Speaking of DAWs and modern studio tools...

[Phil O'Keefe]

I'd love to get everyone's thoughts on the subject / article in this thread:

 

http://www.harmonycentral.com/forum/...nd-when-not-to

 

Not trying to pull anyone away from SSS, but I would appreciate it if the recording-minded among you would hop over there, check out the article in the link, and let me know what you think on the matter.

 

Thanks!

 

 

[nat whilk II]

I followed your links, read the article - yes, important stuff.

 

We've all had the experience probably of diving into the correction/editing tools only to come up for air two hours later with high blood pressure, saying "it would have just taken 15 minutes to re-track the @#$@ thing!"

 

But the editing and correction tools suck you in, don't they? Just here, me and my mouse, we can fix almost anything, right?

 

On the other hand, some of the correction tools have just become part of my standard practice. For example, I went a long time without the use of a good weighted MIDI keyboard and instead just had a little 37-key unweighted Novation keyboard that had such uneven and touchy response that there's no way to play any kind of subtle parts without the MIDI response being all over the place. Both timing and velocity just not consistent - what would be easy on a real piano is practically impossible on a such a keyboard.

 

So I just got into the habit of laying down a keys part, then immediately quantizing and velocity-editing the part right off. I'd just compress the velocity between, say, 45 and 80 to get rid of all the velocity outliers and smooth it out. I'd nudge the entire recording to get rid of the 35-45 millisecond latency that I can't tweak out of my setup. I'd quantize section by section judiciously, avoiding the little runs and such that can't be quantized without ruining the feel.

 

All this just to get around the limitations of an inexpensive keyboard - but it also effected my composing and playing style. I now immediately split my tracking between stuff I can just correct-edit into shape in a jiffy, and then the other stuff that has to be "as played, no editing" to work. I build a quantized and corrected skeleton first of all - simple chords and such.

 

I like this way of working - I can slap down rhythm tracks really quick, sketch out a tune in no time, then go back through it all, replacing the parts one at a time with keepers.

 

The other thing I do routinely that brings mass-editing/correction into my composition method, is, to create a click track of a tweaked groove with just the swing and feel that I want throughout the song. To make the overall track totally swing the way I want, I have no problem applying groove-quantization to midi parts to get it all together in fast order.

 

On the other hand, I avoid the correction tools as much as possible on all the audio recording - vox, electric/acoustic guitars, etc. Melodyne's most valuable feature has been teaching me how to just sing really in tune - when it comes to these parts, I want the correction tools to work themselves out of a job.

 

nat

 

[audioicon]

I used DAW as if it was a tape machine. I like to think of myself as an extreme minimalist and so my methodology is like this:

 

Start from extreme simplicity and work your way to complexity but only if necessary and there are no other options.

 

How does this relate to the article and tools?

 

First, I try to do everything so that I do not have to fix anything, for example: If I cannot sing a passage live, then I am never going to tweak my voice to make me appear to sing a passage accurately, knowing I cannot do it without being assisted by technology.

 

For a client, I may asked: Do you want to be natural or artificial? It's like eating natural organic food or processed artificial flavored food. Most including myself may not tell the difference but we all know the difference is in there.

 

It's a fascinating article because the subject matter is complex and not a binary one, some people considered using tools as a form of artistic or mastery process.

 

I tend to stay away from anything that produces a drastic change causing the process to no longer be natural or a representation of the artist:

 

Regarding this section:

 

What does the client want and expect?

If you're working for a paying client, you owe it to them to do what they want, and to do it to the best of your ability. I think it's always good to give the client the benefit of your experience, and offer the best advice you can regarding what you would recommend under the circumstances, but once the client has made adecision, it's really their call, and it's up to you as the engineer to give them what they want. If you don't, they'll find someone else who will.

​

 

What if what the client wants will erode the reputation of your work? What if you have a reputation to keep and everything you do is based on these values and principles, I am assuming you will say no?

 

I have to ask out of curiosity, have you experienced a time when you told a client no because what they were requesting would not reflect well interns of the reputation or brand of your craft?

 

Which approach is faster?

If you're on a strict budget in terms of time or money (and time is money in the studio), then you'll need to ask is which approach is going to be more efficient?

​

 

I would say there are no fast or quick quality. IMHO Budget and quality don't always work well together. Unless the client know what they are doing or need and can request it specifically but that leaves the door closed to ideas.

 

I like to leave in the "cool" mistakes. Not just those serendipitous occasions when some mistakes leads to taking the whole track someplace magical and unexpected, but also more subtle things, like a vocal that cracks or breaks in a unique, cool, or interesting way that adds to the emotion or vibe of the performance.

