There is only ONE guide for recording distorted guitars!

Mo-Facta · 2010-12-29T08:23:09+00:00

*LINK DELETED FOR GENERAL LACK OF SENSE OF HUMOUR AND APPRECIATION OF SAGE RECORDING WISDOM * Cheers >☹

Mo-Facta

X-rated Bob wrote
You've attributed to me things that I have not said. Sort who said what in the first place, scrape the egg off or your face and maybe then we can sort things out.

Yeah, sorry Bob. Fixed.

Cheers ?

Mo-Facta

Here's the original link:

http://www.badmuckingfastard.com/sound/slipperman.html

If you're all nice to me I'll share another one with ya.

Cheers ?

AlanRatcliffe

How about the Daily Adventures of Mixerman? Well written, entertaining and some good insight into how the recording industry really works:
http://www.mixerman.net/diaries1.php

Unfortunately he removed the whole long series of posts from PSW when it came out in book form, but the link above has a sizeable excerpt.

Mo-Facta

Alan Ratcliffe wrote How about the Daily Adventures of Mixerman? Well written, entertaining and some good insight into how the recording industry really works:
http://www.mixerman.net/diaries1.php

Unfortunately he removed the whole long series of posts from PSW when it came out in book form, but the link above has a sizeable excerpt.

Ah, the plot thickens.

Mixerman is Slipperman's cronie. Together, along with Aardvark, they have quite a thing going on.

Cheers ?

Lethe

After a long hiatus, I'm back trolling the forums. I thought it interesting. The author seems maybe a bit arrogant, but whatever. There is useful info, so it's all good. ?

AlanRatcliffe

A few posts modified a few deleted. Please keep it civil...

PeteM

Alan Ratcliffe wrote How about the Daily Adventures of Mixerman? Well written, entertaining and some good insight into how the recording industry really works:
http://www.mixerman.net/diaries1.php

Unfortunately he removed the whole long series of posts from PSW when it came out in book form, but the link above has a sizeable excerpt.

Thanks for the link Alan - as you say, "a good insight into how the recording industry really works." But to me it lacks the more precise technical detail of the set-up and recording and mixing processes of the first link. Both different with vastly different writing styles but both equally entertaining. ?

Mo-Facta

PeteM wrote
Alan Ratcliffe wrote How about the Daily Adventures of Mixerman? Well written, entertaining and some good insight into how the recording industry really works:
http://www.mixerman.net/diaries1.php

Unfortunately he removed the whole long series of posts from PSW when it came out in book form, but the link above has a sizeable excerpt.
Thanks for the link Alan - as you say, "a good insight into how the recording industry really works." But to me it lacks the more precise technical detail of the set-up and recording and mixing processes of the first link. Both different with vastly different writing styles but both equally entertaining. ?

Pete,

Both of those writings are not meant to be technical manuals, per say. They are an insight into the inner workings of a seasoned pro that has been making records for 30 years.

In the case of Slipperman, it was originally a series of forum posts on PSW and eventually got consolidated by some of his fans.

In the case of Mixerman, it was also a series a forum posts but got consolidated into a book.

He also has another book out now, called "Zen and the Art of Mixing". If you need more depth to the process, this book might be for you.

Cheers ?

PeteM

Mo Facta wrote
Both of those writings are not meant to be technical manuals, per say. They are an insight into the inner workings of a seasoned pro that has been making records for 30 years.

In the case of Slipperman, it was originally a series of forum posts on PSW and eventually got consolidated by some of his fans.

In the case of Mixerman, it was also a series a forum posts but got consolidated into a book.

He also has another book out now, called "Zen and the Art of Mixing". If you need more depth to the process, this book might be for you.

Cheers ?

I realise that they are forum posts and not definitive manuals, but Slipperman reveals some of his 'secrets' in more detail, which to me is entertaining, creative writing on what might have been a boring subject if written in typical technical manual form. Who cares about the expletives - to misquote Rhett Butler, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a f... "

Thanks for the info on the book.

Bob-Dubery

Alan Ratcliffe wrote How about the Daily Adventures of Mixerman? Well written, entertaining and some good insight into how the recording industry really works:
http://www.mixerman.net/diaries1.php

Unfortunately he removed the whole long series of posts from PSW when it came out in book form, but the link above has a sizeable excerpt.

