Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 03:43 AM

Cheers Old Mate!

(Yes, I did mean SM57!!)
Like you, need a window of opportunity,
but, an interesting idea, nonetheless.

Thanks mate

Ralphie.

PS. Must show you my Polyphonic Spree Copper Microphone sometime.
Made from genuine US Carbon Granule technology!
Getting back to the subject of this thread, I'm experimenting with it to try and re-create old Alexander Prince cylinders. Even using the original surface noise, looped many times.
Doing it all at home too.
Couldn't imagine many commercial studios would want to waste their time on such a project!

All that money invested in the best equipment just to produce the sound of a crackly telephone!!

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: treewind
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 03:17 AM

Hi Ralphie.
It was in Recording Magazine January 2002, allegedly.
It keeps the 57's presence peak but damps some nasty resonances making it smoother. The SM57 was designed for transformers; the resistor makes the improvement on transformerless preamps. Ideally you calculate the value so the mic sees about 500 ohms, including preamp input.

No, I haven't actually tried it - the thing to do is put the R in a short M-F XLR cable and label it carefully!
One day, in my copious spare time...

Anahata

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: GUEST,Ralphie
Date: 18 Sep 08 - 01:24 AM

Greetings Anahata.

Hadn't heard about the "mod" on an SM58.
Have you tried it???

Must go look for my soldering iron, and have a go.
It's worth possibly ruining a mic cable (You haven't seen my soldering!!) to find out.

Best to you and Mary

Ralph. Now back to the topic in hand.

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: Phil Cooper
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 11:59 PM

Paul had mistakenly said to Margaret and me at one point, "if you want to make a recording, I'll engineer it for free." We did it live to two track analogue tape in the ball room at the David Adler Cultural Center, after hours. This was 1984. We made him a 1/4 partner in the tape proceeds, rather than take his work for free. The result was a tape called "Very Carefully." While no longer in print, I think the results were great. Paul recorded several more of our CD's over the years (you can hear the results on our myspace and websites from the Pretty Susan CD or the Lady's Triumph CD). You can pm me for the addresses if you want to hear them. All were done direct to two track or to DAT, no overdubs.

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: DebC
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 08:59 AM

Wow, Anahata (great to see you on here as always) I didn't know that about Paul and I am certainly not surprised.

I also understand that economics is the deal-breaker for many, if not most artists. It is an expensive process, to make a recording. If someone chooses to make a recording at home, I really am in no position to criticise. I think that it does really all come down to goals for the recording.

I guess it's kind of like my car. I have no idea about cars except how to drive them, put gas in them, and add oil. I go to my car mechanic for anything more complicated than that. For me, it's the same with recording. I need to have someone who has the knowledge and tools to do a recording when I want to make a record.

Great thoughts, folks.

Deb

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: treewind
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 08:20 AM

Paul Stamler is certainly one of the good guys. Did you know he discovered a mod* to the humble Shure SM57 microphone that costs single-digit pennies and makes it sound like a mic worth 3x the price when plugged into a typical modern mixer or preamp?

Anahata

*680 ohm resistor between pins 2 and 3 on the XLR cable connector

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: Timo_Tuokkola
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 07:30 AM

Down with ProTools!
Down with DigiDesign!
Long live Logic Pro!

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: Will Fly
Date: 17 Sep 08 - 04:28 AM

The problem with recording studios - for me - is that I, or the bands I played in, could never afford to use a decent one. There are several studios in my area and the boogie'n blues band that I used to play in (until recently) used a couple of these studios to make our one and only CD. We cut it mainly live with vocals and some instrumental solos overdubbed later. To me, it sounded dull and lifeless and just didn't capture the excitement and feel of the band's live playing. This was all around 8 years ago, and we used the studios that we could afford, which wasn't a huge amount. The engineers were very competent and professional, and the equipment seemed up-to-date - but (sigh) it just lacked that "Something" that made the band what it was.

I now use some kit at home to make my own recordings - this is a humble sample:


Blue Monk

It's not perfect, by a long way, but it captures how I play live - for better or worse - and therefore, to me, is more satisfying. And because I make no claim for the music, it's free to anyone who wants to listen to it or download it (which may not be many!)

