Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

There's an editorial of that title, by Steve Guttenburg, in the March 2012
"Stereophile".

If J Gordon Holt is looking down on us (joke intended), he must be laughing
his ass off. One of his classic articles (about 45 years old) shows the
"process" through which the microphones' outputs go before reaching the
cutter head. These include an "automatic dematrixing obfuscator" and (my
favorite) the "dynamic subtlety suppressor". *

Mr Guttenburg shows a startling ignorance of the history of recording. The
major recurring theme (joke intended) throughout the history of recorded
sound is the degradation of the original sound so that the recording will
"sound good" on cheap playback equipment.

This should have ended with the introduction of the Compact Disk, but
didn't. ** Most music (except classical, and some jazz) doesn't have enough
dynamic range to stress even modest playback systems, yet the recording
industry insists on flattening what little dynamic range there is to the
point of non-existence. If the purpose is make recordings subjectively
louder -- what is the point? The home listener can set the volume wherever
he wants. If a radio station feels it needs a competitive advantage, it can
apply compression at the station.

The problem, as I see it, is that most "popular" music has no meaningful
acoustic equivalent. The mics' outputs are simply raw material to be altered
however the producer cares to. This is not seen as a creative option, but an
unalterable necessity.

There is simply no need for this. But people are unaccustomed to hearing
live, unamplified sound in an appropriate acoustic environment, and they
know no better.


* I designed a device that -- on paper -- would do that.

** It seems that SACDs and Blu-ray Audio disks have "better" sound,
apparently because their producers and engineers really want to make honest
recordings.

--
"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
questions." -- Edwin Land


  #2   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
ChrisCoaster ChrisCoaster is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 409
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

On Feb 10, 3:56*pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
There's an editorial of that title, by Steve Guttenburg, in the March 2012
"Stereophile".

If J Gordon Holt is looking down on us (joke intended), he must be laughing
his ass off. One of his classic articles (about 45 years old) shows the
"process" through which the microphones' outputs go before reaching the
cutter head. These include an "automatic dematrixing obfuscator" and (my
favorite) the "dynamic subtlety suppressor". *

Mr Guttenburg shows a startling ignorance of the history of recording. The
major recurring theme (joke intended) throughout the history of recorded
sound is the degradation of the original sound so that the recording will
"sound good" on cheap playback equipment.

This should have ended with the introduction of the Compact Disk, but
didn't. ** Most music (except classical, and some jazz) doesn't have enough
dynamic range to stress even modest playback systems, yet the recording
industry insists on flattening what little dynamic range there is to the
point of non-existence. If the purpose is make recordings subjectively
louder -- what is the point? The home listener can set the volume wherever
he wants. If a radio station feels it needs a competitive advantage, it can
apply compression at the station.

The problem, as I see it, is that most "popular" music has no meaningful
acoustic equivalent. The mics' outputs are simply raw material to be altered
however the producer cares to. This is not seen as a creative option, but an
unalterable necessity.

There is simply no need for this. But people are unaccustomed to hearing
live, unamplified sound in an appropriate acoustic environment, and they
know no better.

* I designed a device that -- on paper -- would do that.

** It seems that SACDs and Blu-ray Audio disks have "better" sound,
apparently because their producers and engineers really want to make honest
recordings.

--
"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
questions." -- Edwin Land

___________________________
Short answer: Y E S !

I have just scrounged the entire web for a decent mp3 or wav of
"Urgent" by Foreigner - they are all "remastered" versions that make
Lou Graham sound like he's yelling in your FACE! Unless you own the
CD from LP that came out 25 years ago you out of luck!

-CC
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Marc Wielage[_2_] Marc Wielage[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 249
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:56:47 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article ):

The problem, as I see it, is that most "popular" music has no meaningful
acoustic equivalent. The mics' outputs are simply raw material to be altered
however the producer cares to. This is not seen as a creative option, but an
unalterable necessity.
------------------------------snip------------------------------


The answer to that is... it depends. I can think of certain pop recordings
(even on vinyl) that had very wide dynamic range. Michael Martin Murphey's
"Wildfire" (a #3 hit from 1975) would be one of them.

But dynamic range alone is no determination of sound quality. Sometimes,
emotion, feel, and melody are more important. I can think of tons of major
Motown hits going back to 1961 that have maybe 5dB of dynamic range at best,
even on the original vinyl... but it doesn't matter, because they're great
songs, absolute classics that will last for decades. (Note that these are
not slammed, hard-limited, digitally-compressed productions; they're done
with all analog gear, often tube gear, 40 or 50 years ago.)

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).

Note also that there have been "unplugged" versions of many pop and rock hits
over the years, presented live in concert, on radio, and on TV. Those are
just as musically valid, but I don't think they're necessarily better than
the "electric" originals. I would agree that the modern production trend of
*perfecting* studio performances -- infinitely comping vocals, making
thousands of edits, using Auto-Tune, and on and on -- tend to make them less
human. Sometimes, the "flaws" are what make rock & roll what it is. Perfect
sound quality is the last thing you want if it overwhelms and undermines the
song's humanity.

