... her answer, "Geez FL I don't really know, I sing...and THEY make me sound good." LOL!

She's on recordings that have charted no less!

Does she sound good when she sings anywhere? I'll bet she does.

But even if not, you can OF COURSE manhandle a recording into something that sounds decent. But it's so much easier to just start with something that sounds good. It almost sounds like you want us to believe that nothing sounds good until it's processed through the studio. I know from personal experience that premise is baloney...and not just a slice of baloney...it's the whole baloney sandwich.

Well then you've essentially established that studio equipment, including the rooms etc. trump everything else when aiming for "commercial sound".

No...I most certainly have not. "Commercial sound" is subjective. There are thousands of examples of songs that by some people's measure are poorly recorded, but that doesn't mean they're not commercial.

Originally Posted by flmason

]After all if even the pro's don't have the same sound outside the studio, then the studio is the key element in that delta.

And I can guarantee that the pros don't care either. Because they understand that a live performance will inherently sound different than a studio recording, and treat each as a separate example of their art.

Well, theoretically, the concept of digital emulation strikes me as 100% valid. In *theory* all's we have to do is come up with the same waveforms and job is done.

But it's in theory...which is currently not provable. Yet you persist in trying.

Originally Posted by flmason

]What I'm insisting as simply that the actual techniques used to make the transition in sound is quite fair game here. But whenever it comes down to any specific track (i.e. bass, vocal, guitar) everyone gets all up in arms.

But no one here promised you that...because they can't. But you want to insist that people TELL YOU THE SECRET DAMMIT.

Strikes me as strange, since that's what it's all about... getting those sounds to work well together. *That's* the supposed real focus, right?

And with an infinte number of possible sounds, and an infinite number of techniques to record those sounds, followed by an infinite number of ways to mix those sounds, with a relatively infinite number of pieces of equipment to use and most importantly...and infinite number of artistic choices to be made...there is NO WAY for anyone to tell you how to "make a good recording".

If you want specifics...upload a track...and ask for advice to make it sound good.

Originally Posted by flmason

Now no doubt art is about personal choice. But I tend to think "commercially viable art" is another matter, especially in this field. Riffle across the FM radio dial and listen to how every track has similar production values to every other track, despite genre.

Bull and shit. When I filter through the FM dial I hear thousands of different ways in which the tracks have been produced. None of which sound the same.

Originally Posted by flmason

If you can't replicate something, if you don't know the recipe or better yet the exact technical definition of the end result, so you can have many possible recipies, you got nothing but a empirical finding. You don't really "know" anything.

Then stop worrying about replicating and get on with the creating. That way you are entirely free to do whatever you want. And there is literally NOTHING that you can do incorrectly, if you do it with a vision.

Music is one of the most mathematical of human artistic endeavors, by any standard, LOL! 4/4 is a formula. 12 bar blues is a formula, scales are formulas...

Math is a small subsection of the ART of music. In the same way that paint is made of specific chemical compounds that create specific colors. But using the paint to create the Sistine Chapel is someone only Michelangelo could do.

That said, then essentially, your definition of the recordist's job is to be an accurate recordist and that he/she shouldn't be involved in the art part of it?

Absolutely. Unless the artist wants to involve the recording engineer into the process. At which point the recording engineer would become an artist himself.

Originally Posted by flmason

LOL! More likely I'll be under a bridge. Was hoping to resolve some of this before I end up homeless.

Then you should probably stop spending money on a venture that has clearly, after 10 years, gotten you nowhere.

Originally Posted by flmason

Trust me, every time I think I might have a solution and I conjure up an effect chain, or even write an effect from scratch, and then flip through 100 amp sims, it isn't about "needling", it's about frustration, LOL!

Then stop worrying about it and choose one.