Why do your recordings sound like ass?

[flmason]

Originally Posted by Tinderwet

Yeah you're right about that one. You work with what you got, so it's better be good. And I'm afraid there aren't many good singers to begin with so more often than not it's the engineer's "magic" if a vocal track turns out to be good.

What are those engineer's magic tricks for vocals?

Tried fussing with two diametrically opposite tunes the other day, Johnny Cash's "I Walk the Line" and Cinderalla's "Coming Home".

With the Cash number, it seems Johhny's vocal timbre is the whole thing. Doesn't sound like any real trickery beyond slapback there.

Now the Cinderalla tune... that was more perplexing, as in "can anyone really sing in those registers like that, or is it some 'trick'"?

Sort of like pondering how to cover Brian Johnson's singing (AC/DC).

Been my experience that things like Autotune will not make an amatuer sounding voice sound "pro"... it just ends up being an in tune, amatuer sounding vocal, LOL!

[flmason]

Originally Posted by Captain Damage

I think this is why so many of us got frustrated with Flmason. We're trying to participate in a thread about not making your mixes sound amateurish; how to make them good enough that the flaws don't detract from comprehension of the music. And he'd write a 500 word post implying that since none of us could or would give him a formula to make his mixes sound like Houses of the Holy, we were either incompetent or conspiring against him.

Nah guy it isn't like that.

At it's essence I'm after the objective realities of what works, devoid of any mystical mojo type thinking.

What I was claiming is that perhaps some marketed solutions to guitar tone without amps weren't living up to thier claims. E.g. Line 8 likes to boast about thier "platinum tracks" or whatever, but I've never been able to get them to cite one. Further, that if any engineers here know the truth, please demonstrate it, and if the manufacturers are BS, state it publicly, LOL!

On the other hand there was a contingent claiming, "It's all in the fingers." Which is as much a platitude as "It's all in the LA2A" or whatever the moto over on Gearslutz is. (LOL!)

And perhaps also that there really *are* formulas. All of music us formulas on some level. 4/4 time is a formula, octaves are formulas, it's all formulas, Music and math are joined at the hips. I'm sure Rupert Neve would at least concur partially, LOL!

What I was pushing for is objective analysis and resultant methods. The removal of the mystical thinking component of these things that seems to be a carry over from the 60's or something.

By this late date, you'd think that would be over, but then again it is art, and for whatever reasons artists seem to inhabit that world. (I'm thinking Page bought the Crowley place, right?) Seems to be part of the "schtick" from that era if nothing else.

Ah well, I see I'm still misunderstood.

It comes down to this... I wanted to believe that digital recording (sans real amps in particular) would allow me to create and/or recreate classic rock tones at home. (I.e. what the marketing implies.)

Sorting through the various claims has been the hard part. Still haven't reached a conclusion, to be honest.

I suspect that if you spent enough to appoint your home studio, and the digital stuff was just the multitrack platform, sure maybe it can.

The broader questions of, can I replace amps with sims, missing instruments with soundfonts, etc and get pro results... well, mixed feelings there.

Some midi files I've run through soundfonts come out surprisingly good. The question that has led to is, "What's different about how the soundfonts where recorded than what I'm doing?".

Just by being able to close the gap between the sound of the fonts and my fully homegrown tracks would be good enough for me, 'cept that I'd been aiming at guitar sounds... which, when you say "classic rock/hard rock/metal" is really a whole bunch of different sounds. (Not to mention country.)

Best guess is that it's "perfect compression". I.e the soundfonts have each note perfectly leveled. (Least the ones I'm using seem to.) After that it's of course, the composition itself. And midi lends itself to an almost perfect (if not too perfect) "performance".

In any event, hope no thought I was claiming they were in a "conspiracy" LOL! At least not end user equipment consumers like myself.

On the other hand, I'm going to go with what I heard Robert Plant say about the industry (and the musical tools industry in some corners by extension)... "This is the most contrived business on the planet".

[flmason]

Originally Posted by yep

I want to double back to this notion of "all you need is ears." If you have read through these first few posts, I hope that it is becoming clear that this principle does not denigrate the work or the value of recording professionals. On the contrary, it is ordinary civilian ears that distinguish the work of great recordists. And there are some great ones, people who deliver recorded works that are beautiful in their own right, like photographers or painters who make gorgeous pictures of everything from old shoes to pretty girls.

But it is also those same ordinary civilian ears that allow us to hear when our own recordings are substandard.

I am taking it for granted that anyone reading this thread has already, at some point or another, made good-sounding music. There was a time when all that recordings aspired to was accurate recordings of good-sounding music. This objective is preposterously easy these days. I recently tried a $50 Earthworks knockoff mic made by Behringer that is absolutely fool-the-ear accurate. Throw it in a room and record a conversation with this mic and play it back through decent speakers and the people in the room will start replying to the recorded conversation.

But that is not usually what people are looking for in modern popular music recordings. These days, everything is supposed to be larger-than-life, realer-than-real, hyped and firey without sounding "distorted." We are no longer creating accurate recordings of live performances, we are creating artificial soundscapes that the live concerts will later try to duplicate with studio tricks.

You have whispered vocals over a full metal band backed a symphony orchestra, with a delicate finger-picked acoustic guitar on stage right. And it's all supposed to sound real, and big, and natural. And when the singer goes from a whisper to a scream, the scream is supposed to *sound* 20dB louder without actually *being* any louder than the whisper. Both of which are supposed to sound clear and natural over the backing band, which is of course supposed to sound loud as hell, louder than the philharmonic behind it. And everything is supposed to sound clearly articulated and distinct, including the chimey little arpeggiated guitar. And by the way, can we squeeze in this low-fi record loop and make it sound proportionate like an old record player but also clearly audible.

And the answer is yes, we can do all this. We can make conversation-level hip-hop lyrics sound bigger than explosions, we can make acoustic folk duos blend seamlessly with industrial drum machines, we can make punk rock bands that sound indie and badass while singing autotuned barbershop quartet harmonies with forty tracks of rhythm guitar. We can make country-western singers sound like heavy metal and heavy metal bands sound like new age and we can make "authentic audiophile" jazz recordings where the cymbals sound twenty feet wide and fifty feet overhead.

All these things we can do. But these are no "captured" sounds, any more than a Vegas hotel is an "authentic" reproduction of an Egyptian pyramid or a Parisian street. These are manufactured illusions. Unlike a Vegas hotel, the construction costs are almost nil. Reaper and programs like it have practically everything you need to create almost any soundscape you can imagine. All you need is ears.

This might sound like a rant, but my point is a very specific and practical one. Sound is at your disposal. Modern technology has made its capture, generation, and manipulation incredibly cheap. You can twist it and bend it and break it and re-shape it in any way you imagine. The power at your fingertips is huge. There is no excuse for dull, noisy, bland recordings except user error.

There is a lot more ground to cover, but no way to cover it all, or even most of it. Your ears are a far better guide than I or anyone else. Anything I or anyone can describe about sound, you can hear better.

Yeaj! Amen!

Can I create those illusions at home, for cheap yet?

All ribbing aside yeah, exactly, it's all supposed to sound realer than real these days...

What makes a recording sound like ass in the modern context is that it sound *accurate* like that $50 Behringer... I.e is sound like it was recording in the living room or whatever.

Which as you point out, is not what folks are expecting from recorded music these days.

[warmingtone]

There are some interesting points that flmason is getting some understanding of there, but still a ways to go...but up for discussion.

One of the best things one can do as a musician (as opposed to just being a 'guitarist', etc) is to train yourself to 'listen'...and this is where the processing of recording can really speed things up. It is no good saying "trust your ears" if you have not trained them to really 'hear' IMHO, and this is an ongoing challenge.

Again, I can recommend some 'isolated tracks' that are about, especially check out S wonder's 'superstition' dissection of what is really going on there...

http://media.libsyn.com/media/slau/S...Multitrack.mp3

Take Free's Alright Now, sounds like 2 maybe even 3 or 4 guitar/takes layered up... with different inversions going.

What you need to do here is go deeper on a playing level. This is one of those songs that is often 'misplayed' and ignoring the 'musicality' of Kossoff and Free in the arranging of a classic track...but a great one to dig deep into.

Like the superstition keyboard parts, 'all right now' has two main guitars to play that 'riff' but not doubled (one goes up to the 5th fret b and e strings to make a double power chord) and the combined parts no where near as 'distorted' as many will use, the notes al ring clear. Find a really good transcription as well as 'score read' along with the individual parts (this is the kind of thing you learn to do a lot at music school )

The chorus too is interesting, the guitar 'power chords' are pretty high and broken up with an inversion (acknowledging that the bass is holding down the roots). From memory, something like this...

-------------------------------
-------------------------------
----9//---------7~-7-----2~--
----7//---------5~-4-----2~--
---(0)-----9-7------------0~--
--------------------------------
....A.............G..D.....A

The D chord there is a 'first inversion' with the 3rd in the bass in the guitar part.

I think a huge part of a lot of things is not to do with the mix, but what parts are put down in the first place. As many of us are both the recordist and musician and the composer and often all these things merge, they are very important.

So, in the potted example of 'all right now' (a classic rock song by any standard, simple but so much in it)...one needs to ask given these 'changes' is this the kind of part you would play. Do you know of that '1st inversion power chord' trick, kossoff did at a very young age obviously. Does that power chord seem very high to the way you normally use them on the lower strings, how does that unwound G effect the sound. Why did he/they choose to play it like this, why does it work so well.

One thing is that until the chorus, there is no bass, so you really hear it when it comes in. Free always had great bass parts that were distinct. The bass through the solo on this song is one of my fave and is as important and a highlight as much as the crafted famous 'solo' (it also features that inversion on the D chord). They also knew when to not play!

Playing this part up high, there is a far bigger separation between the bass and the guitar part and leaves room for rogers vocal range (quite different to the girly 'plant' style vocals of the time).

In short, it is a crafted arrangement of a simple song.

Examples of other arrangements abound, townsend's use of acoustic guitars, EVH small chord forms, May and Page's often 'out of phase' layered sounds. There is a lot of mojo about in the guitar world, most early zep was done with small amps and a telecaster (including the 'stairway' solo), some on cheap danelectros...not an LP through a wall of marshalls as the image would appear. Listening, you can hear it and why those choises were made and right for the song.

...

The amp sims and 'tone' is where the mojo lies really, this is such a small part. Phrasing and arrangement is so much more important to most greats. Knophler for instance sounds like him regardless of the guitar he is playing, largely through note choice (a lot of spelling out of the chords through arpeggio) and phrasing. The picking technique facilitates this, but not crucial...the guitar (he will often use an EMG shur guitar over a strat these days) less so, the amplifier less again.

