ARE HOME STUDIOS BAD FOR MUSIC?

[Faeflora]

Originally posted by earfatigue:

i'm split on this topic.

me all about techno this and that, then asked me what the tattoo on my neck was (which was a midi plug).

 

 

judson snell

slang music group

 

 

OOOooo, I like that tattoo! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gifhttp://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

[Curve Dominant]

Hmmm. We needed a good thread like this; it's been lame around here lately.

 

The first thing that popped out at me personally as I skimmed the posts was:

>>There's no substitute for standing up in front of an audience when it comes to confronting, or being confronted by, your own bullshit.<<

That's an insightfully worded observation. I've noticed, when working with vocalists in particular, that peeps who don't gig are always light-years behind the ones that do. If the point here is that self-contained home rigs are not the be-all/end-all, it's pretty clear that they're not. The limits, however, of the home studio, are determined by the creativity of it's operator. Obviously for most musicians they are "in addition to," not "instead of" collaborating and gigging with a team. For a band project, the home studio can be a good square-1. Yo, Lee: remember those spirited debates we had about beatboxes? I'm getting de ja vu...

 

An interesting thing I've found is when I record a bunch of songs myself, and then assemble an ensemble to play them: some of those tunes will sound slammin' note-4-note in their original form, while others have to be completely re-worked from the ground up.

 

But lately I've found that the home studio can be an excellent revenue generator for commercial soundtrack work. It's also an effective canvas for creating music for multimedia art projects, such as modern dance performances and experimental art installations - not a lot of money in that, but truckloads of fun (and the ladies luv it).

[Curve Dominant]

My apologies to Argomax (cool tag) for omitting the following:

>>I particularly prefer to hear from people totally ignorant of music techniques.<<

 

I am in absolute agreement with this. I would much rather play my mixes for my business manager's 15 year old SouthPhillyGirrl daughter than hear the nit-picking responses of some musicians & producers I know. Your smileage may vary on this point. Engineers sometimes point out undeveloped aspects regarding sound quality, but I'm talking art here, not science.

 

Word out to Alpha: we got yet another musician/graphic artist here - wfturner. Wassup, Bill! Long live Photoshop! Weez boyz!

[earfatigue]

>> That's an insightfully worded observation. I've noticed, when working with vocalists in particular, that peeps who don't gig are always light-years behind the ones that do

 

i hope curve and i can keep a recent unrelated squabble down for long enough for me to comment on this.

 

as far as studio heads go, when the red light goes on that's when the litmus test happens. more often than not, the ones with the studio experience also have the gig experience and aren't put off by being in the fishbowl.

 

on the flip side of the coin are people who are actually capable vocalists, but are going to get there best performances at home. acoustics=schmoustics, neumann=schneumann. they have the time and the relaxed atmosphere to do it properly without looking at their watch, or looking at the engineer looking back at them wondering how many more takes it's going to be before they get a smoke break.

 

so it breaks back down to the big question once again: performance vs sonics. very rarely are both 100% at the same time. i for one would rather hear someone spill their innermost torment through an sm58 and a mackie preamp than a calculated, comped, overly cleaned and pasteurized anti-take.

 

but back to the topic, because of the proliferation of viable home equipt., there's a chance to do both.

 

i still cling to the idea that any serious home setup should have at least one decent pre if they're doing vocals.

 

judson snell

slangmusicgroup

[Curve Dominant]

>>they have the time and the relaxed atmosphere to do it properly without looking at their watch, or looking at the engineer looking back at them wondering how many more takes it's going to be before they get a smoke break.<<

 

This touches on the point we were illustrating. Singers and musicians who've had extensive experience performing live in front of audiences have (hopefully) developed that "smokin' groove" that enables them to come into a studio and throw down without sweatin' the time it might take. This is a calibre of musicianship that producers look for - folks who don't need all kinds of fuss - they just jam from the get go, and leave you to get on with the rest of your work. You got to finish the sh*t & get it to market so you can move on to the next thing. I don't got time for prima donnas who need me to pamper 'em to get a half-decent track, 'cause the that's the most you get from peeps like that: half-decent, & that ain't gonna cut it where I'm from.

[earfatigue]

right, but the thread's touching on letting people who might not have an armload of redlight under their feet. i've personally watched otherwise decent singers crumble and watched somewhat flawed singers shine.

 

the idea is that you've got all the time in the world. it's elastic. yeah, gigging helps if you're seasoned at it, somewhat because you've become so cocksure at that point that you'll be halfway-there and say "fuck it, it was good enough".

 

there's a million ways to look at it. i do better work at home as opposed to the studio mainly because i have the luxury of pulling the phone cord out and not having anything business-related bother me. but for the guy on the up+up it's just easier to flip shit if he doesn't have to think about career longevity, what anyone thinks, etc. whoever heard of painting masterpieces for a crowd. why should painters get all the joys of artistic pretentiousness?

 

i agree with you though, in the real deal, you have to cut cloth in front of the mic with shit for a chip on the shoulder. stand up, deliver. nobody's got time for crap anything when the clock's running and any of that's your nickel.

 

judson snell

slangmusicgroup

[Curve Dominant]

>>in the real deal, you have to cut cloth in front of the mic with shit for a chip on the shoulder. stand up, deliver.<<

 

Well put! You OK after all. "With shit for a chip on the shoulder" - that's street poetry mah brutha!

 

Word is bond, JS: let sleeping dogs lie. Peace.

[earfatigue]

okay, so we're over the discmaker's bullshit then, right?

 

seeing as how we're both busy working on the same style of shit it seems pointless to argue over where you get it duped.

 

i'm going to go try to remember what sleeping feels like now. off like a prom dress.

 

judson snell

slang music group

[the stranger]

I have been following this thread and have to agree with some of the points made.

 

I would definitely agree that , for the most part, any song is going to benefit from collaboration. The whole "sum being greater than the equal of the parts" thing.

 

I also liked the part about some songs written by one person totally clicking when performed by a band and other songs needing reworked.

 

My solo endeavors are the direct result of frustration. I'm in an area that is not a "hotbed" of musicians.

I jerked around for too long trying to get the right outfit of people together. It still hasn't happened.

This is how I got where I am now. I'm a guitarist, first and foremost. But, I'm also at a point where I can hold my own on the drums.

I do everything myself, because I don't have a choice. I'm not going to wait around for who-or-whatever to come around. I'm going to do whatever it takes to get my vision out.

 

I still always consider my songs to demos, that I know would benefit from a full band.

What is funny, is when I do have the few serious musicians over to jam, we don't work on my songs, we just improvise. Totally free style jamming.

 

The most difficult thing I've come across is that these few good musicians I know are like myself and have a very strong idea of what it is they want to do. Of course, my vision and their visions are quite different.

This is the standard case of creative differences. We still get together and improvise (which rules), but it doesn't really go anywhere.

 

So, I just may be one of these people that works better alone.

Regardless, I'm still gonna get the right damn band together! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

 

 

This message has been edited by dr destructo on 12-20-2000 at 03:45 AM

[Anderton]

>>Extra points if you can identify the source of the preceding parenthetical comment.<<

 

Hmmmm....Jefferson Airplane, "After Bathing at Baxter's?"

[Philip OKeefe]

Very interesting points everyone! Thanks for your input and opinions.

 

Here's another (related) thought I had while reviewing the last few posts. Live music and studio work are two different animals and require two different sets of skills. Each has its advantages and challenges.

 

Make the occasional mistake live, and it's gone forever, but on tape (or disk or whatever...) it lives on forever and can be "reviewed" by your audience over and over. Playing live offers the advantage of being able to see what's working and what doesn't in an instant, interactive fashon, and drumming up that "energy" in the studio is oftentimes difficult for novices, and sometimes even for the most experienced players.

