K
KonradG
Medicated Member
if you were an artist, would you only use the colors white green and blue?
K
KonradG
Medicated Member
you dont understand much, do you?Zed10R said:
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I happen to agree with the idea that the effects should enhance the telling of the story but not be the story. You also chose as an example one of my favorite movies ("Braveheart").Zed10R said:hehe...this is pointless, but it's fun.
The answer then (since I did not understand the queation the first time) would be: I don't think heavily processed movies are ok unless, like music, the processing is there to support the story and the actors and not to actually BE the point of the movie. I very much prefer a great story and great acting over a movie that relies on special effects and computer generated envoronments. To me, movies like the new Star Wars trilogy (they depend on effects to be a movie) are little more than mindless visual entertainment mixed with nostalgia. I got annoyed in the theater during each one. Movies like Braveheart are far suprior IMO because they rely on great acting and a great story with minimal special effects. The Lord of The Rings is a great compromise because it has a great story, great acting, and the effects that are in it (it IS mostly effects) are there to SUPPORT the story, not so much BE the story.
I am curious, though, as to where you draw that line in the audio recording studio. What enhances the delivery of the song and what becomes the song? How does whether what's used is reproducable live or not fit into that? Does all this mean that complex musical arrangements that can only be accomplished in non-real-time or in controlled studio conditions are not worthy forms of music that cannot evoke emotion in the listener?
Examples:
Where would the Beach Boys' studio work, where it often took them weeks to get the vocal harmonies down right and in a way they could never do in concert, fit in this equation?
How about Jethro Tull's use of the London Symphony to back some of their work, or Fleetwood Mac's use of the USC Marching Band?. OK, maybe they actually brought the bands with them on some special concert gigs, but those were very special circumstances that were the exception to the rule.
Is it wrong to record overdubs, alternate takes or guitar or vocal doubling for sonic effec in the studio because that is not something that can be done "live"?
Is Isao Tomita's all-synth recording of Stravinsky's "Firebird Suite" invalid because it could onlybe done via time-shifed multitracking and included artificial special effects like synth'd versions of birds singing?
Is an entire band like Tangerine Dream wrong to use pan and depth dynamically in their recordings as if the mixer were yet just another electronic musical instrument in their arsenal?
I'm not asking if you *like* any of the above music. I'm asking if you think they cross some imaginary line between what's wrong and what's appropriate as far as studio technique.
G.
Z
Zed10R
New member
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Those are EXCELLENT questions.
Where the line is drawn depends on a few things. To borrow from a previous post, a recording of lunatic screaming at imaginary ghosts, delivered subliminally, crosses the "line" because it serves no purpose. Now, if you could actually HEAR it, and the sentence structure, timing of the syllables, or tone of the voice itself adds something to the music, then great. Put it in there. Another way of trying to explain my thoughts on the matter is to look at the majority of modern Hip Hop. The vocalists, while I just don't get what they are doing, are talented artists. The background music though, just barely meets what the dictionary says music is. BUT....put the rapper with an R&B BAND...with PEOPLE getting their groove on and expressing themselves through their instruments....and it takes on a whole new life that I DO find interesting and entertaining. So in reality the line is blurry, but there are times when it is clearly crossed. On the metal side of this there are bands like Deicide and Mortician. They also have a certain talent but crossed that line. They have no chance in hell of pulling of their recorded sound live. There is just no way. Deicides vocals are WAAAAAAAAYYYY over processed and layered in a way that makes them inhuman (and kinda cool) and very un-musical (not cool). Mortician uses (used? I'm not sure) all programmed percussion and used it in a way that is physically impossible for even TWO human beings to play on two drumsets. Both of those bands fall into the catagory of trying too hard to be original, and missing the boat on actually being good. I would not record them if they paid me.
Beach Boys - I've seen them live and they still get the sound of their old hits *almost* perfect. If it takes the studio to pefect a sound that IS possible yet difficult to achive live, it is fine with me. I admire the ability to perform something that is so difficult to do.
Your Jethro and Fleetwood references are also prefectly fine IMO. Like you said - they brought the additional talent with them. They duplicated their recorded sound live WITH PEOPLE.
It is not "wrong" to record overdubs, alternate takes or guitar or vocal doubling for sonic effec in the studio even if it is not something that can be done "live" because it is all in support of the music. They are details that while nice, would not be missed live. No one would say after the concert that any major part of the song was missing.
