hugh padgham

7/28/2019 Hugh Padgham

1/5

Part 1 of a fascinating conversation with Engineer/Producer Hugh Padgham, whowas behind some of the greatest recordings of the 1980s and 1990s era, workingwith Sting, Phil Collins, Peter Gabriel, XTC and others. Padgham talks about analogand digital, working with artists, engineering approaches, and more, in this excerptfrom Howard Masseys Behind The Glass Volume II, which features more than 40all-new, exclusive in-depth interviews with many of the worlds top producers andengineers, as well as Foreword written by George Massenburg.

September 23, 2009, by Howard Massey

Ah, the eighties. Every record sounded like it was made ina stadium, every singer working their uppermost rangeuntil it seemed as if their vocal cords were about to leapout of their throat, every hit wrapped in a glossy packageof shimmering guitar leads and silky bass.

And, of course, every snare drum was passing through agated reverb.

Hugh Padgham is largely responsible for many of thosesoundsparticularly the latter but hes also responsiblefor crafting many of the greatest records of the era, ThePolices Every Breath You Take, Genesis Tonights the Night, and Phil Collins In the AirTonight among them.

His ultra-clean signature sound raised the bar for every engineer and producer of the era andhad a major impact on the shift from the dead, close-miked records of the seventies to theopen, ambient sounds of the nineties and beyond.

Padghams unique abilities and versatility are probably best reflected in the fact that hes wonfour Grammys in four different categories: Album of the Year (Collins 1985 No Jacket

Required), Record of the Year (Collins 1990 Another Day in Paradise), Best EngineeredAlbum of the Year (Stings 1993 Ten Summoners Tales), and the 1985 Producer of the Yearaward.

Padghams career started at Londons Advision Studios, where he served as tea-boy (theBritish equivalent to a runner), but it wasnt until he moved to Landsdowne Studios in themid-1970s that he received formal training, quickly rising through the ranks from assistantengineer to chief engineer.

In 1978, he took a job at Richard Bransons Townhouse studio (which sadly closed its doorsonly recently), which gave him an opportunity to engineer for various Virgin artists, includingXTC, Peter Gabriel, and Phil Collins.

It was also at the Townhouse that Padgham first met a young bass player by the name ofGordon Sumner. . . soon to be known to the world as Sting.

A couple of years later, just as Stings band The Police were poised to reach the heights ofinternational fame, Padgham was brought onboard to co-produce their massive hit albumGhost in the Machine.

ording: Engineer Hugh Padgham- Quality Comes Down To A Simp... http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/print/for_me_it_always_comes...

e 5 20/08/2010 01:38p.m.


2/5

Hugh Padgham

We met up at his West London studio, Sofa Sound, one bright summer afternoon, where theaffable Mr. Padgham, looking more like a ruffled professor than a superstar pop producer,shared his unique perspective on the evolution of record-making through the past twodecades.

Howard Massey: Are you fully sold on digital recording these days, or do you sti ll use

tape?

Hugh Padgham: Im not anti-digital per se, because youve always got to stay as current withthings as you can. But people who grew up with analog gear can hear the difference, and

theres no doubt in my mind that analog sounds better: its kinder to your ears, and not asharsh.

Having said that, theres also no question that digital nowsounds better than ever before. These days Im running allmy sessions at 96k, 24-bit, and thats a big improvementover 44.1 or 48. Of course, the original RADAR, which was44.1, 16-bit, sounded a lot better than other machines, so Ithink a lot of it is down to the converters..

One thing I really miss about analog recording is tapecompression, though. By using it carefully, you can actuallyget some 10 dB of extra level before a well-recordedtransient signal like a snare drum clips.

Thats one reason that digital sounds so harshbecauseyoure not getting any of that nice rounding off of thetransients. So these days, I tend to do my initial tracking onto 24-track tape and then copy thatinto Pro Tools. That way, at the very least, my drums, bass, and guitars hit tape.

If I have the time and budget, I will continue doing things onto analog, either by premixing andbouncing tracks, or by running a second machine in sync.

However, I still never go over 48 tracks; I set that as my limit. It just gets really difficult tomanage more tracks than that, especially if youre mixing on an analog console.

Dont forget, we used to quite successfully make records on a single 24-track machine.

How do you know when a recording is complete, when its time to stop adding ov erdubs

and start mixing it?

Its really just instinct. For me it always comes down to one simple question: Does it soundany good? Sometimes you run into situations when you suddenly think, Im not so sure thissounds good anymore.

Thats when you realize that the last thing you added didnt need to be there. Less is moresounds like a clich, but it often is true, and it often takes a lot of effort to have less ratherthan more.

I actually spend more time pruning stuff down than adding things. Doing so can often requirea musician to learn or evolve an altogether different part to be played, so that what was twotracks is now one track.

Every song is different, of course, but Im always looking for ways to simplify and reduce.

I have one criteria that is probably my bottom line: is it embarrassing or not? If somebody issinging and its really out of tune, that to me would sound really embarrassing if you put it outon a record.

A guitar part could be equally embarrassingthe kind of thing youd play when you were inyour first band in school, when you were 13 or 14 and playing a lot of crap.

Something that goes back to the days when the guitar player was focusing so hard on gettingthe chord shape or string bend right that he couldnt put any feeling into it.

Those moments are tough for me, because I find myself thinking, Oh my god, what am Igoing to tell them?


e 5 20/08/2010 01:38p.m.


3/5

What do you tell them?

Well, I hope theyll come to that conclusion themselves when they hear it played back. Still, Ialways subscribe to the idea that its not my record, its the artists record; Im making it forthem.

So all I can do is ask the artist, Are you really happy with that? Or are you going to beembarrassed when you hear that in five years time?

What happens if the artist is happy with a part hes played but you feel strongly that its

embarrassing?

I occasionally had that problem with Sting, who sometimes couldnt be bothered, or thoughtwhat hed done was good enough. Usually Id just fix it when he wasnt looking.

Of course, now in Pro Tools you can do things that were unimaginable years ago. I made arecord not long ago with a singer who, frankly, was not on the ballhed often come in hungover or whatever.

We had the usual problem of time and budget, plus he was physically incapable of improvingthings sometimes. But somehow, by doing a lot of fiddling around and editing, I was able tomake him sound really good.

The problem was, he thought that was all him! He thought hed done a great job, when in

reality what hed done was quite embarrassing.

But if theres a conflict with the artist, its l ike a conflict in any job or any aspect of life: you talkit through and either you come to a compromise or one person wins and gets their way.

People usually get over it, though. If I have a really strong feeling about something that theartist disagrees with, Ill say, Look, its your record, not mine; if you really want it to be likethat, thats fine as long as its not embarrassing. [laughs]

How do you feel the role of the producer has changed since you started making

records?

The main role used to be quality control, but one of the worrying things about making records

nowadays is that the concept of things sounding good rarely comes into it.

It used to be that you would run down to the record store to buy a particular new albumbecause you knew it was going to be a work of art sonically; youd race home and put it onthe best stereo you could find and it was an amazing experience listening to it.

Sadly, nowadays, kids grow up listening to everything on earbuds. My daughter, whos ateenager, once plugged her iPod into some little computer speakers I have and she said,Dad, that sounds amazing!

They were just tiny satellite speakers with a small subwoofer, but she was amazed . . . andthe reason, I think, is that she had never heard bass before!

Its almost a complete reverse evolution, really. If you look at video quality, things haveevolved forward, from VHS to DVD to high-def.

But in the world of audio, it seems that things have gotten worse and worse: weve gone fromvinyl to CDand the early CDs sounded way worse than vinyland now weve gone toMP3s, which sound even worse than the earliest CDs.

Personally, I think the era of the disc is well and truly gone. Hopefully our file sizes will getbiggermeaning better quality audioand so too will storage capacity.

I really hope that, as memory becomes cheaper and more prevalent, well be able to restorethe quality of audio.

Soon there will be massive flash drives with high bus speeds, and hopefully then well be ableto at least store good quality uncompressed audio. People wont notice files that are ten timesthe size of MP3s if you actually have ten times the space to store them in.

