new album

You are currently browsing articles tagged new album.

Good god.  I’ve been too busy lately even to write about all the stupid things I’m doing.  I’ll do some sort of round-up at some point.

So, here we are.  The Monroe Transfer‘s new album (title to be announced pretty soon, if we’re all happy with it) is approaching the stage where we’re thinking about how to release it.  If you’ve seen or, god forbid, actually bought one of our releases, you’ll know that we do our level best to package our CDs as interestingly as we can- we print all our artwork by hand, using screen printing, letterpress and foil stamping, and we try to make a physical object that’s worth buying.  In this day and age, of course, it’s particularly hard to persuade anyone to buy music, when they can just get it for free, anonymously, on the internet.

The other day I had a think about all this, and an idea occurred; I genuinely don’t know if it’s a good idea, but I’d very much like to hear your opinion, dear reader.

The Idea
If I were in marketing, I suppose I might call this a release strategy, or something. Essentially the plan involves releasing our record in 2 formats:

1.  A CD, which will be housed in a hand-printed sleeve, with lots of nice bits of artwork and pleasingly tactile materials.  You’ll be able to buy it from us over the internet, possibly through a few interested shops, and direct from us at gigs.

2.  An MP3 version, which will be released for free on the internet.  At the beginning of this version will be a little voiceover, to say something along the lines of…

‘Thanks for downloading the free version of our album.  You’re free to distribute it as long as you leave this voiceover at the beginning; if you enjoy listening to the record, and you’d like us to be able to make another one, please consider buying a copy from our website- because we’re self-funded, you’ll be supporting us directly, and we’ll be able to carry on making music.  Thanks for your time.’

…and then the album begins.

So here is where I want your thoughts:

1. Do you think it’s a good idea?
2. Can you think of any problems that I might have missed?
3. Tangentially- how much are you happy to pay for an album these days?

If you, dear reader, can spare the time to leave your thoughts below, I’d really appreciate it.  Don’t worry, the blog will soon be back to my usual blend of narcissism and pedantry.

n xoxox

Just a quick one now, as I’m off to play at the Goodbye, Faithful Kingdom! Bank Holiday festival.  Now that I’m wrist-deep in mixing the new album, it seems a sensible time to have a quick round-up of what we looked like during our recording session.

Yes.  It’s as simple as it sounds.  The Monroe Transfer are off to the studio next week to begin work on a new album (and you can read a little more about that here).  If you’ve seen us live in the last few months, you’ve probably seen us perform a song called Frozen field, burning field which is about half an hour long, and has a short spoken-word section about three-quarters of the way through.  Now that it comes time to think about recording the song, the question of who should perform the monologue comes to mind.  And the answer, in my mind, is clear:

Thom Yorke.

thom-yorke2

Some things you may not know about Thom Yorke and me:

a) I used to live round the corner from him. As a result of there being few parking spaces in Oxford, I occasionally had to park outside his house, and I may have caught him giving a wry smile at the sight of a very tall man getting out of an old-fashioned Mini. 

b) I’m pretty sure I saw On A Friday perform at The Point in Oxford, when I was at school. I can’t actually remember much about it, though, and no-one else can back me up on this one.

c) I was involved in a sci-fi comedy show on university radio, which featured the entire of Radiohead combining into one, giant monster, firing lasers from its eye. The heroes of the show fled when Matt Bellamy (from Muse) arrived in a spaceship, and did battle with the giant, Mecha Radiohead.

d) Thom Yorke is responsible for two songs on my ‘Music So Beautiful It Makes Me Wonder Whether There’s Any Point Writing More Music’ list. As far as I know, I haven’t written anything that’s on Thom’s list.

e) It’s possible (*just* possible…) that he has a vague idea of who we are. I know he’s a fan of online record store Boomkat and, around the time I found that out, our first album was Boomkat’s album of the week.

If you’re a Facebook person, please join up to our group and submit your suggestions as to how we might get through to him.  If you’re in Oxford, and you happen to see him, give him a cheery wave, and tell him about this really cool band he might like.  If you’re related to him (even distantly) find an excuse to pop round.  If you’re Thom Yorke himself- hello.  

