| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"Monte McGuire" wrote in message
... My biggest complaint is that as far as I can tell, there's nothing automatic about AutoTune if you're doing it right. A really bad product name, IMHO!! Yeah, but "Manu-Tune" didn't pass the focus group test.  -- Neil Henderson Saqqara Records http://www.saqqararecords.com |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Monte McGuire" wrote in message
... My biggest complaint is that as far as I can tell, there's nothing automatic about AutoTune if you're doing it right. A really bad product name, IMHO!! Yeah, but "Manu-Tune" didn't pass the focus group test. -- Neil Henderson Saqqara Records http://www.saqqararecords.com |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actually I thought it was a lot worse in the 80's with all that sequenced synth pop. Much of that stuff was far more expressive and "human" than current "band" recordings. "I'm beginning to suspect that your problem is the gap between what you say and what you think you have said." -george (paraphrased) |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actually I thought it was a lot worse in the 80's with all that sequenced synth pop. Much of that stuff was far more expressive and "human" than current "band" recordings. "I'm beginning to suspect that your problem is the gap between what you say and what you think you have said." -george (paraphrased) |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
There are nice ways of saying that a take sucks without really saying it,
like "I think the song is progressing well! I'm thinking that we're a take or two away from a keeper, what do you think? Wanna hear the playback again?" Naturally... lying is part of recording "rock" musicians. Even if you don't lie in normal life, you have to hold your tounge and sugar coat statements otherwise people get quite upset when they feel their fragile egos are being challenged. "I'm beginning to suspect that your problem is the gap between what you say and what you think you have said." -george (paraphrased) |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
There are nice ways of saying that a take sucks without really saying it,
like "I think the song is progressing well! I'm thinking that we're a take or two away from a keeper, what do you think? Wanna hear the playback again?" Naturally... lying is part of recording "rock" musicians. Even if you don't lie in normal life, you have to hold your tounge and sugar coat statements otherwise people get quite upset when they feel their fragile egos are being challenged. "I'm beginning to suspect that your problem is the gap between what you say and what you think you have said." -george (paraphrased) |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
If they are so incredible have them sing it again I say. Or leave the "pitchyness" in. People today have very messed up ideas about what constitutes acceptable intonation. I'm recording a kid from Burkina Faso, a griot, who is writing singing and accompanying himself on electric guitar for a contemporary African audience and have learned a whole lot about that. At first I thought, "poor kid", and then I realized that his "off" intonation was identical on different takes. The other day I heard him sing something with perfect western intonation. I've gained a new appreciation for his native form. Bob -- This happens even with native USA-ans. I've heard people who are consistently flat or sharp in the exact same way every time, and it can sound good. It all depends on context. Sometimes a scoop into a note is good, sometimes it's bad. The idea that we are going to make human sing in perfect equal temperament is absurd. Like orchestral strings, humans have a natural tendency towards "pure" intervals, which is how you get sweet, eerie, disbelief-suspending harmonies and solo lines. These equal-tempered harmonies I'm hearing on the latest crop of manufactured radio slop are just bland, colorless and boring, not to mention physically impossible for any but the most absurdly technically proficient singers in real life. Strangely enough, using the alternate scale tuning options in autotune doesn't help much. It still sounds blah. Not that anything on the radio (or anyone using the software) even knows what the different scale tunings mean, so they just leave it at default. What can you do? Every song on the radio is painfully autotuned. I guess the majority must be right, just like nazi germany. "I'm beginning to suspect that your problem is the gap between what you say and what you think you have said." -george (paraphrased) |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
If they are so incredible have them sing it again I say. Or leave the "pitchyness" in. People today have very messed up ideas about what constitutes acceptable intonation. I'm recording a kid from Burkina Faso, a griot, who is writing singing and accompanying himself on electric guitar for a contemporary African audience and have learned a whole lot about that. At first I thought, "poor kid", and then I realized that his "off" intonation was identical on different takes. The other day I heard him sing something with perfect western intonation. I've gained a new appreciation for his native form. Bob -- This happens even with native USA-ans. I've heard people who are consistently flat or sharp in the exact same way every time, and it can sound good. It all depends on context. Sometimes a scoop into a note is good, sometimes it's bad. The idea that we are going to make human sing in perfect equal temperament is absurd. Like orchestral strings, humans have a natural tendency towards "pure" intervals, which is how you get sweet, eerie, disbelief-suspending harmonies and solo lines. These equal-tempered harmonies I'm hearing on the latest crop of manufactured radio slop are just bland, colorless and boring, not to mention physically impossible for any but the most absurdly technically proficient singers in real life. Strangely enough, using the alternate scale tuning options in autotune doesn't help much. It still sounds blah. Not that anything on the radio (or anyone using the software) even knows what the different scale tunings mean, so they just leave it at default. What can you do? Every song on the radio is painfully autotuned. I guess the majority must be right, just like nazi germany. "I'm beginning to suspect that your problem is the gap between what you say and what you think you have said." -george (paraphrased) |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1089320391k@trad... 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. So... you gonna' write a story about Tommy Morrell ?? -- David Morgan (MAMS) http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com Morgan Audio Media Service Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901 _______________________________________ http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Mike Rivers" wrote in message news:znr1089320391k@trad... 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. So... you gonna' write a story about Tommy Morrell ?? -- David Morgan (MAMS) http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com Morgan Audio Media Service Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901 _______________________________________ http://www.artisan-recordingstudio.com |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree with the original post. making records is a lie.
