Engineers: technicians, artisans, or ...

[John Paterno]

... a percentage of both? I was thinking about posting this topic on my drive home, and someone on another thread brought up something similar, and someone else seized upon it with an answer (can't remember who said what and when). thought it might be interesting to explore the idea a little more... But let's define the terms here: technician: A person who is trained or skilled in the technicalities of a subject. artisan: a person skilled in an applied art; craftsman So what are you thinking? -John

[Curve Dominant]

[quote][b]Engineers: technicians, artisans, or... ...let's define the terms here: technician: A person who is trained or skilled in the technicalities of a subject. artisan: a person skilled in an applied art; craftsman So what are you thinking? -John[/b][/quote]John, Good question. Personally, I consider anyone with the tag "engineer" to be science-based. At least they SHOULD be. Engineers who consider themselves "artists" scare me; they tend to be folks who are too lazy to learn the foundations of their applied science, their gear, and its workings. The main reason I decided to study engineering is because I'd discovered too many "engineers" recording my music who had a poor grasp of the fundamentals of engineering sound. In a studio session, the songwriter, arranger and musicians are the "artisans." If an engineer also happens to be a musician or a poet or whatever, that's great. But anyone who gets paid to sit at a console should have a grasp of the technical issues of engineering sound, and be focussed on those issues while they are on the clock sitting at that console, and that's science. Because the artist is depending on that, and all of those $$$ for the engineers and the gear and real estate rental is coming out of the artist's pocket. That all having been said, I have encountered engineers who cannot count volts or ohms (or ones and zeros), yet have an innate sense of sound and their utilization of their tools. For whatever reason, these folks are "naturals," and engineering sound is like second nature for them. But it would be remiss for any engineer to fall back on that assumption. Usually such an engineer is limited to a certain set of tools and media...and our tools and media are ever changing as we all are (hopefully) aware. Continually studying and keeping up on the scientific foundations of our tools and media is the antecdote for that sort of irrelevancy. Especially in these days of growing pervasiveness of digital recording media...not just recording, but composing and playing tools and instruments as well...a lack of understanding of the underlying science is a hinderance for engineers AND composers and musicians. Why do some digitally recorded works make our ears bleed; yet others sound as if analog should just get on an ice flow and go away? In the latter case, it's because someone in the chain of command has a scientific understanding of how digital audio is optimally achieved, and I'm sorry but there is nothing "arty" about that stuff. I'm an artist so I wish there was, but no-go. Trying to read Nika's paper on FIR filters really brought this home for me: I had to sober up, brush off the ADD, and concentrate...and I still had to read the fucker like 4 times before it all started to make sense. It's not just like winging a guitar solo anymore. Summation: A sound engineer is a scientist, just like in any other engineering field such as architecture, aeronautics, electrical, mechanical, industrial, etc. I'm sure there are MANY sound engineers who will get by and make a living while not looking at it that way. But the sound engineers who DO consider themselves scientists, and act on that, will always be head and shoulders above the rest. You asked; that's my take on it and I'm sticking with it.

[D. Gauss]

<> guys with blue and white striped hats who drive trains.... :) -d. gauss http://www.betteroffdead.com

[Synthguy]

Nah, I'm of the opinion that they're some of both. There is as much art as science to realizing and honing the sound we capture on our recording doohickies, either tape or DAW. I really think that if there isn't some artistry and passion of the muse in the engineer, you get some of the dryness of Robert Fripp or Brian Eno. I don't think the engineer should intrude or dominate like that numbskull that destroyed Yes' Union fiasco, but they should be a facilitator, a helper, a realizer... I'm starting to sound like some new age guru. ;) There is something to the school of thought that the engineer should be invisible in the recording process. But I keep thinking of the warmth of tubes and fine British desks, a little harmonic distortion in just the right amount, in just the right way. Something that adds just a wee bit of [i]juice[/i] to what the band is trying to bring to life. Eh, I'm an artist too, that's probly why I think like that. ;)

[teh dri]

im with eric personally i WAS a scientist. i left my degree behind to study Music Technology after 'fate' or a mixture of good and bad luck had my mind focused on music boy was i happy that this 'audio engineering' career existed, that i could keep a pragmatic frame of mind while at the same time feeling actually good about my job and all that i HAVE noticed a lot of 'scientific' engineers and to me, they make for efficient workers. i have also noticed a lot of 'musical' engineers too, and while they cant work out delay times for the life of them they have that spot on feel... i dont know, i just try and learn from them all. one of the biggest names around here falls into the 'musical' category. some things ive seen him do (and not do) in the studio have scared me to death, yet the Product comes out sounding amazing... thats something that has stuck with me i was going to write this thread of as "who cares" but then i thought, well, this ISNT a well "regulated" industry if that makes sense... and there is a LOT of room for personal adaptations so hey.... artist or technician, as long as it sounds good. for my clients and employers however i prefer to present myself technically and pragmatically, because if i was in their place thatd be what id want... an engineer with maths leaking out of his ears and steady hands on the console and so on

[flyscots]

Yep, I'm with Eric and Dri I finshed studying audio engineering at college and I can safely say the more succesful students are those who are able to grasp the scientific aspects. By succesful I dont just mean exam results, I'm judging by what they could do in the studio. In high school I cringed when they told me I should go to university to work with physics and other sciences because I was good at physics. I thought there was no way I could be happy in a scientific career but it turns out they were right because I am now able to put some of that physics knowledge to good use. What's your thought on this: I dont really play any musical instruments. I know this is very unusual for engineers and it has its disadvantages but I think it brings a lot of advantages. For example when recodording a bass player I am not thinking about what he is doing technically as a musician but I'm focusing on the sound coming from the instrument. I like it this way, what do you think? John Scotsman

[Jotown]

[quote]Engineers: technicians, artisans, or... [/quote]All of the above, except; engineers produce, producers engineer, artist produce, and half of the people at this forum frequently wear all of these hats in the same session. This is one of the main things wrong with a lot of todays music. Back in the day making a record was almost always a colaborative effort. Songwriters wrote, engineers engineered, musicians played, producers produced, and singers sang. The synergy that was produced by all of these people pulling in the same direction is what made alot of great records happen. These days, more often than not, I spend most of my time alone in the studio writing, producing, engineering, performing all at the same time. Now I don't miss my band all that much, but I do miss the energy of working with a room full of like minded people. Is it like that with many of you out there? My assumption is that it is. Just my opinion.

[John Paterno]

Hey -- You guys have posted some interesting points. I was going to reply last night, but I decided to sleep on it. Here are a few of my thoughts: Eric posted this earlier: But anyone who gets paid to sit at a console should have a grasp of the technical issues of engineering sound, and be focussed on those issues while they are on the clock sitting at that console, and that's science. Because the artist is depending on that, and all of those $$$ for the engineers and the gear and real estate rental is coming out of the artist's pocket. I agree that this is the most basic function of the engineer, and I believe it is the thing that qualifies a person to sit in the chair in the first place. 100% technician. Just as a musician should know his or her instrument, and as Jotown nicely put it, (to paraphrase), everyone else should know their respective gig. This would put the scale at 100% technician with nothing for the artisan side. But jotown also makes the point that during one of his obviously favorite periods (and styles) of record making (and mine too), for the most part, the singer sang the song written by the writer. The producer produced the song written by the writer. the musicians played charts or were directed by the arranger or producer.etc. Very defined lines that were probably more adhered to than not. But something inevitably happens, especially when you've worked with someone for a while. One question comes up that begins to change the balance. The question: 'What Do You Think?' Once some asks that question of you, you as the engineer are now ask to participate as an artisan. Not as an 'artist', but as my definition in my original post. Not 100% by any means -- a small perecentage, but that is where the scale starts tipping the other way. As a pure technician, as the 'science' camp has noted, the engineer is not expected to have an opinion. Or worse, voice an unsolicited opinion! But this is where the transition really starts to take place. And I think it is like a pendulum, although not a periodic one -- let's say it has electromagnets on either side. Say an engineer, (after it is established that this kind of thing is OK in the current situation), hooks up something because he hears a sound in his head, taking a song into a different place than it was heading. Everyone digs it, and the artist,musicians, and arranger (trying to remember your list Eric) come up with parts and now this idea becomes part of the record forever. A purely artisan situation for that moment. Should he get writing credit? OF COURSE NOT! But did he make an 'artistic' contribution to the record. Yes. Someone used the architect earlier as an example of the technician side. What would you consider an architect like John Lautner? You can't look at one of his buildings and say it's a technical undertaking. I'd be very surprised if you could argue that there is no artistic expression in his work, or that he was not an artisan. He used his technical knowledge for artistic purposes. I think that is true for engineers as well. It just comes down to trust between all parties involved. And the best situations I have ever been involved in are the ones where the trust allows everyone a means of expression, to the benefit of the whole project and not the stroking of an ego. -John

