On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:39:48 -0500, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article ):
"Marc Wielage" wrote in message
.com...
Many, many pop songs were never intended to work in an acoustical setting,
nor do they sound good that way. Pop and rock production merely present
other creative choices from real acoustic music. It's no worse than
synthesized music, which goes back to the 1940s (at least).
But this manipulation isn't used for "creative" effects, but simply because
it's available.
I've heard Buddy Holly recordings more than a half-century old, and (to the
extent it's possible to judge on the radio), they're beautiful. They're
clean, well-balanced, and appear to be taking place in some sort of
acoustically appropriate space. What's wrong with that?
A note: More than a quarter-century ago, when I worked for Rupert Neve in
Connecticut, I had the great displeasure of helping install a Neve
computer-control system in Atlanta's leading recording studio. During
playback in which the level was increased to hearing-damaging levels, I put
my fingers in my ears. I was later told this was a rude and insulting thing
to do.
The recording industry produces a great deal of "sound and fury, signifying
nothing". I could say much-worse things, but will bite my tongue.
Will,
I think the point here is that The Buddy Holly recordings were done at a
different point in time. There was a different approach to recording and to
mixing. His arrangements were pretty sparse compared to some of today's
works, including the original Beatles mixes.
Yes, sound and fury, blah, blah, blah. I agree there's much ado about nothing
compared to earlier, more technology-restricted periods. Just because you
HAVE 48 bazillion tracks doesn't mean filling them makes the music better.
Regards,
Ty Ford
--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos
http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA