You have to come up with a basic standard for yourself and then work of a case-by-case basis for the rest of it. I hate sell-out music done by completely talentless people who would be nothing without the computer. On the other hand, you can't put your head in the sand and ignore the opportunities provided to us now. I wouldn't have been able to start a studio 5-10 years before I did because it would have been at an unreachable cost for me.

It's just like anything else...Use the tools available to the best of your abilities...but they don't replace hard work and skill.

I have recorded several people who refused much "cleanup" work on their tracks. Some came out good and some were crap. I've also had people that said pull out all the stops. It just depends what their preference is. In the ideal situation you will have someone who is very talented and you can use both your skills and your technology/equipment to further improve upon that.

It also depends on whether the band is going to be performing live and needs to be able to reproduce their sound. On a lot of the college rock bands around here I will touch up and polish their stuff, using a little Autotune, VocAlign, and SoundReplacer, but I am careful to not produce something that they can't come close too in their concerts. It's just an improved version of their live sound. I've also had situations where I could haven take a vocalist's songs and made everything in tune and on time, but I didn't. The person was not good enough to notice it and it would sound nothing like him/her when I was finished. Even if I'm on the clock I'm not going to put in 10x the effort compared to the extreme lack of talent. It's not worth it.

I pretty much agree.... When your not getting paid to do it... I think it should be your say, and people shouldn't complain!!! too much.

I would have major probs fixing up someone who is talentless but if the money is there...... i guess it then becomes loss of reputation v $$

Oblivion wrote:
I would have major probs fixing up someone who is talentless but if the money is there...... i guess it then becomes loss of reputation v $$

Yeah...you have to have some kind of personal standard though.

Its a tough one you can reject them and someone else gives them the fred durst vocal treatment and they make a mint

or

you take them on their cd sucks and you cop the flak!!!

From an engineering standpoint, I will pretty much work what what I'm given. I'll do my best to get the best sound. I'll change mikes, do overdubs, suggest this and try that. I might offer "post" type alternatives, if I feel the band might be open to it.

From a producing standpoint, I will do whatever I can to get the best sound/performance. If it means sound replacing, or using amp modeling plugins, or even borrowing different guitar rigs to get a sound, I'll do it. For drums I'll recommend that inexperienced bands hire a good drum tech to set up the kit, new heads, tuning and whatnot.

From a musicians standpoint, when you have a sound/performance you like, it's hard to have people tell you that it's not up to par. But there comes a time in every musicians life when they must realize that they are not the absolute best. It generally happens in the studio. They either improve, adapt, or learn to live with it.

Since you are wearing the producer hat here is what I would suggest. Take your best take and mix it as best as possible. Then if you have the time/money, take the same take and modify it the way you want to. Do a little sound replacing/time correction, whatever and then mix that. Then bring in the band to listen to the two mixes. They may go for it, they may not. They may soften up to the idea and offer some of their own input.

A while back I was in the studio with this band that had a guitarist, but the singer (who also played guitar) wrote most of the guitar parts. The singer was a better player than the guitarist. I asked the engineer (who knew both guys) who should play the guitar. He told me that if we wanted the best take, let the best guitarist record the guitar part.

Both guys recorded a few tracks and the best ones were by the singer. It was tough on the guitarist but the band knew which take was better and went with the singers tracks.

I think there are two things at play on the music side - the composition of the song and then the technical ability to play what you've written.

Musicians need to dedicate serious time to intense personal practice before a recording, so that you can do it on one or two takes. For those who don't know, you should fully work out your fingerings for every note and practice slowly to avoid unnecessary tension, confusion or habitual mistakes when playing. If you can't play and you want that live sound you have two choices, wait to record until you can do it, or have someone else do it who can. There's no sense in beating yourself up for not being able to perform something.

From the composers point of view, whether the creator is a band or one person, you may be less interested in someone's ability as a musician and more interested in having the recording of your music sound "real". To this end I think a combination of midi and real players can work, but midi isn't just playing, fixing and quantizing, there are many other parameters, such as basic patterns, variations, dynamics, choosing the best samples etc. In my opinion midi is simply another tool. If used tastefully and helps the end product sound better and saves you a ton of dough, perhaps it is unwise not to use it.

one of your biggest probdlems is that you put the players head in a not so good place by making them theing about being replaced. they probably would have played better is youhad just let them played and did like the di as a safety thing without the player thiking you were questioning his sound

nobody likets to be repalced it is best if all they concentrate on is playing istead of not being replaced

