Sure, I wouldn’t be able to do what I do without Pro Tools for recording and mixing; Peak to batch convert WAV files into mp3s; Dreamweaver to post them to a custom website I create for the artist; and Mac Mail to let them know the mixes are posted. And iChat quickly connects me to a missing session file, sends out a mix, or circumvents FTP altogether. I use Toast to compile the mastered mixes and create a Red Book CD, and the iTunes to check the burn. The iTunes Store provides unlimited sonic references in 30-second chunks.
But get ready for a cliché: The most important piece of software operates between your ears. Think about this elementary example: We were born with the same ears we have now, yet those ears learn over time to make totally different decisions than they would have years before. I’m not just talking about mix decisions.
During a recent tracking session at Odds On Recording in Las Vegas [for PAR's inaugural "Facility Review" in our upcoming November issue — Ed.] I walked in on what I thought was a familiar “analog vs digital” debate. But Sean O’Dwyer, a house engineer with a deep discography, altered the slant.
To paraphrase Sean, the problem with digital has nothing to do with inherent sound quality, but that it is easier; everybody’s gotten lazy. All the records I like, the ones that stand the test of time, were made decades ago when there were no quick fixes — no grid, no elastic time, no Auto-Tune — all techniques which create musical blandness. A producer/engineer was forced to engage the artist and their music on some personal, intimate level and learn what he or she needed to perform and make it a memorable piece of work that someone somewhere will love . . . [read]
