PDA

View Full Version : Define Metallic and Digital


NathanRocks88
June 15th, 2011, 07:41 PM
Spare me the "death magnetic" jokes.

I'm ranting today about an album project that seems to be going south fast and pitting musicians against each other in some sort of creative cock war [ where any pissant excuse to not use the other persons idea is the sad reason it's not getting used in the mix.

The back story. Band rehearsed and tracked live, then the guitar playing frontman/producer goes home to Slovenia and his underground laboratory. Meanwhile, the other musicians hire engineers and start overdubbing and finish making the record CAPE style.

So here I am overdubbing background vocals with the co-star of the band and we come up with something really cool and ethereal that really benefits the song. Even solo'd by itself it sounded great. The part just has that mind-warping effect.

I print stems of the edited takes (which was four mono tracks to create the desired effect) Then I print another processed stereo track with some extra airy ness and an analog-esque delay. So that our mad scientist in Slovenia can hear what we had in mind.

He gets the files and at first is all ecstatic, says they're total keepers, says he loves 'em.

Then a month and a half go by, he's been doing all sorts of really weird shit to the songs - decisions range from on bat shit f@#$ing insane to mostly self-ego-pleasuring.

Then we get an email...with an "I can't mix this" and the excuse that made my F@#$ing Day.

"It sounds metallic and digital"

MOTHERF@#$ER - this dude knows the signal path we are using, there is nothing "digital" and a 140v Tube appliance and a Mic that makes everything sound like it was recorded in god's own iso booth.

That and it took him almost 2 goddamn months to decide that my raw recorded tracks sound "metallic and digital"?!?!

Sonofabitch

He has the raw stems why can't he mix the AWESOME backing track into the chorus?

Oh yeah, he hates sharing the stage with the other singer in his band.

F@#$tard

He's been muting 78.899% of anything his co-star has recorded. It's never been because they were bad parts. He apparently thinks that he's the only person that matters in this band!

I'm just curious to hear what their label thinks of this record. Because none of the mixes sound current, they don't match the theme of what the rest of the label artists of the month are doing,
and from where I'm standing...I can obviously tell that this is never going to sound like a real band recording together.

Because this Slovenian deemed it necessary to put the axe to the drummers sounds in favor of some really awful sounding drum machine loops.

In conclusion :headpalm:

bobzilla77
June 15th, 2011, 09:00 PM
Given the chain of events you have described here, The Slov might just as easily complained the tracks were not metallic or digital enough. He just wants to produce the other guy right out of the band.

Trying to do stuff CAPE style when you have that dynamic is going to be a challenge to your sanity.

NathanRocks88
June 17th, 2011, 09:38 AM
Moral of the story is NEVER LET THE LEAD SINGER OF THE BAND MIX THE RECORD BY HIMSELF

And I don't care if it's Ozzy Osbourne or Josh Groban that we're talking about. It's just seems to be A HORRIBLE IDEA.

Ein Mangfaldig Kar
June 17th, 2011, 09:53 AM
Take your money
And run.

NathanRocks88
June 17th, 2011, 10:54 AM
Take your money
And run.

Ain't that the truth!!!


But this whole thing is like watching a car catch on fire.

It's horrible, you feel bad for the people involved, you want to help but can't get close enough to the heart of the inferno to stop anything. And the Flames have this hypnotizing effect that you just can't take your eyes away from.

Might as well grab a beer and try to enjoy the bonfire.

Ein Mangfaldig Kar
June 17th, 2011, 11:27 AM
:beer:

otek
June 17th, 2011, 11:30 AM
Like so many other things, it really boils down to who is producing the record.

If it's him, you have no stakes in that part. Sure, it's frustrating to see things that you slaved over and are really pleased with, go under the mute button, but the best thing is to simply move forward, because there is nothing you can do about it. This is a "political" problem, not a musical one.


otek

NathanRocks88
June 17th, 2011, 08:36 PM
This is a "political" problem, not a musical one.

otek

that's why I didn't post the rant in slippy's forum.

Bivouac
June 17th, 2011, 09:47 PM
The original question, to me, is much more interesting. The rest seems like a dysfunctional band in need of a strong producer, and that story's been told ten thousand times.

What makes a song metallic or digital?

Very simply, a sound is metallic or digital -- by my definition -- when I turn up the volume of the mix, the sound becomes more piercing and fatiguing to hear, as opposed to more full, powerful.

A good example of this would be Peter Gabriel's 80's output -- you just can't crank it and rock out.

