observation on what analog means to most recording school students

[guido #2]

Greetings
I am an instructor in the Recording Arts and Technology program at my local Community College. It's a two year degree.
I teach Lab to the newbies. That means PT, signal flow, etc.
One of the labs is Editing with PT. I go in the booth and read from a script... and I do a horrible job. The assignment is for them to edit my awful take into a cohesive and natural sounding piece.
We did this last week.
Next week, we do the same thing... with TAPE.
They are usually astounded, in general that anyone would put forth that kind of effort. Sometime during that lab, I also make them create a tape loop that must hit on beat. Virtually NONE of them equate LOOPS with tape. And when they DO realize it, and see how difficult it is to do without "seeing" the waveform, they are even more incredulous.
I'm not drawing any conclusions here. These are just my observations.

 

[Dr ZEE]

The assignment is for them to edit my awful take into a cohesive and natural sounding piece....

easy.
The awful take meant to be erased, period.
The performer, who only can spit out awful takes should not be in the recording studio to begin with.
easy, you see.

/respects

 

[cjacek]

easy.
The awful take meant to be erased, period.
The performer, who only can spit out awful takes should not be in the recording studio to begin with.
easy, you see.

/respects

Exactly my thoughts too! Good answer.

Analog's for people who record in a more "traditional" way and who actually have some talent. There is no way you could "fake it" recording to tape.

Btw: To prevent folks from "jumping" on me, I'm not implying that people who record to digital are talentless.

~Daniel

 

[TuoKaerf]

I think his assignment is ment to teach them the labors of having to deal with crappy takes. Sometimes you get sessions handed to you to mix that were not recorded very well.

Back to the topic....

I'm a heavy Pro Tools/Logic user. The majority of my recordings are done on a Trident 80B or SSL 4040 E/G+ console into Pro Tools.

After using the large format analog consoles, I'll take one anyday over the digital boards. They sound amazing (well the SSL pre's arn't the best, but there's plenty of ways around that....) and feel more "natural" mixing on.

If I had the money to track to tape, I would. Unfortunately, myself or my clients don't have the money to afford that.

I'm in my last months of recording school, and I plan on taking an analog technologies elective. The computer gets taken out of the room, and all tracking and editing is on tape.

We don't really have many analog haters around. All of my instructors stress the importance of using what sounds best to you, and using what you are most comfortable with. We get a mix of digital and analog, and I feel that using both can be the best of both worlds.

 

[Dr ZEE]

The computer gets taken out of the room, and all tracking and editing is on tape.

I can picture this. The lights go down a bit. Background music gets deeper and mysterious.... ala "Who wants to be a millionaire show"... Then two men in black walk into the room from the dark, unplug poor G5 and slowly carry it out. Background music gets really deep and ire. The lights go red. And two men in black roll in THE R-t-R machine.

..."reality" show mania

 

[Dr ZEE]

I think his assignment is ment to teach them the labors of having to deal with crappy takes..

Do you really need to go to 'college' to learn how to do That JOB ?

 

[TuoKaerf]

That's funny...

You woulden't believe some of the sessions I've gotten from bands to mix (mostly the high school kids). I'll get a CD with 4 audio files on it. One for drums, one for guitars, one for bass, and one for vocals . Or I'll actually get all of the seperate audio tracks, but the recording will be so crappy, there is only so much you can do with it. Its a lot of fun polishing turds, at least it pays the bills somewhat.

 

[modson]

Analogue Vs Digital: What round is it anyway?

Hi,

22 from UK. Im also on a music production course, I do not favour analogue or digital. analogue gives a great 'warm' sound, but digital is EASY. no razor blades or hours of messy maintainence on a reel-to-reel (dont get me wrong - i'd FUCKING love one in my own set up) but the sheer cost of the equipment renders destitute students like myself unable to use it (though im sure we would all love to). Pro tools however is a snip. £800 for the interface w/ PT front end software.

