The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Something Slipperman said
Old 4th March 2011
  #1
Lives for gear
 
Deltones's Avatar
 

Something Slipperman said

I was re-reading and re-listening to Slipperman's "Guitar From Hell" narratives these past few days and I have a feedback loop of confusion in my head at the moment. The gist of it was when SM saying something about the top AE's having the mindset that the song is everything, and the individual instrument's sound doesn't mean squat in the grand scheme of things or something to this effect.

Where I'm confused is this:

Unless I'm mistaken, most of the times, the AE will not have heard the song a priori when the band is ready to record. So, in relation to SM's point above, and also to another of SM's point that, and I quote:

"It is imperative that the zorch-fuego-twerg playing guitar is hearing 'his sound' in the room. IT CANNOT BE OVERSTATED"

then what sound does the AE tracking the instruments send to tape/DAW? The sound in the room that all players are happy with that may or may not be completely re-shaped at the mixing stage? Sound already processed at the input? The sound of the AE's letter of resignation falling on the floor because he can't deal with the zorch-fuego-twerp's idea of a good tone?
Old 4th March 2011
  #2
Lives for gear
 
sleepingbag's Avatar
i think he meant, 'you yourself are just the same as what you see in me'

(sorry)
Old 4th March 2011
  #3
Gear Maniac
 
Anonymatt's Avatar
 

I think he means that the performer needs to be inside his comfort zone in order to play his best.

This is also to eliminate all these other variables that occur prior to the Master Volume on the head from the discussion, allowing SM to focus on what's going on w/ the cab and mic placement on through.
Old 4th March 2011
  #4
Lives for gear
 
Deltones's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymatt View Post
I think he means that the performer needs to be inside his comfort zone in order to play his best.
This is clear and I have no problem with it. The part I get confused is where you take the zorch-twerg segment in relation to the other segment that the instruments sound don't mean squat for a top AE as far as the song is concerned.

It seems to me that one segment cancels the other.
Old 4th March 2011
  #5
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deltones View Post
saying something about the top AE's having the mindset that the song is everything, and the individual instrument's sound doesn't mean squat in the grand scheme of things or something to this effect.

"It is imperative that the zorch-fuego-twerg playing guitar is hearing 'his sound' in the room. IT CANNOT BE OVERSTATED"
I imagine what he's saying is that in a mix it doesn't matter that individual instruments might sound bad on their own (too thin, too weedy, too bassy, whatever), what's important is how they fit into the whole of the mix.

But when you're tracking you don't want your guitarist having some thin anaemic headphone mix in his ears when you want him/her to be giving a great performance (even if you know you're gonna be thinning out that huge powerchord-fest when it comes to mixdown). In fact, I'd probably say that ideally you ought to be going further: giving the guitarist his sound but better.

How much of that guitarist's headphone mix goes down to tape will vary on a case by case basis. I mean, singers often get given headphone mixes with processing that isn't being recorded: compression, reverb and maybe some EQ for instance.
Old 4th March 2011
  #6
Lives for gear
 
audiogeek's Avatar
 

Something Slipperman said

Have you PM'd him? He's on here fairly often.
Old 4th March 2011
  #7
Harmless Wacko
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deltones View Post
This is clear and I have no problem with it. The part I get confused is where you take the zorch-twerg segment in relation to the other segment that the instruments sound don't mean squat for a top AE as far as the song is concerned.

It seems to me that one segment cancels the other.
The first scenario is LITERAL and relates to sound and performance CAPTURE.

The second is RELATIVE and relates to the INTERACTION of sounds in a COMBINED MIX, and their apparent effect on the WHOLLY SUBJECTIVE, and hotly debated hierarchies of sonic importance in the re-shaping of individual sounds.

It sure as hell DOESN'T mean you don't like, or don't want, to get handed tracks to mix that SOUND GOOD.

Let me TRY to explain:


You're getting sounds together for a guy with a guitar and an amp.

If you can get him to believe that "his sound"(provided he thinks he HAS "a sound...") is happening in a given recording space... He has compelling and reassuring evidence that your INTENT is to capture THAT WHICH PLEASES HIM AND PROMOTES HIS CHANCES FOR A COMMAND PERFORMANCE.


This is worth doing.

This gives you a STARTING point, in an attempt to give him something he NEEDS and LIKES.

Once again: This is because we want him to feel comfortable, and by proxy, play well, and enjoy the process.

Now you bounce between the control room and the recording space and see if you can't CONTINUE to get him WHAT HE LIKES, and GET YOURSELF what you NEED and CAN USE downstream.

KNOWING what you NEED and CAN USE is purely a function of the skill born of hard won experience.

And... To GET what you need/can use with any degree of regularity and speed... You gotta be VERY GOOD, and, repeating myself here again... that kind of repeatability of result simply ain't gonna happen overnight.

I said that 8-9 years ago when I got involved in that God-forsaken thread, and the ensuing nigh on decade of web-morass it embroiled me in, so I guess I felt I had to say it again.

Grain of salt.



Endeavoring to EXPLAIN the sum scope and scale of this subject to somebody on the internot is kinda like trying to describe the Grand Canyon to Helen Keller.

On one hand, it's a big hole in the ground.

On the other hand...

It's the Grand Canyon.

You really wanna know what it's like, ya better get over there and spend some time hiking around the joint. It's simultaneously BIGGER and SMALLER than it looks.


I digress.


Later...

You're mixing a record.