I haven't received my (old, archaic, analog, paper) copy of the new issue
yet, and can't find the Guttenberg column in question on the website, so I'll
hold off on further comment until I read it. What I will say is: I've
generally found almost no audiophile writers who've ever worked in a modern
recording studio or have any concept of how hit music is actually recorded in
2012. Saying that they're "out of touch" is being kind. I agree with you
that many of them are woefully ignorant as to how music has been recorded,
even going back a couple of decades.

--MFW

  #4   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

"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.


  #5   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Stearns Frank Stearns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

"William Sommerwerck" writes:

"Marc Wielage" wrote in message
s.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.


Yes, I've seen this too. And earlier this week I probably lost a project because I
would not participate in this.

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.


They're your ears! You surely did the right thing. Upon scolding I probably would
have made a retort far ruder than the original finger-plugging action, and would
have been fired on the spot. g


The recording industry produces a great deal of "sound and fury, signifying
nothing". I could say much-worse things, but will bite my tongue.


Agreed. Mass-market food science, of the type that hooks a lot of folks on big macs
and sodas, meets audio production. Sigh.

And I'm actually okay with that (given that micro-management regulation would be
worse, imo). What's sad and damning is the lack of education or exposure to other
things, other methods, so that people understand the manipulation and could then
laugh and walk away if they so chose.

Still, time is a great filter of crap. After 4 centuries Bach survives but the
formulaic insipid pop music from the 1920s and 30s is, thankfully, largely gone (to
name just one time period). It'll take a while to sweep through the more recent
decades. It's just annoying at times to live through the crap of the day; tough to
realize that it is circling the drain and will one day be gone.

But something has also shifted culturally -- it might be nothing more than many
people becoming completely passive in their entertainment. Music, and entertainment,
used to be participatory for nearly everyone, and often at a fairly high level. No
one did it for you -- you did it for each other. And you did good things for your
brain by making music all through your life.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
ChrisCoaster ChrisCoaster is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 409
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

On Feb 12, 4:11*am, Marc Wielage wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:56:47 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article ):

The problem, as I see it, is that most "popular" music has no meaningful
acoustic equivalent. The mics' outputs are simply raw material to be altered
however the producer cares to. This is not seen as a creative option, but an
unalterable necessity.
------------------------------snip------------------------------


The answer to that is... it depends. *I can think of certain pop recordings
(even on vinyl) that had very wide dynamic range. *Michael Martin Murphey's
"Wildfire" (a #3 hit from 1975) would be one of them.

But dynamic range alone is no determination of sound quality. *Sometimes,
emotion, feel, and melody are more important. *I can think of tons of major
Motown hits going back to 1961 that have maybe 5dB of dynamic range at best,
even on the original vinyl... but it doesn't matter, because they're great
songs, absolute classics that will last for decades. *(Note that these are
not slammed, hard-limited, digitally-compressed productions; they're done
with all analog gear, often tube gear, 40 or 50 years ago.)



--MF

_________________
The bean counters at the record cos don't care Max. So there's "5dB
dynamic range at best"? Squash it to 1dB and pin it to digital VU -.5
dB and re-sell it to the suckers!!!

That's the mentality my friend. Sad but true.

-CC

  #7   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Scott Dorsey Scott Dorsey is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,853
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

ChrisCoaster wrote:
The bean counters at the record cos don't care Max. So there's "5dB
dynamic range at best"? Squash it to 1dB and pin it to digital VU -.5
dB and re-sell it to the suckers!!!


It's not the bean counters anymore. It is now pretty normal for musicians
to come into the mastering room and demand everything to be louder.

The problem is now much more fundamental than that.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ty Ford Ty Ford is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,287
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

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

  #9   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ty Ford Ty Ford is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,287
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:44:32 -0500, Frank Stearns wrote
(in article isition):

Still, time is a great filter of crap. After 4 centuries Bach survives but
the formulaic insipid pop music from the 1920s and 30s is, thankfully,
largely gone (to name just one time period). It'll take a while to sweep
through the more recent decades. It's just annoying at times to live through
the crap of the day; tough to realize that it is circling the drain and will
one day be gone.


I agree, Frank, but then you have McCartney doing "standards" that the market
seems to be very keen on. I listened and watched the iTunes video, which was
VERY well shot and mixed, but I didn't really think McCartney connected well
with that music. And maybe I missed the truly great versions of those songs
done originally, but, I thought some of "standards" were below standard.

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

  #10   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
acquisition...

Still, time is a great filter of crap. After 4 centuries Bach survives but

the
formulaic insipid pop music from the 1920s and 30s is, thankfully, largely
gone (to name just one time period). It'll take a while to sweep through

the
more-recent decades. It's just annoying at times to live through the crap

of
the day; tough to realize that it is circling the drain and will one day

be gone.

