http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG1YWxXhQBA
For daily tips/links on recording, music production, songwriting, and Pro Tools, follow CMP on Twitter: @CreateMusicPro
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Tips for Tracking/Mixing Rap Vocals, Part 2: Mixing the Lead
In case you missed it, check out Tips for Tracking/Mixing Rap Vocals, Part 1.
The other day, Shane from http://www.platinumgoldstudios.com/ and I got to sharing some techniques we use when tracking and mixing rap vocals/ad libs, and we thought we should make them public so you all could benefit as well. We’re not trying to be comprehensive here. We just want our share of the theoretical millions available for bloggers :-)
Okay, so you’ve tracked clean leads, now what do you do with them? In this post we’re going to addressed mixing techniques for standard leads only. We’ll talk about the doubles, ad libs, and special effects in later posts.
EQ
Slap on a High Pass filter to get rid of any low end rumble that may have been captured during tracking and/or to make room for the kick/bass. Just don’t kill the warmth and natural bottom end of the voice. Try somewhere between 75-120Hz. If the voice is too “thick” or “boomy,” a dip with a peak filter around the 150-300 Hz zone will probably be more effective than rolling off a bunch of low end. If there’s competition with a double, try pulling out around 300Hz to eliminate some of the thump. You’ll probably want to slap on a high shelf at about 8kHz or higher to bring out some clarity and presence (“air”). Sometimes you’ll need to dip as low as 4kHz. This can also make sibilance worse, however, so apply carefully and use a de-esser as needed. EQ other areas as needed to cut out junk and/or boost goodness. Be careful boosting around 2-4kHz. It’ll add presence, but at the expense of being harsh over time.
New York
Parallel processing the lead is a great way to make it fatter while also preserving the dynamics that contribute to emotional impact. Try pulling out the lows on the squashed version so it doesn’t accentuate any mud or boom. Also try boosting the highs after the compressor on the squashed copy to bring back the clarity you might have lost after compression. If that’s not “in your face” enough, try out this “Vocal Exciter” trick courtesy Ill Will from http://www.phatassmixes.com/ (@IWStudios): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYPdJjDg7UA
Reverb/Delay
Spit is usually dry, but try adding a tiny bit of short plate or medium-room reverb to help make the voice sound fuller. We’re talking percentages under 15%. A little goes a long way. Roll off the lows up to 700Hz if needed, and trim the highs down to as much as 8kHz. Long stereo delay (1/8,1/4, 1/2) has found its way into many current rap/pop hits and can be affective at times. To add interest, make the right side delay different from the left side (for example, an 1/8th note on one side and a 1/2 note on the other). Don’t overdo it, or it will sound comical or just confusing. Roll off highs if the delays compete with the lead. Go as low as 1kHz if needed. Roll off the low end of the delay if it’s muddying things up. Sending the delays to the reverb helps soften their impact as well. Adding a short delay (under 40ms) can also add some more weight to a voice. Just mix in the delay lower than the lead and try rolling off the highs so it doesn’t fight the lead in the clarity zone. Longer delay times (between 40-200ms) can also imitate a doubled sound as well, but is pretty static sounding after a while. Hard panning a delay or reverb in mono can be fun but isn’t very common. Whatever you do with delay, play with feedback time and adjust to the needs of the track. One repeat can work, but several are sometimes needed.
Heavy Metal
Blending in (parallel processing) some mild distortion can also liven up a voice and make it more interesting. Exciters can also work wonders. Limit the bandwidth of the hyped processing, however, so it doesn’t dominate. The goal is to add subtle texture, not deep-fry it into oblivion. Avoid adding too much crispiness or your listeners will unconsciously recoil halfway into the verse. Re-amping the original signal to a distorted amp can produce cool results as well, especially if you feel like you need some more "air" (in the mic sense, not in the EQ sense) around the distortion part.
Panning
Keep the lead panned dead center. There are times when you want the hard left/right doubled sound, but we’ll talk more about that when we get to hooks and doubles.
Style
Work with the producer and artist to determine what their vocal processing style should be. Your work may determine the sound of every other recording they make in the future. Many artists think there is something wrong with the mix when they just aren’t confident hearing the sound of their own voice. If they sound solid, supportively argue for less “cover-up” processing. If they really do suck, some kind of signature processing might be what they need to feel less embarrassed about their abilities. However, don’t process just for the sake of processing. A single dry line might be all that is needed (“Toot it and Boot it” anyone?)
The tips offered here are just possibilities. The strength of these tips depend on what’s currently in style and how “pop” the artist wants to be. Apply them only if needed, but don’t be afraid to experiment.
Happy Mixing!
Cory & Shane
Check out Cory on Twitter @CreateMusicPro or online at http://www.createmusicproductions.com/
Check out Shane on Twitter @Gilligan204 or online at http://www.platinumgoldstudios.com/
The other day, Shane from http://www.platinumgoldstudios.com/ and I got to sharing some techniques we use when tracking and mixing rap vocals/ad libs, and we thought we should make them public so you all could benefit as well. We’re not trying to be comprehensive here. We just want our share of the theoretical millions available for bloggers :-)
Okay, so you’ve tracked clean leads, now what do you do with them? In this post we’re going to addressed mixing techniques for standard leads only. We’ll talk about the doubles, ad libs, and special effects in later posts.
EQ
Slap on a High Pass filter to get rid of any low end rumble that may have been captured during tracking and/or to make room for the kick/bass. Just don’t kill the warmth and natural bottom end of the voice. Try somewhere between 75-120Hz. If the voice is too “thick” or “boomy,” a dip with a peak filter around the 150-300 Hz zone will probably be more effective than rolling off a bunch of low end. If there’s competition with a double, try pulling out around 300Hz to eliminate some of the thump. You’ll probably want to slap on a high shelf at about 8kHz or higher to bring out some clarity and presence (“air”). Sometimes you’ll need to dip as low as 4kHz. This can also make sibilance worse, however, so apply carefully and use a de-esser as needed. EQ other areas as needed to cut out junk and/or boost goodness. Be careful boosting around 2-4kHz. It’ll add presence, but at the expense of being harsh over time.
New York
Parallel processing the lead is a great way to make it fatter while also preserving the dynamics that contribute to emotional impact. Try pulling out the lows on the squashed version so it doesn’t accentuate any mud or boom. Also try boosting the highs after the compressor on the squashed copy to bring back the clarity you might have lost after compression. If that’s not “in your face” enough, try out this “Vocal Exciter” trick courtesy Ill Will from http://www.phatassmixes.com/ (@IWStudios): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYPdJjDg7UA
Reverb/Delay
Spit is usually dry, but try adding a tiny bit of short plate or medium-room reverb to help make the voice sound fuller. We’re talking percentages under 15%. A little goes a long way. Roll off the lows up to 700Hz if needed, and trim the highs down to as much as 8kHz. Long stereo delay (1/8,1/4, 1/2) has found its way into many current rap/pop hits and can be affective at times. To add interest, make the right side delay different from the left side (for example, an 1/8th note on one side and a 1/2 note on the other). Don’t overdo it, or it will sound comical or just confusing. Roll off highs if the delays compete with the lead. Go as low as 1kHz if needed. Roll off the low end of the delay if it’s muddying things up. Sending the delays to the reverb helps soften their impact as well. Adding a short delay (under 40ms) can also add some more weight to a voice. Just mix in the delay lower than the lead and try rolling off the highs so it doesn’t fight the lead in the clarity zone. Longer delay times (between 40-200ms) can also imitate a doubled sound as well, but is pretty static sounding after a while. Hard panning a delay or reverb in mono can be fun but isn’t very common. Whatever you do with delay, play with feedback time and adjust to the needs of the track. One repeat can work, but several are sometimes needed.