[Lee Flier]

Interesting thoughts John! I've never really questioned whether the "art" or the "science" is more important to engineering because IMO, they both are, and whenever anybody tries to make the claim that it's one or the other I just kind of scratch my head. To be sure there's no point trying to engineer if you don't understand the science. But if it were a purely scientific pursuit you'd be able to engineer simply by looking at graphs and scopes. A good engineer has to be part scientist, part business manager, part artist and part psychologist. Being also a computer programmer I've worked in a lot of "pure science" environments and the contrast between that kind of work and recording engineering is pretty striking, at least to me. As for the other point made by you and Jotown about whether it's better to have "specialists" at writing, engineering, producing and performing... I dunno about that. Certainly great results have been produced that way but I think everyone's different. I favor small, close knit groups of rabble rousers over large organizations myself. Jimmy Page is certainly a role model of mine and his music could not have been what it was if he weren't the writer, performer AND producer. I do agree though that this trend of people sitting home alone with their DAW's, writing, playing and producing everything themselves, kind of sucks - due to lack of interaction as much as anything. I've worn a lot of different hats myself but regardless of which one I'm wearing, I feel that collaboration with other people is essential. If I'm writing a song I prefer to bounce it off someone else I respect. If I'm playing I want to play with other musicians, not overdub everything myself. If I'm engineering I want there to be other musicians in the room and I enjoy working in tandem with another engineer or producer too, if we are sympatico. Within the context of whatever session I'm doing, it's nice to have some defined roles that we can focus on, even if on the next session I may have a different role. I really do feel that music is at its best a collaborative art, as opposed to being an author or painter, and that element is missing from a lot of today's music. Even music that's supposedly made by groups of people often sounds like they were never in the same room together - partly because in many cases they weren't :D , but also because the focus has shifted to favor these Svengali producers and mix engineers who slice and dice a performance until it's not recognizable as what it originally was... and thus it becomes the producer or engineer's own personal statement rather than a collaboration. But really, whatever it takes to make the musical vision - which is an artistic vision - happen, that's what has to be done. How it gets done and how specialized the requirements are, really depends on the individuals involved. Me, I think playing to the strengths of the people involved and protecting their weaknesses, is both and art and a science in itself.

[Master Zap]

Y'all know my feelings. Engineering *is* an art, if it should be done well. The producer/engineer is just as much a part of the complete "artwork" as any other participant in the project. And you know it ;) /Z

[alphajerk]

i answered this at JHalls pad a few weeks ago. its not something that needs to be made so complex to definaed by rules. just look at the defination of engineer: a person who carries through an enterprise by skillful or artful contrivance a person who carries through a recording by skillful or artful contrivance. that is your answer.

[Curve Dominant]

[quote]posted by John: [b]But something inevitably happens, especially when you've worked with someone for a while. One question comes up that begins to change the balance. The question: 'What Do You Think?[/b][/quote]That's right...and I try to resist the temptation to ask that question these days. I've come to the growing realization that if I have to ask the engineer that question, I'm in trouble. I know if the engineer asks me what I think of the way his console is wired, HE's definitely in deep sh*t. YMMV

[Jotown]

[quote]That's right...and I try to resist the temptation to ask that question these days. I've come to the growing realization that if I have to ask the engineer that question, I'm in trouble. I know if the engineer asks me what I think of the way his console is wired, HE's definitely in deep sh*t. [/quote]I hear that. I addressed this issue on the thread about "Writing out peoples parts". Ultimately someone in the room has to know what they are trying to create. Without that it is very hard to make a great record. When you spend your own money you learn alot. In my experience, everytime I have asked for an opinion in the studio, and listened to that opinion rather than my gut I have regretted it.

