Hearing When It’s Wrong and Using Reverb to Tie it All Together

8 October, 2009 – 12:47 pm
"Constructive Interference" by Clearly Ambiguous made available under a Creative Commons Attribution license

“Constructive Interference” by Clearly Ambiguous made available under a Creative Commons Attribution license

In a previous post I rehearsed some arguments about why direct to stereo recording may be a desirable recording method. There are two main reasons for this, the first is that it gives a chance to capture a live performance giving the listener all the subtlety of musicians making music together, the second is that our hearing skills are sensitive and subtle. It is, I believe this second aspect that makes highly produced recordings sound “wrong”, “unnatural” or fatiguing to listen to.

Human hearing is an incredibly powerful sense, not as precise as bats or dogs but still a powerful tool,

  • We can distinguish the voices of different people with amazing accuracy even over the restricted bandwidth of a telephone
  • Mothers can tell the cry of their own baby from others even over great distances
  • We can place the origin of sounds in space with great accuracy, as long as both ears are working

These skills are there for almost all of us not just musicians or recording engineers. We may not be aware of them or consciously use them but they are there. They are vestiges of important survival skills from the history of our evolution. They used to be vital for hunting and avoiding being hunted by predators and human enemies. These skills are not analytic but we know when something sounds wrong and it can be unsettling.

I believe this is part of what makes many recordings sound uncomfortable to listen to. They sound wrong on a subtle level because the combination of several sounds originating from different spaces is not natural and we can sense that. This is often exacerbated by the use of several different artificial spaces in production.

Using different reverbs on several sound sources in a track creates an uncomfortable metaphor of several distinct spaces coexisting, putting a nice rich plate reverb on the snare drum, a warm wooden hall on the vocals and a big church on the backing vocals can sound great in isolation but it’s Frankenstein’s monster in combination. I think on some level we, as listeners, can hear this and it can become uncomfortable.

There is a solution short of recording everything in one space and at one time. That is to use on virtual space and to use a buss to send the sources to your virtual space. It is remarkable that many people don’t do this. Perhaps it’s a consequence of the capabilities of virtual studios landing on people’s computers with massive instant capability. One virtual space ties the sounds you are mixing together. It’s not perfect but it helps.

This is not to say it’s never a good thing to combine virtual spaces. There is lots of room for art in recording but it’s a good thing to be aware of the pitfalls. Human hearing is a subtle thing and although we are getting used to smooth manufactured recordings with little dynamic range we still retain our primal listening skills.

By Ruben Kenig | Posted in Music Production | Tagged , , | Comments

Is Online Harmony Holding You Back?

25 September, 2009 – 3:51 pm
"Argument" by Filipe Dâmaso Saraiva, made available under a Creative Commons Share Alike Licence

“Argument” by Filipe Dâmaso Saraiva, made available under a Creative Commons Share Alike Licence

There are many benefits to participating in online social networks. The ability to build a large network without geographical constraints gives access to support, insight, feedback and promotion opportunities in an immediate, easy and powerful fashion. There seems to be no downside apart from the time needed to engage with your online tribe, but there is an interesting problem lurking within the groups we create.

Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, director of the Information + Innovation Policy Research Center at the National University of Singapore, has put forward the idea that our online networks may be harming our capacity for innovation. He may well have a strong point that needs consideration for anyone getting deeply involved in online networking.

In an article in the journal Science Mayer-Schönberger examines the impact of extended online networking on software engineers and concludes that this is, in part, responsible for the incremental pace of innovation in the open-source community. Innovation still happens but the curse of groupthink keeps the pace of change slow.

I think that the problem stems from the nature of the networks we build. There is little persistent dissent in most social networks. If you don’t get on with someone you can unfollow or block them either explicitly or by creating a mental filter, “that’s just Maggie mouthing off again”. It is easy to create an environment that feels very positive and affirming but this creates a strong averaging force that pulls us towards conformity. Innovation often comes from the resolution of thesis and antithesis, but if our network provides only thesis and affirmation there is no need to stretch ourselves and find the innovative solution that may be just around the bend.

For group wisdom to have a beneficial effect we need diversity of opinion. Online networks can apear diverse but there are usually threads linking the network. My networks include a lot of people working in webdesign as part of influential small companies. They come from all over the world and have many differences but there is a kernel of common ground that can be powerful. You wouldn’t find many advocates for the wonders of Internet Explorer 6, everyone has an understanding of the importance of semantic markup and coffee heals all ills (or at least used to and is missed).

Independence of opinion is also important in crowd wisdom. The diversity of opinion needs to be capable of withstanding opposition to get through. This is rare in online communities. It is much easier to say nothing than to disagree. This avoids being unfollowed for disrupting the harmonious state of the group. Online networks are much more fragile as there is little depth of relationship to fall back on. The pull to score ourselves based on followers is powerful too, rocking the boat could have negative consequences so on the whole we don’t do it. In offline communities dissent can be difficult too but it is easier to tackle communicating in person and if the contact is one to one rather than one to many saying nothing is not such an easy option.