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: DebC
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 10:46 PM

Paul Stamler is amazing. I first heard his touch on Julie Henigan's CD American Stranger, which is one of my favorite recordings. I am not familiar with Ken, but yes, having a "boss" really helps.

Deb

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 10:37 PM

Deb - Sounds like a wonderful - and educational - experience. And that's the way to do it if a person is able. I just would not want to discourage someone from doing a recording in a more humble fashion IF that is the best they can manage, given the financial and other circumstances of their life.

I recorded a CD this summer - I had two days to do it, and I did. It is full of, um, "imperfections", and I would like to have a month to re-do it, but I don't. On the other hand, I feel it does capture a certain feeling worth capturing, and will communicate something worth communicating to at least some listeners, and it was the best I could do under the circumstances. It's like marriage or having children: if you wait till "the time is right", you may never do it ...

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: Phil Cooper
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 10:19 PM

Deb,

    We had that experience with Ken Brown and earlier with our recording wizards Paul Stamler and Paul Goelz. An outside voice can help a lot.

--Phil

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: DebC
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 10:04 PM

Wow. What an excellent discussion. I don't think I can add to it, except to give you my own experience with my newest CD, "Fond Desire Farewell". I am so proud of this work and I think it's really my best yet. And I am not usually that positive about my own stuff. I *am* my own worst critic.

I've done it all recording-wise...I recall back in 1988, the quartet I was in was a guinea pig for a recording engineer student's senior project at University, and it sounds like it. But the music was really really good! You can judge for yourself HERE

My last two solo CDs were done in home studios, but both studios had really nice mics, serious Pro-Tools recording software and good engineers. Both CDs were mastered. Even though people liked the CDs (and I like them too) I felt that they could have been better, but I didn't know how or what I was missing. This applies more to the process than the result, though I do question some things sonically in the finished products.

For "Fond Desire Farewell" I decided to pull out all the stops (and lots of $$$) and hire Dave Mattacks to produce. That has made ALL the difference in my past work and this new project. In the past I always felt like I had no idea what I was doing, kind of stumbling around in the world of recording. I had to make all the technical decisions, an area where I don't really have that kind of expertise.

But...most of the new CD was recorded in a home studio. We did go to a "Big Boy Studio" (Dave's words) to lay down the foundation tracks in isolation rooms. We then recorded the other instruments and vocals in a home studio with no sound proofing. This proved to give us some hilarious instances involving birds, planes and a loud neighbor.

The tracks are now in the final stage of being mixed by a separate engineer whose specialty is mixing. I am blown away by the results.
We master at the end of this month.

Dave has been with me every single step of the way, from choosing the material all the way to seeing this through promotion. For myself, the entire process was worth every dollar spent and the experience was one that I do hope to repeat at some time. I really feel like I didn't pay him enough and the amount of time and energy he (and our main engineer) put in was extraordinary, I think.

For me, Recording has always been a chore and something I never liked. This project was different. Maybe it was the fact that I wasn't in charge. When it came my turn to sing, it seemed so easy. Not sure why, but it was.

Sorry to go on so long.

Deb Cowan

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: kendall
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 09:21 PM

I was partly joking, I'm already doing it. As the Buffalo said, "Let the chips fall where they may."

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 08:20 PM

Do it, Kendall.
Bruce, Your album is sitting on my wife's desk and she's working late.
Looks like I'll have to wait.

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 07:57 PM

This afternoon I listened to two new CDs and they both sound fine.

Gary Koonce has one out and so does Jim Brannigan. Beautiful voices both. Good material. I got a real kick out of Jim's liner notes and his voice. Good tenor.

Gary has a more formal approach to the traditional material he does, but that's fine, too.

Kendall, there will aloways be those who bitch and complain about whatever a performer does. Sometimes it just plain jealousy on their part. In a word, f**k 'em. However, the advice about mixing and mastering given in an earlier post is good advice. Take it. Hell, why do so many people want perfection? Ain't ['damned good' enough? Sheesh!

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: meself
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 07:32 PM

Just do it, Kendall!

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: kendall
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 07:26 PM

I have such a man. He's a genius, but I don't expect him to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: JedMarum
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 05:11 PM

No worries - each album has a different set of requirements and if you're purposely collecting recordings from various sources, then that is your starting. The best thing to do is find yourself a seasoned pro with the right gear and edit, remix (where possible) and master the collection. The technology exists today to make a great compilation form various sources, and make them work well together.

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: kendall
Date: 16 Sep 08 - 02:27 PM

Geez, I almost wish I hadn't read this thread. I'm in the process of making a new CD of old stuff that I did way back in venues from Morticia's living room to a bluegrass festival. All field recordings, none anywhere near perfect, but, as most of you know, I am not able to re do any of them.Maybe I just won't ask for opinions.

My first album, "Lights along the shore" was done in a studio, and by the time I finished it I was so sick of the songs I avoided singing them for years afterwards.
In "Beginner's Luck" there was a chair squeek and a missed chord, but by the time we caught them it was too late. No one has ever commented on those mistakes.

I have a copy of Jim's new CD and I like it.He reminds me of Martyn Wyndham Reid.

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 05:45 PM

Actually, I have a wee dance that I do during the chorus and a few facial expressions that get some laughs.
Music is for sharing.
I have no need for more money.
Me wife has a great job and can always get another.

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: Big Mick
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 04:12 PM

Ron, I think you and Jim have both hit on an important aspect of the digital revolution. It does have the effect of causing one to give a lot of thought to the whole collection. Having had a lot of exposure to Jed, I can tell you that he always approaches the whole CD/album as a collection. The arrangement of the songs is a portrait he is putting together. These days, with individual downloads, one does not have the filler option as much as one did before. Gives the buyer a lot more latitude and causes the artist to approach the promotion a different way.

It also puts the actual CD in a different weight class. What used to be the prime way of selling ones music now becomes a product one sells by using individual tracks and live performances. My guess is that it also will be the second most popular way to sell one's music.

Jim, I always pay the artist when I record their music. Should I record your song, I will send the money. I believe one's work should be compensated. Comes from organizing workers, and being a union guy my whole life. Perhaps it is a cultural difference. One idea, should someone record one of your songs, might be to donate the proceeds to a charity you admire. I listened to that song and could just see, with the right setup (as I am sure you use), it could be a very funny song presentation.

Mick

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: JedMarum
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 04:07 PM

Oooops!

through back - should be throw back!

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: JedMarum
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 03:47 PM

I insist on calling my CDs albums. That is no through back to the old LPs. I use the term because that is exactly what they are! As Ron says, a collection of artworks.

And I put a lot of thought into the contents, the presentation and the order. I know some people think of the album as a bunch of individual songs - but my purpose is to create a package that will be listened to, hopefully over and over.

I also purposely think about the length of each track; is it the correct length for the arrangement? And the length of the overall album - I am convinced that about 45 to 50 minutes is perfect. That is because it is about the attention span of our current listening audience - it is about the length of time for TV shows, for concert sets, etc.

I am once again in fierce agreement with Ron on this subject. Each album, to me - has an overall plan, theme and progression. This is true for me,even in the face of the changing habits of the listening audience. I know that people who buy my new album will download it to their IPODS and select their favorites into playlists - but they will also play the CD sometimes (maybe in the car) and their favorite tracks will evolve.

AND even though I strongly support using the pro studio and audio pros, I understand that some of us can do a good job making their own recordings. Obviously the music/performance is the most important element.

One more thing; if you cannot get the "real" feel of the music in the studio because of the gear or the approach your producer or engineer choose, you are doing it wrong. I am not thrilled about using a click a track - but we sorted out ways to make it work when it was needed.

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 03:13 PM

"but it does alter the way you approach putting an album together."

Just a different mindset.   We have become accustomed to the need for a collection of songs, but do we really need that?   Do we remember Buddy Holly for his albums or for his songs?

The Harry Smith Anthology was a collection of commercially released '78s. I would say it is only the last 50 years or so that we became involved in the concept of albums.   Perhaps going to a format where individual songs are more important to the listener is going to be a good thing.

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 03:07 PM

Good or bad? Mostly good.
A bit of both I suppose but it does alter the way you approach putting an album together.

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 02:16 PM

I'm not sure if the change is necessarily a bad thing.   Too often I've received CD's that have been primarily filler. One or two good songs and then a collection of ho-hum songs.

I think one of the good things about the digital age is that we do not need to wait until an artist has a full album worth of material. Tom Paxton and John McCutcheon are examples of two artist who release topical songs on their websites - songs that are timely and worth sharing today, not in 10 months after an entire album has been recorded, mixed, marketeted, etc.

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 02:10 PM

And still the vast majority of sales are probably single choices through I Tunes.
Artists are partly to blame for trying to fill every last minute of a CD. It's just too much.
Record Albums used to refer to a collection of discs in a box.
It seems to have changed to a collection of songs on a disc.

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 01:16 PM

"As for "Albums" and this probably warrants a thread of its own, there are no more albums.
You put out a selection of songs and people choose the ones they want."

Technically, an "album" is a device for holding a collection - a photo album, a stamp album, a record album. I still refer to CD's as "albums".

But, it is a very good point. In this digital age people are less concerned with "concepts" and instead listen to individual songs, getting back to the days of 45's and 78's!    I still enjoy a CD that is programmed to be heard from beginning to end - the new Pete Seeger CD "At 89" does exactly that.

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 12:50 PM

Let's take action without delay ithout delay out delay elay!

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 12:46 PM

The album is exactly what I intended it to be.
The Lingerie song was deliberately sung slowly for that album to mess with your head. By the way, do what you want with it. I'll never take a penny from any artist for doing my stuff. Never!
I don't need a producer to mess around with my creativity.
That's the whole point of the discussion as far as I'm concerned.
The next one will be lively. A point that I made at my Mixcraft Live Blog last night.
As for "Albums" and this probably warrants a thread of its own, there are no more albums.
You put out a selection of songs and people choose the ones they want.
Anyway, there hasn't really been one since the "White".

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: Big Mick
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 12:38 PM

Let's start an IWW chapter based on this. Worldwide strike action!!!! Man the virtual barricades......!!!!!!

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 12:35 PM

NO to oppression by compression!

No to parametric equalisation without representation!

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 12:30 PM

"In short, the type of sound you put out is an artistic choice but try getting a studio to do that for you."

IF you cannot get the studio to give you the choice you are looking for, you are either in the wrong studio or ignoring logic.

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 12:26 PM

Yup, I noticed after I'd posted - thank you Ron...

"Spleen Gland"? Spleen Gland! Bug Jam, the name-mangling is getting out of hand...

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 12:21 PM

Many of them exist solely on government grants. I was delighted to see the Canadian Government cut back on factor grants for the simple reason that many studios are getting kids in there for x number of hours, just to push out a product that will satisfy the grant criteria.
Spleen Gland: You have made several valid points most of which have been made on other threads at one time or another.
Nowadays you have to work at taking the polish out of the recording as opposed to the analog days where every gap had to be filled just to bury the hiss.
As for compression... The music is compressed to death and our ears are getting lazy because of it.
Try listening to classical music (where this happens less) in your car and you'll see what I mean. You'll spend so much time twiddling the volume control that you won't get a chance to use the mobile phone at all.
In short, the type of sound you put out is an artistic choice but try getting a studio to do that for you.
Mick: Every instrument is placed exactly where I want it and the Tenor Guitar is deliberately understated for reasons that the spleen guest has so aptly pointed out.
Oh and I've finally come up with the answer to "What is Folk?".

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: Big Mick
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 12:07 PM

Simply a typo on my part, due to me having a bit much on my mind just now. I am referring to the instrument he is plucking at the beginning. I assume it is an Irish bouzouki or an octave mando. By the way, the whistle in that song is a bit strong, to my ear. Again, it appears that a studio would have improved this from a good showing to a great showing.

Another area that a good producer/studio will help you with is song selection, and arrangement. I understand that this is a collection of ballads, but a good producer would have had a bit to say about the song selection, probably encouraging you to try to pick it up a bit through song selection and arrangement. Even the very comical song about dancing around in the wife's undergarments was sung as a slow ballad. I just might play around with that one meself.

