Please take this thread out of rec.audio.pro. We don't care. Nor do we
like cross-postings to computer newsgroups.

I've only cross-posted this to r.a.p. so they'll know I don't care.
Anyone want to argue? Meet me at AES.



--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

Mike Rivers wrote:

Please take this thread out of rec.audio.pro. We don't care. Nor do we
like cross-postings to computer newsgroups.

I've only cross-posted this to r.a.p. so they'll know I don't care.
Anyone want to argue? Meet me at AES.


I would like to meet you, but not to argue. : )

Don Cooper wrote:
Mike Rivers wrote:

Please take this thread out of rec.audio.pro. We don't care. Nor do we
like cross-postings to computer newsgroups.

I've only cross-posted this to r.a.p. so they'll know I don't care.
Anyone want to argue? Meet me at AES.

I would like to meet you, but not to argue. : )

So, why don't the three of us meet for dinner in Richmond next weekend?
Then we can argue about whether barbeque is supposed to be beef or pork,
with A/B testing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article , (Scott Dorsey)
wrote:

james wrote:
In article ,
JEDIDIAH wrote:

Pro audio guys tend to be birds of a feather, and are focused on getting
the job done in a streamlined way. It's not a world where spending a
lot of time exploring something new and experimental, for the sake of
doing that, is rewarded.

Then the industry has decended into a sorry state dominated by
what can be best described as a corporate mentality.

I'd say it's more a case of the industry not adapting to new
developments. People who still have the "Cathedral" mindset
might not be aware of how interesting the "Bazaar" happens to be.

I don't know about anybody else here, but my Ampex sounds great, and I
don't see any reason to even bother using a computer for audio. Computers
are great for e-mail and accounting, though, both of which are very important
parts of a studio facility.
--scott

I sure don't miss lugging the ATR-104 to concerts so we could play 4-channel
sound files. A laptop and an 828 get us 8 channels of acceptable audio playback
and no hernias.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

(james) wrote:

i disagree. music in general has gone downhill since this trend started.

You've gotten older and developed a level of contempt for the music of
the next generation, and that's a normal, standard thing that's hardly
new!

yes, and music is very much like wine, the same song/bottle grows better
with time. people often forget that fact when listening to "current"
music, so give that next pop hit a break, listen to it 15 years from now
and you will understand a song takes time to "mature".

John Bailo wrote:

james wrote:


You've gotten older and developed a level of contempt for the music of
the next generation, and that's a normal, standard thing that's hardly
new!


New isn't always better.

When was the last time someone wrote a symphony better than Beethoven?


About 1912.

--
Les Cargill

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:14:01 -0700, John Bailo wrote:
james wrote:

You've gotten older and developed a level of contempt for the music of
the next generation, and that's a normal, standard thing that's hardly
new!

New isn't always better.

When was the last time someone wrote a symphony better than Beethoven?


Which Beethoven? There's a reason why V and IX are the best known,
similar to Mozart 40 and 41 being the ones that get performed outside of
"Complete Mozart Symphonies" collections.

Even Goffen/King, Leiber/Stoeller, and Rogers/Hammerstein have more
clunkers than winners.

Charles Krug wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:14:01 -0700, John Bailo wrote:
james wrote:

You've gotten older and developed a level of contempt for the music of
the next generation, and that's a normal, standard thing that's hardly
new!

New isn't always better.

When was the last time someone wrote a symphony better than Beethoven?

Which Beethoven? There's a reason why V and IX are the best known,
similar to Mozart 40 and 41 being the ones that get performed outside of
"Complete Mozart Symphonies" collections.

I dunno, I like the 7th best, personally. And I actually like I and II
a lot, in spite of the fact that they aren't very popular. The original
instrument performances of the first and second from St. Martin in the
Fields really make them into different pieces than the way they are played
today, too.

But my answer to when the last time was depends on whether you consider
Rimsky's Scheherazade to be an actual symphony or just an overgrown tone poem.
--scott


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

On 19 Oct 2005 10:50:22 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Charles Krug wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:14:01 -0700, John Bailo wrote:
james wrote:

You've gotten older and developed a level of contempt for the music of
the next generation, and that's a normal, standard thing that's hardly
new!

New isn't always better.

When was the last time someone wrote a symphony better than Beethoven?

Which Beethoven? There's a reason why V and IX are the best known,
similar to Mozart 40 and 41 being the ones that get performed outside of
"Complete Mozart Symphonies" collections.

I dunno, I like the 7th best, personally. And I actually like I and II
a lot, in spite of the fact that they aren't very popular. The original
instrument performances of the first and second from St. Martin in the
Fields really make them into different pieces than the way they are played
today, too.

But my answer to when the last time was depends on whether you consider
Rimsky's Scheherazade to be an actual symphony or just an overgrown tone poem.
--scott

Seventh, yes, I'm fond of that one too.

If Also Sprach Zarathustra is a "tone poem", then so is Scheherazade, I
suppose.

