reverb unit

[Dr ZEE]

I couldn't disagree more. By the time a musician/composer/producer/engineer is well-versed in the fundamentals of acoustics, electronics, impedance, gain-staging, mic placement, equipment knowledge, mastered an instrument or two, etc, he has spent as much time and effort as a med student has with anatomy, physiology, pathology, treatment options – equipment & drug selection, etc. Then on top of that there are the things you can’t learn but with years of doing.

Knowing how to push PLAY, REC, etc or what jack to plug a cable into is fine for assistants, but they are there to perform a simple task under direction.

This all sounds good. ... on the surface so.
Same time, same effort spent? - Yes, maybe so. But for what reason? What was the goal?

The way I see it: there IS a fine line between an artist and a professional service provider. Can the same person be be both? I'd say - yes, maybe, but unlikely at the same time at the same place.
If you look at recording as it is a professional service, then you heavily rely on all the knowledge of fundumentals and all the experience. But your goal is to provide service - to satisfy a client. Satisfying a client can remotely relate to the art of recording, but in practice the two are rather unrelated in not contradicting.
To express yourslef in a form of art may or may not need and most definitely does not rely on knowledge and experience of "fundamentals". Knowledge and experience may or may not be in present. It is not required. More to that, knowledge and experience may act as an obstacle on the way of an artist.
If it was otherwise, then a person who has collected enough of knowledge and experience would become a perpetual producer (unstoppable source )of master-pieces of art. But it does not work that way. And every 'experienced' artist knows what it is like going through "mysterious" periods of not being able to create a single thing.
If it was otherwise, one would never be amazed and mesmerized by a drowing of a 4 year old boy (just like the one on your visual) , while be completely and hopelessly bored by a heavy paintings of a 50 years old professional illustrator.
*********

Somehow I do not worry about a "kid" who has no experience in recording business at all, comming to a recording forum and recommends a spring reverb (or what ever) because it was great at what he was using it for one time. And on the other hand, I don't see an advice from an experienced professional in regards to the very same spring reverb (or what ever) more valid. I just don't.
********

Now, when one is talking about something he/she has no idea about in reality while pretending like he/she does - that a totaly different metter. Immatures and proffesionals - both kinds - do this from time to time. Some people just do it.

For me to say to do something a certain way just because Tim Beck does it … now that would be arrogant and condescending. That’s why I prefer to open a window and let some light in rather than be that light myself.

I'm not sure about this. Also, I guess, depending on exact situation and depending on how exactly you say it.
But when someone sais :"This is so and so, because that's how I did it and that's how it works for me" - I see nothing arrogant about it. A person speaks from his/her personal experience, that's all. That's what I call : "Knowing what one talks about"
As a matter of fact, when I read something like: "This is so and so, because of that's the way Madonna did it" - sounds to me worthless of paying attention. All I can say: "So what? Who gives a crap?"

And, ano more thing, Sir
Academic knowledge is a knowledge, but it is a knowledge of Academia. And, in a sense, Academia is just a form of a well established bulletin board

/respects

 

[FALKEN]

I hate to pick apart a post but...two quick things...

To express yourslef in a form of art may or may not need and most definitely does not rely on knowledge and experience of "fundamentals". Knowledge and experience may or may not be in present. It is not required. More to that, knowledge and experience may act as an obstacle on the way of an artist.
If it was otherwise, then a person who has collected enough of knowledge and experience would become a perpetual producer (unstoppable source )of master-pieces of art. But it does not work that way.

yes it does work that way. I've always strived to be a cole porter, or a thelonious monk. those guys wrote thousands of songs each. one hit after another. 'perpetual producers', so to speak. now, I don't profess to say that dianne warren or desmond child are necessarily 'artists', but they do win grammys and are perpetual producers. 'who cares?'...i'll get to that. contrary to my point, these people were not formally educated in music. however, if you think that they lack the 'fundamentals', you are only kidding yourself. I myself struggled with songwriting for a very long time until I studied various world musics...and then finally john lennon who understood the fundamentals extremely well. that pretty much set me free and I am now able to write several songs in a day if I wish to.

In contrast, someone who does not understand the fundamentals often can create wonderful art, but it always tends to be very limited in scope, in my opinion. Furthermore, I think that the comment about knowledge of fundamentals becoming an 'obstacle' to creating art is horrible misinformation. again, this one is really hard to back up or refute, but its just common sense.