Heavy Metal
Blending in (parallel processing) some mild distortion can also liven up a voice and make it more interesting. Exciters can also work wonders. Limit the bandwidth of the hyped processing, however, so it doesn’t dominate. The goal is to add subtle texture, not deep-fry it into oblivion. Avoid adding too much crispiness or your listeners will unconsciously recoil halfway into the verse. Re-amping the original signal to a distorted amp can produce cool results as well, especially if you feel like you need some more "air" (in the mic sense, not in the EQ sense) around the distortion part.
Panning
Keep the lead panned dead center. There are times when you want the hard left/right doubled sound, but we’ll talk more about that when we get to hooks and doubles.
Style
Work with the producer and artist to determine what their vocal processing style should be. Your work may determine the sound of every other recording they make in the future. Many artists think there is something wrong with the mix when they just aren’t confident hearing the sound of their own voice. If they sound solid, supportively argue for less “cover-up” processing. If they really do suck, some kind of signature processing might be what they need to feel less embarrassed about their abilities. However, don’t process just for the sake of processing. A single dry line might be all that is needed (“Toot it and Boot it” anyone?)
The tips offered here are just possibilities. The strength of these tips depend on what’s currently in style and how “pop” the artist wants to be. Apply them only if needed, but don’t be afraid to experiment.
Happy Mixing!
Cory & Shane
Check out Cory on Twitter @CreateMusicPro or online at http://www.createmusicproductions.com/
Check out Shane on Twitter @Gilligan204 or online at http://www.platinumgoldstudios.com/
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Tips on Tracking/Mixing Rap Vocals, Part 1
The other day, Shane from http://www.platinumgoldstudios.com/ and I started sharing some techniques we use when tracking and mixing rap vocals, and we thought we should make them public so you all could benefit as well. We’re not trying to be comprehensive here. We just want our share of the theoretical millions available for bloggers. :-) In this post we focus on tracking. Part 2 will be dedicated to mixing.
Tracking (in no particular order of importance)
- On the pre-production side, we recommend matching the bpm of the backing tracks to the DAW grid. This will give performers an accurate click as well as make it easier to do on-the-spot things like timing delays, cutting/pasting parts, etc. Also make sure to map your session with markers so you can quickly navigate from one part to another without doing the old where-am-I? routine.
- It’s a given that you have a talented rapper, a decent microphone matched to their voice, and a quiet, acoustically treated tracking environment. Padded closets don’t necessarily sound the best, and could make the performer feel cramped. Used close-backed cans to avoid headphone bleed and don’t crank the playback for the same reason. Also, tell all the hoodlums in the background to keep it down during takes. If the performer has to rely on a lyric sheet (which we highly discourage), affix it somewhere stable as to avoid the crinkly-paper syndrome. You would think cell phones might solve the problem, but a) looking at anything divides focus and could hinder the performance, and b) the mobile might make an old tube mic cranky.
- Use a pop filter. Use two if you have to. Turning the mic slightly off axis will “smooth out” some voices as well. Play with the distance from the mic. You usually want a close, intimate sound, but there are times when you need the artist to back off the mic. Folks that move all over the place can benefit from backing up a little further, as their movements won’t cause as many dramatic fluctuations in volume.
- If you’re working in 24 bit, keep input levels conservative with the average hovering around -18dBFS and peaks hitting -12dBFS every once in a while. (If you’re working in 16-bit, slap yourself and move into the 21st century.) Digital clipping is evil. If you have a hardware compressor, set it to catch any stray peaks when (not if) the artist gets excited and delivers a line 15dB over their average. Keep the ratios on the low side, 2:1 – 4:1.
- Try using a different mic for the leads than the doubles/ad libs. Again, play with mic distance for ad libs, especially for the “in the back” effect. It’s easier to make this sound legit when tracking than tweaking during mixdown.
- Sometimes you gotta ask the performer to over-enunciate with clear projection. “Stylistic” slurring may sound good to the artist inside their heads but the mic could be “hearing” marbles-in-mouth. We’ll let it slide if you’ve been shot in the face like 50 Cent. :-) The point is that clearly articulated, energetic performances usually sound the best.
- Ad libbing is an art. If the performer doesn’t have a clue, it’s easy to make suggestions and capture takes in the name of experimentation (just don’t be annoying). Some styles need a bunch, others need very little. It depends on what’s currently in. If there is a producer, let him make the suggestions.
- For doubles, make them as tight as possible. Tight doubles should be almost identical in delivery, inflection, and length. The editor will hate you if they’re not. If you want that “on purpose” sloppy double for effect, then over stylize the performance. You don’t want it to sound accidentally sloppy.
- After tracking a take of ad libs/doubles, listen to them in solo to make sure they’re clear and confident. Too many times the buried and unprocessed ad lib will sound passable under the lead but is really an incomprehensible garble when soloed. Processing will reveal this fact, so catch it at the tracking stage before it’s too late.
- We recommend having the artist track a double and lots of ad libs. It’s way better to give your mixer options than none at all (just let them know that’s how you tracked). It’s easy to mute an unwanted double or excessive ad libs. It’s harder (and time consuming) to create ad libs or doubles out of the lead vox (not impossible, just annoying).
- Having a different voice on the hook can provide needed contrast to the main rappers on the verses. If one of the rappers is also delivering the hook, consider separating it somehow from the verses. If the artists/producers aren’t open to adjusting the arrangement, talk to them about mixing it up sonically. It could be as simple as changing tracking rooms (verses in small room, choruses in big room). You can wait until mix time to play with effects, but it’s more fun to get creative during the tracking stage when everyone’s in the zone. Experiment.
- For the hook, try capturing anywhere from 3-6 tracks to give it that beefy “I’m the chorus” sound. Add a double, possibly a triple. Sing it an octave above or an octave below. Throw in some harmonies and maybe even double the harmonies. Experiment with whispers, spoken lines, and lines delivered with more attitude than the others. Again, it’s easier to hit mute than to try to pull stuff out of thin air.
The strength of these tips depend on what’s currently in style and how “pop” the artist wants to be (if at all). Totally dry spit over a single sampled loop can be just as effective as an over-the-top pop production. Just because something’s possible, doesn’t mean it has to be done. Decide at the pre-production stage what the goals of the track are.
If you've got some tips we've left out, leave 'em below in the comments.
Happy Tracking!
Cory & Shane
Part 2: Tips for Tracking/Mixing Rap Vocals, part 2: Mixing the Lead
Check out Cory on Twitter @CreateMusicPro or online at http://www.createmusicproductions.com/
Check out Shane on Twitter @Gilligan204 or online at http://www.platinumgoldstudios.com/
Thursday, April 28, 2011
REALITY CHECK #7: You Can't Do it Alone, Unless...
ATTENTION: Read these first:
- REALITY CHECK series Introduction
- REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck
- REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks
- REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck
- REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks
For the last seven posts I have dished out a healthy dose of reality about why most of us will never be able to create a radio-quality recording. Here's a brief summary of the topics I covered:
1) You don't have enough knowledge and/or experience
2) Your tracking/listening environment is problematic
3) Your monitors aren't that great and you haven't yet learned how to listen like the pros
Setting aside the gear issue, the bad news is that you can't do it alone. You're probably fantastic at several of those areas, but not an expert in them all. You're going to need help, and you know what? That's okay. Only the most superhuman creative ninjas can do it all well enough to produce radio-ready hits all by their lonesome. But the truth is, it's extremely rare that the hitmakers work alone. Artists need songwriters, artists and songwriters need producers, producers need great recording engineers, great recordists need kick ass performers, and everybody needs top-notch mixing/mastering engineers. You may be able to master your craft in a few of those areas all by your lonesome, but if you want to bring your genius out of the basement, it's going to require help from competent folks who can confidently do what you lack. Pay for it, barter, bargain, exchange services...whatever you need to do to get help.This is not new information. It's always been the case. To accomplish great things, people need other people. It's only been in the last 10-15 years that home recordists somehow came to believe the fallacy that they could write, perform, produce, mix, and master a radio-quality project in their bedrooms...in total isolation. I'm not sure who to blame, but I think it has to do with creative hope infused by the recent explosion of affordable quality gear.
