Analog documentary
- Thread starter RFR
- Start date
Slouching Raymond
Well-known member
I thought that was a circular saw at the beginning, but no - it was bagpipes.
Agree - although myself and many others on this forum have a similar approach/mentality as described in this video.
I don’t think it was meant to prove anything. Just the opinions formed by some people familiar with analog recording.
Having spent a lot of time with nothing but analog there’s a lot there I can see eye to eye with.
Outside of the ‘ message’, it was interesting seeing how instruments I haven’t used were mic’d
famous beagle
Well-known member
I just saw this post and haven't seen the documentary. I'll definitely check it out. Thanks for sharing!
TalismanRich
Well-known member
I've seen the video before. It hasn't changed my mind re: analog v digital. Too many of these just have the idea that you simply can't do in digital what you do in analog. I don't agree.
I say go a step further and ditch all that expensive tape. Set up the lathe, put a lacquer on it and do direct to disc. It was quite popular back in the 80s as a way to avoid all the problems you get with tape, and the endless manipulation that was done with tape. You can hear the musicians moving the papers around and adjusting between songs.
But they are welcome to work however they desire.
I say go a step further and ditch all that expensive tape. Set up the lathe, put a lacquer on it and do direct to disc. It was quite popular back in the 80s as a way to avoid all the problems you get with tape, and the endless manipulation that was done with tape. You can hear the musicians moving the papers around and adjusting between songs.
But they are welcome to work however they desire.
famous beagle
Well-known member
Just watched it over lunch. Aside from the male vocals through most of it, which I found grating, I enjoyed it.
TalismanRich: I don't think anyone is truly claiming that you can't do something in digital the way you can with tape. It's just that the two methods typically result in very different workflows.
Of course, someone with a digital rig could say, "I'm going to limit myself to 16 (or 8 or 24 or whatever) tracks, only three effects plugins, and few EQ/compressor plugins, etc., and I'm not going to do any editing to individual tracks." Etc., etc. But, of course, that's not what happens 99% of the time. Digital has completely changed the way music works - writing, arranging, recording, and everything in between. And I, for one, certainly don't think it was for the better.
I mean, think about what rules the airwaves today compared to the 60s, 70s, or 80s. The attention span of the modern pop listener is practically non-existent. A lot of people these days can't even make it through one in-person conversation without looking at their phone. The radio is a constant stream of cookie-cutter hits that are forgotten as quickly as the latest Twitter fad. Some people may say that doesn't have anything to do with the recording medium, but I would say it's completely because of it.
Digital recording was a Pandora's box that opened the possibilities of endless effects, endless tracks, endless EQs, compressors, etc., etc. And once it was opened, it couldn't be closed. And it just got cheaper and cheaper and more ubiquitous. People started paying less and less attention to the source (the singing, playing, the song, the tone, etc.) and more and more attention to the unlimited toys to fix it all after the fact.
I see those ads all the time for "Perfect vocals with Vocalign!" (or whatever it is). What the hell? Who wants that? Like she was saying on the video, the thing we connect to, emotionally, is the humanism in music. Listen to a David Bowie vocal like "Life of Mars" or a McCartney vocal like "Blackbird." What makes them so compelling is that they're not perfect. They're human. They're really good, but they're filled with imperfections and personality.
Nowadays, you just auto-tune the crap out of it, align it, etc., and it's "perfect!" How boring is that?
It only makes sense that the music has followed the trend of the digital revolution. No one has the patience for anything anymore - another thing she mentioned on the video. Everything needs to be fast, instant - faster speeds, more data, more processing power, etc. So studios naturally follow suit. Why get someone to sing it again when the computer can fix it in a few seconds?
The "producer" has instant access to endless drum samples, loops, beats, bass lines, guitar riffs, keyboard riffs, vocal runs, orchestra sounds, chord progressions, etc., etc. They can literally make a "beat" in a few minutes with a few dozen mouse clicks and no music knowledge. Contrast that with what was involved with a typical recording in the 60s or 70s. No wonder it all sounds like drivel these days. It's nearly 100% processed by a computer (I'm speaking of pop/hip-hop/etc. specifically).
Anyway ... rant over I guess.