As regards for previous posts which undermine the level of musicianship from todays artists - the level of muisicianship today is no worse than 30 years ago, The Beatles only knew 10/11 chords in '61 but a thirst for new sounds meant that today we are somewhat overwhelmed by their creative innovations (i.e. Close micing kick drums - Geoff Emerick had to get a signed letter from the studio manager before he could close mic a kick and only on Beatles sessions!) The problem is in the craft of songwriting which has simply gotten lost among a deluge of new synths or samples. Writing around a drum loop instead of being inspired by some emotion. AND TO RAPS CREDIT (not that im a huge fan, (my main area is folk / rock) but there are some angry rappers who are just doing it - not about blunts and bitches but about life, love and the world and that has been whats missing from our rather incipid POP charts- the purveyor of sex to pre-pubescent girls.

A GREAT TRACK IT A GREAT TRACK whether its analogue or digital. they each serve a purpose and can live harmoniously, side by side. ITS THE SONG / PERFORMANCE THAT IS KEY.

Cheers

Chris

P.S This is just my observation - if I have accidentally offended anyone - I apologise. This was meant as a considered opinion and not to annoy / irritate people who are far more knowledgeable than I.

Thanx again
Chris

 

[cjacek]

Hideous recording, mixing, mastering and blatant over-engineering, including fake instruments, loops and "splicing the perfect take" (in digital) is what ruined mainstream today's music. The "Pro-tools" concept sucked the life out of music. Technology which was supposed to make recording easier and less costly was abused and shit was its final product. Sure, writing is not as good but I've listenned to crap lyrics of songs done decades ago and the way it was recorded and performed, won me over. I can listen over and over to stuff from the 50's, 60's and 70's, 'cause it's an acoustical and emotional experience, even if I don't understand the lyrics or can't relate, but starting in the 80's and into the 90's and beyond, I just can't enjoy at all.

~Daniel

 

[Dr ZEE]

The "Pro-tools" concept sucked the life out of music.

~Daniel

NICE LINE!
How about : "ProTools" took over the stage. ?
Here's my unfounded speculation on this matter.
I think, that somewhere deep under the waters, inside of a producer/engineer's mind'n'soul there always was/is an imprisoned beast, who wanted to be a performer, who wanted to be on stage, who wanted to be in the spot-lights, who wanted to be a recognized and recognizable star. By the nature of the 'traditional' music making conjunction" the engineer plays a crucial role on the road to "glories of success", yet at the end may feel left out (also, often justifiably so, I must add!). So, armed with such 'powerful weapon' as ProTools (I mean ProTools as a cumulated image), the engineer finaly took over and got even with the musician/performer


The cure? - Fire the engineer, and do it yourself. This way if you poison your music to death with ProTools, then at least it's a suicide - not a murder
/respects

 

[quarterinch]

I feel compelled to chime in to say that giving up on digital was the most liberating decision I've made in recent years. And I now feel like the guy who brought the gun to the knifefight.

Was that off topic?

Increasingly, students (and many, many others) will continue to regard analog as antiquated, "old", superceded, obsolete, expensive, high-maintenance, etc. Lots of well documented reasons for why and from where that's coming. And when put together they all add up to the dogma we now have: analog is not "viable" when put up against the digital juggernaut.

Lucky for me I discovered there's a reason why the words "fidelity" and "viable" are more than 900 pages apart in the dictionary. It's because they have little in common.

So, as long as sonics and fidelity are of secondary importance to convenience of manipulation we all will continue to observe analog meaning less to students.

 

[Dr ZEE]

...there's a reason why the words "fidelity" and "viable" are more than 900 pages apart in the dictionary...

great line!

 

[RICK FITZPATRICK]

So, as long as sonics and fidelity are of secondary importance to convenience of manipulation we all will continue to observe analog meaning less to students.

Damn. Finally. Well done. Carry on.

 

[supertramp1979]

Hi,

As regards for previous posts which undermine the level of musicianship from todays artists - the level of muisicianship today is no worse than 30 years ago..

Hmmm. Maybe you should listen to some Yes? Some Egg?
Musicianship 30 years ago was LIGHT YEARS (light years) ahead of anything that is happening today.

Here is my take on the dumb-ass analog vs. digital debate; analog has changed over the years and so has digital, so the argument is kind of moot. Laser disc came out in 1979 you know.

