"Big name" releases; what's the secret?

[kurdy]

I often notice about a lot of indie releases, and it seems like there is a disconnect between the quality of them compared to that of major releases or higher-end indie releases. Before anyone says,

[Lee Flier]

Well there are a couple of things that I think could be causing the phenomenon that you're talking about. I don't know what kind of production you would consider a favorite, but in recent years many producers and mix engineers will spend scads of time Autotuning and editing a record into "perfection" - and people's ears have sort of come to expect that. Indie bands tend not to like that approach so they don't do it as much, and then it comes off sounding rough to someone who's used to hearing a lot of today's slick production. Have no idea if that's the case with you.

 

To me a lot of the problem is something I alluded to in another thread: lack of support infrastructure for the artist. Big budget artists have a producer to tell them when they've done a good take and when they haven't, among other things. A lot of records that appear to have a very "spontaneous" feel were NOT done in one take, to say the least. And a "perfect" take so far as intonation and timing go, is not necessarily the same thing as an authoritative, inspired take - which is what a good producer will aim for. Producers and labels during an artist's development phase also push an act VERY hard to rehearse way more than most indie bands would deem necessary, and be over-prepared to go into the studio. Once a name is established, they might do their pre-production in the studio since they have the money, but it still gets done.

 

Big names with big budgets also have a tendency to do a lot of comps, and they have time to do this. So part of it's a time/money thing as you suspected. A lot of times an indie band goes into the studio and says they HAVE to get something done with X amount of money which translates to a very low number of hours. So they may have to go with the first take or two whether they could have done better or not. And the mix engineer is not going to have the time to comp and edit and tune that a big name mix engineer has.

 

Last but NOT LEAST... cuz I think this is a big deal and often overlooked... big names tend to record in great sounding, well tuned rooms and indie bands record in basements and bedrooms. That has a noticable effect on the overall tonal quality - flutter echoes and standing waves can even affect how much something sounds in tune.

 

So there are a lot of possible reasons for this, but I wouldn't let it make me afraid to go into the studio. Just make sure you rehearse the crap out of everything you're going to record, your instruments are well maintained and don't suck, and have realistic expectations. Don't expect to get a whole album's worth of tracking done in a couple of days and then wonder why it doesn't sound "pro." Getting the sound you're probably aiming for takes time. You can save a few bucks by cutting the basic tracks in a good studio, then doing your overdubs and comps at home on your own DAW, then hand it back to a pro to mix. A lot of folks are working that way these days if they're on a very low budget. But I'd choose quality over quantity... it would be better IMO to record 3 or 4 songs at a time and really make them shine than try to do a whole "album" in a big hurry.

[zenchin]

The difference IS the ears.

 

What you do as an experiment is you give someone like Clearmountain $10,000 to mix one of your songs (one of those you think is pretty cool but missing that magic) and then have him hand it to any of a dozen A-list mastering engineers to finish it off at $5,000 per song. Sink $15,000 into that one song at that one point, and I guarantee you'll hear that intangible thing you speak of. Doesn't have to be Clearmountain (I used him because that's the lowest price A-list guy I can think of at the moment).

 

Does that HAVE to be the answer? No. Most certainly somebody out there in that indie haystack probably has the mixing/ME chops. You just have to go find them (good luck). And before THEIR rates go up once discovered.

 

But as to the A-list guys...you give those guys the 15 grand and you'll see that they WILL give you that polish you're speaking of.

 

The nice thing nowadays is that most all the A-list guys can be easily found and are available to do the gigs. You just have to invest the $.

[Billster]

 

The difference IS the ears.

 

 

But I don't think throwing money at an A-list engineer is going to be a solution in itself.

 

There is also the experience to consider. You can start with the ears, but it's also knowing what to do with what you hear - the difference between identifying a problem and solving a problem.

 

High end studios have high end gear for sure, and the people working there know how to use it. The local indie guy, or you recording at home might not have the kind of equipment they have at a totally pro facility, but you can control knowing how to use the equipment and get the most out of it.

 

I think a lot of the people engineering indie records have only a superficial relationship with the equipment and are:

 

a) Using 10% of the gear's ability

b) Sometimes (many times?) use the wrong gear for the wrong purpose, or maybe the right gear in the wrong way.

