Tape Op Article: Sufjan Stevens - greatest engineer ever?

[bobby yarrow]

Originally Posted by aermotor

Funny you presume he lies, I don't know why he would need to...

I don't say he'd need to, but people lie a lot when asked about their gear. And certainly it's a better story than saying, 'yeah, I bought a whole bunch of Rode mics and a presonus firethingy and then my label paid somebody a fortune to make it sound ok.'

I dunno. I'm not even convinced that Nebraska was recorded with 2 SM57's, and that record really sounds like 2 SM57's.

(Maybe SS got his record confused with Springsteen's?)

[joeq]

Originally Posted by frontierfran

now, there will be arguments on how good that album sounds, but I can say this: I doubt many people on this board would detect how "amateur" the tracking and mixing were done. It really sounds much better than the methodology behind it would dictate.

not to me it doesn't

dry as toast - sorry

after reading this thread, I thought it was going to sound "great", not "great, considering..."

How is this 'greatest engineer ever' award decided? Do you get extra points for "degree of difficulty"?

[blim]

Originally Posted by JP11

How did anyone hear of this guy? Viral marketing?

Are you serious? Illinois topped virtually every year-end critic's poll two (three?) years ago. Where haveyou been?

[astral_car]

sufjan sound is dry, the arrangements go form very sparse to very dense, instruments exchange parts, the vocal always floats on top nicely...

I don't know if michigan is really done with three mics, what is stunning is that this guy can think,write, arrange, put a mic in front of something and produce touching,
deeply emotional music... it doesn't happen very often these days...

a.

[allyouneedisears]

Originally Posted by astral_car

what is stunning is that this guy can think,write, arrange, put a mic in front of something and produce touching,
deeply emotional music... it doesn't happen very often these days...

a.

Nail on the head. thumbsup

[JP11]

Originally Posted by blim

Are you serious? Illinois topped virtually every year-end critic's poll two (three?) years ago. Where haveyou been?

Yeah, I'm well aware...I'm asking how YOU (or anyone) first heard of him...he's obviously not marketed like Britney...

how'd he get on every critics desk?

Like I said earlier, the marketing seems way more interesting to me than the recording...

[bcgood]

Originally Posted by JP11

I'm asking how YOU (or anyone) first heard of him...he's obviously not marketed like Britney...

I randomly ran across one of his songs on youtube while I was looking for something else. I really liked the song and found out who it was. After listening to other tracks from Illinoise on iTunes I went out and bought the cd the next day. It's still one of my favorites. I remember listening to it on my really nice headphones before I went to sleep for like a week straight after I bought it. It absolutely turned my world upside down. It is an amazing work of art.

This was the video I stumbled upon by the way.

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by anguswoodhead

He's a gospel artist right?
If so I get your confusion - I have never heard an original Sufjan recording,
Just the remix / mashup I mastered for Tor - sorry if it offends you.
Kinda sacrilege I guess to put crude lyrics over Gospel instrumentals.

Not particularly a gospel artist. I think he's a professed christian of one sort or another, but when you say gospel artist, that usually means part of the Christian music industry.

There's a difference between being a christian artist and an artist who happens to be a christian. Bruce Cockburn and T-Bone Burnett being examples of the latter. I think Sufjan falls in this category. T-Bone actually refers (ed) to himself as a "christian agnostic", but I think he's just trying to be a pain in the ass.

"Gospel music" is a bit of a neutered term. Was more useful when it referred to old soul music that had burst out of the southern baptist churches. It literally means "good news", and that's what those old gospel tunes professed.

[travisbrown]

There is a really good Austin City Limits episode with Sufjan, followed by Calexico. That was a good night in Austin.

[bcgood]

Here's a link to Sufjan and his band playing for a live radio broadcast called Morning Becomes Eclectic.

