Modern Rock Production Techniques

[i51423]

I was just curious what you guys would suggest in doing production-wise for a more modern sound. It seems to me that all the drums are supported by samples, double tracked vocals for choruses, double tracked guitars in choruses, lots of compression...

Are there any general things that should be done to acheive a more "modern" sound?

[C_F_H_13]

the modern sound, to me, is all about doing everything over the top, then pulling a little out when it comes to mix time.

The last time I did a project that would fit in this category, we had 32 tracks of drums, 4 bass tracks(well...3 mics and a di), 40 guitar tracks (actual tracks!!! not including 2-3 mics an amp!!!) , 10-20 vocal tracks, and 4-8 stereo fx/loops. Tons of samples,eq,compression, and various other tricks of the trade.

We'd quad track heavy guitars in the chorus, and a higher/lower harmony double tracked as well. We had 3 pairs of room mics, a couple of fun drum mics...it was all just way way to much. If you have the inputs,budget,time,patience... jus go nuts...you don't have to keep all of it.

The basics I guess would be exactly what you said....double tracked guitars, double vocals, drum samples, and tons of compression (which I don't RECOMMEND!!!).

The big trick is how you fit all that in 2 speakers.

[WEAPON_X]

waves L2 on the masterbus, and chopping off any dynamics is a very good place to start.
secondly you need one or two guitarist(s) able to play simple chord structures on half beats on a dropped tuned prs guitar into a mesa rectifier. having a bass player on a string ray five who recycles a lot of red hot chili peppers bass licks and a singer with some traumatic childhood expierience in middle class america will bring you into the ball park too. add some weird synth and sampling stuff, and call it a day.
do not forget to scoop some mids, also.


seriously, just try to be individual and not overtly "modern". modern sounds are a trend that will not long survive and certainly will not be held in high esteem in about 2 or 4 years.
i always prefer an old and original sounding record to an overtly super-modern-flat sound. and i believe in 5 years time, everybody will do so too.

[Jose Mrochek]

Originally Posted by i51423

I was just curious what you guys would suggest in doing production-wise for a more modern sound. It seems to me that all the drums are supported by samples, double tracked vocals for choruses, double tracked guitars in choruses, lots of compression...

Are there any general things that should be done to acheive a more "modern" sound?

do you LIKE the modern sound ? use samples or double stuff because you think it´s necesary and you are liking the results as you go, but please don´t try to do it because you want to sound more modern.. it will sound fake. And i think that´s worse.

[i51423]

I have a band coming down from Connecticut to record. I definitely think that their music would work well with a "modern" sound. They're a generic pop punk/emo/rock/whatever band. I figured it would be good to try to give them a GOOD sounding demo that would fit well within their genre.

I know it's generally frowned upon on here... but it wouldn't be a bad thing to know how to do it.

[AlexLakis]

Originally Posted by WEAPON_X

waves L2 on the masterbus, and chopping off any dynamics is a very good place to start.
secondly you need one or two guitarist(s) able to play simple chord structures on half beats on a dropped tuned prs guitar into a mesa rectifier. having a bass player on a string ray five who recycles a lot of red hot chili peppers bass licks and a singer with some traumatic childhood expierience in middle class america will bring you into the ball park too. add some weird synth and sampling stuff, and call it a day.
do not forget to scoop some mids, also.


seriously, just try to be individual and not overtly "modern". modern sounds are a trend that will not long survive and certainly will not be held in high esteem in about 2 or 4 years.
i always prefer an old and original sounding record to an overtly super-modern-flat sound. and i believe in 5 years time, everybody will do so too.

thumbsup

Funny stuff, all true. Can't think of many bands that have come out in the past decade that will be remembered (for doing anything meaningful or great.) Try to make your stuff sound like YOUR stuff, that's how you get more business. Anybody can go to a "pro" studio and get auto-tune, samples, over-compression...and of course, a great big "smile."

32 drum tracks??? 40 individually tracked guitar tracks??? HOLY @#&(*#@#^@!!!

[belairstudio]

Originally Posted by C_F_H_13

40 guitar tracks (actual tracks!!! not including 2-3 mics an amp!!!)



.

How many hands did the guitar player have?

[Jose Mrochek]

Originally Posted by i51423

but it wouldn't be a bad thing to know how to do it.

It´s a tuff question. I don´t have an answer for that. I would think it has to do with how the songs are arranged. How the parts are played rather than recorded. Ofcourse the use of reverb as an ¨effect¨is kind of out of the question. I´m not a fan of going for a ¨specific sound¨rather than just getting the best out of the songs. And trying to get sounds that fit the song/genre.

If a client would want me to produce their record I would say, let the songs speak for themselves and let´s get the ¨sound¨ to come up naturaly. If the players/songs are modern they will sound modern.

