Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
What have you learned in 2009???
-
18-12-2009 3:51pm#1
Comments
-
I learned an awful lot this year Johnny.
Now that I'm working with Munro I've learned a lot about Acoustics and that studio building is not witchcraft, but science mixed with craft.
I'll be having a Geekmas this year hacking through the total output of Plugins of Waves, URS, Softube, TC, Antares, SPL and Drum-a-gog on my new HD2 system arriving Monday
Here's to learning more next year!0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
PaulBrewer wrote: »Music Information Retrieval , Huh ? Is that like an iPod ?
It's everywhere, in loads of stuff, huge technology, a whole discipline in itself. Basically it's a way to search in audio files and midi files for specific information, it's got loads of uses. Melodyne to i-tunes. Was at a gig the other week with some bird showing us how to look for specific instruments within groups of audiofiles. Like looking for a song with a piano in it from loads of full mixes and loads of other mad ****.
That Dave Slevin fella is a chancer if you ask me... Still owes me money.0 -
-
-
-
I've learnt that internet arguments are very predictable and there's usually a good bit of validity in both sides.
I've learnt that gearslutz is a haven for a bunch of weirdos that make awful music but know their stuff.
I've learnt that some of my favourite producers use some pretty atrocious gear (by anyone's standard), and that everyone has their own way of doing things.
I've learnt that this is a marathon and not a sprint.
I've learnt that long term success comes from gradual increments of success.
I've learnt that it IS possible to not want any more gear.
Sounds like something you'd hear at an AA meeting One day at a time ..... 0 -
Advertisement
-
PaulBrewer wrote: »Sounds like something you'd hear at an AA meeting One day at a time .....
haha indeed.
i am a recovering addict.
now all i have to do is avoid the enablers. those that want to see me failing in my bid to kick the habit. those that tell me that i do need to renew my cables. those that convince me that i do need a power conditioner.
tis a disease i tell you.
actually in 2009 i got rid of more gear than i got. by a long shot. sold amps, guitars, my beloved bass, synthesizers, feck it i would have let my soul go for the right price.
I now own one awful acoustic guitar, my drum kit and that's about it. have no plans to buy anything in the next few months. but i've said that before.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
What I've learned ...
There no such thing as bad gear, only misused gear. Everything has a sound, just might not be the sound you want.
There's a psychology behind doing sound, much bigger then having the right gear and knowing all the techniques.
Just because it's old doesn't mean it's good, just because it's new doesn't mean it's better.
Not just from 2009, but some good ones
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
... sold ... guitars ...
Thanks again
I've learned to start recording. I only just got my most basic of setups working today, and I'm really excited about it.
The marathon-not-sprint and quality-not-quantity tips are good ones. I'm pretty glad I decided to read this thread, only half an hour ago I was thinking, "I NEED LOTS AND LOTS OF CHEAP MICS". I've learned one or two good ones will do.
And, check out the noob here, I've learned that micing is better than DIing :pac:0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Seziertisch wrote: »Yes, it should (to a certain extent). The problem with music is that there are too many artists and not enough hand workers. A hand worker doesn't shy away from crafting and developing the original idea as much as required. An artist (in many cases) declares an idea finished at the moment of conception/inception. Handwork, by definition, implies a certain amount of arduous slog, which is far as I can tell is the difference between great art and indifferent art a lot of the time. A lot of "artists" consider this to be the opposite of "art".
You should pay attention to what other people think. The number of artists who consider themselves misunderstood is far, far greater than the number of artists who are actually misunderstood. This is easily explained by the fact that most of these misunderstood artists are in fact not particularly good artists who have convinced themselves that the world doesn't understand.
Also, I think art is fundamentally a means of communication, and should be made with the purpose of expressing something and engaging with other people. Art for one's own pleasure is well and good but if it fails to connect it is a largely fruitless exercise.
As for treating art as a product, ultimately that is what it needs to be if you have any aspirations of making a living from it. There is a medium to be struck between commercial concerns and artistic principles. Treating it like a product and not like some offshoot of yourself allows you to take the next step. I find that for a lot of musicians the fact that it is their music is more important than the music itself. Ego is the single greatest thing hindrance in terms of people developing as artists; if you think your work is already perfect how do you get better?
Some interesting and valid points there but I'm of the opinion too many people are paying attention to sh1t polishing than just dumping out what they feel at the time of conception and this leads to the mass creation of intro/verse/bridge/chorus <repeat> which the world has been subjected to and willing to accept for over half a century. It's true something can become much better with fundamental changes or even minor attention to detail tweaks but this process feels like work to me and work is work and creating something should not be work it should be joyful. Not enough people treat the creation process as the fruitless but enjoyable excerise it is and that's probably why heading in to the year 2010 there is very little that is different from say a decade ago (I'm not a young fella any more so I await correction ). People strive to achieve success by compromising what might have been something completely new and that kills progression.
