The all important illusion

[NYMorningstar]

I sometimes wonder about nominative determinism here . . . there seem to be so many people called Mike (including me) who post in these forums. I wonder how many other people here have names that relate to their work, e.g. Jack?

I get to use Bob which can fit into almost any line of work

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I sometimes wonder about nominative determinism here . . . there seem to be so many people called Mike (including me) who post in these forums. I wonder how many other people here have names that relate to their work, e.g. Jack?

Well, My name is Glen, but I never had any desire to become a small Scottish lake valley. My middle name is Multibandcompressor, but that's strictly a coincidence; it's an old Bohemian word for "male heterosexual prostitute".

G.

 

[nate_dennis]

Well, My name is Glen, but I never had any desire to become a small Scottish lake valley. My middle name is Multibandcompressor, but that's strictly a coincidence; it's an old Bohemian word for "male heterosexual prostitute".

G.

I haven't laughed that hard in a loooong time!!! That's wonderful!!!

I'm really surprised that there aren't more purists posting here. I just figured thered be at least one who said that faithfully reproducing only the sound in the room was the way to go.

I had a guy tell me once that if you use a VSTi that you aren't really recording since the sound was already captured and you are just re-using the sound. I disagree, but hey, that's just me.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I haven't laughed that hard in a loooong time!!! That's wonderful!!!

I'm really surprised that there aren't more purists posting here. I just figured thered be at least one who said that faithfully reproducing only the sound in the room was the way to go.

I had a guy tell me once that if you use a VSTi that you aren't really recording since the sound was already captured and you are just re-using the sound. I disagree, but hey, that's just me.

I apologize; I apparently misunderstood what you were asking (what do you expect from an old Bohock whore? ) "Faithfully reproducing the sound in the room" means a bit more to me than just whether one uses "organic" or "synthetic" (for lack of better adjectives offhand) instruments.

On that focus, I think chasing the idea of an "organic" instrument is an exercise in fantasy. There is nothing "natural" about the sound of an electric guitar pumped through a couple of stomp boxes plugged into an amp overdriven into distortion. There is very little "organic" (bad pun intended) about the sound of a B3 run through a stereo-miked Leslie. Where would music be today if The Beach Boys never used a Theremin device alongside traditional orchestral instruments on "Good Vibrations"? On the flip side, how dare we call an old washboard or a pair of spoons a "musical instrument"? When you use them to make music, they are, at least for that time, instruments of music. (The David Bowie "Heroes" album used metal ash trays and garbage cans as instruments.)

How does any of that really differ from using VSTis? If it gives you the sound you want, that's all that matters.

That said, one should never confuse an orchestration done on a computer with a "live" recording of a symphony orchestra or a string quartet. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, they both are valid, but there are - in both directions of a two way street - things you can do with one that you cannot do with the other.

I see nothing wrong with using samples and VSTis and synths in place of an orchestra in most situations, unless one is specifically going for that "real orchestra" vibe that even under today's technology is difficult to synthesize. Is that vibe always needed? Perhaps not, but there are times when it is preferable. That's a subjective decision.

G.