​

 

Michael Jackson song, Liberian Girl, produced by Quincy Jones has a very nasty pop when he sings the word "Precious." This is at the second verse of the song. Personally, I see this as you described above, human but I also wondered for an artist and team at that caliber, why was that left in the song? Reading from your article may shed some light as to why.

 

I do not think it takes away from the song or diminished the quality but it's an illustration of humans at work.

 

One of Bob Marley's song has a traffic or car noise in the background. I think it was Jimmy Johns.

[audioicon]

I followed your links, read the article - yes, important stuff.

 

On the other hand, I avoid the correction tools as much as possible on all the audio recording - vox, electric/acoustic guitars, etc. Melodyne's most valuable feature has been teaching me how to just sing really in tune - when it comes to these parts, I want the correction tools to work themselves out of a job.

 

nat

 

You have just described how I view things. For years I used a hardware sequencer with limited editing capabilities. I was more creative because I was limited to sixteen tracks. Now I need a voice in my head saying. "Don't touch that mouse."

 

Tools are great but for me, its when nothing else will work and I have no choice. I have never used Melodyne and I never will.

[Ernest Buckley]

Thanks for sharing that link Phil.

 

I`m finishing up my second solo singer-songwriter record as we speak and I`m leaving in a lot of noises and "mistakes". For example, you can hear the click track on the fade out on one song, then there`s a blunder I made vocally at the end of another song and started to laugh... I`m keeping the laugh in... these elements of the record can easily be edited out but they also personalize the record... something missing (in my opinion) from so many songs today...

 

We`re not perfect. Our recordings should reflect that.

[Phil O'Keefe]

I used DAW as if it was a tape machine. I like to think of myself as an extreme minimalist and so my methodology is like this:

 

Start from extreme simplicity and work your way to complexity but only if necessary and there are no other options.

 

How does this relate to the article and tools?

 

First, I try to do everything so that I do not have to fix anything, for example: If I cannot sing a passage live, then I am never going to tweak my voice to make me appear to sing a passage accurately, knowing I cannot do it without being assisted by technology.

 

 

Seems like a reasonable approach.

 

 

For a client, I may asked: Do you want to be natural or artificial? It's like eating natural organic food or processed artificial flavored food. Most including myself may not tell the difference but we all know the difference is in there.

 

It's a fascinating article because the subject matter is complex and not a binary one, some people considered using tools as a form of artistic or mastery process.

 

 

Indeed they might. And I'm not sure that such use would really be any less "valid" from an artistic standpoint - especially if the tools are used in a novel / interesting / unusual / and/or creative way.

 

 

 

Regarding this section:

 

_______

 

What does the client want and expect?

If you're working for a paying client, you owe it to them to do what they want, and to do it to the best of your ability. I think it's always good to give the client the benefit of your experience, and offer the best advice you can regarding what you would recommend under the circumstances, but once the client has made a decision, it's really their call, and it's up to you as the engineer to give them what they want. If you don't, they'll find someone else who will.

 

_______

 

 

What if what the client wants will erode the reputation of your work?

 

I can't imagine that any client would have that as an actual goal - the desire to erode the reputation of my work. If they did, I would not be interested in working with them.

 

 

What if you have a reputation to keep and everything you do is based on these values and principles, I am assuming you will say no?

 

 

We all have our reputations to uphold... and pretty much every engineer I know has done at least some recordings that were cringe-worthy, or where the artist and / or producer made decisions that were not ones that we ourselves would have made had the final decision rested with us instead of them. Ideally you want to know who and what you're getting into before accepting the gig, and be comfortable with the people you're working with.

 

 

I have to ask out of curiosity, have you experienced a time when you told a client no because what they were requesting would not reflect well interns of the reputation or brand of your craft?

 

 

I'll give you an example. A guy came in once and represented himself and his music one way in our meeting, and then when we got into the studio and he started singing, it was so misogynistic that there was no way I wanted to have any part of it. I told him I wouldn't be able to record him... so yes, there are some lines that I won't cross for a client.

 

 

Michael Jackson song, Liberian Girl, produced by Quincy Jones has a very nasty pop when he sings the word "Precious." This is at the second verse of the song. Personally, I see this as you described above, human but I also wondered for an artist and team at that caliber, why was that left in the song? Reading from your article may shed some light as to why.

 

 

Here's the song... the part in question is at about 1:41 or so...

 

 

 

I'm not hearing much of a bad plosive on "precious", but I do hear a bit of a "double-pump" anomaly on the word "more", but it's not so egregious that I think most people would notice it or that it detracts from the emotional impact of the song. Not to try to step into Brucie's shoes or second guess him... but if you're asking what I would have done, I probably would have pointed it out and offered to fix it (via a punch or comp) but if Q or Michael (and/or Bruce, who IIRC was a co-producer on Bad) decided they didn't want to change it, I would not have had a problem with the decision. You have to weigh the impact and importance of every potential change and edit against the time needed to perform it, and weigh that against everything else you still want or need to accomplish - sometimes you have bigger fish to fry with the remaining time and budget you have available.

 

 

I do not think it takes away from the song or diminished the quality but it's an illustration of humans at work.

 

Yup.

 

One of Bob Marley's song has a traffic or car noise in the background. I think it was Jimmy Johns.

 

There's all kinds of things in tons of records that listeners can discover once they start actively watching / listening for them.

[audioicon]

Very insightful article Phil.

Apart from paid session work, I do not record other people commercially as a business and so I am not the best expert here.

 

What I can tell you is I have learn so much from struggling with the little things and it paid off. If I would have touched the tools, I would not have had the opportunity to learn.

 

Tools are GREAT, especially if you are seasoned and you know your craft but for a novice, if you start depending on these array of tools, then IMHO, it takes away your ability to dive deeper and to learn other alternatives.

 

I have to tell you this story.

 

When I lived in Ghana, I wanted to book a studio but did not have enough to pay the in-house engineerings, I negotiated with the studio to let me engineer my own work but they rejected my offer.

 

This is what they said:

 

"We have no doubt you will take care of things but we have a reputation and we want to make sure that you get the best sound so that it does not reflect badly on us when you go out there with a badly recorded record.

 

 

This was over 20 years ago and while I had great ears and productions abilities, I was not seasoned.

[Ernest Buckley]

We all have our reputations to uphold... and pretty much every engineer I know has done at least some recordings that were cringe-worthy' date=' or where the artist and / or producer made decisions that were not ones that we ourselves would have made had the final decision rested with us instead of them. Ideally you want to know who and what you're getting into before accepting the gig, and be comfortable with the people you're working with.[/quote']

 

Immediately following the release of Maroon 5`s Hands All Over back in 2010, I raised the issue of the serious clipping on the record on the GS forum. Mike Shipley who mixed the record was on the forum regularly at that time and he was distraught.

 

He was seriously upset by the conversation and admitted that he and Mutt Lange did everything they could to retain the dynamics of that record. However, at the end of the day, the big wigs at the record label wanted the record really loud and in your face.

 

There is clipping on every song on that record, multiple times in each song. I would imagine an engineer of Shipley`s stature and a producer like Mutt Lange who has decades worth of hits to stand on would have had more leverage in the decision making but they did not and that`s truly sad.

 

On a personal note, I was mastering a record several years ago with a rock band and the leader of the group wanted the record really loud. I gave him two versions of a song... one was mastered to my tastes, and then I mastered it to his specs. I told him to listen to both for a day and get back to me. The next time he came him, he told me to keep the file I preferred.

 

As someone who sincerely loves and listens to records with my full attention, I owe it to my clients to educate them and sometimes give them the really loud version and the tasty version to live with. I do not want my name on a record that I`m not proud of to be honest.

 

Anyone can make a record loud and destroy the dynamics but to make a record loud and still retain dynamics is an art form.

 

Thankfully, I believe we are hearing better sounding records more and more these days but there was a dark period there somewhere between 2002-2012 where things got really awful. Sometimes you have to go to the extremes before you realize how awful it`s getting, then take a few steps back.

[audioicon]

There is clipping on every song on that record, multiple times in each song. I would imagine an engineer of Shipley`s stature and a producer like Mutt Lange who has decades worth of hits to stand on would have had more leverage in the decision making but they did not and that`s truly sad.

 

Interesting insight:

 

There is a difference here though, with the Michael Jackson song, I have the Anniversary Remastered CD for BAD and the sound I mentioned above is very apparent to me on the CD.

 

Apart from that, I have not heard any other audio anomalies on MJ records.

 

But if there is a clipping on every song, then is it fair to call that mistake? I am not saying you are implying that but rather the idea that some engineers will use this excuse to let things slide.

 

I once worked with a guy who was lazy, every problem was supposed to be a creative mistake. I had to say no and explain that we should only leave those that were not apparently committed, not the sound of my hand hitting a pop filter or EM interference.

 

What I am getting at is, there are mistakes which can be creatively left in vs where someone completely or intentional make something worse.

