You guys will all kill me for what I'm about to say, but it's just my personal opinion so don't be too hard on me. :)
 
I wouldn't waste a second doing something like this. The reasons being? If you don't know the part is there, neither will anyone else. Seriously...we could put a ton of work into this little thing only to have it fall on deaf ears. Does it make enough of a difference texture wise to even waste the time doing the attack thing? In my personal opinion, definitely not. Reason 2...
 
The sound is jacked. If you want a sound to stand out more (even as a textured instrument that is a backer...not something that will be focal) you choose the right sound for starters. Next you eq the sound to fit the mix. Next, you compress it just right and you don't even have to worry about it and it will be audible as a texture. I could barely hear that sound at all with the attack method. Not because it was too low....but because it was not eq'd correctly for that mix.
 
It was too dark and was distorted in a way that went against the music...it didn't compliment it. You don't add in a driven guitar that you can't hear that is also the wrong sound choice for the song. You have to be especially careful in pop/commercial music. If you use a driven guitar for "a little bit of buzz" it has to be the right buzz. I'm talking almost analog synth type buzz and it has to be low in the mix. In my opinion, this particular tone in the example was a blanket. It had no personality in terms of complimenting.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you need to add in a razor sharp metal tone...but think along the lines of "Danger Zone"...or something Steve Lukather may use in a controlled, pop atmosphere.
 
This is also where a sound that sizzles can compliment IF you choose the right sizzle frequency. The worst choice (in my opinion) that one can make is to use a dark sounding guitar as a support sound in a song like this. Warm up your REAL guitars all you want in the song that play throughout. But when you need that little extra support on a chorus section or a bridge...by all means you will have a little more impact when you have a bit more sizzle in the tone, you compress it and then keep it at a level in the mix that enhances...not a level that makes it lash out "I am a driven guitar, I'm here to rip the flesh off your bones!"
 
So though the principal to this whole thing makes sense and it can be a tool to use in certain situations *possibly*, it's not something I use nor would it be be something I would teach my students. One thng I'm noticing these days is...people continuously try to cut corners in this field. There is no substitute for doing something right. Somewhat off topic, but a quick example....
 
Side chaining. To me, if you know how to eq and compress your instruments, it's rare that you'd need to use something like this. How many years have we had incredible recordings without it? Seriously. There's always a trade-off...and in a good mix, nothing needs to really play second fiddle and it shouldn't if it's mixed correctly. The most over-use of this is people that side chain kicks and bass guitars usually because they:
 
1. Have not been fortunate making a kick and bass work as a team
2. Are not sure how to use compression, which compressor to use or how to go about it
3. Have major problems with frequency masking due to:
 
a) not knowing how to deal with it
b) don't know what to listen for
c) no sub or not having their monitors and room tuned to know what is too much/too little
 
Granted, some engineers use SC as a tool and know how to do the things I've mentioned. But trust me, there is a huge percentage that are totally clueless that need to learn how to crawl before they start to sprint. The only thing I *may* use sidechaining on is a guitar solo where the lead and rhythm guitars will share the same compressor. The "trade-off" is not as noticable as a kick and bass and the rhythm guitars NEVER drop out of the mix totally. The end result is...when the lead solo is done, the rhythm guitars return to where they were before the solo started which doesn't leave you with that gap/drop out in sound when an instrument starts or stops playing. But that's a conversation for another time.
 
This attack thing to me is an attempt at a short cut to make something sort of fit in a mix that doesn't fit at all. If you didn't know it was there...you wouldn't know it was there. If you want an instrument to be there, learn how to eq and compress it along with a little automation or a bit of verb to make it less up front if need be when you need something to be more of a texture. To just envelope a transient does nothing in my book. Keep telling yourself...if you didn't know that sound was there like he mentioned....none of it would matter. It didn't add a texture to me...it added a blanket. Ok, you may want that sometime in your mix....me personally, that wouldn't be the mix where I'd want something like that. But hey, whatever works for you. This is just my take. :)
 
-Danny

I agree Danny,
 
I don't think it was a great example as, in my opinion, that guitar part didn't add anything to the song.
 
best regards,
mike

Good points, and I definitely agree about side chaining the bass with the kick. I remember back when I first started and watching a tutorial about compression on Lynda.com where the guy was talking about using this technique to give the kick space, and my immediate thought as a totally clueless newbie was "why in the hell would you want to do that to your bass line"? 

So many of these types of techniques are due to the modern 'strategy' of not really writing songs but just recording stuff and then spending hours and hours automating and editing. And also of course of just trying to stuff way too much stuff sonically into songs in a lot of cases, which is a modern disease of sorts. So many of the younger folks who came along after 2000 almost seem not to know that you can have a song with 8 or 12 tracks that's really full. They read about this or that song that has 50 layered background vocals and five layers of drum samples and four layers of sub-kick samples and other assorted 'enhancements', and all of the plugin tricks they had to play to make all that work, and they think that's how music has to be made.
 

sharke
Good points, and I definitely agree about side chaining the bass with the kick. I remember back when I first started and watching a tutorial about compression on Lynda.com where the guy was talking about using this technique to give the kick space, and my immediate thought as a totally clueless newbie was "why in the hell would you want to do that to your bass line"? 

Yeah I'm sure we're not alone in feeling that way. I gotta say this though....for dance music/club music, it's becoming acceptable to have that trade-off. As long as that kick drum is going boom boom boom boomboomboom boom boom with enough force to make you think there's a bass instrument of sorts...you win. LOL! :)
 
For we that do music where a bass needs to have a bit more character other than a low note that resonates someone's bile ducts, you need a totally different approach as you know. :) I think these techniques are cool...but it should be mandatory that a person isn't allowed to view them until they learn how to do things the right way FIRST. Hahaha! :)
 
-Danny

I have already covered it all in post #4. The sound was no good to start with. In fact automating a bad sound up in volume could be seen as a cop out and definitely not the way to go. As I have said if the sound is right and sits very well in a mix I find you are turning it down not up!
 
What Dean is saying about modern music production techniques is only partially true. I sort of agree with it to some extent but not all of it. The fact is that a lot of modern music is made this way and just because it is, it does not mean that it is any less in quality. Well written and played music can also be created this way. All production approaches are relevent and important. What you have to do is to be able to master both approaches. I have moved with the times and moved forward with some of these techniques. They just throw up a different set of issues that require certain new skills to deal with.
 
Those who don't understand it or have not moved forward by doing a lot of it themselves are always going to oppose it.

I didn't say it was necessarily bad. I just said that it seems to that often younger folks who came into it post-2000 don't understand (or appreciate) the value of fewer, bigger parts, and how much easier it can be to create good compositions with far less folding, spindling, and mutilating involved if you don't try to pack too much stuff into it. Obviously, sometimes, any technique might be useful to create a particular effect, like pumping the mix with a side chain or something like that.

One of the things that really stuck with me when I was studying a Bachelor Degree in Jazz (many years ago) was the concept of how much sound a very small number of musicians can make. Even a trio can make a wall of sound depending on what people are doing. And as far as a quartet or five piece ensemble that can seriously make a wall of sound with such a small number of players.
 
This has sort of stuck with me ever since in a fashion and I am always looking for ways to make any mix sound big using the least amount possible to do it. Something incredible happens when you achieve this. It just sounds better and bigger usually.
 
People boast about having 100 tracks in their music but the reality is you can do it with way less. And they did in the earlier years with such a limited track count yet produced amazing music. I do agree with Dean in that the music and the arrangement and the performance can account for so much it is ridiculous. 
 
I was forced to learn the hard way with only a four track machine for many years and later only 8. I just had to make it work and when you are limited like this it can force you to think about other areas of the music and ways to improve the arrangement rather than just adding another track and putting something on there. Then you have got the problem of making that part fit into the mix somehow.
 
I tend to look at what is going on behind when I am having trouble hearing a part. It usually means there is a lot of clutter going on and once you start clearing it everything usually changes for the better. The old less is more thing.
 
Music for TV advertising is interesting too in that it is often very paired down in terms of what is actually in a mix. Less parts are used to convey the same idea and it is because the music gets clearer when you do this.  That clarity is required because of small speakers being in TV's and most people are not hearing these things in Hi Fi sound. And that is what the advertisers want, clarity. I have produced a lot of music for jingles and things and that really helped shape the way I work today in terms of mixing.
 
 

bile ducts?
LOL......

timidi
bile ducts?
LOL......

LOL ya caught that eh? I was trying to be sneaky. :)