THis is astonishing reading in light of how the accounting works in the recorded music industry. So far I've read up to day 5 and the producer has yet to show. So thus far there are charges for 5 days of the studio, 5 days of renting various bits of kit, 5 days of the engineer's time... and nothing achieved. And all that will come out of the band's cut at some stage. Plus the band was signed 2 years ago and hasn't done very much since. When the bean counters have counted there will not be many beans left for the band unless they have a major hit.

DonovanB

Alan that link has some astonishing statements.

The record company hires Willy Show, for example, to record the songs the way he is capable. Willy spends time and money getting everything to have a certain sound that is unique and consistent with the playing of the song and the performances. The record company then takes it from the producer's hands (very common), and has one of five mixers make it sound exactly like everything else on the radio. Then, as if that weren't enough, they have a mastering engineer39 come in and stomp the last remaining bit of life out of the production and make it sound as two-dimensional and loud as possible.

Mastering makes a huge difference. In SA I also know that one person does it all. Maybe thats to the detriment of the record? no local produce is having his door knocked down by major bands for doing it that way... therefore, it MUST be wrong

Bob-Dubery

Donovan Banks wrote Alan that link has some astonishing statements.
The record company hires Willy Show, for example, to record the songs the way he is capable. Willy spends time and money getting everything to have a certain sound that is unique and consistent with the playing of the song and the performances. The record company then takes it from the producer's hands (very common), and has one of five mixers make it sound exactly like everything else on the radio. Then, as if that weren't enough, they have a mastering engineer39 come in and stomp the last remaining bit of life out of the production and make it sound as two-dimensional and loud as possible.

This is not a particularly new practice and whilst it's expressed a little sarcastically here I don't think there's much of a surprise in that passage.

George Martin and The Beatles used to take lots of care over their recordings, insisting on specific engineers - usually Geoff Emerick (until he got terminally peed off with the nonsense around the band and John Lennon's bad manners). But they had no control over mastering. Theoretically this was not a problem because the Beatles were with EMI and EMI had manuals and standards for everything (which Martin and Emerick ignored from time to time). However they had no control, and especially when EMI started issuing albums in stereo as well. Lennon, Martin and Emerick all disliked the stereo master of Sgt Pepper's.

In 1986 Richard Thompson was under lots of pressure from his label to produce something approaching a hit album. The model was Mark Knopfler - if one thirty something, not particularly pin-up handsome, slightly morose English man could have a hit then surely another could follow. The master plan was to put the Dire Straits production and engineering team around Thompson. He resisted, and made an album with Mitchell Froom (Crowded House, Elvis Costello) producing. Then the company sent the tapes off to Neils Dorfsman (who had produced Brothers In Arms) for re-mixing. Dorfsman added some percussion overdubs (after Thompson and Froom had moved on to other things). Froom - designated the producer of the album - also had no say in the mastering.

Things like this go on all the time, especially when it comes to mastering because there seems to be a theory that the way to have a hit is to have a LOUD record (or perhaps that the way to not have a hit is to not have a loud record).

I think there's part of a point to all of this, because in theory the record company know how to have hits (they didn't get one with Thompson's album, probably because the finished product alienated his British fan base). These days Thompson makes his own records - paying for the recordings, nominating the producer, the mixing engineer, the artwork etc etc and licensing the finished product for distribution, but the labels STILL twist arms where they can.

I'm using Thompson as an example here because his the one career I follow in boring detail, but I would bet that his experience is not at all unusual. Bigger selling artists than him have had to submit to the record company's ideas when it comes to mixing, mastering and even what sort of album they can make in the first place.

Mo-Facta

Donovan Banks wrote

Mastering makes a huge difference. In SA I also know that one person does it all. Maybe thats to the detriment of the record? no local produce is having his door knocked down by major bands for doing it that way... therefore, it MUST be wrong

Mastering is slowly becoming a lost art. I question whether a noteworthy contender exists in this country at all. 15 million people in Joburg and I know of ONE properly designed mastering studio outfitted with high quality, specialized mastering gear. For this reason I feel that if someone calls himself a "mastering engineer" I instantly become skeptical. These days everyone with a Waves L2 Ultra Maximizer tends to call himself one.

