Recording Methods...Old School or New?

[Rick Robins]

I would say I am a bit of a purist & a student of recording methods. I have spent some time in historic music studios & found the simple, crude methods used to record such classic materials that have lasted for generations very enlightening. So many genres of recorded music done in one take with a single mic & a single track right up to the use of multi tracks limited to two, four or eight. If you watch VH1C’s “Classic Albums”, you may know what I am talking about. For the most part what you hear is very close to what you would have heard being present at the performance. It was very hard to disguise or hide the actual performers inability’s.

Over the past two years or so I have worked on & off again in a software based (Pro Tools) studio. I think it is pretty neat but the end product can be very deceiving. I think even more so than methods used 10 to 20 years ago.. To the point that a group of players that can’t play or even a singer that can’t sing could be made to sound like they could. You don’t have to work at much of nothing. My other gripes would be the lack of originality regarding the sound of the final product, the fact the pure magic of the mistake or being just by chance is gone & the environment factor is missing. If you choose nothing has to be real, it’s all simulated, wrapped up nice & neat……. just push enter.

I would like to hear what others think about this. A broad subject with many factors. All input is welcome.

[T-Bird]

Hi.

Welcome to TalkBass Rick.

An interesting question.

The multi track layering vs. one/two track single take debate has been around since the advent of multi track recording AFAIK.

IIRC Les Paul was accused of commiting a fraud when he made his early multi track overdubs/layerings.

Personally I still think that the music comes first. The method or technique of capturing it into a distributable form is just that, a means to make it immortal so to speak.

IMLE a single-take don't guarantee magic no more than overdubs would guarantee a failure. Even though examples of both do exist in vast numbers .

One thing that dictates a lot is the standards people are used to. Tighter stereo images, lower noise floor, greater dynamics etc. A single-take material may sound inferior against that, and is therefore more difficult to sell.

Regards
Sam

[DeluxeRed]

While I don't disagree with some of your comments about the results, I don't think you can blame the technology. First, a lot of crappy, and crappy sounding, music was made using "golden age" technology, and secondly, that technology is still available and the new stuff still sounds like...we'll let's just say like the new stuff.

If the music is plastic and hollow, it's because the people making it are plastic and hollow themselves.

And there's still a lot of good, and good sounding, music being made, some digital and some not. It's just harder to find in all of the noise.

Personally, I don't miss tape at all. I'm not a big fan of vinyl, either, and never was. You can put "soul" down on disc. You just have to have it to start with.

[thumpbass1]

I say use both analog and digital as you see fit in the creative process of recording. That's my 2 cents.
My only other wish in this era of glut of awfulness and mediocrity, in the world of independent digitally driven recording and
music production, would be for more 'would be artists', and producers, to take the time to actually learn the fundamentals of both
recording and how to master their tracks. There should also be classes for how not to abuse the e.q., and especially
the compression process. As far as the artists themselves having creativity and talent, let alone the subject of song craft itself, those
are other issues entirely. I do know that even with all of the digital tricks available these days to polish the proverbial turd, these alone
can't cover up for a lack of talent and just plain mediocrity.