You can spend Endless time discussing whether or not a "Modern"
orchestra should or shouldn't be playing the smaller-scale pieces of the
17th and 18th Centuries.

And how you shouldn't use Dubly for heavy metal . . .

In article ,
Mr. T wrote:


(james) wrote:

i disagree. music in general has gone downhill since this trend started.

You've gotten older and developed a level of contempt for the music of
the next generation, and that's a normal, standard thing that's hardly
new!

yes, and music is very much like wine, the same song/bottle grows better
with time. people often forget that fact when listening to "current"
music, so give that next pop hit a break, listen to it 15 years from now
and you will understand a song takes time to "mature".

In my record collecting days, I remember basically throwing away boxes
of the stuff "They" wanted you to buy and keeping the one or two
interesting things.

I was listening to the radio this morning, and heard Matchbox 20 "If
You're Gone". That song is worthy of anything Chicago or the Moody
Blues ever did.

I remember the moment that I realized Motorhead was far from "just
noise" which I'd thought it was. A similar thing happened with
Einstruezende Neubauten, which I still think is noise, but a noise
that I strive to emulate.

In article ,
John Bailo wrote:

When was the last time someone wrote a symphony better than Beethoven?

Beethoven may have been a singularity -- nobody before *or* after him
can compare.

When was the last time someone wrote a folk song better than Woody
Guthrie?

james wrote:
In article ,
John Bailo wrote:

When was the last time someone wrote a symphony better than Beethoven?

Beethoven may have been a singularity -- nobody before *or* after him
can compare.

When was the last time someone wrote a folk song better than Woody
Guthrie?

If you know who wrote it and when, it's not a folk song.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 17:10:00 -0500, someone posing as John took a five
minute break from flipping burgers to boot up the etch-a-sketch and
scribbled:

In article ERU4f.2846$i%.548@fed1read07,
(james) wrote:

I think you should be grateful though. This revolution surely means
that songwriters are coming to the studio with a better idea of what
they are doing, better demo mixes, rough tracks that are recorded with
enough quality to actually be useful, that sort of thing. Don't they?

i disagree. music in general has gone downhill since this trend started.

to use an old metaphor:
i think it's unleashed the 1000 monkeys typing endless gibberish rather
than producing the one that might eventually type a line of Shakespeare
if given enough time.

Interesting take on things.

I remember an discussion I had with a guitarist (Peter Koppes) after a
concert a few years ago. I had told him that the demo version of a
particular track sounded much better than the one the studio eventually
released. In effect, the polish and layering done to the track lost some of
the beauty and passion in the demo version.

He told me that the band spent much time in the studio playing with the
endless combinations of layers, effects, and levels now available to them
as a result of the new computer-based mixing equipment they used. It was
difficult for them to know when to stop, he said, and they would often
argue for hours over a simple setting that previously was unavailable.

The nice thing about this band is they are open to releasing raw jam
sessions on their website. I just pre-ordered one yesterday in fact. I can
console myself with the ability to get raw non-mixed music along with their
official releases.

In the same vein, I almost never listen to the "polished" U2 album, Actung
baby. Instead I spend far more time listening to the Achtung Bebi outtakes
pirate album, which is so much better, IMO. The songs on Achtung Baby were
good but nothing in comparison to the raw brilliance of the outtakes
sessions.
--
kai - || www.perfectreign.com

"I got a Rock!" - Charley Brown

Perfect Reign wrote:

I remember an discussion I had with a guitarist (Peter Koppes) after a
concert a few years ago. I had told him that the demo version of a
particular track sounded much better than the one the studio eventually
released. In effect, the polish and layering done to the track lost some of
the beauty and passion in the demo version.

He told me that the band spent much time in the studio playing with the
endless combinations of layers, effects, and levels now available to them
as a result of the new computer-based mixing equipment they used. It was
difficult for them to know when to stop, he said, and they would often
argue for hours over a simple setting that previously was unavailable.

That's a fair point, but it's not the fault of the computer - although
it makes it easier to defer decisions and lose the edge, that's more of
a discipline issue. I certainly find that when I'm working at the
computer, there comes a point where if I work beyond it things don't get
any better and often deteriorate rapidly, but that's not the fault of
the computer, that's the fault of *me*.

In the end, to me, there are good pieces of music and bad pieces of
music, regardless of whether they're made on computer or tape, have a
guitar solo or whatever.

Aragorn wrote:
On Wednesday 19 October 2005 13:43, James Knott stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/


james wrote:


i disagree. music in general has gone downhill since this trend
started.

You've gotten older and developed a level of contempt for the music
of the next generation, and that's a normal, standard thing that's
hardly new!

Not so. There's some good new music and some junk, just as there was
when I was a kid. However, there seems to be a lot more junk these
days and some of the music I've heard, is actually nasty, which I
don't ever recall hearing when I was younger. Also, a lot of the
music today is so mechanical, with little apparent musical talent.