On the other hand there was a contingent claiming, "It's all in the fingers." Which is as much a platitude as "It's all in the LA2A" or whatever the moto over on Gearslutz is. (LOL!)

You can not 'dial in' these kinds of 'tones'...I am afraid it really is all 'in the fingers', by which it is meant the approach a musical takes to the instrument, his phrasing and touch, dynamics, choice of notes and arrangement and sensibility and 'ears' that informs all of that.

For an example, jeff Beck is one of my favourite guitar players for the reasons of inventiveness and particularly his phrasing and choices of notes and intonation, quite unique. Obviously can afford and uses his choice of guitars and amps and such. For a film project, some of his best work and won a BAFTA (english oscars) for, he used an amp sim exclusively to do the score for 'Frankies House' if you can find it.

...

Ok, long post and hope not too 'off topic' but there were a few things brought up by flmason that could do with some fleshing out. I do think there are some things there that need to be reassessed to move forward.

A lot of the time we may be building a song from parts on our own. I have never come across an amp sim that was usable out of the box. My guitars are different, my 'touch' is different, the tune I want to use it on is different that the person who devised the presets...but mainly these things typically try and sound as big and impressive as they can to sell and sound good on their own. This is where a lot of the 'mojo' is, close listening will show that in reality, these are not the sounds that are likely to 'fit'. If you use big sounds, there is very little room for anything else, it is a very simple concept. Much of 'mixing' or arranging is opening up spaces for everything to 'speak'.

Being a musician is about finding that space for your role in it, nothing to do with some elusive 'tone'. Finding 'that part' and playing it well is all that is required for the "perfect tone".

What I was pushing for is objective analysis and resultant methods. The removal of the mystical thinking component of these things that seems to be a carry over from the 60's or something.

I kind of see where you are coming from, there is as much mojo and hype in the recording world as there is in guitar (well nearly, lol)...but there is something to the principles if you are chasing 'that sound'.

...

I'll leave it there for now, there are a bunch of issues raised in the last half dozen posts and some confusion i think, hope some of this is informative or useful for sorting out a direction and further discussion.

[GregHolmes]

The "Johnny Cash" rhythm effect was sometimes a combination of upright bass played slap-style (boom-tick), and an acoustic guitar with a dollar bill threaded through the strings near the nut and played muted - no drummer at all sometimes. The trio was acoustic guitar, electric guitar, and upright bass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7K4jH7NqUw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEV58ztuihs
In the second vid, he doesn't have the paper - but he's muting and not changing his left hand at all.

[flmason]

Originally Posted by GregHolmes

The "Johnny Cash" rhythm effect was sometimes a combination of upright bass played slap-style (boom-tick), and an acoustic guitar with a dollar bill threaded through the strings near the nut and played muted - no drummer at all sometimes. The trio was acoustic guitar, electric guitar, and upright bass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7K4jH7NqUw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEV58ztuihs
In the second vid, he doesn't have the paper - but he's muting and not changing his left hand at all.

Hi Greg,
Thanks for the serious discussion of both tracks.

Yes, after much close listening, and digging around on Youtube I did find discussions of the correct inversions for Alright Now. The inverted power chord thing I've long been able to hear and have done, didn't realize it had a name.

For the Cash song, I was using a live rendition as the model where they did have a drummer sitting in. Here's the video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7K4jH7NqUw

I went with this one because I figured I could get the guitar tone with my "Strat", LOL!

What I found out in sitting there and listening over and over again and transcribing the guitar part was that *timing* is amazingly critical on this tune. There's an amazing number of little variations on what, on the surface, sounds like a simple two note riff.

Close examination shows it's actually quite a tight performance, and full of variation... and I thought it was going to be an easy recreate, LOL!

Now that I have a rough track with the guitar part done, I need to sit down, transcribe it to tab or standard notation and play it through once, tightly.

Was an eye opener. I'm 48, had this tune in the back of my minds since I was 12, when I first heard it on my Mom's copy of "Dick Clarke's History of Rock and Roll" (first song in the set I think) and always figured it would be easy to fake. It really isn't. No spectacular techniques or anything, but you absolutely have to know when to change riffs.

This one is definitely in the "player and arrangement" category, rather than any specially modified amp or whatever.

At least the vocals are in a male range, but his tone there is unique, so no chance of hitting that spot on, I'm not capable of singing well, even in my own voice.

Tried some different tricks, like brushing guitar strings with a piece of paper to get the kazoo-ish sound. Basically failed there.

Chances are good I'll never get it right.

But was educational, if frustrating.

Ironically, I think the Free tune is actually easier to cover, easier to recreate. Unfortunately, the guitar I'm using seems to go "plink" through the sims rather than sing for the lead. It'll have to wait until I unpack something with humbuckers I guess.

In any event, unfortunately I'm one of those folks that will probably fuss with this stuff on and off until I'm in the proverbial pine box, but never really get there. The rest of my life is to unsettled. I really envy the folks that found "it" when they were young, to say the least.

Well, promised myself I'd try to make some progress this eve and get something down, so I'll back out.

[GregHolmes]

flmason, your video was the same as the first one I listed. You need to also include the big effect that the bass is having. Take a look at what he's doing.

I have a friend who is in an excellent Johnny Cash tribute band, and they sound like these videos - doing exactly what you see in them. Tribute "Johnny" asks his drummer to stop playing - and he even tells the story of the paper in the strings, like the real Johnny does. It's not rocket science - they were just doing the best they could with what they had available at the time.

[flmason]

Originally Posted by GregHolmes

flmason, your video was the same as the first one I listed. You need to also include the big effect that the bass is having. Take a look at what he's doing.

I have a friend who is in an excellent Johnny Cash tribute band, and they sound like these videos - doing exactly what you see in them. Tribute "Johnny" asks his drummer to stop playing - and he even tells the story of the paper in the strings, like the real Johnny does. It's not rocket science - they were just doing the best they could with what they had available at the time.

Agreed. That's why I settled on it. Seemed like getting the tones wouldn't be a problem, even with sims. Quite a different problem from say, the 80's thing. Or any era or band with a lot of studio work going, vrs. say what was going on at Sun Studios (i.e. trying to capture good performances).

Sorry for missing the fact that the vids were the same. Was writing and then went back for the links.

One thing I did notice in comparing that vid and the studio recording was that the studio recording was a 1/2 step up from the live performance. Some folks say it was a capo on the 1st fret.

I went with the live version as I figured I could hit the vocals better in the lower key. Unfortately the results at present... aren't presentable, LOL!

But yeah, this earlier era stuff is educational as it's not as loaded with "tricks" as what came after.

[flmason]

Hey Greg,
Yeah, that Stevie MP3 really points up what I'm thinking... that many of these things are illusions of the mix.

Enlightening on the one hand, disappointing on the other.

Enlightening in that it means it's gonna take some thought and experience to write tunes that make use of this.

Disappointing because it means much of what I've always thought the sounds were... they "ain't", LOL!

Which means I might not ever be able to actually play the sound in my head as a single pass.

[yep]

Originally Posted by warmingtone

There are some interesting points that flmason is getting some understanding of there, but still a ways to go...

This is a huge and rambling post, with an imperfect mix of good insights, dubious subjective opinion, and detailed technical analysis, which is to say, one after my own heart. I'm going to skip over a lot of it but there is some stuff that bears repeating/expanding...

I think a huge part of a lot of things is not to do with the mix, but what parts are put down in the first place. As many of us are both the recordist and musician and the composer and often all these things merge, they are very important.

This is MASSIVE. It cannot be over-stated, especially when you are working on your own. At least half the value of working with a producer or pro mix engineer is that they can tell you what parts to mute, when to extend a part for two measures, when to get rid of your complicated and awkward transition, when the guitar part is obscuring the vocal, when the bass is too busy and distracting, etc.

The amp sims and 'tone' is where the mojo lies really, this is such a small part...

I think there might be a typo in this sentence, since it appears to contradict itself, especially in light of the (excellent) comments and examples that follow.

The thing with guitar sounds (or any instrument sound) is: is it capable of expressing what the musician means to express? If you write a great monologue or poem, it will probably sound better if it's read by James Earl Jones or Gene Hackman or Jeff Bridges or Morgan Freeman or whoever. But there are also millions of people with great, rich, authoritative voices who could read it and have it sound big, bold, and dramatic (or whatever). A lot of them do car commercials on AM radio and would probably record it for $50 if the scheduling is convenient. And a lot of people with bad speaking voices could probably do it a disservice. But if you've written a monologue and feel that it could only sound right if read by Anthony Hopkins, then the problem is probably not with the other 5.99 billion voices in the world.

I never record with a POD, if I can reasonably use a real amp. I almost always like the sound of real amps pushing real air better. In fact I usually prefer the sound and feel of a battery-powered practice amp with a 2" speaker to an amp sim. I admit freely that this preference extends beyond any pure test of A/B or isolated null test or anything else that can be clinically measured, and it's probably mostly irrational, but I just feel like I'm losing something anytime I'm recording a guitar through an amp sim.

That said, if you can't get a good guitar sound out of a POD or even good freeware plugins, then the problem is not with the amp sim. And I will and do freely use them where there is no amp available with the right sound, or in problem circumstances, or just for convenience.

It's not about the "fingers", it's about the totality of the player. Anyone anywhere can be trained to play any piece of music "correctly". Good players play [i]beautifully[/]. This becomes instantly obvious if you listen to serious piano music. Two players can sit down at the same piano and play the same written piece at the same tempo, at the same volume, both of them without "mistakes", and one sounds completely different from the other. Their fingers never touched the strings, it's all in the subtle art of musicianship, the phrasing, the control and note duration, the minute differences in dynamics.

The flaw is in thinking: "I followed the instructions exactly, and it's the job of this machine to make it sound good." It is the job of the musician to make it sound good. That's all that musicianship is, whether you are playing a cardboard box or a pipe organ.

To the point, a great many of the recorded sounds (guitar or otherwise) on those awesome classic albums kind of suck. The people who made them would have killed their sister to have the tools and processors that are available today, for free. Maybe they also would have recorded to tape and used analog eq or maybe they wouldn't have, but it's bordering on insanity to think that what made those records great was the chemistry of the capacitors or whatever.

[Captain Damage]

It's not about the "fingers", it's about the totality of the player....The flaw is in thinking: "I followed the instructions exactly, and it's the job of this machine to make it sound good." It is the job of the musician to make it sound good.

