I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THE SOUND OF ANALOGUE MUSIC RECORDING!!!

[UstadKhanAli]

Whoa...Ken used the word 'NAIL?' You go Boy! Testosterone be flowin' t'night...yesiree!

It never stops flowing. Oh well.

[UstadKhanAli]

Whoa!!! Bruce has gone viral and Ken's got the CLASP!!!!!!!!! That's just creepy.

 

 

Kids, let this be a lesson to you. Never go on SSS unprotected.

[Lukenskywalker]

It never stops flowing. Oh well.

Smoke if you got 'em...

[Bruce Swedien]

Purely outta curiosity, why not? And no, I don't own stock in this company, and no, I'm not dating the owner's daughter.

Here's WHY NOT.......

I am used to working in Analogue. With ONE machine! The sound of an analogue machine pleases me greatly.

That sound makes it very easy for me to do what I do best. Even the time that it takes to rewind the tape to the beginning of the song also pleases me greatly...

If you don't know what my best work sounds like, please check out Michael Jackson's Thriller album. A whole lot of people seemed to like the sound of Thriller. OK?

Bruce Swedien

[Extreme Mixing]

Will you use the multitrack multiplexing system that you invented for those albums? You really innovated an amazing system! As I recall you used a slave reel for almost every element, then mixed it to stereo in a "comp" 32 track digital machine. So you would have a stereo mix (or a few stems) on the analog tape, and then use that to record the horns. When finished, you would move a stereo mix of the horns onto the comp digital reel. If you wanted to change your balance later, you could put up the analogue reel, recall the automation, make your changes and lay it back in. It was really brilliant for the time. I remember you said that you didn't spend more than 4 hours to mix any song on Bad. Of course, that didn't take into account mixing all of those comp stems.

 

Bruce, I'm glad you're taking the time to share some of your knowledge with the new internet generation. You are a valuable resource. Keep it up.

 

Best,

 

Steve

[Bruce Swedien]

Will you use the multitrack multiplexing system that you invented for those albums? You really innovated an amazing system! As I recall you used a slave reel for almost every element, then mixed it to stereo in a "comp" 32 track digital machine. So you would have a stereo mix (or a few stems) on the analog tape, and then use that to record the horns. When finished, you would move a stereo mix of the horns onto the comp digital reel. If you wanted to change your balance later, you could put up the analogue reel, recall the automation, make your changes and lay it back in. It was really brilliant for the time. I remember you said that you didn't spend more than 4 hours to mix any song on Bad. Of course, that didn't take into account mixing all of those comp stems. Bruce, I'm glad you're taking the time to share some of your knowledge with the new internet generation. You are a valuable resource. Keep it up. Best, Steve

 

 

Thanks Steve.... You are a real gasser.

 

Bruce Swedien

[Kotch]

I guess, when it comes right down to it, I'd prefer music types to spend a whole lot less time obsessing over all this peripheral stuff and concentrate more on coming up with songs and arrangements that are actually worth listening to.

 

J'accuse!

 

[Jeff da Weasel]

I guess, when it comes right down to it, I'd prefer music types to spend a whole lot less time obsessing over all this peripheral stuff and concentrate more on coming up with songs and arrangements that are actually worth listening to.

Kotch, there are actually different jobs that we "music types" have. Bruce is an audio engineer, not a musician or a songwriter or an arranger. His priority is indeed to focus on this "peripheral stuff". In fact, it's his entire job to do so.

If he was a songwriter obsessing on recording formats, then an intervention might be needed. But he's not... he records people, and what he uses to record them really matters to people.

[Kotch]

Maybe it's not a lack of talented engineers that's screwing over the music business.

[Extreme Mixing]

For the record: Bruce has a virus, Ken has the CLASP, and I have gas.

 

Steve

[Extreme Mixing]

Kotch,

 

I think you'd be surprised to discover how quickly Bruce can get those great sounds. Most of the top guys are that way. A mix that you might spend 2 days on, Mick Guzauski will have sounding amazing in 3 or 4 hours. I can write a song in an hour, but Paul McCartney wrote Yesterday in that same amount of time.