Look, Jim, this is a very good effort. Nothing in these comments by me is intended to take away from that. I envy you your voice, and clearly you have paid attention to some great performers over the years. I don't even begrudge anyone the idea that self production allows many, whom otherwise would not be able to be heard, to get their music out there. But any contention that self production is "good enough for folk" just rings discordantly to me. I have heard some pretty good ones, but I have never heard a home studio job that I would compare to the great jobs done by the producers I know and have listened to. I may use my own Sonar software to record reference tracks to send to the wonderful producer I will be using on my own solo project, but I will leave the recording, mixing, etc. to him. And we will have long conversations during the planning and implementation phases.

Mick

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 12:07 PM

" "Spleeny Crank": Oi! There's no need for that, Rod Alaska! "

You are right, and as you might have noticed I already apologized for my error.

Rod Alaska - sounds like a porn name!! :)


"But the home recordist now has relatively cheap access to equipment they couldn't even dream of in the 20s and 30s when the stuff on the Smith anthology was recorded."

That is a bit misleading. Musicians were not dreaming of making independent records either. The recording industry was still in its infancy and not every home had a phonograph.

Technology certainly gives us tools to do things for ourselves, but that does not mean it will be the best. As WYSIWYG (a fitting name for this discussion!), you do not always get quality.   I've heard home recordings that overuse compression just as frequently as professional.

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: GUEST,Proverbs
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 11:55 AM

We need recording studios because they have invested in good equipment, and they deserve to be paid to use it.

Deserve?

Surely they deserve on the basis of what they've earned, not what they've spent?

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 11:51 AM

"Spleeny Crank": Oi! There's no need for that, Rod Alaska!

Yup, I know that Harry Smith anthologised commercial recordings. I for one am glad they sound like they do rather than like many modern studio recordings. It's not about the music, its about the sound. I hate it when recordings sound too damned squeaky clean. Gimme a bit of reverb and distortion... hang on, don't some engineers us that in their expensive studios to make their recordings sound more authentic and down home? I suppose it's a bit like spending extra on distressed jeans...

QUOTE: all of which were beyond the means of an "average" artist of the time from creating in their home. But the home recordist now has relatively cheap access to equipment they couldn't even dream of in the 20s and 30s when the stuff on the Smith anthology was recorded... as long as they remember to splash out on a decent mic, learn how to use what they have properly, learn how to take constructive criticism and learn a bit of basic physics...

I'm not against professional studios and certainly not against professional engineers. I just think that all too often these things are overrated and held up in a mystifying, elitist way by those who have a vested interest in opposing the democratisation of the creative process... and I don't mean you Mudcatters here.

There's room in the world for the professional studio of course, and the professional photographer and graphic designer and so on. There's also room for enthusiastic amateurs of varying ability. In this Myspace/Youtube world of sample before you buy, if you don't like it you can vote with your wallet. And Wysiwyg, my partner is a photographer and she loves her digital SLR and her Adobe Photoshop (as she puts it, no more hanging around in dim and smelly rooms breathing in chemicals)... and finally, just a thought: my dad runs a walking group for pensioners. In the old days he'd have had to fork out for the design and printing of leaflets and newsletters and so on. Now he does it himself and emails rather than posts half of them to the group members. They may not look very pretty, but time, power, ink and paper aside, they're free. Typesetters may not like it, but I can name one happy pensioner who does...

Mick, how about a Mudcat "Just say NO to oppression by compression" campaign?

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 11:47 AM

Is this Jeopardy??

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 11:41 AM

That was good. Anyone got an answer?

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 11:36 AM

Banjo?

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 11:27 AM

"Spleeny Crank "   Sorry about that Spleen Cringe, I should have double checked. I guess that was Freudian.

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 11:15 AM

I used to work in typography until desktop publishing drove that industry into the ground. Now millions of PC users think they can do it themselves. The product suffers.

Friends used to be professional photographers until digital cameras drove their business into the ground. Now millions of PC users think they can do that themselves, too. The product suffers.


It's much as Mick describes. Professional quality TALENT deserves professional quality equipment and expertise. We as a society prefer to do it all ourselves, our way. Once in a blue moon one has not only the raw talent the product requires, but ALSO the vision (and skills and equipment) to MANAGE the production of that product oneself.

To assume otherwise is to fall for advertising gimmickery that promises "you'll get professional results with our machinery.