But when someone sais :"This is so and so, because that's how I did it and that's how it works for me" - I see nothing arrogant about it. A person speaks from his/her personal experience, that's all. That's what I call : "Knowing what one talks about"
As a matter of fact, when I read something like: "This is so and so, because of that's the way Madonna did it" - sounds to me worthless of paying attention. All I can say: "So what? Who gives a crap?"

right but if someone told you "this is how bill laswell does it" you might take a good listen. I propose that we add primary musical style to the stats at the top of each person's post. I think it would clear up a lot of the arguing going on.

 

[Dr ZEE]

but they do win grammys and are perpetual producers. .

sorry, man, I simply can not relate to that in any shape or form. Producing and "winning groomies" means no crap to me. But I have nothing against people for whom it means allot.

...and I am now able to write several songs in a day if I wish to. .

What kind of songs? Lennon-ish kind?
I don't mean to sound like an as* here. Learning basics of song writing, basics of this and that is fine. It's just no big freaking deal if you do. Nothing to be proud of... as I've mentioned already. (imho)

In contrast, someone who does not understand the fundamentals often can create wonderful art, but it always tends to be very limited in scope, in my opinion. .

Wonderful art is wonderful art. What else can you ask for? For "deeper understanding" of that art? So you can discuss that piece of art on "professional level" in "professional circles" and to sound like you know what you are talking about?
I see

Furthermore, I think that the comment about knowledge of fundamentals becoming an 'obstacle' to creating art is horrible misinformation. .

I only can say this: "One has to 'experience' it once, then he/she knows that there's nothing horribly misinformative about it."

right but if someone told you "this is how bill laswell does it" you might take a good listen..

Only if I really wish specifically to achive what ever Bill has achieved in the specific situation or the question was specifically about "HOw Bill has done it?". In any other situation - the reaction would be the same.

I hate to pick apart a post ....

how else to respond to all the points?

/respects

 

[FALKEN]

no, not lennon-ish songs. I don't understand where you're coming from. Its like arguing with a right-wing republican. You argue the points and they come back arguing rhetoric and character. Its enough to make you want to beat your head into the wall. I bring up 5 solid examples of the fundamentals directly relating to creating a wealth of art, and all you can say is "I dont' care for grammys" ??

You know what band I really liked?? The make up, from DC. they were fuckin crazy. but they really only ever did one thing...all of their songs were pretty similar...get my drift? compare this to john lennon, who's material ran the gamut, or thelonious monk, who would gather his band around the piano before a gig, improvise a song (play it for them just once), and the band would go out and perform it flawlessly. Do you think this could be done without knowledge of fundamental song forms and chord progressions and how the melody relates to the whole??? Not even close. I don't care to discuss art with people and sound intelligent. I am simply on a personal journey.

 

[Dr ZEE]

and one more thing:
If Winning grammy(s) does require understanding of certain fundumentals, then non of those 'fundamentals' are included in the list below:

fundamentals of acoustics, electronics, impedance, gain-staging, mic placement, equipment knowledge, mastered an instrument or two, etc,

The fundamental No1 to know and understand would be: "Know whose party it is!"

...later,

 

[antispatula]

Secondly, If someone is “afraid” of digital reverb because they’ve had bad experience with digital recording they don’t understand the technology. I’m not going to encourage the misconceptions just to “be nice.” That would be a disservice to those that are relatively new to recording, especially "The Kid."

Actaully I've got very fond memories of Audacity (crappy sofware, but free nonetheless). Back when I was into White Stripes Live show trading, I'd use it to edit shows, and evenetually recorded a little on it using nothing but a 20 mic taped to a cymbal stand in my kitchen! Without that, I never would have gotten into recording!

I simply prefer analog equipment. I find the phrases and ideas associated with digital such as CUTTING EDGE and STATE OF THE ART irritating and misleading and unessesary; digital recording doesn't look NEARLY as cool as analog stuff, and isn't NEARLY as fun to record with. I'm not a analog purist per say, but I think we can all say with surety that we use analog simply because it's more fun. That being said, I can easily see myself maybe using a compurter to record someday, but I can also easily see myself not.