I'm not saying digital is the devil. It's obviously had many positive effects on our lives as well. It's hard to imagine life without it now for sure. (Although, for those of us who remember the pre-internet days ... just, wow!) But it's a double-edged sword for sure. That's like many things I guess, but it's just got a really sharp blade I think.
My .02 anyway.
TalismanRich: I don't think anyone is truly claiming that you can't do something in digital the way you can with tape. It's just that the two methods typically result in very different workflows.
Of course, someone with a digital rig could say, "I'm going to limit myself to 16 (or 8 or 24 or whatever) tracks, only three effects plugins, and few EQ/compressor plugins, etc., and I'm not going to do any editing to individual tracks." Etc., etc. But, of course, that's not what happens 99% of the time. Digital has completely changed the way music works - writing, arranging, recording, and everything in between. And I, for one, certainly don't think it was for the better.
I mean, think about what rules the airwaves today compared to the 60s, 70s, or 80s. The attention span of the modern pop listener is practically non-existent. A lot of people these days can't even make it through one in-person conversation without looking at their phone. The radio is a constant stream of cookie-cutter hits that are forgotten as quickly as the latest Twitter fad. Some people may say that doesn't have anything to do with the recording medium, but I would say it's completely because of it.
Digital recording was a Pandora's box that opened the possibilities of endless effects, endless tracks, endless EQs, compressors, etc., etc. And once it was opened, it couldn't be closed. And it just got cheaper and cheaper and more ubiquitous. People started paying less and less attention to the source (the singing, playing, the song, the tone, etc.) and more and more attention to the unlimited toys to fix it all after the fact.
I see those ads all the time for "Perfect vocals with Vocalign!" (or whatever it is). What the hell? Who wants that? Like she was saying on the video, the thing we connect to, emotionally, is the humanism in music. Listen to a David Bowie vocal like "Life of Mars" or a McCartney vocal like "Blackbird." What makes them so compelling is that they're not perfect. They're human. They're really good, but they're filled with imperfections and personality.
Nowadays, you just auto-tune the crap out of it, align it, etc., and it's "perfect!" How boring is that?
It only makes sense that the music has followed the trend of the digital revolution. No one has the patience for anything anymore - another thing she mentioned on the video. Everything needs to be fast, instant - faster speeds, more data, more processing power, etc. So studios naturally follow suit. Why get someone to sing it again when the computer can fix it in a few seconds?
The "producer" has instant access to endless drum samples, loops, beats, bass lines, guitar riffs, keyboard riffs, vocal runs, orchestra sounds, chord progressions, etc., etc. They can literally make a "beat" in a few minutes with a few dozen mouse clicks and no music knowledge. Contrast that with what was involved with a typical recording in the 60s or 70s. No wonder it all sounds like drivel these days. It's nearly 100% processed by a computer (I'm speaking of pop/hip-hop/etc. specifically).
Anyway ... rant over I guess.
I'm not saying digital is the devil. It's obviously had many positive effects on our lives as well. It's hard to imagine life without it now for sure. (Although, for those of us who remember the pre-internet days ... just, wow!) But it's a double-edged sword for sure. That's like many things I guess, but it's just got a really sharp blade I think.
My .02 anyway.
famous beagle
Well-known member
It's certainly moving that way! And I don't mean that in jest at all. It's just about as "paint-by-numbers" as you can make it these days. I mean ... several DAWs will already create an entire "song" for you once you give them some basic parameters like key, tempo, style, sound palette, etc. It's not gonna be too long before they'll write lyrics and a melody for you as well (if they don't already).
TalismanRich
Well-known member
I completely understand what you're saying, Beagle, but had Casablanca been filmed today, with today's equipment, but in the same manner as it was done in 1942, with the same sets, actors and script, would it have been any less of a movie? No. If it had been done in color it either 70mm or 8K cinemascope would it have been a worse movie? No. Probably better. If it had been done with CGI space aliens would it have been a worse movie? (..... yeah!)
It's not the tools, it's how they are used.
I agree that lots of today's music really sucks, but I can't blame the people for misusing the tools, and apparently lots of the young folk like what they are doing. I seem to remember that a lot of people thought all that "rock and roll" music sucked. Why record that crap when you have Benny Goodman, Glenn Miller and Count Basie.
Just wait until the "kids" get to be our age and have to listen to whatever their kids and grandkids are bringing home!
