And that was, I thought, the premise when this was first presented 20 something pages ago. A common set of tracks that everyone would work with ... create the best mix from what you are handed. It quickly turned into a free-for-all do anything you want excersize, which is why the tracks never made it downstairs. I don't invest in auto-tune, and other such turd polishing devices. I also live in the live world. I will get the best possible mix out of a band based on what they present me with.

If this WAS a case of mix these x audio tracks the best you can and lets compare, something could have been learned. Once it became a question of who had the most equipment to mutilate a track into sounding good, the whole learning process ended. It's amazing how much I still learn from some engineers that do some trick that can totally change a mix just by tweaking an EQ or a comp or something like that. That is where the skill is ... not in taking 10-20 passes at something playing with plug-ins. It's the reason I don't give many bands any credit for a studio demo disc - most can't perform it live.

If you want a real comparison of mixing skills, I'll give you a set of live tracks - with all the flaws of mixing on a loud, uncontrolled environment - to be mixed with only traditional tools (eq/comp/gate/fx/delay) and see who can make the most compelling mix. I don't suppose you'd be interested in those restrictions though.

Ok I recovered Dan's mixes and unbolded the names to keep the complainers happy. Nobody wins, err, well at least not yet. Somebody will win when the contest ends. And I'm still working on a prize to be announced for the winner.

Joe - yes the contest is to create the best sounding mix you can with the tracks provided. But everything is fair game - you can rearrange, autotune, add new tracks, exclude tracks, the sky's the limit. It's great that you like working in a live environment - hat's off. If choose not to autotune because you feel it's not a good process, by all means don't. Lots of people do and that's OK too.

Here's a question about autotuning. You wouldn't stop a guitar player from tuning their guitar with an electronic tuner before tracking would you? So why stop a vocalist from intonating their voice with computer technology after the fact? Is it really a question of altering their performance or simply making something good a little better. You're not against comping (editing together the best of multiple takes) are you? People were doing this long before computers came around by splicing tape with a razor. And what about bands that overdub, autotune etc. who listen back to their own recordings and actually DO learn to perform them better as a result? Lots of people use recording as a way to compose. What exactly is wrong with that?

I have used autotune, Melodyne, guitar tuners, editing, and every other trick in the book to make an artist sound great. That's why people come to me, because I make people sound great. That's my job.

However, the running argument is that the level of talent has decreased to the point where everyone's vocal performance needs to be fixed because they suck ass. People who have practiced hard and worked on their craft don't always appreciate the band that can't sing in tune or can't tune their instrument. Go back into the practice room before you have me "shape" you into a good singer.

In the case of this contest, I have had so much work come across my mixing desk in the last few weeks, and I'm still catching up. I was going to submit a mix until I noticed everyone was tuning and editing the performance into a new one, and I can certainly do that, I just don't have the time. Why didn't you just re-sing the vocal in tune?

Boys Boys Boys! Ya got great passion, ya sound great, but there's just somethin' missin' Hmmmm.. That's it!
What we need here is MORE COWBELL.....

The emphasis kind of answers the question, doesn't it?

I think the argument is the vocalist should tune themselves up, before the performance.




I don't think anyone is against the learning from computer tuning, or even making great recordings using it. I think the argument is that if it is available - and more importantly, used all-too-frequently - then it allows performers to relax on learning the craft of the art. The craft of simply creating great perfromances, when necessary.

Just like multitracking and splicing and comping did.

I once had a very successful and storied A&R guy ask me (rhetorically): "What person or invention has done more damage to music than any other?"

His answer was: "Les Paul and the multitrack recording technique. " Because that allowed artists and engineers to use technology as a crutch in order to create "performances" that the artists were incapable of performing, in reality, as true artists.

Before that, all you could do was "sweeten" a recording of a performance with things like mic placement, EQ and reverb. The core, underlying performance had to be performed in real-time.

An interesting view, to be certain.

Thanks Justin, you have just jusitfied my exsistence. My life is now complete. Anyone feel like having a drink with me???

Not if its piss!...;)

There is a moment of absolute beauty when you have truly talented musicians that walk across your stage. They could be playing through a set of mackies and they would STILL sound great, because they are masters of their instruments. I hold vocalists to the same standards.

There are too many that are coming across my stages these days that can't perform for crap, or just have a CD with their 'backing tracks' that are actually the whole performance.

I watched a guy last month bring his whole Digi-Venue system out with tons of plugins for everything under the sun... expensive analyzers, etc. His band STILL sounded like crap. Same stage/system, guy from Australia came in with his band ... no sound check .. quick line check and ran with it. They sounded better out of the gate than the other national act did their whole set. Used less power, analog console with a total of 4 gates and 6 comps for the whole band. They sounded great. Even PT can't polish a turd. My biggest problem is the industry continuing to put out these no-talent 'artists', and anyone that can buy a copy of PT suddenly enabling them to do this.

Joe -

Pro Tool isn't the reason the industry is putting out no-talent artists. At some point the business model fell apart. Record company's realized there was no money in putting marketing support behind an artist like Joni Mitchell when they could do it cheaper and make more money with a looker like Brittany Spears. Let's face it, people aren't running out and buying CDs like they used to.

The fact that people can make great recordings in their basement now using Pro Tools means there's tons MORE great talent and music out there. We'll just never hear it because there is no financial model to bring artists to the public at large. But don't lose hope. Someone out there will eventually figure out a way to turn it into a cash cow. Certainly no one could have predicted the enormous impact The Beatles would have had on the world before it happened.

Justin,

Thank you!

--the complainer