Mo Facta
Farts of Nature
FWIW, I started recording on a dual deck karaoke machine not very dissimilar to the Fisher Price toy. I would bounce between the tapes, which increased the hiss but I got a song at the end.
Cheers
Cheers
famous beagle
Well-known member
I feel the same way you do on a lot of this stuff; I really do. But I kind of went down that road before --- getting a little self righteous about what "real" music is and all --- and it turned into a dead end for me. I finally had to concede that music is music; it doesn't really matter how it's created. I certainly prefer it to be created in certain ways, but getting into what's "real music" or "real talent" or a "real instrument" is a slippery slope, because, as I've said ... that's continually changing.
You said that even if they splice a tape, they still had to play it. Ok .. well, where do you draw the line there? What if a guitar player has a really difficult solo that moves around a whole bunch and he can't play it all in one pass, but he can play each section well enough. So they edit the tape to make it sound like one pass.
If a band can't get one good enough take all the way through a song, then can they really "play it?"
What about someone who composes music for an instrument that he can't play? Think about someone like Mozart. Granted, he was a virtuoso on violin and piano (if not more), but he certainly couldn't play all the instruments for which he composed. And if you think about it, how is that really all that different from a kid manipulating samples on his laptop? I know that's a crude analogy, but my point is that there is an infinite amount of points between those two extremes.
In other words, how well does someone have to play one instrument before they're allowed to compose for others that they can't play?
The thing that really opened my eyes to all of this was the whole analog/digital debate along with the modeling vs. real instruments. I had convinced myself that "sampled" instruments or MIDI were evil and "not real instruments," etc. But I realized that that logic was flawed, because who's to say what's real?
Take someone born 2,000 years from now. If there are no more tube guitar amps or Fender Rhodes keyboards or even acoustic guitars/pianos/etc. ... If everything has basically become digitized (for lack of a better term), does that mean that the music that person creates is not real?
I read an interview with Johnny Greenwood (guitarist for Radiohead) that really helped me put it into perspective. He said he was going through his own kind of "are digital instruments real?" struggle around the time they were working on Kid A. And he said he kind of realized that all recording is basically unnatural; it's all basically fake. Just because someone sings into a microphone and records that signal to a tape/hard drive, and then that signal is broadcast over some speakers in your room ... that doesn't put the singer in the room there with you.
So, in closing, I have to disagree with the "threshold is simple" statement, IMO anyway. Because even the studio itself is an instrument. Microphones have their own frequency responses, which could be seen as a form of EQ itself. A plate reverb is just as "artificial" as a digital one in that it's simulating something it's not; it just does it through different means.
Again ... I'm all about the analog/vintage thing. And I hate things like autotune too. But I had to jump off that train of trying to decide what "real music" is, because it wasn't serving me well. Like I said, if you truly believe that "if someone can't play it, then it shouldn't be recorded," then you wouldn't have compositions from Mozart, Beethoven, Brahams, etc.
A
Astralography
New member
I know my opinions are unpopular in the modern age. But I can't turn away from the reality that well recorded albums from the analog age sound much better to me. If I can't feel some natural movement from a musician on a recording... it just dies on my ears. Even a drummer playing off a click track can have some movement. I really prefer drummers not play to clicks. I love listening to Ginger Baker on Blind Faith. Or Bill Ward slamming classic Sabbath drum tracks. The great 60's jazz recordings were very open and not played with clicks. The whole homogenizing of the drums and bass today is standard protocol in studios. I laid tracks down in Nashville on drums a couples years ago and the engineer had me sounding like a machine.. but that was not me. It sounded great and I hated it. No life to it. Quality musicians don't need click tracks... or quantizing for that matter. Just kills a recording. Computers getting involved .. it's awful. For one, it sounds bad. Like a screen over a window. The pixilation is very apparent on a great system... and I have a very good set up. I can't un know what I know. It sounds awful.
A lot of great records were made before the digital age. A lot more great records then... than have been made since.
All the techno stuff needs to be explored to see what is there and the possibilities, but in my opinion, enough time and experimenting and hype have gone on in the last 25 years, and to me the verdict is out. Analog wins on the important fronts. Better sound, better motivation to practice and become a better player, deeper thought out compositions, and more focus on natural sounding instruments.
Look at all these Vocal shows.. Idol, The Voice etc.. the whole band has been discarded... why? Because the backing tracks are all just dead sounding to people. No one cares.. because homogenization has killed everyone's ears. Quantization is now just expected. No feel, and no one relates... so they just focus on the singer. It's pathetic.