Do you think that badly recorded music is likely to make it harder for
future generations to separate "good" music from bad?


But something has also shifted culturally -- it might be nothing more than

many
people becoming completely passive in their entertainment. Music, and

entertainment,
used to be participatory for nearly everyone, and often at a fairly high

level. No
one did it for you -- you did it for each other. And you did good things

for your
brain by making music all through your life.


This is an argument in favor of forcing all children to study music.

Of course, recordings have an important place. I was listening to the Mahler
3rd and the Kindertotenlieder this morning. Without recordings, it's
unlikely I would have ever this music.




  #11   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
ChrisCoaster wrote:


The bean counters at the record cos don't care Max. So there's "5dB
dynamic range at best"? Squash it to 1dB and pin it to digital VU -.5
dB and re-sell it to the suckers!!!


It's not the bean counters anymore. It is now pretty normal for musicians
to come into the mastering room and demand everything to be louder.


Crank it up all the way to 12!


The problem is not much more fundamental than that.


I think there are many areas of art that are objectively "better" than
others. When people aren't exposed to them, they have no standards against
which to judge.


  #12   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
al.NET...

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.


Well, that was my point.

Strunk & White's basic rule applies to music as surely as it applies to
writing.


  #13   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

Indeed, and this is what's hurting music, it's become
something to be casually "consumed' usually as background
noise. Yet when we 'old farts" say that this hip-hop type
stuff produced with samplers and loops as well as the auto
tuned comped performances are bad music we get accused of
snobbery, bigotry, and even worse. Good music requires
interaction at some level. Even that single artist with a
guitar and his/her voice develops a good performance by
actually performing before audiences of flesh and blood
people, who interact with the performer. music doesn't
play the role it once played in average folks' lives, it's just
something to be there to be background noise or the flavor
of the moment.


Well, when I listen to music, I usually sit down and listen to it
attentively. Unfortunately, my attention span is barely an hour these days.
Thirty years ago I could listen to music for six or seven hours at a time.

Several years ago, I wanted to learn "Widmung" to sing to a friend I was
very much in love with. I had never really understood/enjoyed Lieder, but
when I learned this song, suddenly almost all Lieder made musical sense to
me.


  #14   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Ty Ford Ty Ford is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,287
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:00:25 -0500, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article ):

"Ty Ford" wrote in message
al.NET...

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.


Well, that was my point.

Strunk & White's basic rule applies to music as surely as it applies to
writing.



A copy of which is less than 12 feet from me, right now.

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

  #15   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] 0junk4me@nomail.bellsloth.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"


On 2012-02-12 said:
Still, time is a great filter of crap. After 4 centuries Bach

survives but the
formulaic insipid pop music from the 1920s and 30s is, thankfully,
largely gone (to name just one time period). It'll take a while

to sweep through the
more-recent decades. It's just annoying at times to live through

the crap of
the day; tough to realize that it is circling the drain and will

one day be gone.
Do you think that badly recorded music is likely to make it harder
for future generations to separate "good" music from bad?


I do, for one. it will be much more difficult for future
listeners to separate signal from noise, wheat from chaff,
however you want to put it. EVerybody will have their own
bit of "nostalgia" music and, just like today's popular
music, nobody will step outside his favorite genre or
comfort zone.
A few years ago while doing some antenna work one of the
guys working with me pulled his truck up in the yard and
fired up a local station out of New ORleans that billed
itself as retro, playing '80's hits. A whole bunch of '80's
synth pop. eeew But, that's what he heard growing up, so
that was his nostalgia trip.

Culturally we're much to fragmented, and the dreck will
survive inside its cultural niches. Heck, even my mother
can recognize Beatles songs she liked that were heard on
popular radio along withcountry, some light jazz, a little
bit of everything back in the '60's. I doubt if she'd
recognize one pop tune of today, because she doesn't listen
to anything but that "new country" stuff. I'm much the
same, I spin the dial when listening to broadcast radio past
all the pop stuff, I don't pay any attention to it at all,
and, I hate to say it, but the same with the "new" country.
When I do listen to it because I"m in a public place where
it's playing i don't find it compelling or interesting
listening.
I haven't heard a country artist play anything but a
straight four midtempo rock beat now for over a decade, once
in awhile something with 3 beats per measure, but rarely a
swing or a good fast shuffle. ITs' a rock beat with twangy
guitars.



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider




  #16   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
ChrisCoaster ChrisCoaster is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 409
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

On Feb 12, 11:07*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote:
The bean counters at the record cos don't care Max. *So there's "5dB
dynamic range at best"? *Squash it to 1dB and pin it to digital VU -.5
dB and re-sell it to the suckers!!!


It's not the bean counters anymore. *It is now pretty normal for musicians
to come into the mastering room and demand everything to be louder.