 

Personally for me, Maroon 5 mixes sound like some one grinding metals together, especially the earlier stuff. Maybe that is how they wanted it.

 

I listen to the work Phil did on Jeff's record and the mix is smooth not harsh.

[Ernest Buckley]

 

Interesting insight:

 

There is a difference here though, with the Michael Jackson song, I have the Anniversary Remastered CD for BAD and the sound I mentioned above is very apparent to me on the CD.

 

Apart from that, I have not heard any other audio anomalies on MJ records.

 

But if there is a clipping on every song, then is it fair to call that mistake? I am not saying you are implying that but rather the idea that some engineers will use this excuse to let things slide.

 

I once worked with a guy who was lazy, every problem was supposed to be a creative mistake. I had to say no and explain that we should only leave those that were not apparently committed, not the sound of my hand hitting a pop filter or EM interference.

 

What I am getting at is, there are mistakes which can be creatively left in vs where someone completely or intentional make something worse.

 

Personally for me, Maroon 5 mixes sound like some one grinding metals together, especially the earlier stuff. Maybe that is how they wanted it.

 

I listen to the work Phil did on Jeff's record and the mix is smooth not harsh.

 

Go to post #57... or you can read the entire thread...

 

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/542238-mike-shipleys-mixes-new-maroon-5-a-2.html

 

Mike Shipley was pissed off... Originally at me for calling out the clipping. Some of the posts were also removed unfortunately and I was blocked from posting any more in that thread.

 

Mike was definitely irked during that thread, he also passed away three years after taking his own life sadly. I always felt his work was incredible and its a shame that he took my criticism of the mastering so personally. He tells the story in post #57... I felt my criticism was validated after reading it. RIP MS

[audioicon]

 

Go to post #57... or you can read the entire thread...

 

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-much-gear-so-little-time/542238-mike-shipleys-mixes-new-maroon-5-a-2.html

 

Mike Shipley was pissed off... Originally at me for calling out the clipping. Some of the posts were also removed unfortunately and I was blocked from posting any more in that thread.

 

Mike was definitely irked during that thread, he also passed away three years after taking his own life sadly. I always felt his work was incredible and its a shame that he took my criticism of the mastering so personally. He tells the story in post #57... I felt my criticism was validated after reading it. RIP MS

 

 

I not discounting or doubting your accounts.

 

I think its a difficult as I mentioned because, if you make a living from doing this work then there is a very thin line between keeping your reputation vs turning down work. It happens all the time.

 

The concept of Maroon 5 is great for commerce and the genre. However, I just feel that 20 years from now, they will not be remembered.

 

I think Mr. Shipley may have been caught in between and unless you are in that situation one can never tell.

[Ernest Buckley]

 

 

I not discounting or doubting your accounts.

 

I think its a difficult as I mentioned because, if you make a living from doing this work then there is a very thin line between keeping your reputation vs turning down work. It happens all the time.

 

The concept of Maroon 5 is great for commerce and the genre. However, I just feel that 20 years from now, they will not be remembered.

 

I think Mr. Shipley may have been caught in between and unless you are in that situation one can never tell.

 

I actually felt bad for Shipley, he was clearly upset. He has a history of excellent sounding records so I never pointed a finger at him for the bad sound but I was definitely pointing a finger at the Mastering Engineer. ME`s are the ones who touch a record last and the ME`s hands were clearly pushed on that record. For me, that`s where I have to draw a line in the sand and say no to the label.

 

Here we are 7 years after the release of the record and I have not listened to it in 7 years because it sounds horrible. It hurts to listen to.

 

As an ME, thats not the sort of legacy I want to leave behind.

[Phil O'Keefe]

The thing with mastering is that as a tracking or mixing engineer, once you've finished your part, it's usually out of your hands. You don't own the masters, and you can't order the label (or band) to use some common sense on the levels and dynamics - if they want to order the ME to slam it to kingdom come, then that's what they're going to do and you usually don't have any say in the matter - even if you're someone like Mike Shipley.

 

When a mix is over-compressed, as often as not it wasn't done by the mixing engineer with overenthusiastic use of stereo bus compression - it's far more commonly done in mastering, and even then the request often comes from the label or even the band, and is done in spite of the counsel to the contrary by the ME.

 

It's not all that common for engineers to bother do so, but whenever it's possible / practical, I will usually request that I be allowed to attend the mastering sessions for any albums I record. That way, if they have any questions about intentions, or any technical questions, I'm there to answer them. I can also offer my input in terms of the overall sonics of the record. Most ME's that I've worked with are usually happy to have me there.