The ratio of who those who believe they can make a living out of what passes as sound waves and those that actually have the talent to make a living creating something magical (which as you correctly point out is what connects people) is completely skewed. I enjoy dumping out a collection of noises and capturing this down. Some of these noise collections I would never want to reach the outside world due to their offensive and stupid content. It's a sweeping generalisation but most people involved in creating music are deluded idiots, myself included.
As for future development or improvment this will get worse/better/stay the same (is there a need to try and improve anyway?). Not many of those who I would consider "greats" have developed into better writers over the course of their lives (performance is a something different). The opposite is probably true and ego/success I'm sure is a factor.
You make some good points though. In the context of this thread, 12 months ago I would have thought "naw thats too much" or whatever when writing and that is the thought which I've learned to drop.PaulBrewer wrote: »Post of the year at the 11th Hour !
He's hit some nails squarely on the head alright.0 -
Some interesting and valid points there but I'm of the opinion too many people are paying attention to sh1t polishing than just dumping out what they feel at the time of conception and this leads to the mass creation of intro/verse/bridge/chorus <repeat> which the world has been subjected to and willing to accept for over half a century.
I don't think sh1t has anything to do with intro/verse/bridge/chorus, I think it is just sh1t. In fact in most cases, if people paid a bit more attention to the form they would probably be better off. This formula exists for a reason; it generally makes for more interesting listening. Sure, there is some stuff out there that has just one idea repeated throughout the song and it works well, but for every song like that that works well there are loads more that don't.It's true something can become much better with fundamental changes or even minor attention to detail tweaks but this process feels like work to me and work is work and creating something should not be work it should be joyful.
The Stones did 160 or so takes of Sympathy with the Devil. In this process it changed from a country ballad to what it is now, a timeless classic. There are lesser bands that would have given up after 80 or so takes and said good enough, not the Stones. And bearing in mind most other bands don't have musicians even approaching the level of the Stones individually or as a unit. 160 takes doesn't sound particularly joyful to me, in fact it sounds like work. Whether that work is put in in pre-production or in the rehearsal space or in the studio, it inevitably needs to be put in. Ultimately if if weren't necessary, there would be people churning out classic albums left, right and centre.Not enough people treat the creation process as the fruitless but enjoyable excerise it is and that's probably why heading in to the year 2010 there is very little that is different from say a decade ago (I'm not a young fella any more so I await correction ). People strive to achieve success by compromising what might have been something completely new and that kills progression.
There is a difference between someone doing something for their own amusement and someone being serious about doing it professionally. I would say there are as many people doing it for their own amusement, but with the availability of cheap recording gear, more people believe that they have a shot at the big time because they can make a record "just like the pros" ...The ratio of who those who believe they can make a living out of what passes as sound waves and those that actually have the talent to make a living creating something magical (which as you correctly point out is what connects people) is completely skewed. I enjoy dumping out a collection of noises and capturing this down. Some of these noise collections I would never want to reach the outside world due to their offensive and stupid content. It's a sweeping generalisation but most people involved in creating music are deluded idiots, myself included.
Having talked with a number of people in the business, and from what I've seen myself, I think there are more people out there capable of doing it than are actually doing it. Doing it requires discipline, perseverance and a level of professionalism that is lacking in a lot of cases. There are also an awful lot of musicians that are doing it for reasons other than the music, be it the attention, or getting laid or going on the piss or whatever.As for future development or improvment this will get worse/better/stay the same (is there a need to try and improve anyway?). Not many of those who I would consider "greats" have developed into better writers over the course of their lives (performance is a something different). The opposite is probably true and ego/success I'm sure is a factor.
That's an interesting point. It varies from person to person. Some bands start as good as they are going to get and others progress. Taking, say, Radiohead for example, there was little enough on Pablo Honey to indicate that OK Computer or Kid A were just a few years away. Nobody would listen to the early Beatles or Bowie and think that greatness of the magnitude that was to come would come. Then there is a band like Ash, who for better or worse, started out as good as they ever got. In fact, if it came down to it, almost all that I would consider greats went through a period where they stepped their game up considerably.0 -
Seziertisch wrote: »I don't think sh1t has anything to do with intro/verse/bridge/chorus, I think it is just sh1t. In fact in most cases, if people paid a bit more attention to the form they would probably be better off. This formula exists for a reason; it generally makes for more interesting listening. Sure, there is some stuff out there that has just one idea repeated throughout the song and it works well, but for every song like that that works well there are loads more that don't.
