Two philosophical questions about recording

[neofolk]

Hi, I've been trying to educate myself in terms of capturing audio for the past few months and I'd like to ask your opinion about this. Maybe some of you will find this boring and just philosophical rambling, so if you don't like that stuff, please ignore this and don't waste your time

So, would you agree with my reasoning when I say this:
1. Before I knew anything about recording, I used to somewhat think that when recording in a studio, the whole business of proccessing the sound, and adding effects etc, is almost something like cheating (that is, if we limit the discussion only to those genres of music like folk where you want to reproduce naturally instrumentation and human voice) and that a simple stereo recording (like we would record classical music for example) is less of a "cheating". Theoretically, if we have great professional musicians who perform great, then overdubbing and tweaking shouldn't be necessary, a stereo recording will reproduce the listening experience to the listener, right?
But then I realized that it's probably wrong. Let's say that the general goal of recording is to reproduce a listening experience - one that the listener would have when sitting near the band in real time - for people to listen on speakers. However, we capture the sound with mics which are different than the ears of people sitting immediately next to the band: their ears (and brains) process the sound right away, but mics don't. Mics are stupid (as my friend once said), they take everything (putting aside polar patterns and attenuation pads now). So in order to again approximate the real-time listening experience for people who play the music on speakers, the post-production, processing, adding fx etc, is crucial. Not just so that it could sound more interesting with so much creative work done in post-pro, but also so that it could sound similar to what we would hear when sitting next to the band.
I hope it's not too convoluted, I tried to be precise but you will forgive me if it was too many words. Would you agree? Or like to add some more thoughts?
2. My next question is about using headphone mixes. I notice (on myself and other non-professional singers too) that I don't like singing to a headphone mix because I'd rather monitor my singing just naturally. But now it occured to me that maybe it's because I'm used to hearing myself naturally and it somewhat flatters my voice. Whereas a headphone mix is more precise which also means it won't forgive you mistakes. That right?
Thanks and I hope it will be of use for somebody also.

[catdaddy]

I enjoyed reading your thoughts concerning recording.

My view of recording is that the process involves engineering and mastering skills that require a minimal level of expertise. I don't view the employment of those skills and expertise as cheating, but more like the application of magic to enhance a listener's enjoyment.

Depending on the musical genre involved, there are levels of "magic" which are deemed acceptable or not. For instance, my experience as a graphics designer on several bluegrass releases has taught me that the folks in that genre have a very low tolerance for studio effects getting in the way of their natural sound. At most, a bit of room ambience or light compression is tolerable. On the other hand those artists in the electronic music genre tend to rely heavily on studio magic to create the sound they desire. Engineering a studio bluegrass session and engineering an electronic music session involve very different approaches, if not skills, but the goal of each is to present the artist's best guess at what will be their target listener's best experience.

As for using headphone monitors for voice, I find that the detail using headphones helps me to give a better performance. I can understand that others may find it more distracting than helpful, but I prefer to use the phones.

[Chipotle]

If all we ever recorded were entirely acoustic instruments and voices, in a perfect acoustic space, with an absolutely transparent gear from the mics to the digitized or analog notes, AND the playback equipment similarly reproduced exactly those notes, then no, you wouldn't need to "cheat" at all.

Oh, and if our ears and brains just took in the exact reproduced sound, and didn't color it due to hearing perception, volume, distractions, focus on certain parts or instruments... then you'd be all set!

But none of that exists in the real world. Instruments aren't all acoustic, and even with acoustic instruments we sometimes add things because we want them to sound different. The recording chain isn't perfect, and we have to adjust.

The reproduction side can be even more fraught. We use tricks so something sounds reasonable on a great stereo system or a phone, at home or in a car, played quietly or blasted.

And then there are the psychoacoustics of it. Ever made a live recording of something, then listened back later and it didn't sound at all like you remembered? The brain has funny ways of compensating for non-ideal situations, or on the other end having issues when it sounds fine to everyone else.

That's why there is no "right" answer for how to record.

[Bob Womack]

Hi!