A lot of great records were made before the digital age. A lot more great records then... than have been made since.
All the techno stuff needs to be explored to see what is there and the possibilities, but in my opinion, enough time and experimenting and hype have gone on in the last 25 years, and to me the verdict is out. Analog wins on the important fronts. Better sound, better motivation to practice and become a better player, deeper thought out compositions, and more focus on natural sounding instruments.
Look at all these Vocal shows.. Idol, The Voice etc.. the whole band has been discarded... why? Because the backing tracks are all just dead sounding to people. No one cares.. because homogenization has killed everyone's ears. Quantization is now just expected. No feel, and no one relates... so they just focus on the singer. It's pathetic.
M
Muckelroy
Member
Holy crap. This thread is 8 years old. Did I really write that?
Yeah. I'm not an analog purist per-se. They're all tools. It's the music that counts. How you capture it is secondary. Good mics, good pres, good mic placement... that's 95% of the recording quality.
Yeah. I'm not an analog purist per-se. They're all tools. It's the music that counts. How you capture it is secondary. Good mics, good pres, good mic placement... that's 95% of the recording quality.
A
Astralography
New member
Yeah. I'm not an analog purist per-se. They're all tools. It's the music that counts. How you capture it is secondary. Good mics, good pres, good mic placement... that's 95% of the recording quality.
Well, I sure wish this was true. If it were true, then musicians would be spending only 5% of their time on a computer and 95% of their time setting up mics, placement and working on their performance. What I see is the opposite. A rough in recording, then weeks trying to fix and manipulate the track with endless filters, plugins, edits, etc.
Digital is a tool.. but an overhyped bad tool. How were all these great records made without computers?
New vinyl is being pressed from Pro Tools. Now if that is not the most absurd thing in the world I don't know what is.
Just my opinion. Like I said I am not here to stomp on peoples digits. I just hope that one or two readers here think about things a bit.
Well, I sure wish this was true. If it were true, then musicians would be spending only 5% of their time on a computer and 95% of their time setting up mics, placement and working on their performance. What I see is the opposite. A rough in recording, then weeks trying to fix and manipulate the track with endless filters, plugins, edits, etc.
Digital is a tool.. but an overhyped bad tool. How were all these great records made without computers?
New vinyl is being pressed from Pro Tools. Now if that is not the most absurd thing in the world I don't know what is.
Just my opinion. Like I said I am not here to stomp on peoples digits. I just hope that one or two readers here think about things a bit.
jpmorris
Tape Wolf
I think Radiohead put it best on their OK Computer album:
"Audio fixing and dubbing done at Mayfair, Abbey Road, Air Lyndhurst, Courtyard and the Church using the wonders of a digital and analogue age"
"Audio fixing and dubbing done at Mayfair, Abbey Road, Air Lyndhurst, Courtyard and the Church using the wonders of a digital and analogue age"
famous beagle
Well-known member
I hate to say it, but a lot of them most likely involved many tape edits! Not always, but they wanted to sell records back then too, and so they did what they could to make that happen.
Here's the thing: There were certainly many awesome musicians back in the day. But ... I'm sure there were plenty of crappy ones as well. We just didn't hear about them. Nowadays, we can hear anyone's music with an internet connection.
I think it's certainly true that, generally speaking, the level of professionalism among signed artists was higher in the days of yesteryear than it is today, and digital recording clearly had something to do with that, along with the increasing importance of image brought on by MTV (at first---now proliferated by any and every ad anywhere).
However, I also hear many people (young especially) on youTube now that really impress me with their abilities, yet will probably never see a record deal. So I don't necessarily know that there aren't as many great musicians as there were back then. But we're certainly not hearing as many in the mainstream; that's for sure.
lonewhitefly
Active member
I think the hard-line approach doesn't really benefit most people too much. It's good to stand for something and have integrity, but life is about compromises and nothing generally turns out exactly as planned ... every situation is unique.
Personally, the only thing I've learned for sure in my years of listening and home-recording is that the art of analog recording is a different thing that the art of digital recording ... not so much in the sonics (that's a whole 'nother topic!), but the approach itself, which influences the end result. Not really sure where the hybrid approach comes in ... I think it depends greatly on the individual situation to make a generalization there.
The main issue I've come to terms with as a listener, is that albums that were recorded digitally don't seem to hold up as well over time.
I think you can weave more 'magic' into an all-analog system, though the limitations can really be ... limiting at times. But they are real-world limitations, and part of the art of it is permitting yourself to fail.