The problem is now much more fundamental than that.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

_________________
Well fundamentally it all boils down to money. Artists are now of the
mentality that if it isn't loud enough it won't be noticed or stand
out.

In any case, It's a shame that this is the new "norm" for popular
music, especially with the lowest noise highest dynamic range flattest
frequency response platform(digital) in the history of recorded
sound! I would also appreciate it if past artists or their labels
didn't apply this mentality - and processing - to past works that
stand out by their own virtues in the deceptive guise of "remastering"
or however they want to call it.

-CC
  #18   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mxsmanic Mxsmanic is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 805
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

ChrisCoaster writes:

Well fundamentally it all boils down to money. Artists are now of the
mentality that if it isn't loud enough it won't be noticed or stand
out.


If they lack talent (and many of them do), they're probably right.
  #19   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Richard Webb[_3_] Richard Webb[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 533
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

On Sun 2012-Feb-12 10:44, Frank Stearns writes:
snip

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.


They're your ears! You surely did the right thing. Upon scolding I
probably would
have made a retort far ruder than the original finger-plugging
action, and would have been fired on the spot. g


Ditto here! I"ve been known to do such things.


The recording industry produces a great deal of "sound and fury, signifying
nothing". I could say much-worse things, but will bite my tongue.


Agreed. Mass-market food science, of the type that hooks a lot of
folks on big macs
and sodas, meets audio production. Sigh.


Again we're in agreement. But, here again, you point out,
as you and I have both done before why this is bad.
YOu said:

But something has also shifted culturally -- it might be nothing
more than many people becoming completely passive in their
entertainment. Music, and entertainment,
used to be participatory for nearly everyone, and often at a fairly
high level. No
one did it for you -- you did it for each other. And you did good
things for your
brain by making music all through your life.


Indeed, and this is what's hurting music, it's become
something to be casually "consumed' usually as background
noise. YEt when us 'old farts" say that this hip hop type
stuff produced with samplers and loops as well as the auto
tuned comped performances are bad music we get accused of
snobbery bigotry, and even worse. Good music requires
interaction at some level. Even that single artist with a
guitar and his/her voice develops a good performance by
actually performing before audiences of flesh and blood
people, who interact with the performer. music doesn't play the role it once played in average folks' lives, it's just
something to be there to be background noise or the flavor
of the moment.

We've had these phiosophical discussions before in this
group, but this is the fundamental truth that underlies
everything, the loudness war, marketing, the whole bit. The Black Eyed pEas may be good dancers, and even good showmen
and women, but musicians they are not.


Regards,
Richard
.... "In some hands, all the knobs are suck knobs." -- Jay Kadis
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
  #20   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
[email protected] 0junk4me@nomail.bellsloth.net is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 35
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"


LEs writes:
wrote:
I haven't heard a country artist play anything but a
straight four midtempo rock beat now for over a decade, once
in awhile something with 3 beats per measure, but rarely a
swing or a good fast shuffle. ITs' a rock beat with twangy
guitars.


I'd like to hear a good anthropologist or art historian do a
real, serious piece on how this came to pass.
I will note the following:
1) It has something to do with MTV, I bet. Nothing
has ever fostered disappointment like the demographic
shifts on MTV, it seems. Maybe that's just a Usenet
trope, but it's been a consistent one.


I would agree with that, it started with the so-called
"urban cowboy thing imho.

2) A person who is a music publisher (with whom I also
have had the occasional contact) was relocating from LA
to Nashvegas in 1998. This was identified as a trend, not
an isolated incident.


YEah I know, all glitz. YOu notice guys like MErle can't
beg airplay anymore g.

3) Country itself has splintered into multiple markets.
There's the No Depression market, Texas Outlaw market,
several others.


Would agree, it's splintered quite a bit.

4) Cowboy boots should not have square toes unless you
are shooting a Spaghetti Western.


rotfl Also you're not a cowboy if you drive a Lexxus and
live in the city. Urban cowboy is an oxymoron.

And also, hello Sugarland! REal country doesn't need a 30
foot video screen and all the bull****.




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider




  #21   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Frank Stearns Frank Stearns is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

"William Sommerwerck" writes:

"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
nacquisition...


snip

Do you think that badly recorded music is likely to make it harder for
future generations to separate "good" music from bad?


Depends. If they've actively participated in music, have a little bit of music
education (nothing fancy; just an 8th grade equivalent to, say, reading or
arithmetic instead of total music oblivian), they'll be much more able to make a
judgment about the recordings they experience.


But something has also shifted culturally -- it might be nothing more than

many
people becoming completely passive in their entertainment. Music, and

entertainment,
used to be participatory for nearly everyone, and often at a fairly high

level. No
one did it for you -- you did it for each other. And you did good things

for your
brain by making music all through your life.


This is an argument in favor of forcing all children to study music.


In the same sense of teaching them reading, writing, arithmetic to, say, an 8th
grade level (and making a suitable educational progression in music from
kindergarten to the 8th grade), then yes, absolutely.

