Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past in thepro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
I'm talking about what one would label as the pro world of recording of material for mass consumption.
Is there anything about a particular arena of recording - pop, classical, opera, TV news, film, etc. - whatever - that you find lacking compared to an earlier era despite all the technology? Or do you think audio recording is at its zenith now? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past in the pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
On 26/08/2020 2:54 pm, geoff wrote:
On 26/08/2020 4:48 pm, wrote: I'm talking about what one would label as the pro world of recording of material for mass consumption. Is there anything about a particular arena of recording - pop, classical, opera, TV news, film, etc. - whatever - that you find lacking compared to an earlier era despite all the technology? Or do you think audio recording is at its zenith now? Recording technology is certainly at its zenith - one can achieve whatever one wants, for better or for worse, and recording/production/delivery is nearer to the actual acoustic (where appropriate) that ever in the past. I would agree, but I know plenty of people still argue tape is better than digital. Or valve amps are superior to solid state (and not just guitar amps) Or vinyl is better than CD. Or classic mics are superior etc. So I'm sure you could have an endless debate with those people if that's what you are after. These people simply don't get the difference between *personal preference*, artistic *choices*, and actual superiority of performance. Whether or not 'most' of the music is as creative or worthy of admiration is up for debate ... Well at least that is *really* debatable! But once again it is more about personal preference. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
On 26/08/2020 5:27 pm, Trevor wrote:
On 26/08/2020 2:54 pm, geoff wrote: On 26/08/2020 4:48 pm, wrote: I'm talking about what one would label as the pro world of recording of material for mass consumption. Is there anything about a particular arena of recording - pop, classical, opera, TV news, film, etc. - whatever - that you find lacking compared to an earlier era despite all the technology? Or do you think audio recording is at its zenith now? Recording technology is certainly at its zenith - one can achieve whatever one wants, for better or for worse, and recording/production/delivery is nearer to the actual acoustic (where appropriate) that ever in the past. I would agree, but I know plenty of people still argue tape is better than digital. Or valve amps are superior to solid state (and not just guitar amps) Or vinyl is better than CD. Or classic mics are superior etc. So I'm sure you could have an endless debate with those people if that's what you are after. These people simply don't get the difference between *personal preference*, artistic *choices*, and actual superiority of performance. Many people believe religions and other irrational and ridiculous things too. Whether or not 'most' of the music is as creative or worthy of admiration is up for debate ... Well at least that is *really* debatable! But once again it is more about personal preference. But no matter how good (or bad) it can be done very well ;- ) geoff |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past in the pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
In article , Trevor wrote:
On 26/08/2020 2:54 pm, geoff wrote: Recording technology is certainly at its zenith - one can achieve whatever one wants, for better or for worse, and recording/production/delivery is nearer to the actual acoustic (where appropriate) that ever in the past. I would agree, but I know plenty of people still argue tape is better than digital. Or valve amps are superior to solid state (and not just guitar amps) Or vinyl is better than CD. Or classic mics are superior etc. So I'm sure you could have an endless debate with those people if that's what you are after. These people simply don't get the difference between *personal preference*, artistic *choices*, and actual superiority of performance. But that's WHY recording technology is at its zenith... there are more choices than ever before. You want something that sounds like tape, that's great because you have a bunch of tape formulations to choose from. If you want something completely clean, we finally have digital converters that can do that. Want to make an acoustic disc? Sure, we can do that. Whatever is appropriate to the music, we have plenty of production methods and systems to choose from. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
Trevor wrote:
On 26/08/2020 2:54 pm, geoff wrote: On 26/08/2020 4:48 pm, wrote: I'm talking about what one would label as the pro world of recording of material for mass consumption. Is there anything about a particular arena of recording - pop, classical, opera, TV news, film, etc. - whatever - that you find lacking compared to an earlier era despite all the technology? Or do you think audio recording is at its zenith now? Recording technology is certainly at its zenith - one can achieve whatever one wants, for better or for worse, and recording/production/delivery is nearer to the actual acoustic (where appropriate) that ever in the past. I would agree, but I know plenty of people still argue tape is better than digital. Or valve amps are superior to solid state (and not just guitar amps) Or vinyl is better than CD. Or classic mics are superior etc. Those are mostly objectively wrong; it's not hard to define and demonstrate the defects. Even guitar amps are this way these days; Pat Quilter's made a big dent and modelling is all but indistinguishable from the real thing. So I'm sure you could have an endless debate with those people if that's what you are after. These people simply don't get the difference between *personal preference*, artistic *choices*, and actual superiority of performance. All they have to say is "workflow" and we're good to go. There's nothing wrong with fetishism but insisting on your ... kink as correct is when the eyebrows go up. Whether or not 'most' of the music is as creative or worthy of admiration is up for debate ... Well at least that is *really* debatable! But once again it is more about personal preference. IMO? There's too much money in (pop) music now for it to be any good. There's zero tolerance for risk. Any risk would need to be justified on a "social media" or other marketing basis. Same for theater. Same for film. Same for books. There's good music out there but it's hard to find. -- Les Cargill |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
Musicians are playing software instead of instruments. I'm doing it with Apple Logic Pro X.