And yeh, an all-analog system really has most of the options that digital systems have ... they are just labor/time/money-intensive, and there are sonic compromises and a ceiling of acceptable sound quality. I remember hearing a story of the '60s hit "Johnny Angel" by Shelley Fabares ... she apparently couldn't really sing the song very well, so it had to be recorded in sections and severely edited to get a take.
The Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations" was recorded in a bunch of different studios, spliced to bits and pieces and back again ... the track could literally not be performed in one go. And this is, in my opinion, the single greatest recording of all time.
I've done plenty of tracks with a 1960s analog drum machine (Maestro Rhythm King) as the only drum track ... I mean, this is in an all-analog situation -- the thing about editing to grids, humans being able to perform a track straight through ... that's really not an analog/digital thing, that's something else.
Personally, the only thing I've learned for sure in my years of listening and home-recording is that the art of analog recording is a different thing that the art of digital recording ... not so much in the sonics (that's a whole 'nother topic!), but the approach itself, which influences the end result. Not really sure where the hybrid approach comes in ... I think it depends greatly on the individual situation to make a generalization there.
The main issue I've come to terms with as a listener, is that albums that were recorded digitally don't seem to hold up as well over time.
I think you can weave more 'magic' into an all-analog system, though the limitations can really be ... limiting at times. But they are real-world limitations, and part of the art of it is permitting yourself to fail.
And yeh, an all-analog system really has most of the options that digital systems have ... they are just labor/time/money-intensive, and there are sonic compromises and a ceiling of acceptable sound quality. I remember hearing a story of the '60s hit "Johnny Angel" by Shelley Fabares ... she apparently couldn't really sing the song very well, so it had to be recorded in sections and severely edited to get a take.
The Beach Boys' "Good Vibrations" was recorded in a bunch of different studios, spliced to bits and pieces and back again ... the track could literally not be performed in one go. And this is, in my opinion, the single greatest recording of all time.
I've done plenty of tracks with a 1960s analog drum machine (Maestro Rhythm King) as the only drum track ... I mean, this is in an all-analog situation -- the thing about editing to grids, humans being able to perform a track straight through ... that's really not an analog/digital thing, that's something else.
lonewhitefly
Active member
What equipment do you have in your recording setup?
grimtraveller
If only for a moment.....
As a keen student of recording through the ages, I have to say that Astralography's viewpoint, while I agree with parts of it, is just too simplistic. As has been pointed out, many great recordings of the 50s, 60s and 70s were edited together from bits and pieces. In a book on Jon Hiseman that I've just finished, there's an interesting account of how this was done on a 1965 session for a jazz recording. Yes, jazz !
Electric instruments like the guitar, bass, electric pianos and mellotrons etc were initially viewed as the spawn of Satan. But it was nothing unusual for singers' vocal tracks to be recorded in small pieces and woven together. Manipulation began in the 30s when Les Paul did the first known layered guitar recording.
Indeed, recording music has been, from it's very inception, shrouded in artifice. The technological advances from the 30s onwards in the music biz reflect human progress allied to our God imbued curiosity. It was paralleled by the same things in many walks of life.
The reality is it's just the way we are. At every juncture, there has been great stuff created and heaps of shit.
Lonewhitefly commented on the difference of approach between analog and digital set ups. Having used both, I feel that the differences in approach have been more influenced by different machines than mediums, allied to what the artist in question wants to do. For example, my approach altered in moving from 4 track to 8 track. And even digitally, different makes of machine or software can alter approach. No two units seemed to me to be identical.
Electric instruments like the guitar, bass, electric pianos and mellotrons etc were initially viewed as the spawn of Satan. But it was nothing unusual for singers' vocal tracks to be recorded in small pieces and woven together. Manipulation began in the 30s when Les Paul did the first known layered guitar recording.
Indeed, recording music has been, from it's very inception, shrouded in artifice. The technological advances from the 30s onwards in the music biz reflect human progress allied to our God imbued curiosity. It was paralleled by the same things in many walks of life.
The reality is it's just the way we are. At every juncture, there has been great stuff created and heaps of shit.
Lonewhitefly commented on the difference of approach between analog and digital set ups. Having used both, I feel that the differences in approach have been more influenced by different machines than mediums, allied to what the artist in question wants to do. For example, my approach altered in moving from 4 track to 8 track. And even digitally, different makes of machine or software can alter approach. No two units seemed to me to be identical.