(Have we all forgotten how much we loved those man vs. machine sci fi books not so long ago?!?)

We need recording studios because they have invested in good equipment, and they deserve to be paid to use it.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: Big Mick
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 11:12 AM

Great point, Ron, and well worth pointing out that the folks making that argument about the old recordings would be listening to something else entirely had the technology been available.

What is worthy of agreement with Spleen Cringe is his/her criticism of the use of compression. Compression is a tool that is overused today, with regard to acoustic instruments. Setting the levels is one thing, taking the extreme edge off instruments that need it is OK, but this crazy need to compress all the highs and lows into this oatmeal bland sound just takes away from the beauty of the music. Paul Mills gets it just right. Listen to some of his work with Jed, Stan Rogers, Rick Fielding on Acoustic Workshop, or any of the others he has recorded and you will know what I mean. Sandy Paton is another who understands what an acoustic instrument is supposed to sound like, standing alone or ensemble, and masters accordingly. These are skills honed over years of work. Skilled producers, such as these, understand how one gets a total sound, mixes that with his/her understanding of what the artist is trying to do, watches out for the negative unintended consequence, suggest (based on experience and talent) ideas for instrumentation, and is as important to the final product as the artist is.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 11:06 AM

Different companies have different pricing regarding CD replication. Oasis in the US has what I think is the best pricing. Suffice it to say that shrink-wrapped bar coded clouore graphics and liner sleeve cost about $2000 per 1000. That is exclusive of recording costs and mastering. Many mastering places compress the shit out of music and the expenditure of three hundred bucks to master it yourself just drops the cost of having to have a company do it.

I'd opted for the plastic wrap on the CD because it adds a bit more 'structural integrity' when it's being handled by the postal systems, customs.

There is absolutely no question that a competent engineer and a producer can be a tremendous help. However, come the end of the day it's "your" name on the CD and your own call as to what constitutes good. I know from bitter experience that relinquishing control can be a bad thing to do.

Reminds me of the fellow who went to the unemployment office and said he was outta work and needed a job. He said, I'm the boss." The unemployment counsellor asked him to describe his job. He said, "I'm the bos. I go down into the sewer with a bucket, fill the bucket with effluence and pass it to the next guy who takes it to the truck." The counsellor laughed and said, "This makes you the boss?" Fellow said, "Yes indeed. I don't take shit from no one!"

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 11:03 AM

"Despite the excellent music, I avoid playing them in a way that I never do my crackly old Harry Smith anthology or my Lomax field recordings "

What you are failing to take into consideration is the fact that the Harry Smith anthology WAS state of the art for the time the original recordings were made, and Lomax WAS using state of the art field recording equipement for the time - all of which were beyond the means of an "average" artist of the time from creating in their home.

The recent Woody Guthrie "live" CD was made on a home wire recorder in the late 1940's. The recordings went through an extensive processing to create something that is sonicly pleasing for modern audiences.

If you read the posts carefully, it appears that Spleeny Crank is making an aesthetic judgement about the quality of the music more than the technical aspects.   Most "folkies" will enjoy a Harry Smith compliation of COMMERCIALLY RELEASED recordings even though the quality is not up to contemporary standards. Likewise there are audiences for Big Band recordings of the 1940's, jazz from the 1920's and 30's, and other such historic recordings that are our only link to the original artists.   These are gems and we should treasure these recordings, but if these artists were coming up today, they would be utilizing the best techniques that were available to them.

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 10:27 AM

Which is not to say that spending what money you have on hiring a good pair of ears isn't a good idea.

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 10:19 AM

If you're looking to bring out a self released CD that will probably sell 500 copies and you want to stand a fighting chance of breaking even (or at least not losing too much), unless you already own a studio or have friends with a studio who can do you a favour, there is only a limited amount of time you can afford to spend there. You have to be creative and use the resources available to you wisely.

Isn't it ironic, too, that so much money is spent trying digitally recreate the sound of old four track analogue recordings?

Also, isn't it weird that these marvellous, expensive studios spend so much of their time putting out arid, soulless, overproduced, sterile, artificial-sounding crap?

