Re: Higher End Studio Gear Can Make a Song

mixopenta · Post by **mixopenta** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:28 am

I've followed this thread with great interest, and I also listened to the song in question. I have to agree with some of the posters that altough the song is not stellar, the sound is pretty good.However, not knowing what equipment was used for the recording I would rather say that the sound is the result of a skillful arrangement, as opposed to the use of so called hi-end gear. I would even go as far as saying that a hi end arrangement is more important than any level of gear used. Having said that, nothing is as strong as its weakest link in the chain, and one might also consider aquiring the level of gear depending on what it is one is trying to achieve; Having a vision of recording the greatest, loudest, cleanest, most agressive heavy metal album ever made, on a 4 track cassette recorder, a couple of $25 mics, and a $200 Mixer would probably not yield the result you'd envisioned.

andreh · Post by **andreh** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:45 am

Quote:I heard this same song on myspace and because of the audio limitations there, the song failed. I don't think anyone's saying that a crappy-sounding song is as good as the same song in a nice suit. My point is that one can achieve great sound with less-than-stellar gear if it's used properly.The MySpace analogy seems flawed to me. A more appropriate comparison would be the same song recorded and mixed with all crappy gear by a great engineer vs. the same song produced by the same engineer with all the best gear.My guess is that the former would yield a different-sounding song, but not one that sounds "worse" enough (if at all, to the average listener) to detract from the song's intrinsic character and appeal.Andre

bc · Post by bc » Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:11 pm

Quote:Technical Engineer Ken Townsend Re: "A Day In The Life""George Martin came up to me that morning and said to me 'Oh Ken, I've got a poser for you. I want to run two four-track tape machines together this evening. I know it's never been done before, can you do it?' So I went away and came up with a method whereby we fed a 50 cycle tone from the track of one machine then raised its voltage to drive the capstan motor of the second, thus running the two in sync. Like all these things, the ideas either work first time or not at all. This one worked first time."Like I said, these guys were scientists, artists, and lucky to boot!Ernest Pepper What a great story. A creative event that still resonates today. I started out with a Teac Simul-Sync 4 Track. Big fun back then.bc

Casey H · Post by **Casey H** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:17 pm

Quote: As fab as the fab four were they were still capable of making crap records.Most of the tracks on Let It Be for example.Whoa! I disagree... I love some of the tracks on "Let it Be" and often enjoy them more than a lot of earlier songs. Why? Because at that point, you seldom heard John and Paul really working together as a team. It's great to hear them do vocals together such as on One After 909, The Two of Us, I've Got a Feeling, etc... Granted, McCartney was pretty much running the show at that point and the recordings were pieced together by Phil Spector...Around the time of the White Album, they weren't even a group. There were John songs, Paul songs, and George songs and you barely hear them singing together. I think sometime after Revolver, the ceased to be a "group".I have the Let it Be DVD and the rooftop concert at the end is one of my favorite things. How else, around 1969-1970 could you see a Beatle concert?My 3 cents... Casey

Casey H · Post by **Casey H** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:27 pm

More on topic...We've often talked about great songs vs. great recordings. To me the word "recording" there means everything else except the actual songwriting- arrangement, production, engineering, etc, etc... I think most of us agree that if you write a mediocre song, all the production, engineering, gear, etc. probably won't make it much more than average. (I know from the dollars I've wasted)... Personally, being totally ignorant about recording gear, I think arrangement and production mean way more than the recording gear, unless it's total garbage.One example where I think mediocre songwriting makes excellent tracks would be the Rolling Stones. Take "Gimme Shelter" for example. Not much to the songwriting- 3 chords and very little melodic variation... But add the Stones "evilness" and the incredible backing vocals of Merry Clayton and you get a killer recording. Casey

Casey H · Post by **Casey H** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:22 pm

Quote: I view a recording as the entire audio package. And you view the performance as what defines a great song? ...Interesting....Just to clarify... That's not what I said. I said a great song is determined parley by the songwriting. Everything else- performance, arrangement, production, engineering, etc. makes it into a recording.In a way, I contradicted myself.... The Stones' "Gimme Shelter", as I mentioned, is not a great SONG, but the arrangement, performance, and production made it a killer track. Casey

Casey H · Post by **Casey H** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:08 pm

