Page 1 of 2
#1
Just out of curiosity, what are things in music that have surprised you much when listening to someone's recording?

Perhaps a violin being made entirely from a synthesizer, the drums entirely from charted midi, etc. just things like that.

I was really surprised, maybe even shocked that so much work by Joey Sturgis consists of 100% digital guitar tones.
It just never crossed my mind that professionals might use them too. I never would have guessed the entire Asking Alexandria album (or some by several other similar bands) consisted of guitar tones straight from Pod Farm.
Last edited by TechnicolorType at Mar 29, 2011,
#2
Whoa I didn't know they used Pod farm!
Their rhythms tones are so tight they nearly give me a hernia
One thing that surprised me was when I found out that the singer for Alesana was a guy...
#3
Quote by TechnicolorType
Just out of curiosity, what are things in music that have surprised you much when listening to someone's recording?

Perhaps a violin being made entirely from a synthesizer, the drums entirely from charted midi, etc. just things like that.

I was really surprised, maybe even shocked that so much work by Joey Sturgis consists of 100% digital guitar tones.
It just never crossed my mind that professionals might use them too. I never would have guessed the entire Asking Alexandria album (or some by several other similar bands) consisted of guitar tones straight from Pod Farm.


Eh...The guitar tones Sturgis uses are meh imo. His mixes are incredible, I don't like the tones so much. Listen to Of Mice & Men's self titled. He's said himself that a lot of the bands he gets are on a strict time restraint, and if they wanted a truly good tone they'd pay him for a day of finding that tone, instead of rushing through it.

On topic though, slip editing surprised me when I first learned about it. It was faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar easier than I thought it would be.
#4
Quote by Meelad360
Eh...The guitar tones Sturgis uses are meh imo. His mixes are incredible, I don't like the tones so much. Listen to Of Mice & Men's self titled. He's said himself that a lot of the bands he gets are on a strict time restraint, and if they wanted a truly good tone they'd pay him for a day of finding that tone, instead of rushing through it.

On topic though, slip editing surprised me when I first learned about it. It was faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar easier than I thought it would be.



+1

Great mix's. Passable at best tones. you can definitely tell. especially on some songs. its not terrible tone, just nothing amazing...honestly its not hard to get his tone either.

EDIT: I'd like to add that probably 90% of TDWP's "With Roots above and Branches Below" is SSD, this is based on hearing SSD about 30quadrillion times, but the snare is definitely all SSD and the toms are also probably. I'm pretty sure he uses EZdrummer/Superior for cymbals.

basically...nothing on a Joey Sturgis album is real

EDIT2: went to clarify, he definitely uses SSD
Quote by gregs1020
Brett has been saving for a splawn for 4 years
countries have been toppled in the time it's taking, revolutions won got a black pres

yawn


Quote by bubb_tubbs
When he finally gets one it'll probably be televised like the Berlin Wall coming down.
The end of an era
Last edited by Bostonrocks at Mar 29, 2011,
#6
I remember it surprising me then, though it doesn't surprise me now when I go back and re-listen to them, that many of the hair metal bands used programmed drums rather than real kits.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#7
Here's a neat one, though... this song here was pretty popular back in the early '90's in Canada.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsMGlHtVV9o

I listened to that song for probably over ten years before it was pointed out to me in a magazine article about the band that there was an edit that would be considered so bad, it would be described as colossally bad.

It's not that the song is poorly recorded - the producer was Ed Stasium (Ramones, Living Colour, Smithereens, Biohazard, Mick Jagger, etc.) after all - but there is something *really* funny about that one edit that most of us would have gone back and fixed, never mind a big-name producer. Nobody noticed until the album was released.

Guess it's proof that sometimes we obsess over silly things.