The persistence of our contact with our online groups retards the ability for diverging opinions to develop. With periodic notifications of group activity through applications, browser feeds and smartphones our online groups are never far away. This denies us the mental space to nurture dissent. Our online networks often overlap too, many people are friends on several services, so spending time in FriendFeed as opposed to Twitter gives little difference in experience.

It is through homogeneity that Metcalfe’s law (the value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of members) becomes subverted. We can have a network of hundreds or thousands of members but if the number of discernable points of view is less than the number of network members the utility of the network will be less than Metcalfe’s law would predict.

Online networks have great value but their effects on how we work and think will only become apparent over time. Innovation is a rare thing and probably not a useful aim much of the time. There is great value in sticking to the predominant view and executing brilliantly but if innovation is your aim it is useful to be aware of the influence your online networks may have on you.

By Ruben Kenig | Posted in Social Media | Tagged , , , , , | Comments

Is Two-Track Recording The Best Method? Not Always But Sometimes

18 September, 2009 – 2:28 pm

Image, Studer Tape Decks, by bORjAmATiC used under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license

Image, Studer Tape Decks, by bORjAmATiC used under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license 

I’ve got myself embroiled in a discussion in the LinkedIn Music Producers group about whether Pro Tools (and digital multitrack recording in general) is a retrograde step in terms of record production. The seed of the discussion is a quote from Joe Boyd in the September issue of Mix magazine,

You could say that 2-track recording is the purest form of record making. Four-track, 8-track, etcetera, through the present limitless expanse of possibilities on Pro Tools have all been steps backward in terms of making recordings that will endure the test of time.

At first scan this is not something I agree with in the least, but Joe Boyd has made some extraordinary records with the likes of Nick Drake, Fairport Convention, Kate and Anna McGarrigle and 10,000 Maniacs so the question deserves at least some consideration.

Two interesting streams of argument have developed in the group,

  1. Have the incredible capabilities of digital recording and editing lead us to record in ways that compromise the ultimate quality of the recordings we produce
  2. Have we used these techniques to create (or facilitate the creation of) a culture of poor and lazy musicianship

In the first case the crucial question is what is “better”. I think that the answer to this can only be seen in the light of what is to be recorded. There isn’t a single best recording method and in my opinion choosing the best method to capture a particular group of musicians is one of the key tasks for a producer. The same methods will not work for a string quartet as a trance band. “Better” at the very least must be defined by context.

The second case is very interesting and may be the essence of what Joe Boyd was getting at. Two-track recording doesn’t have to mean two microphones only but what it does mean in most contexts is no overdubs and no individual audio processing of individual performers. What this demands are performers who can perform a song in a coherent take and probably a single take at that.

One simple interpretation of the producer’s job is to capture the sound of the musicians performing and a good stereo recording setup can do that recording to two-track. It may even be the best way to do it particularly if you have great mics and a great sounding room to work in. This works best for music like classical, jazz and folk arguably music with a preponderance of acoustic instrumentation and a culture of live performances with a high degree of technical proficiency.

That leaves the rock/pop world as a separate case. I don’t mean to imply that these musicians are hacks but there is a different culture at play here. The major difference is in the volume of the sounds produced and the means of sound production. It tends to be loud and the instruments used are not intended to be heard without amplification.

To record this music using the same approach as an acoustic jazz ensemble would usually make no sense. The volume would swamp the room acoustic and it would be almost impossible to control phase relationships with sounds bouncing off walls so enthusiastically. In the days of yore when rock and roll was recorded as acoustic music (Elvis’ Sun sessions for instance) things were quieter and the music was still almost acoustic.

Regarding overdubbing, everyone wants to provide the best recording they can. If the capability to overdub and improve a recording exists then why not do so? This can be seen as providing slack musicians a crutch but it can also serve to encourage people to try more difficult parts and to stretch themselves further.

There is a culture within some genres of popular music to create recordings using the full capabilities of the technology as ideal versions of songs and the aim then becomes getting as close as possible to the recorded sound in live performance.

One of my favourite albums is Slipknot’s Iowa. I’m not a huge fan of metal (and its confusing array of subgenres) in general, but the power of that album is extraordinary. Ross Robinson managed to create a powerful sound that is polished but preserves the chaos and energy of the performance. This is as much of a technical achievement as Gordon Parry’s 1969 recording of Mahler’s 9th for Decca Records, almost certainly recorded to two-track using a Decca tree mic array. Both recordings are great examples of engineers/producers choosing the right tool for the job.

The most important thing is that there are many ways to record any piece of music, choosing the best one is key. In the end all that matters is what is captured and preserved as a recording. The method used is, at best, an interesting anecdote for obsessive audio geeks like me.

By Ruben Kenig | Posted in Music Production | Tagged , , , | Comments

Using Social Media: Don’t Forget to Listen

26 August, 2009 – 1:06 pm
Image by ky_olsen. Licensed through Creative Commons 2.0

Image by ky_olsen. Licensed through Creative Commons 2.0

A new study by San Diego State University reveals that US college students believe that their generation use social media for, “self-promotion, narcissism and attention seeking.”