This is nothing new; music at one time was an integrated and required part of the
elementary school experience in the USA. It still is in many European countries.

I am biased of course, because I am in the business and have music teachers in the
family. But beyond that, the activity itself seems to have a vital influence on
brain development, even brain repair.

Ms. Giffords, the congresswomen shot in the head by the nut case last year in the
Southwestern USA, has made a remarkable recovery. Reportedly, music therapy (a
gentle acoustic guitar and singing of consonant melodies and not head-slamming
noise) has been a crucial element in that recovery. IIRC, music was the single thing
that helped her re-acquire language.

Multiple brain studies have shown how much of the brain "lights up" when musically
stimulated. And if you analyze what music is, what it does, and how it affects the
typical human, this makes a lot of sense.


Of course, recordings have an important place. I was listening to the Mahler
3rd and the Kindertotenlieder this morning. Without recordings, it's
unlikely I would have ever this music.


Absolutely; I agree. But as you point out in a later post about leider, experiencing
(performing) it first-hand made it something special.

So, too, would basic music education and hands-on participation enhance the
recordings one might experience later in life.

Educators and their critics have been misguided and too easily dismissive of music
education, IMO. It doesn't matter what you do later in life; music is one of the
"enrichers" that make us human and in aggregate makes life better. Where would we be
if arithmetic was simply deemed "not worth the trouble so let's not teach it any
more..." (Well, perhaps based on results we're half-way there anyway! But you see
the point, I think.)

I'm not overly hopeful that we'll get music back for the general elementary school
population, but we should all nudge and suggest as we can.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Jeff Henig Jeff Henig is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 954
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

Frank Stearns wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" writes:

"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
acquisition...


snip

Do you think that badly recorded music is likely to make it harder for
future generations to separate "good" music from bad?


Depends. If they've actively participated in music, have a little bit of music
education (nothing fancy; just an 8th grade equivalent to, say, reading or
arithmetic instead of total music oblivian), they'll be much more able to make a
judgment about the recordings they experience.


But something has also shifted culturally -- it might be nothing more than

many
people becoming completely passive in their entertainment. Music, and

entertainment,
used to be participatory for nearly everyone, and often at a fairly high

level. No
one did it for you -- you did it for each other. And you did good things

for your
brain by making music all through your life.


This is an argument in favor of forcing all children to study music.


In the same sense of teaching them reading, writing, arithmetic to, say, an 8th
grade level (and making a suitable educational progression in music from
kindergarten to the 8th grade), then yes, absolutely.

This is nothing new; music at one time was an integrated and required part of the
elementary school experience in the USA. It still is in many European countries.

I am biased of course, because I am in the business and have music teachers in the
family. But beyond that, the activity itself seems to have a vital influence on
brain development, even brain repair.

Ms. Giffords, the congresswomen shot in the head by the nut case last year in the
Southwestern USA, has made a remarkable recovery. Reportedly, music therapy (a
gentle acoustic guitar and singing of consonant melodies and not head-slamming
noise) has been a crucial element in that recovery. IIRC, music was the single thing
that helped her re-acquire language.

Multiple brain studies have shown how much of the brain "lights up" when musically
stimulated. And if you analyze what music is, what it does, and how it affects the
typical human, this makes a lot of sense.


Of course, recordings have an important place. I was listening to the Mahler
3rd and the Kindertotenlieder this morning. Without recordings, it's
unlikely I would have ever this music.


Absolutely; I agree. But as you point out in a later post about leider, experiencing
(performing) it first-hand made it something special.

So, too, would basic music education and hands-on participation enhance the
recordings one might experience later in life.

Educators and their critics have been misguided and too easily dismissive of music
education, IMO. It doesn't matter what you do later in life; music is one of the
"enrichers" that make us human and in aggregate makes life better. Where would we be
if arithmetic was simply deemed "not worth the trouble so let's not teach it any
more..." (Well, perhaps based on results we're half-way there anyway! But you see
the point, I think.)

I'm not overly hopeful that we'll get music back for the general elementary school
population, but we should all nudge and suggest as we can.

Frank
Mobile Audio


+1

That, my friend, is an outstanding post.

--
---Jeff
  #23   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Doug McDonald[_6_] Doug McDonald[_6_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 57
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

On 2/12/2012 2:12 PM, Les Cargill wrote:


4) Cowboy boots should not have square toes unless you
are shooting a Spaghetti Western.



or have duck-shaped feet.

I have such feet ... large ones! ... and never found
comfy cowbody boots until I found some square-toed Ariats
available in a large enough size. I'm wearing them now, and they are comfy
enough that I can ... and do ... either walk 8 miles a day in
passable but muddy or snowy weather or climb 2000 fett of stairs in
them, never a problem. And they are great for slogging through
mud, snow, or yes, horse **** (which I do on vacation.)

Doug McDonald
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

Multiple brain studies have shown how much of the brain "lights up"
when musically stimulated.