(also- if you happen to be Tom Sheehan, I hope you don’t mind my using your photo.  It’s a great photo.  If I can ever afford your services, I’ll be banging on your door)

Fireworks Night having a clap
So, The Fireworks Nights are back in our native land, with a couple of hard-drives crammed with gigabytes of audio, tummies full of food we didn’t have to cook, and the some damned good songs rattling round our brains whenever we wake up in the night.  Personally, I’m absolutely exhausted, as I’ve been working for about 14 hours a day for the last 10 days, in about 3 different roles; if you’re looking for quiet holiday time, may I recommend not producing and playing on an 11-song record in 10 days? So, now that I’ve had a little more experience of being in charge of the whole recording process, I thought perhaps I’d offer a few thoughts on a few things I’ve learnt.  None of these are earth-shattering revelations, but they’re all good general principles that I’ll be bearing in mind the next time I’m doing something similar.  Next month, for example…

  1. There’s no such thing as a magic bullet   The more I do…well, pretty much anything- printing, playing an instrument, engineering, mixing, the list goes on…the more I realise that there is never any one factor that determines whether something is ‘good’ or not.  It’s all the hundreds of tiny, tiny things that add up to give you a great result.  In the case of engineering, for example, having a great mic is no use at all if you’re not putting it in the right place.  Having a great mic in the right position is no use if your guitar is rattling and out of tune.  Having a great instrument is no use if your player doesn’t know the part.  A player who knows the part, but is just playing it mechanically, is going to make a mechanical record.  And so on.  Your recording chain is only going to be as strong as its weakest link.Nick's work area
  2. ‘Engineer’ and ‘producer’ are very different roles    Over the last 10 days, I’ve straddled both roles and, I hope, done a reasonable job at it; it helps, of course, having a group of people that you know very well.  I’m not sure how well it would have gone, had I had anything at all to worry about on top of these roles.  ’Producing’, in the hands-on, people-interaction sense wasn’t something that I’d had a lot of experience with.  In my moments in the role, I had to make sure everyone was comfortable with the recording space, tell them not to worry about making things easy for to record and just to play their part well, get them coffee and water, find less squeaky chairs, diplomatically tell them what went wrong in the last take and how to get a better one this time round, and give ideas for the feeling we needed from the performance.  It surprised me how much time and energy this role took up- musicians often just don’t know how they’ve played: often the take that they think was the killer was actually sub-par, and vice-versa.  People need to be kept happy and able to perform, otherwise the whole exercise is pointless.Equipment
  3. It’s nearly always quicker to try something out than to argue someone out of their position.    If someone has an idea they want to try out, it may be bloody awful.  It may be obvious to you, as an engineer/producer, that it’s a bloody awful idea.  It may be that the only person who may be convinced it’s a great idea is the person pushing to try it.  The thing about arguing, though, is that it’s pretty damned rare to change someone’s mind: by ‘winning’ an argument, the other person may well back down but, most of the time, they’ll still believe they’re right.  And then you have a slightly pissed-off musician, as well as having wasted time.  Normally it’s quicker to throw up a mic and try something- people will hear pretty quickly if it’s terrible.  If it’s sounding like there’s some mileage in the idea, then maybe alter your mics and positioning and get a proper take of it.  Maybe something wonderful will come of it.  Maybe it’ll be terrible.  In any case, you tried it out.Tim at the piano
  4. The goal is to make a great record.   Right from the start, this was pretty-much my only concern.  I wanted to make a great record much much more than I wanted to be right, or to be in charge.  I tried to be very open with everyone about this- if we got to the mix of the record (or even the first rough recordings) and we didn’t think that I’d be able to do the job, I would step aside, and we should scrape some money together and go into a pro studio.  As it turned out, it looks like I might have done alright, but the pursuit of recording a great record meant that some ideals had to be dropped.  One song, for example (more than one, in fact…) has some pretty damned hard, double-stopped string parts and, after a hard day of getting the best takes we could, we realised that we just didn’t have it.  It just didn’t sound good.  So, picking them apart, we went back and recording each note of the string parts separately, getting the articulation, tuning and rhythm spot on for each of them, before combining them again.  And it sounded great, like the song always sounded in our head.  One of our goals at the beginning was to have an ‘authentic’ recording process, playing live as much as we could, and we stuck to that pretty well.  There’s no way that I’d let the goal of a great sounding record be compromised by ideals that we occasionally couldn’t live up to.  God knows I’ll be comping a few of my guitar parts in the final mix.  Which leads me on to…Rhiannon
  5. Computers can correct technical errors, but they can’t create musical feel.    I’m recording to digital recording software.  I’m going to use the facilities that this software offers.  If we’ve just got a great drum take, but Ed’s dropped a stick halfway through and missed two beats, I’ll comp something in there.  I’d like to be a purist about everything, but the practicalities of recording to any form of time limit mean that compromises have to be made.  Get your musicians to perform as well as they can, with all the right sort of energy the song needs, and any ‘errors’ may well be part of the feel of the take.  If they’re not, then we do have the power to make changes; like all powers, it must only be used for the forces of good.Mics and a pool
  6. Have a regular backup schedule.    I can’t emphasise this enough.  Everyone says it.  Everyone is right.  Few people do it enough.Tim's mighty organ
  7. If it sounds good, it is good.   Enough said.