No it isn't. It's just a completely different art form from a live music performance. Just as cinema is a very different art form from theatre, & dance is a different art form from sculpture. Each art form has its relevant craft, tools & technique. None of that makes any of it a lie. Scott Fraser |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
I agree with the original post. making records is a lie.
No it isn't. It's just a completely different art form from a live music performance. Just as cinema is a very different art form from theatre, & dance is a different art form from sculpture. Each art form has its relevant craft, tools & technique. None of that makes any of it a lie. Scott Fraser |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
"knud" wrote in message
... My poin is people seem to be railing against auto tune. They must be working with some really bad singers. Its not that. Even good singers are being piped through auto-tune just because its in vogue. That's the one that really gets me. I just read an article the other day on that exact thing. To the younger kids it only sounds "professional" if it has that phased (that's how I hear it) sound of Autotune. |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
"knud" wrote in message
... My poin is people seem to be railing against auto tune. They must be working with some really bad singers. Its not that. Even good singers are being piped through auto-tune just because its in vogue. That's the one that really gets me. I just read an article the other day on that exact thing. To the younger kids it only sounds "professional" if it has that phased (that's how I hear it) sound of Autotune. |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
knud wrote: Why this trend towards expressionless, robotic performance? All the cheesy predictions about "futuristic music" are coming true little by little. Pretty soon people will be content with a computer generated song with physically modeled vocalist. Slap a lip-syncing Mickey Mouse club graduate on stage and there you go. No, a computer generated hologram, "live" in every major city (or living room) at the same time. |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
knud wrote: Why this trend towards expressionless, robotic performance? All the cheesy predictions about "futuristic music" are coming true little by little. Pretty soon people will be content with a computer generated song with physically modeled vocalist. Slap a lip-syncing Mickey Mouse club graduate on stage and there you go. No, a computer generated hologram, "live" in every major city (or living room) at the same time. |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bryson" wrote in message
ink.net... knud wrote: Why this trend towards expressionless, robotic performance? All the cheesy predictions about "futuristic music" are coming true little by little. Pretty soon people will be content with a computer generated song with physically modeled vocalist. Slap a lip-syncing Mickey Mouse club graduate on stage and there you go. No, a computer generated hologram, "live" in every major city (or living room) at the same time. Actually, this sounds kind of cool... -- dt king www.thoughtdog.com Music; untouched by human hands! |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bryson" wrote in message
ink.net... knud wrote: Why this trend towards expressionless, robotic performance? All the cheesy predictions about "futuristic music" are coming true little by little. Pretty soon people will be content with a computer generated song with physically modeled vocalist. Slap a lip-syncing Mickey Mouse club graduate on stage and there you go. No, a computer generated hologram, "live" in every major city (or living room) at the same time. Actually, this sounds kind of cool... -- dt king www.thoughtdog.com Music; untouched by human hands! |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
playon playonATcomcast.net writes:
Much of modern music isn't acoustic in origin. Things have changed. Yes, I know that. Most people are listening to records and CDs spun by DJs, and MP3s. I guess if you hear a band in a small club you are still hearing the real thing. Not necessarily. I'm amazed at how many "club" bands are augmenting their sound these days. Sometimes it seems only the "dinosaurs" setup and play "live" anymore. |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
playon playonATcomcast.net writes:
Much of modern music isn't acoustic in origin. Things have changed. Yes, I know that. Most people are listening to records and CDs spun by DJs, and MP3s. I guess if you hear a band in a small club you are still hearing the real thing. Not necessarily. I'm amazed at how many "club" bands are augmenting their sound these days. Sometimes it seems only the "dinosaurs" setup and play "live" anymore. |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Danny Taddei" wrote in message ... 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 sad is that? That's not as strange as you might think. When I was growing up there were guitars and electric guitars. An electric guitar was a novelty. That's why it had the additional modifier. Today most guitars are electric, so when someone says "guitar" they are most likely referring to an electric one. The modifier is thus attached to the "acoustic" guitar. The principle is that the most common realization of a noun does not require the modifier. The less common should have a modifier to distinguish it from the most common. Norm Strong |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Danny Taddei" wrote in message ... 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 sad is that? That's not as strange as you might think. When I was growing up there were guitars and electric guitars. An electric guitar was a novelty. That's why it had the additional modifier. Today most guitars are electric, so when someone says "guitar" they are most likely referring to an electric one. The modifier is thus attached to the "acoustic" guitar. The principle is that the most common realization of a noun does not require the modifier. The less common should have a modifier to distinguish it from the most common. Norm Strong |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 16:01:12 GMT, "normanstrong"
wrote: "Danny Taddei" wrote in message ... 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 sad is that? That's not as strange as you might think. When I was growing up there were guitars and electric guitars. An electric guitar was a novelty. That's why it had the additional modifier. Today most guitars are electric, so when someone says "guitar" they are most likely referring to an electric one. The modifier is thus attached to the "acoustic" guitar. The principle is that the most common realization of a noun does not require the modifier. The less common should have a modifier to distinguish it from the most common. Norm Strong So how come ice hockey is just called hockey in the states? Surely the field sport is the most common there, as it is here. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 16:01:12 GMT, "normanstrong"
