Andy Wallace.... HOW???

[Doug Ring]

the goal is the same:
to capture the exact image of a great band.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well...that's one goal. That goal is admirable and is like trying to take a definitive photograph - maybe like recording jazz with a minimal mic setup.

But would anyone say the Beach Boys' Good Vibrations was a snapshot of the band? Or Queen's Bohemian Rhapshody? Or even Les Paul's overdubbed and vari-speeded hits?

The record can be the art form in its own right. Artist, engineer and producer collaborate to produce something well beyond a simple representation of the band and the public can appreciate the sounds for what they are - a sonic creation - and buy the record for that alone. When it all comes together - great tune, great arrangement, ear-catching sounds - in something like Good Vibrations, you have a hit (then of course, the band has the headache of recreating it live...).

The bands should be the masters of their sound and we should be their enhancers.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well put. And a band can choose engineers or producers to enhance their sound the way they want. The same band's going to sound totally different produced by Mitchell Froom than produced by Daniel Lanois. And while the names Froom and Lanois don't necessarily appear in the shop browsers, I would usually check to see who did produce something before buying. It wouldn't stop me buying if I hadn't heard of or didn't like the producer or engineer, but it just might make my mind up to buy if I did like their work.

Here's a question - how many hi-fi buffs with little interest in jazz buy stuff on the ECM label because it always sound terrific?

[narcoman]

Dont think a mixer sells a record?

well heres a little very common story.

The quality of the song doesnt particularly matter to many radio pluggers, mainstream reviewers or radio producers. Apart from the elistism which all of us in our trade suffer from from one degree or another radio producers and pluggers bass there decisions on whether they think a record will be a hit or not - not whether punters will necessarily purchase it based on how good it is. Andy Wallaces name does at least give a record a very good chance of getting A or B listed - for good reason. Whether you like AWs work or not (personally i think all his stuff sound like the rock equivalent of Britney records) is not relevent. What matters is that attaching names to pop records is one of the marketing tools used not only externally but internally to the industry as well. As mixers/producers of music we are at the front end of the work just after the writers and performers. Now the guys that sell our stuff are several chains down and to get HMV or Virgin to stock you need a good "story". Often a good story is "the radio are going nuts for it". The radio goes nuts for records where they may be some degree of quality guarantee - attaching names like AW or Rick rubin or (god forbid) Nigel Godrich gets a good strong foot in the doors of the marketeers. Dont be under any illusion that the AWs of this world get hired to satisfy the punter. They are hired because of their experience and knowledge AND there name. I use many mastering houses depending upon budget and I can say very confidently that one VP of a major international label I deal with EVERY DAY (as my company is partially dunded by them !) is almost always convinced of work I've done when I attach the name of a well known mastering engineer at a well known New York based mastering firm. No names mentioned - never bite the hand that feeds ya !!

In this business, aside from the punters, story and name are EVERYTHING.

cheers

[zoggied]

Andy Wallace is a great mixer, in my opinion at least. His work with The Cult, Nirvana and especially Jeff Buckley is outstanding. Let's save the diatribe regarding the state of the industry for another post and discuss technique here. Does anybody have any insight on how AW gets his sounds? Equipment, mic technique, rooms...

[PTUser NYC]

From what you say,i think the goal is the same:
to capture the exact image of a great band.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Not to be picky, but SOMETIMES that is the goal, sometimes not. I'm sure you agree, I won't bother arguing semantics, but I thought it worth mentioning.

But why do we have to use the techniques that you describe,if we want to capture the exact sound that we hear? It's like saying that there is no proper mic/recording method to accuratelly reproduce a sound source.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well, first of all you don't have to do anything I say! Again, I'm sure you agree. This is just my experience. I CAN say that getting more than 100% out of a mix requires psychological trickery. Everything can't be big all the time, or rather, if somethings get bigger at some moments, and other at other times, the psychological effect (if you've done it right) is bigger than you can get otherwise.

Also, I will say that yes, I don't believe that there is any microphone/preamp comination that will sound like it does in the room. Things change drastically when you mic them. Sometimes it requires a lot of technique to get back to zero, if that's even where you want to go.

It may sound logical to say that using less gear will result in a sound that is truer to the original, but in practice - especailly in a mix with other tracks, I find that that is not the case. What makes something sound one way or another is simply a matter of the choices you make - what the ideal you are working toward is. You may use several microphones, mic preamps, EQ, and compression toget an acoustic guitar that sounds organic and unprocessed. You may also use one mic with no processing at all and get a very unsatisfactory, and non realistic result.

You have to be careful not to think about HOW something is recorded when you judge it. All that matters is what it sounds like, and what you want it to sound like, and what to change to get there. You cannot look at two faders and deduce the relative volumes of the tracks, you cannot look at an EQ setting and know whether the sound is bright enough, and you cannot look at a compressor and know if there is too much or not enough compression happening. Beware of the intelectualization of art - it always defies quantization!

