[geoff]

On 3/12/2014 11:09 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/2/2014 3:21 PM, geoff wrote:
the diabolical click track.
Didn't hear it bleeding into the mics ;-)

The synthesizer mics?



Them's the ones !

geoff

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Tobiah" skrev i en meddelelse
...

Originally I was not thinking so much about how clean the tracks
would be or what punch-ins they could do. I was thinking more
about expanded horizons for creativity through effects, and
synthesizers, and unlimited routing complexity, etc.

You need to make a stereo recording some day.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jason wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 21:36:50 GMT "Don Pearce" wrote in
article



Well, drummers always play behind the beat. The bass guitar leads it,
so maybe we can blame Paul?

d

I was a drummer and played that kind of music long ago and Ringo could
NOT keep time.

I'd say Ringo swung. Not like jazz drummers swing exactly, but in that
direction.

FWIW, Neil Peart went back to "school" to learn timekeeping in his
middle age. The sort of timekeeping he learned is the sort Ringo
practices. There is a lot *to* time; it's not just breathless
metronomic perfection.

Neil Peart was pointed at a different, very jazz drummer but
the ... relative motion of the approach seems similar.

Some drummers lag the beat - Levon Helm comes to mind,

Levon plowed a wide furrow. He made anybody sound good, so
long as they agreed with his choice of tempo.

but
some push it relentlessly - Bernard Purdie for example.


And Charlie Watts does both at the same time.

--
Les Cargill

[Paul[_13_]]

On 12/2/2014 4:55 PM, Tobiah wrote:
On 12/2/2014 8:12 AM, Paul wrote:
On 11/29/2014 6:37 PM, Tobiah wrote:
The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The Stones, Led Zepp,

Or any band of the time. Say I go back and offer them
my $500 computer, along with a decent 8 channel audio interface
and say, Reaper. How would they react? How would their music
be different? How much would they pay for what I now have?
Why might this be a detriment to them (for me too much choice
sometimes constipates my creativity)?


What if we could transport today's equipment back to
Bach and Mozart's time?

Now THAT would be interesting!

We could get more definitive versions of the Goldberg Variations,
etc, etc!




Originally I was not thinking so much about how clean the tracks
would be or what punch-ins they could do. I was thinking more
about expanded horizons for creativity through effects, and
synthesizers, and unlimited routing complexity, etc.


Again, the music would not have been any better.

And there's only so much effects can add to a song, it's
more like icing on the cake. If you start off with a bad
cake, effects won't help you.

Going back to Bach or Mozart's time would have been
the difference between a super clean recording, or no recording
at all! Now THAT would be fascinating!

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 15:55:42 -0800, Tobiah wrote:

On 12/2/2014 8:12 AM, Paul wrote:
On 11/29/2014 6:37 PM, Tobiah wrote:
The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The Stones, Led Zepp,

Or any band of the time. Say I go back and offer them
my $500 computer, along with a decent 8 channel audio interface
and say, Reaper. How would they react? How would their music
be different? How much would they pay for what I now have?
Why might this be a detriment to them (for me too much choice
sometimes constipates my creativity)?


What if we could transport today's equipment back to
Bach and Mozart's time?

Now THAT would be interesting!

We could get more definitive versions of the Goldberg Variations,
etc, etc!




Originally I was not thinking so much about how clean the tracks
would be or what punch-ins they could do. I was thinking more
about expanded horizons for creativity through effects, and
synthesizers, and unlimited routing complexity, etc.


I think that in terms of groups - bands, whatever - there were many
fewer around back then, because you had to meet a basic level of
quality and competence to even consider going into a studio. Now
everybody can have a studio those guys would have killed for in their
bedroom. They can fix crap timing, they can retune poor vocals. OK,
acoustically the result is about as interesting as yesterday's rice
pudding, but it possesses a "competence" unmatched years ago.

So if you could add that competence to the artistry of the sixties,
would the result be noticeably better? I don't think so. A lot of
bands made a fabulous noise back then, because they were the best -
they had to be.

