About Making Music.

[hypehat]

I was thinking about that, Luther and Grillo. I would certainly like to try it, learning the craft of 4 track recording appeals to the Wilson in me and i like me some analogue warmth, but am hardly the most skilled recording artist even with the supposed 'lazy' digital option i'm using right now. And i certainly do not agree with your view re: digital recordings, grillo. Still weighing up whether i would actually use the thing for anything other than the intial geek/nostalgia factor.....

Would my money be better used saving for some passable equipment like an external soundcard and some better mics, for instance?


And as for Neil, i'm pretty much the same. I've listened to Everybody Knows... and Harvest lots of times trying to 'get' him, but i find myself remembering not much more than 'hmm, nice solo' the next day. But then, i've gone off Bob Dylan in a very big way recently, so maybe i'm going off the 'serious' songwritery type.

[the captain]

Would my money be better used saving for some passable equipment like an external soundcard and some better mics, for instance?

That's the part I don't think anyone can help you answer.

[grillo]

I was thinking about that, Luther and Grillo. I would certainly like to try it, learning the craft of 4 track recording appeals to the Wilson in me and i like me some analogue warmth, but am hardly the most skilled recording artist even with the supposed 'lazy' digital option i'm using right now. And i certainly do not agree with your view re: digital recordings, grillo. Still weighing up whether i would actually use the thing for anything other than the intial geek/nostalgia factor.....

Would my money be better used saving for some passable equipment like an external soundcard and some better mics, for instance?


 

You should take Luther up on his offer of his Tascam as they do make the best cassette 4-tracks!
Sorry to sound snobby about this Luther, but for me recording is an art, and like any art (including songwriting) it takes time, talent and desire to be good' at it, assuming that you want to be good at it. Of course if you just want to get your ideas down and move along to the next thing then yes, a computer would likely be easier, though less transportable (maybe?), so I guess it depends what you are trying to get out of the whole thing.
Hypehat, all you really need for a Mic is an sm57, especially if you are just getting started and you are recording one track at a time.
As for Neil Young, I too once couldn't stand him at all. Then somehow one day I was over at my buddy's house around the time of Harvest Moon and I think we were listening to On The Beach and it just clicked. Since then I've seen him more than just about any other artist except maybe the Flaming Lips (another analog band). Also, you might want to try reading his biography 'Shakey'. I found that to be a really eye-opening read.

[Chris Brown]

I'm with Luther on the digital recording front.  Although I do tend to prefer the overall sound of analog to the sometimes harsh sound of digital, I can't reasonably work with my 4 track Tascam and produce anything even remotely close to what I would consider an acceptable sound.  Being a "one-man-band" (like many of us here probably are), I need as many tracks as I can get.  Working with only four tracks (digital or analog), I would have to bounce tracks several times over, which would result in an awful sound if using analog, no matter how skilled I am.  Plus, using digital technology, I can manipluate the sounds in so many ways later on using a computer editing program.  I'm a bit of a perfectionist to begin with, so there's no way I could live with the relatively sloppy sound that analog recording would give me.   

Like hypehat, I'm only moderately competent at recording to begin with, even in the digital world.  My only goal is to make the best possible recordings I can using the technology that is available to me.  If I had the time to sit around and experiment with analog, with other players/singers to alleviate the number of tracks issue, I would, but I don't.  I don't consider it "lazy" at all to use the digital tools that are available to us in 2010 - most of us just want our recordings to sound as good as possible, and in many cases, the limitations of analog just don't allow that.  You can't fault people for not wanting to spend the significant amount of time required to master analog recording, especially since there are real limitations that would hinder even the most eager student.

I'm not big on Neil Young either, but to propose a relevant hypothetical: if the technology that we have today had been available during Brian Wilson's heyday, you can bet your ass he would have taken full advantage of it.

[matt-zeus]

I like (70s) Neil Young and Digital Recording and Belle and Sebastian (later stuff only).

I would say that for me the 'luxury' of going into a studio with all old analogue stuff is one that isn't likely to rear its head anytime soon so recording on my Mac (using Logic Audio) gives me a chance to do what I want.
I have recorded in studios before with tape (earlier in the decade before the digital stuff was everywhere) and spooling up the half inch tape everytime was a pain in the ass, as was having to reset the faders everytime I wanted to mix so on a practical level the computer recording wins hands down.

