top of page
Secton 2: Interview
Section 2: Interviews: Image
About the Interview Section
An Interview with musicians, producers, engineers, and mastering engineers was conducted to get insight into the industry by talking to the people who work within that very industry.
Section 2: Interviews: About
Section 2.1: Musician Interviews
Section 2: Interviews: Image
In terms of creativity, which is better functionality wise: Hardware equipment or Software equipment?
Section 2: Interviews: Text
When considering Kayleigh and LNC’s answers, there is a split, as both answer for each other type of equipment but Monvrch’s answer is the more interesting, as Monvrch states that an increase in quality with Software has an impact on workflow and that software can be nuanced as he is always discovering new techniques and methods with Software through his DAW; Logic. He also states that hardware is mostly a plug and play scenario.
This is interesting as it falls in line with Lau (2012) article in terms of Digital equipment offering more functionality, but it also goes against the statements within Lau (2012) article about software being more simple, this is further backed by the data gathered from the Pilot Test, as the testers mentioned that hardware takes longer to route, and that software is much more convenient and near instantaneous to route. But being that Monvrch is a musician and Lau, and the testers are engineers and producers, they talking about production equipment whereas Monvrch will be talking about musical equipment which will mean the hardware Monvrch will be instruments and MIDI keyboard which are very much a plugin and play type of equipment. (Lau, 2012)
These answers show that despite hardware being very much an engaging piece of equipment for creativity and functionality, software is slightly more favoured with these musicians as it offers more functionality and creativity, which falls in with the Pilot Testing answers and Lau (2012) article. (Lau, 2012)
Section 2: Interviews: Text
Which studio runs more smoothly and offers a better workflow? Commercial studios or Home studios.
Section 2: Interviews: Text
Both Kayleigh and Monvrch answer this question opposed to each other, but in agreement with each other also. As Monvrch believes it depends on the situation as he find demo tracking is better at his own set up because it is simpler and easier to navigate but for the final tracking, a commercial studio is best because all he has to do is get the best take(s) and the producer will finesse the rest. Whereas Kayleigh believes Commercial Studios to have a better workflow and simpler recording environments compared to her home studio where it is the opposite in terms of workflow and recording.
It is interesting to see both these answers agree and disagree at the same time, Monvrch answer says that he is very much a musician working in the modern era of making music, as he has a lot of what he needs at home where he can write, record and perfect his music and only book a studio for the sole purpose of recording the best takes for the producer to then do the rest. (Hidalgo, 2013; Lefford & Thompson, 2018; Iverson, 2017).
Whereas Kayleigh is like a traditionalist to a certain degree, where she would rather record, write, and perfect her music in a commercial studio environment with a producer who will help her. (Bell, 2014; Camilleri, 2010). It is worth noting that Kayleigh will still write, record, and arrange her music in her own home studio, and with personally working with her, that is something I can confirm but If given the choice, Kayleigh would rather work within a Commercial Studio to write, arrange, and record her music whereas Monvrch would just work in his own environment. (Hidalgo, 2013; Lefford & Thompson, 2018; Iverson, 2017).
Neither method is wrong, both have advantages and disadvantages; for instance writing, arranging, and recording all your music in a Commercial studio will cost a pretty penny but will allow the producer to bring out the best in your music and allow for an educated opinion to help you. (Lefford & Thompson, 2018; Bell, 2014; Camilleri, 2010; Iverson, 2017; Shepherd, 2011)
Working in your home studio can give you all the time in the world to write, arrange, and record your music but unless your home studio in on par with a typical commercial studio, the equipment will be limited and then possibilities will be also limited and there will be no second opinion or help from a qualified individual like a producer so it will be all up to yourself to bring out the best within you but as stated by Walzer (2016), music software is cheap and accessible with a wide range of tutorials on loads of different aspects of music production so therefore these short comings in home studio recording can be eventually overcome with a wider range of knowledge and musical software, but nothing can really overcome the issue of not having a producer to help you, as there job is to help you bring your best music and see the fault that you will miss in your performances and arrangements. (Lefford & Thompson, 2018; Bell, 2014; Camilleri, 2010; Iverson, 2017; Shepherd, 2011; Walzer, 2016)
Section 2: Interviews: Text
Do you think studios with one producer is better or equal to a studio with a team with a producer and engineers?