It's not the tools, it's how they are used.
I agree that lots of today's music really sucks, but I can't blame the people for misusing the tools, and apparently lots of the young folk like what they are doing. I seem to remember that a lot of people thought all that "rock and roll" music sucked. Why record that crap when you have Benny Goodman, Glenn Miller and Count Basie.
Just wait until the "kids" get to be our age and have to listen to whatever their kids and grandkids are bringing home!
Gtoboy
Well-known member
Yes, and Elvis and the Beatles and the Rolling Stones are all tools of the Devil!
famous beagle
Well-known member
TalismanRich: That's my whole point. I don't think a movie like Cassablanca would be made today ... with the same sets, etc.
IMO, it's foolish to try and separate the art from the tools. One absolutely affects the other.
1. It's simply not possible to do many things with certainly technologies. I mean ... even if someone tried their best, it would be impossible to get a song recorded in 1970 to sound like a Billie Eilish record. They just didn't have the proper tools.
2. By the same token, it's simply not typical to make a record that sounds like the 70s with today's gear and recording practices, because those recording practices have steadily been informed by the changing technology. It's not that you couldn't do it (or would want to). You could probably get close. But you certainly wouldn't get very close with a modern-day producer. You'd need an old-school guy for sure. I'm just pointing out the fact that it's not likely today because so much has changed.
I don't buy the notion that "the music's always too loud" when you get older. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say, "You know what, looking over how far we've come, I think this was the golden era of <insert art or practice, etc.>" I've heard many producers talk about how they think the 24-track tape era was that; it was the pinnacle of the recording studio. You had enough flexibility to pretty much do what you wanted, but the sound and workflow was still conducive to getting great, inspired sounds with great, inspired artists. It's the same with movies. Many people agree (as do I) that 35mm film is pretty much the best that movies have looked.
Yes, the Beatles/Stones/etc. used the state-of-the-art in their day. But you also hear most of those classic folks, such as McCartney, Neil Young, etc. - who have been in the business through all the changes - talk about how they prefer the older ways of doing things: working with tape, analog consoles, not having unlimited tracks, etc. Everyone's different, of course. To me, for example, a wire recorder or a disc doesn't do the music justice. (That doesn't change the fact that I LOVE listening to some things recorded that way, such as Robert Johnson, but that's really because the performance is so good in spite of the technology.) But, for me, tape --- or, at least, the music recorded in that era --- sounds the best to my ears. Y'all can keep your ultra-clean Pro Tools young country and pop/hip-hop all day.
There are certainly bands and albums that I like today that were recorded digitally (I imagine). Radiohead is a good example. I think Thom Yorke is a musical genius (YMMV). Granted, I don't love EVERYTHING they do, but I like a lot of it. And that includes some of their more recent releases like Moon Shaped Pool (2016), which I'm guessing was digital. However, it doesn't sound nearly as good or pleasant to me as a lot of older music does, like the Beatles, Stones, Stevie Wonder, etc. I don't sit there a revel in the sound of the newer records the way I do with the older ones.
Granted, there are some older folks who grew up with tape and fully embrace the switch to digital. Like I said, different strokes!
Anyway, I digress. My original point was that I absolutely think the technology greatly affects the art produced with it. You can argue hypotheticals all day long, but history has shown this to be unmistakably true, IMHO.
IMO, it's foolish to try and separate the art from the tools. One absolutely affects the other.
1. It's simply not possible to do many things with certainly technologies. I mean ... even if someone tried their best, it would be impossible to get a song recorded in 1970 to sound like a Billie Eilish record. They just didn't have the proper tools.
2. By the same token, it's simply not typical to make a record that sounds like the 70s with today's gear and recording practices, because those recording practices have steadily been informed by the changing technology. It's not that you couldn't do it (or would want to). You could probably get close. But you certainly wouldn't get very close with a modern-day producer. You'd need an old-school guy for sure. I'm just pointing out the fact that it's not likely today because so much has changed.
I don't buy the notion that "the music's always too loud" when you get older. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say, "You know what, looking over how far we've come, I think this was the golden era of <insert art or practice, etc.>" I've heard many producers talk about how they think the 24-track tape era was that; it was the pinnacle of the recording studio. You had enough flexibility to pretty much do what you wanted, but the sound and workflow was still conducive to getting great, inspired sounds with great, inspired artists. It's the same with movies. Many people agree (as do I) that 35mm film is pretty much the best that movies have looked.
Yes, the Beatles/Stones/etc. used the state-of-the-art in their day. But you also hear most of those classic folks, such as McCartney, Neil Young, etc. - who have been in the business through all the changes - talk about how they prefer the older ways of doing things: working with tape, analog consoles, not having unlimited tracks, etc. Everyone's different, of course. To me, for example, a wire recorder or a disc doesn't do the music justice. (That doesn't change the fact that I LOVE listening to some things recorded that way, such as Robert Johnson, but that's really because the performance is so good in spite of the technology.) But, for me, tape --- or, at least, the music recorded in that era --- sounds the best to my ears. Y'all can keep your ultra-clean Pro Tools young country and pop/hip-hop all day.
There are certainly bands and albums that I like today that were recorded digitally (I imagine). Radiohead is a good example. I think Thom Yorke is a musical genius (YMMV). Granted, I don't love EVERYTHING they do, but I like a lot of it. And that includes some of their more recent releases like Moon Shaped Pool (2016), which I'm guessing was digital. However, it doesn't sound nearly as good or pleasant to me as a lot of older music does, like the Beatles, Stones, Stevie Wonder, etc. I don't sit there a revel in the sound of the newer records the way I do with the older ones.
Granted, there are some older folks who grew up with tape and fully embrace the switch to digital. Like I said, different strokes!
Anyway, I digress. My original point was that I absolutely think the technology greatly affects the art produced with it. You can argue hypotheticals all day long, but history has shown this to be unmistakably true, IMHO.
Tools..... hmmm interesting.
Tools can speed things up, they can make it possible for more production than normally possible by one person. Tools can get you closer to ‘perfection’ (if that’s desirable)
Tools can also make one lazy, impatient and destroy skills.
I’ll give a few examples.
Many people cannot write. As in pen to paper. The motor skills just aren’t there anymore. People forget how to spell, relying on autocorrect. The handwriting, once neat, is now a sloppy mess that a 3rd grader is capable of.
Memory gets destroyed.
Remember a time when you had all the telephone numbers of the important people in your life memorized? No so nowadays.
In my field there’s a lot of people who know how to program a CNC machine, but you give them some hand tools they won’t have a clue as to how to use them.
So yes, technology has it’s upside, but also it’s destructive dehumanizing aspects.
With music as technology advances, it’s only a matter of time before real life musicians are not needed at all.
No better than a factory employee replaced by a robot.
People say “it’s not the tool, but how you use it”. You can use the digital gear as you would analog. Bullshit. No one does. (Or almost no one)
Why actually play the whole rhythm part when all you need is to copy and paste one bar.
The beauty of analog recording is that it invitees participation, practice, interaction with other musicians. That’s all some work and dedication to the craft
Give em a DAW, and 99% will take the easy way out.
Tools can speed things up, they can make it possible for more production than normally possible by one person. Tools can get you closer to ‘perfection’ (if that’s desirable)
Tools can also make one lazy, impatient and destroy skills.
I’ll give a few examples.
Many people cannot write. As in pen to paper. The motor skills just aren’t there anymore. People forget how to spell, relying on autocorrect. The handwriting, once neat, is now a sloppy mess that a 3rd grader is capable of.
Memory gets destroyed.
Remember a time when you had all the telephone numbers of the important people in your life memorized? No so nowadays.
In my field there’s a lot of people who know how to program a CNC machine, but you give them some hand tools they won’t have a clue as to how to use them.
So yes, technology has it’s upside, but also it’s destructive dehumanizing aspects.
With music as technology advances, it’s only a matter of time before real life musicians are not needed at all.
No better than a factory employee replaced by a robot.
People say “it’s not the tool, but how you use it”. You can use the digital gear as you would analog. Bullshit. No one does. (Or almost no one)
Why actually play the whole rhythm part when all you need is to copy and paste one bar.
The beauty of analog recording is that it invitees participation, practice, interaction with other musicians. That’s all some work and dedication to the craft
Give em a DAW, and 99% will take the easy way out.
famous beagle
Well-known member
Very well said.
