Real World Presentations. 24/5/07
Sadly, work commitments robbed me of the chance to be present for the first day of mix presentations. Needless to say, I’ll be there next week with great enthusiasm! I have come up with a couple of Questions for Steve
Mostly regarding referencing… these have occurred to me in the process of preparing my mix project, and many of them have been prompted by various statements that Steve’s made throughout the semester. So hope you can help Steve!!
The more I think about reference tracks, the more questions I have!
Can you give us a list of some of the finest examples of reference tracks? (Including some genre specific ones)
And/or… can we assume that any song released by a major label can be presumed to be well mixed and of a high fidelity (and therefore suitable for use as a reference)?
I’m guessing that there must be certain songs that are universally regarded as great examples of fidelity… so what might they be?
When we’re engaged in referencing, should we focus our attention on material that has been released in the last 5 years?
Do the ‘loudness wars’ mean that older material is less useful for referencing, or is it still very applicable?
Does the current loudness phenomenon only effect songs at the mastering stage? It this is the case, I would presume that we can still use older material to reference the mix, but not the master.
Clipping.
Steve, you’ve shown us that recent commercial releases tend to have been maximised to the point of clipping – and have shown us the audio files in ProTools sessions to illustrate this. I am wondering:
• Is this kind of clipping achieved on the entire mix, or does it tend to be done only on certain tracks within the mix?
• Is it achieved by just upping the volume beyond 0dB digitally, or is it solely achieved via use of limiters? (I’m presuming it must be via limiters, but would like to know for sure!)
MP3’s for referencing.
Yes, yes I know that this is a first order audio faux par… but I’m still curious. Is it possible to use compressed files as references? Surely the levels of the relative frequencies will still be a reasonably accurate guide to how the track was mixed!?
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
17/5/07
Grunge, Indie, Punk Production.
Today’s seminar has presented me with some discussion points that I am extremely passionate about.
I have a great admiration for music that might be considered genuinely ‘punk’ or punk-inspired. (Key word: genuinely… but more on this later!)
The most significant moments for me today were where Steve talked about the musical integrity of this genre, and how it pertains to appropriate production techniques.
I have long been an admirer of the underground, thrash sound of certain punk and post punk music. I don’t actually enjoy listening to too much of it (it’s not melodic enough for my simplistic aural tastes), but I love the passion, the ideals and the relative integrity that the serious artists in this genre seem to exude. It has always presented itself to me as the musical ‘moral high ground’.
Steve stated that in the purest examples of this kind of music, the musicianship comes second to the artistic integrity and the purity of performance. And obviously, if we were producing this music well, we would need to take this into consideration.
Steve also talked about the phenomenon of ‘copycat’ grunge/indie/punk. And for me, this is where it gets really interesting. In a movement defined by originality and integrity, being too blatant a ‘copycat’ is an extreme faux par. But…. Where do we draw the line in the sand between legitimate influence and rip-off?? (As someone famous once said, amateurs borrow, but great artists steal!)
Well, I’m going to risk it with a generalisation here. Anyone who refers to themselves as ‘punk’ is quite likely to be a ‘copycat’. Why? Because people with true punk sensibilities never label themselves as such: it is a title bestowed upon them by others..
One of the most powerful music experiences of my life was seeing Fugazi live in 1990. I didn’t know who they were, but went with some friends of mine that assured me that they were the ‘real deal’. These guys were the embodiment of artistic integrity. They didn’t have a ‘look’; they wore very plain, uninteresting clothes. And their performance was absolutely exhilarating. I was spellbound! Their performance far surpassed anything they had recorded, and really introduced me to this world of post-punk high integrity music.
So, in conclusion: KEEP IT REAL!!
Grunge, Indie, Punk Production.
Today’s seminar has presented me with some discussion points that I am extremely passionate about.
I have a great admiration for music that might be considered genuinely ‘punk’ or punk-inspired. (Key word: genuinely… but more on this later!)
The most significant moments for me today were where Steve talked about the musical integrity of this genre, and how it pertains to appropriate production techniques.
I have long been an admirer of the underground, thrash sound of certain punk and post punk music. I don’t actually enjoy listening to too much of it (it’s not melodic enough for my simplistic aural tastes), but I love the passion, the ideals and the relative integrity that the serious artists in this genre seem to exude. It has always presented itself to me as the musical ‘moral high ground’.
Steve stated that in the purest examples of this kind of music, the musicianship comes second to the artistic integrity and the purity of performance. And obviously, if we were producing this music well, we would need to take this into consideration.