Quote:Quote:Just to clarify... That's not what I said. I said a great song is determined parley by the songwriting. Everything else- performance, arrangement, production, engineering, etc. makes it into a recording.In a way, I contradicted myself.... The Stones' "Gimme Shelter", as I mentioned, is not a great SONG, but the arrangement, performance, and production made it a killer track. CaseyInteresting. Then you take away the arrangement, performance, and production, then what Rolling Stones song is great?? I guess we are in violent agreement on the Stones. I am a big fan of their music but yes, it's the "evilness" of their presentation that makes their songs sound great. I do have to say that many songs are very well written from a lyrical perspective. "Sympathy for the Devil" is a great example of that... Not much to the musical structure, but IMHO the lyrics are great... And Jagger adds that "evil" factor that no one else could...But did the quality of the recording gear itself have anything to do with the Stones' success? Did it make those recordings great? Someone mentioned earlier on this thread that the average listener who is fine with 128K mp3s, cassettes, and even AM radio probably couldn't discern good quality audio from great. I admit to being in that category. It's kind of like wine for many of us. I can tell a $25 wine from a $2 one, but maybe not a $100 bottle from the $25 one... Casey

andreh · Post by **andreh** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:02 pm

Quote:Great sound with less-than-stellar gear? Gotta give us an example...Others on this thread already have. I suppose I could conduct an experiment, but I'm already convinced based on my own experience. Why don't you do one and report back to us with your findings?Quote:Great engineer with great/crappy gear mix? Nice idea but it's never going to happen. Great engineers don't regress when it comes to gear....I've read a lot of articles and posts from great engineers who frequently use "crappy" gear to get a certain sound...it all depends on the context.I think the key in all this is that one shouldn't use the lack of great gear as an excuse for one's poor mixes...WAY more often than not, the problem is with the guy behind the board, not the board itself (sound familiar? ).André

mixopenta · Post by **mixopenta** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:18 am

I'd like to think that the priority should always be the song, and what fits best to present the message it's trying to communicate. That may or may not involve a clean, crisp stellar sound. Imagine "Gimme Shelter" in a Roger Nichols suit. It would certainly be easy on the ears, but would it be as appealing? Would those who dismiss (e.g.) "Gimme Shelter" as nothing but annoying noise, re-evaluate their opinion of the song if it came in a clean and crisp package?IMHO it's the approach, not the gear itself that makes the song.

Casey H · Post by **Casey H** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:57 am

Quote:I'd like to think that the priority should always be the song, and what fits best to present the message it's trying to communicate. That may or may not involve a clean, crisp stellar sound. Imagine "Gimme Shelter" in a Roger Nichols suit. It would certainly be easy on the ears, but would it be as appealing? Would those who dismiss (e.g.) "Gimme Shelter" as nothing but annoying noise, re-evaluate their opinion of the song if it came in a clean and crisp package?IMHO it's the approach, not the gear itself that makes the song.Well said... I hope this doesn't digress too much, but I wanted to tie all this in with what most of us are here for... OK, if you agree that the Stones can take mediocre songwriting and make great recordings, where does that leave us struggling, new/unsigned songwriters and artists? Well it all depends on what you are pitching your songs for... If you are doing song pitches (pitching songs for other artists to record), great songwriting is an absolute must, no matter how well the demo is created. That is the first thing that will stand out and, as often discussed here, DO NOT compare your songs to crappy ones that made it to the radio... That means nothing, since new writers are held to that higher, double standard. Film/TV pitches frequently involve folks looking for the right sound & atmosphere to back a scene. So, here things like ambiance & mood and quality of audio take on more weight. For major film/TV pitches, quality of audio is very important. Smaller projects such as indie films are more forgiving. That doesn't mean that poor songwriting will get by, it just means that it carries somewhat less weight. You might have 30-60 seconds of brilliance in a track and that's all the music supervisor needs. Perfection in lyrics, so key to artist pitches, is not as important here except lyrics will matter as far as: (1) If they talk about the right subject matter or have lyrics about x,y, or z as needed that's a plus. (2) If they mention specific names and/or places or other very specific things, that's a big disadvantage. My take is strive to do the best you can in all aspects... Write the best songs you can... Don't buy the most expensive tools and gear unless you are willing to spend years learning how to use them in an expert manner AND understand that until that happens, you won't be getting your money's worth. Consider whether or not your songwriting and your performance skills (e.g. guitar playing, vocals, etc.) would live up to the quality of the gear.And I would never consider my old Stones' albums, such as "Let it Bleed", pure noise (JMHO)... I love that stuff... Casey