I am a recording engineer/producer by trade and have indulged in the study and consideration of recording philosophy. Some thoughts:
1. There are multiple philosophies of recording, from "capturing the performance" to "creating a performance."
2. Just about everyone agrees that it is impossible to reproduce a performance perfectly. What is left is a continuum between minimalism and complete manipulation of the process for a desired outcome.
3. The Beatles were a popular example of complete manipulation of the process. There were entire songs where the four of them were never in the studio together. They tried all sorts of techniques to get the alterations, aberrations, and manipulations they desired.
4. Classical music tends more towards the "capturing the performance" side but these days they use all sorts of manipulative techniques such as placing "special" mics for instruments and sections and editing together multiple takes for as near perfect a performance as possible. Why?
5. Audiences have realized that a recording is forever. While there is a certain charm to listening to a certain Moody Blues song to hear the studio cat turn over a cymbal stand at the end, the audiences have matured to where they want perfection, or near-perfection, in performances. And here we find an interesting conundrum.
6. It is possible to be too perfect. To quote Joe Walsh, "So the days of going into a recording studio, setting up in the same room with other musicians and having eye contact with them is gone. There’s a great mojo in musicians creating music together — the magic of the human performance And all of that is gone. You can tell when you listen to the radio. Most of the songs on radio are perfect now. And perfect, to me, doesn’t sound right."
7. Most people will agree that a well-engineered and produced album with tasteful effects is nice to listen to. I listen to a whole lot of so-called "unprocessed" recordings that are carefully and craftily processed to sound as good as possible while having a deceptively rustic mien.
8. There was a label that promised no compression, no limiting, no EQ, no crossovers. Their recordings sounded terrible. They are gone.
9. I play guitar in the studio as I produce and record. There are people who will punch in ANYTHING, sometimes tiny little bits at a time, to get through stuff they can't actually play. I am not typically one of those. I've been known to improvise solos where I crash and burn part the way through. I'll sometimes try to do a pickup but usually find that the result doesn't sound as natural as doing the whole thing so by the time I've overdubbed a decent, useable pickup and the pressure is off, I'll have the confidence to do it front to back.

Now, on to headphone mixes: if you overdub, you are going to need to use them. There's a lot to a good headphone mix: too loud and the vocalista whispers because he feels like he's shoving himself down his own throat. Too soft and he shouts. Lots of artists use the one cup on and one cup off approach. And let's be honest, many people don't like their own voices. Eventually you get used to it.

Recording is like that: the more you do it the better and more comfortable you get.

Bob

[jim1960]

I don't think what happens with songs in the studio is much different from the how and why in which other art mediums are presented.

We frame paintings to focus attention on the artwork.
We mat photographs with certain colors to draw attention to details.
We put sculptures on pedestals to give the viewer a desired perspective.

A song in and of itself is a work of art. What we do in the mixing/mastering stages is much like what I described above. We're adding something to the song to create an audio perspective that the song might not deliver should it be presented in its raw form.

[neofolk]

Thanks for all the great insights!

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

8. There was a label that promised no compression, no limiting, no EQ, no crossovers. Their recordings sounded terrible. They are gone.

Bob

Thanks for that, really interesting to hear that somebody did go that far.

And just to wrap it up: the reason why I started to even think about this was that I never like my own voice when recorded BUT, on a good day, I like it when hearing it naturally. But then, I go sing, I like what I'm hearing, I go record it, and I don't like it. And so I started to wonder: is it just psychoacoustics OR does it also have an OBJECTIVE reason, namely that what my ears hear naturally is very, very different from what a mic captures. And that's why, primarily, we need processing even for folk music.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by neofolk

And so I started to wonder: is it just psychoacoustics OR does it also have an OBJECTIVE reason, namely that what my ears hear naturally is very, very different from what a mic captures. And that's why, primarily, we need processing even for folk music.

Your ears are hearing your voice after it has traveled through flesh and bone; the microphone is not.

[Chipotle]

There was a label that promised no compression, no limiting, no EQ, no crossovers. Their recordings sounded terrible. They are gone.

That whole idea is laughable, especially when you think about analog reproduction formats. The amount of compression and EQ you need to create a vinyl LP is ridiculous, and then it has be be undone on playback. Tape itself causes all kinds of changes to the sound. And while it may be closer to possible with digital technology, you still have to deal with A/D at one end and D/A at the other. It's no wonder their recordings sounded awful.

Originally Posted by neofolk

is it just psychoacoustics OR does it also have an OBJECTIVE reason, namely that what my ears hear naturally is very, very different from what a mic captures.

Some of each. Your brain processes your own voice coming back through your ears very differently than external sounds. Then you are also "hearing" some of your voice via bone conduction and other vibration through your body, a physical reason you sound different to yourself.

[Mr. Jelly]

I like to equate music recording to making movies or documentaries. You are creating a mythical something that suspends reality though you want it to feel real and be believable. Not many think of camera angles and sound crews when watching TV or movies. You can hear everybody in a scene. You don't hear people asking "What did you say?" in a scene unless it's part of the story. During close up shots the actor is acting to a camera and there may not be any other actors around. Listen to doors opening and closing in movies not to mention gun shots. The sounds are not even close to what they would be in reality. The audience has been educated on the vocabulary of sounds in movies to the point of accepting them as real. Fights are pure fantasy and not like the real thing. Think cage fighting for reality. Movies are made of scenes. Go to YouTube and watch some movies scenes and you'll get the idea after awhile. To me recording a song is like shooting a scene of a movie. You have wide parameters to chose from to create an end product of your choosing. All recording uses micing technics. That's the first step of the recording sound fantasy. And things get more and more convoluted from there. When it's all done well it sounds real. Meaning no one thinks about the process when listening to the end product. In a discussion with an audiophile once I told him the worst place to hear a band is on stage.

[rick-slo]

I have never made a recording of music that sounds very much like it does to my ears live. So to even get closer to the live sound
some tweaking will be needed post recording. Normally I like to maintain the clarity of what was played but just with a fuller tone
and soundstage. Usually some light reverb added is the main thing to get that and perhaps some equalization on a muddy lower
frequency range or a higher frequency harshness (both of those issues usually arising from the mic'ing process).