I think the "It's all in the fingers" soundbite is a misstatement that is easily misinterpreted. What is really meant is that if Joe Guitarman were to play Brian May's guitar thru Brian May's amp, he would not sound like Brian May. He would sound like Joe Guitarman playing on Brian May's rig. Likewise, Brian May will sound like Brian May on another player's rig.

I've seen various tribute bands that sound very close to the band they are emulating while using very different gear. These are guys who spend long hours learning to emulate their heroes. Conversely, I've heard many more players who duplicate their heroes' gear precisely and sound nothing like said hero. These are the guys expecting their instruments to do the work for them.

[warmingtone]

Originally Posted by yep

This is a huge and rambling post, with an imperfect mix of good insights, dubious subjective opinion, and detailed technical analysis, which is to say, one after my own heart. I'm going to skip over a lot of it but there is some stuff that bears repeating/expanding...

Thanks Yep, my posts could do with a decent editor/producer.

I think that this kind of thing could have been expressed better...

WT... The amp sims and 'tone' is where the mojo lies really, this is such a small part. Phrasing and arrangement is so much more important to most greats.

It may have seem contradictory, but it was in part in answer to some of flmasons ideas, such as...

FLM It comes down to this... I wanted to believe that digital recording (sans real amps in particular) would allow me to create and/or recreate classic rock tones at home. (I.e. what the marketing implies.)

What I was pushing for is objective analysis and resultant methods. The removal of the mystical thinking component of these things that seems to be a carry over from the 60's or something.

and similar sentiment. A wide spread guitar centric search for "tone" (what ever that might be) with far less spoken of about the main factors that make a players 'sound'. You do see similar things with the recording community, looking to the 'mojo' of certain gear and such as the answer to questions such as is posed in the title of this thread.

By "mojo' I am talking superstition, folk law and such. The actual 'tone search' is full of this kind of thing, if only i had player x's gear, i'd sound just like him...but in reality I suspect they would sound just like themselves on mine or anyone else's equipment, amps or plugins and sims.

So, to me the 'tone' thing is a distraction form the larger issues...as flm suggested,

I can say this, chasing tones can definitely take you away from working on your playing, which can be bad.

So, if taken for what is meant by "it's all in the fingers", which was suggested to be just a "platitude", I think there is a deeper truth to it and fine music has been made for which we still attempt to emulate from what was available at the time and working with it via musicianship, energy and arrangement.

The 'mojo' is something to be avoided, not the most important part at all. A great 'sound' can be inspirational, but no substitute for what you do with it.

As a guitar player, one can work with just a few basic 'sounds' that are adequate for the task. If using plugins and sims, you have all the luxury in the world to exchange and tweak amps and such to you hearts content later.

My perspective is to have some good quality general sounds to fit the occasions you are likely to need. I have three main electric guitars, all custom wired and featuring various HB or stacked pickups, attention to intonation and tuning stability to run as quiet as possible. I've now got a direct box hooked up to run directly into the DAW and a mic-ed fender amp or hardware sims and such if I wanted. Basically, a set up to provide a quality sound close enough and ready to record permanently set up.

...

In fact I usually prefer the sound and feel of a battery-powered practice amp with a 2" speaker to an amp sim. I admit freely that this preference extends beyond any pure test of A/B or isolated null test or anything else that can be clinically measured, and it's probably mostly irrational, but I just feel like I'm losing something anytime I'm recording a guitar through an amp sim.

I think there is something to having the sound of the instrument coming out of the amp that changes the performance perhaps...having the sound of the instrument in the room, even if in the end none of that 'sound' is actually used. There is also some random subtle complexity to the 'real sounds' of an amp in a space that is very difficult to replicate.

Good players play beautifully

This is essentially the essence of the thing. The 'phrase' 'all in the fingers' is all about the totality of the player, the 'touch' the decisions of what to and not play, phrasing and working with the 'tone', the light and shade of things, the choice of notes and all of that side of things. "The tone" is hidden in there, not in the sims or equipment, that is just icing on the cake and these days could well be attended to later to a great degree.

The flaw is in thinking: "I followed the instructions exactly, and it's the job of this machine to make it sound good." It is the job of the musician to make it sound good. That's all that musicianship is, whether you are playing a cardboard box or a pipe organ.

exactly...

To the point, a great many of the recorded sounds (guitar or otherwise) on those awesome classic albums kind of suck. The people who made them would have killed their sister to have the tools and processors that are available today, for free. Maybe they also would have recorded to tape and used analog eq or maybe they wouldn't have, but it's bordering on insanity to think that what made those records great was the chemistry of the capacitors or whatever.

I am not sure I agreed with some of what this implied on first reading. I'm not sure the solo of 'rock around the clock' would be better for more choices, sustain, distortions or anything else for instance.

From a musical point of view, there are some interesting things to note about EVH's playing, where a lot of it is about 'gesture'...many of those notable runs are symmetrical tapping patterns on the fretboard that fall outside of a scale and time, he always maintained the secret was to 'land on ones feet after falling down the stairs'. I think a lot of things is more about gesture and conviction than even the notes chosen or the sound used. I saw similar things in say coltrane's playing, a coda that sounds amazing, but when looked at carefully, are almost random in terms of the key other than the gesture landed 'on it's feet' just right...many of these moves are easy fingering patterns related to that instrument.

...

in short(ish)...

FLM...Sorting through the various claims has been the hard part. Still haven't reached a conclusion, to be honest.

I suspect that if you spent enough to appoint your home studio, and the digital stuff was just the multitrack platform, sure maybe it can.

There are a lot of 'claims' and mojo about to sell 'product' and it is hard to resist, but it is clearly there to 'sell product'. There is something of a lie in all this, so a lot of it can be ignored once you accept, in the broader sense, that it is "in the fingers" (and by extension, mind and sensitivity) of the musician that this amorphous 'tone' resides.

Much also resides in the context that conspire to make a tone become 'classic'.

Many people attracted in home recording are guitarists and perhaps thinking from a guitar-centric view or listening with the guitar at the forefront. The challenge I think is to put aside this to see the music as a whole and ask how a guitar part may best serve. Many of the classic guitar parts are extremely exposed, not huge multi-layered textures. It is rare that you would see a sax or piano player seeking to layer multiple unison parts, concentrating more on the performance than some 'wall of sound' in which each component fights for space and gets diminished smaller. It's surely not that the electric guitar itself can't be a big enough sound if you want it to be as a single instrument.

In hearing a few thing that people have played on this forum, the guitar parts don't really suffer so much for their 'tone' to my ears, but for timing and editing and sitting deeper into the overall 'mix'. Often there are just too much guitar. "The classic" guitar parts that come to mid, generally seem to be quite distinct un-layered parts that serve the tune.

...

On the production side of things, I ahve been really enjoying and learning a lot from the offerings Thomas Dolby has been putting out on the making of tracks for his new album, recorded and produced by himself in his home studio.

This 'direction' for instance, looks at working with Knophler...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1OBXlEC4_Q

and is interesting how he took 23 tracks and cut them up to make a track that works for the song, beyond even having a great player and the best studio and equipment and tone money can buy in recording them.

[flmason]

@Warmingtone - Just to clear a few things up that might not be clear in print

"Tone Mojo" - I tend to use this term in a derogatory way, basically I dislike all that 60's "arteeste" type talk that seems to also go along with the stoner or "PSI behind the Iron Curtain" era thinking. "Spooky vibrations" and such. Was much impressed by that stuff as a little kid in the 70's, but looking back, seems silly now. But it seems to persist. Same sort of reaction I tend to have for the talk of wine afficianodos (spelling?). All those things they talk about being in the taste of wine, somehow get by my, LOL!

"It's all in the fingers" - I'm pretty vocally *against* this philosophy. Not much I can do with my fingers is going to have as much of clearly measurable effect on tone as stepping on a Rat distortion pedal. Can't make a typical Fender Pro Reverb sound like a dimed Mesa with my fingers.

Been my experience, when I'm playing a rig that responds as I want/expect, everything, every genre is 100% easier to do. At the very least no time wasted f-ing with hunting for "the sound". (Haven't found that sound with the plugins as yet, only had it happen with "real" equipment.)

There's no doubt player skill is a massive part of great tone, but I still claim, if the equipment isn't empowering the the player via the sound and playing response, you may not be able to get from A to B.

Within this context I find that the *timbre* of the rig is the same no matter who plays it. Had much analog equipment back in the day, passed guitars, amps and pedals around among buds. We all concluded the same thing. If "Joe" hit a A chord on my Marshall, the same as me hitting that same chord.

Of course this is hair splitting to some extent, I'm claiming tone = "timbre of the rig". The "In the fingers" crowd, I tend to believe at this point are saying tone = playing gestures.

In a genre like blues, probably true. In the extremely produced sounds like 80's metal and hard rock I've been chasing... well hard to find much of that sort of expression in some "Firehouse" tune or whatever. As always EVH seems to stick out as an exception to a lot of rules. But still, seems to be largely an equipment and production issues. Even EVH experimented with equipment to no end. He wasn't doing that for no reasons, right?

As it relates to recording and the reasons why I got involved with it... seems to me that most of the classic tones I was interested in were on studio recordings, and allegedly the amp sims would let you get all that without the piles of expensive tube gear and stomps. Haven't found it to be true for me. I could, for example, take Guitar Rig 4 and exactly duplicate my old analog rig, and it doesn't play/feel/sound the same. Though it did have the same fizz that *micing* my old rig had, LOL! (Somewhat implying the difference between how ears hear and mics hear is where the delta lies.)

So all that aside, the what I'm highly interested in, as I'm sure other guitar players of my vintage may be, is what techniques the Classic/Hard Rock/Metal Producers used to overcome the aggravations of getting good 6 string tracks down and mixed.

If equipment is not an issue, then allegedly the sims should work. Whether the same techniques as analog amps or not will work, I can't say. That's part of my inquiry/search.

But I do know it doesn't just fall out of a POD or whatever, as thier marketing and manuals love to imply, LOL! Trust me, it's been very frustrating, especially since I started with great belief in the concept, at the very least.

Anyway, the hope was, that buy understanding what the "tricks" of the studio are, the gaps could be closed. I'd patently love to believe/find that I can do the equivalent of [fill in your favorite Classic/Hard Rock album here] an a laptop with plugins and some budget equipment.

I mean, clearly, if you had an a bunch of top notch musicians and instruments in a great sound space, sure, you could definitely replace the Studer with a PC and a multi track sound card.

The harder question is, "can the techniques of the pros be used to produce at or near FM radio quality with minimalist equipment"?

In short, can digital truly be the leveler of the playing field, or is truly commercial level output still the province of the high dollar appointed studios?

As for me personally, haven't been able to practice and study the music enough with my life, so I've been pretty much stuck just monkeying with tones and trying to find things that work. Best I can do for now.

In the end *my* results comes down to what *I* don't know, which ultimately means I have to do the legwork to find out.

Anyway, sorry for the ramble. Was discussing this stuff with a bud over in Hawaii last night who's a player, so's it was on my mind, LOL!

[flmason]

Originally Posted by warmingtone

...

On the production side of things, I ahve been really enjoying and learning a lot from the offerings Thomas Dolby has been putting out on the making of tracks for his new album, recorded and produced by himself in his home studio.

This 'direction' for instance, looks at working with Knophler...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1OBXlEC4_Q

and is interesting how he took 23 tracks and cut them up to make a track that works for the song, beyond even having a great player and the best studio and equipment and tone money can buy in recording them.

Was interesting to listen to MK "in the raw". Also interesting that in the finished song, the "Sultans of Swing" era tone wasn't really applied to his guitar. Didn't seem to hear much change other than level in the finished tune. Which is to say it was a drier, harsher, less smooth tone than I generally associate with MK, "Money for Nothing" aside of course.

[Sigilus]

do your recordings sound like ass, flmason?

[flmason]

Originally Posted by Kenneth R.

do your recordings sound like ass, flmason?

Absolutely and without question.

[warmingtone]

Fair enough, we all come at things from different perspectives and aims, and may disagree on various ideas.

As a guitar player, "tone" does matter but not to the 'nth degree' and one of the least of importance.

From my experience, blind tests and average music consumers can tell a 'nice' or 'appropriate' sound, they don't care how it is made, what type of amplifier or effect, real or simulated, just that what that sound is used for is effective.

"It's all in the fingers" - I'm pretty vocally *against* this philosophy. Not much I can do with my fingers is going to have as much of clearly measurable effect on tone as stepping on a Rat distortion pedal. Can't make a typical Fender Pro Reverb sound like a dimed Mesa with my fingers.

This all seems a bit ingenuous to me. Yes, one can tell the difference between a maxed out distorted pedal and something clean. But how much difference is there in effect by a saturated guitar track in the contest of the tune between one kind of stomp or amp or sim with similar tone compared to the phrasing and 'touch' of a player?

...

MK is a good example of a guy who has used a huge range of guitars and amps over his career and crafted undeniably 'classic' tones from them. He has also used vastly different guitar set ups live over the years to play the same songs...notably the wiry clear strat of the original 'sultan's' vs the dumble amps (as I recall) and pensr shur active EMG HB equiped maple topped, set neck, floyd bridged instrument he has tended to prefer live. The result of his technique and playing, though a completely different tone 'to a guitarist' is just as equally recognisable and enjoyable to the audience.

Regardless of whether playing 'money for nothing' or 'brothers in arms' on an LP, his more recent solo work that often features various gibsons like 335's and the like, nylon string tunes like 'private investigations' or steel string things like 'romeo and juliet' his 'sound' is instantly recognisable as that MK sound. This to me suggests the overwhelming impression of his 'tone' is far more to do with 'his fingers' (and all that that implies) than any coveted equipment he might be using, or that a tune could not just as easily be played effectively with quite a different guitar and amp combination.

...

In more recent times, I was playing with a friend every week with all manner of material from jazz, pop or classic rock...just about anything. I typically take an all purpose telecaster (but it would equally work if i took my LP or strat) and a good toned fender amp and no pedals and make a song 'work' without chasing tone. General people and fellow musicians might make comment admiring the 'tone'...but more so the 'attitude' and how well it married with the impression they had of perhaps the original tune of genre.

I'm really not sure if they would care as long as the 'tone' was 'good'. Much of the impression of 'goodness' even came down to things like how quiet the guitar was when it wasn't being played and the colour belive it or not and that it 'looked the part' or appealed...in a recording, would they even know that?

...

Perhaps it might well be to do with goals. If you are attempting to cop an exact 'sound' of an artists gear, then perhaps there is some merit to pursuing a gear quest to nail it. If you are after your own sound, or even all purpose sounds to produce the effect that suits the tune as best you can then you perhaps want a good quality distortion box to produce it...but whether it is a 'rat' or a tube screamer or what have you means very little to the average listener and can be quite easily replicated good enough with sims and such.

I've not found any of the presets of sims to be more than a starting point for useful sounds. Generally things are made to sound great when you play a guitar part on it's own, but usually 'bigger than life'...and it can never take into account my own guitar and playing touch without some tweaking. Largely removing excess effects, noise reduction, compression and eq.

And most of us have a practical limitation on what we can afford and the mics and recording environment in which we work.

I have three main electric guitars, set up for the way I play with a broad range of sounds available. I've paid extra attention to the intonation and tuning stability (this is what people will notice first about an instrument) and that there are no extraneous noises and that they are versatile and complementary to each other.

For years, I was a one guitar guy (a black '69 original LP) and I played this guitar and amp rig on every imaginable situation for a couple of decades. From a vocal guitar duo, to heavy rock, to jazz ensembles and everything in between. I still have it and a great guitar, but I prefer my small stable of 'lookalike' cheaper instruments that have been modded to my needs these days.

A tele for a clear tone wiry twang (though it's bridge pup is a vintage wide range HB), a strat for that phase-y delicate sound and complexity and an LP for a fuller midrangy kind of sound. All have extensive wiring pickup combos hidden in them, none of them sound like the 'real thing' but they sound 'good'. I care about the quality of the cable going to the amp, that it isn't excessively long for instance. The room and mic is going to have a big influence on the sound that the DAW here's, vs the impression I might have in the room.

However, I could still do practically everything I do on one guitar, and that is necessary when you have to travel over 100kms to play with another musician regardless. Same with amps, back in the day, I was using a pretty anonymous Roland SS amp, in a rock context the sheer volume is what most people were impressed with and that it was always reliable and could move a lot of air (I used an extension 15" cab with it)...the effect of a really loud guitar was enough in that context, it didn't need the kudos of a wall of marshall's in the back line to sound effective enough.

Listening to tapes recently, I have asked the question of whether I could have sounded a lot better with a better amp. I recall that for a while we had a vintage guitar and amp collector sit in with us, and the sound of my gear translated as well or better 'on tape' and in performance to my ears. Of course it might have been 'nice' to have that 1% better tone and it might have inspired a better performance, hard to tell...but that was not an option 30 years ago, nor was the pristine digital recording to capture it at our disposal now.

So, in short, it is important that you have a good quality tone and one that is indicative of what you are wanting to put across and suits the purpose and what else is going on in the 'mix' that makes up the music...but the playing surely far exceeds in the impression than the minutia of what the 'tone' is.

...

I tend to need the presence of the instrument in the room, so a real amp, as a general rule, much like Yep described, to get the 'performance' I want... and in general, the amp sims do lack quite a bit in terms of interaction between the musician, instrument and the sound coaxed out of it. I have heard some great sims (beyond what I can reasonably afford) and that example of JB on 'frankies house' is one where he got a phenomenal (and award winning) rock tone out of a simulator.

He recorded his hit 'people get ready' (with rod stewart) almost entirely sitting on the bed of a hotel room on tour with a jackson guitar...so clearly it is possible to get a decent and usable tone out of sims. In this later case, I think the compromises on 'tone' are obvious, but the arrangement and playing was clearly enough to make it a hit record regardless.

From what I have read, many guitar parts are bolstered or even replaced with sims but it is understandable that artists might not want their sound to be interpreted as 'artificial'. In more classic rock times, someone like Page had no problem with playing a little supro amp and tele, even as his image live was an LP and a wall of marshall's.

...

Anyway, perhaps just different angles to such things...and aims perhaps.

I'm glad you liked the TD video and hearing many raw takes of MK. What I have found on his whole series of videos looking at the making of songs from his new album is that here is a solo artist who seems to accentuate the producing role on his own work and make a lot of interesting decisions, and prepared to share that background for the fans.

All of these recent videos are of interest. On another song, he shows how he manipulated the harmonic sound with plugins and that his voice does not work as well double tracked as perhaps others might. Not many artists would let you hear the raw scratch vocals like this, or show to the extent things are edited and manipulated to get the end result.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lajin...el_video_title

[warmingtone]

Originally Posted by flmason

Was interesting to listen to MK "in the raw". Also interesting that in the finished song, the "Sultans of Swing" era tone wasn't really applied to his guitar. Didn't seem to hear much change other than level in the finished tune. Which is to say it was a drier, harsher, less smooth tone than I generally associate with MK, "Money for Nothing" aside of course.

Not sure if you looked to find the 'finished song' as TD was illustrating in that three part look at the song, how it was put together.

here are links to the three 'dissection vids'

The recording of the original 'scratch' backing take...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdhwOKPdfA0&NR=1 1 of 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1OBXlEC4_Q&NR=1 2 of 3 (with MK)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R48sm...eature=related (strings)


The finished song "17 Hills" is here, and a great lesson in the importance of 'arrangement'...

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


There are lots of great guitar tones, but the amount of detail and decisions along the way to create the end result is very instructive in terms of arranging and the role of producing for a solo product.

He had a lot of access to MK for the guitar parts but you don't hear any hint of that until the 4th verse. A piano player and piano composed song, it would perhaps be tempting to have had this prominent throughout, however you can hear how it and other instruments are pushed back to make room for others.

In the three vids, you get some insights into the process and the importance of having a grasp on the bigger picture.

...

Of interest to many is his innovative promotion and use of contributions from different continents, and how things evolved and changed in that process.

He replaced the original string arrangement with real strings, but decided to mix back the original sampled strings in addition to them. Hearing of a unique slide player, he sent that across and had him play on everything, a friend of his contributed the distinctive fret-less bass part, which replaced a completely different take on the tune by a different bass player, as just some examples.

...

In attempt to try a different approach, he has been releasing songs from the new album as three EP's while still finishing it, and not using a record company at all...with some success. Regardless of whether you like the artist, as home recording musicians such innovative approaches should inspire and point towards changing opportunities in the music world through this kind of technology.

But, it also comes down to being able to make decisions and choices that stem from a good grasp of the bigger picture and concept to produce results.

The result of much of this is that he has prolonged interest in this project (his first album for 20 years) and sold two themed 3 song EP's along the way, with great anticipation for the finished full CD as a result.

