Gibson Guitar Is a Remarkably Unpopular Company

Wait... He said you always record clean and add distortion. What sort of fucktard is he?

Sent from my VK810 4G using Tapatalk
That is straight from the pages of old school recording "How to" Books and is perhaps the most egregiously and profoundly perpetuated myths in the recording industry. It is however, a great way to know instantly that the person you're talking to is a fraud.

There are certain things that generally speaking, yoy want to record as "dry" as possible and then use post production to add things like compression and effects.

The notion of recording guitars completely clean and dry is hogwash. Sure, it's been done. But not in any situation I've ever encounterd (speaking strictly in terms of electric guitars here btw). I think he is confused with "re-amping", which is taking an already recorded and relatively dry guitar track and feeding through an amplifier. Not so uncommon, but not terribly common either in rock music. I believe Mark re-amped some guitar tracks on his last album.

As for the humbucker thing... I am dumbfounded over that total load of bullshit.

One great example to squash that nonsense: Billy Duffy from The Cult. The overwhelming majority of his recorded guitar tracks spanning 3 decades were in fact done so with humbucker equipped guitars, either a White Falcon or a Les Paul. The one notable exception is their most successful and bombastic record of their career, "Sonic Temple". Nearly every electric guitar track on that crazy, over the top monster of a rock record was played on a frankenstrat that looked like a dumpster find. It was in Billy's own words, a ratty piece of shit. It also had three single coils...
 
That is straight from the pages of old school recording "How to" Books and is perhaps the most egregiously and profoundly perpetuated myths in the recording industry. It is however, a great way to know instantly that the person you're talking to is a fraud.

There are certain things that generally speaking, yoy want to record as "dry" as possible and then use post production to add things like compression and effects.

The notion of recording guitars completely clean and dry is hogwash. Sure, it's been done. But not in any situation I've ever encounterd (speaking strictly in terms of electric guitars here btw). I think he is confused with "re-amping", which is taking an already recorded and relatively dry guitar track and feeding through an amplifier. Not so uncommon, but not terribly common either in rock music. I believe Mark re-amped some guitar tracks on his last album.

As for the humbucker thing... I am dumbfounded over that total load of bullshit.

One great example to squash that nonsense: Billy Duffy from The Cult. The overwhelming majority of his recorded guitar tracks spanning 3 decades were in fact done so with humbucker equipped guitars, either a White Falcon or a Les Paul. The one notable exception is their most successful and bombastic record of their career, "Sonic Temple". Nearly every electric guitar track on that crazy, over the top monster of a rock record was played on a frankenstrat that looked like a dumpster find. It was in Billy's own words, a ratty piece of shit. It also had three single coils...
Guess the guy doesn't like Pink Floyd, The Eagles, Elvis, a bunch of Led Zeppelin, SRV, Hendrix, Beatles... Oh, we could go on forever.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk
 
Guess the guy doesn't like Pink Floyd, The Eagles, Elvis, a bunch of Led Zeppelin, SRV, Hendrix, Beatles... Oh, we could go on forever.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

A lot of those sounds (especially later Beatles albums) were actually DI'd guitars into the REDD desks with some serious EQ shaping. Dirt was created by driving the mic preamp instead of an amp.
 
That is straight from the pages of old school recording "How to" Books and is perhaps the most egregiously and profoundly perpetuated myths in the recording industry. It is however, a great way to know instantly that the person you're talking to is a fraud.

There are certain things that generally speaking, yoy want to record as "dry" as possible and then use post production to add things like compression and effects.

The notion of recording guitars completely clean and dry is hogwash. Sure, it's been done. But not in any situation I've ever encounterd (speaking strictly in terms of electric guitars here btw). I think he is confused with "re-amping", which is taking an already recorded and relatively dry guitar track and feeding through an amplifier. Not so uncommon, but not terribly common either in rock music. I believe Mark re-amped some guitar tracks on his last album.

As for the humbucker thing... I am dumbfounded over that total load of bullshit.

One great example to squash that nonsense: Billy Duffy from The Cult. The overwhelming majority of his recorded guitar tracks spanning 3 decades were in fact done so with humbucker equipped guitars, either a White Falcon or a Les Paul. The one notable exception is their most successful and bombastic record of their career, "Sonic Temple". Nearly every electric guitar track on that crazy, over the top monster of a rock record was played on a frankenstrat that looked like a dumpster find. It was in Billy's own words, a ratty piece of shit. It also had three single coils...
Yeah. I like to try and get a good basic sound recorded for most things and leave the reverb, compression, delay to the engineer since what they have available to them these days is usually several orders of magnitude better sounding and adjustable to the mix after the fact. Sometimes you just need to print a specific guitar sound. These songs are examples of me recording pedals or amp tremolo:








Here is a song that was reamped - actually run through a PA system in a large room and miked to get some room sound since the isolation cab it was recorded in while doing basic tracks sounded too boxy for me



The compression was a pedal on this but the slap delay was a plug in in Protools:

 
Actually I think Yamaha is a pretty good company although I only have a few of their products...I was really just joking.

Theirs would be the first mass-market products I'd recommend to most beginning students for a lot of things; classical guitars, digital pianos, cellos... Those are instruments that will grow with them until they're fairly advanced. Which, for many students, will never happen.
 
Also, all of the bass on those recordings were recorded direct with an Avalon 737 and then reamped with an Ampeg B15 during mixing.
 
A lot of those sounds (especially later Beatles albums) were actually DI'd guitars into the REDD desks with some serious EQ shaping. Dirt was created by driving the mic preamp instead of an amp.
I'm pretty sure that only applied to Revolution.

Gilmour liked to use small Fenders in the studio.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk
 
I'm pretty sure that only applied to Revolution.

Gilmour liked to use small Fenders in the studio.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk
Jimmy Page tracked the guitars on Black Dog by overdriving a couple of mic pre's direct IIRC.
 
We have a subforum for discussing recording, do we not?

Can we please go back to the OT and focus on stoning people who give money to Gibson?
 
I'm pretty sure that only applied to Revolution.

Gilmour liked to use small Fenders in the studio.

Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk

No, it was all over the place. If you ever come across a copy of Recording the Beatles you should really check it out... there was some real sonic wizardry going on in those sessions.
 
No, it was all over the place. If you ever come across a copy of Recording the Beatles you should really check it out... there was some real sonic wizardry going on in those sessions.
Where might I find a copy of that?
 
Getting back to Gibson.
107142218-guitar-maker-gibson-ceo-henry-juszkiewicz-gettyimages.jpg
 
Back
Top