[fazool]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

...To quote Joe Walsh, "...— the magic of the human performance And all of that is gone. ..... Most of the songs on radio are perfect now. And perfect, to me, doesn’t sound right."....

This is one of my favorite recordings of all time....not just the song but the actual recording. It's gritty and sloppy and about as far from perfect as you can get. And it's beautiful. If you listen to this, you can actually hear cars driving by (they recorded it outside).

My daughter's favorite is a pop rock band called 5SoS - I got to know them through her (seen them twice in concert) and I really like them. They have an album called LiveSoS which is the unedited continuously recorded concert of their first album. It sounds AMAZING. Absolutely my favorite live album ever. But, go back to the studio version and it sounds bland, sterile, perfect and I actually greatly dislike it.

I think Joe Walsh's words are incredibly true, and I would amplify their importance.

[neofolk]

Originally Posted by Mr. Jelly

In a discussion with an audiophile once I told him the worst place to hear a band is on stage.

Hahahaha. And thanks for a great analogy

[min7b5]

My first thought was how many theaters would go under if all movies looked more like Blair Witch Project than, say, Roma? I want my books to be professionally edited, nicely printed, and I want to see paintings in a museum that is expertly lit… Field recording is a thing, I like it for some things some of the time, but like most people I want my art present at least a larger than life.

My second thought was about the idea that it somehow diminishes things if the artist did several takes, spliced things, overdubbed, etc. Why would one really care? I think that’s really worth looking at that if that's how you feel. It’s something I think a lot about. At the risk of making a gendered comment, it’s why I like working with women so much - and older men. They don’t have that probably testosterone influenced thing of primarily judging art by the perceived feat it took to make it. As any one that’s been to the NAMM Show can attest, a huge percentage of young men will see a guitarist playing super fast and clean nonsense and say, “oh, he’s really great.” Really? I love classical music, but god, being a classical musician seems like true hell to me, because it’s seeming so much more about the performance thing… I nothing but respect the amount of work it took to become a writer like F. Scott Fitzgerald, Franz Kafka, Ernest Hemingway, or Henry James. Their books transport me in a way that lasts long after after I put them down. And I’m very okay not knowing how maybe drafts they took, how much editing was done, or what what kind of typewriter they used,,,.

Anyway, I think I’m going off the rails here.

[jim1960]

Originally Posted by min7b5

My second thought was about the idea that it somehow diminishes things if the artist did several takes, spliced things, overdubbed, etc. Why would one really care?

That used to bother me quite a bit. I really felt like I should be able to pull off every song without edits or comping. It never felt like a testosterone thing. I simply had unrealistic expectations based upon assumptions about what really went on in the studio. These days, I expect to run through the material four times and have enough to build a comp track. And the only way anyone knows it's a comp track is if I tell them or they see the session on the screen.

[Bob Womack]

So...

The Eagles: On most of their big albums, before they did the vocals, the songs were micro-edited up on the multitracks. Glenn Frey would sit through the takes and say, "Intro from take 3, first verse from take 1, chorus from take 2, second verse from take 4, etc. Vocals were built up from overdubs. Vocal harmonies usually worked as a group. Onstage, they do that stuff live.

YES - Their extended works never existed as complete pieces before they were edited up on the multitracks. They'd throw a bunch of motifs onto tape, figuratively against the wall. Then they'd compose an extended piece by saying, "Let's take this part and edit it into this part and that part goes after that part. Now well compose parts to make the transitions and add vocals." Then they had to go into a practice space before they toured and learn their own pieces front to back, after which they pulled them off live.

Toto - We'd heard they would use spare studio time to throw their parts on tape in single takes. Now we learn that they used all sorts of studio techniques. That fantastic drum groove under Rosanna was a loop built up from a couple of near-perfect measures performed by drummer Jeff Porcaro. But they then went out and pulled off that stuff LIVE.
Kiss - Alive! was recorded live and as I understand it, all that was used from the live recordings for the album was the crowd sounds, some drum intros, and hot mic interactions with the crowd. The rest was re-recorded in studios by studio musicians.
Aerosmith, "Train Kept a Rollin'" from Get Yer Wings - producers Bob Ezrin and Jack Douglas wanted it to be something special so they brought in Jack's favorite guitar slingers. Steve Hunter recorded solo 1 and Dick Wagner recorded the solo on the "live" solo 2. The whole live thing on the second half was simulated.

Classical, folk, and bluegrass players do this same poop all the time. Why? Time and repeated playbacks are your enemies. Mistakes become irritations to a listener and to the artist.

In the music world, these people are your competition and their product is your product's competition. It leaves you with a profound question about recording technique.

I work in a hybrid way. For some reason I usually do the solos through. I don't feel the slightest hesitation punching on rhythm parts for some reason. If a part comes and goes, I don't feel bad about doing each appearance separately.

Bob