The Difference between a Demo and a Master ..

PaulBrewer

In these days of 'everyone doing it' what separates , in the minds of the esteemed Boardser, a Demo from a Master ?

Is there a line that's crossed (or a set of lines ?) to make a track Master quality ?

Is the norm now for a Demo to be released as a finished product ?

SeanHurley

Definitely the lines are being blurred with the advent of the DIY approach. I think there are a lot of demos being released as finished products (and I am guilty of this myself).

For me the difference between a demo and a master is when I don't have to excuse any part of the record in advance of showing it to a fellow engineer/musician like yourself Paul

I think the days of demoing a song before you record it properly are gone. In my expereince songs are started on mac books and then evolve in bigger studios, some material from the mac book session is often kept on the final master some doesn't. If that makes sense.

DamagedTrax

for me the differance is in the details.

vocal clarity, drum punch when needed, pallette of sounds, arrangement, tasteful use of space etc etc.

Motley Crue

Vocal clarity and of course the size of any converted file....clearer and better sounding acoustics...that would make a difference between demo and master for me

DamagedTrax

Motley Crue wrote: »

of course the size of any converted file

im not sure i get you?

MilanPan!c

PaulBrewer wrote: »

In these days of 'everyone doing it' what separates , in the minds of the esteemed Boardser, a Demo from a Master ?

Is there a line that's crossed (or a set of lines ?) to make a track Master quality ?

Is the norm now for a Demo to be released as a finished product ?

There's nothing I have EVER done (with the new band) that I would sell.

I honestly think you need to have some pros touching it from the get go to make something worth while, or should I say sell-able.


Well... In most cases.

I think there's way to many glorified bedroom producer with songs on iTunes.

IMO OC.

TelePaul

Difference is in the name only.

DamagedTrax

TelePaul wrote: »

Difference is in the name only.

what?

you smokin crack today paul?

a demo and a final mastered product only differ in name?

the worlds gone bonkers today...

dav nagle

Say you get a contract from EMI to produce a record... your budget is 100k and so therefore you can afford 'bells and whistles' which to me regardless of the song quality adds an edge of professionalism and touch of class to the production. This can make or break the difference between a demo and a 'master quality' album production. Albums come with bells and whistles that cost money and demos come with one or two thrown in.


Definition of 'bells and whistles':

A) A creative composer
Live session players
C) A creative producer
D) A mixing engineer
E) A mastering engineer
F) Studio facilities
G) Drive to make the best product possible

So a band who gets a demo mastered will rarely sound like a band with a 100k production. That's the difference. People can make amazing albums in their bedroom too, with better songs, but most people enjoy listening to music at it's best not some half assed demo recorded in the back of their underpants.

MilanPan!c

dav nagle wrote: »

Say you get a contract from EMI to produce a record... your budget is 100k and so therefore you can afford 'bells and whistles' which to me regardless of the song quality adds an edge of professionalism and touch of class to the production. This can make or break the difference between a demo and a 'master quality' album production. Albums come with bells and whistles that cost money and demos come with one or two thrown in.


Definition of 'bells and whistles':

A) A creative composer
Live session players
C) A creative producer
D) A mixing engineer
E) A mastering engineer
F) Studio facilities
G) Drive to make the best product possible

So a band who gets a demo mastered will rarely sound like a band with a 100k production. That's the difference. People can make amazing albums in their bedroom too, with better songs, but most people enjoy listening to music at it's best not some half assed demo recorded in the back of their underpants.

THIS a million times this!

That's the dream man!

Rockshamrover

Is this a trick question Paul? Are you asking about people doing their own mastering and calling that a master?

I can't see that anyone would seriously consider a demo made at home or in a basic studio to be on a par with something done in a properly equipped recording studio. That's assuming the people running the studio know how to use the gear.

TelePaul

DamagedTrax wrote: »

what?

you smokin crack today paul?

a demo and a final mastered product only differ in name?

the worlds gone bonkers today...

As I'm about to tell Brewer in another thread, the sonic discrepancies between various forms of recorded music are so huge that the issue doesn't bear thinking about. Artists are going to release a product that, a) they are happy with, and b) they anticipate the CD-buying public will be happy with to the extent that they'll make a purchase. Whether the latter do or do not is largely inconsequential, as there are are great many hi-fidelity, sonically pristine albums that fail to sell en masse. And after all, what is a demo? Something you recorded on your MacBook and not in Windmill lane? Do you think the average punter can tell whether you slapped a Fairchild on your vocals or went for Kjaerhus Audio's Classic Series Compressor? Can they tell a Waves Platinum verb from an insert from a Marshall Reflector? Do they even have a preference? I'm saying no.

DamagedTrax

i agree. but the point is as engineers and music creators we should strive for the quality and let the public enjoy the listen.

and it is us who decide when the product is ready to be unleashed.. not the public. could you imagine the sonic quality of music if no one went big with their recordings! ughh.. i dont even want to think about it.

i want sonic labrador puppies licking my ears with their pristine velvet tongues :cool:

GTE

Although Im fairly young and not in the game too long for me a master is when I can let go of the mix and say Im proud of it as a whole considering the source materials quality. By that I mean if I was mixing a track from a studio and the drums dont sound quite brilliant Ill spend my time making it sound as good as I can and then once done I can say to myself Ive done as much as I can to this and Im proud to put my name on it.

If it was a track I was recording myself Id be more critical and it would take a much longer time before it becomes a master to me. But then I could be and probably rightly accused of getting too into it.

The definition of demo and master is one I think is important.
For me a demo is a demonstration of a song and what you are aiming for musically. If you have a recorded version of the song with its final arrangement etc. then I dont think its a demo but I cant figure out how close it is to a master just yet.

Thats just what Ive come up with right now in my head but Ive never really given it much thought, something I will do while I wait for my next edition of SOS. Shoop de woop!

MilanPan!c

My ONLY against vote would be a band like Guided By Voices, one of my favorites, whose ART meant both studio and more gurilla recordings, but as a means of self expression.

That being said, they have some songs that are available as studio recordings and lo-fi recordins...

I TEND to prefer the STUDIO versions, but not always.

Magic moments, etc.

There's a song of their's anecdotaly, on which the drummer doesn't come in until half way through the second verse; you think wow, that's a weird, but cool choice, in the context of the song. It turns out, he literally got home from his job and sat down and started playing, as they were recording, and that's the version they released.

Art's a funny thing.

TelePaul

DamagedTrax wrote: »

i agree. but the point is as engineers and music creators we should strive for the quality and let the public enjoy the listen.

i want sonic labrador puppies licking my ears with their pristine velvet tongues :cool:

That's an admirable sentiment, but music production will always be a means to an end. The average punter isn't as fussed about sonic fidelity as you or I - the loudness war has proved that.

MilanPan!c

TelePaul wrote: »

That's an admirable sentiment, but music production will always be a means to an end. The average punter isn't as fussed about sonic fidelity as you or I - the loudness war has proved that.

Welllllllll...

yes and no...

Like I said ages ago, why not TRY to get as wide an audience for your music as possible?

I mean, if it's not meant to alienate and if it's ACTUALLY all about songs, then why wouldn't the majority of people, if they could, choose to get the indie kids AND the classic rock heads AND the hifi crowd?

I know that's not really always possible, but worth a shot....right?

ebaysellerrob

For me 3 things are the big deal breakers when it come to demo vs master
1)vocals-these must be up to a high standard
2)compression-everyone can spot bad compression
3)drums-backbone of the track(drumagog fixes this problem slightly)

TelePaul

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Like I said ages ago, why not TRY to get as wide an audience for your music as possible?

But surely uptake is 99% contingent on the genre? In my experience, the albums bought by Emo kids are not bought by the Classic Rock crew, irrespective of sound quality. I mean I'm sure a few of us here would check out a record if it was deemed by our peers to break ground sonically...but we'd be in the vast minority.

