The real talent

[Bro Barry]

Is the engineering.

For a successful recording, it does take a good engineer.

I made a fun post about artists. And not all engineers are artists

artist shmartist.. everybody loves to sing and dance and have fun.
sooo don't get the wrong impression, artists subject us to.. stuff.
could be good, could be really bad.

I've had the chance to record in several top studios, even Studio B in
Nashville.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63631612@N00/110278512/
That was a raw experience. The neat thing about that studio.... all
the vocals are piped to a small 12 x 12 room above the studio, they
are played out through an old speaker with a mic in front of it.. then
it's piped back downstairs to the mix. Allegedly, this gives vocals a
better sound. Maybe it works.. maybe it's just tradition. I recorded
demos there 4 different times.

Next, I recorded at a very nice studio, this was my view while
recording
http://www.cedarhouse.com/tour/soundroom_a.html
A group of pro singers came and did some backup...
but..

that whole session.. was not the sound I wanted or cared for... it was
very mechanical.
It lacked, live players other than some acoustic takes I did piano/
voice. I was very impressed with the effects the engineer (Mark) put
on the vocals. You couldn't quite hear any reverb, but my voice did
come off, larger than life. I have no idea how he did that. Not
loud... It sounded better than I actually did. That session, was the
first and last session... where I worked with live effects in my ear
during recording. I opted to never do this again, as.. I felt it would
weaken me. Make me lazy vocally.

The engineer at cedarhouse, was super! (and expensive)
The fellas at studio B became irritated with me because of so many
takes. Truth is... I felt rushed, it was only 65 bux an hour... that's
cheap, but I felt rushed, that's probably my own fault, maybe not.
maybe it was the idea that they would heap up.. each time a felt I
should start over. lol Maybe I was cutting into their BONG TIME. who
knows.

bARRY

[Carey Carlan]

"Bro Barry" > wrote in news:1175142813.262310.292530
@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

> Is the engineering.
>
> For a successful recording, it does take a good engineer.

I believe for a real recording, it takes both. The one you really need is
whichever one you don't have at the moment. You had plenty of talent in
front of the mic, so the talent at the board *made* the recording.

[Richard Crowley]

"Carey Carlan" wrote ...
> "Bro Barry" wrote :
>> Is the engineering.
>> For a successful recording, it does take a good engineer.
>
> I believe for a real recording, it takes both. The one you really need is
> whichever one you don't have at the moment. You had plenty of talent in
> front of the mic, so the talent at the board *made* the recording.

OTOH, there has been some moderately successfull
"Musique concrète". Including popular songs as "sung"
by various barnyard and domestic animals. (No, I mean
the real animals, not the "artistes" who act like animals)

So if you had to chose one or the other, you need a good
engineer more than you need the "talent". :-)

[Fletch]

On Mar 29, 1:32 pm, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
> "Carey Carlan" wrote ...
>
> > "Bro Barry" wrote :
> >> Is the engineering.
> >> For a successful recording, it does take a good engineer.
>
> > I believe for a real recording, it takes both. The one you really need is
> > whichever one you don't have at the moment. You had plenty of talent in
> > front of the mic, so the talent at the board *made* the recording.
>
> OTOH, there has been some moderately successfull
> "Musique concrète". Including popular songs as "sung"
> by various barnyard and domestic animals. (No, I mean
> the real animals, not the "artistes" who act like animals)
>
> So if you had to chose one or the other, you need a good
> engineer more than you need the "talent". :-)


Okay, so one day a long time ago someone said Marilyn Monroe would
look good in anything, including a burlap bag. So some enterpising
publicist hired a tailor and they fashioned an outfit, more like a one
piece swimsuit, for Marilyn to wear for a photo shoot.

Do we praise the maker of the burlap bag? Heck, we don't even know who
made the bloody thing anymore, we just look at the results and say,
"Yep, she sure looks good in burlap!"

