Guerilla Recording in SOS

TelePaul

Anybody read the article? thought it was pretty good. The premise was that you can get a workable sound under imperfect conditions. Anyone else have a read?

DamagedTrax

just about to sit down to it today... i love new sos day

MilanPan!c

TelePaul wrote: »

Anybody read the article? thought it was pretty good. The premise was that you can get a workable sound under imperfect conditions. Anyone else have a read?

Can't imagine that will sit well... Must grab it...

how are they, or you, defining workable?

nialldoran

i was guna pick it up but i didnt bother because literally two days beforehand i read this http://www.amazon.com/Guerrilla-Home-Recording-Studio-Matter/dp/0879308346

basically the SOS article but in so much more depth, suits me down to the ground as i work in imperfect conditions

old gregg

nialldoran wrote: »

i was guna pick it up but i didnt bother because literally two days beforehand i read this http://www.amazon.com/Guerrilla-Home-Recording-Studio-Matter/dp/0879308346

basically the SOS article but in so much more depth, suits me down to the ground as i work in imperfect conditions

I've borrowed this book from my local library on 3 occasions over the last few years. Quite enjoyed it as a read. I'd still prefer Stav's book as an all rounder.

TelePaul

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Can't imagine that will sit well... Must grab it...

how are they, or you, defining workable?

Yeah, I was surprised to see it tbh. I'm used to reading SOS's reviews of vintage outboard gear but this guys set-up was positively lo-fi. I suppose they're defining workable as below high-end commercial quality but a decent 'live' sound - simultaneous tracking with minimal overdubs and very few of the luxuries you'd normally associate with a studio (a treated room was very much conspicuous by it's absence with the recording done in a primary-school classroom!).

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a 'warts and all' approach to tracking - the fact that the engineer had seen the band play live and knew their approach was mentioned several times - but it did place a great deal of emphasis on the need to compromise between quality and convenience. There were also a few problems that came to the fore mid-session (bass D.I quit, electric guitar clipped :eek:) which seemed a little on the amateur-side, even for this ad-hoc approach. But it all contributed to an entertaining article.

Checking SOS for the finished mixes, there was no mention of them in the mag....

PaulBrewer

TelePaul wrote: »

Anybody read the article? thought it was pretty good. The premise was that you can get a workable sound under imperfect conditions. Anyone else have a read?

Is 'workable' another word for 'mediocre' ?

TelePaul

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Is 'workable' another word for 'mediocre' ?

Define 'mediocre'?

(we may be going in circles here, though the disparities in the sonic quality of music has never been more apparent. I blame Emos)

MilanPan!c

TelePaul wrote: »

Define 'mediocre'?

(we may be going in circles here, though the disparities in the sonic quality of music has never been more apparent. I blame Emos)

???????

ZV Yoda

MilanPan!c wrote: »

???????

Post of the day... LMFAO!

judas101

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Is 'workable' another word for 'mediocre' ?

I'm sick of the attitude that only the highest quality achevable is good enough for your ears.

I love rough and ragged recordings. I love listening to bootleg recording and rough recordings.

The following are examples of great tunes, recorded quickly, without fancy gear, room treatments and fussing around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrMmr1oMPGA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN9x6zckn18

Of course I appreciate good quality recordings, and strive to get the best sound I can.

The 'pro engineer' brigade piss me off with their views on non-high budget recording.

MilanPan!c

judas101 wrote: »

I'm sick of the attitude that only the highest quality achevable is good enough for your ears.

I love rough and ragged recordings. I love listening to bootleg recording and rough recordings.

The following are examples of great tunes, recorded quickly, without fancy gear, room treatments and fussing around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrMmr1oMPGA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN9x6zckn18

Of course I appreciate good quality recordings, and strive to get the best sound I can.

The 'pro engineer' brigade piss me off with their views on non-high budget recording.

Good man! I was just referencing GBV on the Demo v Master thread.

Can we merge them?

MilanPan!c

ZV Yoda wrote: »

Post of the day... LMFAO!

Thank you very much. Now where's my cash prize so I can book Windmill for a guerilla master.

TelePaul

judas101 wrote: »

I'm sick of the attitude that only the highest quality achevable is good enough for your ears.

I love rough and ragged recordings. I love listening to bootleg recording and rough recordings.

The following are examples of great tunes, recorded quickly, without fancy gear, room treatments and fussing around.

While I'm in full agreement, I don't want to propagate another 'us and them' scenario here. I don't know if you were targeting Brewer personally but I think that'd be unduly harsh.

Here's the thing; I could pick a dozen albums off my shelf and with the sonic discrepancies therein, you'd be hard pushed to reach any consensus as to the overall importance of sound quality. More importantly, if I were to rank this random sample in terms of sound quality and again in terms of the enjoyment derived from listening to them, you'd have two very different lists. Sound engineering is simply a means to an end, and as musical taste is utterly subjective, so is the perception of a quality production.

MilanPan!c

TelePaul wrote: »

While I'm in full agreement, I don't want to propagate another 'us and them' scenario here. I don't know if you were targeting Brewer personally but I think that'd be unduly harsh.

Here's the thing; I could pick a dozen albums off my shelf and with the sonic discrepancies therein, you'd be hard pushed to reach any consensus as to the overall importance of sound quality. More importantly, if I were to rank this random sample in terms of sound quality and again in terms of the enjoyment derived from listening to them, you'd have two very different lists. Sound engineering is simply a means to an end, and as musical taste is utterly subjective, so is the perception of a quality production.

Absolutely!

It's about the art.

But it's also about PRODUCT and also about resources.

TelePaul

MilanPan!c wrote: »

But it's also about PRODUCT and also about resources.

In so far as any commercial endeavour is; if you're not a commercial artist and have no label to please, you could release what you want, when you want, because it wouldn't matter a damn if people bought your stuff. I'm not sure what this proves though, if anything...we could take this idea a little further and rationalise that music, like any other product or service, exists because the market requires that it exist. If we apply this product/resources logic, then there'd be no need for Fiat Puntos because we'd all be driving BMWs. Of course, that's not how things work in reality.

MilanPan!c

TelePaul wrote: »

In so far as any commercial endeavour is; if you're not a commercial artist and have no label to please, you could release what you want, when you want, because it wouldn't matter a damn if people bought your stuff. I'm not sure what this proves though, if anything...we could take this idea a little further and rationalise that music, like any other product or service, exists because the market requires that it exist. If we apply this product/resources logic, then there'd be no need for Fiat Puntos because we'd all be driving BMWs. Of course, that's not how things work in reality.

You had me up to the Beemers thing.

Markets DO need products... it's one reason I tell musicians not to completely despair over finding help (i.e. distro/label); these people need **** to sell.

But there's no logical follow on that markets are monolithic and there's no room for products for the rich AND the poor.

I totally agree that, if you have no commercial intent than who cares, on the abstract level, what quality means? Not me.

But the market does dictate (not always rationally) what is "good".

Now, art pushes against that and so does culture, but that's not to say the standards don't exist.

TelePaul

MilanPan!c wrote: »

But there's no logical follow on that markets are monolithic and there's no room for products for the rich AND the poor

I'm confused, I thought that was my point!

MilanPan!c wrote: »

But the market does dictate (not always rationally) what is "good".

Now, art pushes against that and so does culture, but that's not to say the standards don't exist.

I think standards are transitory at best. Take the 80's for example; we laugh at it now but in terms of audio quality, as a decade it's hard to beat.

judas101

TelePaul wrote: »

While I'm in full agreement, I don't want to propagate another 'us and them' scenario here. I don't know if you were targeting Brewer personally but I think that'd be unduly harsh.

Well I'm not singling any one particular person out but rather the syndicate here whose job it is to sell expensive equipment/recording time to people.


There was a thread here in the past few days where a guy was looking for advice which degraded into a number of the 'pros' on here pitching their studios.

PaulBrewer

judas101 wrote: »

I'm sick of the attitude that only the highest quality achevable is good enough for your ears.

I love rough and ragged recordings. I love listening to bootleg recording and rough recordings.

The following are examples of great tunes, recorded quickly, without fancy gear, room treatments and fussing around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrMmr1oMPGA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN9x6zckn18

Of course I appreciate good quality recordings, and strive to get the best sound I can.

The 'pro engineer' brigade piss me off with their views on non-high budget recording.

I asked a question - I didn't make a proclamation

judas101

Do you think those songs would be more listenable if they were recorded and polished through a pile of expensive equipment?

PaulBrewer

Couldn't honestly say.

MilanPan!c

Well, I can address part of this.

GBV DID record in studios as you know.

They CHOSE, in many instances, to intentionally degrade their sound, as part of their art.

In other instances they chose to not degrade their sound (the last third of their career) and some of their fans love those recordin best (not me though).

Finally, some if the tunes, including My Valuable Hunting Knife one if my favorite singles of their's) were re-recorded in a studio with astonishing results IMO.

They showed people that good didn't necessarily = pristine, but also that good production = wider mainstream appeal, which they certainly had with their later studio sounding records.

One of my very favorite bands, but a complete red herring in this discussion.

judas101

Thats possible but you see what I'm getting at.

MilanPan!c

judas101 wrote: »

Thats possible but you see what I'm getting at.

I do, I really honestly do, but I also think that the vast vast majority of musicians would prefer to make awesome and huge sounding recordings, if for no other reason than that's what the artists they listen to sound like.

Other things have huge value, no doubt, but most musicians I've worked with or talked to about recording believe in the value of a big studio sound.

PaulBrewer

http://www.fromthebasement.tv/

judas101

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I do, I really honestly do, but I also think that the vast vast majority of musicians would prefer to make awesome and huge sounding recordings, if for no other reason than that's what the artists they listen to sound like.

Other things have huge value, no doubt, but most musicians I've worked with or talked to about recording believe in the value of a big studio sound.

Totally agree but that's not to say the idea of simple recordings and recording in non-traditional environments should be written off which is the opinion of many on this forum I find.

MilanPan!c

judas101 wrote: »

Totally agree but that's not to say the idea of simple recordings and recording in non-traditional environments should be written off which is the opinion of many on this forum I find.

Nothing should be written off if you achieve the desired results....