Isao Tomita's "Firebird Suite" sounds to me like it is on the border of my "line". I have not heard it so I can't really say. BUT....could it not be done with more than one person? (Like tracking a rythm guitar 6 times....you ARE playing it, and it will sound about the same live, but the other tracks are there to HELP the recording) Time shifted multi tracking means, to me, that if you have another couple of people it could be done. As far as the birds go.....do they add atmosphere and feeling? Do they add anything at all, or are they out of place and distracting? I would guess they add peaceful feeling and I would therefore approve.
Your Tangerine Dream reference is easy - If someone really wants to do that, I've got no problem with it. IMO it's kinda dumb, but it can be and is done live on stage (or by the sound guy) so go for it.
My issue is with things that CANNOT be done live. Things that only exist because of "studio magic". I will not label them as "wrong" because it still takes creativity to do it, and any creativity is better than none. I just don't think it has much validity. Anyone can push a button. Anyone can cut and paste audio data if shown how. Anyone with lots of money can buy the worlds most advenced sequncers and samplers and "create" a "song" that has perfectly balanced sound. But it takes a lot of heart, soul, and human "stuff" to learn how to manipulate a guitar, piano, or your own voice into making music.
Thanks for asking......
metalhead28
Hates Raymond
If I may take this back to the origin of this argument......the point was that metal albums often involve alot of processing to achieve the finished sound that we all know and love. Would you not consider EQ, possibly some drum samples, etc., to be supportive of the sound rather than the actual essense of the sound? If you ask me your whole argument is simply contradictory if you are still talking about the same thing that this whole thing started with......I don't see anything wrong with making an album sound kick-ass by helping things out sonically in the studio, shit that's what studio work is all about in my opinion. If you were to take your argument literally I would think you would only record live albums, because anything else would be "fake", and how could you justify it?
I am not personally into electronic music and alot of the really synthetic stuff, but that doesn't mean that I don't consider it legitimate. It is still the fruit of someone's artistic vision, and that is what makes it real, not the fact that somebody played something on a piano rather than programmed in some software synthesizer. That would be like saying that a classical composer's work was not legitimate because he couldn't play every orchestral instrument himself......think about it....he still wrote the music.
I am not personally into electronic music and alot of the really synthetic stuff, but that doesn't mean that I don't consider it legitimate. It is still the fruit of someone's artistic vision, and that is what makes it real, not the fact that somebody played something on a piano rather than programmed in some software synthesizer. That would be like saying that a classical composer's work was not legitimate because he couldn't play every orchestral instrument himself......think about it....he still wrote the music.
K
KonradG
Medicated Member
Zed10R said:Those are EXCELLENT questions.
Where the line is drawn depends on a few things. To borrow from a previous post, a recording of lunatic screaming at imaginary ghosts, delivered subliminally, crosses the "line" because it serves no purpose. Now, if you could actually HEAR it, and the sentence structure, timing of the syllables, or tone of the voice itself adds something to the music, then great. Put it in there. Another way of trying to explain my thoughts on the matter is to look at the majority of modern Hip Hop. The vocalists, while I just don't get what they are doing, are talented artists. The background music though, just barely meets what the dictionary says music is. BUT....put the rapper with an R&B BAND...with PEOPLE getting their groove on and expressing themselves through their instruments....and it takes on a whole new life that I DO find interesting and entertaining. So in reality the line is blurry, but there are times when it is clearly crossed. On the metal side of this there are bands like Deicide and Mortician. They also have a certain talent but crossed that line. They have no chance in hell of pulling of their recorded sound live. There is just no way. Deicides vocals are WAAAAAAAAYYYY over processed and layered in a way that makes them inhuman (and kinda cool) and very un-musical (not cool). Mortician uses (used? I'm not sure) all programmed percussion and used it in a way that is physically impossible for even TWO human beings to play on two drumsets. Both of those bands fall into the catagory of trying too hard to be original, and missing the boat on actually being good. I would not record them if they paid me.
Beach Boys - I've seen them live and they still get the sound of their old hits *almost* perfect. If it takes the studio to pefect a sound that IS possible yet difficult to achive live, it is fine with me. I admire the ability to perform something that is so difficult to do.
Your Jethro and Fleetwood references are also prefectly fine IMO. Like you said - they brought the additional talent with them. They duplicated their recorded sound live WITH PEOPLE.
