Producing yourself-- WDYRSLA spinoff

[yep]

So I've been thinking about where to go next in the "Why do your recordings sound like ass" thread in this very forum, and there is still an awful lot of ground to cover with the technical stuff, but more and more I have been thinking about the role of the PRODUCER in the record-making process, and how that diverges from the role of then engineer and from a lot of the technical stuff.

So this is a kind of spin-off, where I will respectfully ask participants to steer clear of the technical nitty-gritty (although there will certainly be some overlap) and focus more on the procedural and "big picture" stuff. I suspect this could be a more free-wheeling and open discussion, because everyone has something to contribute.

[yep]

First off, there is a lot of confusion about what a producer actually DOES, which is understandable, because it is in fact a pretty vague role, although a hugely important one in most modern commercial records.

The producer is usually the most highly-compensated individual in the record-making process. The producer usually gets a 2% royalty, which is slightly less than a typical band member, except the producer gets paid BEFORE all the deductions taken by the band's manager, accountant, and breakage fees and all that. Moreover the producer probably works on a lot more records than the band does, so yours is just one of three or six or eight records the producer might make that year.

Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, the producer, if there is one, is likely to be the person most trusted by the record label. The A&R rep might ASK you how it's going, but then he meets with the producer to find out how it's REALLY going. So the producer is swinging a pretty big dick, as my old friend Musashi would put it.

So what exactly does a producer DO, to earn this kingly status, and kingly chunk of your record sales?

Well, first off, a PRODUCER is different from an engineer, even though they both often sit side-by-side behind the mixing console (for one thing, the engineer is paid by the hour, and is usually lucky to be making minimum wage, so that's one difference). Some producers do their own engineering, but this is by no means a requirement.

This is where it starts to get really confusing for a lot of music biz novices-- after all, we WRITE and PERFORM the music, and the engineer RECORDS and MIXES the music, so what else is there for anyone to do?

HOHOHOHO! Coming up.

[yep]

The producer is a sort of "project manager" for your album. The producer plans the whole project, budgets time and money, keeps everyone focused and productive, and makes sure that the thing actually gets done more or less the way it was meant to be done.

I can hear the outcry now: "What a racket! These people actually get paid more than the artists for doing THAT?!? Who needs 'em? Why won't the record company just let US keep the money and buy a calendar and write up a f'n schedule ourselves?!?"

Answer?... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Democracy

It sounds like a joke to say it, but one of the producer's primary functions is simply to keep the band from breaking up or drastically changing their sound during the record-making process. And scoff all you like, but the likelihood of a band breaking up before completing an album is HUGE. MASSIVE. Probably a majority, without some coaching and guidance. For real.

And even worse (from the record company's POV) is that there is some gene in musicians whereby, as soon as they have the opportunity to finally bring their musical vision to the world, the vision that they have slaved over and nurtured through years of all-ages tuesday shows in front of twelve people and months of sterno ramen dinners in the back of a van, they decide to CHANGE IT. They decide they no longer want to do hard-edged blues rock about partying, instead they want to do socially-conscious rap-metal. Or afro-cuban-infused instrumentals. Or acid jazz over techno beats. It sounds funny, but this kind of stuff is RAMPANT. And from the record company's point-of-view, it's a DISASTER. It's like investing all your savings in Microsoft and then having Microsoft decide to take all the capital and become a vegan communal farm in Vermont.

Musicians are a bit like revolutionaries-- they are often more built for fighting than for winning the fight. You or someone you know may have experienced a little something like this when you first started computer recording-- what starts out as a desire to record some ideas for straightforward songs you've written turns into an open-ended odyssey of reinvention. Imagine if your copy of REAPER came with a rented house in Beverly Hills and a $200,000 advance. Maybe you'd have your own little "Chinese Democracy" start to emerge.

So what does a producer actually do? And how can thinking like a producer help you? That's what this thread is here for...

[yep]

Producers are generally people who have some practical experience in the record-making process. Some are engineers who kind of expanded into it. A lot are former artists, themselves, or studio musicians. Some started as club owners or band managers or studio managers or tour managers or some other practical aspect of the creative world.