What really matters though to me is the song and then the arrangement, the performance and the production and as long as thats good then the recording equipment shouldn't be an issue.
I think sometimes artists use the recording equipment/studio/instruments as a bit of a crutch or a distraction from the actual material, like when McCartney used Bill Blacks original upright bass or whatever it was on 'Free as a bird' (I think), to me he could have used a bass found in a dustbin, all this icing is irrelevant if the song is a duffer. Or when Lou Reed talks about the type of amps he uses on a new album or Neil Young moaning on about CDs, I just think "Stop straying from the issue and just write some good songs".

As said by Chris above i'm pretty sure if Brian had had a computer back in the day then SMiLE would have been a bit of an easier finish (I dread even bringing SMiLE up!), but on the other side of the argument there is the thought that the limitations helped to inform the sound of Pet Sounds/Revolver/Sgt Peppers/Classic album xxxx etc... Though realistically i'm sure if the digital (and quicker) option had been there it would have been used; especially with people like Lennon and Brian who could be impatient on getting their results.

[the captain]

Sorry to sound snobby about this Luther, but for me recording is an art, and like any art (including songwriting) it takes time, talent and desire to be good' at it, assuming that you want to be good at it. Of course if you just want to get your ideas down and move along to the next thing then yes, a computer would likely be easier, though less transportable (maybe?), so I guess it depends what you are trying to get out of the whole thing.

I'd agree that recording is an art (and a craft, which is more what you're talking about when you get much into the technical aspects, for which I have really very little interest). But recording is just a part of music-making, which is for me the far more interesting art (and craft). So under the music-making umbrella, my interest is without question on songwriting. After that, I'm most interested in singing. After that, guitar and piano. After that, maybe recording. And so on. Where I think you go wrong is assuming that "being good" means one single thing. It doesn't, even within just the recording aspect of music-making. It's not any different than there being no single "good" songwriting, guitar-playing, or singing. In each, there are many standards and widely practiced techniques, but there are also schools of thought and unique individuals. Now you'll have to pardon me for sounding snobby, but assuming your good is the good is somewhere between immature and foolish. Please don't be offended there or take it as a personal attack because I want this thread to go on with everyone interested saying whatever s/he wants about anything music-making related, but that is how I'd take that particular sentiment.

[grillo]

Luther
I meant to put good in quotes, in fact you can see I halfway did that. I take no offense, after all, we are on a message board where things can seem much meaner than intended without the visual and verbal cues you get from a face to face conversation.
I agree that being good is subjective, but most humans seriously interested in music can hear that (for example) an MP3 sucks compared to vinyl. I also agree that Writing music is way more of an art than recording because, as I said in a previous post, at some point the song writes itself, as if pulled from the ether, and that is a near magical experience when it happens. If I knew how to post songs online I would so you guys could hear that cassette 4-track can be every bit as good (I'd argue better) than a digital medium. Any hints?

[the captain]

Can I disagree again!? (Of course!) I believe songwriting objectively or inherently more important an art than recording. I just know I prefer it. (There are people who would probably rather make a perfect recording of [insert whatever sound here], for whom the pure technique of it all, the engineering, the gear, etc., are really the thing. As for knowing how to post songs, if you've got digital copies, you can upload for free to sites like sendspace.com, then post the links to those. Or of course you can become a member at any of the various websites where you can upload and share your music (myspace is an obvious one, but there are a lot I've seen on this forum). Granted, if you've got digital files, then your point is at least partially lost anyway, because you've left the analog realm.

[the captain]

Oh, and I've been watching all sorts of philosophy v religion debates lately, so to be honest, I'm even more argumentative than usual...in case you hadn't all noticed. Never take offense at me. I'm harmless.

[grillo]

Can I disagree again!? (Of course!) I believe songwriting objectively or inherently more important an art than recording. I just know I prefer it. (There are people who would probably rather make a perfect recording of [insert whatever sound here], for whom the pure technique of it all, the engineering, the gear, etc., are really the thing. As for knowing how to post songs, if you've got digital copies, you can upload for free to sites like sendspace.com, then post the links to those. Or of course you can become a member at any of the various websites where you can upload and share your music (myspace is an obvious one, but there are a lot I've seen on this forum). Granted, if you've got digital files, then your point is at least partially lost anyway, because you've left the analog realm.