TelePaul

ebaysellerrob wrote: »

1)vocals-these must be up to a high standard

What does that mean though? That they should be in tune? That they should be compressed? How about reverb? Modulation?

ebaysellerrob wrote: »

2)compression-everyone can spot bad compression

Again, what's 'bad' compression? Like Willie Nelson's guitar sound?

MilanPan!c

TelePaul wrote: »

But surely uptake is 99% contingent on the genre? In my experience, the albums bought by Emo kids are not bought by the Classic Rock crew, irrespective of sound quality. I mean I'm sure a few of us here would check out a record if it was deemed by our peers to break ground sonically...but we'd be in the vast minority.

I think we're probably just not communicating very well (prolly my fault).

Let's look at something more mainstream like say, Arcade Fire.

If they didn't have the money to produce their orchestral vision, their audience would've been much diminished.

That being said, lots of indie-kids still bought Funeral and Neon Bible, because they liked the songs, etc.

The big production just ALLOWED them to reach a wider audience.

That's my point.

TelePaul

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I think we're probably just not communicating very well (prolly my fault).

Let's look at something more mainstream like say, Arcade Fire.

If they didn't have the money to produce their orchestral vision, their audience would've been much diminished.

That being said, lots of indie-kids still bought Funeral and Neon Bible, because they liked the songs, etc.

The big production just ALLOWED them to reach a wider audience.

That's my point.

I don't actually know much of their stuff, but at the risk of sounding cynical, are you saying that their success is down to the inclusion of a string section?

MilanPan!c

TelePaul wrote: »

I don't actually know much of their stuff, but at the risk of sounding cynical, are you saying that their success is down to the inclusion of a string section?

Not just that, but their LARGER success is due, IMO to a large degree, to the way the songs are produced.

They think so too, which is why they produced the second one even more grandiosely than the first... and they self produced that afaik.

Here's another example, Bjork.

Take away the production and there's not a HUGE amount left to a LOT of her tunes, but with the production she wins awards, plays to huge audiences and sell a lot of records.

Hell, the inverse is true, when GBV went away from the lofi recordings I stopped buying their records, more or less, because they sounded like a wildly different band.

Production can be more than gloss.

TelePaul

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Not just that, but their LARGER success is due, IMO to a large degree, to the way the songs are produced.

That's interesting. I don't think I could agree with it, but it's interesting.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Here's another example, Bjork.

Take away the production and there's not a HUGE amount left to a LOT of her tunes, but with the production she wins awards, plays to huge audiences and sell a lot of records.

I agree with this - people buy Bjork and Tom Waits albums just to see what sort of crazy crap they'll try next. Tom Waits could sing through a yoghurt carton with a string tied to it and it'd win all manner of 'alternative' awards. But to re-focus this on PB's original question, 'creative' production endeavours don't necessarily cost alot of money (again, Tom Waits springs to mind).

Incidentally, I'm seeing quite the overlap between this thread and our discussion in the 'Guerilla Recording' thread...I think my love of all things amateur is really coming to the fore!

ebaysellerrob

Sorry thought that was clear.Bad compression is over compressing when its not needed /having things pumping or just killing dynamics or having it so the compression adds crap like in a vocal with sibilance or what have you.

As far as vocals go they need to be clear and recorded with the mic that is best for that persons vocal ie 58's are not a vocal mic and on a voice like amy lee they used a d112 I think because every thing else could not handle her voice even though Im sure there was prob a u87 ect in the mic cab.Also a vocalist need to warm up to a point in my experience to get that really good take.I could go on for years but I think you get the idea,To me these are basic recording concepts that alot of people get wrong.

bog master

Having done a fair bit in the late 70's to early 90's, and being quite unfamiliar with new technology, here is my take, which I think still holds.

Demo=generally no producer, band finding their feet musically with new songs, but most important of all Time, because Time = Money/Budget.