The first producers were basically straight-up mooks, A&R men who churned through artists like a line cook turns out patty melts. They were middle-managers for industrial-era record companies, and their job was managerial, to book the sessions and to get the musicians in on time and so on, like a shift manager. In time, it became clear that some producers were producing consistently better-sounding and more salable records than others. Sometimes this was the way they matched up talent, sometimes it was their own creative contributions in arrangement or engineering, sometimes it was the vibe or dynamic they created in the studio, and sometimes it was just their ability to pick winning material or performances.

Whatever it was, it amounted to a sort of "golden touch" where some producers were basically churning out hit after hit with pretty much any artist the record company threw at them, while others plodded through one bland recording after another, no matter how talented the incoming artist.

The golden age of the producer was probably pre-Beatles american pop, where different cities and different record labels each had their own prized "sound" made up of a local cadre of stable musicians, studio engineers, songwriting and arrangement teams, and record producers were the ringleaders of the whole thing.

Sort of like present-day Hollywood directors, who may or may not have any specific talents in cinematography or screenwriting, but who make the whole razzle-dazzle spectacle happen. Some of them actually operate cameras and edit film, but a lot of them just sit in a chair and "direct" a rather massive process that still reveals a unified artistic vision.

Phil Spector was probably the most iconic "golden age" producer, being part-arranger, part-engineer, part studio manager, part talent scout. But a lot of producers had none of these technical skills, or entirely different ones. When the Beatles came along and ushered in the era of name bands, supergroups, and "stage full of stars," the visible role of the producer began to recede into the background, to the point where the public widely perceived the movies to be made entirely by cameramen and actors, so to speak. But this was mostly just a perception thing.

Modern-day hip-hop and R&B probably most forthrightly showcases the producer's artistic fingerprints, but make no mistake, the producer almost certainly plays a massive role on the sound and gestalt of your favorite records of any genre. An engineer will point the mics at your instruments and record an accurate and flattering representation of what they sound like, but it is the job of the producer to get you from what you DO sound like to what you COULD sound like, if only you had a million-dollar producer.

[yep]

So here's how all this starts to come into play for home recordists in a practical sense.

99% of all human endeavor is accomplished through prioritization more than inspiration. The entire science of management can basically be boiled down to prioritization. First things first, and second things not at all. If you can get through the first priority, then the second priority will become the first, and so on, until the only things left are fairly small.

So the first aspect of prioritization is deciding what is really important and focusing on THAT. This can be a little tricky and counter-creative when you're doing stuff like writing and practicing, but actually producing a modern studio record is a big project with a lot of details and technical aspects, and if you just allow inspiration to drive the process, there is a strong likelihood of having inspiration run out or meander before the project is done.

Ironically, this is often particularly true of the most accomplish-able stuff. The more that you have the big idea stuff in order, the bigger the niggling details become, proportionately. This is where the SECOND part of prioritization comes into play, which is deciding when to fish or cut bait. A short-hand way to put it might be to say that it is a matter of deciding when good enough is good enough.

But a more nuanced and accurate way is deciding when whatever you're working on is close enough to finished so that it is no longer the first priority. Sometimes that means that the specific material you're working on is pretty good, but that other aspects are still rough and need to be sorted. Sometimes it is a matter of acknowledging that you're driving down a dead-end street, and that it's time to cut bait.

[yep]

One of the great challenges of working alone is that boredom tends to creep in the closer you get to perfection. The consequence of this is a tendency to keep changing direction every time you get close to something finished. The idea that seemed brilliant two weeks and eighty takes ago starts to sound lame and tired by the time you finally start getting it right.

A producer's primary job is to prioritize. To keep the project on track. To keep everyone focused and to steer the decisions regarding fishing vs cutting bait.

This does NOT mean that the producer is a Nazi who is going to take over your music and force you to sound like something you're not. The best producers are very good people, dedicated music fans who know how the process works and who are on your side 100%. They are supportive, enthusiastic fans who are also honest and willing to be critical when it's due. They become like a fifth member of the band, a coach and mentor who can guard against both the self-doubt as well as the delusions of grandeur that can affect all musicians.