KCRW | 89.9FM - Media Player


Artist: Sufjan Stevens
Title: Casimir Pulaski Day
Album: Illinois

Golden rod and the 4-H stone
The things I brought you
When I found out you had cancer of the bone

Your father cried on the telephone
And he drove his car to the Navy yard
Just to prove that he was sorry

In the morning through the window shade
When the light pressed up against your shoulder blade
I could see what you were reading

Oh the glory that the lord has made
And the complications you could do without
When I kissed you on the mouth

Tuesday night at the bible study
We lift our hands and pray over your body
But nothing ever happens

I remember at Michael's house
In the living room when you kissed my neck
And I almost touched your blouse

In the morning at the top of the stairs
When your father found out what we did that night
And you told me you were scared

Oh the glory when you ran outside
With your shirt tucked in and your shoes untied
And you told me not to follow you

Sunday night when I cleaned the house
I find the card where you wrote it out
With the pictures of your mother

On the floor at the great divide
With my shirt tucked in and my shoes untied
I am crying in the bathroom

In the morning when you finally go
And the nurse runs in with her head hung low
And the cardinal hits the window

In the morning in the winter shade
On the first of March on the holiday
I thought I saw you breathing

Oh the glory that the lord has made
And the complications when I see his face
In the morning in the window

Oh the glory when he took our place
But he took my shoulders and he shook my face
And he takes and he takes and he takes

[bonnybilly]

I find it really sad that people can't handle or accept the fact that a good sounding record was made with basic equipment. I didn't hear anyone say "no way, the Bon Ivor record was never made with a couple of 57's". If you actually listen to Michigan...it IS a lofi record but it has shit loads of imagination and artistry which some people bizarrly think is down to expensive equipment.

I really need to read this article now...is there any way someone could scan and upload for me? I'll make you a mixtape!

D.

[cleantone]

For what it is worth, people asking about hearing about Sufjan. It must have been at least three years ago that I heard of him through word of mouth.

[headwerkn]

sounds good... but the guy's wearing wings. i mean, I don't want to sound shallow, but it looks like he laid down on a Macaw.

microphone choice is irrelevant if there's a dead bird adhered to your back.

[recall]

Originally Posted by bobby yarrow

Yes.

Michigan is a VERY lo-fi record, and probably a pretty important part of the cultural shift toward that sort of sound. I do admire him for (I presume) lying in the interview about the gear he used; it's way better for the fans to think that than to think they need to buy a $10,000 vocal mic. I'm sure he did use junky kit, and I REALLY admire the engineers who must have worked like hell to make that record sound as good as it does, even if it still basically sounds crap.

That's a pretty arrogant statement.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by frontierfran

anyone else read that article in Tape Op about Sufjan Stevens?
His guerrila recording techniques. recording at 32 and not at least 44.1. Dumping tracks 2 tracks at a time into PT from a 4 track...manually overdubbing drums and lining them up by eye. using nothing but 57's...

If the article is 100% geniune, then it really does say something about gear, or, perhaps the need of high end stuff to make a really nice sounding album.

now, there will be arguments on how good that album sounds, but I can say this: I doubt many people on this board would detect how "amateur" the tracking and mixing were done. It really sounds much better than the methodology behind it would dictate.

possible bottom line: good gear might only be for those of us who need a lot of help with mixing since the better the gear up front, the easier it is to mix.
And, or, Sufjan Stevens is the greatest enginneer to have ever lived.

if you havnt read it, read it. its facinating.

I'd heard/read his name for some time but was unfamiliar with his actual work. (The context of mention often seemed to suggest that those who like Coldplay with like Stevens [?!?]. I hate Coldplay. But then people are always saying to me, if you like A, then you'll like B, and, far more often than not, I don't.)

But I made a point of checking out some of his stuff [I just took the most popular off the top of the Rhapsody artist page for him] after seeing the article on the cover (still haven't really read it) and, actually, seeing this thread title (this is the first time opened it).

I actually rather liked much of what I heard -- and it's clean, for the most part, but not exactly sparkling fidelity. That said, what I heard had a fairly pleasant tone, and was nicely arranged in that dreamy, arty way. I sometimes think high frequencies are overrated. The ear may be attracted to bright, shiny objects, but it seems to fall in love with and want to hang out with the warmer, darker tones, often enough.

[theblue1]

Inspired?? If this is what you vicariously choose to live through that's you deal. I personally don't believe most of what I read.

FWIW, I don't believe most of what you read, either.

Originally Posted by bobby yarrow

[...]
I dunno. I'm not even convinced that Nebraska was recorded with 2 SM57's, and that record really sounds like 2 SM57's.

[...]

I appreciate the rigor of your skepticism.

Originally Posted by joeq

not to me it doesn't

dry as toast - sorry

after reading this thread, I thought it was going to sound "great", not "great, considering..."

[...]

