Hi. Allow me to comment on the two songs you posted in spite of the fact that I consider myself a "fetus" when it comes to recording, mixing, etc. I can, however, tell a good recording from a bad one. And those two are both bad. The first one, "Anna Molly," (AM) was just
slightly less bad than the second, "Cry" (C). AM had a few more EQ treatments--or should I call it improvements--as far as I can tell, the drums were all over the place and the bass was distorted. C's drums were tinny in comparison
I guess what most self-produced artists don't realize is that the biggest factor in a recording is the artists themselves.
That's true. You self-produce an album, all the blame is yours...
...But in a level playing field, with no autotune, no cutting and pasting waveforms, the true sound of the artist just reflects in a recording, regardless of how good or bad the equipment is.
I'm not sure about this. Obviously, when Sting records through a 4-track cassette recorder, it's gonna sound like Sting recorded through a 4-track cassette recorder. And when he records in Ocean Way Studios, he's gonna sound like a million bucks, right? Of course, how bad or good the equipment is comes into play. This is why I can't get myself to believe that both the bands you recorded were using the EXACT SAME SETUP, as you mentioned because they sound worlds apart and it's NOT the brand of guitar, the strings they used, or even the artistry of the artist. But of course you were witness to these facts so I can't argue that.
The first band recorded demos for 2 hours til the wee hours, and after leaving the same setup, the next band recorded for 2 hours too with the same studio setup. In fact, the same template was used for both bands.
Baka naman inantok na lahat!
Of course, when you talk about production values, studio trickery comes into play that most of the time, the skill of the engineer and the producer tries to compensate for the lackluster performance of the artist.
Now here is a point I'd also like to raise: Does the engineer just do exactly what the producer/artist says? Doesn't there come a point where even if the artist or producer says "Don't touch that dial!", you'd still go in--maybe secretly--and tweak that freaking bass into submission then pretend it magically just sounded better? A few years back, when I still didn't have my own little space in this vast recording universe, I used to track, mix and produce music for personal use in various studios--New Manila, Legaspi Village in Makati, Paranaque. The engineers were top of the line (I'm nice, ok?) and the equipment was more than adequate. What I distinctly remember was that while the engineers were doing everything I asked them, they would still find ways to "improve" on the sound by moving a fader here or twisting a knob there. And what an improvement each one introduced. What I'm saying is, an engineers job is not just to capture the sound in a recording but to also find a balance--both literally and figuratively--between what the artist/producer wants and what you think sounds sonically superior. I believe no work should come out of your studio without a stamp of approval from everyone (even if they don't include the engineer in the credits!). I mean, how BAD is the artist when he starts to sound like C in your example?
I'm not trying to point fingers on who made a wrong recording/mixing decision or if ever it was wrong in the first place. My point is, each one should play the role they were given to the best of their abilities so that each one can go home with that prized CD with a smile on their face and a dent in their wallets (or a bulge if you're the studio owner).
Peace!
