Maybe having a two-month-old AND a three year old have turned my brain
to jelly, but I was reading a thread on autotune and out plopped this
rant from my keyboard.
-------------------------------------

Autotune?

So what?

We lie about practically everything else on an album.

- their tempo sucks so they play to a click
- they have no dynamic sense so I use a compressor
- they forget the words so I punch them in
- the bassist is drunk so I overdub him later
- neither take was perfect so I edit them together
- they record in a studio so I add a Hall reverb
- his timing was off so I shift the track
- the piano is sampled, so it's not out of tune
- the sequencer is locked to SMPTE so the notes are spot-on

I EQ and change mikes and move people around and rent other drum kits
and use Amp Farm. I get on the talkback and say "That was Great." I'm
a liar just like the rest of you freaks.


But here's something to think about -

More often than not when you routinely fix all this other **** then
the spotlight fatally shifts to the singer.

Maybe we should have stopped with the sound of "Louie Louie." I think
we've done this to ourselves by making the studio too easy for artists
to **** off in. When we started fixing too many things ourselves, we
personally became too responsible for the newly exposed flaws in the
original performance.






Kurt "sometimes I do pull-down sync math just for the fun of it"
Riemann

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 23:37:12 -0800, Kurt Riemann wrote:

---------------------------------------8------------------------------------------

We lie about practically everything else on an album.

- their tempo sucks so they play to a click
- they have no dynamic sense so I use a compressor
- they forget the words so I punch them in
- the bassist is drunk so I overdub him later
- neither take was perfect so I edit them together
- they record in a studio so I add a Hall reverb
- his timing was off so I shift the track
- the piano is sampled, so it's not out of tune
- the sequencer is locked to SMPTE so the notes are spot-on

I EQ and change mikes and move people around and rent other drum kits
and use Amp Farm. I get on the talkback and say "That was Great." I'm
a liar just like the rest of you freaks.


But here's something to think about -

More often than not when you routinely fix all this other **** then
the spotlight fatally shifts to the singer.

Maybe we should have stopped with the sound of "Louie Louie." I think
we've done this to ourselves by making the studio too easy for artists
to **** off in. When we started fixing too many things ourselves, we
personally became too responsible for the newly exposed flaws in the
original performance.






Kurt "sometimes I do pull-down sync math just for the fun of it"
Riemann

HA! This I'll remember as it is true... but hey, everything mentioned
above can be instantly heard! Now this is what the performers ought to
remember... in fact, the Autotune will tune a bad singer "outta".
Nothing replace talent, hard musical education, skills and
professionalism. That's why I really like old recordings with all
possible human errors and flaws. Don't try to autotune them though. I
want human tempos, not a 32768 cps perfect tempo; I want a human
played piano not samplers, I want a human voice with all expressions
you can imagine, I want good written arrangement and not a PC made one
(hear that cliche chords?)... and out at the street, I welcome the
folks with half broken guitars and almost ruptured accordeons and I
stay away from "surfboarders" with hitech arranger samplers playing
with their little finger only.

But in turn, all the computer stuff can be of immense help if one has
a measure, that's right.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

Kurt Riemann wrote in message
...


Autotune?

So what?

We lie about practically everything else on an album.

- their tempo sucks so they play to a click
- they have no dynamic sense so I use a compressor
- they forget the words so I punch them in
- the bassist is drunk so I overdub him later
- neither take was perfect so I edit them together
- they record in a studio so I add a Hall reverb
- his timing was off so I shift the track
- the piano is sampled, so it's not out of tune
- the sequencer is locked to SMPTE so the notes are spot-on

The difference is those other things ADD to the musical experience: eg.
"makes it better". Autotune doesn't. It just takes crap and shifts it to a
nicely aligned grid. It's still crap on a grid.

"Ricky W. Hunt" wrote in news:GmaHc.45858$Oq2.17689
@attbi_s52:

Kurt Riemann wrote in message
...


Autotune?

So what?