Section 2: Interviews: Text
With this question they all agree with the idea of a single producer being just as good as a team of such, Monvrch does go on to say that a team of producer and engineer can get stuff done faster but does not add much to the tracking process and Kayleigh also adds that a team of producer and engineer will offer more help to get a better performance and offer more opinions and ideas.
What is being said here does not add much other than backing up the research, and what the producers said in their own answers, but it is interesting to look at LNC’s answer, as they said they have not ever worked with more than one, this shows that studios that follow the new trends of being operated by one individual are becoming more common place than a studio operated by a team of producers and engineers which backs up the point made about digital technologies becoming so advanced to the point that a studio can be built to produce high quality music and be operated by one individual with no glaring negatives outcomes. (Bell, 2014; Herbst and Albrecht, 2018; Watson, 2013; Burgess, 2008; Hagan, 2016; Theberge, 2004).
Section 2: Interviews: Text
Do you think that studios with a team is more intimidating creatively over a studio with only one producer?
Section 2: Interviews: Text
LNC and Monvrch both agree that a team of producers and engineers is not intimidating and does not affect their creativeness in the Studio. Whereas Kayleigh believes a team is quite intimidating, especially in the context of stage fright and finds it easier to work with a single person but she also recognises the importance of a team with helping you produce the best performances.
This is an interesting outcome, as this brings up an interesting situation as by going through the data, a studio team is not intimidating and might only be intimidating to a few individuals who suffer from stage fright and other extroverted related issues but it does not matter if this is the outcome, as it is a good thing modern equipment can allow for studios with one person to operate it because this can accommodate the people who do suffer from stage fright and does not mean that these kinds of individuals do not have to deal with their stage fright while trying to record a solid performance, as that is what studios are for; to record the best music from their musicians using them, and producers are their to further bring out the best music so if the studio can be accommodated to having one producer operating the whole studio so the musician can feel more comfortable then that is great and is exactly fulfilling a studios role. (Camilleri, 2010; Bell, 2014; Lefford & Thompson, 2018; Harrison, 2014; Thompson & Lashua, 2014).
It is also worth noting that Question 6 in the Pilot test had a 46/54% split, 46% being Yes and this question is the exact same as this question given to the musicians. This also shows that despite more people saying it is not intimidating, there is still enough people who do find it intimidating which further validates an advantage of Home Studio and one manned studios accommodating more situations with their musicians. (Camilleri, 2010; Bell, 2014; Lefford & Thompson, 2018; Harrison, 2014; Thompson & Lashua, 2014)
Section 2: Interviews: Text
Which studio do you believe to be generally better? Commercial or Home.
Section 2: Interviews: Text
All three state they believe Commercial Studios are better, Kayleigh says she this as she believes she works better in a commercial studio due to people there to help record the music and helps her with her music. Monvrch makes an interesting point of home studios being better now but that is in relation to the Coronavirus.
It is interesting that despite all the diverse answers during these questions that they still believe commercial studio to generally better, this train of answers fall in line with Question 3 from the Pilot Test, that 77% of the testers believed Commercial Studio better in terms of accessibility to technology, creative decisions, and workflow. This falls in line with what was found in the conclusion to the Literature Review, that commercial studios will be better in terms of their knowledge and understanding of the equipment, and recording compared to home studios and their studio sessions will run much smoother and offer more options with engineers who know loads of ways to approaching a recording. So perhaps these musicians believe commercial is better because they can allow professionals to help them record their music, offer interesting opinions, and ideas, while also guiding them into a smooth, productive workflow that will be harder to do in a home studio when they have to do everything on their own. (Anderton, 2010; Long, 2013; Everest, 2015; Newell, 2017; Wilson, 2011)
Section 2: Interviews: Text
Section 2.2: Engineer, Producer, and Mastering Engineer Interviews
Section 2: Interviews: Image
Which environment, out of commercial and home studios, offers you the most accessibility to technological and creative decisions? And which has a better workflow?
Section 2: Interviews: Text
Both Daniel Pegg (Astonish Audio) and Karl (Kjamm Mastering) both mention a problem musician and engineer face in a commercial studio that is jam packed with fancy hardware, software and other tools is something called choice paralysis, which is the personal dilemma of having too many options to pick and not being able to come to an agreement or picking something you do not actually want to use (Science of People, n.d), they both mention how they have had to deal with this issue and find that less is often more. Karl does go on to say more and mentions how he built his own studio because he does not want to worry about time and wants a place to feel creative and to chill out in, it is a flow of creativity and he does not want to think about technique or kit as much as he has to.
Daniel Pegg talks about workflow and mentions how if one person is in their creative zone then their home studio will be better in terms of workflow because everything is ready to go, and they know what is what and not get distracted but does mention how if the plan is to record a full band but your home studio space is not big enough then a commercial studio will offer more workflow and options.
Robin and Richard (Snug Recording) agrees with Daniel and also add that Commercial studio are built around the idea of flexibility but if you are very specific about your workflow then it might not work best for you as it can be too open ended, and even though a commercial studio might offer inventive methods of working with its patch bays and other pieces of kit, having to repatch everything for your workflow can be take time whereas in your own environment it will be already there, ready to make noise when you need it to. A commercial studio is built around accessibility and flexibility, which they definitely are better at than home studios because home studios are built for one person and their workflow.
It is interesting that they bought up Choice Paralysis, as it is not something that was considered when first doing the research for this project but that is the benefit of talking with Professionals. It is an interesting issue that I can relate to, as being in the studios in my own University I can feel this way and end up barely using the kit as I can feel overwhelmed in there but in my own environment with my own kit and software I can be quite complex in my production and mixes as I know what I am wanting to use for what situation. (Science of People, n.d)
Daniel Pegg points about full band recording being more achievable in a Commercial Studio falls in line with Robair (2012) article about compromise within smaller, home studio design and understanding the limits of your space and making it the best it can be whereas Commercial Studio are built to cover all bases so there is no issue of space, or lack of options. (Robair, 2012)
Section 2: Interviews: Text
Do you believe Commercial Studios are better than Home Studios in terms of quality standards? In terms of aspects like acoustics, sound proofing, audio quality, functionality, a quiet NC (Noise Criteria) / Signal to noise ratio, Accessibility (Bathrooms, handicapped access, breakroom).
Section 2: Interviews: Text
Daniel Pegg mentions how home studios, typically bedroom type or anything within the house, can have issues with noise pollution and making too much noise but this is only a big issue when trying to record through a microphone. He also goes on to say that home studios that are detached from the house itself will typically have much better sound isolation and can also be just as good as commercial studio in that regard of sound proofing, and acoustic treatment can be easy to set up if you know what you are doing and have a good amount of space for it.
He also believes that in terms of quality standard of hardware and software in home studios have no reason to not be just as good as commercial studio in 2021 as professional equipment is really affordable. He lastly mentions how accessibility and amenities can be challenging for a home studio to be on par with or better than a commercial studio as the space in and around the home studio will be potentially shared by the family of the house hold but there can be things put in place to help with this, like a toilet built in the studio and a seating area in the garden for them to use for taking breaks and discussing the music.
Robin and Richard start off by mentioning accessibility being not always something that can be controlled, as often they are tied to the building they are built within and if that building does not have great accessibility then neither does the studio. They give an example with their control room being up a flight of stairs which would make it hard for people in wheelchairs to get to and a home studio can be more accessible for wheelchairs if built by a wheelchair user.
They carry on to say how the biggest issue home studios face compared to commercial studio is acoustics, they go on to make a comparison between their studio and Robin’s loft, and how they are lucky their studio’s control room is a big room as it allowed them to fill it with acoustic treatment without shrinking the room into a tiny space whereas Robin has been reluctant to fit any major acoustic treatment within his loft as the space is too small to fit any in without losing too much space.
