My favourite Hi-Hats on a hit single...lol

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyEt8C3KBmo

Dem is some cool hats, daddio.

Ya, but I don't think they caused the record to chart.

See?

love Joan Armatrading

Jonbouy


Ya, but I don't think they caused the record to chart.

See?

Bon Bon Scott knew what he meant.
(or did he?)

Ken Scott is one of the old school geniuses of audio recording in my book. I really enjoyed a little back and forth he did on gear sluts a few months back. Glad he's out to share his wisdom...take advantage boys and girls - he can cut through more crap in a single quip than most high profile engineers.

bapu


"I don't believe a record is ever sold or not sold because a hi-hat was slightly harsher or because it was 2db higher or lower." Ken Scott, Mix Magazine Interview, July 2012




Then again, he can afford to say that, right?

I'll throw you one better Ed. Other than engineer types that are interested in this sort of thing, I'd be willing to bet no album was ever sold based on how good the sound quality was. People buy when something moves them. It matters not how much was spent in gear, how great a musician is or isn't, or how great the sounds are. If something moves a group of people, they will come and support it. This is another reason why I often go off on a tangent about science, the hype of pricey gear and all the other stuff that goes with it. No one cares other than the person creating the stuff or engineer types....that are so subjective and stuck in their ways half the time, their opinions shouldn't matter anyway. :)
 
-Danny 

Indeed. I do think good engineering is valuable mind you. But it's a matter of getting bad sound *out of the way*, rather than being a thing that's good to listen to in and of itself.

Let's extend the concept. Nobody ever bought a record because of the hi-hats. And probably nobody ever bought a record because of the reverb, or the bass guitar tone, or the stereo separation, or the spectral curve, or the lack of noise/aliasing/distortion/clipping, or the signal-to-noise ratio, or the crest factor.

Since none of these are critical factors on their own, why worry about any of them?

Actually, having read Ken's book, it was real obvious that he always made painstaking attempts to capture the best possible performances and sounding tracks that he possible could.  In fact many of the artists would comment in the book that he would keep making them play take after take until he felt he had the best they could do.  He also would spend a considerable amount of time getting the drums mic'd and sounding just right.  In fact, several drummer quotes in the book said that they had never heard their drums sound that good in recordings, as when Ken tracked them.

However, Ken mentions several times in the book, that he fully understood that it was the song and the artist that would sell the record, not just his production.  For example, the first time he was approached by America to record their album, he basically said that he was not interested, because he did n't think they had their chops together yet.  There were several artist he names where he felt he did some of his best work, but the albums did not sell at all.

So in my own way of thinking, I think my answer would be that it is important to strive to be the best at what ever you do, be it musician or engineer.  However, if weighted, the song and performance are still the most important part of the equation.