It's allowed me to "compose" with instruments I can't play and don't have time to learn in this lifetime. Is that a good thing? I don't know. It works for me; expanding my musical horizon. Should I be concerned about putting other musicians out of work? Here's one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7M2-GIW9Ls There was a magic involved in designing and build recording studios. People today don't always realize how great some of the old big rooms were. I feel lucky to have been in some of them. Just standing there and listening to the room.......Wow! |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
On 26/08/2020 14:50, Ty Ford wrote:
There was a magic involved in designing and build recording studios. People today don't always realize how great some of the old big rooms were. I feel lucky to have been in some of them. Just standing there and listening to the room.......Wow! Grin I am close to getting a lovely sounding room. 69 feet by 35 feet by 30 feet or so tall at the top of the vaulted ceiling. This one:- www.oysterbroadcast.co.uk/Click_2.html -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
On 26/08/2020 16:08, John Williamson wrote:
On 26/08/2020 14:50, Ty Ford wrote: There was a magic involved in designing and build recording studios. People today don't always realize how great some of the old big rooms were. I feel lucky to have been in some of them. Just standing there and listening to the room.......Wow! Grin I am close to getting a lovely sounding room. 69 feet by 35 feet by 30 feet or so tall at the top of the vaulted ceiling. This one:- www.oysterbroadcast.co.uk/Click_2.html it is in he- https://goo.gl/maps/PdBNqjaLT7hyRx3d8 -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
On 27/08/2020 3:29 am, John Williamson wrote:
On 26/08/2020 16:08, John Williamson wrote: On 26/08/2020 14:50, Ty Ford wrote: There was a magic involved in designing and build recording studios. People today don't always realize how great some of the old big rooms were. I feel lucky to have been in some of them. Just standing there and listening to the room.......Wow! Grin I am close to getting a lovely sounding room. 69 feet by 35 feet by 30 feet or so tall at the top of the vaulted ceiling. This one:- www.oysterbroadcast.co.uk/Click_2.html it is in he- https://goo.gl/maps/PdBNqjaLT7hyRx3d8 Lovely ;- ) geoff |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past in thepro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
wrote:
I'm talking about what one would label as the pro world of recording of material for mass consumption. Is there anything about a particular arena of recording - pop, classical, opera, TV news, film, etc. - whatever - that you find lacking compared to an earlier era despite all the technology? Or do you think audio recording is at its zenith now? In the late eighties I worked with a producer in Atlanta who assured me that the music of the early seventies was the best ever, and that nothing better would ever be achieved. His argument was that it was the drugs that made the music what it was and "you can't get stuff like that any more." He had a long list of products from quaaludes to gorilla tranquilizers that he claimed were the key to the fine music of the era. Personally I don't agree with this, but I was doing classical music at the time. Drugs did not appear on the classical scene until much later. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
On 26/08/2020 8:17 pm, Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote: I'm talking about what one would label as the pro world of recording of material for mass consumption. Is there anything about a particular arena of recording - pop, classical, opera, TV news, film, etc. - whatever - that you find lacking compared to an earlier era despite all the technology? Or do you think audio recording is at its zenith now? In the late eighties I worked with a producer in Atlanta who assured me that the music of the early seventies was the best ever, and that nothing better would ever be achieved. His argument was that it was the drugs that made the music what it was and "you can't get stuff like that any more." He had a long list of products from quaaludes to gorilla tranquilizers that he claimed were the key to the fine music of the era. Personally I don't agree with this, but I was doing classical music at the time. Drugs did not appear on the classical scene until much later. --scott Scott, I lived in Nashville from '70 to '75 and I encountered some of the top song writers and such in the business at the local pill doctor's clinic. It was certainly a trip. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
Les Cargill wrote:
Why is all the pop music quantixed to death? Answer: artists are fungible and replaceable ( and may not even be able to play their own stuff ) and producers make up the balance. Quantization better fits that risk profile. See Rick Beato on Youtube for details ( "How Computers Ruined Music") That's how pop music has always been. Menudo. The Monkees. Hell, just about any time any actress sang in a Hollywood movie, her voice was replaced with Marni Nixon's. Why is the dialogue in film way too low in level and unintelligible? Because we don't have big dubbing stages any more. People mix films in tiny closets so that the mix will translate into someone's living room. Show that film in a big auditorium with a second reverb time and you won't be able to make out any of the words. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past in the pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
On 27 Aug 2020 15:16:26 -0000, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Hell, just about any time any actress sang in a Hollywood movie, her voice was replaced with Marni Nixon's. And any time any guitarist played on a British pop record, it was actually Jimmy Page. d -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
On 28/08/2020 3:12 am, Don Pearce wrote:
On 27 Aug 2020 15:16:26 -0000, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Hell, just about any time any actress sang in a Hollywood movie, her voice was replaced with Marni Nixon's. And any time any guitarist played on a British pop record, it was actually Jimmy Page. HaHa. But don't think he ever played on a Beatles record. Or a Rolling Stones, or Who, or Pink Floyd, or...... |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past in the pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
On Fri, 28 Aug 2020 16:56:45 +1000, Trevor wrote:
On 28/08/2020 3:12 am, Don Pearce wrote: On 27 Aug 2020 15:16:26 -0000, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Hell, just about any time any actress sang in a Hollywood movie, her voice was replaced with Marni Nixon's. And any time any guitarist played on a British pop record, it was actually Jimmy Page. HaHa. But don't think he ever played on a Beatles record. Or a Rolling Stones, or Who, or Pink Floyd, or...... They were rock, not pop. d -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
Trevor wrote:
On 28/08/2020 3:12 am, Don Pearce wrote: On 27 Aug 2020 15:16:26 -0000, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Hell, just about any time any actress sang in a Hollywood movie, her voice was replaced with Marni Nixon's. And any time any guitarist played on a British pop record, it was actually Jimmy Page. HaHa. But don't think he ever played on a Beatles record. Or a Rolling Stones, or Who, or Pink Floyd, or...... He played on at least one Who record. -- Les Cargill |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past in the pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
Don Pearce wrote:
On 27 Aug 2020 15:16:26 -0000, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Hell, just about any time any actress sang in a Hollywood movie, her voice was replaced with Marni Nixon's. And any time any guitarist played on a British pop record, it was actually Jimmy Page. d When it wasn't Big Jim Sullivan. -- Les Cargill |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past in the pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
"Les Cargill" wrote in message ... Don Pearce wrote: On 27 Aug 2020 15:16:26 -0000, (Scott Dorsey) wrote: Hell, just about any time any actress sang in a Hollywood movie, her voice was replaced with Marni Nixon's. And any time any guitarist played on a British pop record, it was actually Jimmy Page. d When it wasn't Big Jim Sullivan. Absolutely. Page was called "Little Jim Sullivan" as Big Jim was the go to guy. And my biggest reason to watch the Tom Jones Show. Other than Mr. Jones of course. Poly -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote: Why is all the pop music quantixed to death? Answer: artists are fungible and replaceable ( and may not even be able to play their own stuff ) and producers make up the balance. Quantization better fits that risk profile. See Rick Beato on Youtube for details ( "How Computers Ruined Music") That's how pop music has always been. Menudo. The Monkees. The Monkees records sound amazing. It was basically The Wrecking Crew playing like Carole King songs. It's not quantized. For pop, as pop, it's top shelf. Hell, just about any time any actress sang in a Hollywood movie, her voice was replaced with Marni Nixon's. Why is the dialogue in film way too low in level and unintelligible? Because we don't have big dubbing stages any more. Whut? I could get the dialogue up to level here, in front of little MI store monitors. My guess is that they overwork the mixers and they mix too loud. No trouble making out the explosions, either. I've read things that indicate they undermix the dialogue to get people to listen harder, to "lean in". But mainly, I'd bet there just a lot of hacks out there. People mix films in tiny closets so that the mix will translate into someone's living room. This is America. People have massive living rooms now. I listen in a living room. I still have the captions on. Show that film in a big auditorium with a second reverb time and you won't be able to make out any of the words. The acoustics in theaters is a whole 'nother story. Meyer Sound should think about packaging some of their correction stuff for theaters - I bet they'd sell more than a few. --scott -- Les Cargill |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 11:57:46 PM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote:
Why is the dialogue in film way too low in level and unintelligible? When I asked a credentialed film mixer that question a couple weeks ago, he insisted it was because film is mixed mixed on a calibrated system and I was unfortunate enough to have an uncalibrated consumer system. He made sure to point out the letters after his name. I did ask him why he didn't check his mixes in his car (metaphorically.) - WillStG |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
On 30/11/2020 7:36 pm, Will StG wrote:
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 11:57:46 PM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote: Why is the dialogue in film way too low in level and unintelligible? Yep, action films are the worst where dialog is usually considered completely unimportant compared to impressive sound effects. When I asked a credentialed film mixer that question a couple weeks ago, he insisted it was because film is mixed mixed on a calibrated system and I was unfortunate enough to have an uncalibrated consumer system. So either he expects all consumers to have professionally calibrated systems, or he simply doesn't care about his ultimate customers. He made sure to point out the letters after his name. A sure sign of a ******. I did ask him why he didn't check his mixes in his car (metaphorically.) :-) I'm not sure that is even the problem. It's simply a choice of what is important in the mix, and sadly the dialog is often considered secondary, and completely unintelligible for anyone the slightest bit hard of hearing. However if it's a usual 5.1 mix with dialog directed to the centre, at home you can at least turn up the centre. If you dont have a centre speaker then the simple answer is to get one. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
On Tuesday, December 1, 2020 at 2:01:45 AM UTC-5, Trevor wrote:
On 30/11/2020 7:36 pm, Will StG wrote: On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 11:57:46 PM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote: Why is the dialogue in film way too low in level and unintelligible? Yep, action films are the worst where dialog is usually considered completely unimportant compared to impressive sound effects. When I asked a credentialed film mixer that question a couple weeks ago, he insisted it was because film is mixed mixed on a calibrated system and I was unfortunate enough to have an uncalibrated consumer system. So either he expects all consumers to have professionally calibrated systems, or he simply doesn't care about his ultimate customers. He made sure to point out the letters after his name. A sure sign of a ******. I did ask him why he didn't check his mixes in his car (metaphorically.) :-) I'm not sure that is even the problem. It's simply a choice of what is important in the mix, and sadly the dialog is often considered secondary, and completely unintelligible for anyone the slightest bit hard of hearing. However if it's a usual 5.1 mix with dialog directed to the centre, at home you can at least turn up the centre. If you dont have a centre speaker then the simple answer is to get one. _______ But are we possibly falling into an old trap here - one of blaming the mixer/engineer for largely fulfilling the studio/director/producer's wishes? |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past in the pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
"Theckmah the Dumb-**** Retard" wrote in message
... But are we sneck "We"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket, li'l buddy? |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
Today's music production depends greatly on the engineer and tools to
create sounds and fix problems. In the olde days, the musicians played well, they had a good arrangement, maybe did a couple of takes leaving room for some editing, and the job was acceptable. The perfect snare sample doesn't make a hit record, it's the perfect drummer. -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 12:48:08 AM UTC-4, ye.com wrote:
I'm talking about what one would label as the pro world of recording of material for mass consumption. Is there anything about a particular arena of recording - pop, classical, opera, TV news, film, etc. - whatever - that you find lacking compared to an earlier era despite all the technology? Or do you think audio recording is at its zenith now? ______ I think our cultural 'zenith' was the years 1965 - 1985. The best movies, the best TV shows, some of the best books, and definitely, the best misic and best sound quality thereof. While digital audio is the most transparent format for capturing and playing back music, it has been abused terribly, by both engineers and their cloents, especially from the late 1990s to mid-last decade. And of course this led to the format being blamed, resulting in the renaissance of tried and true analog formats such as the vinyl LP. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