Dark side of the moon, and pink floyd in general has alot of doubling guitars, vocals.. etc.. and it does not sound modern. If you would sound replace the drums on a floyd record I don´t think it would sound modern either. Digital recording is ¨modern¨by itself to.

If you are producing this I would say don´t force the sound, let it come up from the players hands and vocals and rather concentrate on getting the best takes and arrangements that work in favor of the song. Song structure to plays a part on modern sound. ¨the cookie cutter formula¨etc..

The gear you use... if you use a u47 on britney spears do you think she will sound more vintage ? I don´t think so.

[C_F_H_13]

Originally Posted by belairstudio

How many hands did the guitar player have?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, that's some funny stuff. Nice work man.

[vodka gimli]

Invest $140 in Charles Dye's "Mix It Like a Record". He applies many "modern rock" treatments to the demo song, and shows how he gets the aggressive drum/guitar overcompressed vocal thing going.

Many details and opinions on other threads about the DVD.

[garysjo]

Dark side of the moon, and pink floyd in general has alot of doubling guitars, vocals.. etc.. and it does not sound modern.

Thank God for that! Gave that a listen the other night...beautiful, dynamic......ahhh! What a pleasant experience! When will this 2 dimensional over compressed crap end? Perhaps I'm just old!

[allencollins]

Buy protools, stereo mic your garage band playing live, press record
and you now have the modern rock sound............... blah

can some band please bring back polished musicianship please????
pretty please??. I 'm sick of this garage band era. I need musicianship
and intelligent lyrics. With seether we are now on the 5th iteration of nirvana
tribute bands

-1. The Pixies - the band that Nirvana covered or atleast tried to.
1. Nirvana (the original 90's garage band that ripped of the 80's garage bands)
2. Bush (the first successful Nirvana tribute band
3. Nickelback (the great white north's answer to a Nirvana tribute band)
4. Puddle of Mudd ( maybe the worst of the nirvana tributes)
5. Seether (this band should have been called Enufz enuff)



I don't even think the beatles had this many successful clones
I'm gonna smack the next A&R guy I see. I'm gonna beat over the head
with a nevermind cd

GIVE ME SOMETHING NEW & DIFFERENT TO LISTEN TOO PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Spark]

Originally Posted by allencollins

3. Nickelback (the great white north's answer to a Nirvana tribute band)
4. Puddle of Mudd ( maybe the worst of the nirvana tributes)
5. Seether (this band should have been called Enufz enuff)

Ive always thought those bands borrowed as much from Metallica's Load albums as much as they did from Nirvana... Probably moreso. YMMV....

[Jose Mrochek]

Originally Posted by garysjo

Thank God for that! Gave that a listen the other night...beautiful, dynamic......ahhh! What a pleasant experience! When will this 2 dimensional over compressed crap end? Perhaps I'm just old!

Perhaps we could ask Jules to have a big Industry A&R type or, executive moderate for a few days to answer this question and no I don´t think you are old, you are just a fan of listening to music the way it sounds naturaly.

The last thing I thought about when recording my album was ¨does it sound modern enough¨? who gives a fuk. that won´t make me sell more or few copies, that job relys on other things. I may change my mind in a few years, but as far as I´m concerned I never bought an album because of how modern or vintage it sounded.

[i51423]

Originally Posted by allencollins

Buy protools, stereo mic your garage band playing live, press record
and you now have the modern rock sound............... blah

can some band please bring back polished musicianship please????
pretty please??. I 'm sick of this garage band era. I need musicianship
and intelligent lyrics. With seether we are now on the 5th iteration of nirvana
tribute bands

1. Nirvana (the original 90's garage band that ripped of the 80's garage bands)
2. Bush (the first successful Nirvana tribute band
3. Nickelback (the great white north's answer to a Nirvana tribute band)
4. Puddle of Mudd ( maybe the worst of the nirvana tributes)
5. Seether (this band should have been called Enufz enuff)

I don't even think the beatles had this many successful clones
I'm gonna smack the next A&R guy I see. I'm gonna beat over the head
with a nevermind cd

GIVE ME SOMETHING NEW & DIFFERENT TO LISTEN TOO PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who said anything about Nickelback? Certainly not me. The band I'm recording isn't like that at all. They're generic.. but not Nickelback generic.

I'm sorry.. but how could you even compare a live, stereo recording of a band to the current trend? Not. Even. Close. In fact.. I'd say they're completely the opposite. Bands these days usually can't even play live. It's pretty sad.

[OVERNIGHT]

By modern do you mean radio? There's lots of well produced rock bands with good songs and solid musicianship these days, they're just not often on the radio really. It's gotten hard for me to figure out if that smashed as all hell KROQ sound is a factor of mixing, mastering or both. Probably both but I don't see why it *has* to be that way. Laziness and fear on the part of the A&R's and program directors.