 

My .02

[Ernest Buckley]

The major difference to me has nothing to do with sound. The greatest artists give the greatest performances and thats what makes a record great. I think of U2 for example, a band that can hire whoever they want but their records do not sound so polished but damn, the performance is always there. There is so much expression and passion in their performance, even if the song is not that good, you`re hooked on the emotions they transfer through the speakers. To me thats what makes an artist great.

[MikeRivers]

A lot of independent artists simply don't have a lot of talent. Ego, yes, but not performing experience and the ability to deliver a good performance, so they depend on the studio to correct their "little mistakes." Many of them don't do gigs, play all the instruments on the record themselves, record themselves, and even worse, produce themselves. They know what's technically right but not artistically right.

 

A major artist has plenty of work experience, a good band, good arrangements, good songs, and a production and support team to bring it all together.

 

Yeah, money helps, but nothing helps like good old fashioned hard work making music (as opposed to making records).

[Billster]

A lot of independent artists simply don't have a lot of talent. Ego, yes, but not performing experience and the ability to deliver a good performance, so they depend on the studio to correct their "little mistakes." Many of them don't do gigs, play all the instruments on the record themselves, record themselves, and even worse, produce themselves. They know what's technically right but not artistically right. A major artist has plenty of work experience, a good band, good arrangements, good songs, and a production and support team to bring it all together. Yeah, money helps, but nothing helps like good old fashioned hard work making music (as opposed to making records).

 

There's a lot of truth in there, but I've heard enough "unknown" artists who are a lot better in a natural setting than the re-programmed, re-processed "major" artists.

 

>

 

My earlier post was exactly the opposite of that. I would say they know what's artistically right, but not what's technically right.

 

I see your point ( ), but "artistically right" is so subjective that you really can't dismiss anything out of hand on artistic merits. Unless they sing songs advocating child porn or something. But technically, the benchmarks are what they are, and some folks ignore them (accidentally or willfully) which I think is a bigger problem.

[steveg]

I have to lean toward talent and raw emotion and natural sense of creativity and delivery as the most important difference/element.

 

Clearly there are production elements that differ, but I think the bottom line is raw talent- you can hear- you can feel it and you, for the most part cannot explain it!!!

[MikeRivers]

There's a lot of truth in there, but I've heard enough "unknown" artists who are a lot better in a natural setting than the re-programmed, re-processed "major" artists.

What do you mean by "natural setting?" You don't see Britney Spears in a 50 seat coffee house, nor do you see an unknown independent singing in an arena. There's a lot not to like about processed music, so it's easy to say that a home made, unprocessed recording is better, but that's a matter of taste.

> My earlier post was exactly the opposite of that. I would say they know what's artistically right, but not what's technically right. I see your point ( ), but "artistically right" is so subjective that you really can't dismiss anything out of hand on artistic merits.

What I meant here in terms of "technically right" is that because they don't have the artistic sense to know when pitch and phrasing variations are artistically effective, they use technology to adjust pitch so that it's technically accurate and move words and drumbeats and edit breaths so that everything is in perfect time. There's a difference between mistakes, lack of skill and laziness or sloppiness and natural performance. Not everyone can recognize those differences and treat them appropriately. For the inexperienced, the temptation is to let the tools make the decisions and produce a technically accurate product at the expense of expression. There's no reason why you can't have both, but that's harder than either one by itself.

[Billster]

Mike, I think we're reaching the same conclusions from different directions.

 

... nor do you see an unknown independent singing in an arena.

 

I'll take my chances with an unknown getting a break in a large venue over someone like Britney trying to sing in a coffee house.

[RockViolin]

Better gear. Better rehearsed.

 

I don't have any really high dollar compressors, but I've noticed a time or two how a bit of compression can reign in a bit timing flux. "Seat things in the mix" as they say.

 

Rehearsal. I would think that even for a major artist with $$$$, that scheduled studio time with the greats is NO time for their butt to be draggin.

They are prepared, or someone prepares them. And once they have been drilled it's time for the, "Now, one more time, with feeling." It's probably fairly common that indie artists lolligag in after partying all night, thinkin I'm Cool. It'll be more "raw" and therefore more "rock".