He even has the song 'toadlickers' having advanced publicity through an iPhone game app soundtrack of the same name that he devsed and become popular. Perhaps not a record that will make the 'radio' or 'charts' but I think certain to be 'successful' in a global context and profitable for the efforts put into the whole project.

These looks into the actual making of the songs, the raw materials and such, are all a part of this 'strategy' but also fabulous instruction in the production and arrangement arts. 17 hills is a particularly good example of the arranging, editing, production and recording arts IMHO.

[flmason]

Originally Posted by warmingtone

Fair enough, we all come at things from different perspectives and aims, and may disagree on various ideas.
...
From my experience, blind tests and average music consumers can tell a 'nice' or 'appropriate' sound, they don't care how it is made, what type of amplifier or effect, real or simulated, just that what that sound is used for is effective.

Yes agreed, I'm sure that the average audience is less concious of these issues than the player, as the player is dealing with the issue of playing response.

Originally Posted by warmingtone

This all seems a bit ingenuous to me. Yes, one can tell the difference between a maxed out distorted pedal and something clean. ... etc...

Nah, not being disinginuous. I throw this out seriously, to illustrate the point. Is it not clear that stepping on a Rat, DS-1, you name it, does way more to the basic timbre than the fingers? It goes from clean to scads of harmonics. Surely a oscilloscope would show this too. I throw it out as an extreme statement to try and wake people up from that "there this magick thing out there in space..." kind of thinking.

Originally Posted by warmingtone

MK is a good example of a guy who has used a huge range of guitars and amps over his career and crafted undeniably 'classic' tones from them. ... etc...

Yeah, but here's the thing. MK was the one twiddling the knobs on all that equipment. Pete Townsend used to play SG's or LP's with the Epi 'buckers through Hiwatts. Now he used Strats with Lace Sensors (I think) through a pile of Fenders. Still sounds like Pete. But the bottom line is, it's his idea of tone he's tweaking the whole rig for.

Agreed, his choice of chord inversions is crucial too. But coping Pete's playing style isn't as hard as nailing his equipment tone in my experience. Perhaps something to do with that Grampain unit he uses, but not sure.

In any event, I also know that when I walk up to any ol' rig at Guitar Center... there's a particular set of tones I try to coax out of any given rig. So I'd say it's a combination of the notes and inversions the player typically choses (or in MK's case, the fingerpicking style as well), yes the touch, and his choice of settings.

But bottom line is the same, if he's going for LP type sustain dripping with overtones, and he's got a really clean amp, "his tone" might not come out of it.

Some players' tone isn't as dependant on the equipment as that. MK is probably one, as it general style is fairly clean to clean-with-fuzz, and most reasonable amps can cover this range.

Originally Posted by warmingtone

Regardless of whether playing 'money for nothing' or 'brothers in arms' on an LP, his more recent solo work that often features various gibsons like 335's and the like, nylon string tunes like 'private investigations' or steel string things like 'romeo and juliet' his 'sound' is instantly recognisable as that MK sound. This to me suggests the overwhelming impression of his 'tone' is far more to do with 'his fingers' (and all that that implies) than any coveted equipment he might be using, or that a tune could not just as easily be played effectively with quite a different guitar and amp combination.

Agreed, since MK's overall style is more of a touch based one, much like the blues alluded to earlier. For some styles and players this is the case, almost by definition. But when it comes to the 80's/Hair Metal/Hard Rock/EVH thing that was my era, seems to me it becomes less the case. I lived through that era where guy trashed thier "classic" tube amps in favor of massive rack mount rigs, all chasing the "studio" sound. Why? Because just a straight up amp wasn't doing it. Surely you remember those rigs... ADA MP-1 or Digitech GSP-21's run through MOSFET MV962's and the like. Geez, despite his generally clean bias, The Edge's rig is a hug pile of effects.

That said, my old analog rig consisted of 3 amps (Marshall 2203, Fender Pro Reverb, Ampeg V-2) and 3 stomps (Boss DS-1, DOD 505 Comp, Boss CE-1 Chorus) and 2 main guitars (73 Flying V, 79 Strat) and I could cover 90 percent of what I wanted. A few other effects and a delay would've probably been enough.

Even so, searching for the new tones of the time, I ended up with a GSP-21.

Originally Posted by warmingtone

In more recent times, I was playing with a friend every week with all manner of material from jazz, pop or classic rock...just about anything. ...etc...

My hat's off to you. I'm not that good. I may need more from my rig. I may also be more retentive about "nailing the album tone" as well. Probably the case as I branched into recording to find the delta between live and
recorded tones.

Originally Posted by warmingtone

I'm really not sure if they would care as long as the 'tone' was 'good'. Much of the impression of 'goodness' even came down to things like how quiet the guitar was when it wasn't being played and the colour belive it or not and that it 'looked the part' or appealed...in a recording, would they even know that?

If "they" is the audience, they might not notice, unless they were fans of "band x". Same if "they" is your musical friends. Recording is another matter though. It doesn't "disappear" so to speak when the session is over, it lives on. So it's more of a microscope. And mics hear differently too. By the accounts of some of the "big names" it's a different ballgame from live.

Originally Posted by warmingtone

Perhaps it might well be to do with goals. If you are attempting to cop an exact 'sound' of an artists gear, then perhaps there is some merit to pursuing a gear quest to nail it. If you are after your own sound, or even all purpose sounds to produce the effect that suits the tune as best you can then you perhaps want a good quality distortion box to produce it...but whether it is a 'rat' or a tube screamer or what have you means very little to the average listener and can be quite easily replicated good enough with sims and such.

Well, two parts to this. I'd hoped the sims would led me recreate any give "Artist X's" tone, along with the digital recording tools. Had great hopes when I tripped over the POD 2.3 and read of Cubase.

But yes, would really like to find the tones I got from my old analog rig, but in the box to just write my own stuff. Haven't found the combination of tone and playability. Been very frustrating as I've wasted scads of time looking for the tones and playability. So much so my playing *really* sux these days vrs. "merely" sucking in the past.

There's no doubt that the bigger part of why *my* recordings sound like ass is just that. I hadn't played for 10-12 years when I began this iteration. And haven't gotten back up to speed. Have spent the time I have managed to put into it, fighting the actual sounds. For me, I have little motivation to even finish a tune if the sound isn't there.

The "Alright Now" track was a good example. Spent a couple of eve's tracking the rhythm part, but no amp sim I have combined with my low end Strat nails the lead sound. So I just filed the project for later as the whole exercise is wasted without that. For that track, everyone has heard the original so many times, if you don't do a good job of that part... you're SOL, as they say.

Originally Posted by warmingtone

However, I could still do practically everything I do on one guitar, and that is necessary when you have to travel over 100kms to play with another musician regardless. ...
...

Yes, if the tune doesn't *require* something like a whammy bar, delay or a cry baby, a small, say Marshall Combo, even as little as 15 watts, and a good LP, Explorer, Flying-V or the like (any decent humbucker guitar) works for me in the live context.

For whatever reasons, my old analog rig would allow me get a lot of range of tone just out of the knobs on the guitar. Volume from 0-5 was clean, 5-7 was crunch, 7-10 was lead. Haven't found that spot in any digital sim, which, more than any other thing, has me questioning thier accuracy.

...

Originally Posted by warmingtone

In more classic rock times, someone like Page had no problem with playing a little supro amp and tele, even as his image live was an LP and a wall of marshall's.

Page, being a studio musician, probably would've used whatever worked. I certainly don't feel a wall of Marshalls is neccessary for anything these days. When I was 17, I certainly believed different, LOL!

Seeing how digital effects and processors were a "big boys" only thing at one point, I'm not sure why anyone would care, these days, of it got out they were using sims. It seemed at one time (thinking late 80's here) that digital was thought, among us amatuers, as being what the "LA studios" were using.

...

Originally Posted by warmingtone

Anyway, perhaps just different angles to such things...and aims perhaps.

...

All of these recent videos are of interest. On another song, he shows how he manipulated the harmonic sound with plugins and that his voice does not work as well double tracked as perhaps others might. Not many artists would let you hear the raw scratch vocals like this, or show to the extent things are edited and manipulated to get the end result.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lajin...el_video_title

I'm gonna have to go give that a real close listen. As much as my guitar playing sux these days, and my tone from the plugins ain't doin' what I want... my short foray into vocals is the *most* disappointing musical thing I have ever attempted! LOL!

I'm now at the phase of... "Geez, why do my vocals sound so freakin' corny... especially on any word that needs expression!?!?"

[flmason]

@Warmingtone - Quick thought about the TD vids.

Was watching the one "Road To Reno (Disected Part 3).

The part about the harmonica helps to drive home my point about equipment and post processing, etc.

The harmonica player is obviously skilled... but tho give it the "pro sound" treatment it has some 'verb and/or delay... and notably *distortion*. To recreate the practice of blowing through a guitar amp...

I.e. the final, polished "pro sound" is much dependant on the tooling.

But ultimately this forum proves that point. If the "pro" sound were as simple as simply setting up crossed mics that created a 100% accurate recording of a performance, the whole multitracking wouldn't be standard practice, I'd tend to believe.

The more I delve into this, the more I realize, not just guitar tracks... but *every* track has an entire history of tweaks that are common for the "classic" sounds of that instrument in the recording domain.

"Ain't none of it simply a straight up accurate recording", LOL!



It's more like Impressionism with Sound or something.



A quick P.S. - Interestingly, at least on my PC monitors, the Road to Reno track doesn't sound as FM Radio ready as I would've expected. Sounds like something is missing, timbre-wise. I almost want to say the vocals are to dry and forward. But don't know if it's my speakers. What's you're impression.

Just seems to me they who track is produced dry and less "sweetened" or something that is common these days for pop type tunes.

[Marah Mag]

Hear a sim there a sim everywhere a sim sim.

ALL recorded sound is simulated.

[warmingtone]

Hmmm...well there is lots there, and we are both probably slipping away from the general theme of this thread, perhaps it needs it's own 'guitar sound' thing.

As for guitars, A couple of years back I set out to create a set of high quality but affordable instruments that maximized versatility but would allow my 'emerging sound' and technique and 'sound' to come through, regardless of which guitar I played.

Influenced by quite a few, my thoughts were always that the more notable players had distinct 'style' and 'sound' and always I felt that this too is the direction I wanted to go, to have an identifiable 'sound'. I don't think that you will get that from a lot of 'tone chasing'...but that's me.