We lie about practically everything else on an album.

- their tempo sucks so they play to a click
- they have no dynamic sense so I use a compressor
- they forget the words so I punch them in
- the bassist is drunk so I overdub him later
- neither take was perfect so I edit them together
- they record in a studio so I add a Hall reverb
- his timing was off so I shift the track
- the piano is sampled, so it's not out of tune
- the sequencer is locked to SMPTE so the notes are spot-on

The difference is those other things ADD to the musical experience: eg.
"makes it better". Autotune doesn't. It just takes crap and shifts it to
a
nicely aligned grid. It's still crap on a grid.




Making "something better" was not the point. The point is that one is
creating a lie. The performers suck, so we use technology to fix it.
Might as well take a Rembrandt and photoshop it.

r


--
Nothing beats the bandwidth of a station wagon filled with DLT tapes.

Making "something better" was not the point. The point is that one is
creating a lie. The performers suck, so we use technology to fix it.
Might as well take a Rembrandt and photoshop it.

If you've got a Rembrandt you don't need to Photoshop it.

Autotune?

So what?

We lie about practically everything else on an album.

- their tempo sucks so they play to a click

There are other reasons for using a click.

- they have no dynamic sense so I use a compressor

How bout using a compressor to shape tone?

- they forget the words so I punch them in

Sometimes you're working on material that's brand new and hasn't fully been
written yet.

- the bassist is drunk so I overdub him later

You got me there.

- neither take was perfect so I edit them together

Sometimes magic things happen on different takes...

- they record in a studio so I add a Hall reverb

You have to record where the equipment is... it's a general purpose
facility...

- his timing was off so I shift the track

Rarely works well at all.

- the piano is sampled, so it's not out of tune

Pianos are expensive.

- the sequencer is locked to SMPTE so the notes are spot-on

Would you rather have a loose sequence?


I EQ and change mikes and move people around and rent other drum kits
and use Amp Farm. I get on the talkback and say "That was Great." I'm
a liar just like the rest of you freaks.

There's nothing wrong with telling people that a performance was great. A
great performance for a group of garage band kids is going to be to a
somewhat lower standard than say, a session with top notch studio players.



But here's something to think about -

More often than not when you routinely fix all this other **** then
the spotlight fatally shifts to the singer.

Maybe we should have stopped with the sound of "Louie Louie." I think
we've done this to ourselves by making the studio too easy for artists
to **** off in. When we started fixing too many things ourselves, we
personally became too responsible for the newly exposed flaws in the
original performance.

You have to keep it all in perspective.

We lie about practically everything else on an album.

- their tempo sucks so they play to a click
- they have no dynamic sense so I use a compressor
- they forget the words so I punch them in
- the bassist is drunk so I overdub him later
- neither take was perfect so I edit them together
- they record in a studio so I add a Hall reverb
- his timing was off so I shift the track
- the piano is sampled, so it's not out of tune
- the sequencer is locked to SMPTE so the notes are spot-on

I EQ and change mikes and move people around and rent other drum kits
and use Amp Farm. I get on the talkback and say "That was Great." I'm
a liar just like the rest of you freaks.

Well, yeah, if you got one of them fancypants Jetsons studio of the future.
Down here we all set up in the barn and sing into a big can and the Colonel
gives us $12 a song.

We sell cassettes as feed n'seed stores all around the county.

--
dt king
www.thoughtdog.com
Best dang music you ever herd!

You should have started this post with something like Luke:14 And the
Lord sayeth -

Nothing could me more right on than this. And then people ask the
question - why do the old recordings sound good. I think I am going to
start answering with a question - Why is making love to a average woman
better then whacking off to a picture in a magazine? Sorry so explicit
but I think it makes the point best!

This should be reposted with vigor for the hearts of all the young and
talentless souls to read.

Kurt Riemann wrote:

Maybe we should have stopped with the sound of "Louie Louie." I think
we've done this to ourselves by making the studio too easy for artists
to **** off in. When we started fixing too many things ourselves, we
personally became too responsible for the newly exposed flaws in the
original performance.






