Yeah, I started recording the same way, except with 2 low end home stereo cassette decks instead of mono recorders. Anyway, it was the same result : do it 3 times and it turns to mush.

But at the beginning I was creating, writing and improvising stuff without learning/practicing. I learned a little about recording doing this, but never learned to properly play guitar. I was making basic noise rock and developped a skill in manipulating feedback. To the point I could nearly play a slow melody with larsen. I was still the crappiest guitar player on Earth with everything 'normal'. I was later very surprised when I had to record guitar players on songs with larsen parts and see the guys just put their hands out of the guitar and letting it buzz and scream totally out of tune with the song, with just one unmodulated note. I was nearly a zero when it came to guitar, and it was surprising to see those guys who actually could play being unable to control feedback in an expressive way. On some songs I had to redo the larsen parts myself.

Years later, I realised that I should have played theremin.

But once I turned to audio engineering, I gradually stopped to make music. In fact what I wanted was to do records, not to be a musician. So it was cool to leave the musical creativity side to those who were actually skilled.

I'm very happy to have entered an audio engineering training course, because some things about sound are counter intuitive. And physics, psycho-acoustic, electricity / basic electronics have to be learnt. One cannot reinvent this knowledge, except if being a genius living for centuries.

 

In principle, the first four years of school are very important. You learned to read, count, and write there; that's the basic prerequisite; without learning or understanding, nothing works. How do you know what mixing, composing, and chords are? You read and understood them, so you learned them!

You also learn by listening to or watching other people's music.
Perhaps you should look at your surroundings and the people around you and talk to them; you'll learn a lot that way.

 

Last edited: Jun 10, 2025 at 6:44 PM

My main job has a plenty of dead hours, i use that time for learning bigger chunks of theory, it kinda helps that it doubles as a distraction.
The rest of the learning comes with practice which i guess gets a little bit into the "creating" territory.

Works really well most of the time, that is, if i manage to stay focused.

 

Learning is better done outside of your real creative efforts. It's like building up your inventory, but of knowledge, tools, tricks, and anything else; which you can bring to bear while you are actually "creating."

When you get to your "creating" stages like writing/composing, recording, tracking, sequencing, mixing etc; your inventory is set and it is go time. You use what you have in stock already. Otherwise you might as well call the session "practice", or "training" if you are following some lesson.

Think about other arts. Banksy might be a good example. Let's say he spends a month making stencils, picking out a location to be the scene of the crime, stocking up on spray paint, choosing suitable fat caps, planning an escape route, getting all black clothing ready...
The Krylon gets loaded into a backpack and the guy walks out the door and goes to the spot. Creating begins. At that moment, nothing about the prep work matters anymore. He's not in the middle of a project, looking up MSDS (material safety data sheets) for the paints, or watching Youtube.

If you find you are learning too much during a DAW session, it's probably time to go back to practice. If you make it all the way to your mixing and mastering stages, looking stuff up and learning can help because it is about the specific example you have in front of you. But while you are in your producing stage, that just gets in the way; or you are learning that much because what you are really doing is just copying others.

 

Learning is continuous. Observing in class is only a starting point. Testing and understanding the material are crucial for applying it. Education is a lifelong journey, and further education will always be important. “I know enough” is never an option for me.

 

This is why Electronics For Audio courses are normally divided between classroom and lab work. Chalkboards vs breadboards.

 

In my Audio Engeneering course it was like this. The first modules were all about theory and after you started to understand the basic language of Audio you would start learning how to apply those concepts on a piece of music. At some moments i was asking why i needed to understand those crazy maths and schematics, and when you start working with the real deal it makes a hell of a difference. You can play an instrument without music theory knowledge and you can mix a song without engeneering skills, but once you learn those basic languages for each area the only way to develop and learn more is working. Soon, most of the content on youtube or 'self taught producers that went platinum' courses that are available on paid services will look like snake oil and will be more for entertainment than learning. Those videos may be useful for cratediggin new plugins and signal chains and that's it.

Nothing in the world will replace a solid basic knowledge and fixing millions of mistakes a thousand times. And that's the only thing that will make you picky about the things you hear others say.

 

I can only comment with regards to mixing - do a project and take it to completion even if it's got problems. Then, go back and analyse the problems (or get feedback from a trusted source). Figure out what the problems were, how they arose, and how they could be remedied. If time permits, go back to the project and see if the alternative solutions improve or fix the problem. So basically, during the mix, mix, and during the analysis, learn. That's how I approach it.

 

Generally speaking, reading is the OG software update. More so if you're a writer (or sub-writer, e.g., a lyricist).

• If you're a composer, listening to music is the OG software update.

• If you're an instrumentalist, watching others play is the OG software update.

Now that the methodology is settled, onto the question of "balance." Balance implies there are two forces at play. In the case of a gymnast, gravity and momentum. Said balance will vary greatly based on individual characteristics such as biomechanics and center of gravity. Shorter ("stubbier") gymnasts (Simone Biles comes to mind) will have a lower center of gravity, and create their balance quite differently than I would (I'm 6'2" and also, I'm a guy, so my hips aren't built for child rearing like hers).

In the creative fields (e.g., architecture, culinary 'arts,' design, fashion, etc), most learning is done on the job. You show up to work and have to problem solve, or copy a competitor without getting caught, or handle specific tasks for which there either is no manual, no training, or none was provided. You figure it out on the job, on the spot, like most autodidact musicians.

In the arts, the act of creating is usually associated with playfulness, and fun - if not joy (usually upon completion), whereas the act of learning is often associated with homework and tediousness.

So those are the two forces we need to balance: playfulness and tediousness. The latter is defined as tiresome, laborious, and boring.

How I balance them is simple: whatever is tedious and laborious (in music, if not in life), I break down in small (and smaller) pieces. And then they're fun to play around with. We can do this in music easily: we have phrases, we have bars, we have beats. The smaller the piece, the less labor is involved working on it, the less laborious. The less laborious, the more fun. The more fun, the better.

I think Mike Tyson once said: "Discipline is doing what you hate to do, but doing it like you love it."

That's your balance.

 

Last edited: Jun 11, 2025 at 8:42 AM