The way I see it, the US and the UK have got a long standing heritage of audio history and in order for anyone to progress to the point of a real, de facto mastering engineer over there, a huge amount of mentoring, torch passing, and craft honing is required - something we sorely lack in SA. Here it's the wild wild West and every man is for himself, indeed. Thus, our industry has become emulative, and not innovative. The question to ask is, is it really possible to be a master of all sides of the production process? Or is it only every possible for one to attain golden ears in one area, i.e. recording, mixing, etc?

I'm not so sure I know the answer to that one because the lines are blurred every day. Once again because of the advent of the DAW and the plugin.

Then again,...many of the best mastering engineers, like Bob Ohlsson (Motown) all started out as recording engineers and then progressed on to mastering once their ears had matured into "golden ears". This was a life long persuit. The sad fact of the matter is that there are few guys (and gals), if any, over 50 that are specialized in mastering over here and much of commercial mastering is done in the same studio at which the project was recorded. Although, I know quite a few good engineers who do master as well, even though they are not specialized, and their work sounds very good.

Me? I do offer a mastering service at my studio. I am not anywhere near Bob Ludwig or Ian Shepherd, but my masters are radio worthy and broadcast rather well (IMO, a good indication of the quality of the mastering because broadcast processing can be quite severe and will destroy a badly mastered track). I have invested in some really top class audio converters and the highest quality plugins, which go a long way in keeping the audio path high quality and pristine. I also have some decent outboard units that I use and combined with good audio converters, the potential for a good result is decent, provided I make the right decisions.

Cheers ?

DonovanB

Quite frankly I'm all for more ears to be involved. Especially experienced ears.

I followed the making of Slash's recent album and not only did it take ages, but there were many people involved. It sounds Great to me.

fresh ears are always helpful

ryanguit

some of the best reading lately. for me.

I must be honest no-one who hasn't been both ends of that stick is going to find it funny. If youve never worked with mr Guitargod or mr assman engineer, you're not going to relate.

If you do find this entertaining, however, then you probably have your own ways of doing things in the first place and this is not going to shape you at all... That said there is only one hard and fast rule for Recording anything:

There is no hard and fast rule and there is also no free lunch

PeteM

Donovan Banks wrote Quite frankly I'm all for more ears to be involved. Especially experienced ears.

I followed the making of Slash's recent album and not only did it take ages, but there were many people involved. It sounds Great to me.

fresh ears are always helpful

To a degree, but IMHO there has to be a final decision-maker for the over all end product otherwise you're going to end up with a camel. Your last line "fresh ears are always helpful" says it all. But helpful to whom - surely the final decision-maker, and god forebid this is not a committee otherwise it will take forever to produce.

There's quite often conflicts of interest when a creative product is produced. The originator wants to hold onto the creative integrity of the piece and the person putting up the money wants to ensure a return on investment.

Mo-Facta

PeteM wrote

To a degree, but IMHO there has to be a final decision-maker for the over all end product otherwise you're going to end up with a camel. You're last line "fresh ears are always helpful" says it all. But helpful to whom - surely the final decision-maker, and god forebid this is not a committee otherwise it will take forever to produce.

Yes, the producer. Another dying breed in South Africa.

A properly guided and compartmentalized production process is not just, "give it to him and let's see what he can do." In a society where there are serious professionals, you should already know what he (the mix engineer, the mastering engineer, etc) is capable of. Otherwise, why are you hiring him? Talk about gambling with your money.

A real professional (the other set of ears) does not close the iron door and only reveal what he believes is the final product and then stonewalls any suggestions by the client. He works with his client until THEY are happy and does any and everything to make sure he achieves a product that meets the vision of the producer. It's a symbiotic process.

Often I find that when people get a final product and something is bothering them about it, they lack the vocabulary to explain what they don't like about it and what should change. All they know is that "it just must be better". That doesn't help anyone. What you need is someone on board who can cross the gap and articulate, even if it's in vaguely technical or sonic terms, in what direction to go. Once that is on the table it's often very easy for an engineer to get it there.

In the case of Mixerman, he's been making records in the top studios in the US with top acts and enormous budgets ($4000 a DAY just for the STUDIO!) so obviously when he gets hired, there are reasonable expectations as to the results. That is why they hire him. They admire his work and he gets the job. But the band does not really regard themselves with the day to day achievement of the sounds. It is the job of the engineer and the PRODUCER that gets them there because the producer is the gap-bridger between the band and the engineer. Willy Show, if you read on, also takes his turn behind the console and gives Mixerman a rest on the couch in the back. A refreshing idea, really. That NEVER happens in my neck of the woods because often the producer is as clueless about all things technical as the band.