It is not "wrong" to record overdubs, alternate takes or guitar or vocal doubling for sonic effec in the studio even if it is not something that can be done "live" because it is all in support of the music. They are details that while nice, would not be missed live. No one would say after the concert that any major part of the song was missing.
Isao Tomita's "Firebird Suite" sounds to me like it is on the border of my "line". I have not heard it so I can't really say. BUT....could it not be done with more than one person? (Like tracking a rythm guitar 6 times....you ARE playing it, and it will sound about the same live, but the other tracks are there to HELP the recording) Time shifted multi tracking means, to me, that if you have another couple of people it could be done. As far as the birds go.....do they add atmosphere and feeling? Do they add anything at all, or are they out of place and distracting? I would guess they add peaceful feeling and I would therefore approve.
Your Tangerine Dream reference is easy - If someone really wants to do that, I've got no problem with it. IMO it's kinda dumb, but it can be and is done live on stage (or by the sound guy) so go for it.
My issue is with things that CANNOT be done live. Things that only exist because of "studio magic". I will not label them as "wrong" because it still takes creativity to do it, and any creativity is better than none. I just don't think it has much validity. Anyone can push a button. Anyone can cut and paste audio data if shown how. Anyone with lots of money can buy the worlds most advenced sequncers and samplers and "create" a "song" that has perfectly balanced sound. But it takes a lot of heart, soul, and human "stuff" to learn how to manipulate a guitar, piano, or your own voice into making music.
Thanks for asking......
All i have to say is...
Revolution 9
Z
Zed10R
New member
metalhead28 said:
metalhead28
Hates Raymond
I can't say that I disagree with that at all...... 
time to move on....haha
time to move on....haha
Z
Zed10R
New member
KonradG said:
Dude, you're like one of those rodents that are (edited for grammar) fascinated by shiny things.
Lennon's Revolution 9 is cool...and interesting. But would anyone blast it in their car, headbang and scream "FUUUCK YEEEAAHHH!!!" while listening to it?? No. Would anyone ever experience any profound emotional state because of it's deep communicative abilities? No. It is cool sound recorded in a very sly and resourceful way. That's it. Nothing more.
metalhead28
Hates Raymond
I must agree that I don't much care for music that is just based on "some crazy shit"........... haha
Z
Zed10R
New member
metalhead28 said:I must agree that I don't much care for music that is just based on "some crazy shit"........... haha
Where's that damn "thumbs up" emoticon......
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
No quotes here because I'd have to take from a bunch of different posts...and I'm just too lazy (I admit) to do that during Monday Night Football Zed, baby, I get what you're saying, and frankly I don't entirely disagree with it (see my sig ). But since you find it fun to talk about I do have a follow up question or two, because there are some concepts on which our perspectives do diverge (and that's OK.).
There seems to be the theme something along the lines of "the idea is to capture the performance, and the performance is defined solely by what can be done outside of the environs of the studio." I can agree with the first part; outside of the material itself, the performance is what it's all about.
It's the second part where it gets fuzzy. Why should the performance be defined only by what can be done outside the studio? Many bands actually change the material (i.e. re-create the arrangements) when they go in the studio because they now have a wider (or at least a different) canvas to work with than they do when they're on-stage. They actually change the performance because of the studio environment; not because they have to, but because they want to. Why limit yourself as a performer to only what can be dome outside a studio? Why do they have to be the same animal? Why shouldn't the environment be allowed to become part of the performance? By default, it already does.
I agree in that my personal listening preferences are to hear a really great arrangement of a really great song by really great musicians, and I don't want the "studio to get in the way." But that's just my own bias which is really just an extention of my musical preferences in classic jazz and blues. Emotionally, cats like Moby, Tangerine Dream and other techno-studio wizards do nothing for me. Then again your favorite - metal and all it's alloys - does nothing for me either; the closest I came was a short infatuation with The Two Ronnies (Montrose and James Dio) circa 1977-79.
But the fact that I don't care for tech doesn't mean that I don't consider it valid any more than it does for metal. And if tech is something that can only be done in-studio or with a bank of sequencers the size of Google's database doesn't invalidate it as a musical art form. The "performance" has just been moved back to the programming phase instead of the tracking phase.
G.
Zed, baby, I get what you're saying, and frankly I don't entirely disagree with it (see my sig ). But since you find it fun to talk about I do have a follow up question or two, because there are some concepts on which our perspectives do diverge (and that's OK.).There seems to be the theme something along the lines of "the idea is to capture the performance, and the performance is defined solely by what can be done outside of the environs of the studio." I can agree with the first part; outside of the material itself, the performance is what it's all about.