They guard against distractions, protect you from the record label, take care of logistical and technical details, and create an environment where you can concentrate on creativity and music, in a focused, productive way. They know enough about the process to rule out dead-ends, and to direct you towards methods and approaches that will bring out the best aspects of your creative vision.

They know when to go for an authentic, raw, lo-fi sound, and when to pull out all the stops and go for a full-blown, lavish, major-label 128-track production with strings and gospel chorus and 20 tracks of guitar and percussion. They know when you're getting burnt, and to call time out and move on, and they know when you need the extra push to get through a creative roadblock. They can negotiate disputes between band members in neutral, diplomatic, but authoritative ways.

They warn you before you get bogged down wasting time, and before you get carried away with aimless wankery. And they do it in ways that are supportive and inspiring, not dictatorial. Their reason for being is not a cynical contempt for the creative process, but a reverential devotion to it. And they take care of all the details. Their intervention is not tampering with your music, it's allowing you to focus on it, and to present it in the best possible light, in a thousand critical ways that have little or nothing to do with actually playing or recording the instruments. It is pretty safe to say that nobody else in the record industry is going to be as purely dedicated to the quality of your record as the producer (after all, she's getting paid on the royalties!)

So, the challenge to the self-producer is how to focus and prioritize without that guidance and shelter. That's what this thread is about, and all ideas from all comers are welcome. As far as I know, there has never been any coherent guide to doing this aspect of the record-making process yourself. I have some ideas, but here, the experiences of real-world home recordists trump the methods and techniques of studio pros. So questions, ideas, thoughts, and ramblings are welcome.

More to come.

[johng]

Originally Posted by yep

The producer is a sort of "project manager" for your album. The producer plans the whole project, budgets time and money, keeps everyone focused and productive, and makes sure that the thing actually gets done more or less the way it was meant to be done.

I can hear the outcry now: "What a racket! These people actually get paid more than the artists for doing THAT?!? Who needs 'em? Why won't the record company just let US keep the money and buy a calendar and write up a f'n schedule ourselves?!?"

Answer?... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Democracy

This is the funniest thing I've read all year!

Any time I start to overly obessess, nit-pick, and generally get off track with the home-recording of my "album," I just think of this post and laugh.

Thank you.

[warmingtone]

Oh, a whole other thread to explore, and perhaps more in need than the procedures of recording...I was particularly taken with this...

It's not that the gear and the production value don't matter, it's that the quality of the recording is usually not nearly as important as having a vision worth recording in the first place.

I think a lot of home recordists don't consider the importance of this, or have unrealistic hopes that the 'production technology' will bail them out in some way.

I look forward to reading this thread in more detail as I have time, thanks again for your contributions and raising such important issues.

here is another 'what is a producer' article that might be of interest...

http://productionadvice.co.uk/what-is-a-producer/

[RRokkenAudio]

Bump. GREAT thread, will write a few questions when I get home.

[Malevol3nt]

Yep you're a walking talking audio encyclopedia.

Loving the stuff you post!

[west_west]

This is my first post, and the only reason for it is that I've read through Yeps: WDYRSLA to the point where this spin-off was created and this thread to end and actually has something to say/share

There has been a lot of discussion about feedback, which has been very interesting to read, but slightly over-emphasized in my opinion. I want to go back to the practical talk about how to actually try to be the producer for yourself. I want to to this by sharing a bit of my own experience.

I am a young and novice self-producing singer-songwriter. I own one of the cheapest home-studios in the world (simply because I still studying). One of the most important things In my opinion has been the talk about something is better than nothing (independently how perfect the vision and intention for the nothing-result-project was). Another thing was the talk about goals. Setting up goals for each session

Since I only got myself to play with the recording phase often contains a lot of creativity, because it's at this stage I can start thinking about if I need a synthpad and how the electric guitar solo are supposed to be like and so on. In my case I've found that a good way to keep myself from being sidetracked by this process of arranging during tracking and mixing is to set up goals for each session. I often find myself on the way to school thinking about the goals for next session. And when the session takes place I make sure to reach the goal. A goal might be to figure out a solo by jamming with the record as well as it can be to record a voice.

