This week experienced audio engineer Peter Dowdall spoke to us about many aspects of recording, editing and mixing for bands or advertising agencies.
First he discussed technical details and session management concerns on a recent recording of the "Mike Stewart Big Band" at EMU. It was good to hear a quality commercial recording done in EMU using nearly all in-house equipment. I was surprised at the amount of editing that Peter used even on Big Band music with skilled players. The editing was not audible and the resulting product was tight.
I found Peter's stories about his work in advertising and relating to clients interesting. He has had to record and edit without soloing tracks because the people sitting behind him in the control room needed to hear the whole mix. I see that it's quite important to remember that clients don't know what edits are easy or difficult to do, and so you have to foresee future requests and protect yourself in ways such as creating submixes so vocals can be replaced without redoing the instrumental mix. I liked Peter's suggestion that sounds that are considered wrong today are likely to be fashionable tomorrow. I appreciated advertising music more when he explained some of the art of achieving "maximum impact".
Reference: Peter Dowdall. "Week 8 Music Technology Forum - Audio Engineering and Session Management". Lecture presented at Electronic Music Unit, University of Adelaide, 8 May 2008
5 comments:
QUOTE: "I see that it's quite important to remember that clients don't know what edits are easy or difficult to do, and so you have to foresee future requests and protect yourself in ways such as creating submixes so vocals can be replaced without redoing the instrumental mix."
That's an interesting point. I got the impression that much of the job of the engineer is to try to "hide" all the stuff that the client doesn't want to know about, often on-the-fly. It seems to me that one of the more difficult aspects of the job would also be in dealing with the personalities and egos of those involved (simultaneously) while constantly trying to be one step ahead with their requests. Kind of like an audio engineer/psychologist :-)
Yeah I agree with the hiding thing. I guess by doing submixes you're keeping your options open so that then when the client asks for different vocals you can react efficiently and "hide" the process involved.
I think the psychology thing is really quite interesting and I wonder if that is a point engineering that is often overlooked and perhaps a slight "x" factor that helps to explain why some engineers/producers seem to be able to turn out classic albums so consistently. It's pretty broad and complex I guess. From convincing the band that they their amps would sound better with more mids to helping them arrange their songs for recording better to getting a killer emotional vocal take all while making them feel like they are in control and without killing the vibe.
P.S. I don't actually know if all the stuff I listed comes up often or what it's like to handle it, it's just stuff that I get the impression might happen from reading/listening. I'm sure Peter would have plenty more real stories about dealing with clients.
Yep I completely agree - the idea of getting a band to perform at their best or simply take suggestions without hindering their own creative "input" or "ownership" is a real fine line.. and I would assume that the most successful engineers/producers are also the most successful communicators. I guess that is the "X" factor which can't really be taught.
Post a Comment