Point taken.... and probably normally wouldn't but it being my band and the nature of our group - we tend to take the piss out of each other a lot..... ie it was more getting him back for earlier comments..

all my recording right now is being done with a DI box. why, it sounds better. im not using very many plugins, some EQ and a bass amp modler (hey, it shapes the tone well..). IMO, DI captures the notes better than miking, then again i dont have a 1000$ mic on hand.

i actually had this discussion with my bassist on using drum samples. he hated the idea.

bands need to realize that not everybody can go in a studio and play their stuff all the way through perfectly, there might be a couple snare hits that werent consistent, guitarist might slip on a string, vocalist might cough. the ideal recording is just throwing mics at the band and playing it 100% through. maybe guys like metallica can do that nowdays, i couldnt.

the way i look at recording live instruments is like programming a synth. just sections of notes being composed into a song. ive heard trance songs that are very passionate and energetic, ive heard live bands who were just dull. its not some magical gas in the air that makes a song pop, its well timed well played parts, and if you cant do that on your own theres no reason to do -moderate- correction.

then again, what do i know, im just some dude in his living room laying down tracks.

I can see it both ways.

The Beatles left mistakes on their records. Like the part where McCartney's voice cracks at the end of the second middle 8 on "If I Fell". Or when Ringo drops the tambourine on "Norwegian Wood".... both mistakes made the records until Sir George Martin fixed them when he remastered the recordings for CD. I like the old records, warts and all ... better.

Ever see Led Zeppelin live? They sounded nothing like the records ... and no one cared.

That's a case of "Use the studio as a tool .. as part of the creative process".

Then a band like Cream .. I was lucky enough to see them at the Oakland Coliseum on the "Farewell Tour" ... That was the first time I ever saw roadies nailing the kick drums to the floor ... right through the rings! .... Cream live, sounded just like their records ... of course, they didn't play my favorite song of theirs, "Badge" because George Harrison wasn't there to play the Leslie guitar on the bridge.

To each thier own. It's all valid.

Agreed - Personally I have always thought of recording and producing as a different art form to playing live and therefore think it should be treated as such.... why not utilise what you have got to make a killer record.... whats good enough for Zep is good enough for me!!!

I guess it comes down to respecting the bands wishes! Its just annoying when you know that band is being precious and are ignorant to the processes that go on.. Maybe I just need to find some inner balance!!!

Aerosmith is another case in point.

"Train kept a Rollin", (Get Your Wings) probably the best known solos played by Joe Perry and Brad Whitford, only it's not Perry and Whitford on the record playing those solos. Apparently they were pretty burned out from a really long time in the studio, the creative juices weren't flowing but the booze and other stuff was. The producer called in a couple of session players and that's who's soloing on that song.

I like the old records, warts and all ... better.

Me too. I guess rock has almost always had a little patch work done here and there. Nothing major just little tweaks but the blues and jazz has remained pretty pure and it's one of the reasons I like those forms so much. I still love rock and always will but a performance played all the way through without the aid of electronic enhancements is just better IMO.

I don't mind samples of real drums as long as the performance is their but guitar tweaks and autotune are just plain wrong. If you can't play and/or sing the part then you shouldn't be in the studio. Ya hear that Britney!

I just don't use that kind of stuff in my recordings. I'll time align if it's needed and sometimes do a vocal comp but that's about it. I just like the purity of it and knowing I played the performance, it wasn't created in my computer.

The studio as Kurt said is a creative tool. It should be used for just that, creating not covering a bad performance or worse creating a performance that never existed.

BTW, Not bashing just stating an opinion.

But is this not what the producer part is? Making an illusion!

Everyone knows that the record is not real world. So what you are doing with a record is to create an impression or an illusion in the form and design that you aim for. Depending on where you are aiming for, artistically and commercially, you may want to have different feelings of the finished sound product.

So, just maybe the band wants to sound real dirty and rough. And just perhaps their audience wants that as well, no secrets, nothing hidden, the full monty so to say. One of the roles of the producer is to define what the illusion is supposed to be. Together with the act finding out what hat fits them and where they want to be. Of course if he has an employer, say a record company, it also has to be commercially viable. The other role is to ruthlessly making the illusion happen. If the drummer cannot play well enough, then just perhaps the band should get a different drummer. Tough decisions.

Gunnar

creating or documenting ... either one works for me. The important thing is to know which one you're doing before you start :!:

Documentation of the creative process,with the depth and width of the creativity directed by the vision of the songwriter, interpreted by the producer and communicated accurately to the engineer.