Or perhaps there will be new forms of compression invented that will preserve full-qualityaudio. Or maybe well all just be wired into a central server. The problem with that is, whathappens when you lose service?


e 5 20/08/2010 01:38p.m.


4/5

There will be caching schemes, Im sure, and hopefully they will improve all the time as well.What lies ahead is exciting, and you cant stay rooted in the past.

Another contr ibuting factor to any perceived decl ine in qual ity is that budgets are

shrinking, so people arent giv en adequate amounts of time to hone their sounds in a

professional environment.

Thats true, and, as a producer, I find that very frustrating. These days, the budgets are sosmall that the only way you can make an album is to do it as quickly as you possibly can;otherwise somebody ends up not being paid.

As a result, theres very little room for experimentation, so its very bad from an artistic point ofview. And theyre cutting the budgets all the time every day, there seems to be less andless available and more and more corners being cut.

Yet somehow you dont ever hear about record company executives taking a cut in salary.

Still, I honestly dont think its been economics that have been the sole downfall of recordlabels.

The problem is that, generally speaking, they have gotten themselves into an irreparablesituation, and so theyve become very adept at signing music that most people dont want tolisten to. Thats because most of todays A&R people dont come from a proper musical

background.Theyre much more into trends rather than something being good. If something is on the frontpage of the newspapers, they want to sign it, and then all the other labels want to sign thesame thing.

In fact, very often, labels sign artists just to stop other labels from getting them, not becausethey really believe in them. My daughter likes a lot of current music because shes young, butshe often asks me, Why is it only old stuff that gets covered, or sampled?

What do you think is the solution?

Its a question of rejigging the model. The major labels still have huge overheadshugeoffices in New York and LA, and big staffs to run.

But if you run a tighter ship and share the ownership of the product with the artist, if you dontcon them into thinking youre going to be selling millions of records when you know yourenot, and if you keep the costs down, then the artist can make the same amount of moneyselling far fewer records.

Thats a model that a lot of people are starting to look into now.

Even in the old days, when a lot of records were being sold by people like Sting or PhilCollins, it was only because they were selling eight or nine million records that nobody wascomplaining.

The people associated with them were making good moneynowhere near the huge

amounts of money the record labels were making, but good moneyso you put up with it,just as you put up with the fact that you werent going to get paid anything from certain foreignterritories because of bootlegging. You were just educated by the record labels into assumingthis was normal.

But eventually, hopefully, those kinds of things will be policed properly, so that everyone getspaid what theyre owed.

In the old days, artists had to have a record deal because they needed that advance to affordto pay for expensive studio time and they needed the label to do marketing and promotion.

Today, people have the ability to do those things for themselves, and it has made a hugedifference.

Ironically, in some ways its made it harder for an artist to gain recognition, because how doyou get your stuff heard?

Suggested Listening:The Police: Ghost in the Machine, A&M, 1981; Synchronicity, A&M, 1983Genesis: Abacab, Atlantic, 1981; Genesis, Atlantic, 1983; Invisible Touch, Atlantic, 1986


e 5 20/08/2010 01:38p.m.


5/5

Phil Collins: Face Value,Virgin, 1981; Hello, I Must Be Going!, Atlantic, 1982; No JacketRequired, Atlantic, 1985; But Seriously, Atlantic, 1989Sting: Nothing Like the Sun, A&M, 1987; Ten Summoners Tales, A&M, 1993; MercuryFalling, A&M, 1996Peter Gabriel: Peter Gabriel, Geffen, 1980XTC: Black Sea, Geffen, 1980; English Settlement, Geffen, 1982

To acquire Behind The Glass: Volume II from Backbeat Books, click over to

www.musicdispatch.com. NOTE: ProSoundWeb readers can enter promotional code NY9

when checking out to receive an additional 20% off the retail price plus free shipping (offer

valid to U.S. residents, applies only to media mail shipping, additional charges may apply forexpedited mailing services).

Return to article

Engineer Hugh Padgham - Quality Comes Down To A Simple Question: Does It Sound Any Good?http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/for_me_it_always_comes_down_to_one_simple_question_does_it_sound_any_good


hugh padgham

Documents