 

I do agree that what we need in music today is better material and more real artists. There is a lot of great stuff out there, but It's hard to cut through the crap to get to listen to it.

 

Glee is horrible pollution of the worst kind. I won't bother trying to mention anything I think is good because the sport around here (and most engineering sites) is NOT LIKING ANY MUSIC THAT IS NOT IN THE SMALL BOX THAT THEY CONSIDER COOL.

 

Steve

[Kotch]

 

I think you'd be surprised to discover how quickly Bruce can get those great sounds. Most of the top guys are that way. A mix that you might spend 2 days on, Mick Guzauski will have sounding amazing in 3 or 4 hours. I can write a song in an hour, but Paul McCartney wrote Yesterday in that same amount of time.

 

 

I don't doubt it, and I don't find that to be particularly remarkable. Amongst the FAWM and 50/90 crowd they play a game they call a skirmish -- where you're given a theme and a title and you're expected to post a demo of the finished song in under an hour.

 

But look at the difference between Paul McCartney in 1965 and artists in 2010. McCartney earned millions; the contemporary artist earns slightly less than a store clerk in a 7/11. Beatles-in-the-studio stories are told with reverential awe, but contemporary artists get The Mixerman Diaries. On the basis of such stories, lots of people aspired to be Paul McCartney in the sixties, but no one today would aspire to be Dumbass the drummer.

 

Look too at the difference between the sort of forums that focus on the engineering side compared to the ones on the creative side. The technical forums like SSS, Gearslutz, or The Womb are full of industry professionals and get into some pretty deep discussions about bleeding edge stuff. But on the creative side there's a distinct songwriting-101/weekend warrior vibe, where the consensus seems to be: don't even think about giving up the day job.

 

Music seems to be an industry where the technical side of it progresses ever onwards and upwards, but where the primary producers are going backwards just as quickly. I guess that matches the trend in a lot of other industries, where the role of the workers has been reduced to a few mindless, repetitive tasks, and the workers themselves have become interchangeable units of low status. But I think it's kind of stupid in music, where the artist is the product you're trying to sell.

 

Or maybe I'm just ranting. I don't know. But I do know quite a few talented performers and/or songwriters who just laugh at the idea of "turning pro". For intelligent, talented, career minded people, it's not even worth considering.

[MrKnobs]

 

But look at the difference between Paul McCartney in 1965 and artists in 2010. McCartney earned millions; the contemporary artist earns slightly less than a store clerk in a 7/11. .

 

 

I'd be so bold as to say there are plenty of songs being written that are at least as good as "Yesterday." We got into it a while back because I claimed that "I Can't Make You Love Me" is better.

 

The difference today is that the filters are gone and there's so much more music available. When I was a kid, when Yesterday came out, there were THREE radio stations in San Antonio, and all were playing the same few songs, the same few bands.

 

Contrast that to today, when if you have a discussion with a dozen young people about what their favorite band is, you'll likely get ten different answers and many of the people won't have even heard of each others' favorite. You have hundreds of radio stations, XM satellite radio, internet radio stations, you need Pandora to sort it all out.

 

So take the glut of music available, add in the wholesale theft of MP3 downloads, and I think you can understand why Yesterday made more money than today's bands. There's no supergroups today not because of a lack of talent, but because of a shift in the playing field.

 

To butcher Dickens, this is the best of times for the listener, and the worst of times for recording artists.

 

Terry D.

[Jeff da Weasel]

I'd be so bold as to say there are plenty of songs being written that are at least as good as "Yesterday." We got into it a while back because I claimed that "I Can't Make You Love Me" is better.

Well, it's a great song. I mean, they're both great.

But (back to the point we were on a moment ago) engineers aren't going to change the face of music like songwriters can. I think we all acknowledge this. And I don't think anyone is going into music these days for the supposed millions of dollars and global fame, at least no one with half a brain.

To me, that is actually the recipe for BETTER music, when you're not doing it for any reason other than you want to write good music. Perhaps it's the agenda of being "rich and famous" that led to this {censored}hole in which we ended up. Maybe we're coming around to a great period of new music!

- Jeff Da Optimist

[Kotch]

I've heard the "no filters" argument many times before, and I'm not sure I'm 100% convinced by it.

 

I grew up on the underground music scene in Australia, which came about in the late seventies and thrived up until '87 stock market crash. There wasn't an internet or a proliferation of cheap digital recording gear to account for it.

 

This is complete speculation, but I suspect we're looking at a more general phenomenon -- the one where something that fails on some fundamental level begins to fragment. Several examples come immediately to mind: the Catholic church during the reformation, the auxiliary language movement after Esperanto failed to get a foothold, the Socialist parties of western countries during the 70s.

 

When an industry, a movement, or a music scene fails, I think what happens is the talented people left in the lurch abandon the rotting core and press on, creating their own sub-movements to do it their way -- whatever they think will work. I'd say that's how the Australian underground scene happened. The Australian mainstream at that time was about three bands, and the "gatekeepers" weren't much inclined to let anyone new in. They completely failed to make any sort of response to the punk/new-wave trend coming in from overseas, so the new generation of musicians abandoned the mainstream and did it themselves. Acts like The Saints, Radio Birdman, Nick Cave, and INXS all came out of that.

 

But sometimes -- and I think this is what's happening now -- something can fail, and it's not at all obvious what to do about it. Sub-movements can break away from the rotting core, but since they can't come to any sort of consensus, they'll fragment even further. You wind up with something that looks like modern electronic dance music -- the People's Front of Judea verses the Judean People's Front, and what have the Romans ever done for us?

 

That's my take on the whole fragmentation thing, but since its pure, untested hypothesis, don't hold me to it.

[Kotch]

 

I'd be so bold as to say there are plenty of songs being written that are at least as good as "Yesterday." We got into it a while back because I claimed that "I Can't Make You Love Me" is better.

 

 

So an artist writes and performs the modern equivalent of a Yesterday. Great, he says, I've written a hit song. Okay. So why does the invoice from the record company still say I owe them money? And how come everyone else on the session got paid except me? And why don't I own the rights to my own song anymore? And why does this asshole of a minor functionary in a suit still get a say in what goes on my album? Bugger this for a game of soldiers, I'm getting out of my contract and going back to chartered accountancy.

 

The upshot is, the modern equivalent of a Hey Jude never gets written (because even if he still goes on writing and playing in a weekend warrior band, the incentive to develop as a songwriter and go one better has disappeared).

[Ernest Buckley]

Most importantly why is Ernest dressed in drag?

Because I know how much you like it Big Boy Beck.

[Ernest Buckley]

Well, it's a great song. I mean, they're both great. But (back to the point we were on a moment ago) engineers aren't going to change the face of music like songwriters can. I think we all acknowledge this. And I don't think anyone is going into music these days for the supposed millions of dollars and global fame, at least no one with half a brain. To me, that is actually the recipe for BETTER music, when you're not doing it for any reason other than you want to write good music. Perhaps it's the agenda of being "rich and famous" that led to this {censored}hole in which we ended up. Maybe we're coming around to a great period of new music! - Jeff Da Optimist

Hello Jeff Da Optimist,

Better records are being made today... yours for example!. A strong offering from the first to last note except you don`t have a corporate sponsorship (aka:record label).

Another is Salty Nads... good songwriter, great production ideas but needs corporate sponsorship.

Blue has written some really cool stuff as well. I`m sure there are many others here who I have yet to hear!

[Lukenskywalker]

That's my take on the whole fragmentation thing, but since its pure, untested hypothesis, don't hold me to it.

Untested hypothesis, maybe..but thoughtfully presented and insightful,

but you're playin' in front of a tough crowd here:lol:

The Saints...Gawd, I always love their music and spunk...
Nick Cave...Nick {censored}en' Cave! one of my all time faves...

INXS, right up there with Easybeats...they had the Aussie looks and the licks.

