Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Who decides what a recording is supposed to sound like?
From a well known thread, author's names not important:
Steely Dan's records are consistantly mediocre IMO sonically. Too bad because I love the music. Doesn't prove or disprove the validity of Fagen's and Becker's opinions. shrug Steely Dan's records are mediocre sonically? Yes. Well, I suppose if one waits long enough, one will encounter *every* opinion. I suppose. It doesn't matter to me if other people agree with me or not. Hey I'd like for their albums to sound as good as they are saupposed to sound. They just don't, At least not to me. "Supposed to sound". Who decides this, then? For me it is obvious that the artist and their engineers and producers decides what the music is supposed to sound like in our homes, and I, the consumer, should just try to mimic that. This is done by using a totally transparent set of media and electronics and use speakers and rooms similar to the monitoring situation. No? The CD could (and most often do) transport all the bits unaltered to my home, and modern CD players creates an analog signal that is a *very good* replica of the analog signal as it was fed by the Becker/Fagen/Katz/Nichols desk to thier monitors! What more can we do, than take this "apporoved" signal and feed to our amps and speakers? If I don't like this replica I disagree with said gentlemen, which is of course fine, but this is not an audio discussion, per se. Per. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Who decides what a recording is supposed to sound like?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Who decides what a recording is supposed to sound like?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Who decides what a recording is supposed to sound like?
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:XIgMc.18423$8_6.6813@attbi_s04... From: Per Stromgren Date: 7/23/2004 12:08 PM Pacific Standard Time Message-id: From a well known thread, author's names not important: Steely Dan's records are consistantly mediocre IMO sonically. Too bad because I love the music. Doesn't prove or disprove the validity of Fagen's and Becker's opinions. shrug Steely Dan's records are mediocre sonically? Yes. Well, I suppose if one waits long enough, one will encounter *every* opinion. I suppose. It doesn't matter to me if other people agree with me or not. Hey I'd like for their albums to sound as good as they are saupposed to sound. They just don't, At least not to me. "Supposed to sound". Who decides this, then? I was refering to common opinion. Steely Dan does have a reputation for excellent production. I think their production is very slick and sophisticated as far as their arrangements and mixes are concered. I just don't think the recordings sound all that good. For me it is obvious that the artist and their engineers and producers decides what the music is supposed to sound like in our homes, and I, the consumer, should just try to mimic that. This is done by using a totally transparent set of media and electronics and use speakers and rooms similar to the monitoring situation. No? The CD could (and most often do) transport all the bits unaltered to my home, and modern CD players creates an analog signal that is a *very good* replica of the analog signal as it was fed by the Becker/Fagen/Katz/Nichols desk to thier monitors! What more can we do, than take this "apporoved" signal and feed to our amps and speakers? If I don't like this replica I disagree with said gentlemen, which is of course fine, but this is not an audio discussion, per se. Per. I've got to agree with "Wheel" here. I've got the SACD version of "Gaucho", and the DVD-A version of "Everything Must Go". Despite songs with "hooks" and very clean arrangements, the sound somehow seems very sterile to me. They are among my least involving samples from both genre's. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Who decides what a recording is supposed to sound like?
Per Stromgren wrote:
"Supposed to sound". Who decides this, then? For me it is obvious that the artist and their engineers and producers decides what the music is supposed to sound like in our homes, and I, the consumer, should just try to mimic that. This is done by using a totally transparent set of media and electronics and use speakers and rooms similar to the monitoring situation. No? The CD could (and most often do) transport all the bits unaltered to my home, and modern CD players creates an analog signal that is a *very good* replica of the analog signal as it was fed by the Becker/Fagen/Katz/Nichols desk to thier monitors! What more can we do, than take this "apporoved" signal and feed to our amps and speakers? If I don't like this replica I disagree with said gentlemen, which is of course fine, but this is not an audio discussion, per se. Per. I have been working in a recording studio. The overall sound starts with recording the tracks with different instruments. The choice of microphones, recording chambers and setup of the recording session is usually done by the recording engineer. The producer has the last word, if something is not right, it has to be recorded again. Thus the "raw" material is the foundation for a good sound. The musician contributes by modifying his instrument sound until the producer and recording engineer are satisfied. The next step is downmixing to the master. This stage is somewhat critical and implies the addition of all kinds of effects, EQ, compression etc. Again the producer gives instructions to the engineer, who operates the desk and effect units. The musicians usually have already left and maybe the leader or another skilled guy assists, if the group has certain strict ideas. The last step is mastering the CD, this is done by the producer in collaboration with another engineer of the mastering plant, the recording engineer and musicians are not present. My experience is the producer is responsible for 80% of how the sound comes out later. Usually this all is a smooth process if the persons are skilled and experienced. Unfortunately not always the tasks are divided, but some musicians also want to produce and even mix themselves, because they think they know better than the pros. This is mainly where the bad sound comes in. If David Bowie records, he wants to decide everything, because he at least co-produced his records. And so every single record he made is sonically not perfect(IMHO). On the other hand there are some good musicians/producers like Brian Eno or Chris Franke(Tangerine Dream). The Jazz guys usually do have trust in the producers and do not interfere at all, that is why it was always a lot of fun to work this genre. In that recording studio we did most of the recordings for the ECM-label from Munich, Germany, which was always a smooth process. The label was owned by some nice guy Escher, who let my boss (Conny Plank) completely free hand, I remember Mel Waldron: Morning 10:00 I got them from the Cologne Airport and by 17:00 in the afternoon and several reefers later they could take the plane back to NY. The recording lasted only 1.5h, the rest of the time I was playing chess with Mel. That was 1975. -- ciao Ban Bordighera, Italy |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Who decides what a recording is supposed to sound like?
"Ban" wrote in message news:RfwMc.156706$IQ4.4843@attbi_s02...
In that recording studio we did most of the recordings for the ECM-label from Munich, Germany, which was always a smooth process. LOL! Was that pun intentional? "the ECM label...a *smooth* process" Hysterical! The label was owned by some nice guy Escher, Eicher, but who's counting? who let my boss (Conny Plank) completely free hand Conny Plank (RIP) was a great engineer. He is missed. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Why all the bad recordings | High End Audio | |||
the emperor's clothes | High End Audio | |||
Sound, Music, Balance | High End Audio | |||
OT? Win98SE, help with audio recording from sound card? | General | |||
Surround Sound for Stereo Lovers | High End Audio |