Re: Higher End Studio Gear Can Make a Song

kouly · Post by **kouly** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:55 pm

I said that this part of it is subjective, so no explanation needed. IMHO I just think HOH is a better song. Your free to disagree. Also your right this is more of a demo since it was not mastered and mixed in 15 minutes with no effects. The point I am trying to make is that even with all the effects between the two I would still choose to listen to the "Demo". I think this may have not been the best example since Kelly was trying to show what couldbe done in a "minimalist" fashion to combat the "if I only had a (enter brand name boutique gear) this song would have a professional sound" argument. On The Nash had all the gear, I wonder if the gear can make a song, why it wasn't a hit?

prez · Post by **prez** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:33 am

What the....??? This thread is still going? This is a dead horse. There will always be people who will use gear as an excuse for their songs being sub par. Songs are what's key, not gear. You don't have to be in a studio for 20 years to know this little tidbit. It's common sense.That's why piano/vocal and/or guitar/vocal demos are taken. The people asking for them are not sitting back listening wondering, "I wonder if they used an LA2A or Avalon." They don't care. They're looking for a good song, because that's what sells, it's what stays, it's what matters. Even when they ask for a fully produced cut, they're not looking to master it. They're listening to see if the song is a hit.Al Green's How Can You Mend A Broken Heart is not recorded all that great. But that song is KILLER unto this day and I can listen to it over and over. Same for You Caught Me Smilin by Sly and the Family Stone (his voice even distorts on some of it). Try this: go ask about ten people you know what their favorite song is and then ask them why. I guarantee they're not going to say, "Because it was recorded in Pro Tools so it sounds great." Give me a break. There is a difference between sound and song. For some odd reason, some people can't seem to separate them which is really the puzzler.

kouly · Post by **kouly** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:43 pm

Quote:You're right, HOH is demo quality and even at that, not very good demo quality. Not in today's music biz.Would YOU use this same concept for all your submitted TAXI demos? Or submissions for anyone wanting "radio ready" sound? You DO know that the bar has been risen even for demo quality, don't you? Kelly used this concept as an audio exercise not for real life demos. BTW, Kouly, where's YOUR site? Ya gotta ante up dude. We should be able to hear what you're doing, don't you think? Kelly's song was a demonstration not a Demo in the current sense.

mixopenta · Post by **mixopenta** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:51 am

Quote:this song has "it" and uses higher end gear:http://gearslutz.com/board/showthread.p ... h+x73click on:test1 (master).mp3 (Vintech x73i pre) ortest2 (master).mp3 (Great River ME-1NV pre)Anyone??Personally, I'd go for the Vintech pre any day, which seems to suit this particular song and vocal better than the GR. It has the warmth and body that the Great River lacks (for this song and vox).The Great River pre is only slightly less expensive than the Vintech, but can certainly find its place in other situations.And as said before, it all comes down to how well the engineer knows his equipment, and how well he selects the right piece of gear for the situation at hand. That may not necessarily be hi-end. An experienced engineer could very well choose a $500 pre in favor of a $2000 pre, if he thinks it suits the situation.That being said, it's a well established fact that in order to make a production commercially viable, hi-end gear is required (with a few exceptions). But that doesn't make every production done this way sell a million copies, or make it a great song.What's more important is to be as creative as you possible can with whatever equipment is at hand. Use it the way its supposed to be used, use it in a way it's NOT supposed to be used, as long as it serves its purpose - which is finding the right veins to communicate and express the content of the song. If that is done well, it's no doubt that the gear have its fair share in the process of enhancing the song. (or, I will correct myself: it should be - "The use of the gear have its fair share...").It would've been very interesting to hear this comparison between one of these pre's, and an ordinary console input strip

prez · Post by **prez** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 5:21 pm

I really had to post this. This is a quote from Michael Brauer, mix engineer for people like Coldplay, Luther Vandross, and Aimee Mann to name a few. I think this guy knows what he's talking about.This was in reponse to this question:How important do you think the gear used in the studio is to making a great record vs. the knowledge and ability of the engineer who is using the gear? Put a monkey in my room with my gear and see what happens. If he mixes better than me, I'm gonna be pissed.Put me in a room with whatever is available, and I'm going to deliver you a great mix. No excuses for lack of toys or different formats such as mixing in the box. Mixing is mixing, You're either a mixer or you're a monkey. Simple.

edteja · Post by **edteja** » Sun Apr 29, 2007 11:53 am

I don't see a problem with his comment. What I hear him say is that if you have talent and skill you can do the deed with junk, but that doesn't mean you will choose to work with junk if you don't have to. It's a matter of degree isn't it? I get the jist as him saying he could come to my house, remix my stuff on my system and it would make me seem like a monkey. So send him over and pass a banana! I can take it.

davewalton · Post by **davewalton** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 2:18 am

All I know is that competition among instrumental composers is very stiff in terms of overall talent and that having inadequate equipment for the task at hand just makes the situation that much more difficult.My overall budget for my entire setup initially in 2004, minus a computer which I already had, was around $3000 (about as much as I spent on a single keyboard way back when in the 70's and 80's). With that initial amount, I got a pro-level sequencer (Sonar) and a nice collection of quality virtual software instruments ranging from orchestral to synth to percussion to guitar/bass to ethnic. I've probably spent another $1000 since then for upgrades and a few new items.I don't need to spent tens of thousands to be competitive but not being reasonably competitive and efficient in terms of equipment/sound doesn't make sense if I'm serious about doing this - it just makes it harder to be competitive... something that's hard enough to begin with. Dave

crs7string · Post by **crs7string** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 3:49 am

I have viewed this process of writing instrumental music for libraries and film and TV as starting a business. If one wanted to start any new business venture, there would be potentially a large capital outlay to get up and running. There are very few business opportunities out there that would need only a few thousand dollars to get up and running, and without taking substantial risk.In my opinion, the risk of submitting music to Taxi listings is the risk of having your music returned instead of being forwarded. That is an emotion risk and a blow to your ego which should be easy to absorb. Even that risk can be minimized by learning to write to the listing more effectively ( this sounds like Dave Walton) and by submitting to a lot of listings. This is a numbers game on the front end. I believe that Taxi can be a good conduit to building relationships that will, over time, be less driven by quantity and more driven by quality.Finally, by having good gear one should be able to produce tracks more quickly and efficiently. I've enjoyed playing the Dispatch challenge, but I know that without the tools that I have I could not produce a piece with a couple of days notice.Chuck

mazz · Post by **mazz** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 5:52 am

It wasn't until I sunk a bunch of money into improving my gear/sounds that I was able to beging to fully realize the music I had in my head. The quality of the sounds has helped my compositions begin to attract some attention in the business via TAXI mostly at this point. One probably doesn't need a whole bunch of great gear to record song demos for Nashville songwriter pitches (just a few select great pieces) but, as Dave and Chuck have said, to be a one man shop instrumental composer, eventually your're competing with the big guys and they for sure have the great sounds. Mazz

ernstinen · Post by **ernstinen** » Mon Apr 30, 2007 10:14 am

Quote:All I know is that competition among instrumental composers is very stiff in terms of overall talent and that having inadequate equipment for the task at hand just makes the situation that much more difficult.Yea, and it's been that way for a long time with music that DEPENDS upon sound quality. And I'm making a distinction here --- separating the SOUND from the SONG. Some styles of music such as country and musicals are song-driven; many others are sound-driven.Years ago, I began to learn the difference at a songwriting workshop in Hollywood. Some people would bring in a song and sing it accompanied by just guitar or piano, which worked just fine; others would bring in full-blown demos, mostly dance stuff.One guy's recordings were clearly superior SOUND-WISE, and he was having a lot of success pitching his demos. I began picking his brain as to what he was doing in the studio. It turns out he had one of the first stereo samplers, a Yamaha, and sampled all his drum and bass sounds etc. from hit records. Now, people pay big money to buy the best samples these days, but this dude had it figured out 20 years ago! And, for his style of music, it really helped his career.Ern