And, now I'm on a roll, why do so many British guitar bands use so much compression on their recordings these days? It's not big or clever! They might all be using expensive studios and top engineers and producers, but it sounds horrible!

What about the eighties? How much of the stuff they churned out using the latest state of the art equipment and recording techniques is virtually unlistenable now, almost sounding as if it was designed to make the listener cringe - in a way that many earlier, more primitive recordings don't? Too much money being thrown at recording, too much cocaine being consumed, no doubt...

God preserve us from folkies who want to smother the music with polish...

Keep music raw, that's what I say. If I wanted polish I'd listen to Smooth FM instead of music I could give a shit about.

Finally, I have two CDs on a label that trumpets loudly on all its releases how revolutionary and wonderful and state of the art its recording facilties are. To my ears, they sound absolutely horrible. Despite the excellent music, I avoid playing them in a way that I never do my crackly old Harry Smith anthology or my Lomax field recordings or my first Velvet Underground album or my Kitchen Cynics bedroom recordings.

Sometimes, less is more.

Subject: RE: Tech: Why do we need Recording Studios?
From: Big Mick
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 10:05 AM

You know, I am getting tired of the uncalled for comments. I came on here based on your PM to see if I could help, but your smart ass comments have caused me to have a rethink. So here it is.

You wrote the post. They were not my words, they were your words. Your post seemed to pooh pooh the opinions different than yours. The fact is that you are the one that used the "good enough" term 4 times in as many sentences, and it caught me and several others as problematic, and emblematic of what we see with many performers in this genre. The real pro's would never view their work this way, and would have responded to that being pointed out by clarifying their intent in using them. You are the one who made a declarative pronouncement on a friggin' discussion forum and then whined when someone responded to your own words. Lesson for you, Jim Boy, words have meaning. You must be careful what you write, because context gets lost on a computer monitor at times. Oh, and I don't particularly like your smart assed use of the terms you have used on me. If you don't want your words and ideas critiqued, then don't lay them out there. And while you are at it, lose the attitude. The judgement error was yours, not mine.

In your first response post, Jim Boy, you asked me to judge for myself. Fair enough, here you go. I listened to most of the cuts, and it is a very good selection of songs, and they are well rendered. You seem to be basing your challenge on your talent as a singer. That is legitimate, because you have excellent vocal skills, know the material well and interpret it with a method that tells the story/message with effectiveness and style. Clearly your major influence is Tommy Makem, based on your style of singing, as well as the song selection. You seem to work every bit of what vocal range you have and the end result is good. Instrumentally, your style is very basic with few adornments, but you use it effectively and produce a nice background for your vocals. I do the same, as I am not the best instrumentalist. But the areas where your recordings fall short are the stuff that this thread is about. Clearly you are not using a very good mic, or if you are, you don't know how to balance it for maximum potential in the recording. The effect is that it sounds a bit like you are singing into a box or a tube. Additionally, your instrumental balance is not very good in some cuts, most especially where you are using more than one instrument. For example, in Boolavogue the balance between the squeeze box and the banjo are not done well, and the whole instrumental, IMO, is a bit more subdued that it should be. One doesn't want to overtake the vocal story, but it should not be underwhelmed either. There are some cuts that are fine, but there are plenty of examples where a producer in a studio would have asked you to do them over, and that same producer would have mixed them much better than you did. I make these comments because you asked me to judge for myself, and that is what I am doing. You say it is good enough. Maybe for you, but it wouldn't be for me. A very good effort to be sure, but not good enough for me. It is my opinion (which is what, after all, you asked for) that your "good enough" effort would have been well served with a professional ear put on it.

I would not have made these comments, but for the fact that you asked for them. In fact, I logged on to just praise your work and try to soothe your ire. But when I read your last comment, it became clear to me that I could not let your post stand.

I will say this a last time, then I am done with this inane, ego driven horseshit. I think Jim is a fine performer. I have enjoyed listening to the cuts he posts. My response was simply to HIS choice of words. They fly in the face of one of the most important lessons Rick Fielding taught me. Jim, if you want a friggin' dustup, then let's do it in PM's and let the thread get back to what it is about. I am only posting this because of your last post, and will not respond any further to any comments about anything other than the subject of the thread.

Mick