If you think that the objective is to make all the individual tracks into "ideal instrument sounds", then combine them... and this will somehow magically give you a focused mix which works efficiently to promote the SONG... You are utterly delusional from a statistical yield standpoint.

You will OFTEN make significant sacrifices and compromises in "instrument sound" or you will suffer the consequences.

In some musical forms these compromises will be seemingly minimal.

In the types of musics I mix(mostly rock, pop and even some dance)...

They will often be DRAMATIC.

This is why, in the fabric of my experience, you rarely hear braided AE guys talking about the "snare sound", or the "bass sound", or the "guitar sound"... as though it were a SEPARATE ENTITY, and are much more likely to hear them remark on how a particular sound RELATES to it's FUNCTION IN, AND EFFECT UPON, MIX. Or how a particular mixer will tend to "pick certain poisons" in his mixes, and how this impacts and reflects on "style as a function of repetition" in his work.

Some aspects of mixing are similar to stone sculpting.

You're gonna have some material to sweep up off the floor by the time ya get done.

And if you're at loath the chip away at things(even naturally beautiful bits) during the proceedings, you should probably look into another occupation.

Hope this answers the question.


Best regards,


SM.
Old 5th March 2011
  #8
Lives for gear
 
Deltones's Avatar
 

Alright, some RAID has been sprayed on my confusion. Thanks gentlemen, it's much clearer now.

Regards.
Old 6th March 2011
  #9
Lives for gear
 
GuitarRuss's Avatar
 

I will always read any thread with the word "Slipperman" in the title!

Informative, funny and gritty as hell! Always great to have you and your particular brand of "school of hard knocks" recording wisdom to share with us!
Old 6th March 2011
  #10
Lives for gear
 
omtayslick's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slipperman View Post

Some aspects of mixing are similar to stone sculpting.

You're gonna have some material to sweep up off the floor by the time ya get done.

And if you're at loath the chip away at things(even naturally beautiful bits) during the proceedings, you should probably look into another occupation.
Well said!
Old 6th March 2011
  #11
Lives for gear
 
noiseflaw's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slipperman View Post
The first scenario is LITERAL and relates to sound and performance CAPTURE.

The second is RELATIVE and relates to the INTERACTION of sounds in a COMBINED MIX, and their apparent effect on the WHOLLY SUBJECTIVE, and hotly debated hierarchies of sonic importance in the re-shaping of individual sounds.

It sure as hell DOESN'T mean you don't like, or don't want, to get handed tracks to mix that SOUND GOOD.

Let me TRY to explain:


You're getting sounds together for a guy with a guitar and an amp.

If you can get him to believe that "his sound"(provided he thinks he HAS "a sound...") is happening in a given recording space... He has compelling and reassuring evidence that your INTENT is to capture THAT WHICH PLEASES HIM AND PROMOTES HIS CHANCES FOR A COMMAND PERFORMANCE.


This is worth doing.

This gives you a STARTING point, in an attempt to give him something he NEEDS and LIKES.

Once again: This is because we want him to feel comfortable, and by proxy, play well, and enjoy the process.

Now you bounce between the control room and the recording space and see if you can't CONTINUE to get him WHAT HE LIKES, and GET YOURSELF what you NEED and CAN USE downstream.

KNOWING what you NEED and CAN USE is purely a function of the skill born of hard won experience.

And... To GET what you need/can use with any degree of regularity and speed... You gotta be VERY GOOD, and, repeating myself here again... that kind of repeatability of result simply ain't gonna happen overnight.

I said that 8-9 years ago when I got involved in that God-forsaken thread, and the ensuing nigh on decade of web-morass it embroiled me in, so I guess I felt I had to say it again.

Grain of salt.



Endeavoring to EXPLAIN the sum scope and scale of this subject to somebody on the internot is kinda like trying to describe the Grand Canyon to Helen Keller.

On one hand, it's a big hole in the ground.

On the other hand...

It's the Grand Canyon.

You really wanna know what it's like, ya better get over there and spend some time hiking around the joint. It's simultaneously BIGGER and SMALLER than it looks.


I digress.


Later...

You're mixing a record.

If you think that the objective is to make all the individual tracks into "ideal instrument sounds", then combine them... and this will somehow magically give you a focused mix which works efficiently to promote the SONG... You are utterly delusional from a statistical yield standpoint.

You will OFTEN make significant sacrifices and compromises in "instrument sound" or you will suffer the consequences.

In some musical forms these compromises will be seemingly minimal.

In the types of musics I mix(mostly rock, pop and even some dance)...

They will often be DRAMATIC.

This is why, in the fabric of my experience, you rarely hear braided AE guys talking about the "snare sound", or the "bass sound", or the "guitar sound"... as though it were a SEPARATE ENTITY, and are much more likely to hear them remark on how a particular sound RELATES to it's FUNCTION IN, AND EFFECT UPON, MIX. Or how a particular mixer will tend to "pick certain poisons" in his mixes, and how this impacts and reflects on "style as a function of repetition" in his work.

Some aspects of mixing are similar to stone sculpting.

You're gonna have some material to sweep up off the floor by the time ya get done.

And if you're at loath the chip away at things(even naturally beautiful bits) during the proceedings, you should probably look into another occupation.

Hope this answers the question.


Best regards,


SM.
I tell you one thing...

You should write a book - any book you wrote I would definitely read.

Informative, amusing, intelligent, passionate and often cryptic - you have a real three dimensional approach to education and discussion.

thumbsup
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump