aberdeen producers?

[General Ermintrude]

That was actually directed at General Ermintrude' date=' not you Keilan. I forgot to quote his post. Sorry [/quote']

Slick....

[badger]

thankyou *bows*

[threeornothing]

if you've got broadband' date=' and an hour or two to spare

[url']http://www.mtsu.edu/~nadam/downloads/SteveAlbiniweb.mov

That was ace!! One or two points I don't agree on , but a lot of stuff that I can really relate to, but more his personal politics (I'm not a studio engineer) oh and his hatred of the "80's sound" (which even people on this board argue doesn't exist!!!!)

Cheers for the link!

[CAC]

From where Im sitting it looks like there are around 4 or 5 decent engineer/producers in Aberdeen.

1. Mark (MTA) has some major experience. Having worked with various name acts and John Lecke hes surely to have picked up stuff that wont be found in a book. I mean the stuff that took John years to figure out and was passed to Mark. Ive seen engineers completely transform themselves after working with a happening producer. I cant speak for mark but I reckon this might be how it worked out for him. regardless though his resume is impressive

2. Mark Nicol I believe is very talented. with no training whatsoever I ve heard some great stuff coming from his studio. Hes learned it all by himself which can be a great way to learn this game and if I dare say hes beginning to get a 'Sound'. Not everyone will like it though but not everyone likes Bob Clearmountains sound.

3. Captain Toms engineer is also pretty good. Ive heard some good and bad from Toms bit I dont put this down to the engineer. The bad is probably becausethe band isnt up to scratch or their recording six songs in over a 3 hour period. Theres also a sound comes from Toms which is probably the engineers doing. The engineer there gets V good results from the gea he has. While recording there is less than ideal conditions he knows how the room sounds and gest the best from it. My only suggestion would be a little upgrading of some of the gear (if poss)

4 Niall. Ive heard a lot from the mill since the 80's. Undoubtedly Niall has much experience. he knows his stuff and has a sound. The sound he has wont be everyones cup of tea. From what Ive heard its a polished sound (not a bad sound) but not suited for everything. A couple of things Ive heard have been a little tinny though. Overall if you spend a couple of days there you will get a decent recording at the mill theres no doubt about that.

5. The Byre. I havent heard anything from there yet but on paper the studio is the best equipped. I think Mark (MTA) is doing some engineering there. results could be V good if the band are prepared to spend the money.

A producer can be anyone. he/she doesnt need to know how to work gear or play an instrument (although thats rare)/ The most important thing a producer has is his ear and knowing what makes a good song. When a band is working with a producer for the first time there can be much friction. Basically a bands song can be totally re worked. Many bands find this hard to deal with, but the ones that can and do deal with it usually improve in every area ten fold. All a producer needs is a good band with an open mind and a great engineer. Put those three elements together and magic can happen.

Another bit of advice for bands: Stop recording 4 + songs in an hour. Recording in Aberdeen is cheap and recording fast demoes is a false economy. If you take your music seriously spend a minimum of two days recording one song. Labels are simply not interested in hearing bedroom style demoes these days. If you send them a demo that cost 50 quid to record how can a band be expected to be taken seriously by a label/agent etc. I have experience in this area and I can say for certain that crap sounding demoes are binned much quicker than the demo that sounds like a finished product. bear in mind a finished demo is much more attractive to an indie label.....and majors for that matter.

[Alan Cynic]

Another bit of advice for bands: Stop recording 4 + songs in an hour. Recording in Aberdeen is cheap and recording fast demoes is a false economy. If you take your music seriously spend a minimum of two days recording one song. Labels are simply not interested in hearing bedroom style demoes these days. If you send them a demo that cost 50 quid to record how can a band be expected to be taken seriously by a label/agent etc. I have experience in this area and I can say for certain that crap sounding demoes are binned much quicker than the demo that sounds like a finished product. bear in mind a finished demo is much more attractive to an indie label.....and majors for that matter.

Personally, I totally disagree with this. If the band is doing music because they love it (as opposed to a money-making scheme), then they could record on a beaten up old cassette recorder if they want to. It might also avoid having their 'sound' manipulated by engineer/producers into 'product'.

Having said that, I own up to being a fan of lo-fi sounds anyway....keep it cheap and spontaneous, but get the songs right!

[soundian]

Another bit of advice for bands: Stop recording 4 + songs in an hour. Recording in Aberdeen is cheap and recording fast demoes is a false economy. If you take your music seriously spend a minimum of two days recording one song. Labels are simply not interested in hearing bedroom style demoes these days. If you send them a demo that cost 50 quid to record how can a band be expected to be taken seriously by a label/agent etc. I have experience in this area and I can say for certain that crap sounding demoes are binned much quicker than the demo that sounds like a finished product. bear in mind a finished demo is much more attractive to an indie label.....and majors for that matter.

I think recording 4+ songs in an hour or two (live basically) is a useful first step in the recording process, but certainly shouldn't be for public consumption. At most it's good for getting small gigs because all it does is show how competent the band are. It's very useful for the bands themselves though, they can hear how their sounds work together and what they have to change before shelling out some serious cash.

Most A&R men I know aren't looking for a finished product, but is does at least have to be "competently" recorded and mixed. If it came to the choice between spending 500 on a decent demo or 3000 on a highly polished demo, I'd save the 2500 (unless I was aiming at a small independent record company which would release it as is).

[CAC]

I agree if the band are doing it for fun then they should record as cheap as poss. However if the band are serious about their craft they will at some point have to spend money on quality recordings.

Its always a bands right not to have their sound manipulated and theres nothing wrong with that at all. But the majority of bands have greatly benefitted from working with a producer. The Beatles being a perfect example. Funnily enough though Ive always found its unsigned bands who have the no producer please stance. Never really was able to work that one out.

[CAC]

Most A&R men I know aren't looking for a finished product' date=' but is does at least have to be "competently" recorded and mixed. If it came to the choice between spending 500 on a decent demo or 3000 on a highly polished demo, I'd save the 2500 (unless I was aiming at a small independent record company which would release it as is).[/quote']

Well the a+r types I know definitely prefer the finished product. . This is just my experience and the genres/fields I have worked in.

For 500 quid you could get a finished product. Theres little need to spend 3k recording a single. I was talking about bands who record multiple tracks as cheaply as poss over a 4 hour period.

[CAC]

There's a hell of a lot of self produced albums out there though.

I agree and there is absaloutely nothing wrong with that. Ive self produced tons of stuff myself and continue to do so.

[Guest MKII]

I agree and there is absaloutely nothing wrong with that. Ive self produced tons of stuff myself and continue to do so.

With music' date=' [b']anything goes, what ever is right for the group/artist is what's most important.

If they wish to have their music recorded through a small 10.99 tape recorder and present that as their finished recording,(this is our music, this is our sound) that is just as valid as the band who forks out ten's of thousands on their latest radio friendly album or whatever.

Just because they have no wish to have a well produced, polished(recording wise) album does not mean that they do not take their craft serious.

[Alan Cynic]

Well said that man..I reckon I take what I do seriously, but the last thing I'd want is a producer. Also, many good bands probably never got 'signed' because they refused to cheapen themselves by playing the game.

Whilst I'm ranting.....long live the little labels who love music....a big "sod off" to the corporate creeps

[Guest MKII]

Well said that man..I reckon I take what I do seriously' date=' but the last thing I'd want is a producer. Also, many good bands probably never got 'signed' because they refused to cheapen themselves by playing the game.

Whilst I'm ranting.....long live the little labels who love music....a big "sod off" to the corporate creeps [/quote']

My view is that, whatever it takes to realise what a particular piece of music needs and/or to get the sound the artist is wanting, ideally, should be the route that is taken.

Now, that may cost next to nothing, or it may cost thousands. It may be done alone with a simple 4 track, or it may require a big production(funded by the corporate heads) to achieve this and so on.

[Alan Cynic]

OK....we differ slightly....each to their own, as you say. I'm just not a big fan of big production, but I can see where someone giving you mellotron-money might be useful

[Guest MKII]

OK....we differ slightly....each to their own' date=' as you say. I'm just not a big fan of big production, but I can see where someone giving you mellotron-money might be useful [/quote']

Put it this way(producer in italics)...

Five Leaves Left - Joe Boyd... very produced, probably cost a fair bit to make. Classic album!

Master of the Fuzzy Fadeout - Alan(i'mnotdeadyet)Cynic... Lo-fi, didn't cost a lot to make. Classic album!!

BOTH are very great albums, but were recorded in very different ways.

[Alan Cynic]

Touche'

(Although Nick Drake's songs sound great when they're stripped down, as in Pink Moon. His home-recordings, done on a reel-to-reel sound hissy, but wonderful).

[dFacto Productions]

You dont always have to have a big production to be well produced.

Many bands, even punk bands, that sound raw, have been engineered that way with the help of a producer guiding the engineer.

Many "Big" productions are not well engineered or "produced". Take Kylies Album, multi million selling. One would call that a big professional production, with many writers and quite respected producers.... but listen to the actual production of it.... A lot of work has been given to her voice, its good, really good (and im not a fan) however, the music is awful, and by no means of high produced quality.

A lot of engineers try to produce, and some are sucessful, especially those who create music and keep in touch with new genres. However, a producer should really be up to date with sounds and have a vast knowlege of music history (in my opinion)

For example the vocal techniques used in HipHop vary from others. That tight snappy sound and clever overlayed vocals, thats now almost becoming the norm.

A good producer should be able to acknowlege when somethings missing from a track, or has become to complex, or should be able to help out if a chorus is weak, be giving suggestions and possible examples.