[Philip OKeefe]

[quote]Originally posted by Curve Dominant: [b] [quote]posted by John: [b]But something inevitably happens, especially when you've worked with someone for a while. One question comes up that begins to change the balance. The question: 'What Do You Think?[/b][/quote]That's right...and I try to resist the temptation to ask that question these days. I've come to the growing realization that if I have to ask the engineer that question, I'm in trouble. [/b][/quote]I really have to disagree with this. IMO, NOT asking the opinions of others who have experience and talents is somewhat egotistical. You're likely to miss out on things that could have been beneficial, and you're not utilizing the available resources to their fullest. A smart commander takes advantage of the knowledge and skills of their subordinates. YOU still have to make the final decision, but the more data and input you have, generally the better the final decisions wil be. Likewise, the producer is not "god" and doesn't have a lock on all good ideas. And just like the advantage of having your album mastered by someone else, it never hurts to get the opinion of another highly trained and experienced set of ears. If I was producing a session and was fortunate enough to have someone of John's caliber sitting in the engineer's chair, I'd be NUTS to not take advantage of his knowledge, experience, skills and insights by simply asking "hey John, what do you think?" Q. How many producers does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A. I don't know - "what do you think?" ;)

[Curve Dominant]

Phil, I'm not sure your analogies relate entirely to what we were discussing. Let me try to piece this together... [quote][b]If I was producing a session and was fortunate enough to have someone of John's caliber sitting in the engineer's chair, I'd be NUTS to not take advantage of his knowledge, experience, skills and insights by simply asking "hey John, what do you think?"[/b][/quote]Are you talking about engineering issues? Because if so, I wouldn't ask John what he thought at all, I would let him engineer without even questioning him. Artistic issues, however, are a completely different story. [quote][b]A smart commander takes advantage of the knowledge and skills of their subordinates. YOU still have to make the final decision, but the more data and input you have, generally the better the final decisions wil be.[/b][/quote]To carry on your military analogy: A smart commander will have all of those decisions worked out before going into battle. Committees are fine in the planning stages. But once everyone rolls into the studio and the clock starts running, any second-guessing the artist's vision is simply counterproductive static IMO. [quote][b]Likewise, the producer is not "god" and doesn't have a lock on all good ideas.[/b][/quote]That depends on who the producer is. We all have our own ways of working. [quote][b]And just like the advantage of having your album mastered by someone else, it never hurts to get the opinion of another highly trained and experienced set of ears.[/b][/quote]Once again, if you're referring strictly to sound engineering issues, I completely agree.

[Philip OKeefe]

[quote]Originally posted by Curve Dominant: [b]Phil, I'm not sure your analogies relate entirely to what we were discussing. Let me try to piece this together... [QUOTE][b]If I was producing a session and was fortunate enough to have someone of John's caliber sitting in the engineer's chair, I'd be NUTS to not take advantage of his knowledge, experience, skills and insights by simply asking "hey John, what do you think?"[/b][/quote][qb]Are you talking about engineering issues? Because if so, I wouldn't ask John what he thought at all, I would let him engineer without even questioning him. Artistic issues, however, are a completely different story.[/b] I'm not talking about strictly engineering issues. I'd normally allow the engineer to handle the bulk of the engineering stuff, but then again, I might suggest some things. Certainly the decision to use a 1176 instead of a LA2A can have an effect on the way a lead vocal is going to sound. Same with mic choices. I might toss up a U47, C12 and a 251 and listen. And I'll most likely ask the artist and the engineer to give me their opinions regarding which one they think "fits" the singer and song in that particular case. I would also discuss other things, such as what he thought of how an arrangement idea was working out, or phrasing on a part or any of countless other "artistic" things, depending on the situation. [quote][b]A smart commander takes advantage of the knowledge and skills of their subordinates. YOU still have to make the final decision, but the more data and input you have, generally the better the final decisions wil be.[/b][/quote][b]To carry on your military analogy: A smart commander will have all of those decisions worked out before going into battle. Committees are fine in the planning stages. But once everyone rolls into the studio and the clock starts running, any second-guessing the artist's vision is simply counterproductive static IMO.[/b] I respect that opinion, but Curve, no battle plan survives 100% intact after first contact with the enemy. We're starting to stretch the analogy to the breaking point, but I think it's safe to say that a lot of times, new ideas and various "challenges" arise - no matter how much forethought and pre-production you did in advance. I'm not advocating "production by committee" either. Production isn't a pre-planned, static process that never varies from the plan as you go along - at least not for me. I'm simply saying that getting input from other people can be useful and valuable.

[Curve Dominant]

Phil, Generally, I agree with much of your post. We think alike; I had considered many of those issues when I was typing that post. It would be redundant to pick this apart much further, because we all have our own preferred ways of working, but this one point is interesting: [quote][b]no battle plan survives 100% intact after first contact with the enemy. We're starting to stretch the analogy to the breaking point, but I think it's safe to say that a lot of times, new ideas and various "challenges" arise - no matter how much forethought and pre-production you did in advance. I'm not advocating "production by committee" either. Production isn't a pre-planned, static process that never varies from the plan as you go along - at least not for me. I'm simply saying that getting input from other people can be useful and valuable.[/b][/quote]Yes, but a threshhold on fluidity is needed, or else you get "mission creep." Just as a field commander in battle depends upon his soldiers to perform according to plan to realize an over-all war strategy which may be beyond the comprehension of each individual soldier... So does an artist/producer (whichever is calling the shots) depend on the technical staff to realize an artistic vision that may be beyond the comprehension of each and every member of the tech staff. Yes, feedback can be helpful...to a degree. But sometimes a plan has to be carried to its conclusion before everyone sees proof in its logic. I think it comes down to the confidence the producer has in his vision. The stronger the producer's vision in the end product, the less editorializing he will need from the studio staff. Besides, I would think it would be a distraction for the engineer to be asked to editorialize on a session. If he offers the solicited advice, he then has ownership and responsibility of the artistic content which he may not want to be responsible for. And the producer may end up with feedback that is counterproductive. It's a lose-lose scenario. What's really bad is when an engineer volunteers advice on artistic matters, when they were just not hip to what the producer was going for. I've had to deal with that in situations where I was working with some unorthodoxed ideas and techniques, and got resistance from the tech staff. Yet another reason I decided to build my own studio. And it's not just me: the manager of a top hiphop producer I know was telling me last year that he had to deal with those attitudes from house engineers all the time. But those "bad things that we aren't supposed to do" ended up on the top of the charts. Bear in mind, Phil, I'm speaking partly from personal experience, and partly from postulating an ideal situation. IOW: We're just talking here; but it's an interesting talk, and thanks for engaging in it. You da man, and I respect you even when we disagree.

[fantasticsound]

Sorry Curve, I have to disagree. We fleshed this idea out a decade ago in one of my college classes. The answer we came up with? Sound engineering is one of the few careers you can choose that is inherently left brained & right brained [i]at the same time.[/i] You must constantly monitor levels, hear aberrant frequencies or formants, and operate controls while listening for a good take. As a seasoned mixer, you have more experience of what works or fails in the studio. This alone makes you a valuable resource when most bands have limited if any experience recording in a pro environment. Obviously, a mixer with inadequate skills or knowledge of the craft will not be successful. But a skilled technician who can't apply those skills to the medium is equally useless. Whether you record/mix for music, spoken word, or television and film post production, a mixer with no passion for synergy of sounds won't be of any more use than a remote control in the hands of someone else. Also, as Phil alluded to, the very act of choosing mics, preamps, eq or effects makes the mixer a part of the creative process. That said, the mixer is NOT the producer by default. You would be wise to keep your input veiled until directly asked, but that doesn't mean you become a programmed robot. John, I must add, however, that I prefer to reserve the term engineer for ladies and gentlemen who can service the equipment they use. Engineers design and build equipment, so if you haven't a clue, at least, how to bias a tape machine or tech your gear, you're not an engineer. Mixer? Yes. Engineer? No. As for me, I'm a mixer. I can solder and build, but I do not know enough electronics to be an engineer. Also, having a musical background is a HUGE plus for a mixer. I can't tell you how difficult it is working with a mixer who has no feel for timing, especially given the idiosyncracies of musical instrument mechanisms. (I.e. bowed instruments having to advance a beat, syncopated or off time beginnings to songs.) In live audio and lights, I've worked with Lighting Directors who had no sense of musical time. It made life extremely difficult for the spot ops. Instead of a steady, "3... 2... 1... go!" for each change, the LD would say, "Ready, go." Problem was, the time interval between, "Ready", and, "go", was constantly changing. Very difficult to follow.

[Curve Dominant]

It seems what we've established is that there are some grey areas in certain situations. Yet, I can't help but notice the discourse has veered somewhat. The original post was: "Engineers: technicians, artisans, or ..." "Mixers" seem to fall into those grey areas. Perhaps there's an opportunity for a fresh thread: [b]"Mixers: Just What The Hell Are They Anyway??"[/b] Neil, it behooves you to do the honors. No, let me re-phrase that: it is [b]incumbant upon you[/b] to do the honors. It is, on the other hand, incumbant upon The Curve to go to bed. Nighty-night everybody!