So now, we’re on to the mixing stage.   Hopefully I’ll be able to start posting about that process in the coming weeks, and talk you through the evolution of a recording.  Thanks for reading, as ever…

It’s been quiet on the old blog for the last few days, as I’ve had my head stuck in another computer in a different room, doing the actual recording: by the time the evening’s come round, I’ve been way too exhausted actually to write anything. As, indeed, I am now. Tim, on the other hand, has been making lots of videos of what’s been going on, all of which can be seen by you, the discerning reader/viewer.

Organ Grinder Records on YouTube

And of course, if you have a YouTube account, you can leave comments on these videos, making us all warm and fuzzy and making us believe we have fans. 

(if I have this right, I think this will automatically update whenever Neil uploads more photos.  Which is ‘constantly’)

..

This is the fifth in a series of posts detailing the recording of a new Fireworks Night album; the series is going to follow everything I get wrong, every expensive mic I knock over and every cable I really should have taped to something solid.

No post yesterday (yeah, like you noticed) as I was exhausted, and had no time after annoyance of working out that I couldn’t backup all our work with any ease.  Grr.

If you’re a Twitter user (can I suggest ‘Twit’ as the noun?), you may have seen my recent messages to the Intervoid, proudly announcing that we’ve tracked 9 rhythm parts for the new album.  It varies from song to son, as the ‘rhythm’ instruments vary, they’ve all involved drums so far, normally with piano, and often with bass and acoustic guitar.  The bleed between the mics is, as I mentioned in an earlier post, much less easy to control than I’d hoped; on the plus side, this has made me focus on getting a really good sound in the room and turned into 1s and 0s through the mics, knowing that there won’t be a lot I’ll be able to fix in the mix.  In many ways, I think it’s been a very helpful stage to get through.

I, in my amateurish enthusiasm, have been taking copious notes, and have fairly precise diagrams illustrating how everything was made.  Doubtless I’ll be uploading various scans from my notebooks at a later date, for detailed discussion of ‘how the hell am I going to fix what I’ve done wrong?’. 

We have the luxury of a few good-quality, variable purpose, microphones, which has made it relatively easy to vary the sound, and feel, of a recording.  Again, this is something that I’m bound to repeat at tedious length in the future, but if you’re recording several songs-worth of material in a similar sounding room, I would personally advise changing up the sound by changing your mic’ing to suit the piece.  For example, the role of drum overheads (about which more later) has been filled by a pair of Behringer B1 (a large diaphragm condenser- relatively inexpensive), a pair of Cascade Fatheads (which, I cannot emphasise enough, are the most flexible and lovely sounding things that I’ve had the chance to play with), a pair of Rode NT1 (classic small diaphragm condenser, but turned out not to be particularly appropriate) and, for a particularly retro sound, my homemade ribbon microphone as a mono overhead.  So, without having to do a single bit of post-production noodling around, we’ve already found a number of excellent sounds.  And, of course, this is also part of committing to a sound early on in the process. 