Answer later.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#9
one thing that suprised me once i started paying attention to it, is how much louder albums are today as opposed to 20 or 30 (or more) years ago. its something that i always noticed sort of sub-consciously as i had to turn things up or down as songs were on shuffle, but it wasnt something i paid attention to.

and a similar thing between old and new, is how balanced old albums sound. they didnt use the same stereo mixing techniques that are common today, and yet still sound so good. black sabbath (the album) was one of the places i first started noticing it, along with some beatles stuff. sounds awesome in stereo, but horrid in one ear. todays music can mostly be listened to in one ear and you get most of the song. sure, you miss some things, but so much stuff is double tracked and panned to each side these days.
#10
There's a bad vocal edit in A Perfect Circle's "Blue" that I never heard until my friend pointed it out to me.

Metallica looping drums on Dyer's Eve. I also didn't notice until it was pointed out, but holy crap was it obvious after that.

I've heard that Dave Grohl almost never plays to a click track. That man has an amazing sense of time. As far as using cab simulators: I can usually tell right away. I'm not a big fan of that sound. He played drums on a Killing Joke cd where they DI'd all the guitars. Sounded like crap. I understand they've come a long way in improving that technology. I think when they tracked drums for that cd (and Queens Of The Stone Age's Songs For the Deaf) he hit cymbal trigger pads while he was recording drums and overdubbed the cymbals later. That's a little trick to get a huge room sound without tons of cymbals bleeding in. A trick that Steve Albini never needed to use to get even better results.
#11
Quote by axemanchris
Here's a neat one...
Google has failed to give me an answer.

as for actual errors, one thing that has always bothered me is the 'error' in the intro to SCOM. It isn't necessarily an error, but there's one note that Slash very slightly mutes in the famous Sweet Child O' Mine riff. It's totally not on purpose because he only does it once out of the like 6 times or so that he plays that part.

It isn't really something that's going to be a bother, but it kind of annoys me.
#12
i like that fact there are mistakes on records,but they arent really mistakes they make that record unique and special,everything is so damn perfect now.
#13
was also really suprised when told alot of the solos on all the hair metal stuff wasnt done on 1 take,idea etc,if u listen to the tones carefully u will notice they sound diff in spots,it was a popular tecnique to have them jam ours on end and producer would piece them together.
#14
Quote by austhrax
was also really suprised when told alot of the solos on all the hair metal stuff wasnt done on 1 take,idea etc,if u listen to the tones carefully u will notice they sound diff in spots,it was a popular tecnique to have them jam ours on end and producer would piece them together.


i believe they still do that today
#15
Tons of work is done in individual takes. Especially by bands with their own studio.

Sure, the band can play them in one take fine but when it comes to a recording you want every little bit to sound its best.

If you get a solo sounding amazing for the first half but the second half wasn't 100%, what's the point of re-doing it all? Just re-record yourself playing it again but focus on making the second half its best and splice the two together. Of course, it can be done for even smaller sections but that's just a general way to look at it. Even if it's something as simple as one note that's meant to ring out for a while.

A lot of vocals are done the exact same way.

Even rhythm parts are done this way too.
You can even see how some bands do it through behind the scenes videos. Two examples I know of from memory are Attack Attack! and Metallica. From the rhythm guitars and drums to the vocals and whatnot. In some parts, nothing more than a drum fill was recorded.
They'd play the music in the back, the drummer would play the fill and then the music immediately stopped and they moved on to the next part.

Nowadays, it isn't hard to do it like this at all if you have enough time.
#17
Quote by TechnicolorType
Tons of work is done in individual takes. Especially by bands with their own studio.

Sure, the band can play them in one take fine but when it comes to a recording you want every little bit to sound its best.

If you get a solo sounding amazing for the first half but the second half wasn't 100%, what's the point of re-doing it all? Just re-record yourself playing it again but focus on making the second half its best and splice the two together. Of course, it can be done for even smaller sections but that's just a general way to look at it. Even if it's something as simple as one note that's meant to ring out for a while.

A lot of vocals are done the exact same way.

Even rhythm parts are done this way too.
You can even see how some bands do it through behind the scenes videos. Two examples I know of from memory are Attack Attack! and Metallica. From the rhythm guitars and drums to the vocals and whatnot. In some parts, nothing more than a drum fill was recorded.
They'd play the music in the back, the drummer would play the fill and then the music immediately stopped and they moved on to the next part.