 

An advantage that I think the home studio offers is the ability for young and / or inexperienced musicians to educate themseleves as to the process of recording. Just as playing countless lounge gigs or bar band gigs can help you later in your career if you ever reach the stage where you're playing to thousands of people, learning to record yourself on even a small home setup will help you later if you're fortunate enough to record at Right Track, NRG or Abbey Road. I almost always find it easier to work with clients who have some personal studio recording experience compared to those who lack it.

 

Phil O'Keefe

Sound Sanctuary Recording

Riverside CA http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html

email: pokeefe777@msn.com

[Curve Dominant]

>>it seems pointless to argue over where you get it duped.<<

 

Yo Jud:

 

It's NEVER pointless to argue over the details. There's a fine line between mediocrity and greatness, and all the little details concerning what we do are scattered all over that fine line. Like you said: Stand up, deliver. I was over it WHEN we was mixin' it up, & I'm still over it, 'cause none of what we think we was discussing was relevant compared to the bigger picture: how do you get down to the real deal? Can I justify my commitment to my art, my craft?

 

In other words, f*ck the flames; just treat them like its the Three Stooges or Bugs Bunny/Road Runner. I'm listening to ya, babe, and I'm proccessing everything. We cool.

[alphajerk]

well this live/studio thing is all good in theory but when puch comes to shove it doesnt make much of an arguement.

 

i recorded a band recently that the EXACT opposite happened live than in the studio. one of the guys who sometimes doesnt perform live nailed it in the studio and the one who shined live faltered in the studio.\

 

then you have your good days, bad days factor. i have had days where the singer couldnt nail shit only to come back a couple days later and hit it first take.

 

i think that there is a time and place for both mechanisms to create good music and revise it until its right.

 

the problem with technology allowing people to easily get studios of good quality at low prices [and that is a bit far fetched lie in itself, good equipment still costs a pretty penny] is that some of the people buying it are getting it before they really need it, can use it, and can shine ultimately as a musician. but that doesnt really stop them from being able to burn cds and do whatever with them. there is also something to be said in beginners luck.

 

for those who truly know thier craft, the home studio is a godsend.

 

but to answer the question posed, home studios ARE GREAT for music. they allow the time to be spent sweating the details instead of wasting big money in a larger facility. sure there are things that large studio are of use for. i can get a decent drum sound in mine but i could get a LOT better sound in a proper setting.

 

now i have invested quite heavily in my studio [moving in on six figures rather quickly now] but there is still a slew of stuff that i need for proper exposure for the music to develop [im not referring to the actual arrangement here but the sonics] but you better be damn well sure i can get the source sound in to a good extent. with that i can tie into any larger studio to take advantage of what i need to fully realize the material. but my circumstance is a little different than a musicians studio. but they too can get a bit of the work done off the clock so to speak.

[Guest]

"Word out to Alpha: we got yet another musician/graphic artist here - wfturner. Wassup, Bill! Long live Photoshop! Weez boyz!"

 

Been so consumed in studying digital recording not sure I even remember what "graphics arts" is http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif.

 

 

 

------------------

William F. Turner

Guitarist, Composer, Songwriter

[Lee Flier]

Wow, interesting responses from everyone, and funny thing, I agree with most of them, even those that appear to contradict each other! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif Every situation is different of course.

 

I agree with the bottom line that home studios are generally great for music (well, since I have one, I'd BETTER feel that way!). However, as I've said before on other subjects, whenever you gain something you give something up, and it always behooves us even as we embrace something new, to think about what we might be losing and how or if we can compensate for it.

 

There are two main things I've noticed that have been a problem in the wake of the home studio revolution. One can be easily addressed, the other I'm not so sure:

 

1) The point originally brought up in this thread, which is that a home studio owner can potentially become too isolated from the musical community trying to be a one-man band, and the resulting work may suffer. And yes, the freedom to work without a clock running is wonderful, but there are also lots of people I see who would benefit greatly from a time limitation because they end up spending months nit picking at things and squeezing the life out of their work, and/or having albums that are never quite finished. Both of these things, of course, are controllable with some conscious awareness, and in fact the studio owner may not even consider either of them a problem depending on the situation.

 

2) The rise of home studios has left a lot of mid level commercial studios in the dust and even more cheap commercial studios. Many people simply don't see the point of paying even $50 an hour for a nice mid level studio because hey, they just got some ADAT's or a Roland VS and can do it all themselves, right? Or maybe they want to track at home and mix at a pro studio - but if things continue as they are, the pro studio in the affordable price range may no longer be there for them.

 

As long as people are willing to accept the degraded sound quality (which it seems they are), and especially since a lot of folks are into electronic stuff and don't record many acoustic instruments other than vocals, I don't see how we can change this. In some respects the home studio revolution then starts to look like the Wal-Mart of studios that drives some good people out of business. I already have at least one friend this has happened to, and he had a wonderful place.

 

Of course there's not a lot that can really be done about this, and it's inevitable when the market changes that some people are going to be left out of luck. And I think we can all agree that home studios have many more benefits than Wal-Marts. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

--Lee

[Guest]

Like many other things, it's a double-edged sword. There are people who sit in their rooms, create music largely by themselves, and have a beautiful, unobstructed, undiluted path to achieving their music.

 

There are others who really, more than others, badly need that human interaction.

 

Recording in my home studio, I've created ambient music that was completely created on my own, something that I couldn't have ever been able to articulate to someone else what I was trying to achieve. It's a much stronger, realized work of music as a result.

 

For most of the other stuff, I record with other people, even if it is one of my own recording projects. I get people in, and their own way of playing or doing things infuses the project with a new life, a new energy. The collaborative process! I record my band here as well, full bass, drums, guitar, and vocals -- and obviously, with a band situation, the need for a collaborative process is important.

 

Ken/Eleven Shadows/d i t h er/nectar

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

music*travel photos*tibet*lots of stuff

"Sangsara" "Irian Jaya" & d i t h er CDs available! http://www.elevenshadows.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Jim Aikin]

Originally posted by Anderton:

>>Extra points if you can identify the source of the preceding parenthetical comment.<<

 

Hmmmm....Jefferson Airplane, "After Bathing at Baxter's?"

 

Right! (Craig, I think we're both showing our age here....)

 

--JA

[dansouth]

Originally posted by pokeefe777@msn.com:

Ever hear a convincing MIDI sax solo?

 

IMHO - don't you just hate the condescending tone of that acronym? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif - I've programmed a couple of nice sax solos over the years. No, it doesn't sound like Sonny Rollins, but given the limitations of the samples, they're convicing parts. I've got them on cassette demos, so I could probably MP3 them without much fidelity loss, just in case anyone is interested. I've also done some baroque trumpet stuff that turned out better than expected.

 

I'm not trying to toot my own horn - bad pun, fully intended - but I'm suggesting that if you work on the details long enough, you can create realistic MIDI parts. That said, it's probably more time and cost effective to just have a player come in a blow for a half hour rather than spend two days editing a 32 bar solo. And I thought computers were supposed to make our lives easier... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

[dansouth]

Originally posted by alphajerk:

its not that classical players lose respect, they get scared. they cant jam for shit, its called freethinking and something they arent capable of. on the other hand, somebody who knows how to jam usually cant read music for shit, its called discipline and something they arent capable of. then you got people in the middle who cant read that great and cant jam that great but possess their own talents somewhere in there.

 

Interesting thoughts on the balance of reading vs. improvising skills. There are those who do both well, but they've worked very hard to get to that level, and they're definitely a minority contingient.

 

A lot of baroque music is improvised, particularly the continuo part, which is often played on an organ or harpsichord. Some canons are written as a melody only. The canon form is so strict that the accompanyment can be inferred. On the other hand, an orchestra can't improvise without sounding like a bunch of noise. It's just too many players. They need a road map, so the composer or orchestrator needs to plan the journey for them in advance.

 

The ultimate expression of this is the big band, where you have 15-20 players who can all improvise, but they stick to the charts so they sound like a unit, then solo in turn. It's not a matter of one skill vs. the other, it's a matter of doing what's best for the final result.

 

This message has been edited by dansouth@yahoo.com on 12-20-2000 at 05:42 PM