You can get the same effect by sticking miniature Christmas-tree lights up
your nose.


  #25   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"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.


Your opinion, and probably not based on atending many sessions, William.
What seems creative to one producer may not fit your own own concept of
that.

Mind you, I'm not fan of much present production that I hear, but the
other side of that opinion is that I don't pay any attention to pop
music and haven't for decades.

When I took over managment of AWHQ en route to work the first day I
stopped and bought a nice little Tandberg radio to run in the office so
I'd know what was happening on the airwaves.

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?


Nothing is wrong with that, if that's what an artist and producer want
to do. If they want to do something else, that's all wrong.

Norman's studio was in his home in Clovis NM. You can see it he

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH-AZhRpWW0

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.


To assume that is a ubiquitous attitude is not sensible. Many engineers
would have done the same as you.

The recording industry produces a great deal of "sound and fury, signifying
nothing". I could say much-worse things, but will bite my tongue.


Perhaps you should produce some recordings.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri


  #26   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

Ty Ford wrote:

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:44:32 -0500, Frank Stearns wrote
(in article isition):

Still, time is a great filter of crap. After 4 centuries Bach survives but
the formulaic insipid pop music from the 1920s and 30s is, thankfully,
largely gone (to name just one time period). It'll take a while to sweep
through the more recent decades. It's just annoying at times to live through
the crap of the day; tough to realize that it is circling the drain and will
one day be gone.


I agree, Frank, but then you have McCartney doing "standards" that the market
seems to be very keen on. I listened and watched the iTunes video, which was
VERY well shot and mixed, but I didn't really think McCartney connected well
with that music. And maybe I missed the truly great versions of those songs
done originally, but, I thought some of "standards" were below standard.


McCartney supposedly took to those songs in his youth. You could find
comments at PRW by the engineer who recorded and mixed it. As with all
musical material one person may like material that others don't. Always
been that way. I haven't heard Paul's take there.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

William Sommerwerck wrote:

"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
acquisition...

Still, time is a great filter of crap. After 4 centuries Bach survives but

the
formulaic insipid pop music from the 1920s and 30s is, thankfully, largely
gone (to name just one time period). It'll take a while to sweep through

the
more-recent decades. It's just annoying at times to live through the crap

of
the day; tough to realize that it is circling the drain and will one day

be gone.

Do you think that badly recorded music is likely to make it harder for
future generations to separate "good" music from bad?


No, I don't any more than I expect agreement among a large group of
humans upon what is good or bad music.

Reread McCluhan. If he's right we're evolving toward a more visual and
less aural being.

But something has also shifted culturally -- it might be nothing more than

many
people becoming completely passive in their entertainment. Music, and

entertainment,
used to be participatory for nearly everyone, and often at a fairly high

level. No
one did it for you -- you did it for each other. And you did good things

for your
brain by making music all through your life.


This is an argument in favor of forcing all children to study music.


Forcing people to study things isn't working very well, regardless of
the subject. Play music in your own household. Some of your children
will take up playing music, and some won't, though all of them are
likely to appreciate music and make it an ongoing part of their lives,
unless you force them to study it and they stop listening or liking
music, to abandon it as soon as they escape the home.

Of course, recordings have an important place. I was listening to the Mahler
3rd and the Kindertotenlieder this morning. Without recordings, it's
unlikely I would have ever this music.


Get ourself a piano, and turn off the stereo. g

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
  #28   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

wrote:

LEs writes:
wrote:
I haven't heard a country artist play anything but a
straight four midtempo rock beat now for over a decade, once
in awhile something with 3 beats per measure, but rarely a
swing or a good fast shuffle. ITs' a rock beat with twangy
guitars.


I'd like to hear a good anthropologist or art historian do a
real, serious piece on how this came to pass.
I will note the following:
1) It has something to do with MTV, I bet. Nothing
has ever fostered disappointment like the demographic
shifts on MTV, it seems. Maybe that's just a Usenet
trope, but it's been a consistent one.


I would agree with that, it started with the so-called
"urban cowboy thing imho.


I have an old friend, in both sense of that adjective, who is a cowboy.
In the late 19080's he told me, "I always wear running shoes and a ball
cap so that nobody mistakes me for a truck driver".

2) A person who is a music publisher (with whom I also
have had the occasional contact) was relocating from LA
to Nashvegas in 1998. This was identified as a trend, not
an isolated incident.


YEah I know, all glitz. YOu notice guys like MErle can't
beg airplay anymore g.


Airplay for that has shifted to the so-called Americana stations.
Merle's album 'If I Could Only Fly" has sold about a half-million units.

3) Country itself has splintered into multiple markets.
There's the No Depression market, Texas Outlaw market,
several others.


Would agree, it's splintered quite a bit.

4) Cowboy boots should not have square toes unless you
are shooting a Spaghetti Western.


rotfl Also you're not a cowboy if you drive a Lexxus and
live in the city. Urban cowboy is an oxymoron.

