One of my No. 1 pet peeves in music criticism is how little attention is given to the process of recording music and how it affects the final product. Lyrics are treated as sacrosanct little pieces of artistic genius, and there is usually some discussion of songcraft, insofar as hooks and song structure is discussed. If production and engineering are entertained in a review, it’s usually a cursory mention of overall “feel” or a regurgitation of a PR line (“this record was made in a cabin with no hi-hats!”).
Certainly, a piece of music should be discussed on the macro level and taken in and hashed out as a whole entity. But that whole entity includes instrument/arrangement choices and production/engineering decisions, which are often as important (if not moreso) to artistic intent than the last-minute lyrics the singer scribbled on a phone bill envelope at practice. 90% of what you hear is discussed 10% of the time. Some of it may be the fact that the some critics themselves are not musicians or have never recorded and are unfamiliar with the process itself, but I don’t buy that as a whole. And if it is true? Bone up on this stuff. It’s important. If I have to read one more misuse of terms like “polyrhythm,” “mastering,” or “compression,” I’ll die.
This is why I was so excited to conduct two interviews with hip-hop/pop engineer Joe The Engineer. Joe laid out a lot of information on the recording process in lay terms, and he has agreed to come back to us for a regular series wherein he answers questions people have about recording music, not just pop and hip-hop, though those are areas of expertise. Want to know more about ProTools? Curious about Sound Replacer? MIDI got you down? Joe’s the guy to ask! Have at him!
So, SO true. I took an engineering course a few years ago and it permanently altered the way I listen to music, and (in my better moments) how I write about it.
Awesome, Awesome, Awesome. Hugely looking forward to this series.
@spankyjoe: @unperson: So, uh…got any questions?
Does Joe the Engineer ever have labels telling him what target volume they’d like an album/song to be at, or telling him the general “loud is better” type of thinking?
At what stage is the decision to use ProTools on a track made? Is it the default for some labels or some artists or is it up to an individual producer, artist, and/or engineer?
I’ve got a question: When working on a track that has no possibility of commercial success, why not go for a dynamic mix instead of a brick-wall radio mix, especially when you consider that radio stations have their own compressors that will make everything sound like cheese anyway? Why not make a mix that’ll sound awesome on a home stereo, and let the radio station’s engineers earn their money?
@itisy:
Pro Tools has been the industry standard for recording software for quite some time now. Instead of recording to actual analog tape, most everything is digital now days, and you need a program, Pro Tools probably has the most market share in professional or semi-professional environments, and a lot home studios as well. There are some studios, mostly high end, that still use tape.
So the question is somewhat misguided I think. Pro Tools is not an effect, or a treatment, but the actual recording platform used. Some studios don’t even have tape anymore, so if they use Pro Tools, that’s what you record with.
I hear people dissing Pro Tools as if Pro Tools is responsible for a lot of the shitty music you hear. Simply not true. The low cost and availability of EVERY digital audio recorder makes it so easy for anybody to record music that you just hear so much more crap.
Pro Tools software/hardware are just tools, and it’s how you use them.
Pro Tools does make it easier to do things like only sing a chorus once and copy/paste it to other areas of the songs – and that is very cheesy and lazy.
The use of pitch correction and generally “fixing” things in the mix that should have been sung/played correctly originally is not a Pro Tools issue, but a pitfall of technology available. Just because it’s there and available doesn’t make better records.
I’m done.
I want to hear some wacky battle stories from the trenches. What’s the weirdest thing an artist has asked you to do? What was the funniest “make it sound like [blank]” request? Any stories about label suits making creative decisions while the artist just sits there and listens meekly?
Ok, I got a question, how does Joe see the state of the biz for recording engineers? What’s the outlook as far as jobs looking like? With the availability and proliferation of high quality/low cost home recording gear, is it tougher to get gigs, less opportunities, etc., or are more people recording and looking to have stuff done right?
I ask because, coincidentally, I’m at a recording school right now and I’m getting to the “oh shit, what am I going to do when I get out of here” stage.
Oh, and on a tangent, the comment about someone “using Protools on a track” and your comment about people misusing terms (especially compression, people, there is a huge difference between dynamic and data compression) makes me thing maybe a primer is in order here. Just so someone who has never seen the inside of a studio reads about flying and punching they’ll know what the hell anyone is talking about.
I need to give credit to Joe Tangari, whose Andrew Bird review tackled “sound” and “tone” as its focus: [www.pitchforkmedia.com]
@Captain Wrong: Good call. Those are some things I will ask him about.
@Captain Wrong: Yes, this would be awesome! A glossary of sorts.
@KikoJones:
HomefrontRadio has it correct. Dynamics, and just plain ole feel. My philosophy is why not just play it and sing it, you might play or sing something that just gives it the spark it needs.
I’ve used both tape and Pro Tools, and both have their advantages.
@Captain Wrong: Even artists need this kinda primer sometimes: While working at a music store years ago, I overheard an aspiring rapper who was interested in purchasing a recording console (aka “board”, or “desk” in the UK) for his home studio ask the co-worker who was demoing the unit to let him hear track 13, because according to him “that’s where the beats is at.”
@juiceadngin: Pro Tools does make it easier to do things like only sing a chorus once and copy/paste it to other areas of the songs – and that is very cheesy and lazy.
How is this a bad thing? And how can you tell it’s been done on the finished product?
Oh, and btw, Pro Tools is great but tape still rocks.
Ok this is great, I have some questions. Being in a band that records,mixes and masters all of our own stuff its a wonderful opportunity to get to ask some recording questions.
1) What are three most essential Pro-Tools (or any) digital plugins and why? Best digital EQ? Best digital Compressor/limiter?
2) Do you think digital sound processing & plugins will eventually eradicate the need for outboard gear?
3) What is your process for recording and mixing lead vocal tracks? How important is the microphone & pre-amp?
I realize that these questions don’t tackle how recording effects the outcome of a song per say but as someone who actually goes through that process and understands it somewhat the more technical questions interest me much more. Thanks.
How is this a bad thing? And how can you tell it’s been done on the finished product?
Good bands understand pacing and dynamics will vary their performance each time, depending on where they are in the song to generate excitement and a sense of resolution.
With brickwalling and Pro Tools, the end of the song sounds exactly like the beginning and becomes easily ignorable.
Those looking for a good primer on recording technique can check out tweakheadz.com. I don’t own stock in the site or anything, but it’s a good resource.
@HomeFrontRadio:
Good bands understand pacing and dynamics will vary their performance each time, depending on where they are in the song to generate excitement and a sense of resolution.
@juiceandgin:
HomefrontRadio has it correct. Dynamics, and just plain ole feel. My philosophy is why not just play it and sing it, you might play or sing something that just gives it the spark it needs.
Sure, but there’s something to be said about consistency as well. It’s also very common that a copy/pasted sung chorus–which was the original example–can go undetected against a charged up outro/coda/finale etc. If you can get it done right go ahead and go “live”, but why waste a bunch of takes when the copied part will go unnoticed? That’s all I’m saying.
@HomeFrontRadio:
Oh, and good bands also know condescension when they hear it.