Chris K-Man wrote:
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 12:48:08 AM UTC-4, ye.com wrote: I'm talking about what one would label as the pro world of recording of material for mass consumption. Is there anything about a particular arena of recording - pop, classical, opera, TV news, film, etc. - whatever - that you find lacking compared to an earlier era despite all the technology? Or do you think audio recording is at its zenith now? ______ I think our cultural 'zenith' was the years 1965 - 1985. "Pulp Fiction" was in 1994. The best movies, the best TV shows, "Twin Peaks: The Return" was 2017. "The best" now comes from cable channels or premium cable channels; we're generally considered to be in a "golden age". Are we? I dunno. Probably. some of the best books, and definitely, the best misic and best sound quality thereof. While digital audio is the most transparent format for capturing and playing back music, it has been abused terribly, by both engineers and their cloents, especially from the late 1990s to mid-last decade. And of course this led to the format being blamed, resulting in the renaissance of tried and true analog formats such as the vinyl LP. Things like Beat Detective and Melodyne have apparently been abused. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFaRIW-wZlw -- Les Cargill |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
On Sunday, August 30, 2020 at 1:44:32 PM UTC-4, Les Cargill wrote:
Chris K-Man wrote: On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 12:48:08 AM UTC-4, ye.com wrote: I'm talking about what one would label as the pro world of recording of material for mass consumption. Is there anything about a particular arena of recording - pop, classical, opera, TV news, film, etc. - whatever - that you find lacking compared to an earlier era despite all the technology? Or do you think audio recording is at its zenith now? ______ I think our cultural 'zenith' was the years 1965 - 1985. "Pulp Fiction" was in 1994. The best movies, the best TV shows, "Twin Peaks: The Return" was 2017. "The best" now comes from cable channels or premium cable channels; we're generally considered to be in a "golden age". Are we? I dunno. Probably. some of the best books, and definitely, the best misic and best sound quality thereof. While digital audio is the most transparent format for capturing and playing back music, it has been abused terribly, by both engineers and their cloents, especially from the late 1990s to mid-last decade. And of course this led to the format being blamed, resulting in the renaissance of tried and true analog formats such as the vinyl LP. Things like Beat Detective and Melodyne have apparently been abused. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFaRIW-wZlw -- Les Cargill _______ Fer sure, there have been standouts before and since the period I referenced, just not at the same Gatlin gun rapid fire rate. Now is more like fire, load. lock. repeat. Single bolt action compared to then. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
On 31/08/2020 5:44 am, Les Cargill wrote:
Chris K-Man wrote: On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 12:48:08 AM UTC-4, ye.com wrote: I'm talking about what one would label as the pro world of recording of material for mass consumption. Is there anything about a particular arena of recording - pop, classical, opera, TV news, film, etc. - whatever - that you find lacking compared to an earlier era despite all the technology? Or do you think audio recording is at its zenith now? ______ I think ourÂ* cultural 'zenith'Â* was the years 1965 -Â* 1985. "Pulp Fiction" was in 1994. ... and Six Feet Under 2001 to 2005. geoff |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 12:48:08 AM UTC-4, yewyahoo.com wrote:
I'm talking about what one would label as the pro world of recording of material for mass consumption. Is there anything about a particular arena of recording - pop, classical, opera, TV news, film, etc. - whatever - that you find lacking compared to an earlier era despite all the technology? Or do you think audio recording is at its zenith now? ______ I think our cultural 'zenith' was the years 1965 - 1985. The best movies, the best TV shows, some of the best books, and definitely, the best music and best sound quality thereof. While digital audio is the most transparent format for capturing and playing back music, it has been abused terribly, by both engineers and their cloents, especially from the late 1990s to mid-last decade. And of course this led to the format being blamed, resulting in the renaissance of tried and true analog formats such as the vinyl LP. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past in the pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