Robin and Richard then go on to talk about quality and they say it is harder to define as to which is exactly better, as sure they could look at statistics that tell them the total harmonic distortion and other statistics but when doing a listening test, no one could tell a difference between professional equipment and home equipment. They do go to say that some equipment can sound rough compared to others like a Behringer headphone amp or cheap compressor will have noticeable noise but generally most equipment these days sound just as good as expensive professional gear, they mention how the external audio interface Robin uses on his laptop within his loft studio sounds just as good as his AUD Apollo interface within their studio. They go on to mention the main reason for paying for a commercial studio so you know every piece of kit is high quality and having one hundred tracks stacked will not have a noticeable noise floor but if you only going to be monitoring then a there is not much of a difference between a cheap interface and an expensive one.
Karl agrees with Daniel Pegg in terms of acoustics, but Karl adds that the box within a box studio design is only important for not annoying your neighbours and not having police sirens bleed in your mix but other than that it does not matter if you know what you are doing. Karl also goes on to mention that if you are recording through an audio interface and its digitized until it reaches your monitors then its just as good as anywhere else.
He finishes off by stating that logistics are harder to argue because commercial studios will have better accessibility and bigger places for the artist(s) to hang out.
They all agree that accessibility is difficult for home studios to deal with, and even some commercial studios can find it challenging in certain situations. But what is interesting is their statements about acoustics in commercial and home studios, as Robin and Richard believe that acoustics are an important factor home studios struggle with because of the size of their space whereas both Karl and Daniel both believe that if the home studio owner knows what they are doing then it does not matter.
It is interesting as no one is in disagreement with each other, but rather they have different view points on acoustical treatment and their placement, Robin and Richard’s statement is falling in line with Everest (2015) and Newell (2017) books about acoustics and how it is harder to properly acoustically treat a smaller room as the modes will be much worse and will need larger absorbers and more of them to reduce the issues. Karl and David seem to fall in line with Robair (2012) article, which is about compromising with the space you have and making the best out of the situation. (Everest, 2015; Newell, 2017, Robair; 2012)
Neither statement is definitively wrong or right, as no one is saying acoustic treatment is not needed but rather that it is hard to do in smaller spaces and as long as you know what you are doing it does not matter as it will work.
Section 2: Interviews: Text
Can you list some pros and cons to hardware and software equipment? And tell me which you think is better?
Section 2: Interviews: Text
They all say they prefer software, but what makes it interesting is how each of them have a different reason and Robin, Richard and Karl share some reasons too; for instance Daniel prefers software due to it not taking up any space in a studio but still offering the same amount of control and software allows you to automate its parameters whereas hardware does not, Robin and Richard prefer software in a workflow and business stand point, as if they have a client that will be coming in for the next few months to work on an album, they can simply open their session and they are ready to go, no need for recalling anything or rerouting everything to the way it was when recording, and Karl prefers it because he wants a clean, pure sound from the software emulations of hardware kit, he mentions how hardware is brilliant but it breaks and thus the colour of its timbre will change and he does not want that change, he wants it to sound how it is supposed to sound, which software can offer him.
The opinion Robin, Richard, and Karl share is how with software, and especially the emulation based software, they do not sound all too different from their hardware counterparts and a workflow and creative choice software has over hardware is being able to set up the same software based compressor on each track in the mix whereas if they wanted to use the hardware compressor on each track, they would need to set it up for one track, print it and then reroute it for the other track, then tweak the settings and then print it again and repeat this process for each of their tracks, which is very time consuming and not creatively engaging.
A point that Daniel, Richard, and Robin agree on is hardware's tactile advantages, as both mention how hardware feels much better to play around with as you can experiment more with the parameters and play with different settings at once whereas with software you can only really play around with one parameter at one time and thus it is less flexible for experimentation, but both mention how this would not be a problem if all software allowed you to map the parameters to a midi controller.
Robin and Richard mention how software has an advantage and disadvantage function which is allowing you to not have to commit to the choices made when setting up some software compression, but also mentions how it can affect workflow negatively if you keep going back to the choices you made and tweaking them and they find that hardware is nice for that, as once it is printed you are stuck with the choice and have to move on.