[Gray_Wolf]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2014 22:22:14 -0800, (hank alrich)
wrote:

Jason wrote:

On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 21:36:50 GMT "Don Pearce" wrote in
article



Well, drummers always play behind the beat. The bass guitar leads it,
so maybe we can blame Paul?

d

I was a drummer and played that kind of music long ago and Ringo could
NOT keep time. Some drummers lag the beat - Levon Helm comes to mind, but
some push it relentlessly - Bernard Purdie for example.

Many truly great drummers today will list Ringo among their favorites.
He kept music. He plays half notes. A lot of interesting drum work. He
is criticized pretty relentlessly by the crwod looking for flashy
drumming. Some folks want to watch someone play the drums. Others are
delighted when a drummer plays the song.

No kidding. I believe a drummer should sound nice and not try to
immitate a thrashing machine.

[Gray_Wolf]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2014 19:28:11 +1300, geoff
wrote:

On 3/12/2014 11:11 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/2/2014 4:21 PM, Gray_Wolf wrote:
In 1961 the IBM 7090, computed Pi to 20,000 decimal places
in 39 minutes.
Today, on my 7 year old desktop, I can compute Pi to 1 million decimal
places in 20 seconds.

How do you know? Did you count them? And how do you know it was correct?



.... and did you print it out ?!!!

geoff


Yes if I needed to. Otherwise I can view on my monitor.
There's really no need to as the app knows if the output is correct or
not and will generate a log file to that effect.

Computing irrational numbers to many decimal places is a well
developed science.
There is plenty of info about this on the net.

My point was that I've really been impressed with how far computers
have come in the last 50 years. I worked on computers in the USAF in
the early '60s and I never imagined computers being what they are
today.

[Trevor]

On 3/12/2014 12:13 AM, mcp6453 wrote:
On 12/2/2014 12:54 AM, Trevor wrote:
On 1/12/2014 5:46 PM, Edi Zubovic wrote:
They would have had no console clicks recorded among the other things
and edits would be just perfect
That said, I just _love_ that all _human_ quirks occuring here or
there on recordings of that times.

Personally I'm not such a fan of the Mommas and Poppas false start on "I saw her again last night", but even then it
could have been edited. It didn't stop it being a hit, so obviously everyone has different ideas. I don't think anyone
would want to release a song like that today though.

There's actually a YouTube video of a Wrecking Crew Film outtake about this topic. When Lou heard the false start, he
liked it, and they decided to leave it in.


Yes, that's my point.


While some may disagree, they apparently consider the false start to be one
of the song's hooks.

No way I'd call it a hook. Quirk perhaps. My opinion is the song was
obviously good enough to survive with or without it.


It's hard to believe that everyone in the group is deceased, except Michelle.

Yes sad.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 3/12/2014 5:13 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:31:56 -0500, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 11:56 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Also imagine what Sinatra would have sounded like if it hadn't been a more
or less all in one take.

He would have been cussing up a blue streak by the third take (and was
known to do so).

But then we had Dusty Springfield - she was a nightmare. On most songs
virtually every word she sings is punched.

Strange she managed OK live in her concerts then. Certainly wasn't mimed
like many artists these days who consider their dancing more important
than the singing.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

On 3/12/2014 3:21 AM, hank alrich wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

On 02/12/2014 14:51, flatfish+++ wrote:
However, nothing IMHO is as bad as what I'm hearing these days on
mainstream pop radio.
It's just pure noise to my ears.


That's a quote from my dad from my teenage years. He liked Jazz, which
his dad hated. I liked Pop, which he hated.

And it's probably what my kids will be saying in a generation or so.

Popular music has always been very much of its time, and is disliked by
people older and younger than its target audience. I find that peoples'
favourite pop music is from the years round about the time they started
going out to parties and clubs. Anything before or after is never as good.

This is all about marketing. So is "the generation gap". False
divisions among people, foisted on us by powerful Wll St. marketing
porces, intent on exploiting "the outrage!!"

My kids wound up loving the music we have around the house, and it's
lots of kinds of music. We didn't watch TV, and radio reception here is
terrible. Seperated by circumstance and proclivity from "the
mainstream", things turned out beautifully in many ways, including this
musical appreciation angle.