Despite the insulting titles of the Reality Check posts, and contrary to the feedback I've received, my desire is not to squish your dreams into the slimy pulp of realism or demotivate you into a Ben & Jerry's assisted depression. All along my hope has been that simply letting go of an unrealistic expectation will allow you to once again enjoy your creative pursuits. Why not pat yourself on the back for what you are now able to accomplish without beating yourself up because you can't make your 808 as phat as "A Milli." Get some perspective and review how you've improved. (Make sure to check out Dan Comerchero's counterpoint to this series: Reality Check: You're Always Improving.)
The Good News
There is good news and here it is: creating a radio-quality track is no longer the end goal for a successful career in music production. In fact, I think many people who make music in their home studios just want to share something cool that has a little more class and quality than a youtube webcam performance. Of course there are those who desperately hope their mixtapes launch them into superstardom, but most of us just want a file that we can confidently post on Soundcloud.
Although we would all love to hear our tracks on the radio, competing with the hits doesn't have to be your Holy Grail. For those who actually want to generate an income with their musical creations, there are several opportunities for what is known as "broadcast quality" tracks. To me, I reserve the phrase "radio-quality" for songs that play on the radio or that possess the same quality and/or production value as a tracks that get mainstream airtime. "Broadcast quality," on the other hand, refers to songs that have an industry-expected amount of polish in both songwriting, performance, and recording, but that can't necessarily compete with the hits (oftentimes because of industry politics rather than musical quality). Let's be honest, the radio plays only about 10% of all the great music currently available. It's a very small niche. What about all the other music that has been well-written, well-performed, well-produced, well-recorded, and competently mixed/mastered? Those are "broadcast quality" tracks. The greatest difference is that radio-quality tracks have a very narrow standard for what is acceptable in songwriting, performance, production, and recording quality. For broadcast quality tracks, the standard by which each of those categories is deemed "acceptable" is much more broad, being entirely relative to the usage needs of the song. A slow, depressing guitar-vocal track might not get airplay, but would work perfectly in a poignant movie scene.
The Recording Revolution recently featured a video of a gal who makes money off "simple" tracks made with a basic home studio setup: From the Home Studio to Television. They're cool songs, she has a unique voice, and the recording quality is decent, but they would never get radio airplay. Yet her tracks have been featured on several huge TV shows. She's making cash and she's doing it all by herself with a very modest setup (and did she say "no mixing or mastering"?).
My point is that even if you are lacking in all six of my Reality Check categories, you still can generate an income making broadcast quality tracks. Broadcast quality music (full songs or instrumentals) are always needed for:
And believe it or not, artists are still making money on album sales, digital downloads, and viral videos...without ever getting one second of mainstream radio time. It's an ever-evolving industry where the "out-of-the-box" approach is often rewarded unexpectedly.
The Point
Why am I going on and on about broadcast quality? Because I think setting your sights on creating broadcast quality tracks is a much more realistic goal for the "Renaissance Man" type home studio owner. It's not an easy thing to achieve, but at least it's realistic. I believe that a talented, hardworking, patient, determined, and studious home studio owner with modest gear and lots of time to practice their craft could achieve the broadcast quality goal in less than five years. And if you don't plan on tracking drums or your music is not too complex, then I bet it's do-able in just a few years.
In goal setting circles, goals must be a) specific, b) measurable, c) attainable, d) realistic, and e) timley (See http://www.topachievement.com/smart.html for an explanation of S.M.A.R.T. goals). Achieving broadcast quality in songwriting, production, and recording, and then landing one of your tracks in an industry project is way more S.M.A.R.T. than "I want my ballad to be on the next Beyonce album" (that is, unless you have the skills, connections, and financially-backed assistance from industry insiders). Goals are stars to steer by, not sticks to beat yourself with. Stop the self-flagellation and celebrate where you're at. Drop the stress and return to the days when making music was fun and unburdened with the futile attempt to find the "perfect" compressor setting for the lead vocal.
In short, ENJOY THE RIDE!
For daily tips/links on music production, recording, songwriting, and ProTools, follow Create Music Productions on Twitter: @CreateMusicPro
2) Your tracking/listening environment is problematic
3) Your monitors aren't that great and you haven't yet learned how to listen like the pros
4) You don't have a wide variety of quality gear that will allow you to capture signals appropriately
5) You aren't an expert songwriter/composer, performer, arranger, lyricist, and producer
6) You don't have a wide variety of quality gear that will allow you to process signals appropriately
5) You aren't an expert songwriter/composer, performer, arranger, lyricist, and producer
6) You don't have a wide variety of quality gear that will allow you to process signals appropriately
Setting aside the gear issue, the bad news is that you can't do it alone. You're probably fantastic at several of those areas, but not an expert in them all. You're going to need help, and you know what? That's okay. Only the most superhuman creative ninjas can do it all well enough to produce radio-ready hits all by their lonesome. But the truth is, it's extremely rare that the hitmakers work alone. Artists need songwriters, artists and songwriters need producers, producers need great recording engineers, great recordists need kick ass performers, and everybody needs top-notch mixing/mastering engineers. You may be able to master your craft in a few of those areas all by your lonesome, but if you want to bring your genius out of the basement, it's going to require help from competent folks who can confidently do what you lack. Pay for it, barter, bargain, exchange services...whatever you need to do to get help.This is not new information. It's always been the case. To accomplish great things, people need other people. It's only been in the last 10-15 years that home recordists somehow came to believe the fallacy that they could write, perform, produce, mix, and master a radio-quality project in their bedrooms...in total isolation. I'm not sure who to blame, but I think it has to do with creative hope infused by the recent explosion of affordable quality gear.
Despite the insulting titles of the Reality Check posts, and contrary to the feedback I've received, my desire is not to squish your dreams into the slimy pulp of realism or demotivate you into a Ben & Jerry's assisted depression. All along my hope has been that simply letting go of an unrealistic expectation will allow you to once again enjoy your creative pursuits. Why not pat yourself on the back for what you are now able to accomplish without beating yourself up because you can't make your 808 as phat as "A Milli." Get some perspective and review how you've improved. (Make sure to check out Dan Comerchero's counterpoint to this series: Reality Check: You're Always Improving.)
The Good News
There is good news and here it is: creating a radio-quality track is no longer the end goal for a successful career in music production. In fact, I think many people who make music in their home studios just want to share something cool that has a little more class and quality than a youtube webcam performance. Of course there are those who desperately hope their mixtapes launch them into superstardom, but most of us just want a file that we can confidently post on Soundcloud.
Although we would all love to hear our tracks on the radio, competing with the hits doesn't have to be your Holy Grail. For those who actually want to generate an income with their musical creations, there are several opportunities for what is known as "broadcast quality" tracks. To me, I reserve the phrase "radio-quality" for songs that play on the radio or that possess the same quality and/or production value as a tracks that get mainstream airtime. "Broadcast quality," on the other hand, refers to songs that have an industry-expected amount of polish in both songwriting, performance, and recording, but that can't necessarily compete with the hits (oftentimes because of industry politics rather than musical quality). Let's be honest, the radio plays only about 10% of all the great music currently available. It's a very small niche. What about all the other music that has been well-written, well-performed, well-produced, well-recorded, and competently mixed/mastered? Those are "broadcast quality" tracks. The greatest difference is that radio-quality tracks have a very narrow standard for what is acceptable in songwriting, performance, production, and recording quality. For broadcast quality tracks, the standard by which each of those categories is deemed "acceptable" is much more broad, being entirely relative to the usage needs of the song. A slow, depressing guitar-vocal track might not get airplay, but would work perfectly in a poignant movie scene.
The Recording Revolution recently featured a video of a gal who makes money off "simple" tracks made with a basic home studio setup: From the Home Studio to Television. They're cool songs, she has a unique voice, and the recording quality is decent, but they would never get radio airplay. Yet her tracks have been featured on several huge TV shows. She's making cash and she's doing it all by herself with a very modest setup (and did she say "no mixing or mastering"?).
My point is that even if you are lacking in all six of my Reality Check categories, you still can generate an income making broadcast quality tracks. Broadcast quality music (full songs or instrumentals) are always needed for:
- podcasts
- rappers who need beats
- rappers who need beats
- multi-media presentations
- Satellite and/or internet radio
- music libraries
- television
- film
- music libraries
- television
- film
- etc.
And believe it or not, artists are still making money on album sales, digital downloads, and viral videos...without ever getting one second of mainstream radio time. It's an ever-evolving industry where the "out-of-the-box" approach is often rewarded unexpectedly.
The Point
Why am I going on and on about broadcast quality? Because I think setting your sights on creating broadcast quality tracks is a much more realistic goal for the "Renaissance Man" type home studio owner. It's not an easy thing to achieve, but at least it's realistic. I believe that a talented, hardworking, patient, determined, and studious home studio owner with modest gear and lots of time to practice their craft could achieve the broadcast quality goal in less than five years. And if you don't plan on tracking drums or your music is not too complex, then I bet it's do-able in just a few years.
A CMP follower, Mr. Kenner (@2ndLevelPro), is a great example of this. He recently landed placements in promotional videos for The Sacramento Kings as well as AVID. Check out his basketball song (at 2:15) and his baseball beat (at 1:30). People, it's possible!
In goal setting circles, goals must be a) specific, b) measurable, c) attainable, d) realistic, and e) timley (See http://www.topachievement.com/smart.html for an explanation of S.M.A.R.T. goals). Achieving broadcast quality in songwriting, production, and recording, and then landing one of your tracks in an industry project is way more S.M.A.R.T. than "I want my ballad to be on the next Beyonce album" (that is, unless you have the skills, connections, and financially-backed assistance from industry insiders). Goals are stars to steer by, not sticks to beat yourself with. Stop the self-flagellation and celebrate where you're at. Drop the stress and return to the days when making music was fun and unburdened with the futile attempt to find the "perfect" compressor setting for the lead vocal.
In short, ENJOY THE RIDE!
For daily tips/links on music production, recording, songwriting, and ProTools, follow Create Music Productions on Twitter: @CreateMusicPro
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
REALITY CHECK #6: Your Gear Sucks, part II
ATTENTION: Read these first:
- REALITY CHECK series Introduction
- REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck
- REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks
- REALITY CHECK #3: Your Monitors Suck
- REALITY CHECK series Introduction
- REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck
- REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks
- REALITY CHECK #3: Your Monitors Suck
To be honest, I'm on the verge of beating a dead horse with this post since I've pretty much covered most of the main points in REALITY CHECK numbers 1, 4, and 5; But, in REALITY CHECK #4: Your Gear Sucks, I limited my discussion of gear to the front end (capture). For this post, I'm only going to talk about the tools you use after the audio has entered the computer (processing). This includes plug-ins, outboard hardware, virtual instruments, sample libraries, loops, etc. The first was about recording, this one is about programming, mixing and mastering. For these subjects, I need to address a few issues.
Despite the differences between capture and processing, my point is the same:
You don't have enough varieties of quality equipment to produce radio-ready recordings.
Before I go any further, though, I need to make one point clear: having a limited amount of "okay" gear is only a crippling hindrance in some genres. For example, I believe it's possible to produce a radio-ready instrumental electronica track by working strictly with Logic's stock plug-ins and virtual instruments. In contrast, I think it would be very difficult to produce a really authentic rock song using programmed drums and synth bass...no matter how awesome the sample libraries are. Another example: programming a "realistic" sounding brass quintet piece with sub-par sounds and/or bad technique may be next to impossible, but competently programmed string samples can fool the best of us in a pop context (Sandy Vee used string samples in Katy Perry's "Firework." See Sound on Sound April 2011, p. 133). Examples abound, so take only what may apply to your situation.
Let's jump in.
In a recent Inside Track I noticed that mix engineer Ruadhri Cushnan used the Bomb Factory 1176, the D-verb, and the EQ-III (all stock plug-ins for ProTools) in several instances on "Little Lion Man" by Mumford and Sons (See Sound on Sound March 2011, pp. 142-3). Many folks will point to instances like this and proclaim: "If such-and-such stock plug-in is good enough for so-and-so pro engineer, then it must be high quality enough for me to use in my projects." My response is the dreaded... ...wait for it... ...it depends.
First off, some stock plug-ins don't completely suck. I can usually find a few things that a stock plug-in does great. But if you got the point of the first "Your Gear Sucks" post, you now understand that we're dealing with an issue of quality and quantity (of course, the pros have both, darn it). Stock compressor X may work great on a few sources but suck on others. This is where you'll need access to a cornucopia of compressors so you can appropriately match the compressor to the source. AND, they better be nice compressors. Quality does matter after all. What the stock-plug-ins-are-cool folks failed to mention in their rant was that Mr. Cushnan only used stock plug-ins 20% of the time. 80% of the processing that went into the "Lion Man" mix were were quality plugs from Joe Meek, Oxford, and Audio Ease (in addition to outboard gear by Neve, Summit, and Smart Research). The point is that you need a variety of great gear in order to processes a track in the way it's asking to be processed (assuming that you know what you're doing). Stock plug-ins may do the job, but you better have quality options on hand for when they don't.
Now, to throw an even bigger wrench in the home recording machine, many established mixers have deemed plug-ins unsuitable for important processing tasks. Mixerman recommends quality hardware compressors for the mix bus, hardware effects units for things like reverb, and a summing box for the final mixdown. He'll even print to tape if necessary (see Zen and the Art of Mixing, pp. 170-196). To him, DAWs are a necessary evil and he claims that getting an authentic sound is only possible by moving the signal out-of-the-box and into some analog gear. If this seems excessive, he's not the only one doing it. Notice that Cushnan did it for "Little Lion Man"? For Taylor Swift's Latest album, producer/mixer Justin Niebank used plug-ins from Waves, Sound Toys, Universal Audio, and AVID, but then sent the mix through a Dangerous 2-Bus (analog summing), a quality outboard compressor and EQ, an then onto 1/2-inch tape (see Sound on Sound, February 2011, pp.155-56).
But, that's just for rock, right? Not so. At the recent HRBC Fest in March, 2011, pop mixer Tony Shepperd laid out his hybrid setup, which included outboard reverbs and a summing box. He's not alone. In fact, many pros these days insist that working entirely in-the-box cannot give us the sound we crave. But, before you jump off a cliff (which I almost did after reading the "Gear" portion of Zen and the Art of Mixing), not everyone makes the same claim. Many pop productions are mixed entirely in the box. (Just remember that any "live" signals captured with a mic were probably routed through several pieces of yummy analog gear. See REALITY CHECK #4: Your gear Sucks). I predict that digital technology will eventually satisfy our analog craving and we'll all laugh at the idea of a patch cord. But until that day, many current mixing pros have already gone hybrid because some plug-ins just can't compete with the real deal.
So...depending on the genre you work in, your small selection of cheap gear could be keeping you from producing radio-quality recordings. Here are a list of things that could make your recording sound lame if used inappropriately:
-plug-in guitar tone
-virtual instruments that imitate acoustic instruments through synthesis
-bad sample libraries or great sampled instruments programmed poorly
-plug-in reverb (instead of a cool space, hardware unit, chamber, or re-amp setup)
-plug-in effects (instead of their analog counterparts)
-plug-in processors (EQ, compression, etc.)
-crappy analog gear
Please understand that I don't represent the analog-is-always-better-than-digital camp. There is a lot of crappy analog gear out there, too (make sure to check out David Schober's post: Just Because Something is Analog Doesn't Mean it's Better). I'm just saying that getting the right sound for some genres involves expensive outboard gear. For example, if your indie-rock track needs a Roland Space Echo, the plug-in version might not sound as authentic as the real deal. Even worse, if you need the Space Echo, but only have access to a digital delay and EQ, you're gonna be disappointed when you try to "fake it."