Karl makes an interesting point about how hardware equipment needs balancing with rubber pads and such between each piece of hardware, as the earth is shared and thus if you have loads of hardware setup, and it is not balanced, a load of interference from Schumann Frequencies at 7Hz, Radio, and whatever else is on a network is going in your signal.
It is interesting to hear them all say that software is better, and bring points that software has over hardware, it is also interesting to see how most of these points they are bring up are workflow, and some what corrective based, with points like no need for recall, being able to use the same software for more than once track, and how software will last forever and with software's sound being near the same compared to hardware but with hardware eventually breaking and altering its timbre.
All these points mentioned are in line with Lau (2012) Hagan (2016) and Woszczyk & Leonard (2012) as their articles mention how software can offer functionality and be clean, not break and only rely on their computers they are stored on to run and computers are constantly improving. What is interesting is the mentions of emulation based software, as Lau (2012) article mentions how emulation software cannot properly replicate the colour of the hardware counterparts whereas Robin, Richard, Daniel, and Karl all mention how the software versions sound just as good, Lau article was published back in 2012 so that statement could be incorrect now, and in fact Zoran & Paradiso (2011) article proves this with their Hybrid guitar that was created to offer the options and functionality of a digital piece of equipment and the timbre and uniqueness of a piece of analogue equipment so perhaps the uniqueness of hardware equipment has already been made redundant in the past nine to ten years. (Lau, 2012; Hagan, 2016; Woszczyk & Leonard, 2012; Zoran & Paradiso, 2011)
Section 2: Interviews: Text
Do you think it is necessary to have a team helping you in the studio or do you think you would do just as good, if not better, on your own? Are there limitations to working solo and with a team?
Section 2: Interviews: Text
Daniel believes that it depends on the situation, recording a full band with them all in the studio will be easier with the help from an experienced assistant, but he does go on to say that it can create more work if they do not know what they are doing.
He also says that extra people means extra opinions which can be both good and bad, and if in your own studio then it might be easier to do it yourself than having a team.
Everyone else agrees with the statement on bigger sessions do work better with a team.
Robin and Richard make a good point about cost, as despite both of them working in the studio, most of the time they will work solo because it costs less and in a competitive industry, pricing is very important, as someone down the road from your commercial studio can be offering to mix your track for 80 pounds a day instead of 200 pounds which sure some people might want that commercial environment, with a team and experienced engineers but most will just go for the cheaper option, especially if that 80 pounds a day engineer has a good track record and compelling portfolio.
Robin and Richard finish with saying how having a dedicated live room engineer can be handy for being able to communicate with them within the live room and tell them to change anything or do anything based on what you can hear in the control room but after that initial set up in the live room is done, they will mostly be sitting there, especially if there is already an engineer on the tape operator and the another being the producer of the session, but it is easy to combine these roles.
Karl mentions he always masters and mixes better when alone, as he will not end up explaining something to someone and he can just be with the music and himself, he says that once someone is in the room with you, you end up instinctively instructing them on what you are doing, and this is good because it is how people learn. It is good to have input, but it is best to get long periods of time with just working as everything else is just distracting.
Karl goes on to say how it is good to have an assistant because you cannot combine the roles of recording engineer and producer as they are two different mindsets, and they will both conflict with each other as the producer mindset might want to distort everything whereas the engineer side might not want to do that due to the issues it might add for the post production work. It is like stretching yourself too thin because if you are the producer then you want to be in tune with the band and vocalist and channel anything they are channelling and bring the best out of them, but you cannot do that if your mind is elsewhere thinking of the gear. He finishes with saying how the line between engineer and producer are blurred but they are of two different disciplines.
Robin and Richards points about financial situations falls in line with Walzer (2016) and Burgess’ (2008) articles as these both mention how the financial situations for studios are complicated and lacklustre and that running a studio session solo will work cheaper, it is interesting to note how they mentioned how considering your pricings can offer more work which also falls in line with producers and engineers becoming more entrepreneurs in their work and business sense. (Walzer, 2016; Burgess, 2008; Wilson, 2011).