B
Beck
Guest
Yep, that much is true... but this has been going on to a lesser degree before the abuse of digital tools we see today. No doubt it is much worse and much easier to overuse tools today, but overproduction has always been with us. And again it depends on the genre. Some music doesn't involve mic placement at all because it doesn't involve mics. Real instruments, but all direct into the mixing console. You don't have to abuse EQ to use EQ. It's all about balance. That being said I will prefer the sound of analog tape as the medium no matter what else is going on for most genres. Some genres like rap I'm not going to waste anyone's time by saying they need to get that on tape. No point to that.
C
Chilljam
transitional phase
Is the quality of the preamp really going to affect the recording quality that much? What about the million other variables in technique and equipment? are they only contributing 5%?
Personally, I think recording quality is about 70% technique and 30% equipment. Using the same equipment but different recording technique (live vs overdubs, mic placement, room, etc.) really can make two recordings (and performances) of the same song very different. Changing recording technique can really influence the way the band plays the song.
Astralography, what you are arguing is not about analog or digital, but that you would much rather hear music that is performed by people than by machines/automation/effects etc. Of course a lot of the automation stuff is much easier to do with digital or sometimes not even possible with analog recording. As has been said before - digital recording/analog recording/autotune/EQs are all just tools and it's up to the artist how they want people to hear their music. If we hate autotune and the artist chooses to use it or doesn't care, we shouldn't ban the use of autotune, we can just choose to not be a fan of that artist.
Bottom line is that the more tools you have available to you, the better it is because we still get to choose what we want to use. I'm not saying Elvis or The Beatles would choose to use Protools or Autotune, but I'm certain they would have preferred having all the recording equipment we have available today.
lonewhitefly
Active member
I'm not so sure about that. I once read a 1981 interview with Rick Nelson, and he mentioned preferring the way records were cut in the '50s & '60s to how they were cut in the early '80s ... he specifically mentioned bouncing (in laymen's terms) being something that gave the track a good blend ... and as an element lacking in then-current recordings.
I think a lot of people like these kinds of things, but don't know what it is they're hearing that they like, or exactly how to articulate it. Part of this is why I got into experimenting with recording myself -- trying to figure out why I liked older mixes better than new ones, even of the same songs. Trying to figure out why the orig. mono Pet Sounds has so much more mystery and intrigue than the stereo remixes, which have obvious sonic advantages.
A
Astralography
New member
I think it's true that people want all the options.. but I would argue that having so many options can be counterproductive to both creativity and learning advanced techniques of playing. It takes a lot of time to try out all the options and have to learn complex software like Pro Tools etc.
Splicing tape... sure.. it's an edit.. but at some point, the artist still had to do it. That is not the case now. I think that is very bad for musicians. Live bands to me don't sound as good as they used to.
What happened to musicianship like this? No Pro Tools or edits.
Splicing tape... sure.. it's an edit.. but at some point, the artist still had to do it. That is not the case now. I think that is very bad for musicians. Live bands to me don't sound as good as they used to.
What happened to musicianship like this? No Pro Tools or edits.
D
drtechno
Active member
digital recording is still imperfect. granted, its gotten better over the years. Ive worked with Protools, Nuendo, Cubase, Cakewak, Audacity and Ardour. its not the recorder, its what you put into it. Some programs work better than others when it comes to DAW.
I don't like pro tools for a lot of things and the editing workflow is all wrong. Only the lable queens out there are transfixed on protools. And besides, Nuendo/Cubase is better for editing.
That is why David Gilmore tracks in on pro tools and Alan Parsons mixes and edits with Nuendo.
I don't like pro tools for a lot of things and the editing workflow is all wrong. Only the lable queens out there are transfixed on protools. And besides, Nuendo/Cubase is better for editing.
That is why David Gilmore tracks in on pro tools and Alan Parsons mixes and edits with Nuendo.
D
drtechno
Active member
but the real tracking is still today done with 2" tape. Masters are done with 1 inch stereo if your privilaged, otherwise its 1/2". 1/4" is too low fi for music, only commercials.
then its bounced into the digital world for editing.
the mixing, I won't tell out in public.
then its bounced into the digital world for editing.
the mixing, I won't tell out in public.
M
mdainsd
Member
"1/4" is too low fi for music, only commercials."
Source?
Source?
D
drtechno
Active member
my standards. even with it on medium speed. minus well recording to a vhs tape
D
drtechno
Active member
you can really tell when you do a media transfer.
lonewhitefly
Active member
huh? the statements above are basically just false.