"Garthrr" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Ignace Dhont) writes:
There ARE technique's and strategies involved in things
like mixing and microphone placement. If you master the technique, you
can mold it to suit your taste. At least that's my point of view.
I agree.
That's fine, my intention was just to point out that it's not the fault of
audio literature that there are no strict rules. Of course there are
strategies and techniques, but really, they are all used and one of the
reasons music sounds so sterile today is that everyone uses the same "trick
settings" which have proven to be "working".
IOW they're proven, because some records which incorporated those techniques
have sold ****loads, and thus many people think the techniques are the key
to "that sound". That's kinda stupid and sad, and doesn't make music any
better.
You could've done those records in a million different ways sonically, and
still they'd be selling.
The thing is, that sonical change happens only in one of a ten years because
engineers and producers don't rely enough on the fact that listeners get
used to the "new sound" after a while. Yet no-one wants to be the first one
creating it because you don't know beforehand how listeners accept the new
sound.
As an example, all rock records have a thuddy bass drum and an in-yer-face
vocal track today. Why?
Because "the people liked the previous bands that had the same sound",
because the book tells you that "rock has a lot of energy in the bass area",
and the book tells you that "people like to hear the singer clearly". Then
another book says "pop and rock music's key element are the vocals,
everything should back them up" etc.
Following these "rules", how long will it take for mixing engineers to stop
limiting the kick drum and the vocal track? It has been an upward trend for
like 15 years now.