Lift: An exercise in "does/should this matter to anyone other than me?"

"Lift" will be (is?), in some ways, a departure, and in others, a kind of musical reunion. For a while I felt I needed to move away from my more Art/Prog-Rock tendencies. I was having a very difficult time aligning my sense of being a singer/songwriter and those more "artful" musical interests. That's not to say I am particularly artful - though I'd like to think so - but I certainly have a great affinity for many of the Prog-Rock genre.

I am huge fan of musicians like Asia, Genesis, Yes, Peter Gabriel and so many others. For the longest time I have always wanted to be able to create that kind of musical atmosphere, but always felt I was coming up short. Actually, I should also mention that I am a big fan of the intricate orchestrations of bands like Iron Maiden. The orchestral nature of their music has always been very inspiring to me. There are of course countless other bands and artists (The Beatles, Queen, Toto, Flecktones, The Who, etc.) that are significant to me; but it would take me pages to get through them all.

In any case, with "Lift" I have decided not to worry at all, on any level, how the material might or might not translate to a live performance. Not only has this been very liberating from a creative standpoint, but it has also allowed me to somewhat rethink my entire creative process. "Lift," like much of my work, has its share of love songs and ballads - can't get away from who I am in that regard (and don't really want to) - but there is also a fair share of other subject matter as well.

The project is still a work-in-progress, so to some extent everything I write here is really just speculation as I am still waiting to hear what the final result really will be; but what I am confident in is that "Lift" is strong on all levels. Very strong. Only time will tell if others agree or not. Either way, as long as people are listening, it's all good.

Remix, rethink, remaster... REDEUX!: How going back can help to move forward

Over the past several years since I have released any new music, several significant things have happened. Beyond the more important ones like lots of Gray-and-daddy time and Tanner arriving, I have also made some very serious changes in my entire approach to to producing music and general audio engineering. A lot of those changes have coincided with the formal adoption of the Contemporary Music And Sound (CMAS) program, and a lot have evolved out of what I feel is just a very natural progression towards such things. The other major factor has likely been my development of a very strong sense that the real beauty of being an independent musician, is just that: the independence to do what you feel is best. Certainly there are endless drawbacks, but if there is one true benefit it is the complete artist freedom I am afforded.

The fact is that I have never been truly pleased with the end result of many of my past recordings. Much of that dissatisfaction can easily be attributed to my, admittedly not always helpful, refusal to ever be satisfied that anything I do is "perfect." (I have a pretty hard time "letting go," but that is another topic) but much of if is also rooted in aural reality. Songs are good, songs are bad, but the production has tended to get in the way and not, in my view consistently, allowed the music to stand on its own - good or bad.

So as I began to finalize the writing of my next project of original material (working title is "Lift) I started to take a look at the older stuff as well to see how I wanted to apply my new production techniques to the new recordings. While doing that I found that it would not take too much effort to go back and "redo" (Redeux?) the production and get many of those old tracks into the aural shape they deserved to be in. It's kind of a going-back-in-order-to-go-forward kind of thing, but it has already proven very useful.  "Redeux" is not really about re-recording or re-tracking, it's more about re-thinking the production.  Certainly this may cause arrangements, and some other aspects, to change but I think on balance it will all be for the better.

The "Redeux" project will actually be a series of releases. I am not entirely certain how "Lift" will fit into the overall time line, but it'll be along soon as well, and if nothing else, will certainly be worth the wait. I feel the material on "Lift" is the strongest I've ever written, but in truth, as I said above, I am not convinced that I was ever able to give the earlier material its proper due to allow it to stand on its own. Again, the Redeux project is now making that possible.

The first release of Redeux will be from the more recent material that appeared on "Ties" and "Pulse" and a few others. The second will be the entire "Fade" CD from back in 2004 that featured Michele on vocals. For many reason I cannot wait for you to hear those tracks "redone" (Redeuxed?) For a very long time I thought that all the "Fade" sessions were lost forever do to a failed hard drive but just recently I was able to restore the session data and so am really excited to hear what comes of it - Michele's vocals alone are gonna just blow everyone away. There is a possibility of a third release as part of "Redeux," which would be going all the way back and examine the sessions for a "bootleg" from many many years ago that actually still sells well for me called "093003." If we get lucky, as we did with "Fade," to find a way to restore the sessions from the old hard drive, then we can make that third release happen as well. I am cautiously optimistic.

As ever, things all seem to be happening at once, but it's all good. Very good. And now it's back to work...

The perfect piece of gear

So as things have started to calm down just a bit from the arrival of Tanner into our family, I find myself drifting back into my musical mindset. I suppose I am the type who never really leaves it, for better of worse, but in any case, Tanner's birth (he and the whole family are doing quite well, by the way) has gotten me thinking about the idea of "new beginnings."

This has carried over even into my teaching as I have been reworking the student recording labs these past days to make them more functional and efficient for their use. Kind of a lab reset or new beginning of its own.

In any case, as we've been setting up gear and such, students have been asking me questions about the individual pieces and such and how I designed the labs and all manner of related questions. One of the topics has been "what do we still need?" It's an interesting area to me, and one that I have decided to broach more directly with them over the coming weeks.

The truth is, the technology of audio is always evolving and changing. No sooner does a piece of gear get released does it seem like another one comes along that is an "improvement." The fact is that there is always more gear to buy. Always a new tool that can improve the end result.

I am not saying that is a bad thing. But over time I have started to wonder where the line really is between the gear we need and the gear we want. Case-in point: preamps.

For the last many years I have been, like so many others, on a quest for the perfect preamp for my studio. The ultimate absurdity of the notion is not lost on me, but I still find myself wondering what might work best for my varied needs. I have been lucky enough to have a lot of friends who have great expertise in such things-certainly more than me-and have been even luckier to be able to borrow any number of pieces to work with and get a sense of their sound in application.

I have no doubt that my assessment may change or evolve over time, but as I write this I have, as of late, had a recurring thought that has grown ever more persistent over time: there is no perfect preamp. This idea of the best combination of mic/preamp/converter is actually becoming funny to me. I think it must have something to do with the fact that, atthe end of the day, I seem always drawn to the song over the production.

I know, I know, seems a bit off given all the time I spend either in production for myself or others, or the fact that I teach so many students about the skills required for excellent production; but none-the-less, there it is. Even if I stipulate that I am not very good at it, I always view myself first as a writer. I tend to want the music to inform the production, not the other way around. I suspect that is one of the principle reasons that my music tends to be so acoustic based. For all the technology I like to use, I tend to want it transparent to a large extent.

To be fair, I am still trying to get my head fully around the implications of this as it relates to the current CD I am attempting to complete, but my gut tells my that the heart of this is accurate, so I feel compelled to go with it.

The gear does matter. There is some truth in notion of "garbage in garbage out" but in the end I feel that rather than search for the perfect piece of gear, it's far better to be searching for the perfect song.

Student Technology Gap

Every now and again, I will have a conversation with other educators about the use of technology in the classroom.  I always find it very enlightening to discuss this topic as it servers to help me refine my own methodologies in the area.  Once in a while though I get comments like, "You know, the kids know far more about his stuff than we do." 

When I was first developing the concept for the Contemporary Music and Sound program, having not even begun to create the curriculum, I was presented with this theory by two, highly respected arts educators. To be honest, my initial reaction was to be a bit shocked.  It seemed so odd to me that educators of any level would infer that students had nothing more to learn; or worse that there was some sort of generational gap that prevented anyone of a certain age being a viable instructor.  Odd.  Truth be told, I later came to learn the comment was more a reaction to the CMAS concept as a whole and a sort of veiled effort to block its creation in the first place. Obviously, the success of the program rendered this mute, but I digress (as usual)...anyway...

What I have become more fascinated with over the years is the realities of student understanding of technology.  Here is my current sense of this subject:  In some ways my earlier mentioned colleagues are correct-students today do seem more inclined to use technology than say my parents were.  But where they seemed to have missed the point is in the details.  For example, the willingness to use technology does not necessarily correspond to a real understanding of the technology.

Here's an example:  Year two students get to a point where they are ready to take their recording sessions they have created in Pro Tools and transfer them to a more consumer friendly medium - an .mp3, for example.  Now the task of learning to record to in Pro Tools is not simple. It takes a considerable amount of work, concentration and self-discipline and effort on the pat of the student.  There is a massive technological understanding required of the student be successful, even with the most basic of recording sessions. Frankly, it is one of the most enjoyable educational moments to witness as a student successfully crosses that ability threshold. 

To that end, if we go with the theory posed by my colleagues, and even forgiving them to somewhat myopic view that the use of a DAW such as Pro Tools as something a student could easily gain on their own, their logic falls tragically short in the creation of the final .mp3.  Ironically, I even fell a bit prey to this kind of thinking at first.  The file format conversion to the .mp3 format is, I had thought, a fairly simple process in, for example, iTunes.  Without intending to follow my colleagues lead, I assumed that all my students had a rudimentary understanding of programs like iTunes. After all, they all seem to have iPods or mp3 players of some kind, so it seemed like a fairly obvious conclusion that they understood the format conversion process - certainly to get he data onto their players they must have done the convertion, otherwise they would have nothing to listen to.

It turns out however that their understanding was limited to a very specific set of circumstances.  Change even one of the variables and they could not be successful. It's kind of like when I drive a car.  If there is gas in it and it is operating"normally" I can pretty much drive as needed to whatever destination is required.  However, if there is some issue with the engine, I have absolutely no idea what to do to make the car function normally again.  Not a clue.

And so I now see the implementation of technology in education as a function of process more than anything else.  It's not so much teaching the student which buttons to press when, it's more about teaching them how the button works.  Not so much the mechanics of it, but how it "talks" to all the other buttons - how they are interrelated - how their proper use accomplishes a specific task more efficiently.  Even better is when the student learns to make self-imposed critical evaluations of new, in some cases, as yet to be covered in the curriculum, topics.  "I took the ideas of this thing and wanted to see how they would work in application on this other thing."  Even if the result is less than perfect, the exploration of the process is being cultivated and in the long run that kind of inclination or instinct is invaluable.

Closing on a cynical note, one of the colleagues I mentioned has retired and the other, I think, is soon to follow.  Makes me wonder if in retirement, they'll be calling their grandkids to get instructions on how to use the TV or if they'll be brave enough to open the manual and learn it for themselves.

Learning curve - student musical maturity

Last night my students put on one of their CMAS concerts and, in addition to proving they are able to continually raise the bar each time with regard to their writing, performance,  and production skills, they also demonstrated a new kind of musical maturity that I had not seen yet from them.

The shows themselves are pretty musically diverse since there are so many styles and tastes across the student demographic of the program.  This is made all the more pronounced since they can only perform original material at the event so they, like most of us, write what they enjoy.  This is all good, and after so many years of this, not really very suprising to me.

What was interesting about last night was that for the first time there seemed to be this universal sense that no matter the performer, no matter the style or skill level, every act was going to be given the same "start treatment."  Keep in mind that the program is so big (a great problem to have) that many students working the production end of the show do no know all of the performers that well, if at all.  This is significant and it was very interesting to simply observe them transition from "I'm going to do a good job just for my friends," to a far more mature, "I'm going to do a good job for everyone, because there are hundreds of people here watching this show and I need to make sure they get their money's worth."

It was even more impressive when we did the post show debrief that we always have to hear comments solely related not to, "I want 'this' or 'that' next time for me," but "I have an idea how we can train the newer student's in the program to learn to be more involved in the success of the event."

They are starting to see the forest-for-the-trees and it's pretty cool.  Of course, each time they raise the bar it moves that much higher, so it'll be interesting to see if they can maintain this for their next show in mid-December.

Turn up the silence - are iPods and other mp3 players the enemy?

Many of my students are, at times, of the impression that I deliberately try to act against their own sense of logic.  Now, to be fair, there is probably some truth to that idea, though not in the manner they identify. 

One example would be my desire for a fairly quiet learning environment.   Keep in mind that I run a music program.  A rock music program.  But here's the thing: the issue is not so much the "quiet," it's the need to be able to accurately hear everything.

This has been one of the more significant learning experiences for me in developing and facilitating the CMAS (Contemporary Music and Sound) program.  I guess I've been doing so much of this kind of work for so long that the notion of being able to really hear the details seemed kinda self-evident to me.  Apparently not.

On the other hand, it's not really the students' fault. The proliferation of iPods and mp3 players (I have a treasured iPod myself) has been a really good thing in many ways, except perhaps for one:  they create an artificial sense of auditory isolation.  I say artificial because the fact is that by listening almost exclusively in headphones a person simply does not hear the elements of the recording accurately. Not even close.  It's just the physics of it. (See my comments about crossfeeding for more on this and how to get around the problem.)

So they have learned to hear very inaccurately, and this inaccuracy has created a false sense of auditory reality when they work.  The toughest lesson I find for even my more advanced level students is the process of replacing their past auditory expectations with new, more accurate, instincts.  It takes a while, but it certainly can be done; and it's very cool when one of them takes a step forward on it, but it definitely takes some pretty serious patience to say nothing of deliberate, work on their part.

Like everything else though it is a process.  One I suppose I have become somewhat hypersensitive to.  I love my iPod but actually use it almost exclusively as part of my car audio system - I rarely use it with headphones.  In fact, now that I am so obsessed with crossfeeding, I am not certain I could use it with headphones and not go a bit nuts without some kind of CF workaround - gotta look into that I suppose.

Anyway, back to my students and my love of messing with their logic - it's really not about the silence, it's about being able to hear.  On the other hand, I always know when a student really has learned the key elements of the program: when they are able to make the distinction freely on their own.  Who knows, maybe in this case, logic is over-rated.

Wolves and Sheep (update)

Somewhere in the chaos I had the idea that at least part of this blog would be to document the creation of my next album, "Wolves and Sheep," so taking a bit of a break from my music education observations, here's the current scoop:

So right now there are about 15 songs in various states of completion - in other words, the basic framework is complete, though there may be some minor re-writing to do on either the music, lyrics, or both.  Of those, 5 or so are fully composed, though I suppose once I get to tracking them in the studio, a whole 'nother set of options will likely open up.  There are also a literally countless group of riffs and ideas that may or may not turn into fully formed pieces.  Also, in general, nothing is for sure till the song is fully realized in production, so certainly those numbers are gonna change.

In any case, the seemingly endless stops and starts on this for the past year or so seem to be finally aligning themselves into a workable plan and the project is beginning to take a form of sorts.  The basic idea is to create a two part CD.  The first half will be the music presented in "normal" mixes for standard audio systems like home stereos, cars, etc.  The second half will be the same material presented in crossfed mixes specifically intended for headphone listening, which, thanks to the massive popularity of mp3 players, has become an equally typical listening environment.

Of course with the limitation of only 80 minutes available on a CD, this really means only 40 minutes of unique material.  Interestingly, this is having the unintended effect making me be perceived by some as a kind of recording arts purist as that is pretty much the limit that was experienced during the years when vinyl records were the standard format for distribution.  To be fair, I probably am a bit of a purest in general, but it was only recently that I found it evidenced in such a way.

Ok, so enough the trivial, the real essence of this project seems to be that the sound itself has evolved significantly over the past year or so.  As an example, the rhythm tracks are all being dominated by really cool world percussion grooves that I have to say have been a blast to compose, play and record.  There are still drum kits within the textures, but there is a different kind of life to these tunes largely due to the timbre shift.  Another element taking hold is the use of choirs.  Full on, massive choirs, in some cases, not just the expected, if not typical, vocal harmonies and overdubbing.  Certainly this is adding a significant load to the production end of things; but, man, it's also really pushing me musically, which, all the rest of it aside, I find just fantastic.

The last part of all of it may be the more "ambient" material that has been emerging lately.  It seems to be an offshoot of a lot of the looping I seem to be fond of when performing live, but that is not always a true representation of the original recording of the song.   Hard to tell at this point where that is gonna lead, but I guess that's the beauty of all this.  As it evolves, I can continue to update.

A working theory

I recently had the opportunity to do some final testing on my crossfeeding headphone mixing procedures and I am happy to report that it is, so far, remarkably successful.  The basics of this last testing was pretty simple.  I produced an entire 23 track CD - about 70 minutes of music with a wide variance in style/genre - entirely using my crossfeeding methods. 

The proof of the success was equally simple.  The sample tracks of the final CD have gone over unbelievably well. The implications of this are pretty significant.  The most obvious are that I am now capable of doing high end studio work pretty much anywhere, anytime - a blissfully freeing notion.  It also means an incredibly important tool for my students.  It means that the cost of a "pure" room for mixing, for anyone, is now rooted almost entirely in the cost of a high quality set of headphones - imagine, for example, the benefit to college students studying audio production living in dorms. (FYI, Earbuds, and anything by Bose, are not going to be acceptable for any kind of quality result due to a lack of uniform frequency response and a significant tendency to color the sound, respectively.)  There is also the possibility of creating a version of the process within the RTAS, VST, and AU plug-in formats which might mean a viable monetizing opportunity.

Anyway, as this all begins to play out, it is really exciting to know that the results are being so well received.  Makes me feel like there are countless possibility opening up.

Crossfeed the what?

So for some time now I have been toying with the seemingly simple concept of being able to do accurate audio mixing with headphones as opposed to standard monitors, the usual term is called "Crossfeeding" and over time I have become a huge fan of it.  It started out as just a kind of frivolity - I just thought it might be fun to see what was possible.

But in more recent times it started to become a more significant and legitimate goal.  The driving force was really the birth of my first son Gray.  My wife Michele has always been pretty tolerant of the studio work I do at home - in fact, she is pretty accomplished on ProTools herself - but when Gray was born a bit over two years ago, it became obvious that a change was needed if I was ever going to be able to get any work done consistently.  To be fair, "Dude, "as we sometimes call him, has a pretty good sense of what works in a mix himself; but let's face it, he's still just a two year old, and daddy's work only keeps him interested for so long.  Plus, I'm used to working late at night, and that train pretty much left the station once Gray was in the picture, just from a purely practical standpoint.

My other motivation was to create a viable tool for my students to do their work. (I created a Contemporary Music program a few years ago for a public high school that has proven incredibly successful - I got very lucky; more on that in another post very soon)  Anyway, there is a practical matter for them both in the recording labs at the school, and also, like me, if they choose to do work at home. So between my own curiosity and needs, and those of my students, it - accurate headphone mixing - became a more pressing priority recently.

Fortunately, the concept has been around for quite some time, originally gaining some prominence, at least in theory, in the early 1970s, so there was a lot of data to cull and develop the methodology I am currently employing.   I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge a very serious piece of work from John Conover dealing with the spacial distortion research of Siegfried Linkwitz.  This pretty much is what allowed me to create the final, successful utility for ProTools.

There are a lot of products these days, particularly higher end headphone amps, and even headphones themselves, making use of various algorithms to create the same effect I have generated, but I find myself now somewhat addicted to the tweaking process and it has been fun to work to fully refine my own method.

So as my new Crossfeeding obsession grows - not insignificant towards my motivation is the success I am having at accurately being able to to mix with a good set f headphones - I began to formulate a way to perhaps rethink my entire creative process as well, not just the way I mix.  And thus I came upon "Crossfeed the Mix."  A kind of band mentality, even though it's pretty much just me for now.  I have no idea where it will take me, but it has been very freeing already not to think of my creative output as me, but as "Crossfeed..." Perhaps it is just my imagination, but as I tell my students, the ability to be able to push your creative process is a powerful and wonderful thing if you handle it the right way.

As I begin work on a new CD, I plan to document my progress in these posts as well as the progress of my other creative ventures, including the music education program I mentioned above and my production company too.  Certainly, some family items will make appearances as well, and to that end I figure if nothing else, years from now, should I proved disciplined to keep this up, these posts will help serve as a way for my kids (and grand kids someday) to learn more about me.  Not a bad motivator that one either.