 

[Dr ZEE]

Falken, John was a good songwriter. Also if you know the "fundamentals" well, you will not miss that a lot of John's writings and musical expressions were not exactly John's own. But this is all blah blah...
Learning John's songs is a good thing though , especially if you have good time doing it,

Now, tell me something else about "republicans". Why not ? Lay it out.
/respects

 

[EDAN]

You know what band I really liked?? The make up, from DC. they were fuckin crazy. but they really only ever did one thing...all of their songs were pretty similar...get my drift?

Angus Young in response to a critics assertion that all ACDC songs sound alike
"You're bloody right they do!"

compare this to john lennon, who's material ran the gamut, or thelonious monk, who would gather his band around the piano before a gig, improvise a song (play it for them just once), and the band would go out and perform it flawlessly. Do you think this could be done without knowledge of fundamental song forms and chord progressions and how the melody relates to the whole??? Not even close. I don't care to discuss art with people and sound intelligent. I am simply on a personal journey.

Essentially good musicianship has nothing to do with good songwriting. I know plenty of accomplished musicians that can play anything at the drop of a hat. I know very few musicians who can write a really good song. The best songwriters where/are born with it, it can't be taught or learned. Knowledge often has much to do about nothing. I didn't know a dang thing about music when I was seven years old "writing" my first melodies, All I knew is what I came up with was somehow satisfying and could care less why it was or what made it so, it just was and that was (and is) good enough for me.

 

[Beck]

Not that there haven’t been some good points along the way (nice pictures too ), but looking over the thread in general I see more misquoting, misunderstanding and taking statements out of context than I see anything else. If that’s the case saying anything more doesn’t mean it will be understood any better than what was already said. If participants don’t have any common point of reference, an attempt to clarify will itself become just another misunderstanding.

I don't know... help me decide. Should I help this thread to collapse even further or just stand by and watch it disintegrate?

 

[Dr ZEE]

I don't know... help me decide. Should I help this thread to collapse even further or just stand by and watch it disintegrate?

me and all three of my dogs vote for "collapse even further", and we do so using all our 16 out of 16 feet.

(just, don't tell me I "misquote" you this time... but, it is very possible that I missed the point... that's very common for me )

 

[cjacek]

I love you guys!

 

[Beck]

me and all three of my dogs vote for "collapse even further", and we do so using all our 16 out of 16 feet.

Ok then, the yeas have it. You know sometimes we just don't give the canines the credit they deserve... they know stuff, like when a perfectly normal looking person is really a vampire… and if you howl a few bars they can usually fake it.

By the way Daniel, we love you too.

 

[FALKEN]

Angus Young in response to a critics assertion that all ACDC songs sound alike
"You're bloody right they do!"

sure, but I never said not knowing the fundamentals cannot result in art. All I said was that that art would most likely be limited in scope. you are not proving me wrong or right here.

Essentially good musicianship has nothing to do with good songwriting. I know plenty of accomplished musicians that can play anything at the drop of a hat. I know very few musicians who can write a really good song. The best songwriters where/are born with it, it can't be taught or learned. Knowledge often has much to do about nothing. I didn't know a dang thing about music when I was seven years old "writing" my first melodies, All I knew is what I came up with was somehow satisfying and could care less why it was or what made it so, it just was and that was (and is) good enough for me.

Wow, I feel a kinship with you. I did the same thing when I was seven as well. but, this is the kind of writing that is based on inspiration..the kind of writing that is subject to the 'writer's block' mentioned above. This is exactly what I am railing against. I made a specific point to learn the fundamentals so that I knew exactly 'what' I was doing and exactly 'why' I was doing it. I dont think writers block will ever be a problem for me. And above all else, each one of my songs serves a specific purpose and makes a specific statement above and beyond the melody, beat, or words themselves. that is art. and it is very difficult to do without this knowledge.

sure, we were talking about recording, but I attempted to draw a paralell that might be easier to discuss. I never 'learned' john's songs...I can't play a single one. But I analyzed them and learned that they were built upon very basic, fundamental building blocks, and intentionally so. He took very common song forms, AABA, ABAB, etc., and very common chord progressions, such as the V I, and built them into works of art. And that's why they worked. 90% of his melody notes fall within the chords, the other 10% are usually the 9th or 13th, or passing notes. even revolution #9 follows a form.

Thelonoius monk's band weren't able to play those songs out of pure musicianship. They were able to play them because they were built on fundamental forms and chord progressions, which were easily picked up. They were able to draw upon all of their prior experiences and very quickly and easily relate those experiences to the song at hand. It all goes back to the basics.