So,i think that we must hear the artist/band rehearsh before we go into recording them in order to justify our recording method.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Sure! I never said that there was one way to do anything. I only said that we can use psychological tricks to make people feel like they are hearing something more than is actually there. What that is that they think they are hearing is the goal, and the goal will be different for each project.

For instance,if i have a full jazz band in front of me,then later in the recording,i'll probably put two condensers for the whole drum kit in the proper position,instead of 8-9 mics because that drum kit,doesn't dominate the band,it's just a member of it and stays relatively in the background.

But in a case of a power metal band,the drums will be surrounded by mics.
What i mean,is that if i put 10 mics in the jazz kit,then i'll probably have a rough time during the mix in order to 'position' the kit where it belongs and i'll sure open a huge bag of tricks in order to 'fix' it.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Sure, but you could use "a bag of tricks" to fix a single mic on a drum kit too. You could even use them to make it sound less processed!

If you had a single condenser near a drum kit the sound would likely be dense and clouded, and lack the punch that you hear in the room. Would compressing a few db to bring out the attacks and push back the room be anti-organic? I submit that the mic might have a lot more room than you PERCIEVED when listening live. Many cues that your ears would use to locate the drums, and "ignore" some of the room could be lost in the microphone.

Would it be further anti-organic to use some EQ to push back midrange room slop, again making the drums sound clearer like you precieved them in the room? Or to add or roll off brightness which was hyped or lacking in the mic itself? What about adding a little reverb to make them stereo, or to push them behind, say, the sax section - like it sounded in the room? What if I decide to gate or mute, or lower the drum mic during sections where the drums don't play? In the room, the drums simply tacet, but in our recording, room tone becomes more prominent when the drums are quiet, but the mic stays open. What if I decide to use a delay to create an early reflection which was never in the room, but is in my mental picture of the perfect room I wish I'd recorded them in?

But here's what I'm really talking about --

What if I raise the volume of the drums during a fill where they are more important to the song? In the room my attention went to the drums during that moment, and then back to the saxes. Is it anti-organic to raise a fill?

In this and many more ways, you can see that how you use these things is most important. Assuming you are a competant engineer, and able to get what you are shooting for, its the mental picture you you have that determines whether something sounds organic, true, overproduced etc. Using gear does not make something sound a certain way on its own.

Lastly, although I agree that in a big band situation, I might well use only a handful of mics on the drums - I assure you that if I had each one mic'ed individually, I could still make it sound like only a few mics had been used, if that's what I was going for. And THAT is the key.

[PeeTee]

There's about 100 other guys in NY, 100 in LA and 100 in Nashville (and probably another 1000 all over the world) that can mix as good, if not better, then Wallace. He was at the right place at the right time to hook up with Rubin. It also helps if you're mixing the best of the best...the best bands, recorded in the best studios, with the best equipment, best engineers, the best techs...the whole best of the best. Push the faders up and your mix is already 90% there. [img]images/icons/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[stealthbalance]

oh my God !!

[PeeTee]

Originally posted by stealthbalance:
oh my God !!

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Yeah, what? [img]images/icons/mad.gif[/img]

[picksail]

I don't quite understand the relevence of this defence towards PTUserNYC. What I construed from his writings was just a different approach to achieving a result. It's just another method and it makes perfect sense. Yet, he still takes the time to return with another attempt at clarifying himself.

The points he makes regarding the guitar/bass relationship should certainly, be understood by everyone here. Discretely rolling off the bottom of a guitar is not going to degrade it, but enhance the relationship between the two instruments as a whole. Doing this will allow the bass to have more prescence and more coherence.The inverse can be done with the bass in terms off rolling off some of the highs.The guitar has a very extended range( all the way down in the baritone register ) and it can very easily clash with the bass. When the guitars a pumping around a 100Hz., where are you going to put the bass or even the kick?

When I mix I want to hear the character of every instrument and as an orchestral composer I have to be acutely aware of the instrument and its' harmonic equivelent. It can be a very difficult task trying to double a bassoon with a cello, know what I mean?

[stealthbalance]

peetee-

there are maybe 100 guys in ny that think they can
mix as well as andy wallace , but really they could
maybe mix a salad. the egos of some engineers
are truely pegged and distorted.although luck and timing do play a big part in most peoples lives,
i find that the wankers get shot down fairly quickly.
these same wankers are also a/b ing their mix
against wallace when the client isn't around.
smoke and mirrors only work for so long.
s

[PTUser NYC]

Although I'm sure the comment was meant as a dig at AW, I have to kind of agree with it in a backwards way. I will disagree with the poster's intent, I think AW's work is outstanding. But NYC and Hollywood are full of talented people. While I doubt there are a thousand engineers as talented as AW, there might easily be 100. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]