A band would book in and have x amount of hours/days to do their demo. And manys the time, their gear, drum kits, guitars, fx etc were not of the highest quality. But you worked with what you had, no days spent getting a drum sound, not looking for a new snare, different cymbals. You did not go out and get a Marshall for the guitar player, a different Bass, look for a real Hammond B3 because the cheap synth sound of the B3 was ****e.

Your job was to capture the basic sound of the band, providing the best sounds you could within budget, again which equals time.

In my opinion, the demo gives a taste of what is to come.

TelePaul

ebaysellerrob wrote: »

Sorry thought that was clear.Bad compression is over compressing when its not needed /having things pumping or just killing dynamics or having it so the compression adds crap like in a vocal with sibilance or what have you.

As far as vocals go they need to be clear and recorded with the mic that is best for that persons vocal ie 58's are not a vocal mic and on a voice like amy lee they used a d112 I think because every thing else could not handle her voice even though Im sure there was prob a u87 ect in the mic cab.Also a vocalist need to warm up to a point in my experience to get that really good take.I could go on for years but I think you get the idea,To me these are basic recording concepts that alot of people get wrong.

See, this is my point. There are so many variables to consider that it's simply not enough to say that a master differs from a demo because it avoids 'bad compression' or it features vocals that are 'of a high standard'. Lots of demos have judiciously applied compression and feature great vocal takes.

Rockshamrover

Telepaul you have a point to a degree. Yes, some very talented people have created great works using the bare minimum of technology for lots of different reasons.

The key thing is though they had talent. A hell of lot more people with no talent have produced crap on basic equipment (me being one of them:D)

I suppose you could look on the stuff we use to make our music as tools.
The better the tool the easier it is to do your job.
But just because you have a hammer it doesn't make you a carpenter (love that:D, I stole it from my mentor)

Confused? That makes two of us.

Carry on.

eviltimeban

Demos often sound like "demos". I've heard some demos of Smashing Pumpkins for example, the tracks that became Siamese Dream, and they are totally different from the finished version. But the ideas are there, it gave them a chance to try things out, sort it first, then head into the studio and work on the sonics.

Fast forward 15 years. With as much software / hardware available for "home" recorders that's around now, its quite possible to create a "master" without setting foot inside a studio. And you don't need Howie Weinberg to do it. Once the performance is perfect, the tunes are good and the sound is up to par, then what more do you need? If you can play your track and then play a "real" album right after, and they sound the same, and you are totally happy with what you are hearing, then you've got a "master".

These days albums are being produced to sound lo-fi; take the new Dead Weather album (Jack White's other other band). The sound of the drums is decidedly "demoish", but it has a life of its own and stands up for what it is. Compare with the new Stone Temple Pilots album (I only use that comparison cos I bought both albums at the same time) and what you've got a is a flat drum sound, too much compression, vocals with no life and overall an album that sounds the same track after track. I know which one I'm going to be listening to more.

Let's get the "White Album" out and listen to that - it does sound like an album of demos (probably because it was recorded that way) but it stands up to repeated listening because it has its own life and sound. Once an album has its own thing, then the argument about whether its a demo or a master should be settled.

TelePaul

eviltimeban wrote: »

Demos often sound like "demos". I've heard some demos of Smashing Pumpkins for example, the tracks that became Siamese Dream, and they are totally different from the finished version. But the ideas are there, it gave them a chance to try things out, sort it first, then head into the studio and work on the sonics.

Fast forward 15 years. With as much software / hardware available for "home" recorders that's around now, its quite possible to create a "master" without setting foot inside a studio. And you don't need Howie Weinberg to do it. Once the performance is perfect, the tunes are good and the sound is up to par, then what more do you need? If you can play your track and then play a "real" album right after, and they sound the same, and you are totally happy with what you are hearing, then you've got a "master".