Cheers ?

AlanRatcliffe

Mo Facta wrote The question to ask is, is it really possible to be a master of all sides of the production process?

That is the crux of the biscuit. It's certainly possible to be a master of both, but whether it's advisable is another question entirely. IMO, it does take fresh ears as well as the ability to step back and listen objectively, which is incredibly difficult for anyone involved with any other stage of recording.

Yes, the producer. Another dying breed in South Africa.

Agreed. But probably only temporary. The industry is still in flux an the moment, so hopefully when things settle, there will be a few new talented ones popping up from non-standard sources.

Bob-Dubery

X-rated Bob wrote
Donovan Banks wrote Alan that link has some astonishing statements.
The record company hires Willy Show, for example, to record the songs the way he is capable. Willy spends time and money getting everything to have a certain sound that is unique and consistent with the playing of the song and the performances. The record company then takes it from the producer's hands (very common), and has one of five mixers make it sound exactly like everything else on the radio. Then, as if that weren't enough, they have a mastering engineer39 come in and stomp the last remaining bit of life out of the production and make it sound as two-dimensional and loud as possible.

In 1986 Richard Thompson was under lots of pressure from his label to produce something approaching a hit album. The model was Mark Knopfler - if one thirty something, not particularly pin-up handsome, slightly morose English man could have a hit then surely another could follow. The master plan was to put the Dire Straits production and engineering team around Thompson. He resisted, and made an album with Mitchell Froom (Crowded House, Elvis Costello) producing. Then the company sent the tapes off to Neils Dorfsman (who had produced Brothers In Arms) for re-mixing. Dorfsman added some percussion overdubs (after Thompson and Froom had moved on to other things). Froom - designated the producer of the album - also had no say in the mastering.

In the Mixmaster articles there was talk of the tapes, as finished by the producer and recording engineer, being sent for mixing before mastering. This is another layer of modification of the sound, and another layer of cost, cost which the record company will recover from album sales before they start paying the band.

I wonder if young bands understand that all this is going to go on, possibly without anybody asking or even informing them, and that all of this is going to have to be paid before they start making any money.

I have found the Wilco DVD Ashes Of American Flags quite interesting in this regard. Jeff Tweedy talks about how Wilco from the word go geared themselves up to make their money from live performances. Even that is fraught if the label is bankrolling the tour. However I read increasingly of musicians (usually not major stars on big labels) saying that live work is their primary revenue stream and that they regard the CD as promotion of the live work and not the other way around.

AlanRatcliffe

X-rated Bob wrote In the Mixmaster articles there was talk of the tapes, as finished by the producer and recording engineer, being sent for mixing before mastering.

That's the usual way to do it. Engineers are usually divided into recording/tracking engineers, mixing engineers and mastering engineers. The studios themselves often specialise in one or the other. Sometimes the tracking and mixing engineer will be the same guy, but even if he's not, the producer should work with both to assure consistency of vision between the two.

another layer of cost, cost which the record company will recover from album sales before they start paying the band.
I wonder if young bands understand that all this is going to go on, possibly without anybody asking or even informing them, and that all of this is going to have to be paid before they start making any money.

My mother would say (in a mock Somerset accent): " Oh! You do make Oi larf!". Pull 'em in with a big "advance" and then make them use up the vast majority of that advance on the best/most expensive recording, mixing and mastering studios (all of which the record company owns and makes a profit on). Bonus for the company is it's an accounting win-win - if the record sells well, they get to keep all the profits up until about a million copies have been sold. If it fails, they can write it off as a huge "loss", but still clear massive profits on the studio time.

However I read increasingly of musicians (usually not major stars on big labels) saying that live work is their primary revenue stream and that they regard the CD as promotion of the live work and not the other way around.

That is the way to start, but if they do it right, after enough CDs of durable music, their back catalogue reaches the point where it starts generating a sizeable income from royalties and rights. This should eventually take over as main source of income, allowing them to relax a bit as they get older, spending more time in studio than onstage (and possibly even retire).

« Previous Page Next Page »