It's the second part where it gets fuzzy. Why should the performance be defined only by what can be done outside the studio? Many bands actually change the material (i.e. re-create the arrangements) when they go in the studio because they now have a wider (or at least a different) canvas to work with than they do when they're on-stage. They actually change the performance because of the studio environment; not because they have to, but because they want to. Why limit yourself as a performer to only what can be dome outside a studio? Why do they have to be the same animal? Why shouldn't the environment be allowed to become part of the performance? By default, it already does.
I agree in that my personal listening preferences are to hear a really great arrangement of a really great song by really great musicians, and I don't want the "studio to get in the way." But that's just my own bias which is really just an extention of my musical preferences in classic jazz and blues. Emotionally, cats like Moby, Tangerine Dream and other techno-studio wizards do nothing for me. Then again your favorite - metal and all it's alloys - does nothing for me either; the closest I came was a short infatuation with The Two Ronnies (Montrose and James Dio) circa 1977-79.
But the fact that I don't care for tech doesn't mean that I don't consider it valid any more than it does for metal. And if tech is something that can only be done in-studio or with a bank of sequencers the size of Google's database doesn't invalidate it as a musical art form. The "performance" has just been moved back to the programming phase instead of the tracking phase.
G.
K
KonradG
Medicated Member
Are you afraid to admit that you dont think NIN is music?
Z
Zed10R
New member
SouthSIDE Glen said:No quotes here because I'd have to take from a bunch of different posts...and I'm just too lazy (I admit) to do that during Monday Night Football
There seems to be the theme something along the lines of "the idea is to capture the performance, and the performance is defined solely by what can be done outside of the environs of the studio." I can agree with the first part; outside of the material itself, the performance is what it's all about.
It's the second part where it gets fuzzy. Why should the performance be defined only by what can be done outside the studio? Many bands actually change the material (i.e. re-create the arrangements) when they go in the studio because they now have a wider (or at least a different) canvas to work with than they do when they're on-stage. They actually change the performance because of the studio environment; not because they have to, but because they want to. Why limit yourself as a performer to only what can be dome outside a studio? Why do they have to be the same animal? Why shouldn't the environment be allowed to become part of the performance? By default, it already does.
I agree in that my personal listening preferences are to hear a really great arrangement of a really great song by really great musicians, and I don't want the "studio to get in the way." But that's just my own bias which is really just an extention of my musical preferences in classic jazz and blues. Emotionally, cats like Moby, Tangerine Dream and other techno-studio wizards do nothing for me. Then again your favorite - metal and all it's alloys - does nothing for me either; the closest I came was a short infatuation with The Two Ronnies (Montrose and James Dio) circa 1977-79.
But the fact that I don't care for tech doesn't mean that I don't consider it valid any more than it does for metal. And if tech is something that can only be done in-studio or with a bank of sequencers the size of Google's database doesn't invalidate it as a musical art form. The "performance" has just been moved back to the programming phase instead of the tracking phase.
G.
"the idea is to capture the performance"...yes, exactly...."and the performance is defined solely by what can be done outside of the environs of the studio".....not so much. You can't have 4 clones singing harmony on stage, but it's cool to record 4 tracks of one guy singing harmony because it is what he hears in his head and it can be done, although not perfectly replicated, by the other members of the band.....or other singers handling that duty. I know people change their material while in the studio. But I think it is changed more from the perspective of "wow...I've never sat down and looked at my material in such detail before...if I change this and this and this...it will be much better." They DO have a bigger canvas. They are given a MUCH bigger picture of thier own work and they are forced to slow down and critically examine every detail. That begs for change. I encourage that. But, I think you should be able to pull off the exact same performenace on stage that you do in the studio. Studio work should be the absolute BEST, HIGHEST level of performance the idividual is capable of. Being in the studio allows you to achieve this in ways that live rehersal does not, so they are not, as you said, "the same animal". BUT....that individual should be able to maintain the same level he (or she) was at in the studio, replicating that "best" performance for the audience. People are not exactly LIMITED in my studio to what they can do live...they are ecouraged to raise the level of their preformance beyond their current abilities and APPLY that to their live performances. So yes, my studio as the environment demands to be part of the overall sound. But that is carried over into the live sound because it is something that the musicians learn and take with them within themselves. It is not something that only exists as recorded data.