And also, hello Sugarland! REal country doesn't need a 30
foot video screen and all the bull****.


Here's a take on "Real Country"!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAMK1fk-9rc

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Predrag Trpkov Predrag Trpkov is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 216
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"


"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
acquisition...

Educators and their critics have been misguided and too easily dismissive
of music
education, IMO. It doesn't matter what you do later in life; music is one
of the
"enrichers" that make us human and in aggregate makes life better. Where
would we be
if arithmetic was simply deemed "not worth the trouble so let's not teach
it any
more..." (Well, perhaps based on results we're half-way there anyway! But
you see
the point, I think.)


Already more than half-way, for some.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/6588695.stm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-courses.html

Predrag


  #30   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:


The recording industry produces a great deal of "sound and fury,
signifying nothing". I could say much-worse things, but will bite
my tongue.


Perhaps you should produce some recordings.


My remark was in the context of the sound itself, not necessarily the music.

I don't feel qualified to produce recordings, of any type of music.

Have you seen photographs of Frank Sinatra's recording sessions? He
performed "live", in front of the orchestra, in what I assume was a room
designed specifically for pleasing-sounding recordings, and without (IIRC) a
plethora of mics.




  #31   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:


Of course, recordings have an important place. I was listening to the
Mahler 3rd and the Kindertotenlieder this morning. Without recordings,
it's unlikely I would have ever this music.


Get ourself a piano, and turn off the stereo. g


If I can get my mortgage company to reduce the interest to 3% or lower, I'll
be able to retire without having to worry about paying my bills.
(Coincidentally, I'll be speaking to them today.) In such a case, I will
doubtless find time for music lessons.

When I was much younger, my mother wanted to get a piano (she could sort-of
play), but it was under the condition that I'd take lessons and stick with
them. As they'd never tried to encourage any interest in good music, I said
no. In retrospect, I wish I'd said yes, then abandoned the lessons, leaving
them stuck with the piano. I hurt my parents, but not anywhere nearly as
much as I could have or should have.


  #32   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
ChrisCoaster ChrisCoaster is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 409
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

On Feb 13, 6:25*am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote in message

...

William Sommerwerck wrote:
The recording industry produces a great deal of "sound and fury,
signifying nothing". I could say much-worse things, but will bite
my tongue.

Perhaps you should produce some recordings.


My remark was in the context of the sound itself, not necessarily the music.

I don't feel qualified to produce recordings, of any type of music.

Have you seen photographs of Frank Sinatra's recording sessions? He
performed "live", in front of the orchestra, in what I assume was a room
designed specifically for pleasing-sounding recordings, and without (IIRC) a
plethora of mics.

______
Your last paragraph reminds me of something I've been dying to do for
some years now: Experiment with recording techniques that involve
only as many microphones as humans have ears. Seriously! Think about
how we hear andt it'll make sense.

-CC
  #33   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
ChrisCoaster ChrisCoaster is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 409
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

On Feb 13, 6:30*am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote in message

, I wish I'd said yes, then abandoned the lessons, leaving
them stuck with the piano. I hurt my parents, but not anywhere nearly as
much as I could have or should have.

_________
I'm really not sure of the meaning behind the above paragraph, esp in
the context that my parents are both no longer alive.

-ChrisCoaster
  #34   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
William Sommerwerck William Sommerwerck is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message
...
On Feb 13, 6:25 am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:

Have you seen photographs of Frank Sinatra's recording sessions? He
performed "live", in front of the orchestra, in what I assume was a

studio
designed specifically for pleasing-sounding recordings, and without

(IIRC)
a plethora of mics.


Your last paragraph reminds me of something I've been dying to do for
some years now: Experiment with recording techniques that involve
only as many microphones as humans have ears. Seriously! Think
about how we hear andt it'll make sense.


You must be very new to recording. Simply-miked stereo recordings have been
around for nearly 60 years.

When I made live recordings, I almost always used only two mics. I did,
however, make Ambisonic recordings using three mics, and quad recordings
using four.

The "correct" number of mics has no necessary relationship to the number of
ears we have. The issue is whether the recording contains the necessary
directional cues, and whether they can be correctly presented during
playback.



  #35   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
ChrisCoaster ChrisCoaster is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 409
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

On Feb 13, 8:11*am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message

...
On Feb 13, 6:25 am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:



Have you seen photographs of Frank Sinatra's recording sessions? He
performed "live", in front of the orchestra, in what I assume was a

studio
designed specifically for pleasing-sounding recordings, and without

(IIRC)
a plethora of mics.

Your last paragraph reminds me of something I've been dying to do for
some years now: *Experiment with recording techniques that involve
only as many microphones as humans have ears. Seriously! Think
about how we hear andt it'll make sense.


You must be very new to recording. Simply-miked stereo recordings have been
around for nearly 60 years.