[teh dri]

i just want to quickly say that although im still reading this thread (slowly and intently) i dig it no one took the "this is the answer" bait... theres some damn good conversation on this topic. i broached this topic once when i was at the Conservatorium but the 5 second "as long as you get the job done" was more brush-off then it was Zen food for though here.

[Jotown]

Many good thoughts here. If I may, I think the main point that Curve is trying to make is that there has to be a single point of view once you are in the room and recording a song. That to me is the essence of production; a point of view. When I first started doing the production thing, I would hire the best musicians in town, the best studio that I could afford, and the best engineer on staff. What I eventually learned is that even with all of those very talented people, it was very easy to lose my tune. It didn't take much to get way off track. Sometimes I got lucky, other times I would be driving home listening to my rough mixes thinking, wow that sound great but it's not what I wanted. I still use the best musicians in town, (when I can afford them) I usually use my studio because I know it, and it's mine, the best engineer, (when I can afford one). The biggest difference in my productions these days is that I trust my instincts and my ears, and more times than not, I get what I set out to get. I am open to suggestions, but it is my vision. I think when you go into the studio without that kind of vision you are a miner, not a producer. I am open to possibilities and I like to be spontaneous, but I am always driving the bus. If it crashes, it's my fault. I can live with that. That's why I'm the producer.

[John Paterno]

[quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b] [quote]That's right...and I try to resist the temptation to ask that question these days. I've come to the growing realization that if I have to ask the engineer that question, I'm in trouble. I know if the engineer asks me what I think of the way his console is wired, HE's definitely in deep sh*t. [/quote]I hear that. I addressed this issue on the thread about "Writing out peoples parts". Ultimately someone in the room has to know what they are trying to create. Without that it is very hard to make a great record. When you spend your own money you learn alot. In my experience, everytime I have asked for an opinion in the studio, and listened to that opinion rather than my gut I have regretted it.[/b][/quote]Curve, let me ask you something that, in all this time reading your posts, I'm not sure I've ever thought about before: Do you ever use other musicians on projects of yours, or is it completely self-performed/programmed? If you're doing it all yourself, I can see your point of view, although it doesn't seem like a fun experience to me. And Jotown, just remember, written part or not, musicians like James Jamerson, Al Jackson Jr., and a lot of great players were on those records we all love because they BROUGHT SOMETHING TO THE PARTY! They used the page as an outline and not the whole story. Could you imagine Bill Wither's 'Ain't No Sunshine' without that drum groove? No one on the planet could have played it that way except Al Jackson! I contend that the same could be said for engineers as well. There are ones that 'bring something' and those that do not. And I think that knowing what you're trying to create comes down not only to having a vision, but also getting good people involved and being humble enough to know when to let people leave a bit of themselves in the project. It makes for a richer experience all the way around. -John

[Jotown]

I don't disagree with anything you just said. But even those great cat's needed direction. Now if you have a team that you work with all the time, (like those Motown Cats, and that includes the engineers)and you have trust and a vibe that is one thing. I just rarely find myself in that position. In fact when working with great players I find that more often than not, I am reining them in more than letting them run. Good muscicians like to play, sometimes too much. Now there are a couple of engineers that I get to work with from time to time. They know me, and they have a feel for what I do. If they make a suggestion of a technical nature I am always open to it, but if it's a musical decision I let my ears and my gut be my guide. As I said previously: [quote]I am open to possibilities and I like to be spontaneous, but I am always driving the bus. If it crashes, it's my fault. I can live with that. That's why I'm the producer. [/quote]

[John Paterno]