I don't think you are disagreeing with me, as I too believe writing to be the real art, just like I said. Also, I'm not at all interested in the perfect recording, only the perfect feel, and for me that cannot be achieved using the digital medium. Yer right about the digital upload thing, still the relative quality will still be apparent. Thanks for the tip.

[the captain]

I don't think you are disagreeing with me

Damnit. If I just say "I disagree" here, can we pretend? 

[variable2]

I will say that this performance of this song is what single-handedly got me into Neil Young.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU9_Q7PJuNQ

[Mr. Cohen]

In my limited attempts to make songs, I find the recording process to be the most interesting part. Of course, there is something undeniably awesome about having some great sheet music that people will be able to replicate for centuries, but the recording process allows you to dream up truly magical sounds. Truly, you can create these intricate 'soundscapes' that are like worlds unto themselves, a snapshot of an inner mental or spiritual world. The studio allows you to extend the sound palette of your instruments. I don't know about you, but I want to exploit that. I've always been a fan of good producers that make ample use of reverb and echo, from Phil Spector and Brian Wilson in the 60s' to Kevin Shields of My Bloody Valentine in the 90s.

As of late, I've been interested in recreating the sound of recordings like Spector's "To Know Him Is to Love Him", as it more suites my equipment and ability more so than his later productions. For example, I've learned that a lot of Spector's harmonies (on later Wall of Sound recordings) are in fact just choirs reinforcing the natural harmonies suggested by the massive amounts of reverb, a sort of phantom harmony that Spector just reinforces. I don't think one could have really thought up some of those harmonies without the aid of modern recording devices, which capture the reverb for further analyzing.

A similar discovery I had centered around Nirvana's music. A lot of the songs are just power chords, as we all know, and if you were to literally translate the music to a piano, it would sound like it was out of the 13th century in terms of complexity. When most people cover Nirvana on a piano, they play triads instead, 3 note chords, and add in some stylish ways of playing to make the pieces more interesting. While these covers are good, they still lack something. Cobain was big on getting the right equipment and the right kind of distortion, and for a reason. The distortion and all of the feedback creates the illusion, at times, of more complex chords, so that a C minor 5 might sound like a C minor add 9. An accurate piano cover would have to account for such things, but that would be almost impossible.

Basically, the point of all of this is that I'm very interested in finding ways to capture the sounds that the world creates for me when I play. I prefer the chords and harmonies that natural world seems to want to suggest as opposed to what I can create, and I want to use those whenever I can.

[Fall Breaks]

Dada, I wish I was able to create those "snapshots of inner mental or spiritual worlds"! The recording process, to me, is often a disappointment, though. I can hear in my head how I want the song to sound, but I can almost never replicate that sound outside of my brain, but I guess that's something that comes with practice, practice and practice...

Interesting points on Nirvana, I must say.

[hypehat]

Buying a piano for £1 off ebay because the seller happens to live in the same area of London as me - good idea, or great idea?

I'm dangerous when bored 

[the captain]

brilliant idea.

[Mr. Cohen]

Dada, I wish I was able to create those "snapshots of inner mental or spiritual worlds"! The recording process, to me, is often a disappointment, though. I can hear in my head how I want the song to sound, but I can almost never replicate that sound outside of my brain, but I guess that's something that comes with practice, practice and practice...

It's not about hearing a completed song in my head. It's more that you get a specific emotion or thought and it colors the way you play (the rhythms, effects, and whatnot) and the melodies you come up with. Put together, it creates a world, in sound, out of what you were feeling. An example of this, for me, would be "Caroline No". I had a revelation about that song when I heard the stereo remix. All of the instrumental parts have their own feelings. Some parts might sound uplifting, some might some wistful, some might sound spiritual, some might sound downbeat, but it all goes together, and when its put together you have an accurate snapshot of Brian's inner emotional world. Never could it be expressed more clearly. The music is like a painting of his emotions. That's what I want out of my own music, to be able to understand myself through it and to share that understanding with other people.