When I made live recordings, I almost always used only two mics. I did,
however, make Ambisonic recordings using three mics, and quad recordings
using four.

The "correct" number of mics has no necessary relationship to the number of
ears we have. The issue is whether the recording contains the necessary
directional cues, and whether they can be correctly presented during
playback.

______

So then perhaps the industry should put more effort into those
techniques instead of quickly resorting to simple 'pan-pot' mono with
a dozen or more mics and racks of fx. As I recall music is supposed
to come from a stage - not a small box with blinking lights &
knobs.


  #36   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_] Les Cargill[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Feb 13, 8:11 am, "William
wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Feb 13, 6:25 am, "William
wrote:



Have you seen photographs of Frank Sinatra's recording sessions? He
performed "live", in front of the orchestra, in what I assume was a

studio
designed specifically for pleasing-sounding recordings, and without

(IIRC)
a plethora of mics.
Your last paragraph reminds me of something I've been dying to do for
some years now: Experiment with recording techniques that involve
only as many microphones as humans have ears. Seriously! Think
about how we hear andt it'll make sense.


You must be very new to recording. Simply-miked stereo recordings have been
around for nearly 60 years.

When I made live recordings, I almost always used only two mics. I did,
however, make Ambisonic recordings using three mics, and quad recordings
using four.

The "correct" number of mics has no necessary relationship to the number of
ears we have. The issue is whether the recording contains the necessary
directional cues, and whether they can be correctly presented during
playback.

______

So then perhaps the industry should put more effort into those
techniques instead of quickly resorting to simple 'pan-pot' mono with
a dozen or more mics and racks of fx. As I recall music is supposed
to come from a stage - not a small box with blinking lights&
knobs.


Only if you ignore radio. In Colin Escott's biography of Hank
Williams, people used to ask radio sellers "does this thing get
Hank Williams?"

--
Les Cargill

  #38   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

ChrisCoaster wrote:

On Feb 13, 6:30 am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote in message

, I wish I'd said yes, then abandoned the lessons, leaving
them stuck with the piano. I hurt my parents, but not anywhere nearly as
much as I could have or should have.

_________
I'm really not sure of the meaning behind the above paragraph, esp in
the context that my parents are both no longer alive.


Thank you, Chris. RIP, Mom and Dad.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
  #39   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

Les Cargill wrote:

ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Feb 13, 8:11 am, "William
wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Feb 13, 6:25 am, "William
wrote:



Have you seen photographs of Frank Sinatra's recording sessions? He
performed "live", in front of the orchestra, in what I assume was a
studio
designed specifically for pleasing-sounding recordings, and without
(IIRC)
a plethora of mics.
Your last paragraph reminds me of something I've been dying to do for
some years now: Experiment with recording techniques that involve
only as many microphones as humans have ears. Seriously! Think
about how we hear andt it'll make sense.

You must be very new to recording. Simply-miked stereo recordings have been
around for nearly 60 years.

When I made live recordings, I almost always used only two mics. I did,
however, make Ambisonic recordings using three mics, and quad recordings
using four.

The "correct" number of mics has no necessary relationship to the number of
ears we have. The issue is whether the recording contains the necessary
directional cues, and whether they can be correctly presented during
playback.

______

So then perhaps the industry should put more effort into those
techniques instead of quickly resorting to simple 'pan-pot' mono with
a dozen or more mics and racks of fx. As I recall music is supposed
to come from a stage - not a small box with blinking lights&
knobs.


Only if you ignore radio. In Colin Escott's biography of Hank
Williams, people used to ask radio sellers "does this thing get
Hank Williams?"


Thanks for that. To deny the music boxes would be funny in contest of
this thread, which is all about what's coming out of those boxes.


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri
  #40   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Jeff Henig Jeff Henig is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 954
Default "Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Feb 13, 6:30 am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote:
"hank alrich" wrote in message

, I wish I'd said yes, then abandoned the lessons, leaving
them stuck with the piano. I hurt my parents, but not anywhere nearly as
much as I could have or should have.

_________
I'm really not sure of the meaning behind the above paragraph, esp in
the context that my parents are both no longer alive.

-ChrisCoaster


Sorry to hear it, Chris. May they rest in peace.

---Jeff
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Volume Level of "Tuner" vs that of "CD" "Tape" or "Phono" on my homestereo, boombox, or car receiver ChrisCoaster Tech 10 June 14th 11 10:05 PM
FA: "Tom Dowd & The Language of Music" - DVD on recording and music production AndreaP Pro Audio 1 July 2nd 07 02:00 PM
FA: "Tom Dowd & The Language of Music" - DVD on recording AndyP[_2_] Pro Audio 0 July 1st 07 02:20 PM
Bob Dylan Calls Modern Recordings "Atrocious" pgaron High End Audio 22 September 10th 06 08:06 PM
recording "classical" music Diego Pro Audio 13 July 18th 06 07:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:47 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"