[quote]Originally posted by fantasticsound: [b]John, I must add, however, that I prefer to reserve the term engineer for ladies and gentlemen who can service the equipment they use. Engineers design and build equipment, so if you haven't a clue, at least, how to bias a tape machine or tech your gear, you're not an engineer. Mixer? Yes. Engineer? No. As for me, I'm a mixer. I can solder and build, but I do not know enough electronics to be an engineer. Also, having a musical background is a HUGE plus for a mixer. I can't tell you how difficult it is working with a mixer who has no feel for timing, especially given the idiosyncracies of musical instrument mechanisms. (I.e. bowed instruments having to advance a beat, syncopated or off time beginnings to songs.) In live audio and lights, I've worked with Lighting Directors who had no sense of musical time. It made life extremely difficult for the spot ops. Instead of a steady, "3... 2... 1... go!" for each change, the LD would say, "Ready, go." Problem was, the time interval between, "Ready", and, "go", was constantly changing. Very difficult to follow.[/b][/quote]Hey -- What makes you think that I don't fit your definition of an 'engineer'? Would a degree in music with a minor in electrical engineering satisfy you? Would working in one room facilities where I was the tech by default satisfy it? How about the fact that I ALWAYS aligned my own tape machines when I was an assitant, because I wanted to make sure the job was done correctly for my clients? Now, by what criteria do term yourself a 'mixer'? Because you can turn knobs and you can clap your hands on two and four? i prefer to reserve the term 'mixer' for ladies and germs who turn a collection of [sometimes disparate] elements into a cohesive experience for the listener. Sometimes with stereo buss compression... -John

[John Paterno]

[quote]Originally posted by Jotown: [b]I don't disagree with anything you just said. But even those great cat's needed direction. Now if you have a team that you work with all the time, (like those Motown Cats, and that includes the engineers)and you have trust and a vibe that is one thing. I just rarely find myself in that position. In fact when working with great players I find that more often than not, I am reining them in more than letting them run. Good muscicians like to play, sometimes too much. As I said previously: [quote]I am open to possibilities and I like to be spontaneous, but I am always driving the bus. If it crashes, it's my fault. I can live with that. That's why I'm the producer. [/quote][/b][/quote]Hey JoTown -- What are you doing up so late?! You are right, that is the producer's gig. As Curve said earlier, we have veered off a little from my original question, but it has been interesting to see where everyone's experience has taken them. your comment about the good musicians and reining them in is well taken. Just wait to you get to experience a truly GREAT musician. You'll be amazed at how one player can play so little yet 'say' so much at the same time. I have been lucky enough in my recording and producing experiences to have the trust that has been mentioned. I think you should keep searching for players in your area. I sincerely hope that you get to experience it for yourself someday. you won't believe how much fun it is!! Going to bed now... -John

[miroslav]

It's funny reading through this thread at this time...because I am also reading through "Behind the Glass" by Howard Massey...where a lot of top producers and engineers talk about what/when/how things happened in the studio. I agree that there must be some order...some preconceived plan going in...but at the same time that plan could totally change after the first few notes are played/heard…and in the end it's not about engineering rules…it's about the song. I don't want to get into a whole debate on British vs. American approaches to recording (I'm technically neither by birth)…but I must say that my few favorite sections/interviews in the book thus far are the ones with Geoff Emerick, Alan Parsons, and Tony Visconti...who all happen to be Brits. I guess that doesn't surprise me a whole lot, because I also like a lot of their work. Someone like Alan Parsons has crossed all over those lines..."engineer, technician, artisan"...time and time again during his career. Anyway here is one Q & A quote from the Alan Parsons interview: [quote] [b]Do you think there's a "British sound" versus an American sound"? If so, what accounts for it?[/b] “I think American engineers are more into the sound of an individual piece of gear than British engineers are. The British will go for more of an overall feel or an overall atmosphere in their sound, whereas an American might be much more analytical. But why spend hours of grief possibly losing the spontaneity of the artist in order to establish what sounds best? American engineers are just more into their equipment and less reliant on the performance and the performer's ability to get a good sound.”[/quote]And a bit also from the Geoff Emerick interview: [quote]”I was never technically minded, but I had sounds in my head. I've always described the job as painting a picture with sounds; I think of microphones as lenses. Engineering is such a wrong term for music mixing, really.” … "When I was younger, I had this thing with maintenance people at Abbey Road. I'd do something, and they'd say, "You can't do that because..." They'd go on about so many nanowebers of this and so many nanowebers of that, and I wouldn't even know what they were talking about! All I'd know is that I'd hear something, and it would sound right to me.”[/quote]That coming form an "engineer" who broke all kinds of rules and came up with all kinds of interesting ways to record, and…"is one of the most respected, experienced, and knowledgeable engineers on the planet...". I know it can be interesting...even fun...to debate the best digital resolution to use...the so-called miniscule, laboratory-measured "sonic" differences you might(?) find between mic cable A and mic cable B...which console is "better"...or "proper" mic placement for this or that... But maybe that shit can just get in the way of the music...and judging by a lot of the "sonically correct"...but "musically boring" shit that comes out of top-notch facilities these day's when the technology is more advanced than ever...maybe engineers NEED to be more artisans instead of the “lab” approach to recording. For all the technical schooling I've taken…and for all the technical curiosity that I still have and still utilize in my studio…I'm still primarily interested in “the song”…and how it feels/sounds as a whole. Does it move me…does it remind me of something…does it reach me in some way… And so…knowing that I “can't/shouldn't” plug a microphone into a line input may be important…but you know…fuck it…let's try it on this and see how it sounds on this!!! Once you start doing that…that's when “stuff happens” with the song…deviating from the rules and preconceived notions you had about the session when you went in…that's art. In the end…it's always the song…all that other shit is secondary.

[Lee Flier]

Miroslav, All I can say is right fucking ON!! :thu: And that goes for Mr. Parsons and Mr. Emerick too.

[fantasticsound]

[quote]Originally posted by John Paterno: [b]Hey -- What makes you think that I don't fit your definition of an 'engineer'? Would a degree in music with a minor in electrical engineering satisfy you? Would working in one room facilities where I was the tech by default satisfy it? How about the fact that I ALWAYS aligned my own tape machines when I was an assitant, because I wanted to make sure the job was done correctly for my clients? Now, by what criteria do term yourself a 'mixer'? Because you can turn knobs and you can clap your hands on two and four? i prefer to reserve the term 'mixer' for ladies and germs who turn a collection of [sometimes disparate] elements into a cohesive experience for the listener. Sometimes with stereo buss compression... -John[/b][/quote]Uh... John? You inferred a lot into my post that simply isn't there. I did not say that you (or for that matter, any other members of the forum) are not a sound engineer. I simply stated to you (as the original poster) my criteria to [i]consider[/i] someone a sound engineer. If the shoe fits (you), then fine, wear it. I respect people, like you, who have a firm grasp of the workings of their equipment. It can make a huge difference in the efficient use and high quality performance of the gear. It is my experience, however, that there are a great many mixers who do not qualify as sound engineers, per my definition. (As stated, myself included.) The Geoff Emerick quote sums my view up very well. Your rude commment aside, my definition of a mixer is exactly what you posted after the sarcasm. What was [i]that[/i] about??? :confused: For a professional, that kind of open-mouth-first, ask-questions-later (or never) is, if I read him right, the attitude Curve is looking to avoid when an engineer puts his two cents in without being asked. Next time try asking someone if they mean you don't qualify before striking out. Peace,

[alphajerk]

[quote]Originally posted by John Paterno: [b]just remember, written part or not, musicians like James Jamerson, Al Jackson Jr., and a lot of great players were on those records we all love because they BROUGHT SOMETHING TO THE PARTY! They used the page as an outline and not the whole story. Could you imagine Bill Wither's 'Ain't No Sunshine' without that drum groove? No one on the planet could have played it that way except Al Jackson! [/b][/quote]the genius of miles davis wasnt what he actually played on him albums... it was the cast of players he brought to the party. people seem to get caught up on the use of the word engineer and simply use one of its definitions to lay out the rules... which is fully not the case. an engineer isnt only a scientist or confined to science. it is much broader... even someone who operates a ENGINE is considered an engineer [what is the recording studio, perhaps an engine of sorts?]

[John Paterno]

[quote]Originally posted by fantasticsound: Next time try asking someone if they mean you don't qualify before striking out. Peace,[/QB][/quote]I guess because you mentioned my name specifically at the top of that paragraph, I took the comments as directed towards me. If that was not your intent, sorry for my terse reply. At least the 'ladies and germs' thing was an attempt at humor... The comments about Geoff Emerick are, to refer to a previous post of mine, an example of the artisan side of the pendulum. (Tchad Blake comes to mind as a modern example.) One can only imagine what Rubber Soul and beyond would have sounded like if Geoff Emerick wasn't encouraged to explore. In the end, it varies by the project for me. I just did two days of being 'the technician', doing drums on a tune on Thursday, and doing guitars on three songs yesterday. Setting them up and making everything sound good. May and June i spent doing whole records, where I was expected to get the sounds but also push things around a bit. I guess it is all context related in the end. -Cheers, John