Just make everything sound like it should and shoot for musical.

[Jeff16years]

crap

[i51423]

Originally Posted by OVERNIGHT

By modern do you mean radio? There's lots of well produced rock bands with good songs and solid musicianship these days, they're just not often on the radio really. It's gotten hard for me to figure out if that smashed as all hell KROQ sound is a factor of mixing, mastering or both. Probably both but I don't see why it *has* to be that way. Laziness and fear on the part of the A&R's and program directors.

Just make everything sound like it should and shoot for musical.

Not necessarily "radio".. but bands like The Starting Line, Say Anything, Anberlin, Valencia, Circa Survive, etc. I guess I'm just growing up in the wrong times for it, but I enjoy those recordings quite a bit. The Anberlin stuff is a little too crushed for me.. but they sound solid to me. Eh.

I'd like to get into the more "modern" sound for the recordings of my band, too. Simply because we have some friends who can get us hooked up, but they refuse to because of the recording. They say they're not "presentable" enough. We've never been a band to go nuts with recording. We try to have fun and put out something that gets the general idea across. But I'm starting to think that I need to take the next step and make our recordings sound somewhat "over the top" just to get our foot in the door.

[eligit]

am i the only one who wishes guitar overdubs were used to add musical interest a la page and hendrix?

it seems like guitar overdubs now are just used to get that gigantic robot guitar army sound. so very overwhelming and unmusical....amazing for about 30 seconds...and then boring and generic. when you overdub the same generic part so many times it looses what little nuance and humanity it might have originally had.

it also means that all the fun slightly loose rhythmic elements that you cannot duplicate perfectly (see house burning down, gypsy eyes, etc) simply get tossed so that the massive "modern" overdubbing can begin....

1 mesa triple rec sounds bad (ie like a big non touch sensitive hi gain synth with zero dynamics) enough...why would 20 sound any better?

it just sounds huge and like a gigantic machine, totally unrelated to a stringed instrument played by a human being. which i kind of like.

an old man at 30...whooboy...

[OVERNIGHT]

I like my fair share of post-hardcore and some emo I guess but you're not gonna find too much love for those kinds of sounds around these parts. Folks around hear got thier cup-o-tea and opinions about what's good, what's shit and how it's to be done. Anyway...

I think it comes down to time and details. I listened to some of your stuff on purevolume and you've got the gist, you've got that sound but honestly, you need a producer or you need to have someone in the band (you if your willing to be hated for a while) wear the hat and not ease up. Meaning: more preproduction/ rewriting/ hook finding missions/ differentiation, practice practice practice, rough draft recordings, more takes and less tollerance for 'pretty good' and 'just get the idea across'. It's about time; time spent getting *just* the right drum sound, time spent canning tonights vocals in favor of trying again tommorow, time comping and editing 40 f*cking guitar takes down to 4 keepers and realizing that two need to be redone, time nudging the wobbly bass player or that inconsitant kick drum, time spent doubling the vocals over and over and over until you can comp a take where the average listener can't tell there's a double, time spent editing your ass off. The difference between demos and slick radio stuff... 3 to 5 months. And, usually, an experienced mixer in a good studio when you're done tracking.

I personally don't like to make records like this and lots of purists around here feel the same way for their own reasons. I think they sound stangled and overly manicured but I recognize it can be powerful... ie, the last Greenday record. (Flame on fuuck ) That's certainly what's going on with commercial radio rock and yea, it's what the A&R want to hear. They don't want demos in rock anymore, they want you out there selling your own record that sounds like something they might put out.

So yea, a little reseach will yield the techniques but the key is time and relentlessness. It never hurts to hire an experienced engineer and just watch them and it will help tremendously to have a good (and genre experienced) mixer handle the back end. You can do it yourself but it's about.... time.

[i51423]

That's something similar to what I was planning on doing for the next demos we do. We've decided to take our five best songs(in our opinion) and just do them right. I already wear the hat for everything else in the band, why not make 'em hate me for a couple weeks?

The only problem with me taking over is that I'm the one who's writing everything, too. It's not the standard situation where someone shows up to practice with a basic outline of a song, I mean that I write everything(musically, anyway). My bassist writes the lyrics and maybe half the vocal lines. The vocal lines go through me before they're definite, though. So thinking of ways to rewrite is usually something I can't do to well. I'd love to work with someone who could just give us another opinion, but we simply can't afford it. We're completely broke. We've done 3 East coast tours, all pretty unsuccessful. I mean.. we sold CDs and shirts, but they didn't really do anything for us but give us a couple weeks from home. Since we're booking it all ourselves, half the shows are from random dudes on Myspace who end up screwing us over.