I think it is important that the product, the raw talent that played
the instruments, be good to begin with. As they say, going back to
homilies, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If the music
wasn't performed well to begin with, an engineer, no matter how good
he is, cannot make the performance sound better than it was. He can do
things to make the individual elements "sound" better, fuller,
whatever, but if they were played lousy, then that lousiness is going
to "shine on through" to our ears and we will turn away saying, "That
has to have been the best mixed piece of crap I've ever heard."

--Fletch

[Steve King]

"Fletch" > wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 29, 1:32 pm, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
> "Carey Carlan" wrote ...
>
> > "Bro Barry" wrote :
> >> Is the engineering.
> >> For a successful recording, it does take a good engineer.
>
> > I believe for a real recording, it takes both. The one you really need
> > is
> > whichever one you don't have at the moment. You had plenty of talent in
> > front of the mic, so the talent at the board *made* the recording.
>
> OTOH, there has been some moderately successfull
> "Musique concrète". Including popular songs as "sung"
> by various barnyard and domestic animals. (No, I mean
> the real animals, not the "artistes" who act like animals)
>
> So if you had to chose one or the other, you need a good
> engineer more than you need the "talent". :-)


<<<Okay, so one day a long time ago someone said Marilyn Monroe would
look good in anything, including a burlap bag. So some enterpising
publicist hired a tailor and they fashioned an outfit, more like a one
piece swimsuit, for Marilyn to wear for a photo shoot.

Do we praise the maker of the burlap bag? Heck, we don't even know who
made the bloody thing anymore, we just look at the results and say,
"Yep, she sure looks good in burlap!"

I think it is important that the product, the raw talent that played
the instruments, be good to begin with. As they say, going back to
homilies, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. If the music
wasn't performed well to begin with, an engineer, no matter how good
he is, cannot make the performance sound better than it was. He can do
things to make the individual elements "sound" better, fuller,
whatever, but if they were played lousy, then that lousiness is going
to "shine on through" to our ears and we will turn away saying, "That
has to have been the best mixed piece of crap I've ever heard.">>>

Great musicians can often make even an inexperienced engineer look good.
The reverse is almost never true.

Steve King

[Richard Crowley]

"Steve King" wrote ...
> <<<Okay, so one day a long time ago someone said Marilyn Monroe would
> look good in anything, including a burlap bag. So some enterpising
> publicist hired a tailor and they fashioned an outfit, more like a one
> piece swimsuit, for Marilyn to wear for a photo shoot.
>
> Do we praise the maker of the burlap bag?

No, the photographer.

> Heck, we don't even know who
> made the bloody thing anymore, we just look at the results

Which you couldn't have done without the photographer.

How many people do you think have taken a snapshot of Half Dome
in Yosemite? Maybe even yourself?
OTOH, ever seen the ones Ansel Adams "snapped off"? :-)

[[email protected]]

Gear obsession is a similar phenomenon. Earlier this year I tracked a
record on a killer console through great mics, ouboard pres,
compressors - Neve, vintage Neumann, Pultec, Fairchild....really nice
stuff. But I didn't get the performances I needed because I spent
money on a studio with "the gear" and didn't have enough time to coax
the right performances out of my players. So I retracked later on a
Pro Tools system using a Grace 201 a modern U87 and nothing else that
would even come close to turning a gear head's head. But I had two
weeks to work. I then took my tracks to a studio to mix on a Neve
console with all the cool toys and my mixes sounded like **** because
I tried to do it in a day. Ultimately I remixed "in-the-box" on a
system that consisted of almost no sexy outboard gear. But I used a
great mix engineer who took his time. In the end, the most "uncool"
system produced the best result, and now that I've forgotten all about
whether or not I was surrounded by glowing tubes and elegant brushed
aluminum face plate, I'm damn happy with the sound of my record. In
the end, you need talent and time for every aspect of the
production.


On Mar 29, 7:35 pm, "Richard Crowley" > wrote:
> "Steve King" wrote ...
>
> > <<<Okay, so one day a long time ago someone said Marilyn Monroe would
> > look good in anything, including a burlap bag. So some enterpising
> > publicist hired a tailor and they fashioned an outfit, more like a one
> > piece swimsuit, for Marilyn to wear for a photo shoot.
>
> > Do we praise the maker of the burlap bag?
>
> No, the photographer.
>
> > Heck, we don't even know who
> > made the bloody thing anymore, we just look at the results
>
> Which you couldn't have done without the photographer.
>
> How many people do you think have taken a snapshot of Half Dome
> in Yosemite? Maybe even yourself?
> OTOH, ever seen the ones Ansel Adams "snapped off"? :-)

[Bro Barry]

On Mar 29, 8:03 pm, "
> In
> the end, you need talent and time for every aspect of the
> production.
>

I agree, but I am personally known as "one take jake"

[Les Cargill]

Richard Crowley wrote:

> "Steve King" wrote ...
>
>><<<Okay, so one day a long time ago someone said Marilyn Monroe would
>>look good in anything, including a burlap bag. So some enterpising
>>publicist hired a tailor and they fashioned an outfit, more like a one
>>piece swimsuit, for Marilyn to wear for a photo shoot.
>>
>>Do we praise the maker of the burlap bag?
>
>
> No, the photographer.
>
>
>>Heck, we don't even know who
>>made the bloody thing anymore, we just look at the results
>
>
> Which you couldn't have done without the photographer.
>
> How many people do you think have taken a snapshot of Half Dome
> in Yosemite? Maybe even yourself?
> OTOH, ever seen the ones Ansel Adams "snapped off"? :-)
>
>

Uh.... Ansel Adams was a significant tweaker of images. I'd
be lying if I said I remember the figure, but over half the
actual result was done in post. Black and white makes for
significant opportunities in messing with how the negative
gets transferred to paper.

I believe I got this from an "American Experience" episode.
Maybe it's in print?

--
Les Cargill

[Michael Wozniak]

"Bro Barry" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Mar 29, 8:03 pm, "
> > In
>> the end, you need talent and time for every aspect of the
>> production.
>>
>
> I agree, but I am personally known as "one take jake"

Wow, you must think you're "all that"...

Mikey
Nova Music Productions

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"hank alrich" > wrote in message ...
> Michael Wozniak wrote:
>
> > "Bro Barry" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > > On Mar 29, 8:03 pm, "
> > > > In
> > >> the end, you need talent and time for every aspect of the
> > >> production.

> > > I agree, but I am personally known as "one take jake"

> > Wow, you must think you're "all that"...

> I think he meant one toke joke.

"So he took a deep breath... and he held it....
And then he took another deep breath..... and he held it...."




DM

[hank alrich]

Michael Wozniak wrote:

> "Bro Barry" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > On Mar 29, 8:03 pm, "
> > > In
> >> the end, you need talent and time for every aspect of the
> >> production.
> >>
> >
> > I agree, but I am personally known as "one take jake"
>
> Wow, you must think you're "all that"...

I think he meant one toke joke.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Bro Barry]

On Mar 30, 2:49 am, (hank alrich) wrote:
> Michael Wozniak wrote:

> > Wow, you must think you're "all that"...
>
> I think he meant one toke joke.

lol

what does it matter, look at lou reed, haha

[Bro Barry]

On Mar 30, 1:37 am, "Michael Wozniak" >
wrote:

> Wow, you must think you're "all that"...

all too glad I could "push your button"

one in every crowd, suckerrrrrr

[Arny Krueger]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message

>
> Uh.... Ansel Adams was a significant tweaker of images.
> I'd be lying if I said I remember the figure, but over
> half the actual result was done in post.


> Black and white
> makes for significant opportunities in messing with how
> the negative gets transferred to paper.

> I believe I got this from an "American Experience"
> episode. Maybe it's in print?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/ansel/filmmore/pt.html

William Turnage: It was like a ballet, watching him in the darkroom jumping
around and dodging and burning and saying, "I want the sky to be richer,"
and he really worked them over, and often it would take him a whole day
before he got one print from a negative right. Once he did that he could
make more prints but it was real, real labor. I don't know, half or forty
percent of the creative process occurred in the darkroom....