Finding some basic sounds and variety within them to be more than 'adequate' and that a lot of processing to dilute things. So, personally I have moved well away from distortion and effects (though I have a large collection of vintage pedals) and concentrated on approaches to playing the instrument over 'tone' and 'gear'.

...

I still think that you example is flawed, but one would go in circles to prove the point.

You might consider the very similar riffs of 'all right now' and steve miller's later 'rock'n'me' into with a super clean sound. A good riff is going to work and be recognisable regardless of 'tone'.

...

I may be a similar age, but half a world away (and a day into your future calendar wise) and influences were quite different I am sure. I suppose for a time I was taken by a lot of that 'steely dan' ethos and everyone wanted to be a studio musician like Mr 355 (larry carlton) or play 4ths like Pat metheney. All the same, I was also a pete townsend impersonator in my late teens (in a band called "the hoW" get it...never mind...LOL) and by 21 returned to school to study classical and jazz. Clearly not a lucrative career move anyway, so amazing 'gear' was not something I could aspire to regardless. At 15 I made sure I had the best playing instrument I could get though, re-fretted and changed strings pretty much weekly. The amplifier, I made sure was loud enough (60 watts), reliable and flexible (I still use it as a spare!)

...

So a lot of the whole metal and gear thing was far less of an influence on me. EVH was influential, but his 'brown sound' is hardly the super saturated sound often associated with 80's metal styles and he stood apart. One of his greatest talents I always felt was his rhythm parts and use of small chords and this influenced me quite a bit.

...

As for testing my playing on audiences, well...LOL...I have a few strategies on that. 2 years back I moved to an island, hence the distances, lack of local musicians and entering into recording as a means to continue with music in that realm. I have generally felt one should not play for 'other guitarists' and (not to be sexist) play to the girls LOL.

Basically, the average punter that is not corrupted by the details, but know what they like. So we are talking wives or GF say of fellow musicians who have never seen of heard of me and don't care if the guitar says gibson, fender as long as it 'looks the part' and sounds good. Certainly it is not a 'fan club' there, and many times the influence is to keep things a lot simpler and leave more space that I might otherwise do, and play for the song.

Sure getting a great sound can be inspirational, or at least a good thing to aspire to, but as you yourself pointed out, it can be a distraction to actually playing.

We all get rusty, but one must not look to the temptation that a new bit of gear or some promotional hoopla is going to have as much an influence as 8 hours a day practising or concentrating on arranging and dissecting the mix and arrangement of songs in total, and how the guitar fits into all of that.

...

The radical treatment of the harmonic in the TD clip was not offered necessarily in support of your argument at all. But, even there, the original harmonica part would also have worked, the decision to treat it (and notice the heavy editing on all parts to make comp tracks, independent of the musician...ie arranging) did not influence what the musician played, nor made the part, just added to it.

The TD clips were more offered to get back on track, and to show a songwriter, musician, arranger, home recordist and entrepreneur at work over one minor instrumental track in hundreds. The harmonica treatment was used post performance to best serve the song. You could just as easily (and this is my strategy generally with the project I am working on at the moment) do this with guitar and especially midi performances to by switching amps and VSTi's, editing and the like. That is why I recentloy made sure that I recorded a really good direct guitar sound, just in case...along with the amp sound used. A third strategy with this set up would be reamping, or any combination to get 'that sound' later in the process.

The whole 'tone chasing' and even a lot of the considerations of recording (that I am only just getting an handle on really) seem to be a real 'killer' for me creative wise.

Better to get something that is adequate or 'good' and tweak it later, than to be stuck in trying to get 'that sound' before the basic tracks are down or you can play.

Look at how radically things changed on the tune '17 hills' TD example for the introduction of a new bass part.

...

"Ain't none of it simply a straight up accurate recording", LOL!

ALL recorded sound is simulated.

Good point...so the debate is kind of mute in many ways!

...

I throw it out as an extreme statement to try and wake people up from that "there this magick thing out there in space..." kind of thinking.

I have seen very little evidence of this kind of thinking in Yeps posts or others in this thread really.

...

A quick P.S. - Interestingly, at least on my PC monitors, the Road to Reno track doesn't sound as FM Radio ready as I would've expected. Sounds like something is missing, timbre-wise. I almost want to say the vocals are to dry and forward. But don't know if it's my speakers. What's you're impression.

I noticed that, it might be a factor of the low bandwidth that YT offers or the person who decided to post it (notice it is not an official TD clip and likely taken from a iTunes download). The 17 hills track sounds more 'settled in' but still not quite there perhaps, and perhaps for similar reasons.

You also have to note that TD is not your average 'radio friendly' artist in general, though his pop hits may give you that impression. Songs like 'I love you, Goodbye' were always multilayered arranging extraviganzas and involved real performances and musicians, over the synth pop he is more popularly known for.

I suspect also, that the tracks released for the album as part of his strategy of involving interested fans, is not set in stone and likely not yet mastered. The tracks that he is demonstrating have not even passed the final mix stage.

Seekng out 'classic' tracks that have been isolated can teach you a lot too, in order to appreciate what the raw sounds are like.

There is a lot floating around...here for instance is the actual tracks to 'bad company's' "feel like making love" warts and all.

http://www.studiomultitracks.com/

I don't think although a classic LP/marshall sound, that an amp sim or generic 'marshall-esque' sound couldn't very well do a similar job if not directly compared.

What I hear in this 'classic rock' track is careful arrangement (check out that triple lead 'clean section') accurately (enough) played (listen to the bass track) with a great tone, but not that far out that you would need to invest in a lot of gear to get a good enough recordings, if not excellent results...especially considering a 10 year layoff!

It might also be worht considering that if using a lot of midi tricggered samples, these may be in a far more strict time and it can be quite difficult to work with these things than real musicians with a bit of give and take in time and feel, at least for this kind of 'classic rock' style that is often known for something of a 'swagger' akin to 'swing'.

[flmason]

Lots of good points in here...


[QUOTE=warmingtone;762248]I don't think that you will get that from a lot of 'tone chasing'...but that's me.
{/quote]

Well, yes and no. If you can't get the response and sound out of your rig you are hearing in your head, at least for me, the songs don't get written. Pretty much like trying to attempt any activity without the right tooling. Yes you can improvise to some extent, but in the end... you can't play guitar music without a guitar right? So in in the end, the tool empowers the work.

But sure, just chasing tones doesn't get songs done. As an aside you're mentioned bing in the jazz direction. That's definitely another of those "playing is greater than equipment" sort of genres, if but because it's alot cleaner set of tones, with overtones coming from extended chord voicings. No doubt my 80's focus shapes my particular perspective.

Originally Posted by warmingtone

Finding some basic sounds and variety within them to be more than 'adequate' and that a lot of processing to dilute things. So, personally I have moved well away from distortion and effects (though I have a large collection of vintage pedals) and concentrated on approaches to playing the instrument over 'tone' and 'gear'.

I agree that excess processing is not the key. Just a good rig that makes the right sound and playing response is fine with me. But depending on the player that can be anything from Marshall + SG (Angus Young) to mission controls arrays of pedals and effects (The Edge, David Gilmore). And each of theys guys picked what they use for reasons, and no two have the same rig, so's there must be some salient differences in the equipment.

Originally Posted by warmingtone

I still think that you example is flawed, but one would go in circles to prove the point.

If I can't be shown to be wrong, there's at least some chance I'm correct. (Humor intended)

Originally Posted by warmingtone

You might consider the very similar riffs of 'all right now' and steve miller's later 'rock'n'me' into with a super clean sound. A good riff is going to work and be recognisable regardless of 'tone'.

Sure, but it might not convey the emotional content you are looking to project.

Originally Posted by warmingtone

So a lot of the whole metal and gear thing was far less of an influence on me. EVH was influential, but his 'brown sound' is hardly the super saturated sound often associated with 80's metal styles and he stood apart. One of his greatest talents I always felt was his rhythm parts and use of small chords and this influenced me quite a bit.

EVH is still a great example. I've tried quite a bit to get that sort of sound, yes realizing it's not high gain... but tried to get buy with a single coil pickup and sims. Can't really nail it. But my old analog rig would do that type of tone quite nicely. Ironicly both with Strat or Gibson.

At the very least though, an equipment tweak, that of E-flat tuning is a big part of his tone.

Originally Posted by warmingtone

As for testing my playing on audiences, well...LOL...I have a few strategies on that. 2 years back I moved to an island, hence the distances, lack of local musicians and entering into recording as a means to continue with music in that realm. I have generally felt one should not play for 'other guitarists' and (not to be sexist) play to the girls LOL.

Sure playing for the girls is nice. At this aga and with my overall failure at this stuff, I'd like to just get my day job situation stabilized and to build a decent studio and seriously practice, someday. May never happen. Future isn't looking good for me at present.

Originally Posted by warmingtone

Sure getting a great sound can be inspirational, or at least a good thing to aspire to, but as you yourself pointed out, it can be a distraction to actually playing.

Yes, it is a distraction. But sadly, if the rig won't do what you need for the tune, you don't get targeted results either way.

Originally Posted by warmingtone

We all get rusty, but one must not look to the temptation that a new bit of gear or some promotional hoopla is going to have as much an influence as 8 hours a day practising or concentrating on arranging and dissecting the mix and arrangement of songs in total, and how the guitar fits into all of that.

Oh sure, I've always tended to prefix my statements of equipment > fingers with... "once you're actually able to play the piece in question". You have to have a certain level of competence. For example, I hear a lot of new players using full barre chords and can't do it well, so the chords sound dull and dead.

Originally Posted by warmingtone

The radical treatment of the harmonic in the TD clip was not offered necessarily in support of your argument at all. But, even there, the original harmonica part would also have worked, the decision to treat it (and notice the heavy editing on all parts to make comp tracks, independent of the musician...ie arranging) did not influence what the musician played, nor made the part, just added to it.

I think my point here was missed. Point was, many classic recorded tones were the result of these sorts of treatments. Heck would electric guitar even be what it is without distortion? The idea I was trying to convey is that there's oodles of effecting going on starting at the instrument, all the way through to mastering... and it all takes equipment. On a percentage basis, seems equipment > fingers (once that basic level of competnecy is reached).

Consider the MK track... I didn't hear any extreme talent in that playing. But I did notice the timber was classic "slightly distorted guitar" tone. I think almost any OK player could've done those riffs.

Going back to your posting of the Stevie wonder tracks... the classic "Superstition" riff didn't really come together until *two* keyboard tracks were going. Again, made possible by the equipment on hand.