It is interesting to see Robin and Richard state how engineer and producer can be easily combined whereas Karl believes that they cannot and are separate disciplines. Which is interesting as it shows their mentalities with recording music, with Karl being more of a traditionalist and Robin and Richard being more nontradtionalists, neither mentality is wrong or right, and it shows that despite all the new leaps in technology that have allowed for studios to being run by one person that there are still individuals out there that believe studios still need a team to allow for the mindsets to be properly catered to. (Bell, 2014; Herbst and Albrecht, 2018; Watson, 2013; Burgess, 2008; Hagan, 2016; Theberge, 2004).
Section 2: Interviews: Text
Is the rise of digital technologies and their implementation into studios better than analogue or do you believe analogue studios are still better? Can you list me some pros and cons to each?
Section 2: Interviews: Text
Daniel thinks that the argument between digital and analogue needs to come down to what we all mean by better as analogue is a nostalgic sound and we are brought up on that analogue produced music that makes us believe it is good.
Early analogue emulation was not good at capturing that timbre of hardware equipment but now days that is not the case and they are good that true analogue is being made redundant when it comes to getting that raw, analogue sound.
If a Commercial studio has analogue gear, it has that authenticity to it. It is very hands on and instantly available when you want which is a very reason why to prefer it, it looks great and gives that ‘wow’ factor.
But Digital is cheap, lighter, smaller, and cleaner, and much more accessible than analogue, especially when it comes to home studios, it is still possible to get that harmonic distortion in your sound if you wish with digital equipment.
Daniel finishes off by saying that working with software plugins is his preferred method of working and he is happy with it.
Robin and Richard start by saying they do not care; they never listen to a record and think about whether it is analogue or not and they imagine most people do not think this either.
They agree with Daniel about having analogue kit in your studio is interesting and a unique selling point, but they add that there experience with analogue kit is that it breaks, needs servicing but it does sound great and can be a lot of fun to play around with and it is fair to say that neither types of equipment can be completely relied on, as software, sure it can be cheap, but it also has issues like the developer will stop supporting it eventually and an OSX update will ruin it. It is best to rely on yourself and what equipment is working for you at the same.
Robin and Richard finish with saying how they would not want to return to working with tape or any of those format that are sensitive to errors, and how they think digital recording is great for more of a robust solution.
Karl starts say stating that we make better records and mixes now. Marshall jeffs in 2012 said we are sending our kids deaf when talking about the loudness war and he was looking at tracks from the 1970s and their dynamic range but an Italian researcher in the next year who showed that the dynamic punch of track has increased. The only time more dynamic range will sound better is in a very loud, super expensive studio.
Like the last question, it seems they agree that digital technology is better than analogue and is better for a studio’s workflow. It is interesting to see Daniel’s points on analogue and its nostalgic properties, and how these days those elements are well replicated in software emulations to the point of making analogue redundant in his eyes, this falls in line with Lau (2012) and Zoran & Paradiso (2011) articles which predict this software emulations being just as good if not better than the hardware versions and like the last question, it is further proof of this.
Section 2: Interviews: Text
How does the size of a studio in general affect the workflow and freedom of recording a band or group of musicians?
Section 2: Interviews: Text
Robin and Richard start by saying that a big studio with a live room big enough for a a full band to get in and record can be good, but it depends on the band, if the band is really great at playing together and there throwing in new ideas each time they do a take, and it’s a real organic process for them then having them all play together can be really integral. But sometimes some bands believe it is easy to do that but it is not so it can be best to DI the guitars and bass, get the vocalist to do a guide vocal and get the drummer to work through the takes until they are great.
Both Richard and Robin state that if you have a full band want to record with each other then if you can have separate isolation for each part of the band, like having the amplifiers in separate rooms while all the band mates sit together then it can offer a great performance without the issue of each instrument bleeding on the other instrument recordings. But this is something that would not be possible in a home studio unless you have ten garages which at one is it a home studio?