Another thing that I've discovered is that it is often more fun to build the song by first recording a drumloop (I prefer drumloops over metronome to keep everything at about right tempo) and then record the intro, all instrument (except voice - which I often do at the end) and rough mix, then go to the verse doing same thing and so on. I am aware of that this method somewhat violates some rules about the recording/mixing process, but for me it is a way to make the bricks that are going to be laid down in place.

One thing that another member here brought up (I can't remember the name tough) was the point that this planning thing tends to stretch the starting distance before the actual recording can takeoff. My goal is to have to use as short bit of the runway as possible before my plane rotates of the ground (sorry, I'm into flying and airplanes and such too). For a self-producing home recordist that only uses himself I don't think the schedule is necessary as long as you remember to set sessionbased goals for at least the next session, and have a deadline when you say that you have to be done. This way I've created some for my level of experience fairly good records. Almost or completely on time.

I don't know if this is useful reading to anyone, but as this thread was about sharing I thought that I might just as well share what I have experienced.

[west_west]

In my urge to write my last post I forgot to thank mainly Yep for sharing his knowledge. It has helped me a lot to improve different things both in my studio and in my records. For instance he made me start cleaning up and organizing my room, and he gave me a hum about which effect doing what. I swear: before I read his talk about the compressor I've never touched it. Now I use it frequently. Well... I'm getting of point. Thanks Yep. That was the point. You're awesome.

[Sigilus]

Feedback is a great thing.

I'm definitely one of those people for whom a schedule is a huge asset. I never get anything done otherwise, because I get caught up in the should-have could-haves of creativity. Arrangement has to come first for me or I'll never finish.

With your brick-laying approach, do you mix as you go? How do you make the verse sound like the chorus, for example, if they were mixed separately?

[west_west]

Originally Posted by Kenneth R.

Feedback is a great thing.

I agree

Originally Posted by Kenneth R.

With your brick-laying approach, do you mix as you go? How do you make the verse sound like the chorus, for example, if they were mixed separately?

I try to keep instruments individual sound-settings, not turning knobs on my mixer and so on to get the different takes as close to each other as possible. I mix roughly as I go, if I really need to gate a track or to compress it a bit that's what I do, but more and more I tend to apply effects like reverb when I got the most of it on tape so to speak. Mostly I tend to track first the intro applying all instruments I want and then move on to track the verse. Tracking and rough mixing mostly about level-matching. Then I go to the effects and apply reverb, chorus, and whatever I want to have. I almost never do a full track in one take (unless it's sequenced loops (mostly drums) from my synth or vocal) but rather a small part at a time in different sessions. Hope that explains more.

[yep]

Originally Posted by west_west

This is my first post, and the only reason for it is that I've read through Yeps: WDYRSLA to the point where this spin-off was created and this thread to end and actually has something to say/share

There has been a lot of discussion about feedback, which has been very interesting to read, but slightly over-emphasized in my opinion. I want to go back to the practical talk about how to actually try to be the producer for yourself. I want to to this by sharing a bit of my own experience.

I am a young and novice self-producing singer-songwriter. I own one of the cheapest home-studios in the world (simply because I still studying). One of the most important things In my opinion has been the talk about something is better than nothing (independently how perfect the vision and intention for the nothing-result-project was). Another thing was the talk about goals. Setting up goals for each session

Since I only got myself to play with the recording phase often contains a lot of creativity, because it's at this stage I can start thinking about if I need a synthpad and how the electric guitar solo are supposed to be like and so on. In my case I've found that a good way to keep myself from being sidetracked by this process of arranging during tracking and mixing is to set up goals for each session. I often find myself on the way to school thinking about the goals for next session. And when the session takes place I make sure to reach the goal. A goal might be to figure out a solo by jamming with the record as well as it can be to record a voice.