Me... I like dry as toast. I hate mixes slathered in goopy reverb. Yuck. They sound so fake.

Now I don't think this sounds like it was necessarily recorded on expensive gear. But it was clearly tracked and mixed by someone with a vivid and distinctive musical vision. In a world of cookie-cutter product, it sounds fresh and clean and unencumbered by current fad and fashion.

I can easily see why this would be classified as lo fi (with the understanding reinforced by a recent thread that that term means wildly different things to different people).

But it also sounds very good to me. Very satisfying. Very pleasant. (I did just put Michigan into my playlist to see if I could suss out the discomfort issue someone mentioned. I'm a coal miner's canary for many fatigue/discomfort/phase problem issues.)

Originally Posted by travisbrown

[...]

There's a difference between being a christian artist and an artist who happens to be a christian. Bruce Cockburn and T-Bone Burnett being examples of the latter. I think Sufjan falls in this category. T-Bone actually refers (ed) to himself as a "christian agnostic", but I think he's just trying to be a pain in the ass.

"Gospel music" is a bit of a neutered term. Was more useful when it referred to old soul music that had burst out of the southern baptist churches. It literally means "good news", and that's what those old gospel tunes professed.

What might be called Christian agnosticism is part of a long tradition of people who feel that Jesus' teachings of compassion, charity and ethical behavior transcend the pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking with which many folks approach Christianity as a reassuring, comfort zone religion.

[robot gigante]

I agree that his records don't sound like they were recorded on expensive gear. I don't think a record needs to be per se either

But I guess I would like to hear a Sufjan Stevens record that had a more timeless quality to it, where the sound of the gear, lofi or hifi, is less of a factor. I want to hear the songs, not so much the gear.

I do agree with the comment about his influence on a lot of indie producers. There has definitely been a trend where people are roughing up their tracks deliberately to make them sound less "produced," but ironically, most of the time the results are overproduced garbage, as much as any slick sounding track is. Seems like whenever people focus too much on that kind of thing the production gets in the way of what the songs are trying to communicate (of course, musically those people don't have much to say most of the time, unlike Stevens, so I can understand trying to obscure mediocrity under a layer of lofi- or hifi for that matter- production).

I'm happy people find Michigan pleasant to listen to, even if I don't.

[Aidyn]

Originally Posted by robot gigante

There's something about that album that hurts my ears. While I like the music, it don't like that about it. I'm sure it has everything to do with the way it was recorded. I'm not a hifi snob, but I do like stuff that sounds pleasant to the ears, lofi or hifi. I think the arrangements and songwriting are stellar, but...

Hmmm, I'm gonna have to say I think you are a little crazy (or a hifi snob) on this one. Although the album (which I like and may need to give another listen to if I want to see what you may be talking about) could be said to be a little flat overall as far as sound goes.

sounds good... but the guy's wearing wings. i mean, I don't want to sound shallow, but it looks like he laid down on a Macaw.

microphone choice is irrelevant if there's a dead bird adhered to your back.

Are you staring at a picture of him with wings on when you listen to his music? I don't think what the guy looks like or chooses as his attire during concerts should affect your judgement of the music.

[robot gigante]

Originally Posted by Aidyn

Hmmm, I'm gonna have to say I think you are a little crazy (or a hifi snob) on this one. Although the album (which I like and may need to give another listen to if I want to see what you may be talking about) could be said to be a little flat overall as far as sound goes.

Nah, my ears are just sensitive to certain things. Everyone hears things differently. I'm almost sorry I said that to be honest. Don't want to be pissing on what people are enjoying.

[theblue1]

FWIW, I've been listening to Seven Swans, Illiniois, and Michigan in shuffle rotation for the last couple hours and "They Are Night Zombies" (Illinois) came on a minute or two ago and I heard myself say, out loud, "This sounds ------- great."

So... that's what my subconscious (which exercises blurting rights over my mouth way too often) thinks.


Anyhow, sonics aside, musically, I'm really suckered in. I'm just afraid if I spend too much time listening to Stevens and Andrew Bird I'm going to get all sensitive or something...



PS... I'm breaking out the banjo.

[robot gigante]

Yeah, throw on some Iggy and the Stooges and/or Blue Cheer as counterpoint.

[joeq]

Originally Posted by theblue1

Me... I like dry as toast. I hate mixes slathered in goopy reverb. Yuck. They sound so fake. .

sorry if I was unclear. I did not mean 'dry' in the engineering sense of less reverb.