The take away from each REALITY CHECK series is that you should both accept your situation and take baby steps to remedy it. Hoping that you can produce radio-quality tracks with your 5 stock plug-ins is just going to result in tears.
So here's what I recommend, in order of importance:
1) Learn to use the plug-ins you have
Great gear is only as good as the person using it. Go as far as you can with what you have and you'll be justified in upgrading. This involves not just mastery of parameters, but also successful application of a plug-in to a task. If you don't know which of your two compressors works better over the 2-bus, you have homework to do. If you can't program somewhat realistic sounding drums with EZDrummer, then carve out 3 hours and edit velocities and articulations like the rest of us. Upgrading to Superior Drummer won't help you.
2) Decipher which gear is appropriate for each genre
Read, read, read and find out what the mixers/beatmakers/composers/programmers in your genre are using to get their sounds. Then read about what other genres use. Note which processors/instruments are universal and which ones apply to specific genres. Of course, don't limit yourself. By all means experiment. Just be mindful. That melt-your-face guitar distortion might not do well in a jazz context. :-)
3) Get a variety of mid-range plug-ins (processors, virtual instruments, etc.)
Quality is important, but if you still consider yourself a beginner, just recognizing the benefits, drawbacks, and character of a wide variety of plug-ins is more important. Figure out which ones work best for specific tasks. Find excuses to try them out in a variety of situations. This is part of your plug-in education. Really learn their sound. This will help you recognize and appreciate the good stuff once you upgrade. (Hint: besides searching for the plethora of free plug-ins available, I keep my eye on www.audiomidi.com for their "No Brainer" deals.)
4) Get some quality plug-ins (processors, virtual instruments, etc.)
I would get the UAD Satellite or a Waves bundle before I would buy analog gear. Why? A) You get a heck of a lot of great plug-ins for a 1/2 the price of one worthy hardware unit; variety is key; B) Because you'll immediately be amazed how much a great plug-in can sound awesome and make life easier; and C) You'll start to get an idea of the how some of the coveted gear works and sounds. (Just realize that plug-ins modeled after real analog gear may not sound or behave the same!)
Same thing applies to virtual instruments. Once you've gone as far as you can go programming orchestral sounds with Garritan, graduate to Vienna and be amazed. It's also much cheaper than hiring an orchestra. Trust me, I've done the math :-)
5) Get some quality outboard gear
Once you know your stuff, have confidently used the good plug-ins to transform your mixes, and have inherited $50,000 from your rich aunt Sally, then you can decide if getting some analog gear is worth it for you. Try renting a piece of gear first and do some A/B-ing. If your world is rocked, go for it!
The equivalent of "outboard gear" for those who use virtual instruments exclusively is actually hiring a studio to record real musicians. As of today, a talented human trumpet player will always sound better than a programmed part, especially if it's a solo. This means you'll want to consider spending Aunt Sally's inheritance money on hiring pros to play and capture your music. Can't afford an entire string section? Just hire a single violinist to play a layer or two of your string parts. Blend those real performances over the top of your virtual string section to make it sound way more authentic. Not easy, or convenient, or cheap...but hey, you just inherited $50,000 :-)
My Dad always says, "Money can't buy happiness, but it does make life a heck of a lot easier." With music production, the same principal applies. Newer, better, and in many cases, vintage gear won't suddenly transform your work into gold, but it will sound better and it will reduce the amount of time/energy you spend tweaking. Once you have a zebra, you won't have to paint black stripes on that white donkey anymore.
A few more minor points, and then I'll wrap it up...
About Virtual Instruments
Customize your patches! It's cool to start with a patch, but no patch fits perfectly with your song. You need to edit that patch to meet the needs of the track! This can include tweaking parameters in your synth, dialing back the room sound of your drums, and adding effects like distortion, delay, reverb, chorus, etc. Add something original to put your stamp on it. (This advice also applies to processing plug-ins as well.)
Also, avoid cheesy or dated sounding patches at all cost, unless that's the intent. "Cheesy" and "dated" are both relative terms, but you know what I mean. There are a lot of really bad sounding virtual instruments, especially the ones that try to emulate acoustic instruments through synthesis. Yuck! If your song starts sounding like a MIDI karaoke backing track, put on the breaks and start over. Unless, of course, you enjoy hearing the word "amateur" being associated with your creations.
About Loops
You have to be really carefully about using loops in your compositions. First, they better be quality (expertly performed and recorded). Second, you better use as many tricks as possible to hide the fact that they're loops. No contemporary track on the radio just repeats a few bars of drum loop throughout the entire track. Even sample-based rap tracks contain cut up measures, re-arranged sequences, re-organized slices, fills, sudden stops/starts, varieties of groove, etc. A great pop producer is a master at adding as much subtle variety to his loops as possible. Third, you better not use easily recognizable loops. This means GarageBand loops are out, unless it's low-profile ones (percussion, etc.). Fourth, don't even think about using loops for some genres. Looped drums for a traditional blues piece? No way.
In conclusion, this post does not justify your G.A.S. (gear acquisition syndrome) lust. Many of us who run into production roadblocks wrongly assume that it's the tools instead of the user (see my post RANT: "Due to Human Error"). So, before you run out and buy your coveted piece of gear, I would seriously consider spending that cash on education. But if the competent use of the tools you have is still keeping you from producing radio-quality recordings, a gear upgrade may just be the leg up that you need. My friend considers his questionably-legal acquisition of the Waves Mercury Bundle to be a "game changer." What will be your game changer?
And as always, Enjoy the Ride!
REALITY CHECK #7: You Can't Do It Alone, Unless...
For daily tips and links on songwriting, production, and recording, follow Create Music Productions on Twitter: @CreateMusicPro
For daily tips and links on songwriting, production, and recording, follow Create Music Productions on Twitter: @CreateMusicPro
Monday, March 21, 2011
REALITY CHECK #5: You Suck, part II
ATTENTION: Read these first:
- REALITY CHECK series Introduction
- REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck
- REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks
- REALITY CHECK #3: Your Monitors Suck
- REALITY CHECK # 4: Your Gear Sucks
Have you ever heard a fantastic recording of a horrible performance? The gut reaction is that the entire thing sucks, recording and all. Some amateur vocalists will pay big money to have a studio record their song(s) using professional musicians. Everything sounds amazing until the American Idol wannabe comes in with their sub-par droning. At that very moment the listener stops hearing a solid recording and starts hearing amateurish crap. Am I not right? Many song samples from local recording studios will sound that way, not because the recordists suck, but because something is lacking in the song that keeps you from appreciating the quality of the recording.
-Average/horrible sounding instruments
-Average/horrible sounding instrumental performance
-Average/horrible sounding vocalist
-Average/horrible lyrics and/or songwriting
-Average/horrible arrangement
-Average/horrible production values
Seriously, you could be the best recordist ever, but if one of those aspects is lacking in the song, no one's gonna notice how awesome your recording is (except for us audio nerds). Do you think anyone would admire the powerful simplicity of Audioslave's "Like a Stone" if the drum kit sucked, the bass player couldn't groove, and the vocalist wasn't amazing? Nope.
So, what's my point?
Even if you have the recording thing down, your song is not going to sound radio-quality unless you also shine as a performer, songwriter, and producer.
This post is really aimed at the "Renaissance Man" home recordist. In social circles the Renaissance musician is greatly admired for single-handedly using their multiple talents to create musical "masterpieces" from the humble location of his/her bedroom. That's an awesome ability. But in the professional world, rarely does anyone make anything great without the input, advice, help, assistance, or collaboration of several equally talented people.
Let's look at all the elements that go into a great song from start to finish:
-lyrics
-music
-arrangement
-performance
-production
-recording/editing
-mixing
-mastering
For every one of those stages, there is someone who specializes into doing just that:
-lyricist
-composer/songwriter
-arranger
-performer (studio musician)
-producer
-recordist
-mixing engineer
-mastering engineer
Record labels will introduce any of the above into the creative equation to insure that their product will be marketable. Can we compete with multiple specialists?
