Exceptional One-Week Music Production Seminars 21-time Grammy Award winner producer and engineer AL SCHMITT has conducted a One-Week Seminar in April 2012 at STUDIO LA FABRIQUE in Saint-Rémy de Provence, France. www.mixwiththem...
I love Al Schmidt. He’s right, but the problem goes deeper. Its not just a product of technology regarding editing tools. It’s stemming from social media, as well. We all can live these edited lives now, only posting pictures we find flattering, being able to add filters which make us look even more flawless and less real, editing comments and statuses, etc. We get trapped in the ego and don’t want to fall behind. So, this applies to the musician, as well. I know because I used to be subject to that mentality when I was little younger and more subjective to my peers. If every line and lick isn’t perfect you feel like people will notice and think you’re not worthy. It creates a lot of anxiety to want want to edit into oblivion. Luckily, I’m no longer stuck in this mental trap, but sadly most still are, and it’s detrimental. The ability to APPEAR perfect has created a lot of insecure people, ironically, and I feel the same sadness Al shows when talking about this.
Thousands of engineers openly talking about their individual techniques, which are all different, but all of them agree on one thing - emotion. The emotion that the music evokes is key. It ain't got a thing if it ain't got that swing :)
This man is very wise. i respect him and i wish i could meet him. He is so right right about having the natural heart in music. you rarely hear that anymore,
Love it. So much great advice. "Nobody buys a record because of how the snare sounds" (except some of us maybe lol) He's right! When it comes to mic'ing I still ask the guitar players where they like the mic on their amps. If they don't care I put them where they typically sound good.
The master is in our hearts. R.I.P. Al. However, today's tools allow you to do more and better things and it's just a matter of how you use them ? Actually tools are great, but reality is that the talent is being compromised, and the MOJO is lost, that simple. The wave form is disheartening, and it's the record companies creating the loudness wars.
Perhaps this master should get with the times. It really is sad what commercial music has turned into these days and all the negatives that came with the advancement in technology together with the way it was promoted. However, today's tools allow you to do more and better things and it's just a matter of how you use them. Many people are less cut out for it and invent bogus philosophies to help them stay in it and produce garbage that's successful because it has a beat and auto-tuned vocals (but then likely gets mixed by someone who knows their shit like Dave Pensado who I think perhaps should accept less of these type of songs/projects). Many things are bad on this front but it doesn't make it wise the things he is saying; I'm sorry. I can sympathize and I guess his work speaks for itself (which to be honest I'm not familiar with but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt for), but there are plenty of amazing groups that produce amazing music with a contemporary mindset and I think it would be hard to argue that all the emotion was taken out of their songs, if not only enhanced. Groups always existed like today, the kind which he speaks of in modern times, even with the more tedious way in which it might've taken to do it before. They never worked the way he suggested. Queen is a great example and they happen to be my favorite band of all time. Nobody I think would really argue for OVERproduction, but he seems to be arguing against production period! You just have to know what's appropriate for who/what you're working with...
Zickcermacity I could see what one might be getting at when it comes to "youngsters'" ignorance on the front of what is actually leading to the final sound, but it's inverted logic to then say that therefore, the best way is to always keep it simple and direct. You can't make certain kinds of music with that sort of mentality. It could very well limit the vision of the artist, but of course, they're the artist who wouldn't know any better. They'd understand only if they were serious and how they ultimately feel having worked with you vs. someone else. It's simply incorrect to be set in one way or another. The process needs to adapt depending on what you're doing. You can potentially get a good result doing things consistently one way over another, but that doesn't mean in many instances, it might've otherwise been better the other way.
But here's the problem Typhoon: When digital audio processing went mainstream in the 1990s, artists and labels got wise to digital's distortion-free nature, and started demanding louder and louder productions of their works. And then, legacy music(stuff from before 1990) started being "remastered"(wrong word actually!) to sound more like modern releases - heavily compressed with all the dynamic peaks clipped off, then made superLOUD. This is , so I am told, so listeners with CD changers and iPods hitting shuffle don't have to adjust their volume because the new stuff is so loud compared to the old. I think remastering is just a big label ploy to get suckas to rebuy music they have perfectly good copies of already. ;) And its wrong. It's destroying the way younger listeners hear and perceive older music - which a lot of them do listen to. It's a joy to hear a teenager diggin' Pink Floyd or the Beatles, or Run-DMC. But the opportunity to hear them in original, un-FUCKEDWIT' unremastered form should be made available. And that my friend, is why you'll find very few "digitally remastered" CDs in my collection. and I'm actively looking for originals to replace THEM with. As you said, the audio production process is evolving. But just don't let it destroy our musical legacy(Gaye, Hendrix, Rolling Stones, Bobs Dylan & Marley, Van Halen, and so on).
Zickcermacity Oh, of course. Before I knew anything, ANYTHING, the first thing I jumped at in the audio world is trying to counteract this loudness war somehow. Perhaps I'll get a chance to revisit this if I am successful with what I am currently projecting, but I actually developed an algorithm at the time utilizing the already existing ReplayGain to further balance out different sounding tracks. I was hoping to push this on a big scale. If it were implemented by a big company like Spotify or Apple (iTunes), this could really put the industry slightly back on track. It's clearly a big problem. Basically, it would have to become standard to pass audio tracks through this algorithm. I actually have a name for this but no use in talking about it now before it's even close to reality. Anyway, I completely agree with you. What I wouldn't agree with however is conflating this mentioned notion with all modern techniques and approaches. That's kind of what I felt was being done in your previous arguments. As I said, I can respect a traditional approach. What I can't respect is being limited by it.