Kurt "sometimes I do pull-down sync math just for the fun of it"
Riemann

The difference is those other things ADD to the musical experience: eg.
"makes it better". Autotune doesn't. It just takes crap and shifts it to a
nicely aligned grid. It's still crap on a grid.

I have put crap drum performances to a grid. Sequences keyboards too.

On the other hand I have taken some increadible singers and fixed some pitchy
notes on their vocal tracks with auto tune.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

Kurt Riemann wrote in message . ..
Maybe having a two-month-old AND a three year old have turned my brain
to jelly, but I was reading a thread on autotune and out plopped this
rant from my keyboard.
-------------------------------------

Autotune?

So what?

We lie about practically everything else on an album.

- their tempo sucks so they play to a click
- they have no dynamic sense so I use a compressor
- they forget the words so I punch them in
- the bassist is drunk so I overdub him later
- neither take was perfect so I edit them together
- they record in a studio so I add a Hall reverb
- his timing was off so I shift the track
- the piano is sampled, so it's not out of tune
- the sequencer is locked to SMPTE so the notes are spot-on

I EQ and change mikes and move people around and rent other drum kits
and use Amp Farm. I get on the talkback and say "That was Great." I'm
a liar just like the rest of you freaks.


I find this all hits rather close to home, except that the bassists I
know are sober, and I never use amp farm (though I DO use a SansAmp
sometimes).

-dave
www.themoodrings.com

EggHd wrote:
The difference is those other things ADD to the musical experience: eg.
"makes it better". Autotune doesn't. It just takes crap and shifts it to a
nicely aligned grid. It's still crap on a grid.

I have put crap drum performances to a grid. Sequences keyboards too.

But, it didn't make them wonderful performances.

On the other hand I have taken some increadible singers and fixed some pitchy
notes on their vocal tracks with auto tune.

But, they still would have been incredible without it.

All of these techniques are fine when they are used judiciously to make a
great performer a little bit better. But they can't make a bad performer
great... they can only make them more consistent and less painful to listen
to.

And that goes for pretty much all production technique, I think.
--scott

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

I found this a while back and thought it funny -

Beyond the Bass Clef: The Life and Art of Bass Playing
-- by Tony Levin

In the beginning there was a bass. It was a Fender, probably a
Precision,but it could have been a Jazz -- nobody knows.
Anyway, it was very old...
definitely pre-C.B.S.

And God looked down upon it and saw that it was
good. He saw that it was
very good in fact, and couldn't be improved on at
all (though men would
later try.) And so He let it be and He created a man
to play the bass.

And lo the man looked upon the bass, which was a
beautiful 'sunburst' red,
and he loved it. He played upon the open E string
and the note rang through
the earth and reverberated throughout the firmaments
(thus reverb came to
be.) And it was good. And God heard that it was good
and He smiled at his
handiwork.

Then in the course of time, the man came to slap
upon the bass. And lo it
was funky.

And God heard this funkiness and He said, "Go man,
go." And it was good.

And more time passed, and, having little else to
do, the man came to
practice upon the bass. And lo, the man came to have
upon him a great set of
chops. And he did play faster and faster until the
notes rippled like a
breeze through the heavens.

And God heard this sound which sounded something
like the wind, which He
had created earlier. It also sounded something like
the movement of
furniture, which He hadn't even created yet, and He
was not so pleased. And
He spoke to the man, saying "Don't do that!"

Now the man heard the voice of God, but he was so
excited about his new
ability that he slapped upon the bass a blizzard of
funky notes. And the
heavens shook with the sound, and the Angels ran
about in confusion.
(Some of the Angels started to dance, but that's
another story.)

And God heard this -- how could He miss it -- and
lo He became Bugged. And
He spoke to the man, and He said, "Listen man, if I
wanted Jimi Hendrix I
would have created the guitar. Stick to the bass
parts."

And the man heard the voice of God, and he knew not
to mess with it. But
now he had upon him a passion for playing fast and
high. The man took the
frets off of the bass which God had created. And the
man did slide his
fingers upon the fretless fingerboard and play
melodies high upon the neck.
And, in his excitement, the man did forget the
commandment of the Lord, and
he played a frenzy of high melodies and blindingly
fast licks. And the
heavens rocked with the assault and the earth shook,
rattled and rolled.

Now God's wrath was great. And His voice was
thunder as He spoke to the
man.

And He said, "O.K. for you, pal. You have not
heeded My word. Lo, I shall
create a soprano saxophone and it shall play higher
than you can even think
of."

"And from out of the chaos I shall bring forth the
drums. And they shall
play so many notes thine head shall ache, and I
shall make you to always
stand next to the drummer."

"You think you're loud? I shall create a stack of
Marshall guitar amps to
make thine ears bleed. And I shall send down upon
the earth other
instruments, and lo, they shall all be able to play
higher and faster than
the bass."

"And for all the days of man, your curse shall be
this; that all the other
musicians shall look to you, the bass player, for
the low notes. And if you
play too high or fast all the other musicians shall
say "Wow" but really
they shall hate it. And they shall tell you you're
ready for your solo
career, and find other bass players for their bands.
And for all your days
if you want to play your fancy licks you shall have
to sneak them in like a
thief in the night."

"And if you finally do get to play a solo, everyone
shall leave the
bandstand and go to the bar for a drink."

And it was so.


Geetar Dave wrote:

Kurt Riemann wrote in message . ..

Maybe having a two-month-old AND a three year old have turned my brain
to jelly, but I was reading a thread on autotune and out plopped this
rant from my keyboard.
-------------------------------------

Autotune?

So what?

We lie about practically everything else on an album.

- their tempo sucks so they play to a click
- they have no dynamic sense so I use a compressor
- they forget the words so I punch them in
- the bassist is drunk so I overdub him later
- neither take was perfect so I edit them together
- they record in a studio so I add a Hall reverb
- his timing was off so I shift the track
- the piano is sampled, so it's not out of tune
- the sequencer is locked to SMPTE so the notes are spot-on

I EQ and change mikes and move people around and rent other drum kits
and use Amp Farm. I get on the talkback and say "That was Great." I'm
a liar just like the rest of you freaks.



I find this all hits rather close to home, except that the bassists I
know are sober, and I never use amp farm (though I DO use a SansAmp
sometimes).

-dave
www.themoodrings.com

I have put crap drum performances to a grid. Sequences keyboards too.

But, it didn't make them wonderful performances.

True.

On the other hand I have taken some increadible singers and fixed some
pitchy
notes on their vocal tracks with auto tune.

But, they still would have been incredible without it.

Trau again.

My poin is people seem to be railing against auto tune. They must be working
with some really bad singers.

Way before DAWs, I (any many others) edited drums, tuned vocals punched vocals
line by line or comped 8 tracks of vocals, recorded guitar solos note by notes,
brought in studio pros to add to record of contained bands etc.

I agree with the original post. making records is a lie.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

EggHd wrote:

My poin is people seem to be railing against auto tune. They must be working
with some really bad singers.

It's a combination of really bad singers, and the fact that people get the
notion that if they have the ability to fix something in post that they
don't need to bother doing it right in the first place. That attitude was
around long before Autotune, but it's insidious.

Way before DAWs, I (any many others) edited drums, tuned vocals punched vocals
line by line or comped 8 tracks of vocals, recorded guitar solos note by notes,
brought in studio pros to add to record of contained bands etc.

Absolutely. The problem has been with us since the beginning, it's just that
the easier the manipulation becomes, the more tempting it is to use and to
overuse it.

I agree with the original post. making records is a lie.

That's sort of why I am doing mostly classical work these days. Classical
folks and the punk folks are about the only people left who care about the
integrity of the performance more than absolute perfection. And the classical
folks who do care about that are a dying breed anyway.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

The problem has been with us since the beginning, it's just that
the easier the manipulation becomes, the more tempting it is to use and to
overuse it.