Nowadays, it isn't hard to do it like this at all if you have enough time.



You don't even need much time, I've done whole songs in less then a day, if you' come prepared you'll be just fine. its crazy though for sure
Quote by gregs1020
Brett has been saving for a splawn for 4 years
countries have been toppled in the time it's taking, revolutions won got a black pres

yawn


Quote by bubb_tubbs
When he finally gets one it'll probably be televised like the Berlin Wall coming down.
The end of an era
#18
Quote by FireHawk
i believe they still do that today



Yeah i bet,it makes sense though because not every idea for a solo is gonna b gold,but the 1st and 4 part might be fort knox,as for redubbing and adding bits later i dont see why not,its easier and 4 a busy band like metallica it makes sense.
#19
Quote by TechnicolorType
Tons of work is done in individual takes. Especially by bands with their own studio.

Sure, the band can play them in one take fine but when it comes to a recording you want every little bit to sound its best.

If you get a solo sounding amazing for the first half but the second half wasn't 100%, what's the point of re-doing it all? Just re-record yourself playing it again but focus on making the second half its best and splice the two together. Of course, it can be done for even smaller sections but that's just a general way to look at it. Even if it's something as simple as one note that's meant to ring out for a while.

A lot of vocals are done the exact same way.

Even rhythm parts are done this way too.
You can even see how some bands do it through behind the scenes videos. Two examples I know of from memory are Attack Attack! and Metallica. From the rhythm guitars and drums to the vocals and whatnot. In some parts, nothing more than a drum fill was recorded.
They'd play the music in the back, the drummer would play the fill and then the music immediately stopped and they moved on to the next part.

Nowadays, it isn't hard to do it like this at all if you have enough time.


Sometimes that's not even the case. From what I've read on various AE forums, many bands come underprepared and unpracticed with very little written, so in their strict time limit they need to write something to appeal to their audience without practice. Therefore they need to go through the song slowly and with many cuts in order for it to sound good. Fortunately, what separates these bands from the practiced ones are the live shows.

Ex -



That is this song.
Last edited by Meelad360 at Mar 29, 2011,
#20
another thing that suprised me when i heard about it: every guitar track on Dookie was recorded in one take. you can argue that there really arent complex guitar parts on the album, but it is still very impressive.
#21
Quote by suppositron
That's a little trick to get a huge room sound without tons of cymbals bleeding in. A trick that Steve Albini never needed to use to get even better results.


I believe Mutt Lange did that long before Albini when Mutt did Def Leppard's Hysteria.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#22
Quote by TechnicolorType
Google has failed to give me an answer.


Referenced video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsMGlHtVV9o

Time: 0:42

The band recorded the song one day and had to fix something in the drums in the intro - something that was noticed later. So, the band had to set everything up again and mike it all up again, just like yesterday. That would allow them to re-record the drums on the intro, and then, commit one of the ultimate editing crimes - cutting and pasting drums. (don't kid yourself... it's done all the time....)

Except....

It wasn't set up just like yesterday. Pretty damned close... except for one thing.

They used a completely different snare drum. Up to 0:42, it is a very tight, bright sounding snare. At 0:42, it changes to a dark, woody sounding snare.

Once you hear it once, it's obvious. But I listened to the song for well over ten years before it caught my ear.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#23
Quote by axemanchris
Referenced video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsMGlHtVV9o

Time: 0:42

The band recorded the song one day and had to fix something in the drums in the intro - something that was noticed later. So, the band had to set everything up again and mike it all up again, just like yesterday. That would allow them to re-record the drums on the intro, and then, commit one of the ultimate editing crimes - cutting and pasting drums. (don't kid yourself... it's done all the time....)

Except....

It wasn't set up just like yesterday. Pretty damned close... except for one thing.

They used a completely different snare drum. Up to 0:42, it is a very tight, bright sounding snare. At 0:42, it changes to a dark, woody sounding snare.

Once you hear it once, it's obvious. But I listened to the song for well over ten years before it caught my ear.