 

[Dr ZEE]

... I never said not knowing the fundamentals cannot result in art. .

No you did not say that.
Neither did I say, that knowledge of fundamentals does necessarily result the death of art.
If you read carefully, then you'll see that my point is: "A person's knowledge of 'fundamentals' does not makes that person's point(s)/argument(s) in respect to an art form more valid, comparatively to validity of a point(s)/argunt(s), made by a person with no knowledge of such fundumentals. However, I must add here, that it may make that person's point more valid in respect to the fundamentals, - the fundamentals, knowledge of which that person has obtained."
As a matter of fact, the deeper one steps into understanding of fundamentals - the more he/she realizes how much any art form is independent from any fundamentals.
I also must add, that a quick and superficial (incomplete) grasp of fundamentals commonly creates an euphoric illusion of grasping the body and the soul of an art form. Also, those kind of illusions have very short life expectancy

/respects

 

[Dr ZEE]

Ok then, the yeas have it. You know sometimes we just don't give the canines the credit they deserve... they know stuff, like when a perfectly normal looking person is really a vampire…

Hah hah! Do I smell deep understanding of fundamentals of nature of canines here! Or Experience?!!!! And I'm not kidding. Dogs DO know things... and, only The Greator must know about how do they do it

By the way Daniel, we love you too.

- YES!

 

[cjacek]

I'm glad my little diversion (though sincere ) worked to calm the waters a little. Now all we need is MCI2424 to chime in and we'll be alright.

 

[Dr ZEE]

I'm glad my little diversion (though sincere ) worked to calm the waters a little.

Yeah. it did ... a bit
speaking of calming the waters
I think every music-related artist must have a harpsichord in possession - playing it is very tranquilizing.
For example, you can lay down fundamentals of "Come Together Right Now" , composed by John and thoughtfully "arranged" by his band-mate. What can be more tranquilizing than a few passages of "Come Togther" on harpsichord ?!.. heh heh
!And!, in addition, while doing it (playing "Come Together" on harpsichord that is) a music-related artist may notice, that while the fundamentals are there, but the art apparently is gone. It's a fun "scientific" experiment.

 

[pbergo]

I'm going to take a day and go to the lobby of a building down town.

I will take the 8 track with 6 tracks of drums and play it through a genelec monitor into the lobby and experiment with mic placement, probably two Shure sm81's to capture stereo room reverb (a la John Bonham sound).

I'll document, then analyze the data and hopefully find a sweet spot, then I'll go back and do it again, and record the reverb back to tracks 7 and 8.

 

[EDAN]

No you did not say that.
Neither did I say, that knowledge of fundamentals does necessarily result the death of art.
If you read carefully, then you'll see that my point is: "A person's knowledge of 'fundamentals' does not makes that person's point(s)/argument(s) in respect to an art form more valid, comparatively to validity of a point(s)/argunt(s), made by a person with no knowledge of such fundumentals. However, I must add here, that it may make that person's point more valid in respect to the fundamentals, - the fundamentals, knowledge of which that person has obtained."
As a matter of fact, the deeper one steps into understanding of fundamentals - the more he/she realizes how much any art form is independent from any fundamentals.
I also must add, that a quick and superficial (incomplete) grasp of fundamentals commonly creates an euphoric illusion of grasping the body and the soul of an art form. Also, those kind of illusions have very short life expectancy

/respects

Wonderful! You get it, you really get it! Lets break bread!

 

[EDAN]

sure, but I never said not knowing the fundamentals cannot result in art. All I said was that that art would most likely be limited in scope. you are not proving me wrong or right here.



Wow, I feel a kinship with you. I did the same thing when I was seven as well. but, this is the kind of writing that is based on inspiration..the kind of writing that is subject to the 'writer's block' mentioned above. This is exactly what I am railing against. I made a specific point to learn the fundamentals so that I knew exactly 'what' I was doing and exactly 'why' I was doing it.

That's great for you. For me, it's all INSPIRATION! That's the only kind of writing I know, it's what writing is all about .. to me. I come up with melodies in my head, often times when I'm around no instrument at all, often times when I'm not thinking about it. No amount of music knowledge is going to help those ideas form or make them better, it's like magic, there is no explaining it. It's the boombachicka-bam baba boombachicka-wham!