Agreed. Add to that that some people's recording backgrounds are DAWs with
plug ins as their base line.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

"EggHd" wrote in message ...
The problem has been with us since the beginning, it's just that
the easier the manipulation becomes, the more tempting it is to use and to
overuse it.

Agreed. Add to that that some people's recording backgrounds are DAWs with
plug ins as their base line.


Some people's...? I get the impression that this percentage is
becoming quite large. "Oh gee, it's a compressor... I hear those
are cool, so I'll put one on every track and make everything really
loud with it. How does it work?"

?!

DM

EggHd wrote:
The problem has been with us since the beginning, it's just that
the easier the manipulation becomes, the more tempting it is to use and to
overuse it.

Agreed. Add to that that some people's recording backgrounds are DAWs with
plug ins as their base line.

The real problem is that so few people have actually heard real unmanipulated
music these days. If you don't know what it's _supposed_ to sound like, how
can you know any better?
--scott

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

Danny Taddei wrote:

I found this a while back and thought it funny -

Beyond the Bass Clef: The Life and Art of Bass Playing
-- by Tony Levin


That whole book is great!


Don

I didn't realize it was a book. Someone I know just sent me an excerpt.

Don Cooper wrote:


Danny Taddei wrote:

I found this a while back and thought it funny -

Beyond the Bass Clef: The Life and Art of Bass Playing
-- by Tony Levin



That whole book is great!


Don

The real problem is that so few people have actually heard real
unmanipulated
music these days. If you don't know what it's _supposed_ to sound like, how
can you know any better?

People as, David said, want to add **** to every track. The fine art of mixing
as good recorded sounds balanced very well is out the window in that case.


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

playon wrote:
On 8 Jul 2004


How many people today even listen to any musical sound that hasn't
been put thru a mic? Very few people even know what acoustic
instruments sound like in a room.

Al
try not to laugh (or cry) to hard but I was in a bar with a friend and
said that the acoustic guitar that the player was on sounded nice and he
ask "what's an acoustic guitar". How said is that?

In article ,
playon wrote:

On 8 Jul 2004 13:32:45 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

EggHd wrote:
The problem has been with us since the beginning, it's just that
the easier the manipulation becomes, the more tempting it is to use and to
overuse it.

Agreed. Add to that that some people's recording backgrounds are DAWs with
plug ins as their base line.

The real problem is that so few people have actually heard real unmanipulated
music these days. If you don't know what it's _supposed_ to sound like, how
can you know any better?
--scott

How many people today even listen to any musical sound that hasn't
been put thru a mic? Very few people even know what acoustic
instruments sound like in a room.

Al


Much of modern music isn't acoustic in origin. Things have changed.

-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-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

Danny Taddei wrote:

I didn't realize it was a book. Someone I know just sent me an excerpt.


http://www.tonylevin.com

http://www.papabear.com

Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's a combination of really bad singers, and the fact that people get the
notion that if they have the ability to fix something in post that they
don't need to bother doing it right in the first place. That attitude was
around long before Autotune, but it's insidious.

I suppose it would be bad form and undiplomatic to present the artists
with two CDs at the completion of the project: the final mix where
you've fixed everything, and the "this is what you actually sound
like" mix.

Then again, knowing the people around here, someone has probably
already done that...

- Logan

I is now eddicated :-)

thanks

Don Cooper wrote:


Danny Taddei wrote:


I didn't realize it was a book. Someone I know just sent me an excerpt.



http://www.tonylevin.com

http://www.papabear.com

Logan Shaw wrote:

Scott Dorsey wrote:

It's a combination of really bad singers, and the fact that people get the
notion that if they have the ability to fix something in post that they
don't need to bother doing it right in the first place. That attitude was
around long before Autotune, but it's insidious.