These days albums are being produced to sound lo-fi; take the new Dead Weather album (Jack White's other other band). The sound of the drums is decidedly "demoish", but it has a life of its own and stands up for what it is. Compare with the new Stone Temple Pilots album (I only use that comparison cos I bought both albums at the same time) and what you've got a is a flat drum sound, too much compression, vocals with no life and overall an album that sounds the same track after track. I know which one I'm going to be listening to more.

Let's get the "White Album" out and listen to that - it does sound like an album of demos (probably because it was recorded that way) but it stands up to repeated listening because it has its own life and sound. Once an album has its own thing, then the argument about whether its a demo or a master should be settled.

+1 on everything you just said.

jill_valentine

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I think we're probably just not communicating very well (prolly my fault).

Let's look at something more mainstream like say, Arcade Fire.

If they didn't have the money to produce their orchestral vision, their audience would've been much diminished.

No Cars Go was a cracking song long before they brought an orchestra onto it.

It's also worth mentioning that they actually recorded much of Funeral in Win & Régine's box apartment in Montréal - quite a bit of the more orchestral flourishes on that album are a matter of smoke and mirrors.

Their operation is considerably more charmingly shambolic than it actually sounds on record. As you say, they had a more grandiose production for Neon Bible and a new live-in studio, but they were still recording themselves and had to improvise quite a bit. They don't have their own isolation booth, for instance - for some songs, when Win Butler records his vocals, he literally does it with a microphone strung out the door to the garden.

Canadians must be very patient neighbours.

MilanPan!c

jill_valentine wrote: »

No Cars Go was a cracking song long before they brought an orchestra onto it.

It's also worth mentioning that they actually recorded much of Funeral in Win & Régine's box apartment in Montréal - quite a bit of the more orchestral flourishes on that album are a matter of smoke and mirrors.

Their operation is considerably more charmingly shambolic than it actually sounds on record. As you say, they had a more grandiose production for Neon Bible and a new live-in studio, but they were still recording themselves and had to improvise quite a bit. They don't have their own isolation booth, for instance - for some songs, when Win Butler records his vocals, he literally does it with a microphone strung out the door to the garden.

Canadians must be very patient neighbours.

I think this underlines my point. They added those production flourishes to make their material more accessible to a wider variety of people.

Well, maybe that's not WHY they did it, but it had that effect.

The sings were there first, then the recordings, an the production during the recording changed it from good indie music to world wide super smash.

TelePaul

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I think this underlines my point. They added those production flourishes to make their material more accessible to a wider variety of people.

Well, maybe that's not WHY they did it, but it had that effect.

The sings were there first, then the recordings, an the production during the recording changed it from good indie music to world wide super smash.

Man, a vocal take on the back porch screams 'demo' to me.

dasdog

A demo is an ugly concept. It's basically fawning and it interrupts and infiltrates your real ideas. Go with what is in your head/heart/soul and that way you are being honest. You may not be rich and famous but at least you'll be content.

MilanPan!c

TelePaul wrote: »

Man, a vocal take on the back porch screams 'demo' to me.

We'lll...

By that same measure drums in a stairway should also scream demo (Led Zeppelin). It's not ALSO a demo when people are choosing to be ceative as opposed to simply not having he resources.

And, when they recorded the strings, etc., they didn't just use a keyboard, but made sure it was real live strings. Recorded in a studio.

A demo would likely just have been a keyboard, if you assume they recorded on a porch because sound quality wasn't an issue.

I honestly think they did it BECAUSE they liked the sound and WANTED it to sound as professional as they could.

Personally, as an artist first, esp one that see money around the corner, but doesn't have much now, I can understand the quandry. I have spent way way way to many hours in a pretty futile attempt to make my demos sonically interesting. I do this for myself, but mostly to show others my songs potential. So they don't have to try and completely imagine what I'm aiming at b

I want to work with a producer (and am) I want passionate engineers and label people, world classs facilities, etc etc, but until I have them I'll have to use all my creativity and patience to do what I can to try and come as close as possible.