So, to bring you up to date: we have three more ‘rhythm’ tracks to do, which are the quieter songs- one involves piano and bass, one needs electric guitar, bass and piano, and the other…well, I can’t remember.   But we haven’t taken the drum kit down yet, so I guess we must need them still.

So, once the whole recording process is done, the plan is to follow a particular track all the way through the process; maybe tomorrow I’ll start it off by putting a rough bounce of something up here.   Until then, it’s time to continue the mandatory backup schedule.  Yeah.  It’s a rock & roll lifestyle, all right.

This is the fourth in a series of posts detailing the recording of a new Fireworks Night album; the series is going to follow every stage of our recording process, covering equipment, mic selection blah blah blah, look at my massive hands.

I’m writing this on Rhiannon’s impossibly tiny computer, which is making me feel that my clumsy hands are even more gigantic than ever.  I keep remembering the fat handed twat sketches from Big Train

So, we’ve arrived.  We’re in Jersey.  Nothing is broken, all the instruments and musicians are here, and most of the things seem to be connected to my computer.  With the annoying exception of a borred Powercore Firewire- if anyone happens to know why the  drivers wouldn’t install, with only the enigmatic message ‘An error has occurred’, do feel free to drop me a line.

Only a quick one tonight, as my hands are a) massive and b) tired.  It looks like there’s much more bleed between the mics than I’d anticipated, so the plan has changed ever so slightly.  If you happened to read my ‘American and English’ approaches post the other day, you’ll know that I’m temperamentally inclined to get  a good sound and do very little fiddling at the mixing stage; in terms of practicality, however, I’ve tended to record as flat as I can and do all my tinkering in post.  Today, though, I’ve been forced into the position of getting a good sound in the room, which is in many ways a bit of a relief: the decision has been taken slightly out of my hands, and so I’m working with what I can.

First impressions of Cascade Fat Head ribbon mics are excellent, incidentally: we ordered a blumlein pair as we’ve had some nice experiences on other projects with some Coles ribbons.  We’re using them on a baby grand piano at the moment, and I’m coming to love the fiddly mid-side recording method.  It sounds pretty great.

We have set ourselves the task of recording 11 tracks in 10 days, which is a stretch.  If we’re to stay on schedule, we need to have all our rhythm tracks (an assortment of drums, piano, acoustic guitar and bass, depending on the song) done by the end of Tuesday.  We have 3 sorts of mic arrangements, to suit the sound of the particular song, so once we’ve recorded something we’re happy with, we’ll be breaking down and setting up a different arrangement.  It’s going to be pretty breakneck.

And now, off to bed.  Ah, but before I do, it looks like our YouTube channel is finally up and running; there’s probably an embarrassing video up there by now.  www.youtube.com/user/organgrinderrecords is almost certainly the URL.  There’ll be a Flickr account following in the very near future, doubtless.  Someone had better be taking photos of me doing some technical gubbins…

This is the third in a series of posts detailing the recording of a new Fireworks Night album; the series is going to follow every stage of our recording process, covering equipment, mic selection and technique, dealing with room acoustics, getting good performances, tracking, mixing and production.

Quick question: how many ears do we have?  Excellent.  No, it’s not a trick question, it’s ‘two’.  We hear things in stereo, right?  Well, sort of.  There are all sorts of psychoacoustic things of which I have only the slightest understanding, but it’s fair to say our ears (and the auditory cortex attached to them) don’t just hear things as ‘left’ or ‘right’.  The phase relationships, and differences in frequencies, between the signals received by the left and right ears help us position sounds in the space around us.  That, for example, is why people ‘look around’ when they hear an unexpected sound- rather than necessarily looking for the source of the sound, it’s people trying to locate a sound by changing the auditory relationship between the signals that the ears are receiving, and locating the sound’s source aurally.  I suppose I could try to find some sort of sciencey reference for this, but I’m a little bit pressed for time.  Feel free to have a look for yourself.

So, our (by which I mean ‘my, from about 8 years ago’) initial assumption that ‘stereo’ is the best audio representation of the real world is a bit wrong.  Binaural is pretty good.  However, most people don’t have any binaural reproduction equipment- it’s pretty temperamental, and I suppose you should probably have some made for your own personal head.  There’s probably no real benefit to trying to record a binaural album; at least, not on our budget.

There’s also 5.1 surround, as anyone with a massive, planet-sized telly already knows.  Outside of the blockbuster-thriller world, Surround Sound is pretty niche- there are a few excited engineers talking about producing live albums in 5.1, with the audience behind you, the band in stereo on the stage, and spacial reflections to the left and right.  That sound pretty exciting but, of course, probably not ideally suited to recording a Fireworks Night album.

So, having eliminated these two options, it looks like stereo is the best option.  Excellent.  That means that we should record everything in stereo, right?  Well…not quite.  Back when I started having any interest in music at all, I had assumed that all the best studios would record an instrument in stereo, as that’s how it would be best perceived by a pair of nearby ears.  I’d probably read something about how Muse’s engineer had used 10 mics on Matt Bellamy’s guitar cab, positioned to the millimetre, and had assumed that they would be spread at various points around the L-R spectrum.  Of course I was wrong.

Amongst the other array of psychoacoustic things that I barely understand is the fact that you don’t really hear an acoustic guitar (for example) in ‘stereo’.  You’ll hear that it’s coming from a particular place on the L-R spectrum, but you’ll hear it as being a single point, rather than as a full-stereo-image-kind-of-thing.  This means that, for example, you probably wouldn’t record an acoustic guitar in stereo, and then attempt to fit it into your mix (if you were doing a solo guitar record, of course, you might…)- you might use a couple of mics, if you wanted a particular sound, but you’d probably have them panned the same way.

Stereo came very late to the UK, it appears.  I think I’m right in saying that all the Beatles’ albums up to Abbey Road, and anything produced by Brian Wilson, is entirely mono.  At least Brian Wilson had an excuse, what with being deaf in one ear from childhood.  In the UK, it seems that stereo recordings were only used on classical performances- pop was a little too disposable, I guess.  It did have some interesting effects on the mix, I’d say- if you don’t have the luxury of a stereo field to help you separate instruments, then your main tools are going to be the part that the instrument itself is playing, the EQ on that instrument, and the ‘foreground and background’ that can be obtained through reverb.  I may try out at few mono mixes and see how they work out.  Then again, we may be far too pressed for time.

A quick final note: even though almost every record you or I have ever bought is in stereo, I suspect that a lot of people wouldn’t actually notice a mono recording sounding out of place.  By way of an example, I did some composing and sound design for a theatre show recently, in which the poor light & sound operator had a hell of a time, due to overly-complex cues on my part.  As a result of this, all music and sound effects were only being played through the left auditorium speaker for the entire of the second half.  The audience (which included my hugely-qualified sound assistant) didn’t notice anything out-of-place.  And that’s not even mono, really- that’s all the sound coming from one speaker on the left.

There’s no real conclusion to reach, here; just a few things that I found interesting when thinking about this record.  And now, in full-flow, I am being called away by The Lady.  More soon.  Not much time left before we head off, now…

This is the second in a series of posts detailing the recording of a new Fireworks Night album; the series is going to follow every stage of our recording process, covering equipment, mic selection and technique, dealing with room acoustics, getting good performances, tracking, mixing and production.

I’ve been reading a fair few interviews with engineers and producers over the last few weeks, in preparation for the upcoming Week of Enormous Recording. I was already familiar with the sort of thing that producers would tend to talk about- recording techniques, what a producer’s role should be, how to get the best performance out of your musicians and so on (I didn’t, of course, know the details of what they’d say, but we’ll come to that later). What I wasn’t expecting was that so many producers would still have a distinction in their minds between ‘American’ and ‘English’ recording and production styles.

Before I really get going, it’s worth bearing in mind that these interviews have been with big-name producers- people who’ve been doing this for a long time. They’ve been doing their job since tape machines were the standard (some of them claim to have been recording on wax cylinders, which I might take with a pinch of salt)- before digital recording was a viable possibility in the professional domain, and aeons before the recent technology explosion that sees every Apple laptop bundled with GarageBand. Back in these pre-digital, pre-globalised days, there were still a great many local differences. As a tiny example, manufacturers of condenser microphones were largely European (Germany immediately springs to mind) and, as a result, you tended to find a great many more condensers in English and European studios than you did in the US, where the more-robust dynamic mic was much more likely to be used.

I’m sure this is old news to nearly everyone but me; from a producer’s point of view, though, it was interesting to find out that there’s still a perceived difference in approach (and end result) from a English and a US producer. Even today, where every studio throughout the world has very similar equipment (broadly speaking), most high-end producers believe there to be a difference in the sound of UK and US records. It’s not from the equipment (which may have been a contributing factor in the past)- it’s the approach of the engineer and producer.

In essence, the ‘English’ approach is to get something sounding great in the room, hear the musician playing, add whatever compression, EQ and other input effects you need to get the sound you want, and record this part, anticipating doing very little in the mix to make the parts sit well together. The ‘American’ approach involves getting a good sound from the instrument and record it flat, doing most of your effects work, EQ and getting the parts to sit together, as part of the mix.

I’ll refer to these as the ‘American’ and ‘English’ approach, as wiser heads than mine have already devised that as a kind of shorthand; while I’m generally wary of dividing large groups into two categories, I think this might be a useful way to approach to the new Fireworks Night record. The implication of the interviews is that the English method sacrifices flexibility in the later stages in order to commit to a sound early in the mixing process, shaping how the record sounds. The American method means that you record an adaptable sound, deciding on the direction of the song when it comes to mixing, sacrificing commitment to a particular sound in favour of being able to change your mind at mixing. I will almost certainly end up taking a little from each of these approaches when it comes to recording Fireworks Night.

Instinctively, I think I would tend to go more towards the English approach; in terms of practicality, however,  I think I’ll probably need to be more flexible when it comes to mixing- recording things largely flat, and doing most of the work in mixing seems more likely.  I have a little experience in recording (largely in terms of ‘things I’ve got wrong’) and, while I’m getting more confident the more I learn, I’m not so confident in my abilities that I think I’ll be able to commit to a sound immediately, and not regret it later. I just don’t have the experience to know when something will sound good in the long run, or whether there’s an immediate appeal from novelty; or, at the very least, I don’t have the confidence that my experience is sufficient, and that’s probably enough in itself to mean I shouldn’t be committing too early.

Another concern is that Fireworks Night is a group of 6 people, plus an artistically-minded manager, all of whom will want to have a say in how the record is produced. Not all of us, though, have enough production and mixing experience to be able to use the same language to discuss the problems, and if there’s the possibility of delaying the arguments until after the (limited) recording time is used up, that might be a sensible move. The more flexibility I build in to the recordings, the more leeway I’ll have to satisfy everyone’s peccadilloes.

Also, and perhaps more importantly than I’d previously considered, we only have a certain amount of time in which to record- it’s probably in all our interests to make the recording time as efficient as possible, and maybe let the mixing sprawl out a little more.  

On the other hand, there’s a huge appeal to committing to a sound early on in a song’s recording. There are a million and one decisions to be made throughout the recording process, and I’m thinking of it as a little like washing-up: if you don’t do a little bit as you go along, you may end up with an enormous, unmanageable mess at the end. If you’ve already committed to washing up all the pans, then you’ll know that you only have cutlery left to go…ah, this is a stupid analogy. Recording a record is like recording a record: sooner or later you’re going to have to commit to something and, if you’ve got something that sounds awesome, why not commit to it now and have it shape the song? Once again, I’m back to Duke Ellington:

If it sounds good, it is good.

You just have to be pretty damned certain that something does sound good…

This is the first in a series of posts detailing the recording of a new Fireworks Night album; the series is going to follow every stage of our recording process, covering equipment, mic selection and technique, dealing with room acoustics, getting good performances, tracking, mixing and production.

Excitingly, Fireworks Night are heading off to record a new album in a little under two weeks.  We’ve been working on new material since we recorded the A mirror, a ghost EP last year (more information on that here), and we now have 10 songs ready to go, a good proportion of which have been aired at recent live shows.  Because we have a limited budget, and our recent experiences of studios (while great in their own way) left us with a record slightly different to how we’d envisaged, we’ll be taking a week off work and recording everything ourselves.

For me, this is a particularly exciting time as, as well as playing on it, I’m going to be engineering (and potentially producing) the record.  You, dear reader, have probably noticed that I spend a lot of my time writing and recording music, some of which makes its way into the world through The Monroe Transfer, Fireworks Night or just by being posted on this here blog.  I’ve had quite a lot of experience of making music for various projects, but I’m far from expert; I’m looking at a steep learning curve with regard to several elements of the process, particularly recording good sounds from acoustic instruments (notoriously a tricky thing to attempt…)

I’m aiming to document the whole recording process as thoroughly as I can- given how many groups are in our situation, and want to make the best record they can on next-to-no budget, this series of posts might become a useful resource for groups wanting to record in a similar way.  As this is the first post, I’d like to talk about how I’m going about building up knowledge, and planning how we’ll spend our week.

So, at the moment, we’re in the pre-production phase: we’re gathering equipment, working out what other things we need to buy and, in my case, reading as much material as I can.  If you’re considering a similar project with your group, you should definitely be reading Tape Op- I can’t recommend it highly enough.  You can subscribe to it for free, and it will enhance your knowledge and understand of the recording process hugely.  It can be daunting on first reading, but it’s worth persevering with.

On the topic of magazines- I tend to buy something only if it promises a good feature on how to do something. I have next-to-no disposable income (thanks to unpaid work taking up most of my life), and so the gear reviews are of little interest to me- they just make me jealous, and undermine any belief I have in my ability to record something…

‘How can I record even a half-decent record without the Pulmonizer 560 stereo compressor?  The battle is lost!’

Most magazines, though, have occasional great features in them, and I’ll happily buy those-  Tape Op had a superb 1-page feature on mic technique for drum overheads, whose various techniques will form the backbone of the record’s drum sounds.  An old copy of Sound on Sound (August 2007, I think?) had a superb article on various different methods of micing guitar cabs which, again, is going to inform a lot of what happens when it comes to recording the Fireworks Night material.

A book that I thoroughly recommend is Howard Massey’s Behind the glass.  It’s what I think of as a ‘working book’, so I didn’t care about getting a roughed-up secondhand copy- it’s the information that I’m interested in.  Essentially, it’s a series of interviews with a number of famous producers (and by ‘famous’, I really mean ‘their records are famous’- hands up if you have a clue who produced Alanis Morissette’s Jagged Little Pill, for example?  Thought not…)  The book contains a good deal of technical information, but the main thing I’m taking from it at the moment is the attitude that these people have- there’s a lot of humility, a lot of willingness to try things out, and a general feeling that the job is to capture a great performance, not have the musicians worry about stuff they don’t need to.  If our violinist Rhiannon is thinking about standing really still so that the mic is picking up the most sound, then she’s not going to be performing as well as she can; what I’ll have to do is minimise all these kinds of concerns, and make sure we all play as well as we can.

A brief preliminary word on equipment- it’s going to sound like a cliché, but the main thing to remember about equipment is that there is absolutely no substitute for a good mic, placed well.  And of these two, the ‘placed well’ is probably the most important.  I’ll go into much more detail on this later on, as it’s something that I’m learning more about all the time, but consider a few things now- a musician sounds different when placed in different parts of a room, a mic sounds different when it’s at a different place in that room, and mic orientation relative to the sound source also makes a difference.  Given all these different combinations of sound possiblities, it’s possible to get an enormous range of sounds without having to do anything to the sound coming into your recording device.

And finally for the moment, something I’m bound to repeat at great length over the next couple of months is this quotation from Duke Ellington: a quotation that will, I’m sure, make a lot of decisions a great deal easier to make…

If it sounds good, it is good.