guitarfreak12 said:Ok I don't know what forum to put his in. So if it belongs somewhere else, tell me.
I just have a general question/discussion, For all the guys who have been recording for more than 10-15 years. Before all this digital stuff started becoming more available.
Analog recording and digital back then from my understanding was very hard. Not that this stuff isn't hard now. but it required more patience, more creativity, and stamina. I think it was more of an art form than it is today. Just to get what you wanted down perfect, and not lose everything in the process seems like it can be very trying. Plus So much more talent seems to have been required. I say this, because I have tried some analog stuff, and I have been around analog before. And I could not record what I have recorded with the minimal amount of experience I have, if it wasn't for the ease of digital. Albums can be created in a fraction of the time it used to take. This is what I gathered anyway.
So my question is this, are any of you who learned how to record in the analog world, a little resenting of the ease and sometimes lack of respect that comes from the faster, easier less analog world. Do you get a little pissed off that someone can now just come along and do what ever he can think up with jest ten or twenty clicks of his mouse, when before it took you 40 hours of sleepless worry. And it really can only cost you the price of a small program, in come cases free (assuming you already have a computer) and a cheap mic and pre, and turn out some alright stuff, when it took you thousands of dollars and four times as much time, to turn out alright stuff. I know that I used to get pissed off when I grew up (being the oldest of 4) and saw my parents letting my siblings get away with stuff I never would have been able to do. That's a weird analogy, but it's all I got. I may be way off, and please don't think I respect guys who have only the digital experience any less, because you are still better than me at what you do. And I might have accidently started some bad thoughts in my way. But I have sort of a different respect for the guys who know a different world of recording, when it was really hard.
Well, the fact of the matter is that a great album done any way you cut it is the same amount of work. You can't get something for nothing.
Back when analog was the only thing around, it was all in the performance. Musician's had to rehearse and get their shit together because an analog edit was a big deal. Engineers really did editing as a last resort as it is not really too healthy to cut the tape. So, the time was in the practicing and arrangement of the music. When the band was ready, the analog tape rolled and the songs were done in a few (or more) takes. After that, the overdubs were done over a period of time.
Now we have the digital stuff. Today, the "engineer" is not so much a "sound" guy as he is a "computer" guy. They make the basic tracks and spend most of the time editing on the computer. This takes TONS of time in itself. The end product is close to perfect but has been hacked to death (in the worst case). The main problem today is that basic tracks are being done by many engineers who don't understand the fundementals of recording and passing off really bad tracks to a pro mixing engineer. The pro mixing houses are complaining about this regularly and they say it is getting worse. So, the time involved has been shifted from the band in the analog days to the mix engineers in the digital days.
Digital is too easy to make bogus tracks with the premise that we will "fix-it-in-the-mix"
Go to MARSH website and get into the "Distorted Guitars" thread and you will start to understand the problem with the digital production industry today.