CT




That reminds me of the newest Carnifex album...The snare is very...odd

Carnifex - Hell Chose Me
#24
Quote by Meelad360
Sometimes that's not even the case. From what I've read on various AE forums, many bands come underprepared and unpracticed with very little written, so in their strict time limit they need to write something to appeal to their audience without practice. Therefore they need to go through the song slowly and with many cuts in order for it to sound good. Fortunately, what separates these bands from the practiced ones are the live shows.

Ex -



That is this song.


That sounds awful, prolly cause they just smashed bits and pieces together and called it a song.

I'm actually rather surprised that people actually record their songs in multiple takes, and then fit the pieces together. I've never really done that, I've always recorded everything in one take, and if there's something I don't like, I just replay the entire guitar part. To me it's quicker, I can lay out a pretty decent sounding song in about a hour if I know what I want to play. Most of my recording didn't even take that long.

I think I surprised a lot of people with my preamp out method, nobody on UG thought I could ever get that to work as well as I've gotten it to work.
#25
Quote by ethan_hanus
That sounds awful, prolly cause they just smashed bits and pieces together and called it a song.

I'm actually rather surprised that people actually record their songs in multiple takes, and then fit the pieces together. I've never really done that, I've always recorded everything in one take, and if there's something I don't like, I just replay the entire guitar part. To me it's quicker, I can lay out a pretty decent sounding song in about a hour if I know what I want to play. Most of my recording didn't even take that long.

I think I surprised a lot of people with my preamp out method, nobody on UG thought I could ever get that to work as well as I've gotten it to work.


Well their thing is brick wall transitions - hence the break in "Structures" - "Struc/tures". Well at least that's how I make it out.

My friend also told me they're pretty tight live, so idk
#26
track above sounds fine really for what it is.
but like 5000000 different pieces of audio for a single track?
I think I would just give up on recording music if I had to do that.

I understand near-perfection but it shouldn't be THAT difficult for them to achieve the sound they want.
Quote by axemanchris
lol wow. never would have guessed it was something like that. I would totally obsess over that in like an ocd-fashion if that were my recording.
Last edited by TechnicolorType at Mar 29, 2011,
#27
a friend of mine pointed out to me somewhat recently how many professional bands use samples for an abundant amount of the song. after really listening to a lot of bands i look back and can hear it now when i listen for it.

it makes me feel a little better about doing it at home
#28
Quote by Meelad360
Sometimes that's not even the case. From what I've read on various AE forums, many bands come underprepared and unpracticed with very little written, so in their strict time limit they need to write something to appeal to their audience without practice. Therefore they need to go through the song slowly and with many cuts in order for it to sound good. Fortunately, what separates these bands from the practiced ones are the live shows.

Ex -

*pic*

That is this song.


Holy shit. I mean, I can understand using different takes and whatnot, but jesus, did these guys even know what they had to play?
#29
Quote by creeping.death!
Holy shit. I mean, I can understand using different takes and whatnot, but jesus, did these guys even know what they had to play?


It's all to get a super tight mix haha.
#30
Structures is fantastic live. Basically any -core stuff I record looks exactly like that screencap of the Structures session. It's not all punch ins, it's mostly chopped and aligned chugs. As the engineer said in the thread he posted that in on Andy Sneap, the whole point is to get the tightest, best sounding product you can on the album in the shortest amount of time. Lots of copy pasting, etc.

That said, before I got into the production side of things, I really had no idea just how far studio magic went. Now I can record a complete cover song for mix practice and have absolutely no idea how to play the song when I'm done. It's pretty super.
#31
Quote by Odirunn
Structures is fantastic live. Basically any -core stuff I record looks exactly like that screencap of the Structures session. It's not all punch ins, it's mostly chopped and aligned chugs. As the engineer said in the thread he posted that in on Andy Sneap, the whole point is to get the tightest, best sounding product you can on the album in the shortest amount of time. Lots of copy pasting, etc.