So, in my case it'll be a while before I consider what I'm doing, "not a demo".

eoin5

Not that I get stuff mastered too often but to me its just what you want to do with the track, a demo for demoing, a master for releasing.

jtsuited

interesting question but i think it involves two terms which are in reality not that relevant nowadays.

You needed demos before because you had to get someone to give you the money to make a proper record. Obviously not quite the same situation nowadays.

You needed masters because digital files didn't exist so you needed hard copies of the final work to go for pressing for release.

It's all very very very different now, and it is confusing, and the lines aren't so much blurred as just disintegrated (for better or worse unfortunately).

PaulBrewer

TelePaul wrote: »

the average punter

No real Artist makes music for him ...

Aridstarling

First off, I think Jill debunked Milan's theory there. Neon Bible was probably less popular than Funeral despite the added sophistication of the production.

I don't see a difference any more really. Some of my favourite records could be considered demo-y and some are super hi-fi. There is no criteria to be met for me, if the songs are good enough, the songs are good enough.

That said, there are certain things you wouldn't be able to pull off without a budget that would suggest a large production, that Last of the Shadowpuppets album for instance. To sound like that you need money, it wouldn't work in a bedroom environment. Its just about realizing the sound in your head, what you need to do to get there isn't that important.

PaulBrewer

Aridstarling wrote: »

First off, I think Jill debunked Milan's theory there. Neon Bible was probably less popular than Funeral despite the added sophistication of the production.

I don't see a difference any more really. Some of my favourite records could be considered demo-y and some are super hi-fi. There is no criteria to be met for me, if the songs are good enough, the songs are good enough.

That said, there are certain things you wouldn't be able to pull off without a budget that would suggest a large production, that Last of the Shadowpuppets album for instance. To sound like that you need money, it wouldn't work in a bedroom environment. Its just about realizing the sound in your head, what you need to do to get there isn't that important.

Excellent post Arid.

MilanPan!c

Aridstarling wrote: »

First off, I think Jill debunked Milan's theory there. Neon Bible was probably less popular than Funeral despite the added sophistication of the production.

I don't see a difference any more really. Some of my favourite records could be considered demo-y and some are super hi-fi. There is no criteria to be met for me, if the songs are good enough, the songs are good enough.

That said, there are certain things you wouldn't be able to pull off without a budget that would suggest a large production, that Last of the Shadowpuppets album for instance. To sound like that you need money, it wouldn't work in a bedroom environment. Its just about realizing the sound in your head, what you need to do to get there isn't that important.

Hate to burst anyone's bubbles:

Preliminary recordings for Funeral were made during the course of a week in August 2003 at the Hotel2Tango in Montreal, Quebec

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funeral_%28album%29

The Hotel2Tango (sometimes referred to as Thee Mighty Hotel2Tango and abbreviated H2T) is a 24-track analogue recording studio situated in the Mile End district of Montreal, Quebec.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel2Tango

A list of bands that have recorded there:

http://hotel2tango.com/bandlist.html

Which includes:

wolf parade
vic chesnutt
stars
a silver mt. zion
godspeed you! black emperor
british sea power

and of course:
arcade fire

So, pretty definitively NOT recorded in people's bedrooms.

Not saying some stuff wasn't done later in houses, but this is a prime example of what PB was saying, you NEED a proper place to get a BIG sound.

All you need to do is have one listen to this to know it's not "demo" quality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zdNdjF-htY

Aridstarling

Don't worry, I knew that. I happened to have a chat with Ephrim Menuck from Godspeed on that very subject recently. What I meant was the sound of Neon Bible is very much a polished one, where many people would consider the sound of Funeral to be much more lo-fi. It may be a constructed lo-fi sound but it is one all the same. Comparing Tunnels to something like Intervention just highlights the difference.

And indeed many people's favourite Arcade Fire songs, some of mine included, come from before Funeral and they are certainly lo-fi! Brazil for instance, or Vampire, Forest Fire.

MilanPan!c

Aridstarling wrote: »

Don't worry, I knew that. I happened to have a chat with Ephrim Menuck from Godspeed on that very subject recently. What I meant was the sound of Neon Bible is very much a polished one, where many people would consider the sound of Funeral to be much more lo-fi. It may be a constructed lo-fi sound but it is one all the same. Comparing Tunnels to something like Intervention just highlights the difference.

And indeed many people's favourite Arcade Fire songs, some of mine included, come from before Funeral and they are certainly lo-fi! Brazil for instance, or Vampire, Forest Fire.

I LOVE that version of Brazil (great tune to cover)... I had a crappy MP3 player that, for a ridiculous reason, ONLY had that song on it for about 3 months...

It's funny, I don't hear Funeral as being Lo-Fi (in a GBV kinda way), but it does sound like it was done pretty cheaply compared to NB. But, and this is my point, it doesn't sound at ALL like demos... right?

It just sounds like a indie band with a big sound and not a huge budget, that recorded in a decent enough studio and got a lot of help with production. So, I guess that's why I don't think it's a great example.

Can I Ask how in the world you happened to be chatting to Ephrim Menuck? That's pretty cool. Really dig that first record of theirs.

Anyway, I don't think we really disagreed on much in the end...

Here's more what I mean; check out my friend's band, called Joy:

http://www.myspace.com/joysongs

Go to the VERY last tune, stars over Sommerville (I lived in Sommerville, MA for years, for the record). That track is from their first record and it was done with the help of a VERY good local engineer, but also recorded in their rehersal space and mixed in a bedroom.. it was mastered, but... well... have a listen.

Then listen to Untitled 2 from the second record.

Same engineer, but with proper gear in a real studio.

The sound quality couldn't be much more different.

One's a demo, one's a master, but of course, both were actually masters.

Anyway, that sound difference is what I mean... Funeral surely doesn't sound to anyone like a band quickly recording some tunes to demonstrate them, but like a band looking to make definitive versions of tunes.


What am I going on about again?

the_syco

This is my take on it, from a metal perspective...

dav nagle wrote: »

Say you get a contract from EMI to produce a record... your budget is 100k and so therefore you can afford 'bells and whistles' which to me regardless of the song quality adds an edge of professionalism and touch of class to the production.

If you have 100k, you goto the USA, and get your sound produced by a producer over there, so that it'd be fit for radio. Why, you ask? Because for the most part, the stuff that makes it to the major radio stations over there have been produced by certain people over there.

You cannot live off your music here. In the USA, you can, as most of the states are bigger than Ireland, and it's easier to hop on a bus and go from A to B state without needing to go though customs everytime.

But to get known, to fill the venues, you need your tunes played on the stations. To get your tunes on the radio, you need the right connections. To get the connections, you need to have your music recorded correctly.

And this ain't cheap. I've heard of 40k being spent to do this.

In saying that, some people can record the music themselves, some can't. Some see a demo as a gig recorded. Some see it as a final profuct having gone through pro-tools, and maybe cubase.

Aridstarling

MilanPan!c wrote: »

What am I going on about again?

I don't know...;)

As for Mr. Menuck, I intereviewed him for State.ie, it was a lot of fun. You can read the full transcript here if you're interested. Probably the most inspiring conversation I've ever had with someone within the music business.

I'll have a listen to that when I'm in a different environment, supposed to be studying...

MilanPan!c

Aridstarling wrote: »

I don't know...;)

As for Mr. Menuck, I intereviewed him for State.ie, it was a lot of fun. You can read the full transcript here if you're interested. Probably the most inspiring conversation I've ever had with someone within the music business.

I'll have a listen to that when I'm in a different environment, supposed to be studying...

Ahh cool!

Will def check it.

As far as listening to demos goes, it's not a big deal just an example...

...besides wouldn't it be more fun to listen to my band?


Sorry, I had to do it.

jill_valentine

Preliminary recordings were in Hotel2Tango, a fairly pokey little attic studio by all accounts, with time begged and borrowed from Howard Bilerman, over the course of a week. However the recording of that album was a long and messy thing - some of the songs hadn't even been written by then, and they carried on writing and recording for another year and a bit.