Karl states that small rooms are very hard to sound good, my studio sounds good because there is nothing above us, and the bass goes up through and those screens at the back are actually a Helmholtz resonator and this [top right corner of the room, underneath the corner table] is packed full of rock wool, so there is acoustic treatment and the shape of the room throws the reflections off and its very thought about but its 7m x 5m and we know what the modes are, there is a long mode across the room, concrete to concrete, that’s why the acoustic treatment starts to break that up, so bigger rooms are easier to treat, small rooms are harder you’ve got to stay real close to your monitors, you’ve got to be touching distance from them and then you are kind of alright and away from the wall, so smaller is much harder work and have to reference a lot harder and its harder for logistics, you need space.
Robin and Richards answer to this is interesting as bleed when recording a full band is an issue that very prevalent in a mix if not taken into consideration (Owsinski, 2013) and having a large enough space is an important asset to have when dealing with bleed. Which a home studio will mostly likely really struggle with if they are even able to record a full band a once. (Owsinski, 2013)
Karl approach to this question is very interesting as he discusses acoustics and their implementation within studios, his statement falls in line with Anderton (2010), Long (2013), Everest (2015), and Newell (2017) articles and books which state that smaller rooms are worse for their representation of sound and being harder to control. But Karl’s statement also falls in line with Robair (2012) article about compromising with the situation and making it the best it can be. (Anderton, 2010; Long, 2013; Everest, 2015; Newell, 2017; Robair, 2012)
Section 2: Interviews: Text
Can complicated recording situations result in more interest recordings or does an environment that allows for all kinds of recording produce better results?
Section 2: Interviews: Text
Richard and Robin start by saying that limitations can be a great thing, but they are better when it is self-imposed limitations like wanting to only use 8 channels, if the band want to sound quite old school so we are going go back to this is how The Beatles would have done it, we have only got this many tracks, let us do that.
When it comes to home studios there are a lot of limitations like not being able to listen to the music while recording or having to unplug a keyboard because the interface only has one input on it, these things are not the end of the world but can disrupt the workflow and be annoying. But often a home studio will be built around the idea of making music for one person so those limitations will be adapted to in the music and its workflow; so if you wanted to record rock music but did not have space for a drum kit or to record one then you will sequence it. Limitations can inform how the music sounds and can sometimes make interesting developments as you might want to try and write something like how you heard it on the radio, but your own limitations can offer up a unique take on that style of music.
Karl states that it is something to do with your skill, rather than the situation. The Led Zeppelin albums are very famously done in a manor. There is an argument to be made that people get better results when they are vibing, and so if you have got enough microphone cable and an audio interface or red net, if you are capable of hooking it up and testing it, it really does not matter and you might get an interesting vibe in a more interesting place equality you might get better focus when you know what you are doing in a place that is really well equipped and you don’t have issues and your home studio does not have issues with neighbours so you can make noise when you want, it’s all to do with the talent of the engineering, there is no fixed outcome, both can work in different situations, one is more predictable.
Robin, Richard, and Karl seem to agree that limitations can result in interesting results, but it is interesting to see how they feel about limitations, as Robin and Richard much prefer self-imposed limitations and find actual limitations annoying and time consuming whereas Karl is of the mind set that it does not matter as long as you are vibing and feeling creative, either situation is good in his mind, but the commercial studio is just more predictable.
Neither mindset is wrong, but it is interesting to see how Robin and Richard’s opinions seems to lean toward more of the traditionalist style of recording audio found in Bell (2014) article and Karl is more towards Walzer (2016) and Burgess (2008) articles with his more modern mentality.
Section 2: Interviews: Text
Can a home studio provide musicians with the same creative and productive environment as commercial studio? Or are home studios better in this regard?
Section 2: Interviews: Text
Robin and Richard state that for the song writing process musician will feel more comfortable in their own home, they have all the time in the world to experiment, to play things over and over again, when they are in the studio there will be a little more time pressure which can be tricky but there is an argument to be that if you are not a point that you can play your music then you should not be booking the studio anyway.
Commercial studio will always be flexible for their musicians, they get to dictate how they listen to the music, if people prefer to perform with headphones on, if people prefer to perform in the control room with speakers on, if people would rather have their amps next to them as its apart of their sound. There are not many scenarios where we could not accommodate a musician, whereas in my (Robin) home set up, there would not be any loud amps running and even if there was it would be right next to the gear and even with headphones on there would be no way to monitor anything and neither would the performer, there could not be any cranking up the amps for a distorted sound, amp simulations would have to be used instead.
