Close micing is cheating
- Thread starter MadJazz
- Start date
D
DamoSyzygy
Guest
Cheating what exactly? Last I checked, there arent any rules!
bobdadruma
Platinum Member
This turned into one strange thread! I just read it again and I've got this strange feeling!
I can't even put my finger on what went wrong, why, and when it went wrong!
I can't even put my finger on what went wrong, why, and when it went wrong!
I think it would be appropriate at this point for MadJazz to read the thread about Daytime Jobs. No one here has listed journalism as their daytime job, and I rather enjoy the discussions on this forum. In the future post your idea or thesis and ask for opinions. But I find it kind of rude to mock ones discussion skills just because all of the answers weren't what you were expecting.
Pollyanna
Platinum Member
JustJim put his finger on it.
In my experience, if you make one provocative statement it doesn't matter if you follow with 15 sincere disclaimers and provisos - they will most likely not be noticed. Why? Because the second people see a "hot button statement" they stop reading / listening and are already formulating their strong rebuttal in their heads. The red veil descends and once that happens - game, set and match.
I think MJ would have worded his thread differently if he had his time over. I ain't throwing stones because I live in a glass house.
I still think my earlier explanation on the nature of drummers holds true, too. Is there such a thing as a non-eccentric drummer?
Maybe, but not many based on the ones I've met and what I've read on here. So we can expect some quirky stuff here. Good.
bobdadruma
Platinum Member
Polly, I read the initial post and I understood what he meant by cheating. I took the title to be a Fox News Teaser! LOL! I know that you will get this!
If he would have written "How do you mic your drums" I probably wouldn't have read the post in the first place!
If he would have written "How do you mic your drums" I probably wouldn't have read the post in the first place!
That's generally why it's done!
but it does risk the effect we're taking about Fox news is probably a good example of that (where there is often an impression of undue bias and viewer go in already closed up and looking through confirmation bias - but as network, they may find it profitable in the ratings...'infotainment' and such)
I suspect many people understood what he meant, but disagreed with the characterization - so again we not only have polarization, but it can even pull attention away from the specifics of what MJ wanted to address b/c there was disagreement if the nature of the judgement was even valid.
"How do you mic your drums?" is pretty general an unfocused (that goes back to defining the scope) and I can see why you might not be interested in reading and it might not help MJ very much as it is such a broad topic.
So between the extremes of "how do you mic your drums" and "close micing is cheating" there are other options
don't get me wrong - I try to analyze my writing the same way (though like anybody, I have my blindside - outside editors help) , even this post probably has an "edited" tag because, like polly I live in a glass house, but all my windows are broken and as they say -- 'The magic is in the rewrite'
Last edited:
four crossed wands
Junior Member
(I've been lurking for a while, but a few recent, poorly-received threads by newcomers made me decide to finally get an account and contribute, since I feel this is really a valuable forum.)
As to the topic: what if by "cheating", we choose to mean, "cheating yourself"? In a character-building sense, that is. Because personally, as a drummer but especially as a metal drummer, I found it revelatory to use fewer and fewer mics, and to see how my technique had to really evolve around that. Labour-saving devices are a fine thing, but perhaps the idea of "cheating" as used colloquially around forums like this is really that you might be missing out on opportunities to develop as a drummer.
I think about arguments about different degrees of triggering as being similar, although perhaps the micing issue is actually more extreme, as that dichotomy between hitting the drums loud and the cymbals (especially hats and ride) with finesse is never so clear as when you try to capture the drums with just one mic.
There are also aesthetic aspects that are maybe not so cut and dry as they seem... certainly, a very artificial drum sound is thought of as ideal for modern death metal, but lots of black metal records are still made with three or four drum mics.
So, I really like the idea of capturing the drums with minimal micing, but I agree that other factors, especially the room, can really force you to use close micing. Has anyone done anything unusual, like tried doing recordings with only a kick drum mic and a condensor sitting under the drum stool or something, for effect?
Just some thoughts perhaps in defense of MadJazz as most people seem to be shooting him down.
As to the topic: what if by "cheating", we choose to mean, "cheating yourself"? In a character-building sense, that is. Because personally, as a drummer but especially as a metal drummer, I found it revelatory to use fewer and fewer mics, and to see how my technique had to really evolve around that. Labour-saving devices are a fine thing, but perhaps the idea of "cheating" as used colloquially around forums like this is really that you might be missing out on opportunities to develop as a drummer.
I think about arguments about different degrees of triggering as being similar, although perhaps the micing issue is actually more extreme, as that dichotomy between hitting the drums loud and the cymbals (especially hats and ride) with finesse is never so clear as when you try to capture the drums with just one mic.
There are also aesthetic aspects that are maybe not so cut and dry as they seem... certainly, a very artificial drum sound is thought of as ideal for modern death metal, but lots of black metal records are still made with three or four drum mics.
So, I really like the idea of capturing the drums with minimal micing, but I agree that other factors, especially the room, can really force you to use close micing. Has anyone done anything unusual, like tried doing recordings with only a kick drum mic and a condensor sitting under the drum stool or something, for effect?
Just some thoughts perhaps in defense of MadJazz as most people seem to be shooting him down.
thtst
Senior Member
Define 'unusual'
Just joking. Well, besides using two mics there is using PZM mics (www.thomann.de/gb/crown_pzm_30d.htm) which U2 and many bands use to capture ambient though not for FOH, it is for audience/ambient to add to the video mix for production work. As i recall the engineer at Mapleshade Records www.mapleshaderecords.com uses some tweaked PZMs and their recordings are stunning. Other techniques could include bi-natural as so many people listen through headphones nowadays and a few choices are:
Crown Audio SASSP-MK2 though it looks to be a noisy mic so...
Neumann KU100 www.neumann.com/?lang=en&id=current_microphones&cid=ku100_description (great unit)
And there is the B&K version www.bksv.com/doc/bp1436.pdf (includes torso...)
i'd rather use one really great mic and record mono than two lousy ones for stereo.
Someone who got the point across. Welcome.
No, I didn't post this anywhere else.
If i had posted a less provocative statement, this thread wouldn't have grown to 50 comments in just two days.
jon e rotten
Senior Member
If i had posted a less provocative statement, this thread wouldn't have grown to 50 comments in just two days.[/QUOTE]
Were you looking for specific answers or just comments?
Were you looking for specific answers or just comments?
I think many people got that point (that "cheating" can be cheat one's-self, and that can simply be a matter of where "the rules" were generated - could be internal/could be external. but could still take exception to the characterization - who is "owed" for the "transgression" just changes)
So we still have the problems of if people agree with the characterization as well as the core concept
and the problems of starting from an initial bias while trying to get a balanced conversation(there's some cool neuroscience around this area, amygdala response and how it effects evaluation, etc)
We, again have the problem of "the point" while at the same time we are asking for open conversation.
It can easily skew the conversation and can even create the hazard of making the whole premise appear intellectually dishonest (that it's not really about open discussion and that the question is merely a rhetorical device used as a launchpad to forward an already strongly held opinion)
That's probably a reasonable assumption - and if raw post count is the goal, then it's a pretty decentl strategy (ventures that use audience numbers as a performance score use it often)
The quality and balance of the discussion can suffer for it, however (as you pointed out with your disappointment init)
Last edited:
Guys, I really don't have time for this. I was hoping to set things into place for an interesting read. If you wanna know, I don't even use mics. If I do, I let the technician do his thing. I'll do mine.
Many clearly stressed their preference of close-miking, which is fine. Now I wanna hear some advocates of a minimalist approach. I think our new host "four crossed wands" made an interesting comment, as well as Polyanna and a few others. Let's hear if we can get more comments like this and keep this discussion balanced and fresh.
Many clearly stressed their preference of close-miking, which is fine. Now I wanna hear some advocates of a minimalist approach. I think our new host "four crossed wands" made an interesting comment, as well as Polyanna and a few others. Let's hear if we can get more comments like this and keep this discussion balanced and fresh.
Hey i'm with ya!
that's why I commented - just like drumming and sooo many other activities from fencing to software dev to house painting - it can take way way more time to debug than it can to structure stuff and fix problems early.
So if we don't have time to mess with it, it's often good practice to get solid prep work in - it's not as sexy, that new color doesn't hit the wall as quickly, but fewer bubbles and runs!
It might be a good idea just to restart it - get it on level ground and reboot!
It's kind of like rolling a sea kayak - folks can get sooo focused on what they want to happen they don't make their right moves and they get stuck almost making it.
Then, they get tired and it goes back to "oh, well guess I just need to practice my right moves" - and POP! up they come!
had a Goteacher once tell me "when under attack*, make nice shapes"
(*attack doesn't have to mean 'from an adversary', but rather stresses - such as from structural problems)
con struct
Platinum Member
I've never owned any drum microphones and I've never been given any choice in the matter. I'd get up to play and the microphones would be there. It's always been the same in the studio. So I never really gave it much thought. I've always left all that up to the sound technicians, most of whom seem to know what they're doing.
I don't think there's any way to get a drum kit to sound acoustic, the way drums "really" sound, in any concert or large-venue situation, or even in a club. Once there are microphones and pre-amps and mixing consoles and amplifiers and speakers everything is changed no matter what you do.
I don't think there's any way to get a drum kit to sound acoustic, the way drums "really" sound, in any concert or large-venue situation, or even in a club. Once there are microphones and pre-amps and mixing consoles and amplifiers and speakers everything is changed no matter what you do.
I think a powerstroke3 is the closest thing to an acoustic studio sound. It's really an amazing head imo. I mean for toms as well as snare and kick.
As for cymbals, I pick thin and light models. That helps to not overshadow the rest of the kit. Maple sticks also help to limit the volume of cymbals.
It's this thing that motivates me: getting as close to a studio sound from an acoustic kit before miking it. I know it can be done, I've heard a few amazing drums unmiked. It's just a long journey to find the right gear and tuning but it's a rewarding experience imo. Now imagine amplifying a kit that sounds amazing on its own.
makinao
Silver Member
There are two main opposing approaches to music recording. The first views it as a register, or a strict documentation of a sound event. The whole concept of "high-fidelity" revolves around the idea that the recording and playback should be a faithful sonic representation of the original performance, no more, no less. A relative of this is the "15th row" approach in classical music recording, which attempts to simulate what it would sound like in that specific seat of a concert hall. But one could argue this to be anomalous because the actual techniques used do not necessarily put the microphones in the actual 15th row of concert halls.
On the other hand, recording can go beyond mere documentation, and become part of the creative process, and performance. There are countless examples of recorded popular music and sounds that 1) were not performed, and for that matter never existed, in "real time", 2) could not be replicated in "real time", 3) that broke the connection between the sound of "original" musical instruments and the resulting recording by way of electronic sound processing. In this approach, nothing is sacred, all bets are off, and anything goes. And without this approach, we would never have had Sgt Peppers or Pet Sounds.
Close miking, specially with drums, has become closely associated with the second approach. But the reality is that close miking is one of countless recording techniques used in both approaches. As a producer, I am comfortable with the entire repertoire of techniques in order to 1) apply whatever technique fits in the context of the music, and 2) deal with the infinite number of variables that present themselves during a recording. I've actually had some cases in which close miking has produced a more "natural" sound than distant mikes.
Close miking is just another technique. I use it when its needed. While I've heard some recordings in which I question its application, I wouldn't make a blanket statement that any use of it is "cheating". If close miking is cheating, then recording per se is cheating.
On the other hand, recording can go beyond mere documentation, and become part of the creative process, and performance. There are countless examples of recorded popular music and sounds that 1) were not performed, and for that matter never existed, in "real time", 2) could not be replicated in "real time", 3) that broke the connection between the sound of "original" musical instruments and the resulting recording by way of electronic sound processing. In this approach, nothing is sacred, all bets are off, and anything goes. And without this approach, we would never have had Sgt Peppers or Pet Sounds.
Close miking, specially with drums, has become closely associated with the second approach. But the reality is that close miking is one of countless recording techniques used in both approaches. As a producer, I am comfortable with the entire repertoire of techniques in order to 1) apply whatever technique fits in the context of the music, and 2) deal with the infinite number of variables that present themselves during a recording. I've actually had some cases in which close miking has produced a more "natural" sound than distant mikes.
Close miking is just another technique. I use it when its needed. While I've heard some recordings in which I question its application, I wouldn't make a blanket statement that any use of it is "cheating". If close miking is cheating, then recording per se is cheating.
The purpose of any musical instrument is to make sounds or tones. If those tones or sounds are altered by electronics what does it hurt? Mr Moog sure made a bundle on it didn't he. This premise is as silly as asking if a certain over mentioned bass drum pedal is cheating. How can you cheat making noise?
con struct
Platinum Member
But that's what we're talking about here isn't it? Let's assume that the drums sound great, they're nicely tuned good drums and they sound it. As soon as you put any microphone within any proximity of those drums you've lost the way those drums "really" sound. And it's not only the microphone, it's the resulting signal being processed, amplified and reproduced through a speaker.
There's no such thing as perfect sound equipment. No matter how much is spent on recording or sound reinforcement equipment the resulting sound is only a representation, an analogy if you will. Equipment that can 100% accurately reproduce natural sound does not exist. You can get fairly close but only in the very best recording studios and only if the recording is played back on the very best equipment, circumstances that just don't exist in a live situation.
Won't you be more satisfied if you manage to get a great acoustic sound? Sure you can mike a mediocre kit but that's a shortcut to a good sound. I'm not satisfied by being an opportunist.
One reason to strife for acoustic perfection are low volume settings. Amplification can eliminate imperfections but it will raise the volume, especially the more mics you use. Hence my preference for a minimalist approach. Because in the settings I play, low volume is a priority.