A significant chunk of the recording was indeed done in Win and Régine's apartment, with Richard playing producer. Tunnels for definite, which does have a cosier sound to it to be fair, and as far as I know bits of Power Out and a few others. This was, however, still a step up from the EP, which had some recording done in a shed in Maine belonging to somebody's grandparents.

Regarding the string section, part of their string section at the time was Owen Pallett, who did his usual one-man-orchestra magic. In other words, their "string section" for Funeral was largely two or three people trying to sound more numerous than they were.

Recording on your own resources brings it's own obvious limitations, but it shouldn't define the sound you're aiming for. Now, I'm not disputing the fact that a real-deal studio is a powerful resource, and I don't want to play down the value of good production, but I reject the suggestion that a more polished sound is what launched them, or any other band. Nor is it fair to say, IMHO, that they were trying to get a bigger sound just to reach more people. They just don't think that being an independant band should mean that you have to sound like you did it on the cheap - if you can do better, do.

That said, I really kind of hate the production on Neon Bible. The funny thing is, when Win re-recorded a smaller, sweeter version of part of Wake Up for Spike Jonze a while ago, everybody wanted that all of a sudden.

MilanPan!c

jill_valentine wrote: »

Preliminary recordings were in Hotel2Tango, a fairly pokey little attic studio by all accounts, with time begged and borrowed from Howard Bilerman, over the course of a week. However the recording of that album was a long and messy thing - some of the songs hadn't even been written by then, and they carried on writing and recording for another year and a bit.

A significant chunk of the recording was indeed done in Win and Régine's apartment, with Richard playing producer. Tunnels for definite, which does have a cosier sound to it to be fair, and as far as I know bits of Power Out and a few others. This was, however, still a step up from the EP, which had some recording done in a shed in Maine belonging to somebody's grandparents.

Regarding the string section, part of their string section at the time was Owen Pallett, who did his usual one-man-orchestra magic. In other words, their "string section" for Funeral was largely two or three people trying to sound more numerous than they were.

Recording on your own resources brings it's own obvious limitations, but it shouldn't define the sound you're aiming for. Now, I'm not disputing the fact that a real-deal studio is a powerful resource, and I don't want to play down the value of good production, but I reject the suggestion that a more polished sound is what launched them, or any other band. Nor is it fair to say, IMHO, that they were trying to get a bigger sound just to reach more people. They just don't think that being an independant band should mean that you have to sound like you did it on the cheap - if you can do better, do.

That said, I really kind of hate the production on Neon Bible. The funny thing is, when Win re-recorded a smaller, sweeter version of part of Wake Up for Spike Jonze a while ago, everybody wanted that all of a sudden.

I think that's all cool, but I would say that in the interview with the god speed guy who co-own and runs the studio he called it a proper studio. IT's also a 24-track analogue studio, which ain't rinky-dink plus look at who's recorded there... also some big (indie) names.

I know exactly what you're saying, but I'm still of the (fact based) opinion that the reason that record doesn't sound like it was recorded in houses was because the meat of it wasn't.

I also prefer, btw, Funeral, but because of the songs, not the sounds.

TelePaul

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I think that's all cool, but I would say that in the interview with the god speed guy who co-own and runs the studio he called it a proper studio. IT's also a 24-track analogue studio, which ain't rinky-dink plus look at who's recorded there... also some big (indie) names.

I know exactly what you're saying, but I'm still of the (fact based) opinion that the reason that record doesn't sound like it was recorded in houses was because the meat of it wasn't.

Stop scaring away the only girl to ever venture into the Music production forum!

MilanPan!c wrote: »

I also prefer, btw, Funeral, but because of the songs, not the sounds.

And thus, the Master vs Demo debate has drawn to a close.

MilanPan!c

TelePaul wrote: »

Stop scaring away the only girl to ever venture into the Music production forum!

d'oh!

My bad!