I'm not trying to rub it in, but if you've got mad recording skills, have a great room to work in, listen through a decent monitoring situation, and have a fair selection of cool gear, you still need something worthwhile to record! If you can't get that radio-worthy vibe out of your tracks because the song or production is average, I don't think you can blame the recording. Maybe you're just a crappy songwriter/performer/producer? Or rather, maybe you're not an amazing songwriter/performer/producer who's surrounded by lot's of specialist collaborators?
What do we do with this self-deflating information? Like in the first four installments of the REALITY CHECK series, I recommend a mixture of acceptance and baby steps toward progress.
- REALITY CHECK series Introduction
- REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck
- REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks
- REALITY CHECK #3: Your Monitors Suck
- REALITY CHECK # 4: Your Gear Sucks
Have you ever heard a fantastic recording of a horrible performance? The gut reaction is that the entire thing sucks, recording and all. Some amateur vocalists will pay big money to have a studio record their song(s) using professional musicians. Everything sounds amazing until the American Idol wannabe comes in with their sub-par droning. At that very moment the listener stops hearing a solid recording and starts hearing amateurish crap. Am I not right? Many song samples from local recording studios will sound that way, not because the recordists suck, but because something is lacking in the song that keeps you from appreciating the quality of the recording.
Here is a list of ways to make people assume your recordings suck, even if they're quality:
-Average/horrible sounding instrumental performance
-Average/horrible sounding vocalist
-Average/horrible lyrics and/or songwriting
-Average/horrible arrangement
-Average/horrible production values
Seriously, you could be the best recordist ever, but if one of those aspects is lacking in the song, no one's gonna notice how awesome your recording is (except for us audio nerds). Do you think anyone would admire the powerful simplicity of Audioslave's "Like a Stone" if the drum kit sucked, the bass player couldn't groove, and the vocalist wasn't amazing? Nope.
So, what's my point?
Even if you have the recording thing down, your song is not going to sound radio-quality unless you also shine as a performer, songwriter, and producer.
This post is really aimed at the "Renaissance Man" home recordist. In social circles the Renaissance musician is greatly admired for single-handedly using their multiple talents to create musical "masterpieces" from the humble location of his/her bedroom. That's an awesome ability. But in the professional world, rarely does anyone make anything great without the input, advice, help, assistance, or collaboration of several equally talented people.
Let's look at all the elements that go into a great song from start to finish:
-lyrics
-music
-arrangement
-performance
-production
-recording/editing
-mixing
-mastering
For every one of those stages, there is someone who specializes into doing just that:
-lyricist
-composer/songwriter
-arranger
-performer (studio musician)
-producer
-recordist
-mixing engineer
-mastering engineer
Record labels will introduce any of the above into the creative equation to insure that their product will be marketable. Can we compete with multiple specialists?
While I do think it's possible to be great at a few of those categories, I believe that none of us can truly master them all. People who become masters at something usually specialize in only doing that one thing. You know the saying, "Jack of all trades, master of none"? Yes, we might do it all fairly competently, but not at the level where we can actually compete with several experts doing what they do best at each stage of the song process. It's a sobering fact that we all painfully recognize, but don't have the time, connections, or money to do anything about.
I'm not trying to rub it in, but if you've got mad recording skills, have a great room to work in, listen through a decent monitoring situation, and have a fair selection of cool gear, you still need something worthwhile to record! If you can't get that radio-worthy vibe out of your tracks because the song or production is average, I don't think you can blame the recording. Maybe you're just a crappy songwriter/performer/producer? Or rather, maybe you're not an amazing songwriter/performer/producer who's surrounded by lot's of specialist collaborators?
What do we do with this self-deflating information? Like in the first four installments of the REALITY CHECK series, I recommend a mixture of acceptance and baby steps toward progress.
Acceptance
So you can't be an expert at every stage of your project, who cares? Stop pouting and just accept that you're gonna have to involve other people in your creative process. Once I tried to lay down a rip-roaring guitar solo in a song I was writing. FAIL. I swallowed my pride and called a guitarist friend who came over and laid down 3 usable takes in under 10 minutes. To him, the expert, it was no big thing. Even though I had to inconveniently schedule a time for us to track, I probably ended up saving time in the long run. Plus, my song now has a legit solo. Winning! Identify your weakest abilities and stop convincing yourself that you're "good enough." It's that kind of hopeful self-deception that leads to crappy tracks and -more importantly- keeps you from involving the people who can help you. Which leads me to my next point...
Baby Steps: Get Help!
If you want to take your music projects to the next level, you need to make some friends who are experts. Easier said than done, right? Okay, maybe you can't make friends with experts, but you can collaborate with people who are better than you at the things you suck at. In this internet age, friend making is easier than it's ever been. Start a recording meet-up group through Craigslist. Join Music Connection's AMP Network and find like minded folks in your area. Attend your local songwriting group's critique nights. Many of them (in the LA area at least) have industry experts who do the critiquing. Many online groups exist for the same purpose. Check out the Songwriting Lab, where you can get your work critiqued by a host of folks in the songwriting community. You may not get expert advice, but any advice is better than no external input at all. To overcome your blind spots, it's essential to examine a wide variety of perspectives other than yours.
If you want to stop carving the same rut that you've been carving, you're gonna need to get out of your comfort zone. I can't even begin to list all the forums and social networks you can use to meet people who have the skills you need. Don't just post and then retreat back into your cave. Make connections, establish relationships. Turn those virtual relationships into working relationships. Stop staring at your computer and start shaking hands.
Why would anyone want to help you? Because you probably have a skill they need. If you rock at lyrics and music, then hook up with someone who's good at production. You need their production skills and they need your songwriting skills. It's a symbiotic relationship. Beatmakers need rappers just like rappers need beatmakers. Songwriters need performers. Lyricists need composers. Producers need songs to produce. Vocalists need something to sing just like songwriters need vocalists to sing their songs.
The best part of today's virtual environment is that all this mutually beneficial back scratching doesn't have to take place in "real life." If you read recording-type magazines you've undoubtedly come across multiple articles about cross-continental virtual collaborations. Get a free Dropbox account and start sending your tracks back and forth with your Twitter friend in Norway. Why not? Have a New York rapper spit over the beats you made in Nebraska. There's this marvelous thing called the internet. Use it!
If you happen to have a small project budget, places like eSession have been hooking up amateur musicians with industry pros for years. Forget that stupid synth bass patch! Hire a legit bass player to perform and record that slap-pop line that you just can't play...for under $100! Some songwriting veterans like Jason Blume will critique your song for $20-$30. Once you're a member, TAXI gives you a free critique with every submission you make. Go to a Karaoke bar and find a singer who's willing to sing on your track in exchange for $20 and/or a copy of the recording. You'd be amazed how many vocalists want samples to use as resume builders or vanity tracks for their myspace page.
I can't list every resource available, but the 21st-century fact is that we're bursting at the seems with opportunities. Carpe diem!
Remember, this post is not about your recording ability. I addressed that issue in the first post "REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck." However, the music industry also relies on the "many experts" model to insure maximal product value. In other words, there's an expert at every stage of the recording process, too. In the big leagues, the recording engineer is usually different from the mixing engineer, who is different from the mastering engineer (exceptions abound, of course). Each expert works their magic to the synergistic benefit of the whole. Plus you have several other folks checking "quality control"at each stage, typically the producer(s) and record execs.
Soooooo, this means that you should also take advantage of all the real and virtual opportunities to get recording/mixing/mastering critiques, advice, and perspectives other than your own. The first thing that comes to mind is Ian Shepherd's Production Advice service, but many others exist as well. A free option is Recording Review's "Bash This Recording" Forum, where your peers rake you over the coals in the name of improvement.
In summary: you can't do it all expertly and you need help. It doesn't make you less of a person. I bet you can do some things expertly, so now you just need to collaborate with others who can expertly do the things you suck at. Or, just come to terms with where you're at. Many of us don't have the time, energy, desire, or people skills to involve others. That's okay. Just realize that the definition of 'insanity' is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. As long as you're aware that your solo efforts probably won't produce a Billboard chart topper, you're all good. Maybe with a little acceptance, the joy of making music will creep back into your sessions. That would be a good thing.
Enjoy the Ride!
Follow Create Music Productions on Twitter for daily tips and links on recording, songwriting, and music production: @CreateMusicPro
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
REALITY CHECK #4: Your Gear Sucks
ATTENTION: Read these first:
- REALITY CHECK series Introduction
- REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck
- REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks
- REALITY CHECK #3: Your Monitors Suck
When was the last time you had the pleasure of recording a vintage Ludwig kit? The last time you recorded drums, how many snare options did you have? One? Maybe two? Did you have a few extra kits lying around in case you needed to change out kit pieces? Never, none, and no.
You probably thought this post was going to be about how your gear sucks and how the pros have way better gear than you. Well, it kind of is. Great gear matters. If you've ever played through a sweet tube amp you already know that. But I'd be willing to guess that you have a nice guitar, or one awesome mic, or perhaps a killer pre-amp...maybe even all 3! So, you're totally ready to make recordings like the pros, right? Sure. But what happens when you need more of a Gibson sound but all you have is a Strat? What if the mic that complements your voice sounds awful on the female vocalist you brought in to track vocals? And, of course you love the coloration from your killer tube pre-amp, but what if you need it to be transparent? Ah, this is where the pros have an advantage over us.
In The Daily Adventures of Mixerman, after Mixerman dials in the drums, he turns to the guitars. He rents a bass head, a bass cab, a few guitar amps, and some guitars. The producer also brought in several of his favorite amps and guitars. Between the guitarist, the producer, and the rental equipment, they set up a wall (literally) of amps (quality amps, from Vox to Mesa Boogie) and had an estimated 50 guitars to choose from. Throughout the sessions, the three spent countless hours auditioning amps, dialing in the right tone, and arguing about the implications of sounding too vintage or too modern.
Contrast that to what we typically do in our home studios: We pick up the only guitar we have, dial in an acceptable (but not fantastic) tone from our combo amp, and mic it up with a single SM57 that's plugged in to a $200 pre-amp/interface. Upon playback is it any wonder why we feel like the guitar tone lacks something?
Now, your situation hopefully is better than this, although it's a fairly common set up for many home-recording folks. And I'm not even suggesting that you couldn't capture a broadcast-quality recording that way (more on that later). My point is that to capture a variety of great sounds on a wide variety of sources, you need to have A) great gear, and B) lots of it.
Great Gear
"Great" gear doesn't necessarily mean expensive gear. Quality gear will usually produce a cleaner recording, so if you got it, use it. But a quality amp might not be what that trashy indie-rock guitar part needs. I'm suggesting that "great gear" is gear that gives you the sound the part needs. The sad news is that the Neumann mic you bought with your child's college money might sound horrible on that glam rock vocalist. So, yes, quality gear is great, but appropriate gear is better. This brings me to my next point...
Lots of Gear
This is where pro studios have an advantage over us home-recording guys. They have lots of quality gear. In other words, they have a variety of sonic options to choose from, which greatly increases their chances of finding just the right sound.
Before I continue, let me qualify what I mean by "gear." There is a debate among home-recording songwriters as to whether they should track a song themselves and then hire someone to mix it... -or- ...should they pay a studio to track the song and then mix it themselves. Usually this question arises among people who are not qualified to neither track nor mix, but that's besides the point. Too many people these days think that DAWs are magic and that you can put crap in and transform it into platinum later. It doesn't work that way. The pros record with the best tools and mix with the best tools. Having said that, a song that has been tracked by a competent engineer using great gear is going to sound awesome in the raw and be far easier to mix. In the March 2011 U.S.A. edition of Sound on Sound, Ruadhri Cushnan talks about mixing the latest Mumford and Sons album. He says :
"In the end, it's about how good your source material is. Some people think everything can be fixed with a good mix, but that's not strictly true. A band playing well, recorded in a good room by a good engineer and a good producer makes the mixing process a lot easier. If the source material is not very good, you're going to have to jump a lot of hurdles during the mix. In the case of Mumford and Sons I was given really well recorded source material with plenty of options, so mixing was fairly easy and the results came out great."
Get it? You can't polish a turd. Spray paint will make it look better, but it's still a turd.
Therefore, for this segment I will only address the gear that assists in capturing a sound, from source up to the computer. I'll address the processing side later in "Your Gear Sucks, part II."
Quantities of Quality Gear
What kinds of quality gear are we talking about? Let's lay out a couple typical signal chains to see what gear shapes a source:
Vocals: Great room > great vocalist > microphone(s) > cable > pre-amp > cable > compressor/limiter > cable > EQ > cable > converters > cable > computer
Guitar: Great room > Great guitarist > Guitar > cable > pedal(s) > cable > pre-amp > cable> power amp > cab > microphone(s) > pre-amp > cable > compressor/limiter > cable > EQ > cable > converters > cable > computer
At every point in a chain, the tracking engineer must audition, select, and combine pieces of gear that will produce the sonic bliss they're looking for. This explains why pro studios have rooms full of vintage guitars/amps/cabs, sought after synths and keyboard instruments, $100,000 mic lockers, racks of coveted analog gear, and why some cables cost more than a trip to Disneyland.
In contrast, a typical home studio signal chain looks like this:
Crappy room > Okay guitarist > Mid-priced Guitar > $10 cable > M-Audio Fast Track interface > computer > guitar modeling software.
For those who have this setup, I'm not making fun of you. However, I am trying to point out the amount of time, expertise, and quality gear that went into capturing the awesome guitar tone on Joe Radio's latest single. Of course you can't get Joe Radio's sound with the above setup. Accepting that fact might just keep you from pulling out your hair thinking you can transform a Hyundai into a Ferrari with some minor body work.
Remember, the point of the REALITY CHECK series is to point out why many home recordists can't make radio-quality recordings. Crappy gear is only one reason. And it's on the low side of importance compared to the other points I've written about and will write about. Many of you are to able to crank out pretty awesome recordings with only a modest variety of decent gear. Awesome! Many of you have no need for quantities of quality gear because you're only interested in recording in one genre. As long as you don't need your Marshall stack to sound like a Fender Twin, you're set. Many of you do electronica and/or MIDI and have no need of the kind of gear I've been talking about. Lucky you! (Although, hard-core synth-heads will continue their quest to acquire every analog synth known to man). However, many of you use loops and samples for drums, orchestral instruments, voices, etc. All of what I'm talking about in this post has already been done for you. But I have more to say about the quality of samples/loops, and I need to address programming and aesthetic issues. I'll talk about all that in a later post.
One warning: more and better gear may not be what you need to improve your recordings. Many people "upgrade" because they mistakenly think that a $2,000 outboard compressor is going to solve all their compression problems. It will sound great, no debate. But if you don't know how to edit the parameters according to the needs of the signal, you're better off spending your money on Joe Gilder's Understanding Compression videos. (Plus, if you've been paying attention, you really need several nice compressors to choose from. Cha-ching!) Gear Acquisition Syndrome (G.A.S.) often strikes when the problem has nothing to do with gear. I'd be willing to bet that you need more education...not more gear.
The take-away for this week's entry is the same as the others: You can accept your limitations and/or take steps to improve your situation. Let's say you know what you're doing, work in a great room, and have a decent monitoring situation. If you can't get radio-quality recordings you may want to consider which piece(s) of gear you need to improve your input. But before you head over to http://www.sweetwater.com, I'd wait until I'm done with the REALITY CHECK series. There are several more posts that reveal limitations more devistating than having crappy gear. And you thought I was about to give you permission to satisfy your gear lust. ;-)
Enjoy the ride!
Special thanks to @Gilligan204 at for fact checking and making suggestions on portions of this post.
- REALITY CHECK series Introduction
- REALITY CHECK #1: You Suck
- REALITY CHECK #2: Your Room Sucks
- REALITY CHECK #3: Your Monitors Suck
The only book I've ever lost sleep over was Mixerman's The Daily Adventures of Mixerman. In many ways, reading that book is what "woke me up" to the gulf that divides the home recordist from the industry pros. At one point, Mixerman needed to put in a gear order for the tracking sessions that lay ahead. After getting the "regardless of cost" go-ahead from the producer he proceeded to rent a vintage Ludwig drum kit (with a few other kits waiting on standby), plus 10 extra snare drums. Uh, hem...That's as far as we need to go.
When was the last time you had the pleasure of recording a vintage Ludwig kit? The last time you recorded drums, how many snare options did you have? One? Maybe two? Did you have a few extra kits lying around in case you needed to change out kit pieces? Never, none, and no.
You probably thought this post was going to be about how your gear sucks and how the pros have way better gear than you. Well, it kind of is. Great gear matters. If you've ever played through a sweet tube amp you already know that. But I'd be willing to guess that you have a nice guitar, or one awesome mic, or perhaps a killer pre-amp...maybe even all 3! So, you're totally ready to make recordings like the pros, right? Sure. But what happens when you need more of a Gibson sound but all you have is a Strat? What if the mic that complements your voice sounds awful on the female vocalist you brought in to track vocals? And, of course you love the coloration from your killer tube pre-amp, but what if you need it to be transparent? Ah, this is where the pros have an advantage over us.
In The Daily Adventures of Mixerman, after Mixerman dials in the drums, he turns to the guitars. He rents a bass head, a bass cab, a few guitar amps, and some guitars. The producer also brought in several of his favorite amps and guitars. Between the guitarist, the producer, and the rental equipment, they set up a wall (literally) of amps (quality amps, from Vox to Mesa Boogie) and had an estimated 50 guitars to choose from. Throughout the sessions, the three spent countless hours auditioning amps, dialing in the right tone, and arguing about the implications of sounding too vintage or too modern.
Contrast that to what we typically do in our home studios: We pick up the only guitar we have, dial in an acceptable (but not fantastic) tone from our combo amp, and mic it up with a single SM57 that's plugged in to a $200 pre-amp/interface. Upon playback is it any wonder why we feel like the guitar tone lacks something?
Now, your situation hopefully is better than this, although it's a fairly common set up for many home-recording folks. And I'm not even suggesting that you couldn't capture a broadcast-quality recording that way (more on that later). My point is that to capture a variety of great sounds on a wide variety of sources, you need to have A) great gear, and B) lots of it.
Great Gear
"Great" gear doesn't necessarily mean expensive gear. Quality gear will usually produce a cleaner recording, so if you got it, use it. But a quality amp might not be what that trashy indie-rock guitar part needs. I'm suggesting that "great gear" is gear that gives you the sound the part needs. The sad news is that the Neumann mic you bought with your child's college money might sound horrible on that glam rock vocalist. So, yes, quality gear is great, but appropriate gear is better. This brings me to my next point...
Lots of Gear
This is where pro studios have an advantage over us home-recording guys. They have lots of quality gear. In other words, they have a variety of sonic options to choose from, which greatly increases their chances of finding just the right sound.
Before I continue, let me qualify what I mean by "gear." There is a debate among home-recording songwriters as to whether they should track a song themselves and then hire someone to mix it... -or- ...should they pay a studio to track the song and then mix it themselves. Usually this question arises among people who are not qualified to neither track nor mix, but that's besides the point. Too many people these days think that DAWs are magic and that you can put crap in and transform it into platinum later. It doesn't work that way. The pros record with the best tools and mix with the best tools. Having said that, a song that has been tracked by a competent engineer using great gear is going to sound awesome in the raw and be far easier to mix. In the March 2011 U.S.A. edition of Sound on Sound, Ruadhri Cushnan talks about mixing the latest Mumford and Sons album. He says :
"In the end, it's about how good your source material is. Some people think everything can be fixed with a good mix, but that's not strictly true. A band playing well, recorded in a good room by a good engineer and a good producer makes the mixing process a lot easier. If the source material is not very good, you're going to have to jump a lot of hurdles during the mix. In the case of Mumford and Sons I was given really well recorded source material with plenty of options, so mixing was fairly easy and the results came out great."
Get it? You can't polish a turd. Spray paint will make it look better, but it's still a turd.
Therefore, for this segment I will only address the gear that assists in capturing a sound, from source up to the computer. I'll address the processing side later in "Your Gear Sucks, part II."
Quantities of Quality Gear
What kinds of quality gear are we talking about? Let's lay out a couple typical signal chains to see what gear shapes a source:
Vocals: Great room > great vocalist > microphone(s) > cable > pre-amp > cable > compressor/limiter > cable > EQ > cable > converters > cable > computer
Guitar: Great room > Great guitarist > Guitar > cable > pedal(s) > cable > pre-amp > cable> power amp > cab > microphone(s) > pre-amp > cable > compressor/limiter > cable > EQ > cable > converters > cable > computer
At every point in a chain, the tracking engineer must audition, select, and combine pieces of gear that will produce the sonic bliss they're looking for. This explains why pro studios have rooms full of vintage guitars/amps/cabs, sought after synths and keyboard instruments, $100,000 mic lockers, racks of coveted analog gear, and why some cables cost more than a trip to Disneyland.
In contrast, a typical home studio signal chain looks like this:
Crappy room > Okay guitarist > Mid-priced Guitar > $10 cable > M-Audio Fast Track interface > computer > guitar modeling software.
For those who have this setup, I'm not making fun of you. However, I am trying to point out the amount of time, expertise, and quality gear that went into capturing the awesome guitar tone on Joe Radio's latest single. Of course you can't get Joe Radio's sound with the above setup. Accepting that fact might just keep you from pulling out your hair thinking you can transform a Hyundai into a Ferrari with some minor body work.
Remember, the point of the REALITY CHECK series is to point out why many home recordists can't make radio-quality recordings. Crappy gear is only one reason. And it's on the low side of importance compared to the other points I've written about and will write about. Many of you are to able to crank out pretty awesome recordings with only a modest variety of decent gear. Awesome! Many of you have no need for quantities of quality gear because you're only interested in recording in one genre. As long as you don't need your Marshall stack to sound like a Fender Twin, you're set. Many of you do electronica and/or MIDI and have no need of the kind of gear I've been talking about. Lucky you! (Although, hard-core synth-heads will continue their quest to acquire every analog synth known to man). However, many of you use loops and samples for drums, orchestral instruments, voices, etc. All of what I'm talking about in this post has already been done for you. But I have more to say about the quality of samples/loops, and I need to address programming and aesthetic issues. I'll talk about all that in a later post.
One warning: more and better gear may not be what you need to improve your recordings. Many people "upgrade" because they mistakenly think that a $2,000 outboard compressor is going to solve all their compression problems. It will sound great, no debate. But if you don't know how to edit the parameters according to the needs of the signal, you're better off spending your money on Joe Gilder's Understanding Compression videos. (Plus, if you've been paying attention, you really need several nice compressors to choose from. Cha-ching!) Gear Acquisition Syndrome (G.A.S.) often strikes when the problem has nothing to do with gear. I'd be willing to bet that you need more education...not more gear.
The take-away for this week's entry is the same as the others: You can accept your limitations and/or take steps to improve your situation. Let's say you know what you're doing, work in a great room, and have a decent monitoring situation. If you can't get radio-quality recordings you may want to consider which piece(s) of gear you need to improve your input. But before you head over to http://www.sweetwater.com, I'd wait until I'm done with the REALITY CHECK series. There are several more posts that reveal limitations more devistating than having crappy gear. And you thought I was about to give you permission to satisfy your gear lust. ;-)
Enjoy the ride!
Special thanks to @Gilligan204 at for fact checking and making suggestions on portions of this post.
Follow Create Music Productions on Twitter for daily tips on recording, songwriting, and music production: @CreateMusicPro
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)