Andy Wallace interview -Mix

[seb37000]

I've read somewhere that tape op had an article with aw, maybe there are some others in mix or eq, maybe someone has these articles and would be kind enought to post them here...

[drew]

http://www.tapeop.com/magazine/backissues/issue25.html

got to buy it but there it is.

[patrox247]

I found it interesting that Andy seems to have little or no use for Pro Tools. It seems to be a running theme with a lot of the "big name" mixers. I know the Alge bros could care less about it as well. Andy made some remarks about those of us that toil for hours editing parts that might not even improve the final product. I am very guilty of this as I have over the last few years turned into an editing freak. Anyone else find that article interesting?

[monrock halo]

I agree with Andy there...thanks for the heads up about the article.

[Jay Kahrs]

I found it interesting for other reasons, but not because of the anti-PT & editing standpoint, I've been a subscriber to that program for years. For me the DAW is just a big overgrown tape machine, submixer & FX box and I still prefer working off tape if I can, purely because it keeps the Pandora's box of micro-editing closed.

[gsharp]

Originally Posted by patrox247

I know the Alge bros could care less about it as well.

What do you mean by 'care less'? They both use it to some extent.

[patrox247]

The key words are "some extent". Andy never uses PT. The alge bros comp and edit less than anyone I know with a computer.

[gsharp]

Originally Posted by patrox247

The key words are "some extent". Andy never uses PT. The alge bros comp and edit less than anyone I know with a computer.

I'd sure hope as mix engineers they're not having to do a lot of comping. I'd hope that had all been sorted before they get the stuff. I guess I'm missing the point. Is this an anti ProTools thing in particular or an anti-DAW/non-linear editing thing in general?

[jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by patrox247

The key words are "some extent". Andy never uses PT. The alge bros comp and edit less than anyone I know with a computer.

Are you aware that the riders for both these guys require that all sessions be given to them in pro tools format? If not, the sogns will not be mixed. And what Andy means by not using PT is that he has someone else run it for him. Not to be confused with him not using it on anything he is involved with.

[Jay Kahrs]

Originally Posted by jonnyclueless

Are you aware that the riders for both these guys require that all sessions be given to them in pro tools format? If not, the sogns will not be mixed. And what Andy means by not using PT is that he has someone else run it for him. Not to be confused with him not using it on anything he is involved with.

Last I heard was that Andy was having everything transferred to a 3348 and mixing from that regardless of what format it comes in on.

But really who cares? They, just like everyone else have a system in place that works for them.

[patrox247]

This is not a Pro Tools rant. I am a Pro tools engineer on tons of the sessions I am involved with. I edit in Pro Tools as much as or more than anyone I know. The article just made me reflect upon what the actual goal is and the fact that perhaps many of us have lost sight of it.

[monrock halo]

Yeah, over-editing is kind of a curse. As is under-performing during the recording. And the song is king.

But this being gear slutz:

I have noticed over the years that the best-sounding mixes done in our room by outside guys often used only 5-10 pieces of outboard kit and maybe 3 plugins in ProTools (sans amp, echo farm, and the occasional autotune), everything else being done on the console.

There was a time when I had every piece of outboard in the rack involved in each mix...

That has evolved to using just a few and everything else done with the SSL EQs & dynamics.

Goes faster that way too, and easier recalls.

Anyway, whatever.

[gsharp]

Originally Posted by patrox247

This is not a Pro Tools rant. I am a Pro tools engineer on tons of the sessions I am involved with. I edit in Pro Tools as much as or more than anyone I know. The article just made me reflect upon what the actual goal is and the fact that perhaps many of us have lost sight of it.

Absolutely right. The better the song the less any of the rest matters. AW, CLA, etc... mix more songs that no one ever hears than they mix hits. If the songs not up to a certain caliber it's not gonna matter who mixes it, or from what format.

Look at the Sufjan Stevens thread. Great songs, so the issue of recording medium goes right out the window.

[Jay Kahrs]

Originally Posted by patrox247

This is not a Pro Tools rant. I am a Pro tools engineer on tons of the sessions I am involved with. I edit in Pro Tools as much as or more than anyone I know. The article just made me reflect upon what the actual goal is and the fact that perhaps many of us have lost sight of it.

Dig it.

Show of hands...

Who either started on, or at least remembers Soundtools?

thumbsup

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by patrox247

Anyone else find that article interesting?

Kinda boring if you ask me but in a way every interview i've read with AW follows the same guideline.

I also like the fact that MB kept AW's specific gear use off the interview out of respect for him.

He dances real carefully around that.

Just mentions enough and nothing more.

The best part of the interview is reading about the issues with the clients who want to change minutae.

Its was actually comforting to read that.

The interview in a gist is AW does whatever it takes to make a mix work and doesn't really think about it.

Just the way it should be.

[Musiclab]

Originally Posted by Jay Kahrs

Dig it.

Show of hands...

Who either started on, or at least remembers Soundtools?

thumbsup

I do, I also remember it on an atari

[jonnyclueless]

Originally Posted by patrox247

This is not a Pro Tools rant. I am a Pro tools engineer on tons of the sessions I am involved with. I edit in Pro Tools as much as or more than anyone I know. The article just made me reflect upon what the actual goal is and the fact that perhaps many of us have lost sight of it.

But keep in mind that these guys are mixers, not editors or tracking engineers, etc. Anything more than bringing up the faders and mixing (such as editing) is often a cramp in their work flow, so they aren't going to be as concerned about the material format as others, especially if they can afford to hire someone else to deal with taht so they can just focus on mixing.