Originally Posted by warmingtone

The TD clips were more offered to get back on track, and to show a songwriter, musician, arranger, home recordist and entrepreneur at work over one minor instrumental track in hundreds. The harmonica treatment was used post performance to best serve the song. You could just as easily (and this is my strategy generally with the project I am working on at the moment) do this with guitar and especially midi performances to by switching amps and VSTi's, editing and the like. That is why I recentloy made sure that I recorded a really good direct guitar sound, just in case...along with the amp sound used. A third strategy with this set up would be reamping, or any combination to get 'that sound' later in the process.

The whole 'tone chasing' and even a lot of the considerations of recording (that I am only just getting an handle on really) seem to be a real 'killer' for me creative wise.

I see it the other way. Recording, or perhaps more precisely mixing and post processing are all about the tone chase... trying to create an overall tone and sound that are good, unique, identifieable, etc. If not this thread wouldn't even exist, because everyone could just toss a cheap Panasonic on the table and go with that recording.

This thread and this whole BBS, perhaps the whole subject is about nothing if but how to tweak the sounds we got into the sounds we want! (Which again is done with... you guessed it, equipment... all roads lead to Rome. )

Originally Posted by warmingtone

Better to get something that is adequate or 'good' and tweak it later, than to be stuck in trying to get 'that sound' before the basic tracks are down or you can play.

Look at how radically things changed on the tune '17 hills' TD example for the introduction of a new bass part.

So stated another way... get it down then... "Ya know, tweak it with some recording equipment and tools later..."

Originally Posted by warmingtone

I have seen very little evidence of this kind of thinking in Yeps posts or others in this thread really.

Oh heck, I've been slammed mercilessly for daring to assault the temple of the "magic player" 'round here and suggesting that it's the tooling that empowers the techniques.

Pretty easy to prove though. Just plug an earphone into the electric guitar... that's about the sound you are realing making. And even that came out of pickups.

Originally Posted by warmingtone

You also have to note that TD is not your average 'radio friendly' artist in general, though his pop hits may give you that impression. Songs like 'I love you, Goodbye' were always multilayered arranging extraviganzas and involved real performances and musicians, over the synth pop he is more popularly known for.

I suspect also, that the tracks released for the album as part of his strategy of involving interested fans, is not set in stone and likely not yet mastered. The tracks that he is demonstrating have not even passed the final mix stage.

Have to admit, the only TD track I could've named was "She Blinded Me with Science". Think it was an early MTV staple. I've always associated TD with synths. And geez, what could be more equipment, from a tone perspective than synths. Have to admit, it's a totally different way of thinking to create those sort of tunes.

[flmason]

Originally Posted by warmingtone

Seekng out 'classic' tracks that have been isolated can teach you a lot too, in order to appreciate what the raw sounds are like.

There is a lot floating around...here for instance is the actual tracks to 'bad company's' "feel like making love" warts and all.

http://www.studiomultitracks.com/

I don't think although a classic LP/marshall sound, that an amp sim or generic 'marshall-esque' sound couldn't very well do a similar job if not directly compared.

What I hear in this 'classic rock' track is careful arrangement (check out that triple lead 'clean section') accurately (enough) played (listen to the bass track) with a great tone, but not that far out that you would need to invest in a lot of gear to get a good enough recordings, if not excellent results...especially considering a 10 year layoff!

It might also be worht considering that if using a lot of midi tricggered samples, these may be in a far more strict time and it can be quite difficult to work with these things than real musicians with a bit of give and take in time and feel, at least for this kind of 'classic rock' style that is often known for something of a 'swagger' akin to 'swing'.

[/quote]

I'll have to check those out. I have to admit I learned more in 10 minutes by putting an isolated David Lee Roth track into a DAW and doing a spectrum analysis on it and tossing some effects at it than from all kinds of tweaking and reading. Sometimes one good case on point is a real eye opener.

Yes, I find midi and sound fonts to be hard to match. No swing in there unless tyou code it in. I often find it difficult to start singing at exactly the right beat when I have midi backing tracks of covers.

On the other hand, some of the midi and soundfonts I've sewn together from around the web come a lot closer to "FM" radio sound than anything I've "hand played". A rather frustrating situation! LOL!

...

Went over and checked out some of those tracks. I found the VH Jump Vocal track interesting. The reverb has a lot of attributes I've been trying to tune out in my experinents...

Clearly masking in the mix must be making the 'verb sound like it's "higher quality" than it actually is.

That's an aspect of all this clearly will take a lot of time and experimentatioj to truly master. I.e. what sort of layer makes "good" masking.

Ah... what a mess! LOL!

Maybe I should take up baking!

[warmingtone]

Oh heck, I've been slammed mercilessly for daring to assault the temple of the "magic player" 'round here and suggesting that it's the tooling that empowers the techniques.

Hmmm...well, I certainly not trying to 'slam' anyone, expressing a different perspective and offer some resources to listen to what is going on there, or illustrate the idea of production and arrangement. I've not seen anyone here putting their hand up as magic players either, or generally suggesting that on this forum, can you cite some examples?

...

I have been going through some tapes I found featuring me from 1983, I hope I have evolved since then, but you may be interested, or not. Recorded 28 years ago in a lino floored, glass walled cafeteria by mainly teenagers (I was 20ish and clearly still in 'rock-ville') and purely from a real book chart and a brief rehearsal the week before. They might not have been ideal conditions, but such 'pressure' at least used to bring out some 'results'.

http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=10768227

...

Sure playing for the girls is nice. At this age and with my overall failure at this stuff, I'd like to just get my day job situation stabilized and to build a decent studio and seriously practice, someday. May never happen. Future isn't looking good for me at present.

I found this to be particularly poignant, so I didn't what to let it just slide by. These are tough times, but there is some solace in the ability to make and share music and there is opportunity to do so like never before. There might be some limits to the equipment and such, but nothing like as limited as it was back in the day and valid musical expression has been done with a lot less.

I am sure many are 'doing it tough', myself included and in fact, our age is a 'difficult one' in many ways. Music can be a healer and many would/are envious that you can do anything at all with it. It is not so much a failure as a gift...even if at times it is a curse to live with a desire beyond the capabilities and time to make more of it, and to deal with the inevitable frustrations inherent in the process of being a musician of any calibre.

Like the recording I offered here, it is perhaps worth taking stock of what you can do, take baby steps and be easy on yourself, play to your strengths and the resources at hand but try and push yourself ever so slowly forward. If I had tried to be 'wes montgomery' back then, I certainly wouldn't have sounded very convincing LOL. It can be a frustrating process trying to get your 'chops back', I should know...but only time and effort can address that.

When I semi-fallaciously suggested 'playing for girls', even if there are none handy, try and hear things like and play to an/the audience. If you use yourself or other musicians and such, you can get yourself really stuck.

You may even be able to impress a few 'peers' with a lot of work, but I am not convinced such a strategy is going to 'win the race'...but you never know. My suggestion, and mindset I try and put myself into is, will the sound that I am making going to serve the music and in so doing, make me appear a lot better than perhaps I might be compared to say the bunch of guitarists at the back of the hall standing cross armed and comparing their abilities to mine.

...

You seem to have made up your mind about the "equipment > 'fingers'" debate, so perhaps we shall concede to disagree to a very large extent. Others may well have an opinion or advice.

Good functional equipment is necessary IMHO, but it need not be 'expensive' to be effective (look at prince's hohner tele or even evh's home made POS charvel parts-o-strat). At least you seem to have a direction to go if that 'perfect tone' is a requirement of your creativity, so spend what you can afford or do what you can to get to a position of being able to 'create' effectively. Don't be sucked in to an industry that will exploit such feelings that 'if only I had X I'd sound so much better' and don't hesitate to offer up unrealistic promises without any guarantee.

[ringing phone]

Sorry to go off track a little....but on a whole, has this thread dealt with home recordists who are reasonably competent musicians/ singers...or does it include home recordists who can't really sing and who have poor to quite poor playing technique?

Because I feel that a lot of home recordings sound like ass because the guy or girl just can't sing. Weak singing is a like an Achilles leg, let alone heel.

...or are we talking about people who can pretty much perform?

[jacobestes]

Originally Posted by ringing phone

Sorry to go off track a little....but on a whole, has this thread dealt with home recordists who are reasonably competent musicians/ singers...or does it include home recordists who can't really sing and who have poor to quite poor playing technique?

Because I feel that a lot of home recordings sound like ass because the guy or girl just can't sing. Weak singing is a like an Achilles leg, let alone heel.

...or are we talking about people who can pretty much perform?

Your question, and many others are answered in this thread: http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=29283

[gtrdrt]

Originally Posted by jacobestes

Your question, and many others are answered in this thread: http://forum.cockos.com/showthread.php?t=29283

Especially in this post (http://forum.cockos.com/showpost.php...postcount=1829) in that thread!

[yep]

Originally Posted by ringing phone

Sorry to go off track a little....but on a whole, has this thread dealt with home recordists who are reasonably competent musicians/ singers...or does it include home recordists who can't really sing and who have poor to quite poor playing technique?

Because I feel that a lot of home recordings sound like ass because the guy or girl just can't sing. Weak singing is a like an Achilles leg, let alone heel.

...or are we talking about people who can pretty much perform?

I think your post is completely ON-track, and this thread seems to periodically get hijacked with wonky and endless debates over guitar tone that should really be moved to a separate thread.

To the point, if people spent half the time and effort practicing with the tools available to them that they spend arguing on forums, they would make a lot more and better-sounding music.

However, specifically with singers, esp amateur rock/pop/R&B-type singers, they tend to do less arguing and more plain worrying, mostly because they have no fucking clue what they are doing, and deep down they know it. Two weeks of actual PRACTICE would do most singers more good than a year of engineering and six grand worth of equipment and plugins (this is true for all instruments).

All those girl groups in the 60s who seemed to intuitively nail perfect harmonies and vocal blending on live, one-mic recordings came from backgrounds of church choirs or some such. They actually practiced stuff like singing intervals, scales, do-re-mis, etc. Hitting the note was a given, an ingrained, intuitive thing. They were free to focus on things like timbre and tone and expression, because the technical part of "singing" was second-nature.

Many (maybe most) modern singers are far too hip to be caught dead singing do-re-mis or "las" alternating root notes with octave intervals or any of that stuff that actual singers do. They're not out singing chants to jump-ropers in the schoolyard. A lot of them are not even singing at all except at rehearsals, shows, and recordings. Maybe a little bit in the shower or in the car along with the radio...

Instead there is this expectation that it's the job of magic mikes and machines and preamps and plugins and slick production to make them sound good. I'm pretty good at that, though not nearly as good as some. But I can do quite a bit to make a bad singer sound "professional", and I have offered some advice on the topic and am happy to offer more.