Steve also talked about the phenomenon of ‘copycat’ grunge/indie/punk. And for me, this is where it gets really interesting. In a movement defined by originality and integrity, being too blatant a ‘copycat’ is an extreme faux par. But…. Where do we draw the line in the sand between legitimate influence and rip-off?? (As someone famous once said, amateurs borrow, but great artists steal!)
Well, I’m going to risk it with a generalisation here. Anyone who refers to themselves as ‘punk’ is quite likely to be a ‘copycat’. Why? Because people with true punk sensibilities never label themselves as such: it is a title bestowed upon them by others..
One of the most powerful music experiences of my life was seeing Fugazi live in 1990. I didn’t know who they were, but went with some friends of mine that assured me that they were the ‘real deal’. These guys were the embodiment of artistic integrity. They didn’t have a ‘look’; they wore very plain, uninteresting clothes. And their performance was absolutely exhilarating. I was spellbound! Their performance far surpassed anything they had recorded, and really introduced me to this world of post-punk high integrity music.
So, in conclusion: KEEP IT REAL!!
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
10/5/07
Genre Based production styles.
Today was an overview of several production ‘traditions’ for different styles of music. Steve’s proposition was that versatility as a producer is something to strive for: that the ability to function in different styles of music will help us to become a better overall producer. (It will also allow doors to open for us that might otherwise be closed.) Thus it is important to be aware of the different approaches to recording and production that are most commonly used in different genres.
I must admit to being in two minds on this one! I certainly agree with Steve’s points. Balance is often so important to being good at something. To be a good tennis player, one needs to have a game that is competent on many fronts.
But, on the other hand… My Mum used to say: if you’re a jack of all trades, you’ll be a master of none! I think it might be possible to try so hard to spread one’s self around that one becomes mediocre in a range of different production techniques. This might be especially relevant to the trainee producer.
Specialisation is also an important part of becoming really great at something. How many great guitar players can play other instruments to the same level as they can play their guitars? It seems to me that specialisation is at least as significant as balance. There comes a time when we must draw a line in the sand and decide what we want to really excel at. So in the light of this, I can see a potential drawback to trying to be supremely balanced: I may end up being supremely mediocre.
Genre Based production styles.
Today was an overview of several production ‘traditions’ for different styles of music. Steve’s proposition was that versatility as a producer is something to strive for: that the ability to function in different styles of music will help us to become a better overall producer. (It will also allow doors to open for us that might otherwise be closed.) Thus it is important to be aware of the different approaches to recording and production that are most commonly used in different genres.
I must admit to being in two minds on this one! I certainly agree with Steve’s points. Balance is often so important to being good at something. To be a good tennis player, one needs to have a game that is competent on many fronts.
But, on the other hand… My Mum used to say: if you’re a jack of all trades, you’ll be a master of none! I think it might be possible to try so hard to spread one’s self around that one becomes mediocre in a range of different production techniques. This might be especially relevant to the trainee producer.
Specialisation is also an important part of becoming really great at something. How many great guitar players can play other instruments to the same level as they can play their guitars? It seems to me that specialisation is at least as significant as balance. There comes a time when we must draw a line in the sand and decide what we want to really excel at. So in the light of this, I can see a potential drawback to trying to be supremely balanced: I may end up being supremely mediocre.
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Last of the presentations
3/5/07
Even more presentations.
Producer’s covered: Steven Wilson; Trent Reznor; Phil Spectre; Groove Terminator…..
An interesting blend, to be sure!!
The things that struck me this week include:
Some of the equipment used by the Producers ‘at home’ was mentioned: Steven Wilson apparently has a home studio based around Logic 6.4 and a Mac G4. (He also has Digidesign TDM plug-ins and Apogee A/D D/A converters).
I was very inspired to hear that he’s still running a G4 and logic 6; but of course he has spent the big bucks on the high quality converters and the finest plug-ins. So there is a huge statement in all of this: yes it’s possible to do it all at home on your less than state of the art computer, but don’t cut corners on the audio fidelity!
This all seems to reinforce the point that the most exciting things in this audio game are often not the big bells and whistles items. As much as something inside me wants to go out and get the new 8 core Mac Pro (..because it’s there, why else??), I am learning to ignore these primal urges and strive instead for the fidelity.
Trent Reznor’s unique style was discussed.
Lisa made the point that he tends to be something of a niche producer – having such a distinct sound that people tend to come to him in order to get some of this sound in their material. This is an interesting point. His signature sound is obviously in demand, or else there would be no work out there for him. His sound tends to be aggressive, industrialised pop. And I would venture to say that he is good at achieving the balance that Steve commented on. His work does not tend to be so abrasive as to be overly painful. Rather, there is a balance of the hard with the soft and melodic: Abrasion is so much more effective when framed within something that contrasts it. (Like everything else I suppose…)
Even more presentations.