Maybe "metallic" also retains a "tonal" quality to it's brightness, like it's got a significan't build-up somewhere in that 1-4k range?

NathanRocks88
June 17th, 2011, 11:12 PM
What makes a song metallic or digital?

Very simply, a sound is metallic or digital -- by my definition -- when I turn up the volume of the mix, the sound becomes more piercing and fatiguing to hear, as opposed to more full, powerful.

A good example of this would be Peter Gabriel's 80's output -- you just can't crank it and rock out.


Very insightful :beer:


The rest seems like a dysfunctional band in need of a strong producer, and that story's been told ten thousand times.

Dysfunctional band that's been doing this same routine for 20 some odd years. With hits and contracts from major labels and movie licensing and the whole 9.

IMHO, they need RIGHT NOW is someone else driving the mixing desk.

I played a few of my favorite records from the last 2 years to the client who is getting ass raped by the "mixer" - just to illustrate how DATED the Slov's sound is.

The sound is reminiscent to the psychedelic 70's. Which isn't bad, just dated. If my magic mirror has any sort of accuracy, I don't see the mooks getting boners from the mix when they finally hear it.

otek
June 18th, 2011, 12:10 AM
Very simply, a sound is metallic or digital -- by my definition --

And therein lies the rub.

Any such descriptive terms will depend entirely on a common understanding between the musicians, the producer, and other functionaries on the project - typically established through discussion and by example.

Which is why various takes on the definition of those terms is far LESS interesting, to me, than discussing the actual problems with the production process.

A good example of this would be Peter Gabriel's 80's output -- you just can't crank it and rock out.

I don't find that at all. Even though 80's records were brighter in most cases, they also tended to have more dynamics.

I have no problems cranking "Big Time" or "Rhythm Of The Heat". I'd have more problems, in the long term, with certain recent rock records.


otek

eagan
June 18th, 2011, 06:06 PM
What Otek and Bivouac said. This sounds mostly like a need for adult supervision.

I think Bobzilla put his finger on the crux of the biscuit. What definitions somebody might attach to some vague lingo is meaningless, from the looks of it. The more basic truth there appears to me to be a simple case where the actual comments are secondary; it doesn't matter, there will be some kind of complaint from Superstar no matter what anybody else does, because it somehow fails to sufficiently revolve around them.

As far as I can tell just sitting here reading about it, it sounds like the perpetual problem of bands; sometimes you have some arguments and tug of war games between the people involved, having different strongly held ideas about what the thing should be, and it has to be worked out, sometimes you just have battles that are about little more than simple fucking narcissism.

Telling the two apart can be tricky.

So. Who's taking on the task of doing that?

I know I'm not the only one who has noticed that we still haven't seen an answer to the question "who is producing this long distance clusterfuck?".


JLE

NathanRocks88
June 18th, 2011, 08:12 PM
I know I'm not the only one who has noticed that we still haven't seen an answer to the question "who is producing this long distance clusterfuck?".

JLE

The band produced the songs, the Slovenian mad scientist is producing the rest.

No one from outside the band is involved in the process.


Aside from the monkey that hung the mic and pushed the little red button.



I don't know if this next factoid has any truth behind it. But,

THIS IS THE BANDS FIRST PRO TOOLS RECORD

The slov knows he has 144 voices to toy with, and the ability to rip everything a new asshole. So he is.

They should have stayed with the 24 track.

Ein Mangfaldig Kar
June 18th, 2011, 08:42 PM
The band wrote and recorded the songs, the Slovenian mad scientist is "producing" / remixing everything.

Fixed
:beer:

NathanRocks88
June 18th, 2011, 08:43 PM
Fixed

Thanks :)

T.Bay
June 18th, 2011, 10:53 PM
Then a month and a half go by, he's been doing all sorts of really weird shit to the songs - decisions range from on bat shit f@#$ing insane to mostly self-ego-pleasuring.

Oh yeah, he hates sharing the stage with the other singer in his band.

F@#$tard

He's been muting 78.899% of anything his co-star has recorded.

He apparently thinks that he's the only person that matters in this band!


So are you still really asking the question about 'metallic & digital'?

How long have you been in this business, Nathan? :Wink:

NathanRocks88
June 18th, 2011, 11:04 PM
So are you still really asking the question about 'metallic & digital'?

How long have you been in this business, Nathan? :Wink:


Apparently not long enough. :headpalm:

But I know analog warmth when I hear it :beer: