Kris Singh wrote: > "...the differences between the "classic albums that were recorded and > mixed on the > > same console" and the Pro-sTools/Auto-Tuned-Lord-Alge/SSL-Marcussen Mastering > > type "loudness above audio" stylings we are subjected to today" > > > Tom Lord-Alge is more a victim of excessive compression then "Loudness > above audio." Didn't say he was... I indicted Marcussen and the followers of the Marcussen "shotgun in the face loudness factor" for 'loudness above audio'... TLA has made himself millions from other shitty practices... so I guess they're good practices and I'm the one who is wrong... or I'd have a Ferrari and a yacht and he'd have a '95 Cherokee 'Sport' w/128k miles... > He does not make records too loud, that falls usually > in the hands of the mastering engineer. I am not the biggest fan of > Lord-Alge's work, but he is great at putting a vocal in your face. It > helps boost the impact of the emotion when the vocal is well > preformed. He, and his brother(s) and his wannabe followers are also the absolute masters of the "small sounding grainy mix" that has become oh so fucking prevalent on modern radio. I was associated with a record where TLA/CLA mixed some of the same songs Jack Joseph Puig mixed... the differences were more than palpable. I was recently associated with a record that was mastered by Howie Weinburg, Steve Marcussen, Dave Collins and Bob Ludwig... all had interesting ideas... and while a couple of them came pretty close, none of them really nailed it... each had a wart, one had the least obtrusive wart and that's who's work will be on the release. > When you have a great singer(attitude-wise), like a Mick > Jagger, it is even better to put the vocal on the listeners lap. That > is the kind of thing he does. If you say so... my mileage has varied... I have just found a lack of depth and intimacy to TLA's work [like he could give a fuck what some asshole pimp thinks]... could be the music/recording before it gets to him, could be the factory methods employed, could be I'm just fucking old and am whining about the "new shit" as my father whined about the Allman Brothers and The Stones... who knows. > > You have d*&kheads on this group that complain, "OHH I saw Cris > Cornell live and he was flat most of the time...." That is why we > have auto-tune and we are forced to use it. No, that may be why you employ it... but I think Jim Morrison proved you can sing out of tune and still sell records. The people who might notice that _____ sang flat, sharp (whatever) in a live setting are pretty few and far between... in fact, some of us who would notice find a certain charm and "humanness" [is that a word?] when vocals are a tad off both on record and in live performance. Then again... someone like Avril Levigne (sp?) has no business making records in the first fucking place... but the technology employed made her a fucking star, didn't it. It could just be a 'varying mileage' thing again... I'm old, I like a little soul in my music... I also like Tabasco in my Margaritas... so what the fuck do I know. > So don't blast what you help make a standard. People > on this group(not all) have criticized pitch so much, they forgot > about emotion. That is why a great performance is forced to be on the > center of the note now to be passable. That is B.S. That is the > newsgroup/world we live in. What *I* helped make a standard? Hello? McFly?... if it were up to me most of the records would sound like a cross between 'Exile On Main St.' and 'London Calling'... raw fucking emotion, that smells like Bourbon and vomit... Autotune when applied by a skilled operator in small quantities can indeed help a track. Morphine applied in small quantities can be a very effective 'pain management' tool. Autotune, like Morphine, has a large propensity for abuse... and just as a novice junkie is far more likely to 'turn blue' than a veteran junkie... too many of the Pro-sTool wielding motherfuckers that plague our cities seem to have a propensity to use the power afforded them by the tools to the point of abuse... much for the same reason a dog licks his balls... because they can [actually a dog licks his balls because he can't make a fist... but that's a debate for another day]. > > > Records today don't sound terrible across the board, and I > would like you to acknowledge that. Acknowledged. However, many records that shouldn't sound like shit, do sound like shit... I would like you to acknowledge that. > I can record something to pro > tools HD in my home studio and I'd bet my last dollar that you would > not know that it wasn't done on tape the old fashion way. I can even > simulate the hiss for you if you like that sort of thing. I'd bet you my last dollar that I don't give a shit if sounds like it was done on tape or not [I'm a RADAR-24 user... haven't touched "tape" in close to 2 years]... I only care if the audio supports the music presentation, or at least gets out of the fucking way of the music presentation. Too many recordings that enter my world sound like "the process" interfered with the presentation... with this, I have a problem. What tools were employed? Who gives a fuck. To paraphrase a wonderful old quote... I ain't never seen no motherfucker walking down the street humming the 'workstation' [substitute console, microphone, mic pre, compressor, etc. to suit your application]. I cringe every time I hear the phrase "well we had ___ editing it in the other room while we were still tracking". Why? Yeah, I've been associated with records that were done on analog where there were hundreds of edits to produce a drum track... and I felt it was a fucking dumbass thing to do then too [I had no problems depositing the checks... just thought the work was fucking stupid and superfluous]. How about getting the lawyers to send a good old "non disclosure agreement" to a gunslinger drummer's office and just hiring that 'gunslinger drummer' to play on the fucking record? It, like 'soul removal editing' is done on a regular basis... however 101 times out of a 100 chances hiring in an amazing drummer sounds and feels better than 'edited to death'... and to top it off... it makes for far less work, and a better overall product. Yeah, I know it's 2/3rds a mortal sin to suggest that records be made in less time for less money... especially when assholes like me work for a "day rate"... let's face it, it's in our best interest to spend many more days working on a product... even if we're sacrificing "greatness" for "perfection" in the process. The lovely new position of 'Pro-sTools operator' has to look like they're worth the money... so they have to "do" things... there are enough "producers" who have no fucking business being anywhere near the recording process that they depend on the "Pro-sTools operators" to make things "perfect" so they look like they're doing their job. It's a viscous fucking circle... and the people that suffer most are usually the artist and the audience while the incompetent producer covers his incompetent ass and the 'Pro-sTools operator' works on moving from Glendale to Silverlake. > > > The difference between "classic albums" is more in the artists and the > moment then the stupid equipment. Absolutely. > The way records sound is like > fashion, they go through changes. When something works for the time, > it works. When people get into something new, the engineers will > follow. Right... the 80's were a great example... and so is the modern Pro-sTools abuse era... tools abused to create current fashion also put a time and date stamp on the music. Truly excellent recordings [where the technology doesn't impede the performance] are timeless. N.W.A.'s "Straight Outta Compton" sounds as fresh today as it did in 1987... "Appetite For Destruction" sounds as 'in your face' today as it did in 1988... "Nevermind" is still compelling 12 years later... 'Addicted to Love' sounds like the poster child for why the 80's sucked [along with the entire Howard Jones catalog]... The Stones "2000 Light Years From Home" blows... but "On Down The Line" is as cool as the day it was released... why? The 'time and date stamp' of the "fashion period" in terms of the "production techniques" is why... the 'music' seems a secondary consideration to the implementation of the current fashion edict. "On Down The Line" seems to have transcended the current fashion of the day, whether that was a conscious decision or an accident will never be known [Jimmy's dead and I didn't think to ask him before he up and died... my bad]... the bottom line is that "On Down The Line" is as compelling today as it was in 1972. > Thus, when a true artist comes in and only worries about > performing, they are not as good for having a loud possibly > over-compressed record??? give me a break dude. Be happy to give you a break if I understood what the fuck you were talking about. When a "true artist" has a production team around them that can actually hear the music above the current 'fashion requirements', and that production team has the fucking balls to make a record that "presents the artist's material" in the most musical manner for that particular artist... then who gives a shit what they did, or how they did it. The audio either enhances or gets out of the way of the performances... it doesn't interfere [if the production team does their job correctly the audio doesn't interfere with the musical presentation... more often than not the "production team" seems to want their 'stamp', or to keep current with modern fashion and the audio interferes with the presentation... bad production team... bad, bad, bad, bad, bad]. > > > Ohh, and the whole statement you made that I am responding to.... > it is a load of crap. The great "classic records" you are loosely > referring to were not at all great due to the gear. The Beatles could > have done Abbey Road on a mackie, and you know what, it would still be > amazing. No argument. > Marvin Gaye could sing "What's Going On?" through a sm57 > into a mackie with spider webs and it would still be great. No argument. For that matter Aretha could sing into an MXL mic through a DMP3 pre into a set of ShitiDesign 888's and even if some asshole motherfucker pulled out the 'global autotune' it would still get your johnson harder than Chinese Algebra... but might it not be better if they left the 'soul' intact? > Same with > many of today's singers. Records are deeper then which buttons they > turned.- > Absolute agreement... with a caveat. Records *should* be deeper than the tools employed. I think we're basically saying the same things here... I just get dismayed with the tools are used for evil instead of good... especially when they're used for evil by an operator that is trying to be 'fashionable'... or worse, is just plain old fucking incompetent... now, you can't argue with me that there are way too many incompetent motherfuckers making records today... if you can argue that, well then I'd be really impressed. -- Fletcher Mercenary Audio TEL: 508-543-0069 FAX: 508-543-9670 http://www.mercenary.com "this is not a problem"