I meant 'dry' as in plain and uninteresting. Sorry but that's what it sounds like to me.

Now I don't think this sounds like it was necessarily recorded on expensive gear. But it was clearly tracked and mixed by someone with a vivid and distinctive musical vision. In a world of cookie-cutter product, it sounds fresh and clean and unencumbered by current fad and fashion.

The title of the thread was "greatest engineer ever?" - for that I expected the sonics of the record to do more than simply overcome the Low Expectations set for someone recording with a Roland and a 57.

Originally Posted by bonnybilly

I find it really sad that people can't handle or accept the fact that a good sounding record was made with basic equipment. .

I could handle that fact, I just don't think that it IS a "good" sounding record. It is an OK sounding record with imaginative and interesting music.


How does making a low-fi record with low-end gear translate into a great engineering achievement? I really think the praise for the "enginering" of this record is overblown, confused with appreciation for the music itself, and biased by the Low Expectations generated by the gear list and session notes.

[travisbrown]

Originally Posted by theblue1

What might be called Christian agnosticism is part of a long tradition of people who feel that Jesus' teachings of compassion, charity and ethical behavior transcend the pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking with which many folks approach Christianity as a reassuring, comfort zone religion.

Yes, true. I know about christian agnosticism and its vagaries well. My point is that T-Bone B. tends to be cryptic and paradoxical with great glee, so when he claims this in an interview, I suspect it's simply to be enigmatic.

To wit, my favourite T-Bone line is,

"The most frightening thing is not dying; the most frightening thing is not living."
From Primatives, Criminal Under My Own Hat

Ten different ways that can be interpreted, right down to simple negation.

While at times he's been on the fringes of the Christian music industry (Skylarks, Alpha Band), he's an artist that allows(ed) his Christian worldview to influence his art (which makes sense in any respect that art reflects the artist). Much the same as Cockburn. You'd never call either a christian or gospel artist, but that doesn't belie the fact that they are/were christians. By the bye, I think T-Bone was influential in Dylan's conversion.

The interview was with him and his then-wife and always talented Sam Phillips, formerly known as Leslie Phillips when she was a Christian music industry artist.

[bcgood]

I like the fact that Sufjan mentioned that his drummer who also is an engineer mentioned that he thought Sufjan used a lot of compression on his voice until he heard him sing live and realized that's just how he sings and controls his voice. A good singer with knowledge and ability to control both his tone and level are the best compressor ever made.

[anguswoodhead]

So looks like no-one has a scanner.

[u b k]

i've just begun to check out his music tonight, so i'll reserve judgment... i generally need to hear an album 3 or 4 times before i can suss whether it speaks to me.

what i can say right now, though, is that illinoise does not sound remotely lo-fi to me. maybe standards have changed, but i'm listening to more than my fair share of 70's funk 45's lately and *that*, to me, is low fidelity recording.

illinoise has all the freqs from subs to air, the vocal treatments are sheeny and tightly compressed, the panning and layering all are very well done. there is no dirt, no grit, no grain, no boxiness, no hollowness, no edginess, no roughness whatsoever. it sounds very polished to me, very slick.

what exactly makes a recording qualify for lo-fi these days? does it just have to be less glossy than tla?


gregory scott - ubk
.

[kedbear]

Would really appreciate it if a scan of the article could be posted up. Really want to read it, tape op is different in europe and this interview isn't included.
Please, anyone?!

[astral_car]

Originally Posted by theblue1

I'm just afraid if I spend too much time listening to Stevens and Andrew Bird I'm going to get all sensitive or something...

I am also listening to a lot of Sufjan and Andrew Bird's "Noble beast" lately!
Regarding hifi vs lofi, does anybody outside this forum really care about that? Isn't that distnction really subjective?

There's a great thread around here called "Why audio quality matters" with the link
to a video of a conference held some time ago in NY with Greg Calbi, Kevin Killen etc. well actually one of the records chosen to prove why audio quality matters is indeed Illinoise (and the John Wayne Gacy jr song). In the end, song quality matters...

a.

[moma]

could somebody please try to post the article somewhere...would be interessting but the mag is hard to get in Germany.

Cheers moma

[soundbarnfool]

Use the tools you have.

Inglewood SoundBarn