George Messenburg – Interview – July 18, 2012(Letto 19 volte)

---

The interview

The equipment

Let's talk about the gear you like to use.

The simplest thing to say is that I hate everything! Even my own products. I wouldn't be inspired to improve my gear if I liked it too much.

So I have problems with everything, with all the microphones and preamps, really with everything.

I don't like anything about any given piece of hardware; instead, I pursue virtually complete transparency in the performance of every processor and fight anything that gets in the way, relentlessly seeking to improve performance.

So… do you prefer analog or digital consoles?

I really wish I could answer.

Of course, I use analog microphones, with a special exception of the Neumann D, which I think is good; the KM D is in fact an exceptional microphone.

I like analog processing: I use analog limiters and equalizers, both my own processors and some made by other manufacturers.

I like mixing in the digital domain with a small console, first of all because it allows me to automate what I need, but also because I love feeling a mix, putting my hands on the controller and mixing by hand, not just drawing lines on a screen: I think you could call it an analog methodology on a digital console.

It's an old-fashioned way of working but with the improvements that can be made with today's equipment.

Yes, we've learned to love DAWs because they allow us to correct every little detail we've forgotten or overlooked, without having to redo the mix from scratch.

Sometimes you have to deal with a bad vocal track or a bad trumpet; in jazz I often have to deal with trumpets, which often play the high notes in "falsetto" not always correctly, but we can fix them if it's a good performance with small flaws.

Enough with the old practice of keeping mistakes to make honest jazz!

In these cases, the great power of the DAW in mixing becomes evident: if I'm working on a mix and something sounds bad, I can fix it; the artist and I can leave it as is or adjust it... it's a great opportunity!

---

Interactions with musicians

When you are with other musicians or when you are discussing recording or your methods, your positive energy shines through in your relationships with the artists and towards the music.

In my recordings, I really want the musicians to hear the whole mix, to feel part of it all; and I want them to know that I'm listening carefully to everything they do.

So I keep in touch, and if I hear something that's not very good, I communicate it in real time, maintaining a positive feeling with the performer during the recording; this helps achieve good results in the studio, through rapid feedback.

So quickly establish a sense of trust.

I say something like: “I’m listening to what you’re doing, don’t make any mistakes because I won’t be editing with Pro Tools: if you don’t do it well you’ll have to do it again”.

---

The preliminaries

Let's get back to production. What are some of the first things you do when you start recording a band? Do you go into the recording room and take notes?

I consult with the band to talk about the project long before we meet in the studio.

I go to their rehearsal room.

If they play in a club, I go listen to them there.

We're talking about songs that have already been completed in a live performance or in rehearsal.

If the songs aren't there yet, we talk about what they like, what they love, how they sound, their role models and how they perceive themselves, their expectations for the future.

Most of the time we agree, but sometimes we don't, so the relationship ends before it even begins; this also happens because of me: I'm too demanding, I want to know too much, and I want to make a really good record, even in my own way.

I often suggest doing a pre-production session with a singer and guitarist, to get a basic preview of the song; sometimes we try adding percussion or another instrument to help better capture, albeit briefly, the expressive meaning of the song.

---

The operation

We've seen in several of your videos which microphones you use and their placement. Is there anything you always do and anything you never do in a studio?

This is hard to say, because there's always something I do and there's never something I never do; I can say I always do something recurring and I never avoid certain other things; the only rule is "there are no rules."

Can you tell us more about the mixing process? How do you approach it?

Honestly, I start with the first track and then make a quick automated mix to save in the DAW.

The artist will take that mix home to listen to it, and very often it will be that preliminary track that will become the guideline to follow for refining the work.

Then I'll start mixing for real; as the mix grows and changes, I save each key moment so I can find it later and recall it if needed, so I also take reference notes on the various archived versions.

So if an artist says, “You know I love the mix you did right after you put the lead guitar in,” I look for that mix in my previous saves, and I’ve often found that the artist was right.

This slightly discontinuous approach turned out to be better than the classic “sit down until you finish mixing a song.”

For example, it took me many days to mix a Toto song: 4 fucking days to do a mix, really too long to work straight away without alternating with other types of interaction.

I prefer to take a timely break in between, change my listening perspectives, compare notes, and recreate the right moods.

So you prefer to create the mix while you record. Do you have any kind of structure or working method for mixing?

I use about 6 different approaches when starting a mix from scratch:

One way is to develop a mix from scratch and work through it; another is to start from scratch.

I have maybe 3 different ways to start from scratch, varying which tracks I start with, and how I handle them.

One way is to listen to a demo of the song and move the faders until the loudest source in the mix is the same as the one heard loudest in the demo.

Another approach is to emphasize the lead vocal and the most important supporting instrument, such as piano, acoustic guitar, electric guitar, or something else; in this case, I start with that and then fill in the gaps with the other secondary tracks.

Yet another approach, one I often use for jazz: balance the entire rhythm section, then balance the saxophones, then balance the trumpets, then balance the sub-masters; in jazz, you need to create a natural but stable balance between the sections.

After that, you can begin to accommodate the various requests, which you can fulfill by working more on the sound than on the volume.

What is your mix bus processing chain?

I almost always try to start mixing with all the necessary tools.

So I'll have all my effects available: reverb, delay… I use a lot of PCM96, UAD250 and Altiverb 7.

Then I assign the tracks to various subs: drums and percussion, bass, guitar, piano, lead vocals, other vocals, string orchestra, sax, trumpets,.

And finally I route the submasters to a summing mixer, that is, to my little 8-channel analog mixer, so that I can manage everything from there in premix, and then extrapolate the final mix from it.

But first I make a pre-master.

So if I'm trying to match a template, a sample, or an example sound, I try to get close to it.

finally I will use one of my favorite limiters, for example the Massey 2007.

I don't like the Waves L3, I don't like anything multi-band, I don't usually use multi-band, but I can't say never, because I sometimes use the C4.

I never use a voice rider, like the one from Waves, I prefer to mix by hand.

I therefore try to quickly obtain a pre-master that offers a satisfactory preview of my lens and a good match to the reference model, if used.

So you're always trying to match something that you have…

Not exactly; I'm there to create a mix for an artist who has an idea of what they want, but if they don't have a clear idea, then I definitely propose "my mix," starting from scratch, without external reference points.

As for mix versions, how many do you do?

As I said, if I recorded first I will have several versions saved during the various stages.

In any case, in the end I get a version that, apart from very small tweaks, should be fine.

I don't do stems: if they ask me to, I'll take myself out of work.

Finally, I will still deliver 2 versions, that is, I will provide “my version” but also the “version that the artist likes”, the one about which he said: “It's a great mix, I like it, keep it.”

My work must always produce a product with good dynamic control and good equalization.

When I export the mix for mastering, I remove any dynamic processors from the master bus but leave the EQ, because I want to allow the mastering engineer to operate at his best, especially with the dynamics.

So the mastering engineer will get 2 versions from me, not 10 or 20.

---

Teaching

I'd like you, as a teacher, to talk about the evolution you see today for students who want to become audio engineers.

My colleagues and I believe that modern record productions suffer desperately from being doomed to oblivion, often failing to have the makings to be remembered.

I don't want to teach anyone how to make music, but I can say as an example: if we use the drums live in this way... that's when the alchemy comes out, that's when the recording creates the story... and so on with other choices that make the music more human and expressive.

By teaching students, who are themselves future teachers, I achieve a multiplier effect of good ideas: they will become able to spread some good concepts and techniques and define what the art of recording is and also what it is not.

What are the strengths of each of these fields? Audio engineering has its strengths, music production has its strengths, and helping artists has its strengths.

The most important thing to understand is: you should not repair an error generated in one of the above-mentioned areas using the tools of another area, you cannot fix an arrangement or execution error by acting with Eq.

Instead, for example, it is positive to have the band actually play together, creating a “rehearsal room” interaction, to allow the performers to spontaneously develop the groove, the phrasing, the dynamics.

It's good to notice immediately that the drummer isn't overdoing it, taking away space from the singer, because that might be unsolvable later.

Until you put it into action, you don't know you have the power to tell a drummer, “Just do it!”

It's always a good time to advise a drummer or anyone else to listen while he plays.

It's important to learn to make him listen to any inappropriate crap he's played, to say, for example, "What you're playing doesn't allow us to hear the details of the lead vocal; this is a very subtle song, can you hear it? Get into the mood!"

Showing students how to be effective in a studio is really important, even if I don't think the above is what a student expects, their questions are usually: “What plugin should I use on this?”

Instead, they need to learn that it's more often about knowing how to listen; so we teach effective critical listening, such as listening to details, explaining how they interact; from this, they develop a concept of what needs to be worked on, as well as setting the right priorities.