[figur8]

Hey guys.

where can i find the interview with Andy Wallace? Thank you for your help.

Until soon.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally Posted by figur8

Hey guys.

where can i find the interview with Andy Wallace? Thank you for your help.

Until soon.

http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_andy_wallace/

[djui5]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

The interview in a gist is AW does whatever it takes to make a mix work and doesn't really think about it.

Just the way it should be.

[SLy_drums]

I guess now a lots of bands ask protools for their recordings, so that they can use the Beat Detective, isn't it ??

I hate BD when it's over-used, everyone tends to sound the same that way.

[figur8]

Originally Posted by thethrillfactor

http://mixonline.com/mag/audio_andy_wallace/

Hi Thrillfactor.

Thank you very much for the link. I am listening to SEPULTURAs 'Roots' right now which was also mixed by Mr. Wallace. I am still wondering how they got this huge sound on tape.

[allbaldo]

Interesting to note that Michael Barbiero did that interview. No mixing slouch himself...

My band had a record mixed by AW, and he did the whole thing off of our 2" 15ips masters. No 3348 or anything. This was 1986, so I don't think many people were using PT in a pro setting yet. He's an amazing mixer. I stayed out of the control room as much as possible while he was mixing, to give him space, and keep some perspective, as I was producing. As far as the PT thing goes, I doubt it would make any difference what he mixed on. He could mix from spliced together blades of glass, and it would still rock.

[Lee Knight]

Originally Posted by Jay Kahrs

Dig it.

Show of hands...

Who either started on, or at least remembers Soundtools?

thumbsup

I do too, and... Turtle Beach 56K on the PC. Yikes!

[Winey]

All they really needed to say was "Andy Wallace mixes just like you, he's just better at it".

[dave-G]

Are we all reading the same article? I'm not sure where the impression comes from that Andy Wallace is not using ProTools and hates editing -- what JohnnyClueless said is correct. And the article itself merely says:
"The first time I used it — and probably the last time I used it without having an operator — was when I did the Blind Melon Soup album."

Okay, so he's using a PT operator. If he was using a tape op, would you say he didn't use tape?

He goes on at length to say that he doesn't think the character of analog is the "be-all, end-all." and that tape has "probably" become superfluous with modern digital formats available, adding:
"But I have to say that the new manifestation of Pro Tools really sounds pretty good."

And even on the topic of editing, he says:
"being able to edit — as I've said, as long as you don't get caught up in it and lose sight of what you really need to accomplish — it's wonderful."

Heck, you could say the same thing about fader automation.

I honestly think that the 'heat' around this issue is mostly on internet forums, and that none of these guys are analog-exclusive luddites nor anti-PT, anti-digites.

Hell, I met Tom Lord-Alge in Miami a few months ago, and he uses ProTools extensively (he said), adding, IIRC that he doesn't even receive 2" anymore.. Apparently, his assistant does a lot of prep, but he said he does a lot of work in PT himself and even uses (gasp) plugins. He transfers from PT to 3348 for playback because he wants to commit what he's done to a fixed piece of tape so that no accident in PT could alter or lose that work.

Not sure why I'm even chiming in here, but I enjoyed the article ... like Thrill, mostly for his discussion about dealing with clients and feeling mixes "degrading" over the course of microtweaking .. My biggest surprise was his description of how much bus compression he likes, and that contrary to Orban & Foti, he feels that a lot of mix compression minimizes the effects of radio broadcast compression.

Tawk amongst yuhselves: topic: bus compression versus optimodding.
-dave

ps: yeah, Jay .. I remember SoundTools -- we used it a lot to fly things back and forth from tape.

[paultools]

Soundtools, check!

also Dr. T, and Mimetics for the commodore AMIGA
How brave was that?

[84K]

Just a side note... The Blind Melon "Soup" album was Produced and Mixed by AW, not just mixed. Hence Pro Tools is usually used more in production/recording then mixing (at least that was the case back then in 1994).

BTW: Blind Melon is one of my favorite artists of the 90s. Way under-rated.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by Jay Kahrs

Dig it.

Show of hands...

Who either started on, or at least remembers Soundtools?

thumbsup

Wow... that brings up bad memories. Oh and how about trying to sequence a CD in Sound Designer! What a royal pain in the ass that was… Anyone remember "Session 8" ? Yuck!

Anyway from the article in question, I wanted to point out what Dave said above and show the quote in context.....

With the advent of HD 96k recording, do you think that the difference between analog and digital has become minimal enough as to make analog tape superfluous?
Probably. I mean, I realize that analog tape has a certain tape compression that I've relied upon in a lot of productions, but I don't think that that's the be-all, end-all. The first thing I liked about digital was the absence of hiss. When I first discovered noise gates, I thought, “God has smiled on me,” because I really, really like to get rid of noise and you're so far ahead of the game in digital without having that hiss.

And then, being able to edit — as I've said, as long as you don't get caught up in it and lose sight of what you really need to accomplish — it's wonderful. Even with the 3348, being able to bounce drums in and not have a hole every time you punched in — things like that were great. Not that I'm the world's greatest critic of fidelity in recording anyway, 'cause I always operated with whatever I had and did whatever I had to do to make it sound as good as I could get it to sound. But I have to say that the new manifestation of Pro Tools really sounds pretty good.

[not_so_new]

Also at the end he is asked.....

Last question: Who would you most appreciate having an opportunity to work with, if given the chance, of all the artists you've never worked with?

And he says....

The Beatles.

Make that two of us......