I spent many years in the classical scene and am always intrigued by the got to keep it raw and spontaneous thing I hear so often, elsewhere. Rehearsed it to death, for me, if it even exists, is way farther down the road than it is for most rockers and jazzers, that I've worked with anyway. If it took 3 months to get a hard concerto down to the point where there wasn't always a spot here and there, then that's what it took. No Spots? Then I can free the reigns and put my heart totally into it. It's not that hard to turn on, or off, and I wonder sometimes if the guarding of teh "raw spontaneity" isn't a bit much.

 

BTW. Didn't Bob Rock take Metallica to task recording the Black Album?

[Lee Knight]

 

I

[Anderton]

I agree that having a good producer has a lot to do with it.

[Hard Truth]

There is an "Indy" style that I often hear on college radio that seem to require anemic rhythms, thin production and vocals that sound like the singer is either on their death bed and too weak to sing in tune or the singer tries to sound like a child who hasn't learned pitch control. This style seems to be a reaction to the overpolished production style characteristic of mainstream music.

 

In other words, the artists may be doing it on purpose.

[Lee Knight]

 

In other words, the artists may be doing it on purpose.

 

 

 

Of course. But take The Shins for instance. Strong in their indie cred, etc. They've very clearly worked on finding the right takes to craft an album that sounds "off the cuff". I think there is a difference between the illusion of being lackadaisical and actually being so.

 

The ones that believe all you need to do is nod off while tracking vocals 'cause that's the way so and so sounds on they're album, they're the ones who end up with a stinky album.

 

The Stones used to print a lot of tape to get that first take vibe.

[Lee Flier]

Of course. But take The Shins for instance. Strong in their indie cred, etc. They've very clearly worked on finding the right takes to craft an album that sounds "off the cuff". I think there is a difference between the illusion of being lackadaisical and actually being so.

 

Bingo.

 

And yes, the "indie aesthetic" is a reaction to the over-polished stuff on top 40 stations, and they're making a valid point, but those who are successful at it are actually working very hard to get the recording just right.

 

The ones that believe all you need to do is nod off while tracking vocals 'cause that's the way so and so sounds on they're album, they're the ones who end up with a stinky album. The Stones used to print a lot of tape to get that first take vibe.

 

Boy did they ever... to the point where their producer would despair because Keith Richards would stay awake for days doing overdubs and wear out the master tape.

[kurdy]

 

The major difference to me has nothing to do with sound. The greatest artists give the greatest performances and thats what makes a record great. I think of U2 for example, a band that can hire whoever they want but their records do not sound so polished but damn, the performance is always there. There is so much expression and passion in their performance, even if the song is not that good, you`re hooked on the emotions they transfer through the speakers. To me thats what makes an artist great.

 

 

Yeah, I didn't think about U2, but that's a perfect example. Bono is a pretty spotty singer and he often sounds like he's in pain. But even though the notes he sings aren't perfect, never does it sound amateurish or unprofessional.

 

On the other hand, there's an artist I went to college with that I have a great amount of respect for. He's a spectacular live performer, and has a real unique style. He certainly had no shortage of talent, nor did the other members of his band. His CD defined the soundtrack to '03 for me, I listened to it so much. At one point he had the #1 page on Myspace, so he said (this was when it was just starting out). The CD was engineered by the guy that owned the studio at which it was recorded; the guy majored in sound recording, and seemed to be an all around capable audio engineer.

 

The CD, to my ears was well-recorded. However, I couldn't ignore how off-key many of the vocals were. Even though it was one of my favorite CD's at the time, it just didn't have the polish of a major release. I dug the music, but part of me thinks that had I not known the guy, and just heard his stuff on Myspace or something, I probably wouldn't have given it a second listen.

 

So that's why I was curious what that seemingly intangable quality was that separates the indies from the majors (or bigger indies). If it were merely about perfection vs. imperfection, it would be easier for me to understand. But that usually isn't the case.

[steveg]

U2 is a perfect example. Their early work lacked quality production, such as "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" and "New Years Day", but man the songs, original and driving guitar work, solid bass and drums, tasty minimalistic keyboard-----

 

the talent and passion and drive was there and it sounds great while having a very second rate recording/production

 

Flash forward to when they have the best gear and producers- you get all the benefit of the better sound, but it is the song and performance that you feel in your gut

 

Here is an example of a band you can hear both ways and see where the lasting quality comes from- the writer/musicians!!!