The problem is, nobody in the history of the world ever bought a record or even pirated one because the singer sounded "professional". ("Hey Trudy, have you heard the new Screaming Mimis? I just love how professional it sounds. I can't get enough of their consistent and mistake-free sound. It reminds me of what it's like to spend time with Johnny, he's so reliable and accurate. Sigh.")

We can do a lot, in a technical sense, to remove the "bad" from a performance these days. But it's still really hard to add "good" that isn't there. I started a separate spinoff thread on "production" as distinguished from the more technical aspects of engineering good recordings, but that's had a lot less interest.

To over-simplify, there are three primary aspects that make a great vocal track. In roughly descending order of importance, they are:

- The quality of the performance;
- The quality of the singer's voice or intrinsic talent;
- The engineering and production technicalities.

The first two are massively inter-related. The quality of your "voice" is partly dictated by genetics and upbringing and stuff we can't much control-- very few people are ever going to be competent opera singers no matter how effort and training they receive, much less a diva with a usable three-octave range.

But amplification and modern processing, not to mention the nature of modern popular music allows people with even limited vocal genes to still make compelling music. I'm not sure Bob Dylan's or Mick Jagger's range really even exceeds a half-octave, for example, but they work the notes they can sing for all they are worth. Moreover, they defy any categorical notion of a "good voice", along with people like John Lee Hooker, Johnny Cash, Janis Joplin, etc. Never mind if we start to get into, say ODB, Kurt Cobain, etc. Even Frank Sinatra or Rosemary Clooney might not pass a Juilliard audition.

You don't need opera-quality pipes to make a hit record, or even a classic. But it's very hard to make a great record with a singer who can't hit the notes they intend to, with the delivery they mean to achieve.

This relates somewhat to all the wanky guitar-talk above: it's not that the physical instrument doesn't matter or has no effect on the quality of the sound, it's that the musician's job is fundamentally to work the instrument they have. Guitar players can buy new amps, Saxophonists can buy a new horn, Drummers can buy a new snare, but I don't know of any realistic way for a singer to buy new vocal chords.

In all cases, whatever the instrument, it is the job of the player to make it sound good. Good engineering can flatter the sound, and make it sit better in a mix, but it can't add very much in the way of talent or musical quality. I can do a lot to turn an ugly and amateurish vocal performance into a bland and inoffensive one, but again, nobody ever fell in love over a car-dealership jingle.

Singers need to PRACTICE, if they are are ever going to sound better than bland and inoffensive. Your mom and your friends might be impressed with how "professional" it sounds after I get done with it, but if that's all you've got going for you, it's like trying to become a model by having someone photoshop out the fat.

I'm not a vocal coach, and I have no particular regimen to recommend. You can check Craigslist for singing lessons, or you can download or buy any of a million instructional things, or you can simply sit at a cheap keyboard and practice singing along with intervals.

See here for something you might not expect, and a great example of exactly what I am talking about:

http://www.wimp.com/warmingup/

[Marah Mag]

Originally Posted by yep

...nobody ever fell in love over a car-dealership jingle.

But love may have been consummated over a bank jingle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We%27ve_Only_Just_Begun

(Tell the truth, Yep: Was that a test? Did I pass?)

[Marah Mag]

And speaking of great singers & bank jingles (and gtr players), have a listen to this legendary first take, as lip synced by the singer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWkOryYF6CI

- The quality of the performance;
- The quality of the singer's voice or intrinsic talent;
- The engineering and production technicalities.

That assumes you have a song worth singing & a singer who feels it & brings it.

[Marah Mag]

I can't find the post, but I believe it was in this thread, where someone said something about a compressor's auto-make up.

I am finding it useful to have AMU turned on BEFORE moving from default, and keeping it on while adjusting the comp, and using the TRACK fader to actually adjust the track's level in the mix. I find that this lets me - in some sense forces me - to hear what the compressor is doing in context.

It's as though, by setting up the AMU, you set up a constant, and that helps you focus the track under compression. A pivot of some kind.

The AMU switch always seemed like it was supposed to be an A/B of some kind and, when it's flipped on AFTER you make a bunch of adjustments, will show a huge diff. But it was never clear to me what that diff actually meant.

By having the AMU on from flat, and playing the track fader AS you adjust the comp (in effect making the track fader the the comp's last stage), you are "riding out" the changes that cumulatively show up as drastic when the AMU is switched on post.

Does that make sense?

That's what it sounds like I'm hearing with ReaComp.

I love compression.

[Airlock]

Originally Posted by yep

I started a separate spinoff thread on "production" as distinguished from the more technical aspects of engineering good recordings, but that's had a lot less interest.

If by less interest you mean less replies, okay, but IMHO these are the two best threads on the subjects on any forum anywhere, and I (and I'm sure many others) thank you for giving us the benefit of your time and knowledge.

[Marah Mag]

Originally Posted by yep

"production" as distinguished from the more technical aspects of engineering good recordings

Right. In practice IGWOS those 2 are destined to overlap and morph. The extent perhaps depending on genre. And one's patience w technical shit. And what you are actually trying to accomplish. Or not accomplish.

This thread has been going on for so long, I'd like to ask: What exactly does ass sound like these days?

[yep]

Originally Posted by Marah Mag

But love may have been consummated over a bank jingle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We%27ve_Only_Just_Begun

(Tell the truth, Yep: Was that a test? Did I pass?)

Lol. I did not intend it as test, and had no knowledge of the source, but you certainly "passed" in the sense of disproving my thesis. Apparently commercial jingles *can* lead to wedding songs!

[yep]

Originally Posted by Marah Mag

...That assumes you have a song worth singing & a singer who feels it & brings it.

If you don't have that, than the best I can do is make it sound like a car commercial. Which I can do with almost anything, I'm good at that.

But I'm a second-rate, maybe third-rate talent. (don't argue, I know me better than you do). There is a notion in baseball that the best hitters make the worst hitting coaches. The "naturals" have little to offer because they never had to think about it, they just did it right. According to this notion, the best hitting coaches are the smart and skilled mediocrities who barely made it to the big leagues, by analyzing everything. People who almost didn't really belong there, but who squeezed in by exploiting every little edge and advantage. People who made it without talent, in a sense. According to this notion, *those* are the people with advice to give.

If I have anything to contribute, it's along those lines. I'm a mediocrity who has put a lot of thought and effort into trying to figure out what makes the great ones great. I hope some people reading my posts might be natural talents who get a jump-start, who surpass and exceed any advice I can give.

To the degree that this thread is being read by other mediocrities, I hope that it will at least allow middling talents to make better-sounding records that they can be proud of.

Everyone has a song worth singing. Some have the skill to sing it in a way that is worth listening to. The very best sing songs that do a better job of singing everyone else's song than they could do themselves. They express our own feelings better than we can express them ourselves.

[yep]

Originally Posted by Marah Mag

I can't find the post, but I believe it was in this thread, where someone said something about a compressor's auto-make up.

I am finding it useful to have AMU turned on BEFORE moving from default, and keeping it on while adjusting the comp, and using the TRACK fader to actually adjust the track's level in the mix. I find that this lets me - in some sense forces me - to hear what the compressor is doing in context.

It's as though, by setting up the AMU, you set up a constant, and that helps you focus the track under compression. A pivot of some kind.

The AMU switch always seemed like it was supposed to be an A/B of some kind and, when it's flipped on AFTER you make a bunch of adjustments, will show a huge diff. But it was never clear to me what that diff actually meant.

By having the AMU on from flat, and playing the track fader AS you adjust the comp (in effect making the track fader the the comp's last stage), you are "riding out" the changes that cumulatively show up as drastic when the AMU is switched on post.

Does that make sense?

That's what it sounds like I'm hearing with ReaComp.

I love compression.

Auto-makeup gain is useful precisely to the degree that the compressor itself is well-designed.

In terms of the above, it should be turned off for A/B comparisons, along with any other makeup gain. If the compressor does not sound better without makeup gain (whether auto or manual), then the compression is not actually improving the sound.

Setting aside saturation/distortion artifacts, what makes once compressor sound different from another with the same settings is usually the detection circuit and response curve. That is to say, how the compressor defines/detects "loudness", and also how quickly it responds to the same.

There is no clear rule of thumb for this. A compressor that makes fast, palm-muted metal power-chords chug and thump might make mellow, clean-tone jazz guitars pump and hiss unnaturally. Compression settings that make a rock drum kit pound and pulse and breathe with huge, stomping sounds, might make a cocktail kit sound pumpy and fake and kind of dumb.

The faders should be used to turn up one instrument relative to another. Compression should not be used to make a thing "louder", it should be used to alter/contain/control the dynamic profile of a given instrument. You can always make something sound louder with compression, until the listener turns down the playback volume. At that point, you have only made it flatter and smaller.

Compression should be used to control the way an instrument breathes and pulses. In a sense, GOOD use of compression is dangerously close to BAD compression.

[yep]

Originally Posted by Marah Mag

Right. In practice IGWOS those 2 are destined to overlap and morph. The extent perhaps depending on genre. And one's patience w technical shit. And what you are actually trying to accomplish. Or not accomplish.

This thread has been going on for so long, I'd like to ask: What exactly does ass sound like these days?

I'm not sure what IGWOS means....

To the latter question:

IMO, the topic, and "like ass" still applies to anything where the recorded work still falls significantly short of the vision. IOW the totality of who you are is who you are, but if the only impression anyone has of you is the bottled smells that come out of your ass, then they are probably not getting a fair picture.

More specifically, what I meant five years ago and still mean today, is that if your records sound significantly inferior than your musical vision, well, that's what this thread was intended to address. As I said in the very first line of the very first post, if your recordings do not "sound like ass", please ignore. Frankly, being something of a mediocrity myself, I don't have a lot of input when it comes to making brilliant records sound more brilliant.

I'm a pebble-polisher, not a diamond-cutter. If you have genuine diamonds then you probably don't need my advice: a billion-dollar industry is picking through the muck day and night for you already, and they'll be happy to shine you up good.

[Sigilus]

I still frequent this thread often, and while I might be one of those middling talents, I am always looking for the edge of some smart advice.

Yep, my guess at IGWOS is "It goes without saying"

[Smurf]

Originally Posted by yep

I think your post is completely ON-track, and this thread seems to periodically get hijacked with wonky and endless debates over guitar tone that should really be moved to a separate thread.

But then no one would ever read it because no one really cares..... and it would just die a quite death.