The list goes on...Midnight Oil, AC-DC.....

RICK SPRINGFIELD?

[Goobers]

 

 

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

I'm not asking my question to make a point or "get in your way," I'm asking it because I don't know the answer and you're the most knowledgeable person here.

 

Maybe someone else might chime in.

 

ken made a point about kids loving classic rock recorded on analog and my question to him and anyone else here who knows more about this than I do is:

 

If everything were the same except the music were recorded on top notch digital, would it be every bit as good, or would be something be lost?

 

Is it conceivable that analog tape contributed to the success of groups like Pink Floyd and the Beatles and that without analog tape, they'd wouldn't have had the same success and longevity?

[UstadKhanAli]

ken made a point about kids loving classic rock recorded on analog and my question to him and anyone else here who knows more about this than I do is: If everything were the same except the music were recorded on top notch digital, would it be every bit as good, or would be something be lost?

 

 

It'd be different, that's for sure. Not only for the obvious reason that it would *sound* different, but also because the process would be different, even down to thinking and going about the actual process.

 

And speaking of the process, if you are going to go about the process of making a really long tape loop assembled from such disparate sounds as the one found in "Money", you must really want that to be in your song. Don't you find it curious that now that it's insanely easy to make loops in a DAW, there's not more inventive loops such as that? No, loops instead are most often used in a way that an administrative assistant might use a Word document: cut, paste, cut, paste, cut, paste. We're using a device that was originally designed to be a secretarial tool, and it's probably no small coincidence that so many functions operate in this way. An analog tape machine and mixing board, OTOH, was designed to do one thing: record.

 

So I've found it fascinating that some of the most ambitious records in popular music have been done with analog equipment.

 

Now, obviously, the equipment isn't the only thing that enters in to it. We can point our fingers squarely at the industry and their need for "instant hits". Still, though, we keep saying that with the advent of a cheap computer and USB interface, everyone can record music. So why aren't there more ambitious, intricate sorts of music? It's EASIER to do now. So why isn't there much of this? Why is looping drums (cut, paste, cut, paste...) so prevalent instead of something more ambitious?

 

How does the equipment - analog, digital, whatever - affect how we perceive music, how we go about doing things? It does, you know.

 

Most studios that exist now don't have a dedicated large space for recording people in the same room simultaneously, often relying on overdubs or MIDI or soft-synths and drum machines and amp simulators instead of people with amps and instruments in the same room. Much of this is because everyone can now record, but not everyone can afford a large acoustically-treated soundproofed room. How does THIS affect music now? Will it sound different from studios in the not-so-distant past, which were set up to record people playing in a room simultaneously? This is also all about equipment. How does this affect music nowadays?

[Bruce Swedien]

Kotch, there are actually different jobs that we "music types" have. Bruce is an audio engineer, not a musician or a songwriter or an arranger. His priority is indeed to focus on this "peripheral stuff". In fact, it's his entire job to do so. If he was a songwriter obsessing on recording formats, then an intervention might be needed. But he's not... he records people, and what he uses to record them really matters to people.

Sorry Jeff the Weasel... You're wrong....

I am an audio engineer. I am best known for this.

I am a musician. I play piano and other keyboards. Not very well, though. When I need a piano player I usually hire my daughter, Roberta. She can play piano extremely well.

I am a songwriter and an arranger. Check the composition credits for me on "JAM" by Michael Jackson.

My other priority is also to focus on this "peripheral stuff".

Bruce Swedien

[Extreme Mixing]

Oh no. Looks like Bruce also has Musical Dystrophy.

[Kotch]

 

My other priority is also to focus on this "peripheral stuff".

 

 

My remark was aimed more at the HC crowd in general, rather than specifically at Bruce. I don't have a beef with Bruce or what he does (because that would be silly). But the high-end studio thing is a whole different world to the one I inhabit.

[Goobers]

I am a songwriter and an arranger. Check the composition credits for me on "JAM" by Michael Jackson.

"JAM" is one chord, right?