wrote: "Danny Taddei" wrote in message ... 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 sad is that? That's not as strange as you might think. When I was growing up there were guitars and electric guitars. An electric guitar was a novelty. That's why it had the additional modifier. Today most guitars are electric, so when someone says "guitar" they are most likely referring to an electric one. The modifier is thus attached to the "acoustic" guitar. The principle is that the most common realization of a noun does not require the modifier. The less common should have a modifier to distinguish it from the most common. Norm Strong So how come ice hockey is just called hockey in the states? Surely the field sport is the most common there, as it is here. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
Its not that. Even good singers are being piped through auto-tune just
because its in vogue. That's the one that really gets me. I just read an article the other day on that exact thing. To the younger kids it only sounds "professional" if it has that phased (that's how I hear it) sound of Autotune. I guess the late 80's had the ridiculous, bloated snare reverb and now we have autotune. "I'm beginning to suspect that your problem is the gap between what you say and what you think you have said." -george (paraphrased) |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
Its not that. Even good singers are being piped through auto-tune just
because its in vogue. That's the one that really gets me. I just read an article the other day on that exact thing. To the younger kids it only sounds "professional" if it has that phased (that's how I hear it) sound of Autotune. I guess the late 80's had the ridiculous, bloated snare reverb and now we have autotune. "I'm beginning to suspect that your problem is the gap between what you say and what you think you have said." -george (paraphrased) |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
normanstrong wrote: That's not as strange as you might think. When I was growing up there were guitars and electric guitars. An electric guitar was a novelty. That's why it had the additional modifier. Today most guitars are electric, so when someone says "guitar" they are most likely referring to an electric one. The modifier is thus attached to the "acoustic" guitar. The principle is that the most common realization of a noun does not require the modifier. The less common should have a modifier to distinguish it from the most common. Norm Strong Sugar coat it all you want but my friend deserves the ridicule :-) |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
normanstrong wrote: That's not as strange as you might think. When I was growing up there were guitars and electric guitars. An electric guitar was a novelty. That's why it had the additional modifier. Today most guitars are electric, so when someone says "guitar" they are most likely referring to an electric one. The modifier is thus attached to the "acoustic" guitar. The principle is that the most common realization of a noun does not require the modifier. The less common should have a modifier to distinguish it from the most common. Norm Strong Sugar coat it all you want but my friend deserves the ridicule :-) |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
Don Pearce wrote: So how come ice hockey is just called hockey in the states? Surely the field sport is the most common there, as it is here. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com I think that in the UK people use the term ice hockey to modify the more common pocket hockey :-) sorry, momentary urge to jab - |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
Don Pearce wrote: So how come ice hockey is just called hockey in the states? Surely the field sport is the most common there, as it is here. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com I think that in the UK people use the term ice hockey to modify the more common pocket hockey :-) sorry, momentary urge to jab - |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 10:57:41 -0600, Danny Taddei
wrote: Don Pearce wrote: So how come ice hockey is just called hockey in the states? Surely the field sport is the most common there, as it is here. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com I think that in the UK people use the term ice hockey to modify the more common pocket hockey :-) sorry, momentary urge to jab - Sorry - pocket billiards over here. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 10:57:41 -0600, Danny Taddei
wrote: Don Pearce wrote: So how come ice hockey is just called hockey in the states? Surely the field sport is the most common there, as it is here. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com I think that in the UK people use the term ice hockey to modify the more common pocket hockey :-) sorry, momentary urge to jab - Sorry - pocket billiards over here. d Pearce Consulting http://www.pearce.uk.com |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
Don Pearce wrote:
So how come ice hockey is just called hockey in the states? Surely the field sport is the most common there, as it is here. I'm not a rabid fan of either, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that ice hockey actually is quite a bit more popular than field hockey in the US. Neither of them is especially popular, and so there are mostly enough ice rinks in shopping malls, etc. to cover the needs of ice hockey players. Plus most of the popularity of any form of hockey in the US comes from Canada's influence, and it would seem that ice hockey is more popular in Canada than field hockey is there. - Logan |
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
Don Pearce wrote:
So how come ice hockey is just called hockey in the states? Surely the field sport is the most common there, as it is here. I'm not a rabid fan of either, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that ice hockey actually is quite a bit more popular than field hockey in the US. Neither of them is especially popular, and so there are mostly enough ice rinks in shopping malls, etc. to cover the needs of ice hockey players. Plus most of the popularity of any form of hockey in the US comes from Canada's influence, and it would seem that ice hockey is more popular in Canada than field hockey is there. - Logan |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| What a nice bunch of people | Audio Opinions | |||
| Chief of Liars - A New Krueger Song - by Sockpuppets Inc. | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