I only really like 60's and 70's analog. The specific tones and sounds of that era are what really move me. Analog productions in the 80's and 90's are just as boring sounding to me as 2005 digital.

They lack any psychedelic emotion, which is what really makes me think of outer space and the serious haunting tones that can be achieved with a true plate reverb. Perceptions of depth, fear, emptiness, and psychedelic nature cannot be achieved with non-60's and 70's gear. That is very important to the "vintage" sound so many people hold dear, yet fail to realize.

ITS THE SONG / PERFORMANCE THAT IS KEY.

Not true. It is everything, everything all around, any which way you look at it.

 

[Dr ZEE]

They lack any psychedelic emotion, which is what really makes me think of outer space and the serious haunting tones that can be achieved with a true plate reverb. Perceptions of depth, fear, emptiness, and psychedelic nature cannot be achieved with non-60's and 70's gear. That is very important to the "vintage" sound so many people hold dear, yet fail to realize...

jeeeeeee, heavy stuff ...

Here is my take on the dumb-ass analog vs. digital debate......

Sorry, man... I hopelessly don't mean to be an ass, but after going through your "heavy stuff" few times, I've to say that if you'd move "dumb-ass" three-words back in that sentence, then the rest of your take would go smoothly through my brain-bone.
but, then again, my brain is bony.... so,
nevermind,

/respects

 

[TuoKaerf]

I would say musicianship is about the same today, it just takes longer to find an artist who uses it. Most of the mainstream rock and pop artists are cookie cutter copies of what is popular at the time. Labels don't put the money or time into an artist to develop talent anymore, but there is good talent out there if you look hard enough.

 

[classicrockman7]

Im analog

Just wanted to assure you that young people are still interested in analog. I just bought a tascam 388 and have since then recorded, all analog (not even digital effects) a few songs. The only digital thing i used was a digital metronome, there is no question that those are better than those dodgy analog ones that require winding. The only problem is now i have to put it onto my computer to burn it to cd, which kind sucks. Anyhow just thought id reassure you that all is not lost. By the way, digital is no good, the best such as Wilco, and the White stripes use anaolog.

 

[supertramp1979]

jeeeeeee, heavy stuff ...


Sorry, man... I hopelessly don't mean to be an ass, but after going through your "heavy stuff" few times, I've to say that if you'd move "dumb-ass" three-words back in that sentence, then the rest of your take would go smoothly through my brain-bone.
but, then again, my brain is bony.... so,
nevermind,

/respects

Here is my dumb-ass. But it's true. Everyone wants to throw these ambiguous arguments around pretending it is as simple as THIS vs. THIS.
Try it. A half inch machine from 1968 is going to sound miles different than a half inch machine from 1988, but they are both analog right? People should look at the evolution of such technologies before they make vague comparisons, i.e. digital vs analog. I'm sure I am guilty of this in certain doses, but we've come a long way from the first major digital audio tape release in 1979, and I think its safe to say the evolution of DAT is living proof.

 

[Dr ZEE]

...we've come a long way from the first major digital audio tape release in 1979....

No sh*t!
and look where we are. nop, it has nothing to do with old vs. new. it's simply is about good vs. bad. I've been watching that "evolution" for quite some time...and here you have it. It does not get any worse than that... but I CAN'T DANCE TO THAT (thanks , Chris!)

 

[peopleperson]

I would say musicianship is about the same today, it just takes longer to find an artist who uses it. Most of the mainstream rock and pop artists are cookie cutter copies of what is popular at the time. Labels don't put the money or time into an artist to develop talent anymore, but there is good talent out there if you look hard enough.

Bingo, and yes, you have to look EXTREMELY hard. My personal opinion is that popular and rock music is at the lowest state of quality and creativity that it's ever been. The major label music world should really be destroyed. Especially nowadays knowing that they don't operate in a way that's condusive to producing anything quality. As a listener, if a song kicks my ass, I could care less how it was recorded. I definately have a thirst for analog recording but at the same time even though I LOVE the way the new White Stripes LP sounds for instance (2 inch 16 track I believe), it bores me to tears musically and I can't even remotely get through it. Whether or not analog vs. digital has any bearing on the music itself is indeed kind of a useless ponderance. To me, that's been proven over and over.