Yes, I'm amazed at how many of today's young kids love the pop groups of
their parents era. Not everyone at a Rolling Stones concert is a
geriatric. And then my collection spans from pre classical era, through
to some of today's pop music, with everything in between that takes my
fancy. The era or even genre is unimportant to me whether I can enjoy it
or not.

Trevor.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2014 14:15:20 +1100, Trevor wrote:

On 3/12/2014 5:13 AM, Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2014 12:31:56 -0500, Mike Rivers
wrote:

On 12/2/2014 11:56 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Also imagine what Sinatra would have sounded like if it hadn't been a more
or less all in one take.

He would have been cussing up a blue streak by the third take (and was
known to do so).

But then we had Dusty Springfield - she was a nightmare. On most songs
virtually every word she sings is punched.

Strange she managed OK live in her concerts then. Certainly wasn't mimed
like many artists these days who consider their dancing more important
than the singing.

The punching wasn't because she sang badly, but because she was
slightly manic - obsessive. But only in the studio. Live she was as
good as we knew her to be.

d

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Trevor wrote:
But then we had Dusty Springfield - she was a nightmare. On most songs
virtually every word she sings is punched.

Strange she managed OK live in her concerts then. Certainly wasn't mimed
like many artists these days who consider their dancing more important
than the singing.

Quite - I worked with her many times on TV shows in the days when everyone
sang live to a live band. And she seemed to manage that ok. Bit of a diva,
though.

--
*What boots up must come down *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 12/4/2014 6:23 AM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Trevor wrote:
But then we had Dusty Springfield - she was a nightmare. On most songs
virtually every word she sings is punched.

Strange she managed OK live in her concerts then. Certainly wasn't mimed
like many artists these days who consider their dancing more important
than the singing.

Quite - I worked with her many times on TV shows in the days when everyone
sang live to a live band. And she seemed to manage that ok. Bit of a diva,
though.

I just read her bio at Wikipedia. It's quite interesting.

[Tobiah]

On 12/02/2014 11:34 PM, Peter Larsen wrote:
"Tobiah" skrev i en meddelelse
...

Originally I was not thinking so much about how clean the tracks
would be or what punch-ins they could do. I was thinking more
about expanded horizons for creativity through effects, and
synthesizers, and unlimited routing complexity, etc.

You need to make a stereo recording some day.

Not sure I follow. 90% of what I do with the computer
is make stereo recordings of acoustic instruments. I just
used to like the flying saucer sounds that Pink Floyd would
often draw upon.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[geoff]

On 5/12/2014 12:23 a.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
.. Bit of a diva, though.


I understood she was more of a 'diver' (!)


geoff

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
geoff wrote:
On 5/12/2014 12:23 a.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
. Bit of a diva, though.


I understood she was more of a 'diver' (!)


;-) Whatever. Still like her stuff, though.

--
*The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on my list.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[geoff]

On 5/12/2014 12:40 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
geoff wrote:
On 5/12/2014 12:23 a.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
. Bit of a diva, though.


I understood she was more of a 'diver' (!)


;-) Whatever. Still like her stuff, though.



You Son Of A Preacher Man you !


geoff

[geoff]

On 5/12/2014 1:02 p.m., geoff wrote:
On 5/12/2014 12:40 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
geoff wrote:
On 5/12/2014 12:23 a.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
. Bit of a diva, though.


I understood she was more of a 'diver' (!)


;-) Whatever. Still like her stuff, though.



You Son Of A Preacher Man you !


geoff

Macca agrees with us, but says the concert sound aspect would have made
a huge difference !

http://www.music-news.com/ShowNews.asp?nItemID=85495

geoff

[William Sommerwerck]

I've held off commenting on this.

Broadly speaking, the more-sophisticated the equipment, the more you can do to
screw up the recording.

The basic problem with recording is the rejection of the principle that music
should sound as if it's being performed in a plausible, appropriate acoustic
space. Every since multi-track recording became commonplace, it's become
increasingly easy for engineers to do as they please, rather than as they
should.

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

I've held off commenting on this.

Broadly speaking, the more-sophisticated the equipment, the more you can do to
screw up the recording.

The basic problem with recording is the rejection of the principle that music
should sound as if it's being performed in a plausible, appropriate acoustic
space. Every since multi-track recording became commonplace, it's become
increasingly easy for engineers to do as they please, rather than as they
should.

"it's become increasingly easy for engineers to do what the producer
tells them to do, rather than as I think they should"

I fixed it for you.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Jeff Henig" skrev i en meddelelse
...

hank alrich wrote:
William Sommerwerck wrote:

I've held off commenting on this.

Broadly speaking, the more-sophisticated the equipment, the more you can
do to
screw up the recording.

The basic problem with recording is the rejection of the principle that
music
should sound as if it's being performed in a plausible, appropriate
acoustic
space. Every since multi-track recording became commonplace, it's become
increasingly easy for engineers to do as they please, rather than as
they
should.

"it's become increasingly easy for engineers to do what the producer
tells them to do, rather than as I think they should"

I fixed it for you.

My coffee and keyboard thank you. The mouse is okay though, as it was out
of the line of fire.

Go to full wet via a cleanfeed and then through the de-reverberator until
dry.

Handles Cola Cola infestated keyboards if done immedately, coffee is only
ph4 instead of 3'ish, so it is still acidic and if it has time to "settle"
it will deposit a wee bit of fatty goo, add sugar and it is about as bad as
Coca cola. Just trust you COLD tapwater, it is always less bad than either
of those two compounds. Note water on a harddisk is not going to do any
good, unless you leave it immersed in it and send it to IBAS so do not serve
coffee or cola for your harddisks.

If you do not know what IBAS is and what they can do for you, then look it
up before you need them in case you ever do ...

My deliciously decadent tea must be ready ...

---Jeff

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[geoff]

On 7/12/2014 7:46 a.m., Jeff Henig wrote:


This delicious dissertation is brought to you by Coffee Through The Nose.


Salty lumps ....

geoff

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Jeff Henig" skrev i en meddelelse
...

Thank you for your support.

[bowing] anyway, this thread looks at it kinda topsy-turvey, currently
traveling backwards in the dimension of time appears to require a lot of
energy, possibly transfinite and that would be really really messy. There is
another angle to this: moving the past equipment forwards in time is much
easier on the electricity budget - found this when looking for add-ons to
the music programme thread:

http://www.u-he.com/cms/satin

Just one sprinkle from the marketing words on their site:

"mix-and-match emulation spans all major historical developments in tape
technology" - I wonder if they remembered to include a Bang and Olufsen
wire-recorder and - the older the better, yeah? - a Poulsen telegrafon.

O;-)

---Jeff

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Low Hertz]

I'm surprised that no one commented about this.

From the perspective of a musician in history, the Beatles contributed ONE unique thing to music. Their harmonies were hardly unique. Their chords trivial. Some cute lyrics. Ringo couldn't even play drums. Over time they became better musicians, but not really worth talking about.

However, they did contribute something dramatically important to music.

To the best of my knowledge:

Sargent Peppers was the first use of multi tracking, where they layed tracks down for the first time ever, added tracks to the mix. They used a 4 track recorder.

This was their unique contribution to the world of music.

[Scott Dorsey]

Low Hertz wrote:
To the best of my knowledge:

Sargent Peppers was the first use of multi tracking, where they layed track=
s down for the first time ever, added tracks to the mix. They used a 4 tra=
ck recorder. =20

Definitely not. Les Paul was using it extensively, decades earlier. And
even though Les may claim to have invented the process, others were using
it first. (If you count the use of synchronized multi-track re-recording
for film, that dates back to the 20s.)

I think the genius of the Beatles is that they took so many different
influences from so many places and synthesized it into a single thing
that just about everyone, from any background, could appreciate.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Low Hertz wrote:

Ringo couldn't even play drums.

Many top level professional international drummers hold Ringo in very
high regard, as among their top few preferred drummers.

Folks who know little about it and confuse technique with musicianship
make remarks like yours. Nobody who knows anything about this takes that
attitude seriously.

To the best of my knowledge:

This is not going well for you today, on this particular subject.

Sargent Peppers was the first use of multi tracking

See there? That's what I'm talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Paul

And Les is merely the most prominent developer of such techniqes for pop
music. Even for him, there is precedent.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Nil[_2_]]

On 07 Dec 2014, Low Hertz wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

I'm surprised that no one commented about this.

From the perspective of a musician in history, the Beatles
contributed ONE unique thing to music. Their harmonies were
hardly unique. Their chords trivial. Some cute lyrics. Ringo
couldn't even play drums. Over time they became better
musicians, but not really worth talking about.

However, they did contribute something dramatically important to
music.

To the best of my knowledge:

Sargent Peppers was the first use of multi tracking, where they
layed tracks down for the first time ever, added tracks to the
mix. They used a 4 track recorder.

This was their unique contribution to the world of music.

If there were a prize for packing the greatest number of ignorant, ill-
informed, and just plain wrong statements into the smallest number of
words... you'd be up for the grand prize.

[geoff]

On 8/12/2014 3:48 p.m., Low Hertz wrote:
I'm surprised that no one commented about this.

From the perspective of a musician in history, the Beatles contributed ONE unique thing to music. Their harmonies were hardly unique. Their chords trivial. Some cute lyrics. Ringo couldn't even play drums. Over time they became better musicians, but not really worth talking about.

However, they did contribute something dramatically important to music.

To the best of my knowledge:

Sargent Peppers was the first use of multi tracking, where they layed tracks down for the first time ever, added tracks to the mix. They used a 4 track recorder.

This was their unique contribution to the world of music.



You historical and musical appreciation seems about as accurate as your
spelling.

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/7/2014 9:48 PM, Low Hertz wrote:
Sargent Peppers was the first use of multi tracking, where they layed
tracks down for the first time ever, added tracks to the mix. They
used a 4 track recorder.

You've never heard of Les Paul? He was doing it with disc recorders
before he started using tape.


--
"Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without
a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be
operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson

Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:

Macca agrees with us, but says the concert sound aspect would have made
a huge difference !

http://www.music-news.com/ShowNews.asp?nItemID=85495

That's absolutely true, and the Beatles were part of what drove the
development of large concert sound systems. Until they came around,
the backline and a vocal amp was plenty loud. But I have heard
recordings of some of the concerts on their '64 tour and you can't hear
a single note under all the screaming girls.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Nil wrote:

On 07 Dec 2014, Low Hertz wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

I'm surprised that no one commented about this.

From the perspective of a musician in history, the Beatles
contributed ONE unique thing to music. Their harmonies were
hardly unique. Their chords trivial. Some cute lyrics. Ringo
couldn't even play drums. Over time they became better
musicians, but not really worth talking about.

However, they did contribute something dramatically important to
music.

To the best of my knowledge:

Sargent Peppers was the first use of multi tracking, where they
layed tracks down for the first time ever, added tracks to the
mix. They used a 4 track recorder.

This was their unique contribution to the world of music.

If there were a prize for packing the greatest number of ignorant, ill-
informed, and just plain wrong statements into the smallest number of
words... you'd be up for the grand prize.

ˆš

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Low Hertz wrote:
Sargent Peppers was the first use of multi tracking, where they layed
tracks down for the first time ever, added tracks to the mix. They used
a 4 track recorder.

Absolute ********, as they say.

Even the Beatles were using multi-track before Sgt Pepper. Others about a
decade earlier.

--
*Time is the best teacher; unfortunately it kills all its students.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[PStamler]

On Monday, December 8, 2014 10:02:57 AM UTC-6, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Low Hertz wrote:
Sargent Peppers was the first use of multi tracking, where they layed
tracks down for the first time ever, added tracks to the mix. They used
a 4 track recorder.

Absolute ********, as they say.

Even the Beatles were using multi-track before Sgt Pepper. Others about a
decade earlier.

And go listen to the Beach Boys' "Pet Sounds", which the Beatles acknowledged as a major inspiration for "Sgt. Pepper".

Also, it's worth mentioning that the Beatles were rather popular before "Sgt. Pepper" came out. In fact, they sold a few records recorded on two tracks.

I think your question is a good one, and worth a semester's worth of college-level study. I think the conclusion of such study would be that there isn't one answer.

Peace,
Paul