I second that, but then again, music is nothing more than a business
these days. Everything about "an artist" is fake. The clothing, the
attitude, the concepts depicted in the videos...

I'm a musician myself and I cover many different styles - from jazz
classics and blues over funk, fusion and some pop and even what was
called "heavy metal" in the 1970's and 1980's - Van Halen, Whitesnake,
that sort of thing.

Except for the really greats like Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Gary Moore,
Steve Lukather et al, today's guitar slingers don't even play solos
anymore. All they care about is how cool they look in their videos.

That's hardly new - plenty of old school guitar slingers seemed to worry
about how cool they looked too. And so what if they don't play solos?
I've heard many a good song spoiled by an inappropriate guitar solo.

Johnny Marr is an example of a good guitarist outside of the mainstream
rock arena, but he certainly doesn't play solos in the generally
accepted sense.

On the other hand, Yngwie Malmsteen I admire as a player with good
technique, but everything that I have heard by him leaves me cold -
unimaginative and self-indulgent.

Okay, these are just opinions, but you can't judge a guitarist just by
whether or not they play solos, or for that matter a piece of pop music.
If a piece of music was no good just for not having a guitar solo, then
that's a great deal of The Beatles consigned to the dustbin!

As you suggested before, the primary problem is the music business is
more than ever before *business*.

In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:

If you know who wrote it and when, it's not a folk song.

Conceded. But some of Beethoven's contemporaries, among them, the
period's equivalent of pro-audio fuddy duddies, thought his music was
dreadful :-)

james wrote:
In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:

If you know who wrote it and when, it's not a folk song.

Conceded. But some of Beethoven's contemporaries, among them, the
period's equivalent of pro-audio fuddy duddies, thought his music was
dreadful :-)

Oh, I have a good friend who can't stand "avant-garde music like Beethoven"
and who calls Franz Lizst "jazz" because he uses the tempo rubato.

If there was just an objective measure of musical quality, we wouldn't have to
have so darned many kinds....
--scott

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

In article ,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

james wrote:
In article ,
Scott Dorsey wrote:

If you know who wrote it and when, it's not a folk song.

Conceded. But some of Beethoven's contemporaries, among them, the
period's equivalent of pro-audio fuddy duddies, thought his music was
dreadful :-)

Oh, I have a good friend who can't stand "avant-garde music like Beethoven"
and who calls Franz Lizst "jazz" because he uses the tempo rubato.

If there was just an objective measure of musical quality, we wouldn't have to
have so darned many kinds....
--scott

objective measure of music? we can't even decide the tuning.

A= 440, 441 or 442 ? g
--
Digital Services Recording Studios
http://www.digisrvs.com

John wrote:

objective measure of music? we can't even decide the tuning.

A= 440, 441 or 442 ? g

We got an organ here where A=334. It was basically shaped to fit into
the hold of a ship so it could be brought over from London in 1749, although
this doesn't particularly make any sense to me... I'd think you'd want to
tune a couple notes _sharp_ to make the pipes smaller....
--scott


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

Aragorn wrote:
On Wednesday 19 October 2005 13:43, James Knott stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/

james wrote:


Except for the really greats like Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Gary Moore,
Steve Lukather et al, today's guitar slingers don't even play solos
anymore. All they care about is how cool they look in their videos.

Sure, there still is some good stuff among what's being published today,
but as Meja sang in her late 1990's hit song, "It's all about the
money"... ;-)


I agree with you as for guitar solos. The guitar does not have the
"Front Man" role in rock music nowadays.

But fortunately I just happen to have a lot of Hendrix and all the Zappas.

So I can listen to guitar solos whenever I want and as long as I want.

--
Vahis
You can't do that on stage anymore

Aragorn wrote:
On Wednesday 19 October 2005 13:43, James Knott stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/

james wrote:

i disagree. music in general has gone downhill since this trend
started.
You've gotten older and developed a level of contempt for the music
of the next generation, and that's a normal, standard thing that's
hardly new!
Not so. There's some good new music and some junk, just as there was
when I was a kid. However, there seems to be a lot more junk these
days and some of the music I've heard, is actually nasty, which I
don't ever recall hearing when I was younger. Also, a lot of the
music today is so mechanical, with little apparent musical talent.

I second that, but then again, music is nothing more than a business
these days. Everything about "an artist" is fake. The clothing, the
attitude, the concepts depicted in the videos...

I'm a musician myself and I cover many different styles - from jazz
classics and blues over funk, fusion and some pop and even what was
called "heavy metal" in the 1970's and 1980's - Van Halen, Whitesnake,
that sort of thing.

Except for the really greats like Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Gary Moore,
Steve Lukather et al, today's guitar slingers don't even play solos
anymore. All they care about is how cool they look in their videos.

Sure, there still is some good stuff among what's being published today,
but as Meja sang in her late 1990's hit song, "It's all about the
money"... ;-)

Most people wouldn't know good music if it came up and bit them in the
ass. Frank Zappa, American Composer, fl. 1940 - 1993

--
Vahis