I appreciate Jazz, Blues, Folk, all kinds of different styles and I see their musical validity. They do not have the sound I like to hear so I'm not really a fan, but once in a while I'll hear something that moves me. So I appreciate it. What carries little to no validity in my little world is not so much stuff that I don't LIKE. I will never own a fiddy cent recording. But there IS something there that is communicative, emotional, and representative of the human condition. So IMO it is valid music. What is not "valid" is the stuff that exists simply because it can only be done with modern effects and computer technology. Stuff that is just a collection of interesting noise.....manipulation of data. I'm not sure how else to put it. My favorite example, Mortician, has shit on his (their) cds that is just...weird noise. There is no point to it except to say "look how crazy I am!!" There is no feeling, no communication, there is only organized noise. To me it is just like a party clown trying to dazzle people with a brand new hat trick. For a while people will take notice, but eventually the clown will be found out for what he is and the people will once again turn their attention to the real magicians.
metalhead28
Hates Raymond
not to be combative.....but I've heard people on more than one occasion refer to music in general as "organized noise".........go figure.
Z
Zed10R
New member
metalhead28 said:not to be combative.....but I've heard people on more than one occasion refer to music in general as "organized noise".........go figure.
That is exactly the dictionary definition. Lots of music meets that criteria. Just like there are lots of "professional" musicians out there. Once you get paid to play, you meet the dictionary definition of professional. "organized noise" is the absolute most simple, most basic thing that counts. I personally strive to be better than that. Some do, some don't.
giraffe
i love negative rep
so what i'm hearing zed is......
any thing i say is ok, is ok.
only i define what is ok, and their are no set rules or guidelines that determine what i think is ok.
so.....
radio head (just an example) can't use an old vacuum tube computer on stage
but some random whoever gets 4 part harmonies on his cd that will never happen on in real life????
it's like talking to a politician
(i am, for the record, just playing along and should not be taken too seriously)
any thing i say is ok, is ok.
only i define what is ok, and their are no set rules or guidelines that determine what i think is ok.
so.....
radio head (just an example) can't use an old vacuum tube computer on stage
but some random whoever gets 4 part harmonies on his cd that will never happen on in real life????
it's like talking to a politician
(i am, for the record, just playing along and should not be taken too seriously)
giraffe
i love negative rep
Zed10R said:
honestly, generally i agree with you. seriously most music created in the "manipulation of data" method sucks.
but their are exceptions, with communication and feeling..... valid works of art.
if none of it sounds good to you then to me you just sound like one more old man who refuses to see the reality of change.
a lot of people thought rock was crap, not valid in any way and nothing you could say could convince them otherwise. but despite their cries, people kept making it.
and i realize that your thinking "it's not the same, you can't compare rock to some stupid set of clicks and beeps" but of course that’s what you'd think.
that's exactly what some people thought of rock (or insert ANY style of music here)
Z
Zed10R
New member
giraffe said:
Except I am not trying to convice anyone that anything is right or wrong, should or should not be. I'm just stating my opinion, explaining how I work, expressing likes/dislikes, and sharing the reasons why. And ya kinda missed it there a little bit. There are guidelines that determine what I personally will or will not do in the studio. And if Radio Head uses an old vacuum tube computer ON STAGE as you said, that by it's own definition is ok in my book because it is done live. It is not something that can only exist as recorded data. I never said an instument had to be or could not be any particular thing.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
Ah, but there's a big difference there, Giraffe.giraffe said:
There were two reasons rock n' roll was reviled against back in the 50s and 60s. One was by people who had no eduaction (I don't mean schooling necessarily, just knowledge) of contemporary music and had no idea that rock was just an up-tempo evolution of jump jazz and blues. These were the ones who said it wasn't music. These were also typically the ones that thought a hack like Frank Sinatra was the center of the musical universe, because they simply didn't know any better.
The other, and much larger, opposition knew exactly what rock was, but they clled it "The Devil's music". This was in reality a WASP code phrase for "colored music" or "black music." Their reason for hating rock was racist.
With tech and some other types of modern recordings it's almost exactly the opposite. It tends to be (at least in my orbit of the world) that the more musically informed and creative one is, the less respect they give to the new stuff. And prejudice does not enter into it, these folk are typically among the most liberal of groups in that regard.
Don't blame it on us "old guys".
Don't hate us because we've been around the block enough times to actually occasionally know what we're talking about .I am also, for the record, just playing idea pundit game here for the sake of keeping the mix stirred.
G.