Producer’s covered: Steven Wilson; Trent Reznor; Phil Spectre; Groove Terminator…..
An interesting blend, to be sure!!
The things that struck me this week include:
Some of the equipment used by the Producers ‘at home’ was mentioned: Steven Wilson apparently has a home studio based around Logic 6.4 and a Mac G4. (He also has Digidesign TDM plug-ins and Apogee A/D D/A converters).
I was very inspired to hear that he’s still running a G4 and logic 6; but of course he has spent the big bucks on the high quality converters and the finest plug-ins. So there is a huge statement in all of this: yes it’s possible to do it all at home on your less than state of the art computer, but don’t cut corners on the audio fidelity!
This all seems to reinforce the point that the most exciting things in this audio game are often not the big bells and whistles items. As much as something inside me wants to go out and get the new 8 core Mac Pro (..because it’s there, why else??), I am learning to ignore these primal urges and strive instead for the fidelity.
Trent Reznor’s unique style was discussed.
Lisa made the point that he tends to be something of a niche producer – having such a distinct sound that people tend to come to him in order to get some of this sound in their material. This is an interesting point. His signature sound is obviously in demand, or else there would be no work out there for him. His sound tends to be aggressive, industrialised pop. And I would venture to say that he is good at achieving the balance that Steve commented on. His work does not tend to be so abrasive as to be overly painful. Rather, there is a balance of the hard with the soft and melodic: Abrasion is so much more effective when framed within something that contrasts it. (Like everything else I suppose…)
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
26/4/2007
A day of presentations.
A reoccurring them in today’s presentations was ANALOGUE AND DIGITAL.
Ross Robinson (the subject of one presentation) was quoted as saying that he felt that digital audio was just a phase or trend – and would die out soon.
Steve Fieldhouse stated that the prevailing wisdom of the 21st Century seems to be that a mixture of analogue and digital processing is ideal. To me, this sounds about right.
We were told that Kevin Shirley and Dave Freedman (the subjects of other presentations) both opt for a combination of analogue and digital processing in their productions.
Balance is truly one of the keys to life. So it is with great confidence that I add my amateur opinion to the throng of pop wisdom and say: Yes! We can live in a world where analogue and digital are friends…
I have certainly heard the dogma that the ‘analogue extremists’ put out there: that digital audio is cold and analogue is the only way for real quality. But this kind of extremism (in any area of life – not just audio) always seems to be too simple a description of reality. Life is always about striving for this balance between opposing positions, rather than taking one side to the exclusion of the other.
For the record: I am as pro-analogue as my budget allows. (Which means: I own some great analogue modelling software…)
Another noteworthy thing from today’s presentations was a point made by Stuart J: that one of the defining characteristics of Dave Freedman’s production style is his track intros. Stuart played several audio examples from Ammonium and a remix of a Jane’s Addiction track: all produced by Freedman, and all with very interesting intros. They struck me as being perfect examples of what intros should be: a tantalising invitation to stay for the song. (As opposed to ‘filler’ before the vocals..)
A day of presentations.
A reoccurring them in today’s presentations was ANALOGUE AND DIGITAL.
Ross Robinson (the subject of one presentation) was quoted as saying that he felt that digital audio was just a phase or trend – and would die out soon.
Steve Fieldhouse stated that the prevailing wisdom of the 21st Century seems to be that a mixture of analogue and digital processing is ideal. To me, this sounds about right.
We were told that Kevin Shirley and Dave Freedman (the subjects of other presentations) both opt for a combination of analogue and digital processing in their productions.
Balance is truly one of the keys to life. So it is with great confidence that I add my amateur opinion to the throng of pop wisdom and say: Yes! We can live in a world where analogue and digital are friends…
I have certainly heard the dogma that the ‘analogue extremists’ put out there: that digital audio is cold and analogue is the only way for real quality. But this kind of extremism (in any area of life – not just audio) always seems to be too simple a description of reality. Life is always about striving for this balance between opposing positions, rather than taking one side to the exclusion of the other.
For the record: I am as pro-analogue as my budget allows. (Which means: I own some great analogue modelling software…)
Another noteworthy thing from today’s presentations was a point made by Stuart J: that one of the defining characteristics of Dave Freedman’s production style is his track intros. Stuart played several audio examples from Ammonium and a remix of a Jane’s Addiction track: all produced by Freedman, and all with very interesting intros. They struck me as being perfect examples of what intros should be: a tantalising invitation to stay for the song. (As opposed to ‘filler’ before the vocals..)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)