This may well be true but I believe that this is due to the users rather than the medium. Social media provides excellent opportunities for listening and discovery. Just like in a real-world social gathering it is wise to listen first and then to speak. Those who seek the warm balm of easy attention generally find it short lived. Just like the salesman who works the room at a conference with the line, “Hi, I’m Bob, my company is the best supplier of widgets ever. Here’s my card. See ya,” blatant self promotion is empty and quickly dismissed online.

Social media makes listening easy and provides some very useful tools for doing so effectively. Twitter and FriendFeed provide the ability to save search terms and even provides RSS feeds for saved searches. These searches are updated in real-time.

The most common use of this is to monitor mentions of, your own name, your brands or your clients. This is a powerful tool but this is just the beginning of the potential of listening to social media. This monitoring allows you to react quickly to any mentions of your business. Imagine the power of offering the solution to a problem to a user of your products who has not even contacted you to complain yet. That’s customer service almost indistinguishable from magic.

Searches can work beyond this passive narcissism too. There are more and more people using social media who are experts in their fields, seeking them out and following them provides a rich seam of information. Because of the short message nature of the medium you get a different view than reading articles.

For instance I learn a great deal from following Chris Anderson (the curator of the TED conferences), Jeffrey Zeldman (web pioneer and past director of The Web Standards Project) and Karen James (botanist at the UK Natural History Museum and Directirx of The HMS Beagle restoration project). All these people, and many like them, present different information in their Twitter feeds than in their more formal publications. This information provides some real depth to my understanding of these fascinating people and what makes them tick. Not all of it is exactly what I was looking for when I started following them but  it all adds depth to my knowledge.

Social media is often presented only as a platform for input but the output side of the equation is more powerful. After all there is only one person, you, on the input side but there are millions on the output side. There will be someone out there with something to say that will, interest, entertain or inspire you. All you need to do is start listening.

By Ruben Kenig | Posted in Social Media | Tagged , , | Comments

Two Fundamentals to Becoming the Guy Everyone Wants in Their Band

19 August, 2009 – 2:09 pm
Image courtesy of Scragz via Flickr

Image courtesy of Scragz via Flickr

There is a tendency among musicians to value technical facility when discussing favourite players. Outrageous, difficult and esoteric passages often played at stupidly fast tempos and sometimes in unusual time signatures are fun to discuss, but it’s largely an intellectual exercise. The folks who are the most fun and the most valuable to have in your band have a good ear and a great sense of time.

There’s an old joke about bass players (my tribe) that goes,

A father bought his son a bass, an amp and four weekly bass lessons to get him started. On the day of the first lesson the son comes home and his dad asks him, “How was the lesson?”
“Not bad dad. I learnt to play the first five frets on the E string.”
Next week the son comes home and the dad asks, “How was the lesson?”
“Not bad dad. I learnt to play the first five frets on the A string.”
The next week the son doesn’t come back until the early hours of the morning and he smells of beer and cigarettes. Dad doesn’t want to make too much of a fuss so he simply asks, “How was the lesson?”
The son replies, “Sorry dad, I couldn’t make it. I had a gig.”

Bassists are often derided for simple technique and an easy life in the context of a rock band, but the truth of the joke is that if you can play a single octave range well you can be a bass player. OK, not quite, but if you can play in time and with sensitivity to the rest of the group you can be a useful player.

Timing is simply vital. If you can play not only in time but with an engaging feel you make everyone’s life easier. You can even play “wrong” notes, but if you’re in time nothing has to fall apart. Conversely you can play all the “right” notes but if you play with a rubbish feel things will soon fall apart. A good ear helps in being part of the ensemble. If you can hear what other band members are doing and support them you will be a joy to play with.
The good news is that both these aspects of musicianship can be learned. It is easy to think of feel and ears as something you either have or don’t. This may be true at the upper reaches of the skill but everyone can get better at both. It’s just a cop out to believe otherwise.

Some things you can do to work on your timing and feel,

  • Practise with a metronome or drum machine always
  • Don’t just hit the metronome’s beats practice playing ahead of some beats and behind others, particularly behind the two and four of four-four time (in the pocket)
  • Set the metronome to half the tempo of the song and let its clicks fall on the two and four
  • Play along with recordings of bands with a feel you like (I’m currently using Little Feat for this myself)

To work on your ear,

  • Transcribe songs from recordings and try to get as much information as possible not just your instrument’s part
  • Sing along with recordings and again sing all the different parts, even the drums
  • Sing scales and arpeggios with no accompaniment, but periodically check if you’re still in tune
  • Use an online ear training tool or get a software one and use it often

While you may not become the guy that everyone talks about as the “monster player” you will be the guy everyone wants to play with if they’re smart. Band-members with good ears and good feel are gold dust and they make everything better.

Finally a lot of the guys that have that monster technique have great feel too. Eddie Van Halen has chops coming out of his ears, but he also has great feel. His rhythm guitar playing is excellent. Similarly Jaco Pastorius had stunning feel. It’s not always apparentt with his more flamboyant playing but in his work with Joni Mitchell particularly the live Shadows and Light he pulls in his horns a bit and you can hear the tremendous foundation he gives the band.

By Ruben Kenig | Posted in Musicainship | Tagged , , | Comments