When the player cannot OBVIOUSLY cut the track, then other means need to be put into play.Its unfortunate that this music business is a very egotistical one.It really has to be,considering what it takes to stand in front of people and give out a piece of ones personal demons in order to justify the writing of this music.Its a harsh reality that must be dealt with while the clock is running.

I have replaced many tracks through the years, of bands I wasnt a member in but was the producer or the engineer of.Sometimes it went down easy with the replaced player,other times not so well.Its kind of hard to know whats right when you're sitting with clients and you're several tracks into a project and it has become obvious whats wrong.When the majority of the band asks you to play the parts in,what do you say?Its your paycheck and a default at that point will gum up the schedule,you dont want to cause hard feelings.....its not easy.

Oblivion wrote: 1) samples from real drummers with good sounding drumkits (lol)!!!
2) He wasnt happy about this idea. And it turns out that my joke was only a half joke (which it was).
3) I also recieved a negative response from my guitarist when I told him that, we would use a DI and use plugins and blend that with the amp sound...... he felt like he was selling out...
4) So basically what is the common consensus in regards to how far you should go in that effort to get the best sound possible
5) is using technology cheating. If no - how do you convince muso's

First off, let me say...I hope this helps you in one way or another. And most importantly I don't want to sound like some "know it all assh*le" or come across as someone who is perfect. I'm not. And with that having been said.
Heres how I see it...
In life, not all of us get what we want. Some do! But most do not. You must find ways to get what you want. My question to you...?
Did you get "what you wanted from the recording (or rather the end result) as a result from going to the studio"?
My point is this. Learning what to say to make people do what you want sometimes is an art in itself.
1) If I say to your drummer..."we are gonna make you sound like (insert his favorite drummers name here)" ---Most likely the result will be---"really... :D "
Or I say..."I'm gonna make you a Drum god, just like the musicians with million dollar music deals, but without all the selling out & ass kissing."---Most likely he will say---"Yeah! :D "
Now say, I say to him "You think it sounds good now, you wait until I replace your lousy drum sound and lack of talent with anything BUT you and your lack luster effort then it's gonna sound AWESOME!"---hehe
Result---He's gonna argue with me the rest of the night over simple sh!t. Just because I don't know how to talk to him the way he likes to be talked to. I basically said the same thing, but 3 different ways.
2) When you said your joke was a half joke. Let me say right now...I too have done as you. But jokes like that are not jokes! When you say something that is not funny to anyone else "except you" that is sarcasizm. And that will almost NEVER get you want you want. Unless all you want is a private joke between yourself and no one else.
3) Same for the guitarist, remember I said talking to people is an art in itself, knowing how he will respond to something that sounds like one of "your" ideas Vs saying something that makes him think that it was "his" idea. When really it was your idea all along, but the way you talked to him, he just thought of it as a cool idea and wanted to try it. And not that it was another one of "your ideas".
4) You asked "what's the common consensus on how far to go?"
I say you have to do all you can to get a great record. Even if it means learning to lie, and smile at people that you don't really care for anyhow.
For instance here's the Truth=If I say to your guitarist "dude you need to practice, were going in the studio and you need to brush up".
Or I say a Lie="Wow man have you been practicing? You sound like you've been practicing? I bet by the time we get to the studio you gonna sound AWESOME!"
The truth will make him feel pressured and under the gun.
The lie will give him confidence in his abilities and efforts and he WILL want to hear what you think ALL the time.
5) You asked.."is tech. cheating?"
I say No. Just take all the tech. off any major label record and see how average many a rock star is without it. Weather it's a $7000 reverb processor or a $5000 recording mic. I bet Witney Houston sounds like you next door neighbor through a Realistic microphone and a Behrin*er ( I didn't say it Kurt! ) mixer, and some home made speaker cabinets.
I admit talking to some guys is harder than others, and some guys are just plain "impossible" to talk to about certain ideas. But to get others, to do what you want them to do, and make them think it is a good idea is what you are after. IMO
Good luck Oblivion
And if I may suggest a book for you to read. You will like it, if you can dig what I said above. It is and has been a best seller for many years. It's called "The 48 Laws of power" by Robert Greene
The first page in the book says "Don't tell anyone your reading this book. They will hate you." And then you turn the page for the table of contents. It is a book about power over yourself and others. It will give you years of insight that you other wise would never have lived to obtain.
And then you can really learn to laugh at your drummer or anyone else after you start to see some mistakes "others" are making in general conversations. When they break any one of "the 48 Laws of power".

I really like Kurt's point of deciding going in whether you're documenting or creating.

Documenting is great, especially if you have great players with great instruments, mics, pres, room, etc...

But some forms of music require a more intrusive hand of production, espcially if the "ifs" I indicated above aren't there.

I have been lucky enough to be in the studio with a great producer. We just left most of our egos at the door and did what he told us to do. It sounded far better, than if we'd dictated amp tone, arrangements and recording ethos. Lesson learned.

-Todzilla

have been lucky enough to be in the studio with a great producer. We just left most of our egos at the door and did what he told us to do. It sounded far better, than if we'd dictated amp tone, arrangements and recording ethos. Lesson learned.

I agree a great producer can make all the difference in the world. It all depends on whom he is working for. If he's working for the band he can help you put out the best possible product and still remain true to your vision. If he works for the record company he may or may not have your interests in mind.

I worked with a great producer (25 years ago) on my bands first 2 records. He attended our shows to learn what we were about, helped us with arrangements, coached us on vocals and in general helped us sound better than we ever imagined. A real pro who knew how to bring out the best in a band.

I had another experience with a producer paid by a record company who wanted to turn a great local act into some kind of top 40's radio friendly sound. He performed solo most of the time and had a great following. A friend and I were session players on this project and the producer made so many changes it didn't even sound like the same act. When it was released he lost instead of gained fanbase. I guess they felt he sold out. The producer went on to make more records and our friend went back to a regular job.

A producer paid by a record company has no alegiance to you and is only concerned with the record companies wants. If your record fails he moves on but you loose your chance.

Moral, pay for your own producer and work with him, try his advice and you stand a better chance of getting the results you want.

I recently had a great experience in the studio.

As a final track for a record-myself and an artist I work with decided to cut the song live (solo acoustic/female vox). Great stereo pair, awesome preamps, and great conversion---but the most important thing was the performance, mistakes and all. I still view it as the best recording I've made to date--and it took one take, two mics, one performer---yes there's "mistakes" but the overall performance completely outweights them.

I've come to the firm conclusion that, above all else, make sure the performers can perform in the studio---not just play their part. If the musicians you're working with in the studio understand fully that when they sit down behind the mic (or stand) they are performing, not just laying down another track---the final product will be sooooo much better then.

If you record a turd, you will just end up polishing that turd in the editing/mixing/mastering stages---and a turd only gets shinier when polished. and no one likes shiny turds, except my dogs.

Kurt Foster wrote: I can see it both ways.

Ever see Led Zeppelin live? They sounded nothing like the records ... and no one cared.

That's a case of "Use the studio as a tool .. as part of the creative process".

To each thier own. It's all valid.

i couldn't agree MORE! .. i find it discomforting when bands refuse to let the producer use the tools and wits that he has been training himself for however long..

and when you play live. you give it your best.. but when your record, the band should WANT IT THE BEST.. for this is what is going down in history.. recorded, logged and forever in the books.. after distro... theres no recall on the cd's or dvd's that you have recorded.. so I say give it all you've got.. including some producer aided studio tricks of the trade that will in the end make your sound much much better...

peace.

I tried to record my ethics once but the dog ate it.

I get a lot of bands that are comparing themselves to records that have been sound replaced and beat-detective'd to hell and back, then they expect me to do that naturally. They react to the process instead of the final product, which is something they should care very little about.

As a producer (as oppsed to an Albini-approach engineer) I will use whatever the best performance is. If it's one take, then that's the best. If it's a comp take, then that's good too. If you can't play, I *WILL* beat-detective the crap out of you to get a good performance - which is what I need to make a good record - and I will sleep fine that night having done it.

....but I have stopped taking guys like this anyway. They're more trouble than they're worth.

~id

to give a younger perspective on this, i am 18 and just finishing high school. there is a small music scene that dwells in almost all high schools, with each band vying for fame and fortune.

from the beginning, i recorded my own band. even when it was the minidisc and the 1990 yamaha powered mixer i was working with. a few other bands decided that paying $500 a track was worth their money.

they also had the benefits of autotune and much more experienced production than my band. in the end, their one song sounded many times better than one of my home-recorded songs. the singers voice from the other band went 5 octaves throughout the song, and he sounded amazing.

so which band is going to get signed, the one with the bag of tricks or the one with just a voice and mic?

when popularity and reputation are on the line, most uneducated listeners will easily choose the over-produced version, and would never know about the bag of tricks.

the whole situation seems a bit... adolescent. but it's a different perspective on the subject.