It depends on what you consider more interesting to be I suppose. Personally I find that formula monotonous but there are plenty of exceptions that do adhere to the rules.Seziertisch wrote: »The Stones did 160 or so takes of Sympathy with the Devil. In this process it changed from a country ballad to what it is now, a timeless classic. There are lesser bands that would have given up after 80 or so takes and said good enough, not the Stones. And bearing in mind most other bands don't have musicians even approaching the level of the Stones individually or as a unit. 160 takes doesn't sound particularly joyful to me, in fact it sounds like work. Whether that work is put in in pre-production or in the rehearsal space or in the studio, it inevitably needs to be put in. Ultimately if if weren't necessary, there would be people churning out classic albums left, right and centre.
I wouldn't particularly be a fan of the Beatles/Stones but I can appreciate the great songwriting and individual skill of both (Keith Richard's rhythm in particular). I much prefer to listen to the music that inspired them and jazz of the decade prior to the pop explosion of the 60's. At least the Beatles went out on a limb in a completely different direction and tried to break the mold which I guess totally baffled their record company.Seziertisch wrote: »There is a difference between someone doing something for their own amusement and someone being serious about doing it professionally. I would say there are as many people doing it for their own amusement, but with the availability of cheap recording gear, more people believe that they have a shot at the big time because they can make a record "just like the pros" ...
And this is my problem What is available to people now is incredible compared to a guitar and set of vocal chords which was available to say John Lee Hooker. People consciously wanting to make the big time instead of letting out whatever is in there and we are getting the same stuff churned out to the formula that you eluded too above because they want success.Seziertisch wrote: »Having talked with a number of people in the business, and from what I've seen myself, I think there are more people out there capable of doing it than are actually doing it. Doing it requires discipline, perseverance and a level of professionalism that is lacking in a lot of cases. There are also an awful lot of musicians that are doing it for reasons other than the music, be it the attention, or getting laid or going on the piss or whatever.
I would agree and I do love the exactship of say Andres Segovia who put in thousands of hours practise but it also requires imagination which appears to be lacking and a lot of what comes out falls back on good/loud production.Seziertisch wrote: »That's an interesting point. It varies from person to person. Some bands start as good as they are going to get and others progress. Taking, say, Radiohead for example, there was little enough on Pablo Honey to indicate that OK Computer or Kid A were just a few years away. Nobody would listen to the early Beatles or Bowie and think that greatness of the magnitude that was to come would come. Then there is a band like Ash, who for better or worse, started out as good as they ever got. In fact, if it came down to it, almost all that I would consider greats went through a period where they stepped their game up considerably.
I'm struggling here to think of those that improved over time (10-20 years) and aside from Frank Zappa I'm stumped. Everyone from Kraftwerk to Van Morrison to Elvis (ok he didnt write the songs and I'll skip the movie years) to Metallica and beyond seem to lose what they initially had.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I second that, happy new year to you allI learned that
* it's usually the rich people who will want a discount on an already low rate.
So very true +1
* I will never be able to do what the marketing people say is right, and I learned that sometimes they are wrong..
Not there yet but on the way and well believe it +1
* Dav's posts never leave me cold - he either gets on my nerves, or makes me laugh, and want to buy him a drink.
+1
* being debt free is much more important than another piece of gear (still a long way to go..., and I learned it after having what I wanted anyway..)
Now this is where I want to buy you a drink +1
I could not have said it better myself..
* this forum is pretty cool.
Yes but not as cool as it could be
Happy new year guys
I also believe that music knowledge has nothing to do with the business side of recording and gets too much air time. Who cares who did what when, where and how. We all live in the present, not the past, looking back is a waste of time.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
PaulBrewer wrote: »The purpose of 'looking back' is twofold.
1. It's gives you the opportunity to avoid the mistakes of the past.
2. From learning skills of the past (drum recording for example) you have the opportunity to 'fast track' your own knowledge.
But how much time is wasted on this forum looking back at the old days?
Just because one may 'know' a bands past, present and history, where they went to party and what they used doesn't amount to very much when you all you have is a certain selection of equipment. I am talking about the big and small studios in Ireland, none of these studios will have every piece of equipment best suited for a task.
Technique is the only thing I can think of that matters and just because a technique works one day it doesn't mean it will work all the time so why care about it too much? We can only record what is facilitated by the studio and the band after all.
Knowledge and experience is an advantage I have nothing to argue there but it isn't the be all and the end all. A bands with high energy and cracking tunes and a good young producer could make a great album. Yes it could have been recorded better but it still is a cracking album. Why are we always striving to know more when often who you work with and where comes down to a bit of luck and honesty/sense of connection with the artist (whatever you want to call it) and a nice studio to get the job done.
I know I am 'only a pup' but I still have my opinions on these things. Different opinions is what makes us think about the other side of an arguement after all.
What if the energy between the band and the producer was the real key?0 -
-
Advertisement