That said, before I got into the production side of things, I really had no idea just how far studio magic went. Now I can record a complete cover song for mix practice and have absolutely no idea how to play the song when I'm done. It's pretty super.


Hmm I understand most of this, but what do you mean by copy pasting?
#32
If a part is repeated more than once, get one perfect take of that small section, and copy and paste it as necessary.

I do that a lot, and copy/paste entire chorus' usually. I totally know what Odirunn means too where he can record a whole cover and after being finished not being able to play along with the song haha, that happens to me occasionally.

My recordings usually look like this:


You can see what I mean by copy/pasting
Last edited by androidkaita at Mar 30, 2011,
#33
Quote by androidkaita
If a part is repeated more than once, get one perfect take of that small section, and copy and paste it as necessary.

I do that a lot, and copy/paste entire chorus' usually. I totally know what Odirunn means too where he can record a whole cover and after being finished not being able to play along with the song haha, that happens to me occasionally.


That's what I thought but I was always under the impression that nothing was copy pasted...at least that's how I do it. Feels more real imo because there's always nuances in the playing.
#34
Yeah I mean you could record the chorus or whatever in more than one take for some variation, but typically I don't because if it's played right once then it should sound like that every other time so I'd rather copy/paste it. It also just makes things go faster
#35
Quote by Meelad360
It's all to get a super tight mix haha.
Or they could play tighter?

It seriously looks like they played a chord or two per take.
If someone has to do that for a tight mix then they need to take some bloody guitar lessons lmaooo.

Andrew's screenshot of the Reaper session is a much more normal way multiple clips/ takes should look.
That's totally regular. But having 50345834 on the same track is crazy. I can't imagine doing that.
Quote by androidkaita
Yeah I mean you could record the chorus or whatever in more than one take for some variation, but typically I don't because if it's played right once then it should sound like that every other time so I'd rather copy/paste it. It also just makes things go faster
yeah, if it's played right you aren't going to hear any differences unless the actual part is played different.. so what's the point lol.
#36
My take:

Average pop song = 3.5 mins.
That makes each, say, chorus about... 35 seconds. (for sake of example)

Now, I could spend 3 hours editing every single stupid note of the chorus, or I could spend 35 seconds recording it again.

Sure, sometimes you need to edit, but there does come a point where it is faster and should be better just doing the part again.

CT
Could I get some more talent in the monitors, please?

I know it sounds crazy, but try to learn to inhale your voice. www.thebelcantotechnique.com

Chris is the king of relating music things to other objects in real life.
#37
Quote by axemanchris
I believe Mutt Lange did that long before Albini when Mutt did Def Leppard's Hysteria.

CT


I think you misread me: Steve Albini never needed to use that trick.
#38
Quote by axemanchris
My take:

Average pop song = 3.5 mins.
That makes each, say, chorus about... 35 seconds. (for sake of example)

Now, I could spend 3 hours editing every single stupid note of the chorus, or I could spend 35 seconds recording it again.

Sure, sometimes you need to edit, but there does come a point where it is faster and should be better just doing the part again.

CT


Yeah, that kinda shit is going a little too far. I've opened up a session of a band I used to share a space with and they seriously had hundreds of edits through out the song. They had punched in single notes. You should never have to do that if you can actually play your parts.
#39
Quote by TechnicolorType
Or they could play tighter?

It seriously looks like they played a chord or two per take.
If someone has to do that for a tight mix then they need to take some bloody guitar lessons lmaooo.

Andrew's screenshot of the Reaper session is a much more normal way multiple clips/ takes should look.
That's totally regular. But having 50345834 on the same track is crazy. I can't imagine doing that.
yeah, if it's played right you aren't going to hear any differences unless the actual part is played different.. so what's the point lol.


You should probably read my post - they sometimes come unprepared. Even if they were prepared with tight playing, it'd still need edits to lock it perfectly into the grid.
#40
Quote by Meelad360
You should probably read my post - they sometimes come unprepared.
A band shouldn't be going to a professional studio unprepared.
Last edited by TechnicolorType at Mar 30, 2011,
Page 1 of 2