I suppose it would be bad form and undiplomatic to present the artists
with two CDs at the completion of the project: the final mix where
you've fixed everything, and the "this is what you actually sound
like" mix.

Then again, knowing the people around here, someone has probably
already done that...

- Logan

there is a band that sucked so bad and somehow I was talked into
producing them. http://www.tapwater.net/band.htm

These guys didn't even credit me on the CD. I split to go sailing for 10
months and came back to a well, thanks just the same - Oh yeah, we
aren't going to pay you either -

I think I am going to take a un-fixed mix and post it at a web site for
all to hear... come to think of it, I have a half shot video of them to
with some seriously embarrassing stuff on it - that was a good idea

In article ,
"Romeo Rondeau" wrote:

Making "something better" was not the point. The point is that one is
creating a lie. The performers suck, so we use technology to fix it.
Might as well take a Rembrandt and photoshop it.

If you've got a Rembrandt you don't need to Photoshop it.



I tried to email you photos from my GW speech, please send valid email
to
Thanks

"Danny Taddei" wrote in message ...
[deletions]
: I think I am going to take a un-fixed mix and post it at a web site for
: all to hear... come to think of it, I have a half shot video of them to
: with some seriously embarrassing stuff on it - that was a good idea

Wouldn't that be a copyright infringement?

I agree with the original post. making records is a lie.

Oh, hell. Who ever said making records was honest. You are trying to create
an illusion of the people playing in front of you, where's the truth in
that? :-) Oh yeah, some guys try to say they "capture it
accurately"....Bull****! It's just an illusion no matter what you do.

People as, David said, want to add **** to every track. The fine art of
mixing
as good recorded sounds balanced very well is out the window in that case.

Blame it on the Beatles! All the tracks on Sgt. Pepper had something on
them, even if it was heavy compression.

"Logan Shaw" wrote in message
...
Scott Dorsey wrote:
It's a combination of really bad singers, and the fact that people get
the
notion that if they have the ability to fix something in post that they
don't need to bother doing it right in the first place. That attitude
was
around long before Autotune, but it's insidious.

I suppose it would be bad form and undiplomatic to present the artists
with two CDs at the completion of the project: the final mix where
you've fixed everything, and the "this is what you actually sound
like" mix.

Then again, knowing the people around here, someone has probably
already done that...

It's called a board mix. It can be very revealing, plus it makes you the
hero when they hear the final, after you've done all those horrible things
in the DAW :-)

Kurt Riemann wrote in message . ..
Maybe having a two-month-old AND a three year old have turned my brain
to jelly, but I was reading a thread on autotune and out plopped this
rant from my keyboard.
-------------------------------------

Autotune?

So what?

We lie about practically everything else on an album.

- their tempo sucks so they play to a click
- they have no dynamic sense so I use a compressor
- they forget the words so I punch them in
- the bassist is drunk so I overdub him later
- neither take was perfect so I edit them together
- they record in a studio so I add a Hall reverb
- his timing was off so I shift the track
- the piano is sampled, so it's not out of tune
- the sequencer is locked to SMPTE so the notes are spot-on

I EQ and change mikes and move people around and rent other drum kits
and use Amp Farm. I get on the talkback and say "That was Great." I'm
a liar just like the rest of you freaks.


But here's something to think about -

More often than not when you routinely fix all this other **** then
the spotlight fatally shifts to the singer.

Maybe we should have stopped with the sound of "Louie Louie." I think
we've done this to ourselves by making the studio too easy for artists
to **** off in. When we started fixing too many things ourselves, we
personally became too responsible for the newly exposed flaws in the
original performance.






Kurt "sometimes I do pull-down sync math just for the fun of it"
Riemann


Well if you take a look back you will remember the 60's was notorious
for concocted bands who had studio musicians play on the records and
had a swat team of writers for the songs. The most obvious one that
comes to mind is the monkees.

