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 |
#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?
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! |
#7
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. |
#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?
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. |
#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 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 |
#10
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." |
#11
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." |
#12
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?
|
#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?
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 |
#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?
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." |
#15
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 |
#16
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...... |
#17
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 |
#18
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. |
#19
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 in message
... Beatles record. Or a Rolling Stones, or Who, or Pink Floyd, or...... ... not pop. Your Mother Should Know, She's A Rainbow, Happy Jack, Grantchester Meadows. Not pop. Ha! But in fact, Page did play with the Stones on at least one of their recordings, and he played on a Beatles tune in the film _A Hard Day's Night_. (It was incidental sound-track music, not played by the Beatles.) And of course, he also played with the Who, and pretty much everyone else in that time and place. |
#20
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 |
#21
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 |
#22
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 |
#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 28/08/2020 5:14 pm, Don Pearce wrote:
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. Didn't come much more popular than the Beatles! :-) |
#24
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 Sat, 29 Aug 2020 17:34:34 +1000, Trevor wrote:
On 28/08/2020 5:14 pm, Don Pearce wrote: 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. Didn't come much more popular than the Beatles! :-) Another use of the word.... But you knew that d -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#25
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 Sat, 29 Aug 2020 17:34:34 +1000, Trevor wrote: On 28/08/2020 5:14 pm, Don Pearce wrote: They were rock, not pop. Didn't come much more popular than the Beatles! :-) Another use of the word.... But you knew that The Beatles... they were a phenomenon unto themselves. They weren't rock, they weren't pop, they weren't blues, they were all three at the same time but really they weren't anything but the Beatles. I fear we shall not see their like again. My father said they destroyed American music and they certainly transformed it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#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?
"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 |
#27
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 , polymod wrote:
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. It's not unusual... --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#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 8/29/20 9:35 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
The Beatles... they were a phenomenon unto themselves. They weren't rock, they weren't pop, they weren't blues, they were all three at the same time but really they weren't anything but the Beatles. I fear we shall not see their like again. My father said they destroyed American music and they certainly transformed it. --scott My great-uncle said the Beatles were part of a Communist plot, though to put this in context, he said the same of fluoridated water and a number of other things. |
#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?
On 30/08/2020 3:07 am, polymod wrote:
"Les Cargill"Â* 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 Did you throw your undies at the TV ? geoff |
#30
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 Sat, 29 Aug 2020 15:09:35 -0500, Tatonik
wrote: On 8/29/20 9:35 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: The Beatles... they were a phenomenon unto themselves. They weren't rock, they weren't pop, they weren't blues, they were all three at the same time but really they weren't anything but the Beatles. I fear we shall not see their like again. My father said they destroyed American music and they certainly transformed it. --scott My great-uncle said the Beatles were part of a Communist plot, though to put this in context, he said the same of fluoridated water and a number of other things. Ah, the "reds under the bed" mob. That was a dark period in US history that still lingers in the oath of allegiance. Time the real version was restored. d -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#31
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 Sun, 30 Aug 2020 13:28:55 +1200, geoff
wrote: On 30/08/2020 3:07 am, polymod wrote: "Les Cargill"Â* 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 Did you throw your undies at the TV ? There is a great Tom Jones quote from just a few years ago. He said that women still brought a spare pair of knickers to his shows, but it was no longer anything to do with him. d -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#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 8/30/2020 3:07 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
Ah, the "reds under the bed" mob. That was a dark period in US history that still lingers in the oath of allegiance. Time the real version was restored. I was a teen-ager during the McCarthy era. My parents were reluctant to let me go to folk music gatherings in town because they were afraid that there were communists there who would be a bad influence. Pete Seeger (his brother Mike was a regular at those gatherings) would occasionally drop by when he was in town. He was among those investigated and banned. You can't get any better than that when it comes to "music from the people." -- For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com |
#33
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. |
#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 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. |
#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?
Scott Dorsey wrote:
Don Pearce wrote: On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 17:34:34 +1000, Trevor wrote: On 28/08/2020 5:14 pm, Don Pearce wrote: They were rock, not pop. Didn't come much more popular than the Beatles! :-) Another use of the word.... But you knew that The Beatles... You mean the band Paul was in before Wings? they were a phenomenon unto themselves. They weren't rock, they weren't pop, they weren't blues, they were all three at the same time but really they weren't anything but the Beatles. I fear we shall not see their like again. My father said they destroyed American music and they certainly transformed it. I wouldn't argue with your Dad much. Around 1964, American music was primarily musical theater and the film adaptations of it. The movie industry was setting up for "Cleopatra" to pretty much end that era[1], and the writing for musical theater had seen its best days. [1] the period between HUAC and Cleopatra, the winding down of the momentum from the studio system. "The Sound of Music" was the last of its kind. 1965. We might as well blame the transistor radio. Or "Hair". This completely ignores entire continents centered around record labels that produced better-than-pop pop, like Motown, Stax, the LA labels built on the Wrecking Crew and then all the stuff outta Muscle Shoals. That's just a start. And the Stones were, in the end, very American. But in the end, having the performers write the material is a "better" business model - for the people who worked on percentage anyway. --scott -- Les Cargill |
#36
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?
Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 15:09:35 -0500, Tatonik wrote: On 8/29/20 9:35 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote: The Beatles... they were a phenomenon unto themselves. They weren't rock, they weren't pop, they weren't blues, they were all three at the same time but really they weren't anything but the Beatles. I fear we shall not see their like again. My father said they destroyed American music and they certainly transformed it. --scott My great-uncle said the Beatles were part of a Communist plot, though to put this in context, he said the same of fluoridated water and a number of other things. Ah, the "reds under the bed" mob. That was a dark period in US history that still lingers in the oath of allegiance. Time the real version was restored. d The thing that makes it worse is that there really were "reds under (some) bed(s)." It wasn't as bad in the US as in Britain, where the Bloomsbury Group contained at least one asset of the KGB. HUAC was a deeply anti-Semitic thing and as hapless an effort that's been attempted. -- Les Cargill |
#37
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?
Mike Rivers wrote:
On 8/30/2020 3:07 AM, Don Pearce wrote: Ah, the "reds under the bed" mob. That was a dark period in US history that still lingers in the oath of allegiance. Time the real version was restored. I was a teen-ager during the McCarthy era. My parents were reluctant to let me go to folk music gatherings in town because they were afraid that there were communists there who would be a bad influence. Pete Seeger (his brother Mike was a regular at those gatherings) would occasionally drop by when he was in town. He was among those investigated and banned. You can't get any better than that when it comes to "music from the people." Dave van Ronk is on film talking about Stalinists and Trots arguing in the cafes of Greenwich village. What you now have is "music of the people". It's producers picking up marketable acts, putting nameless musos to work filling in the tracks and spending all the money on marketing. Sorta just like always. -- Les Cargill |
#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?
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 |
#39
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. |
#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 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 |
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 |