[Synonym Music]

 

The CD, to my ears was well-recorded. However, I couldn't ignore how off-key many of the vocals were. Even though it was one of my favorite CD's at the time, it just didn't have the polish of a major release. I dug the music, but part of me thinks that had I not known the guy, and just heard his stuff on Myspace or something, I probably wouldn't have given it a second listen.

 

 

Is singing in tune polish, though? That's a basic requirement to me. Perhaps he wasn't much of a studio artist, and that's fine, but I'll bet he made the decisions on what takes to keep as executive producer.

 

Craig hit on it, a good producer can and will fill that gap because it's not his/her job to sound (inadvertently) amateurish. That, coupled with great material, great performers (expert session musicians in many a case) and a great engineer and ME help to smooth over imperfections. How many indie productions have dedicated overdub sessions where basic tracking quality is in question?

[Magpel]

It's the "Indie thing" I think you're describing, as Hard Truth, Lee, and Lee have observed. For a certain, not un-sizable and generaly collegiate-based market, slop has become an essential differentiator between the "real" and the "corporate." Slop could be broken down into many sub-elements, implicating intonation, tempo and feel, and a conscious, usually "post-modern-y" disregard of the unities of traditional songwriting.

 

Now when somone cites Sheryl Crow's fetishistically immaculately "vintage" recordings, I gag; there is soemthing so antiseptic about that kind of grit and dirt. I have a Sheryl Crow problem, but that's another thread...

 

For me, the Indie slop thing really kicks in with the band Pavement, the figurehead, flagship band of the '90s Indie sound. They cultivated an inpsired laziness and inaccuracy that is very difficult and very dangerous to imitate, but aspects of that sound have become de rigueur in the Indie scene. You'll hear it alot in Wilco too. Guided By Voices. Archers of Loaf, The Shins--who to me seemt o be chasing Pavement and Wilco in the same leap. On and on. New ones everyday. Meanwhile, guys like Stephen Malkmus and Robert Pollard have gone on to make quite professional-sounding records, but the damage is done...

[RockViolin]

 

Yeah, I didn't think about U2, but that's a perfect example. Bono is a pretty spotty singer and he often sounds like he's in pain. But even though the notes he sings aren't perfect, never does it sound amateurish or unprofessional.

 

 

Just hazzarding a guess... that if you heard those tracks, nekkid, the spots would stand out more. Once it's dressed up the little spots can "gel" in a way that makes them more palletable. The instrumentation is more supportive.

 

And after years of hearing those songs, the spots can seem as if they're part of Bono's overall style as well.

 

(Robert Plant. Far from perfect. But it always seems to work within the context. A bit sharp here a little off there. After all these years it probably wouldn't sound right totally in tune.)

[Lee Flier]

The CD, to my ears was well-recorded. However, I couldn't ignore how off-key many of the vocals were. Even though it was one of my favorite CD's at the time, it just didn't have the polish of a major release. I dug the music, but part of me thinks that had I not known the guy, and just heard his stuff on Myspace or something, I probably wouldn't have given it a second listen.

 

Well now I'm kinda curious... I really do think some people have different aesthetics anymore, and because so many records now are made perfectly in tune with Autotune and that sort of thing, more people have become extremely sensitive to intonation problems whereas 20 years ago they wouldn't have been.

 

Can you give us some examples of people you've heard that you think are really talented live but their recording sounds not quite pro? Maybe some Myspace links or something? Or maybe you could listen to some of my band's tunes (links in my sig) and tell me if you hear any of what's been bothering you (I won't take it personally if you do - I really am just curious if this is an aesthetic difference we're talking about or something else)..

[Rudolf von Hagenwil]

I do not hear any intonation problems from older artist from the fifties to the eighties, not even with David Bowie and his melancholic sing sang...

[RockViolin]

 

I do not hear any intonation problems from older artist from the fifties to the eighties, not even with David Bowie and his melancholic sing sang...

 

 

 

 

The Beach Boys.