Karl states that it depends on the situation, if you are a teenager and are under parental restrictions then that will be tricker whereas if you are an adult and got run of the place and not got problem with neighbours I would go with that vibe any day, stick a duvet in a corner and track your vocals in there, does not matter with anything else you can just close mic it and go with the vibe, the clock is not ticking on the expense then you can some fun if they are parting and if it becomes too much of a party then come back to it the next day.
I would rather go with a free flowing thing if the restrictions are not there and yeah a professional set up is good and you want people to turn up on time and the session musicians are not there to hangout, they are there to make your jaw drop and then they go again half an hour later. Having a kitchen, someone to answer the door and reception space is different but the actual creative collaborative thing is proper better out of that environment unless they are used to it like I mentioned earlier.
The statement made by Karl fits well with All4One and their situation found in Wilson (2011) Article about their makeshift studio set up in their home, they built it to capture their recordings and not need to worry about expenses or time and just record when they want to which is a healthy mentality to have and very possible with today’s equipment and options. (Walzer, 2016; Burgess, 2008; Wilson, 2011)
Section 2: Interviews: Text
When you are given a mix, which environment usually delivers more correctively better mixes? Commercial or Home studios.
Section 2: Interviews: Text
Robin and Richard tend to find that a mix out of a studio will sound better, if it is a decent studio and decent engineer then there will be less to do on the mix. It can vary a lot, as if it is electronic music then it does not matter as much but if it is rock, metal or any kind of vocal recorded music, then usually it will sound better coming from a commercial studio, it will sound a bit more balanced, the main problem a home studio will have is not having great acoustics so a mix will sound a bit all over the place in the low end and high end as those places suffer the most and when recording instruments or vocals it will sound better within a commercial studio where an engineer will have their one job to make sure it sounds great.
Karl states that what gets the best results is the people mixing the track, it does not matter where they are, if they are mixing in a DAW which they should be doing then it just does not matter. Would not be able to tell if its nature talent but it is the ability to be hubristic and not over step the bands of your knowledge.
The people that think they do not know what they are doing tend to make the best mixes because they do not try to do processing they read about, they do not do anything they cannot hear, whereas the people that buy into the YouTube tutorials that will tell you to side chain your kick to your bass, well you are going to dip your bass when the kick hits, that is an arrangement problem, people will say they will do it for masking but it is not about that they have different harmonic envelopes, you side chain to make things bounce Frank Disco style, you do not make the kicks more visible than bass. So basically the people who do very little make great mixes, people who actually listen make great mixes, people who can mix tend to fall in to a place of not needing to bother with all that anymore will make crap mixes. It is not about the studio at all, it is about the talent and the ability to do it.
It is interesting to see Robin and Richards answer this being about Commercial studios being better and that home studios tend to suffer from bad acoustics which result in worse mixes and recordings because of the frequency balance within the room.
Karl’s statement is also interesting as he believes the people who are not overly confident and more lean on the side of unconfident make the better mixes as they will not try to make overly complex mix decisions, they will stick with what they know and will not do what they cannot hear, whereas some people will use tutorials on YouTube to make complex mixes.
Robin and Richard statement is in agreement with the Conclusion within the Literature review, as it was concluded that All4One’s DIY studio will have issues when it comes to creating creative and corrective mixing and recording decisions as the set up of the studio was not to standard and there was barely any acoustics as it was all used for the vocal booth. Long, 2013; Everest, 2015; Newell, 2017; Wilson, 2011)
Whereas Karl makes an interesting point against Walzer (2016) and Burgess’ (2008) article which state that the internet has allowed for free tutorials to be widely available which will allow you to learn new skills for producing music. But Karl seems to find this counterproductive as it will need to overcomplex and sloppy mixes as they will try too much processing without properly listening, which also falls in line with the conclusion in the literature review as it was found that despite having all these tutorials, there is still a lack of knowledge and understanding. (Long, 2013; Walzer, 2016; Burgess, 2008)
Section 2: Interviews: Text
bottom of page