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 #3: Your Monitors Suck

- REALITY CHECK # 4: Your Gear Sucks
- REALITY CHECK # 5: You Suck, part II

- REALITY CHECK # 6: Your Gear Sucks, part II

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

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

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

- multi-media presentations

- Satellite and/or internet radio
- 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

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.

Here is a list of ways to make people assume your recordings suck, even if they're quality:

-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?

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!

REALITY CHECK #6: Your Gear Sucks, part II

Follow Create Music Productions on Twitter for daily tips and links on recording, songwriting, and music production: @CreateMusicPro

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

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.

REALITY CHECK #5: You Suck, part II

Follow Create Music Productions on Twitter for daily tips on recording, songwriting, and music production: @CreateMusicPro

The REALITY CHECK Series: Intro

I once had a client ask me to come help her with a track she was working on. When I arrived, she played me the song, which was basically her singing completely dry over an assemblage of loops. After informing me that she had 30 minutes to spend, she literally said, "Now, can you just teach me how to make it sound like the songs on the radio?" I didn't know whether to pee my pants in laughter, walk out, or shake her like that scene in Airplane. Unfortunately for her, at the end of my 30 minute instruction she didn't come away with a radio-ready track; she came away with a sense of disappointment about how complex recording/mixing was.

Now, who do I blame for her naïvety? The internet. Why? Because everywhere you click there are blog posts, videos, and websites with titles like: "Compression Made Easy," "5 Mixing Tricks for Platinum Vocals," "Simple EQ Tips for the Perfect Guitar Sound," and "Learn to Record Like Bruce Swedien in 5 Hours!"

You want to know the truth? Recording is NOT easy, quick, or painless. In fact, here's the Reality Check:

The average home-recordist will probably never produce a radio-quality recording.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to sell you something.

Why am I smashing your hopes and dreams into tiny pieces, you ask? Because the truth can set you free. Freedom from what? Freedom from the disappointment, frustration, and embarrassment that you experience when you compare your track to others on iTunes. Why does the latest hit single sound warm, sparkly, loud, and balanced, while your track sounds like a 6th grade orchestra captured with a cassette recorder from 1981? I'll tell you why:

Home Recordists can't produce radio-ready tracks because they face several crippling limitations.

The goal of the REALITY CHECK series is to point out those limitations in order to help you understand why your track is only 85% there. I believe that coming to terms with "reality" will help you appreciate how great you're actually doing and hopefully encourage you to stop banging your head against the wall in desperation.

Unfortunately, many of us think our countless searches will eventually reveal that one tutorial that will unlock all the mysteries of recording. When that magical day happens, we'll be the King Midas of the recording world. Okay, you're not that dumb, but many home-recordists sometimes act like frustrated alchemists, mistakenly believing that it's possible to turn lead into gold. So, let me fill you in on the truth: try all you want, but recording a crappy vocal into a Mbox with a $50 condenser in your kitchen ain't gonna earn you a Grammy. Accept this fact and maybe you can start having fun recording music again.

The other benefit of understanding your major limitations is that when you are ready to step it up a notch, you'll know what you have to do to take it to the next level.

So listen, as a home recordist, you're probably producing some pretty cool recordings given your knowledge and equipment limitations. Will you ever produce radio-quality recordings with your existing limitations? Nope. But that's what the REALITY CHECK series is about. Figure out what those limitations are so you can stop beating yourself up about where you're at in your recording journey. Maybe then you can enjoy the ride.

In a few days, I will start off the series with the first post:

Reality Check #1: You Suck

Follow Create Music Productions on Twitter for daily tips and links on recording, songwriting, and music production: @CreateMusicPro

Adding Character to a Virtual Instrument Sound Using Reverse Reverb

Just made a screencast that shows you how to add a little ambience to your virtual instrument sounds using the reverse reverb effect in ProTools 8 with stock plug-ins. Enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK_lt-aceSs

The audio and video quality sucks, but it's my first screencast so cut me some slack ;-)

For daily tips about recording, production, and songwriting, follow Create Music Productions on Twitter @CreateMusicPro