Oh yea and then there was speeding up the tape sometimes just for
tracking but often to bring the pitch up. Surprise surprise when you
get to the gig and that crisp sounding singer now sounds like Lee
Marvin.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message ...
Making "something better" was not the point. The point is that one is
creating a lie. The performers suck, so we use technology to fix it.
Might as well take a Rembrandt and photoshop it.

If you've got a Rembrandt you don't need to Photoshop it.

But Rembrandt may have used camera obscura (optics) to outline his
paintings and achieve proportion. Nothing new under the sun.


Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

"Romeo Rondeau" wrote in message ...
Making "something better" was not the point. The point is that one is
creating a lie. The performers suck, so we use technology to fix it.
Might as well take a Rembrandt and photoshop it.

If you've got a Rembrandt you don't need to Photoshop it.

But Rembrandt may have used camera obscura (optics) to outline his
paintings and achieve proportion. Nothing new under the sun.


Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

In article writes:

My poin is people seem to be railing against auto tune. They must be working
with some really bad singers.

I think that the hobbyists are. But surely the majors can't be all
that bad. Or maybe they are. I hear tales of live shows where either
AutoTune is obvious or the singer's pitch is consistently bad. Usually
they just blame the monitors though.

I agree with the original post. making records is a lie.

But it's more legal than robbing banks.

The King Features web site is two weeks behind on posting the daily
comic strips, but if you get Zits, check out yesterday's (7/7/04).
When Jeremy asks to borrow $15 to buy a CD because there's one song he
likes, his mother asks why he doesn't just download the song, and he
says that it's stealing. His mother asks if selling a CD for $15
with one good song on it isn't also stealing.



--
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

In article writes:

My poin is people seem to be railing against auto tune. They must be working
with some really bad singers.

I think that the hobbyists are. But surely the majors can't be all
that bad. Or maybe they are. I hear tales of live shows where either
AutoTune is obvious or the singer's pitch is consistently bad. Usually
they just blame the monitors though.

I agree with the original post. making records is a lie.

But it's more legal than robbing banks.

The King Features web site is two weeks behind on posting the daily
comic strips, but if you get Zits, check out yesterday's (7/7/04).
When Jeremy asks to borrow $15 to buy a CD because there's one song he
likes, his mother asks why he doesn't just download the song, and he
says that it's stealing. His mother asks if selling a CD for $15
with one good song on it isn't also stealing.



--
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

In article writes:

The other thing modern recording does is give us far too many choices,
which takes energy away from just making the music.

The whole process is just so fragmented. Today there's a team of
songwriters (sometimes involving the artist), the singer, the band,
the session musicians, the producer, the tracking engineer, the Pro
Tools operator, and the mixing engineer. Everybody was chosen for the
project because of his "touch" and each one adds it. Sometimes they
build on what was there, other times they tear it down and put the
pieces together the way they want it.

Now when someone goes into a studio with a band and cuts an album in a
couple of days, it rates a story in Mix.

--
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

In article writes:

The other thing modern recording does is give us far too many choices,
which takes energy away from just making the music.

The whole process is just so fragmented. Today there's a team of
songwriters (sometimes involving the artist), the singer, the band,
the session musicians, the producer, the tracking engineer, the Pro
Tools operator, and the mixing engineer. Everybody was chosen for the
project because of his "touch" and each one adds it. Sometimes they
build on what was there, other times they tear it down and put the
pieces together the way they want it.

Now when someone goes into a studio with a band and cuts an album in a
couple of days, it rates a story in Mix.

--
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

Nothing replace talent, hard musical education, skills and
professionalism.

Thats a nice sentiment. Unfortunately only shared by a select few. Most
people could give ****. Money and haircuts replace anything.


"I'm beginning to suspect that your problem is the gap between
what you say and what you think you have said."
-george (paraphrased)

Nothing replace talent, hard musical education, skills and
professionalism.

Thats a nice sentiment. Unfortunately only shared by a select few. Most
people could give ****. Money and haircuts replace anything.


"I'm beginning to suspect that your problem is the gap between
what you say and what you think you have said."
-george (paraphrased)