On 8/30/2020 9:37 AM, Chris K-Man wrote:
On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 12:48:08 AM UTC-4, yewyahoo.com wrote: I'm talking about what one would label as the pro world of recording of material for mass consumption. Is there anything about a particular arena of recording - pop, classical, opera, TV news, film, etc. - whatever - that you find lacking compared to an earlier era despite all the technology? Or do you think audio recording is at its zenith now? ______ I think our cultural 'zenith' was the years 1965 - 1985. The best movies, the best TV shows, some of the best books, and definitely, the best music and best sound quality thereof. While digital audio is the most transparent format for capturing and playing back music, it has been abused terribly, by both engineers and their cloents, especially from the late 1990s to mid-last decade. And of course this led to the format being blamed, resulting in the renaissance of tried and true analog formats such as the vinyl LP. It seems that, according to the comments in this topic, "the best years" depends on one's age, cultural involvement, and exposure to the breadth of material. So, from my perspective, movies went from being an art form, with some of the best examples going back to the early 1900s to a product marketing scheme. Pop music was all over the board. Rock and Roll's popularity began around 1950, and because it constituted a blending of the ethnic diversity of this country, it was considered a threat to the "American culture." The "British Invasion" of the '60s was an attempt to "purify" and divide the country, ironically by having bands do covers of mid-50s rock. Since Pat Boone couldn't do it with his covers of Little Richard tunes, SOMEBODY had to! ;-) There is no question that today's technology is far superior from the microphones to the delivery material. But, the artistic connection to real life experience is pretty rare. Heads seem to be fully tucked in the sand these days. -- best regards, Neil |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 7:14:15 AM UTC-4, Neil wrote:
On 8/30/2020 9:37 AM, Chris K-Man wrote: On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 12:48:08 AM UTC-4, yewyahoo.com wrote: I'm talking about what one would label as the pro world of recording of material for mass consumption. Is there anything about a particular arena of recording - pop, classical, opera, TV news, film, etc. - whatever - that you find lacking compared to an earlier era despite all the technology? Or do you think audio recording is at its zenith now? ______ I think our cultural 'zenith' was the years 1965 - 1985. The best movies, the best TV shows, some of the best books, and definitely, the best music and best sound quality thereof. While digital audio is the most transparent format for capturing and playing back music, it has been abused terribly, by both engineers and their cloents, especially from the late 1990s to mid-last decade. And of course this led to the format being blamed, resulting in the renaissance of tried and true analog formats such as the vinyl LP. It seems that, according to the comments in this topic, "the best years" depends on one's age, cultural involvement, and exposure to the breadth of material. So, from my perspective, movies went from being an art form, with some of the best examples going back to the early 1900s to a product marketing scheme. Pop music was all over the board. Rock and Roll's popularity began around 1950, and because it constituted a blending of the ethnic diversity of this country, it was considered a threat to the "American culture." The "British Invasion" of the '60s was an attempt to "purify" and divide the country, ironically by having bands do covers of mid-50s rock. Since Pat Boone couldn't do it with his covers of Little Richard tunes, SOMEBODY had to! ;-) There is no question that today's technology is far superior from the microphones to the delivery material. But, the artistic connection to real life experience is pretty rare. Heads seem to be fully tucked in the sand these days. -- best regards, Neil _______ Millennials can embrace their tech - but I embrace good writing, good acting, good composition, instrumental arrangement, and good technique at the recording, filming, mixing, mastering, whatever, stages. Sure, today's mics, formats, and delivery might be better, but all that's being delivered is super hot slammed-to-**** music, and 'reboots of movies and TV from, again, the GREATEST AGE... the mid-60s to mid-80s. All in glorious 7.1 digital barfospheric surround. So... what! |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
On 31/08/2020 11:41 pm, Chris K-Man wrote:
On Monday, August 31, 2020 at 7:14:15 AM UTC-4, Neil wrote: On 8/30/2020 9:37 AM, Chris K-Man wrote: On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 12:48:08 AM UTC-4, yewyahoo.com wrote: I'm talking about what one would label as the pro world of recording of material for mass consumption. Is there anything about a particular arena of recording - pop, classical, opera, TV news, film, etc. - whatever - that you find lacking compared to an earlier era despite all the technology? Or do you think audio recording is at its zenith now? ______ I think our cultural 'zenith' was the years 1965 - 1985. The best movies, the best TV shows, some of the best books, and definitely, the best music and best sound quality thereof. While digital audio is the most transparent format for capturing and playing back music, it has been abused terribly, by both engineers and their cloents, especially from the late 1990s to mid-last decade. And of course this led to the format being blamed, resulting in the renaissance of tried and true analog formats such as the vinyl LP. It seems that, according to the comments in this topic, "the best years" depends on one's age, cultural involvement, and exposure to the breadth of material. So, from my perspective, movies went from being an art form, with some of the best examples going back to the early 1900s to a product marketing scheme. Pop music was all over the board. Rock and Roll's popularity began around 1950, and because it constituted a blending of the ethnic diversity of this country, it was considered a threat to the "American culture." The "British Invasion" of the '60s was an attempt to "purify" and divide the country, ironically by having bands do covers of mid-50s rock. Since Pat Boone couldn't do it with his covers of Little Richard tunes, SOMEBODY had to! ;-) There is no question that today's technology is far superior from the microphones to the delivery material. But, the artistic connection to real life experience is pretty rare. Heads seem to be fully tucked in the sand these days. -- best regards, Neil _______ Millennials can embrace their tech - but I embrace good writing, good acting, good composition, instrumental arrangement, and good technique at the recording, filming, mixing, mastering, whatever, stages. Sure, today's mics, formats, and delivery might be better, but all that's being delivered is super hot slammed-to-**** music, and 'reboots of movies and TV from, again, the GREATEST AGE... the mid-60s to mid-80s. All in glorious 7.1 digital barfospheric surround. So... what! The art is the thing. The technology, if not abused, is a bonus ! geoff |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past in the pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
"geoff" wrote in message ... major snippage The art is the thing. The technology, if not abused, is a bonus ! +1. Great line Geoff. Poly -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in thepast in the pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
Neil wrote:
On 8/30/2020 9:37 AM, Chris K-Man wrote: On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 12:48:08 AM UTC-4, yewyahoo.com wrote: I'm talking about what one would label as the pro world of recording of material for mass consumption. Is there anything about a particular arena of recording - pop, classical, opera, TV news, film, etc. - whatever - that you find lacking compared to an earlier era despite all the technology? Or do you think audio recording is at its zenith now? ______ I think our cultural 'zenith' was the years 1965 - 1985. The best movies, the best TV shows, some of the best books, and definitely, the best music and best sound quality thereof. While digital audio is the most transparent format for capturing and playing back music, it has been abused terribly, by both engineers and their cloents, especially from the late 1990s to mid-last decade. And of course this led to the format being blamed, resulting in the renaissance of tried and true analog formats such as the vinyl LP. It seems that, according to the comments in this topic, "the best years" depends on one's age, cultural involvement, and exposure to the breadth of material. So, from my perspective, movies went from being an art form, with some of the best examples going back to the early 1900s to a product marketing scheme. Pop music was all over the board. Rock and Roll's popularity began around 1950, and because it constituted a blending of the ethnic diversity of this country, it was considered a threat to the "American culture." The "British Invasion" of the '60s was an attempt to "purify" and divide the country, ironically by having bands do covers of mid-50s rock. Since Pat Boone couldn't do it with his covers of Little Richard tunes, SOMEBODY had to! ;-) There is no question that today's technology is far superior from the microphones to the delivery material. But, the artistic connection to real life experience is pretty rare. Heads seem to be fully tucked in the sand these days. In my opinion, the €śbest music€ť always seems to have been produced when ones hormonal production was also at its peak. Weird coincidence... |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
On 8/31/2020 10:32 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Neil wrote: On 8/30/2020 9:37 AM, Chris K-Man wrote: On Wednesday, August 26, 2020 at 12:48:08 AM UTC-4, yewyahoo.com wrote: I'm talking about what one would label as the pro world of recording of material for mass consumption. Is there anything about a particular arena of recording - pop, classical, opera, TV news, film, etc. - whatever - that you find lacking compared to an earlier era despite all the technology? Or do you think audio recording is at its zenith now? ______ I think our cultural 'zenith' was the years 1965 - 1985. The best movies, the best TV shows, some of the best books, and definitely, the best music and best sound quality thereof. While digital audio is the most transparent format for capturing and playing back music, it has been abused terribly, by both engineers and their cloents, especially from the late 1990s to mid-last decade. And of course this led to the format being blamed, resulting in the renaissance of tried and true analog formats such as the vinyl LP. It seems that, according to the comments in this topic, "the best years" depends on one's age, cultural involvement, and exposure to the breadth of material. So, from my perspective, movies went from being an art form, with some of the best examples going back to the early 1900s to a product marketing scheme. Pop music was all over the board. Rock and Roll's popularity began around 1950, and because it constituted a blending of the ethnic diversity of this country, it was considered a threat to the "American culture." The "British Invasion" of the '60s was an attempt to "purify" and divide the country, ironically by having bands do covers of mid-50s rock. Since Pat Boone couldn't do it with his covers of Little Richard tunes, SOMEBODY had to! ;-) There is no question that today's technology is far superior from the microphones to the delivery material. But, the artistic connection to real life experience is pretty rare. Heads seem to be fully tucked in the sand these days. In my opinion, the €śbest music€ť always seems to have been produced when ones hormonal production was also at its peak. Weird coincidence... Interesting observation! Certainly true for "mindless music", but there are other genres that aren't driven by impulse. I miss the explorative nature of classical electronic music, such as used for the soundtrack of "Forbidden Planet" and the social criticisms of Pete Seeger, Buffy St. Marie and others. -- best regards, Neil |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in thepast in the pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
Neil wrote:
There is no question that today's technology is far superior from the microphones to the delivery material. But, the artistic connection to real life experience is pretty rare. Heads seem to be fully tucked in the sand these days. Sure, but it has -always- been pretty rare. It's bad, but don't let anyone tell you that it was ever any better. There are a million Salieris for every Mozart. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Anything you think was consistently done better in the past inthe pro/commercial recording world than how it's done today?
On 8/31/2020 11:52 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Neil wrote: There is no question that today's technology is far superior from the microphones to the delivery material. But, the artistic connection to real life experience is pretty rare. Heads seem to be fully tucked in the sand these days. Sure, but it has -always- been pretty rare. It's bad, but don't let anyone tell you that it was ever any better. There are a million Salieris for every Mozart. --scott True, but the differences are pretty similar between the Salieris and the Mozarts. The Salieris were trying to emulate while the Mozarts were creating (at least as they've been presented in the media). However, I don't think the instant marketing success of art is an accurate measure, as many of the best art pieces didn't achieve that status until long after the artists' demise. Today, there isn't much effort, and even less "value" in being creative. Movies have become a variant of Kabuki theater. Music concerts are more about the audience than the performers, because the audiences stopped listening in the early '70s and now spend more time on their phones than paying attention to what's going on... not that what's going on requires a lot of attention. -- best regards, Neil |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Commercial Recording Quality | High End Audio | |||
LOOKING For A DEAL On A World Class POWER CORD? | ENDS TODAY | Marketplace | |||
LOOKING For A DEAL On World Class BALANCED INTERCONNECTS? | ENDS TODAY | Marketplace | |||
LOOKING For A DEAL On World Class INTERCONNECTS? | ENDS TODAY | Marketplace | |||
Buying a commercial recording studio? | Pro Audio |