Steve Albini's take on recording Nirvana

[CultureofGreed]

An excellent speech on recording in general from the man who brought us Nirvana, the Pixies, and Page and Plant!

http://www.mtsu.edu/~nadam/downloads/Stevealbiniweb.html

[Foreverain4]

that is a pretty ignorant statment that "albums deserve to be recorded to tape, not because of sound quality, but because tape will still be around" or whatever he said... is this why everyone is dumping all their old 2" tape stuff to digital? tape is probably the most fragile medium out there....


hhhmm

[lvjazzman]

"Digital recording doesn't work properly and it's a destructive influence."

Wow, that is a silly statement too. I would tend to think that because of the way digital recording works, it can be a VERY constructive influence.

And the comment that analog will last forever once recorded? If that were the case, I guess baking tapes is just fun to do, not just necessary to save a deteriorating tape.

As far as nothing existing in digital that can be recorded and put on a shelf and played back 20 years later... I have CDs that I purchased the year CDs became available (mid 80s?) that I still listen to today. Using that math I learned way back then... Whoa, sounds a lot like 20 years those CDs have been kicking around on my shelfs, in my cars, on my boat... So much for longevity as an argument against digital. I know, he means the original format that it was recorded to (DASH etc...) But still...

I do agree with his apinions about compression, drum tracking, Autotune, and staying out of the way of what the band wants to do on a recording. I also agree with his opinion of file sharing, being a great marketing tool, exposing people to music they wouldn't otherwise listen to, expanding a buying fan base.

[CultureofGreed]

I suppose he has never heard of having to "Bake" tape in order to save it.

:classic:

[conguero]

I have always been an advocate of the 2 inch sound and will be until the day I die or until there is some kind of mind blowing breakthrough in converter technology. I am in the digital domain because it is a more practical and cost effective medium to work in. I understand where he is comming from with that digital is destuctive comment, but is all that drama really needed? You can still track in digital using analog mentality. By destructive he must mean the abuse and over produced sound of some productions due to the plethera of tools available to producers nowa days that can contribute to the cutting of corners in the tracking, editing, and mixing process. Some producers will use all of these tools such as pitch correction, quantization of bars, copying and pasting choruses and parts of the arrangments that may repeat. All of this can lead to a loss of flavor in the music which in turn can be destructive. But can't you track to digital without doing that? It is as simple as that! Digital is'nt destructive. What is destructive are the producers and engineers that use these tools the wrong way.
just my 2 cents.....
javier
:banana:

[LTA]

Digital doesn't kill music; I kill music.

I still thing the bigger deal is that people are on tight budgets, and trying to do things in what they perceive as the fastest means to the goal. Speed doesn't come out of cutting corners, but rather by being thorough and not letting mistakes slide. And editing/pitch correcting mediocre performances down to the T is not being thorough in my book. If the only way to avoid being shortsighted is to use an ATR), so be it. There is plenty of horrid drivel done to 2" to counter most anti-digital arguments. And there is plenty of subpar digital work to back up the claims of analog superiority.

While being fairly profficent at editing, i try to avoid it unless absolutely necessary. I still have a hard time grasping how editing is a complete and separate step between tracking/overdub and mixing. Sure, i believe in editing during the tracking portion, and editing during the mix portion. But i never felt there was enough of it to warrant a day's worth of work on a single song. I guess it comes from a corrupt analog mentality being applied to digital, but I do feel i am missing out on a punchline.

[lvjazzman]

Javier, well said. Before I watched the clip, I had just argued some of this with the drummer of the band I am editing and mixing right now. He wanted me to go through each of the 12 songs, and more or less quantize each and every kick/snare hit. I had to really work to convince him that perfection is wonderful in theory, but in practice in music can often sterilize your music, and make it free of any feeling and emotion. Not what most people after I hope. LTA, I agree too with what you said about letting mistakes and bad sound slide, just because you can fix it later. There is no excuse for bad sound on either format, digital or analog. I too love the sound of a good recording to 2" analog, but I sure love the convienience of digital.

[LTA]

Originally posted by lvjazzman
There is no excuse for bad sound on either format, digital or analog. I too love the sound of a good recording to 2" analog, but I sure love the convienience of digital.

After seeing what an uber-pro can do to 2" just with a grease pencil, razor blade, 2nd tape machine, some fly-ins, and some careful manipulation of a stopped tape over active erase heads, i'm not so sure digital is actually more convenient in practice. There is no going back once you start though ;) It depends on how you define "convenience."

There is going to be a whole generation of up and coming engineers sometime who will know ATRs only from 2nd hand folklore. My parents still can't figure out how to connect to the internet, but i don't think even a 10 year old of today would have that same problem. Those 10 year olds will be retired, and hopefully their children will be as far ahead of them as they were to their parents. You can't stop progress, but you can attempt to slightly nudge its course in the proper direction.

[djui5]

Makes you wonder what kids 40 years from now will be working with....holographic microphones?



I think Steves work speaks for itself.......


Whether that's good or bad is your decision.

[CultureofGreed]

I, for one, have been a huge fan of Steve Albini since the late 1980's. In highschool I listened to alot of Big Black and Rapeman. I even met Steve Albini during a show where Steve was running live sound for the Jesus Lizard while they opened for Sonic Youth.

If you listen to Steve's music it doesn't take long to understand he is as much a underground personality as he is a engineer and musician. Even on the back of the very first Albini CD entitled "Rich man's 8 track" his anti-digital views were clear. At least he is consitant.

[conguero]

no doubt all my respect goes out to the guy. But it is the ears and good taste and work ethic that puts him where he is. I beleive that analog had nothing to do with it. If we reverse the course of time and steve started recording in the 80's with protools and the new technology now was 2 inch analog, he would advocate in favor of protools because that would be what he is more comfortable with. I beleive that if steve alibini tracked nirvana with DP or Cubase it would have come out the same because it was all about the music and his influences and not about the gear.
javier

[CultureofGreed]

I think your right.

[lvjazzman]

Definitely. I really like the fact that he doesn't try to change the band to fit his tastes.

[Stonepie Productions]

It is the EAR...not the gear.