In music production, the pursuit of sonic perfection is an ever-present goal. In the early days capturing a faithful reproduction of the sound in the room was the goal, and wasn’t achievable given the limitations of the technology of the day, but for decades the ability of a studio engineer to create something better than the sound in the room has shaped our expectations of what a record should sound like. And the temptation to create and commit ‘great’ sounds, while laudable in principle, does risk excluding sounds which don’t immediately fulfil our expectations. What after all is a ‘great’ sound anyway?
Seasoned recording engineers and producers dedicate countless hours refining their craft, seeking to create recordings that sound impeccable, well-balanced, and, above all, great. However, the notion of a universally great sound is more complex than it may seem, especially when it comes to individual instruments like guitars, drums, pianos, and more.
The Myth Of The Universally ‘Great’ Sound
I used to teach music production and the attitude many young producers had to the use of virtual instruments and samples was particularly telling. Back in those days the ‘Vengeance’ sample packs were extremely popular, as was Native Instruments Massive. The things these sounds had in common was they were extremely impressive, full, bright, loud and attention-grabbing (and very specific to a particular genre of music).
I remember telling a group of students in a session on sound design and synthesis that their approach wasn’t synthesis, it was shopping. They were choosing rather than making. They didn’t like it but I still stand by it today!
The potential problem with this approach is that they were selecting the ‘best’ sounds. In this context this meant the most impressive sounds. Sounds which were small, quiet, dull, narrow or in any other way underwhelming wouldn’t get a look in. And this approach ignored something which is crucial to good creative decisions - context.
Context Is King
Understanding the importance of context means recognising that sounds are not isolated entities. They exist within a wider whole. A huge rimshot snare might sound impressive but it’s going to wreck a dark hip hop mix just as quickly as a felt piano won’t deliver in your busy house mix. But the fact remains that it’s easy to fall into the trap of equating ‘great’ with ‘impressive’, usually meaning loud, bright and/or bassy, and wide. But it doesn’t end there. Perhaps some examples would help.
The ultimate piano sound is a big concert grand. A 9’ piano has the string length and scale to produce a really clear, powerful bass. It is demonstrably better than smaller instruments. Well not necessarily. I’ve long held that if you’re using a VI or external hardware and you want a ‘real’ sounding piano, choose an upright. Real uprights are a more familiar sound to most people than a grand, and the shortcomings of an upright bring character which is often hard to beat.
A more extreme example is the infamous Korg M1 piano sound, which doesn’t sound much like a piano at all and perfectly illustrates the way bright, loud sounds are so attractive. I have to say I love an M1 piano in the right context.
If you’ve never heard any Fela Kuti check him out. Credited with creating Afrobeat, his recordings of the 70s and 80s are as infectious as they were important in his native Nigeria. I’m always struck by the piano sound on tracks like ‘Zombie’, which is objectively appalling. After more detective work than I care to admit to I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s probably the piano preset on an Intercontinental or Viscount Imperial Duo transistor organ. However bad it sounds, for me these tracks just wouldn’t work with a better sounding alternative like a real piano or a Rhodes. Context…
Embracing Unconventionality
History has gifted us with a plethora of examples showcasing how sounds deemed "odd" or unconventional have brought character to classic records. Consider the bass guitar on 80s uber-hit Don’t Stop Believin’. The hard, rather thin and heavily chorused sound played with a pick on a rather odd Ovation solid body bass is my idea of bass tone hell, but actually it blends well with the doubled piano part and certainly add character. And it clearly didn’t negatively affect sales…
Technological limitations of the past played a significant role in shaping sounds. Beyond the previously mentioned Fela Kuti piano sound, consider the mellotron, with its inherent playback issues, or early digital samplers with limited memory capacities and sampling rates which introduced their characteristic grit to the sounds they produced.
Some sounds are so actively avoided that they are seen by some as ‘wrong’. So much emphasis is placed on correcting phase artefacts, particularly as tools exist in software which make their detection and correction so easy, that they are disregarded as a valid sonic choice. A guitarist might choose positions 2 or 4 on their Strat to get some out of phase ‘quack’ into their sound but guitar sounds like those chosen by Brian May where the intention was clearly to shape the sound using destructive interference from multiple mics many would dismiss as unusable. The sales of Queen’s back catalogue say otherwise… The phasey hollowness on some of these sounds is so distinctive, probably because they are so little used.
Why Does It Matter?
If everything is as big, bright and loud as is can be then the chances of being able to create a satisfying mix are pretty remote. Contrast is after all a crucial part of creativity. In the same way as it is important not to mix using the solo button too much, because it removes context, creating the sounds prior to recording, whether they are physical instruments or something created in the box, carries the same danger that if sounds are judged in isolation they are likely to compete rather than complement each other in the finished mix.
So, let's remember that perfection comes with downsides and in diversity, quirks, imperfections, and unconventional choices, we find the essence of what makes a recording not just a product of technology, but a work of art that can stand the test of time.