[the captain]

Pretty thoughts.

[the captain]

Nearly through watching this lengthy (more than an hour and a half) lecture from musicologist Richard Taruskin. While it's not necessarily about creating music, there are some really interesting points here, especially (to me) the idea that artists have confused or equated "transgression with progression." (This point is introduced in the 50 minute range and revisited about half an hour later.) If you've got the patience, I recommend this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uxIZgVHjdk

[Fall Breaks]

Dada, I wish I was able to create those "snapshots of inner mental or spiritual worlds"! The recording process, to me, is often a disappointment, though. I can hear in my head how I want the song to sound, but I can almost never replicate that sound outside of my brain, but I guess that's something that comes with practice, practice and practice...

It's not about hearing a completed song in my head. It's more that you get a specific emotion or thought and it colors the way you play (the rhythms, effects, and whatnot) and the melodies you come up with. Put together, it creates a world, in sound, out of what you were feeling. An example of this, for me, would be "Caroline No". I had a revelation about that song when I heard the stereo remix. All of the instrumental parts have their own feelings. Some parts might sound uplifting, some might some wistful, some might sound spiritual, some might sound downbeat, but it all goes together, and when its put together you have an accurate snapshot of Brian's inner emotional world. Never could it be expressed more clearly. The music is like a painting of his emotions. That's what I want out of my own music, to be able to understand myself through it and to share that understanding with other people.

Well there's a new way to look at it all. Music as a form of psychodynamic therapy. Had it not been in the middle of the night I would have headed straight to the music room to fiddle about with the instruments...

So Dada, when you record, would you say that your songs develop as you record them? When I get to recording a song I already have much of the arrangement figured out, which is probably why I get disappointed at the outcome when it doesn't sound like it "should". I'll try the "emotion colouring" approach next time. 

[Mr. Cohen]

Well, I usually start out with a basic idea, which I may or may not record. Then, as time goes by (it could be hours, days, or weeks), after that initial take, I get different arrangement ideas or ideas for different parts or chord changes in my head, which I then add to it. Although I hear the parts in my head, I don't mind if it turns into something different when I sit down at the keyboard. Basically, I experiment until I feel emotionally satisfied with the parts. I want the parts to fit to emotions, not to specific musical ideas. In other words, I let my emotions drive the melodies. Of course, it all has to go together in the end. If a piece is in the key of C, for example, of course I will work within that framework to express myself. If the parts express the emotions I wanted to communicate, then I feel like I have created a snapshot of my inner spiritual world, as I said earlier. It's important to let go of control and allow the music to create itself. At its best, music is a subconscious process.

I'm not sure if that all makes sense. It's difficult to talk about this abstractly.

[the captain]

At its best, music is a subconscious process.

I understand this. But I also want to offer my different position. For me, that isn't really true. It begins as true, or at least it begins as partly true. The early stages of composition tend to be a series of jabs, with intuition (subconscious) leading the way. But once the framework of a song--by which I mean basic melody and chord structure--is in place, it's far less a matter of the subconscious. Then it is a matter of working with theoretical understanding/craftsmanship. The decisions made there, however, are of course done with taste, and that could be considered a subconscious understanding.

[the captain]

Any other non-drummers out there ever have the issue that when they are playing what feels like it's in time, recording shows the performance to be a little untimely? I think it's the bigger distances the body has to cover, so when I am trying to play, I feel like I am on beat--but it's because I am moving on the beat, not hitting on the beat. I don't encounter this in the more compact instruments I otherwise play. I was just messing around with a drum part on what is probably the most raw, rock song I have done in years, and experienced this. (Oh well. At least being a bad drummer enables a guy to do multiple takes, which then helps relieve the stress of work. Work is a motherfucker in a bad way. Drums are a motherfucker in a good way.)

[the captain]

"[Music] is the only religion that delivers the goods." FZ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjLyArwnvuk&feature=related

[DSamore]

Luther, sweet topic man. I really enjoyed reading (most of) these posts. I found them to be interesting and educational, as a fellow one man band dude. I also enjoy the convenience of digital. I wouldn't mind the warmth of analog though if I had the money/time/other performers to utilize.