Another thing that I've discovered is that it is often more fun to build the song by first recording a drumloop (I prefer drumloops over metronome to keep everything at about right tempo) and then record the intro, all instrument (except voice - which I often do at the end) and rough mix, then go to the verse doing same thing and so on. I am aware of that this method somewhat violates some rules about the recording/mixing process, but for me it is a way to make the bricks that are going to be laid down in place.

One thing that another member here brought up (I can't remember the name tough) was the point that this planning thing tends to stretch the starting distance before the actual recording can takeoff. My goal is to have to use as short bit of the runway as possible before my plane rotates of the ground (sorry, I'm into flying and airplanes and such too). For a self-producing home recordist that only uses himself I don't think the schedule is necessary as long as you remember to set sessionbased goals for at least the next session, and have a deadline when you say that you have to be done. This way I've created some for my level of experience fairly good records. Almost or completely on time.

I don't know if this is useful reading to anyone, but as this thread was about sharing I thought that I might just as well share what I have experienced.

Great post.

[Tedwood]

I'm glad I found this thread, it inspired me to approach a young man I heard singing at an outdoor event I was coordinating last year. For my money he should have won the talent contest but he came third and missed out on the first prize - which was "recording time in a local studio".

I saw that studio, and met the "engineer" - I felt quite sad for the winner!

So I thought I probably have enough expertise and good enough equipment to "produce" at least beyond this level in my home studio, even though my best mic is a Rode Nt1a and I have budget monitors (m-audio bx5a) are not great.

However, I do have a well treated room and an 5 ft X 5ft isolation chamber for vocals.

Someone said (might have been yep) it is more important to know what you are doing, where you are going, and to have talent than good equipment. Mind you I do have very nice guitars and plugins, and I know how to use REAPER

What this young lad lacks is equipment (of any kind) and experience, so he doesn't really know how to plan. So I can plan, and I can help him to focus, and I can help steer him to where he wants to go.

I never produced anyone before - and he never made a demo before, so we will lucky if it is fantastic, but the boy has talent and I have knowhow.

I guess people might think I'm mad but I said I'd do it for nothing if it costs me nothing (cos it's my first producer thing) .

Mind you I'm now thinking I should allow for the possibility that he might be able to sell the results - in which case I really should get more than 2% - or a proper rate.

[stupeT]

Originally Posted by Tedwood

Mind you I'm now thinking I should allow for the possibility that he might be able to sell the results - in which case I really should get more than 2% - or a proper rate.

AFAIK: 2% is average fee for average producer - in case the studio cost has been paid by the musician (via advance from the label).

Top producers get more anyway. And in your case it was your studio. So you should get much more.

[yep]

Originally Posted by Tedwood

...Mind you I'm now thinking I should allow for the possibility that he might be able to sell the results - in which case I really should get more than 2% - or a proper rate.

Get a music lawyer if you intend to write a percentage deal. And never, ever do a percentage deal without getting it in writing and all lawyered up (really, I mean, do not even accept it if the guy offers, just do it for free and hope he gets famous and hires you on). It will poison his career and probably ensure that the record never makes any money, since no "real" business wants to touch something where a third party has some nebulous percentage and ill-defined claim. Besides, asking him to give you 2% of record he sells at a bar or whatever is more trouble than it's worth, and that technically puts him in breach of contract.

If you want to get paid, just write down who owes what to whom and put a price and terms on it, making sure to put in terms that you own the recordings until final payment is made. Might be $500 or $500,000, depending on everything else.

If the guy really wants to give you a piece of something, get a piece of the songwriting. All you need to do is write down the name of the song, the lyrics, and that you own X% and the other person owns Y%. Then both of you sign copies, preferably with a credible witness, and you all keep a copy.

As an aside, if all you are doing is recording and mixing, then you're just acting as an engineer and there is no reason to mess with producer credits.

[johnnymosh]

I love this tune...tis the epitomy of production...and bless ya for waking the masses!!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjc-FuyDgaA

[yep]

I recently read an article on the development of the video game Half-Life 2 (released in 2004). For those who don't know, Half-Life 2 is widely regarded as the best video game ever made, with an unbeaten, near-perfect score on review-aggregate sites such as metacritic, and a general reputation for having elevated the art of video games to a level yet-unmatched. Total revenues are unknown, but every indication is that HL2 has made as much or more money than all but the biggest Hollywood blockbusters, probably somewhere in the order of $700m worldwide.

It also had a very long and notoriously troubled development history that included multiple delays, many, many millions of dollars in cost overruns, having the source code stolen and released publicly by a hacker in a case that led to international intrigue and press, one of the original partners quitting the company, and all kinds of flame wars and feuds in the video-game world.

In the article, one of the developers says something like: "in any creative effort, there is a point where you're halfway through and you start thinking: why are we even doing this? But you just keep going, and that doubt makes it better. And somehow in the end you create something better than original vision."

I think that often, the most talented and original people are most susceptible to this "halfway frustration" and self-doubt. Bad musicians often have no qualms whatsoever about playing the loudest and most insistently. Those who give up when they are closest to achieving something meaningful are often those who are most ambitious and most capable, since they are also the most demanding critics. Where the incompetent hack sees nothing wrong with sounding halfway as good as the worst song on the radio, the skilled visionary starts to think himself a failure for not being categorically better than the best stuff ever recorded.

The value of having a producer, or even of simply being able to put on a workmanlike "producer hat" is that it keeps you moving forward. There is the old adage: "obstacles are the things you see when you take your eyes off the goal". The people who make things happen are those who, instead of asking: "can I do this?" ask: "HOW can I do this?"

[DerMetzgermeister]

Originally Posted by yep

In the article, one of the developers says something like: "in any creative effort, there is a point where you're halfway through and you start thinking: why are we even doing this? But you just keep going, and that doubt makes it better. And somehow in the end you create something better than original vision."

One of my personal heroes is Werner Herzog. The scope of his ambition and artistic integrity always amaze me.
Did you see "Fitzcarraldo", or the documentary made about the production of that movie, "Burden of Dreams"?
Every time I'm delayed by some factor outside my control (most times another band member that doesn't take things seriously) I say to myself, "Well, at least I'm not dragging a hundred ton ship over a hill in the Amazon.."
I don't know what else I will have to do to complete this record I'm working on but if that includes making someone work at gun point (as allegedly Herzog did with Kinski in the set of "Aguirre, Der Zorn Gottes"), well... Phil Spector did exactly that a number of times. You got to do what you got to do.

[yep]

Originally Posted by DerMetzgermeister

One of my personal heroes is Werner Herzog. The scope of his ambition and artistic integrity always amaze me.
Did you see "Fitzcarraldo", or the documentary made about the production of that movie, "Burden of Dreams"?
Every time I'm delayed by some factor outside my control (most times another band member that doesn't take things seriously) I say to myself, "Well, at least I'm not dragging a hundred ton ship over a hill in the Amazon.."
I don't know what else I will have to do to complete this record I'm working on but if that includes making someone work at gun point (as allegedly Herzog did with Kinski in the set of "Aguirre, Der Zorn Gottes"), well... Phil Spector did exactly that a number of times. You got to do what you got to do.

I think "Aguirre: the Wrath of God" was not less demanding than "Fitzcarraldo", but yeah. Herzog is a case study in achieving extraordinary artistic results by ignoring what it possible and instead simply deciding what will be achieved.

[Sigilus]

Originally Posted by yep

I think that often, the most talented and original people are most susceptible to this "halfway frustration" and self-doubt. Bad musicians often have no qualms whatsoever about playing the loudest and most insistently. Those who give up when they are closest to achieving something meaningful are often those who are most ambitious and most capable, since they are also the most demanding critics. Where the incompetent hack sees nothing wrong with sounding halfway as good as the worst song on the radio, the skilled visionary starts to think himself a failure for not being categorically better than the best stuff ever recorded.

:O

This is me.

[yep]

Originally Posted by Kenneth R.

:O

This is me.

The trick is to realize that doing something worthwhile takes work. And also to remember that your original vision was and remains worthwhile. When you have spent the last three days trying to figure out a transition between chorus and verse, anything starts to feel like a chore, and starts to get old, and starts to seem boring and uninspired.

Musicians who can competently play hackneyed progressions well are a dime a dozen. The world is full of people who are "just as good" as the Beatles, or Stevie Ray Vaughan, or whoever, because all they need to do is learn the stuff that's already been done. A lot of them can play better than many radio hits, and complain about it, but nobody cares about the "just as good as the Beatles", because they can buy a genuine Beatles CD for the same price (or more commonly, they can pirate real Beatles songs just as easily).

Doing something different takes effort, courage, and faith. The details are hard, because nobody's ever done them before. It's easy to sound like yesterday's hits-- just copy their sound. But it's very hard to sound like tomorrow's hits, because nobody knows what they sound like yet.

Ideas are seeds-- some of them grow, a lot of them don't. But most of them require water, fertilizer, and so on. If you have a good idea, then mark it down as such and never doubt it. If it sounded like a good idea the first hundred times you played it, then it's a good idea. If it loses its lustre after 300 attempts, that's you, not the idea.

Work in small chunks. Switch to something else when you start to get bored or exhausted, but don't give up on the idea, just put it on the shelf for a while. Know and accept that a lot of it will be a chore. Massive amounts of work go into producing movies, plays, novels, and records that seem effortless. Even cooking a good meal.

[west_west]

Originally Posted by yep

Ideas are seeds-- some of them grow, a lot of them don't. But most of them require water, fertilizer, and so on. If you have a good idea, then mark it down as such and never doubt it. If it sounded like a good idea the first hundred times you played it, then it's a good idea. If it loses its lustre after 300 attempts, that's you, not the idea.

Work in small chunks. Switch to something else when you start to get bored or exhausted, but don't give up on the idea, just put it on the shelf for a while. Know and accept that a lot of it will be a chore. Massive amounts of work go into producing movies, plays, novels, and records that seem effortless. Even cooking a good meal.

Great lines. One thing that I've noticed is that the great ideas seems to have the ability to sound good and touching after a couple of month if one let it rest on the shelf. Just as good or even better than it sounded when you first played it. I recently picked up one or two songs that I wrote about 6 month ago. Songs that left something in my mind that grew over time and made me think about them even though it was a long time since I played them. And they just sounded so "right". So just by letting a song rest one can often determine if it is great or just good. And as a home-recordist one often can afford that luxury.

[Smurf]

Originally Posted by yep

There is the old adage: "obstacles are the things you see when you take your eyes off the goal".

I think I will steal this......Thanks!

[Fishtank]

Hi everybody,

I found this tread few days ago and must say, absolutely fantastic!!! Couldn’t stop reading since. The last time this happened to me was when a friend of mine hyped me to the new Battle Star Galactica (big time hesitation at first, but ended up watching the whole thing in one breath).

Yep, thank you very much for sharing your experience and knowledge, openly and consistently. This is really refreshing!


Now my question, if I dare, since it is my first post.

Yep, can you tell us about 3D mixing techniques, such as panning outside the stereo field (as an example) or psychoacoustic tricks that can be used to enhance the 3D feel in a song.

The link below will illustrate better than my words:

http://gprime.net/flash.php/soundimmersion

Thank you so much!

[Fishtank]

Sorry, I meant to post in "Why do your recordings........" I didn't start reading this tread yet, sure its great.

Cheers!!!

[Smurf]

You can go HERE and grab the zip file. This covers from 12-24-2009, post #1126, to 12-25-2010 post # 1687 in both RTF & PDF formats.

This folder also includes.....

Producing yourself-- WDYRSLA spin off 2 - Stopped 3-28-10 at post #161

and

Yep's Room Acoustic Thoughts - Stopped 9-23-2010 post #76.

Again, a HUGE Thank You to yep & everyone who has posted in the threads, I have learned a lot from ya all!

Merry Christmas!