I dunno. Thank you for taking the time to give advice. I'll see what I can get out of that band from Connecticut. If I can pull off a pretty polished sounding demo in just a weekend(that's all they've got), then I'll be pretty content.

I wasn't sure if there were any "hidden" techniques I should take note of. I'm excited to use my new "speaker mic" that I wired up on the kick.

If anyone has anything else they can tell me, I'd be glad to hear it.

[3rd world order]

make storyboards for all mixes.

mix with subgroups and filters.

add new tracks in pairs of instruments... never have anything playing by itself.

in short, treat music as if it were a film.

[tomwehrle]

Originally Posted by C_F_H_13

the modern sound, to me, is all about doing everything over the top, then pulling a little out when it comes to mix time.

The last time I did a project that would fit in this category, we had 32 tracks of drums, 4 bass tracks(well...3 mics and a di), 40 guitar tracks (actual tracks!!! not including 2-3 mics an amp!!!) , 10-20 vocal tracks, and 4-8 stereo fx/loops. Tons of samples,eq,compression, and various other tricks of the trade.

We'd quad track heavy guitars in the chorus, and a higher/lower harmony double tracked as well. We had 3 pairs of room mics, a couple of fun drum mics...it was all just way way to much. If you have the inputs,budget,time,patience... jus go nuts...you don't have to keep all of it.

The basics I guess would be exactly what you said....double tracked guitars, double vocals, drum samples, and tons of compression (which I don't RECOMMEND!!!).

The big trick is how you fit all that in 2 speakers.

wow, I feel so simple with 7 drum tracks and 2 electric guitar parts, one acoustic and couple keys...i normally track 3 good vocal takes and comp them down to one, then a few bgvs depending on whats needed for the song, most ever probably...4-6...i did do a lot of doubling up of a little trumpet part on one song and used 8 tracks for it, haha

[84K]

WEAPON_X nailed the sad truth of it. Well done!!



In recording, a lot of people are micing every drum and every cymbal. That is true. Sampled kicks and snares blended with or replacing the originals is SOP.

Creative use of distortion is a huge part of modern rock production. I can't remember the last vocal I heard on rock radio that did not have some kind of distortion on it. When done well, sometimes it is very hard to notice. Usually the drums have distortion too.

Doubled all guitar parts and then quadrupling them in the choruses is SOP too.


Then there is the L2. To slam it all together.

[superburtm]

Originally Posted by 84K

WEAPON_X nailed the sad truth of it. Well done!!



In recording, a lot of people are micing every drum and every cymbal. That is true. Sampled kicks and snares blended with or replacing the originals is SOP.

Creative use of distortion is a huge part of modern rock production. I can't remember the last vocal I heard on rock radio that did not have some kind of distortion on it. When done well, sometimes it is very hard to notice. Usually the drums have distortion too.

Doubled all guitar parts and then quadrupling them in the choruses is SOP too.


Then there is the L2. To slam it all together.

Hey 84 what do you use for distorttion on vox?

[Brandino221]

I kind of like the heavy layerd gutar sound. freaking fat as hell. however, the old records sound great. I think it depends on who u r trying to reach. Kids like Loud and heavy..that just it. I mean, when I hear gutars like Chevell I am like "damn".
Granted.. I would not like this sound for a Pop/Rock band..but for music like that.. it works.
Production has changed and now we are always trying to make things sound bigger or crazier. It's fun to be able to chop things up in a second rather then forever just to get the edit right on tape. Sure..thats an art aone...I am glad I don't have to do that though. lol.
Now it is almost too easy..but yet there is still skill in it. Ah...it's really all about what u like. But yes..old school stuff still rocks big time.

[84K]

Originally Posted by superburtm

Hey 84 what do you use for distorttion on vox?

There are 10 million ways to distort a vocal, and that is the most fun experimenting I get to do. Some favs... Mult the lead vocal and: Distort preamps (Neves), or distort a tube echoplex, or Thermionic Culture Vulture, or slam the input of a PCM 42.

[u b k]

'the kids' are actually open to a lot of stuff, just like they've always been. the question i ask myself about much of this modern radio stuff is, 'will this music grow up with them'? i know it's hard to believe, but i have my doubts.

there is classic, organic production, and there is timeless music. i can live without the former if needs must, but the marriage of both tends to restore my faith in the goodness of everything.

whatever you do, though, do it bravely. push the vocals harder than you're comfortable with. ride the guitars hotter than you dare. spread a little more 40hz on that bottom.

there is nothing less satisfying than a mix that takes no chances, or a song that strikes no cords.


gregoire
del ubik

[Jason Poulin]

heavy gating, heavy EQ.


Jason

[RadioMoo]

Originally Posted by OVERNIGHT

They don't want demos in rock anymore, they want you out there selling your own record that sounds like something they might put out.

Funny, mainstream Rock right now sounds like a lot of demos are being put out.