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill > wrote:
>Uh.... Ansel Adams was a significant tweaker of images. I'd
>be lying if I said I remember the figure, but over half the
>actual result was done in post. Black and white makes for
>significant opportunities in messing with how the negative
>gets transferred to paper.

This is true. The famous moonrise shot has extensive retouching to remove
some graffiti on the hill, for instance. Adams was very much into image
modification in order to make the print on the paper look like what he saw
in his head, rather than what was actually there. Which is a talent in
itself.

>I believe I got this from an "American Experience" episode.
>Maybe it's in print?

A lot of the philosophy and techniques are detailed in Adam's own _Basic
Photography_ series. It's a three volume set, one on taking pictures,
one on developing negatives and one on printing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

On Mar 30, 9:56 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> Adams was very much into image
> modification in order to make the print on the paper look like what he saw
> in his head, rather than what was actually there. Which is a talent in
> itself.

True, but he was also into getting the right shot to start with,
setting up in the right place, waiting for the right lighting, and
focusing on what he wanted to be in focus and what he wanted to be out
of focus. I'm sure that he understood that you couldn't take random
shots and create what you wanted to see.

[Scott Dorsey]

Mike Rivers > wrote:
>On Mar 30, 9:56 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>> Adams was very much into image
>> modification in order to make the print on the paper look like what he saw
>> in his head, rather than what was actually there. Which is a talent in
>> itself.
>
>True, but he was also into getting the right shot to start with,
>setting up in the right place, waiting for the right lighting, and
>focusing on what he wanted to be in focus and what he wanted to be out
>of focus.

Well, of course, because that all is ALSO part of getting what you see in
your head down on the paper.

>I'm sure that he understood that you couldn't take random
>shots and create what you wanted to see.

Right. Image manipulation is hard. The point is to take the real world
and create what you want to see.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Bro Barry]

On Mar 30, 9:33 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> Right. Image manipulation is hard. The point is to take the real world
> and create what you want to see.
> --scott

On that same note, I figure Salvador Dali took acid.

[Michael Wozniak]

"Bro Barry" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Mar 30, 1:37 am, "Michael Wozniak" >
> wrote:
>
>> Wow, you must think you're "all that"...
>
> all too glad I could "push your button"

Actually, you didn't. I was just returning your words to you. But your last
line above tells us everything we need to know about you...

Plonk.

Mikey
Nova Music Productions

[Bro Barry]

On Mar 31, 2:15 am, "Michael Wozniak" >
wrote:

> Plonk.

scraping the barrel I see

you take up another persons cause much? that's repressive behavior

it is!

you're a tight wad, I can tell by your email

[hank alrich]

Bro Barry wrote:

> "Michael Wozniak" wrote:
>
> > Wow, you must think you're "all that"...
>
> all too glad I could "push your button"
>
> one in every crowd, suckerrrrrr

Smell your finger.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Fletch]

On Mar 30, 6:37 pm, "Bro Barry" > wrote:
> On Mar 30, 9:33 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> > Right. Image manipulation is hard. The point is to take the real world
> > and create what you want to see.
> > --scott
>
> On that same note, I figure Salvador Dali took acid.


Actually, in an interview he said he never did psychotropics of any
kind. Then he said these immortal words:

"Take me. I am the acid."

--Fletch

[Michael Wozniak]

"Fletch" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Mar 30, 6:37 pm, "Bro Barry" > wrote:
>> On Mar 30, 9:33 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>> > Right. Image manipulation is hard. The point is to take the real
>> > world
>> > and create what you want to see.
>> > --scott
>>
>> On that same note, I figure Salvador Dali took acid.
>
>
> Actually, in an interview he said he never did psychotropics of any
> kind. Then he said these immortal words:
>
> "Take me. I am the acid."
>
> --Fletch
>
Cool. He also supposedly said "The only difference between myself and a
madman is that I am not mad."

Mikey
Nova Music Productions