[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Frank Stearns wrote:

"Uhhhh, 'scuse me, Mr or Ms Talent... I have to break your creative flow now and
**** you off, because I have to stop the sesion and allocate another hour of session
space on my crummy software, even though I had an hour assigned because you
originally told me it was one five minute song..." (Yes, in the old days you were
changing 2" reels every 16 minutes but those days are gone. People *expect* to now
be able to stay in the flow.)

It's dramatic how different things are... used to be folks would work hard
to conserve tape and record as little as possible... now the tracking guys
just let the machine roll and roll and leave it to the poor sod in mixdown
to figure out what is actually useful. If they are lucky there are some notes.

True -- that's what's happened to me lately with some of the mix projects that have
come through the door... stuff like useless notes (or no notes), non-descriptive
track names, etc -- things like using the player's name rather than what they play.
Sheesh. That's okay to a point; you can surely tell the diff between bass and drums.
But what if this is a lead guitar that also plays rhythm, or vice versa? Be nice to
get that ID'd, if for no other reason than you can then ask more intelligent and
to-the-point questions later.

One silver lining of the technology is that even though it can collect a lot of
stuff, you can also go through a "lot of stuff" quickly. With single clicks I can
jump around between takes (or parts of takes) with great speed. Simply by glancing
at the waveform I can usually go to exactly the same place in each take -- with one
click. No need to look at a log sheet to get a tape counter number, hope the hell
the tape op wrote it down correctly, and then fiddle around with the transport to
get there (or even change reels).

With completely random and instant access, there's no need to lose the "flow of
examination" as you select what to use in the final take.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

Frank Stearns wrote:
In the ultimate demanding situation for continuous record, say a live concert,
two analog machines would be used, each getting the same set of signals. As the tape
on one neared the end of the current reel, the other machine would be started, and
there would be some overlap of program material between the two machines.

Okay, so time for stupid war stories.

I'm recording a folk rock band that is sort of on the way up, they have a
record deal but the label is not exactly soaking them with cash. Someone
gets a "really good deal" on time on a truck that is at a stop on the tour
with the plan of recording three nights of concerts in that city for release
as a live album.

So, I talk to the guy with the truck, it is weirdly equipped with two swanky
new ATR-104 machines which can be swapped into 2-track or 4-track for mixdown
(this being the era of the Great Quadrophonic Scare) and some sort of 2"
machine that can only take 10" reels.

So, seeing that the 2" machine is more or less useless in a live concert
situation without a second machine, and seeing that there are only about
six tracks coming off the stage anyway, I figure we run 4-track, devote two
to stage submixes and two to ambient feeds, and rely on the ambient feed.
I get a bunch of tape on 14" pancakes and the appropriate flanges shipped
to the guy, tell him what mike kit I want, and fly in.

So.... it turns out the ATR-100 machines have the motors in the wrong position
to run 14" reels, and when we move them on one machine, it isn't stable with
the big reel. The second machine is totally dead, at least one power supply
is out. So we record the first night at 15 ips on 10" reels with frequent
reel changes, and constant talk on the clearcom with the poor FoH guy who is
telling the band between songs to vamp a little while for our reel changes.

The first guy had the tape wound down to a 10" reel and had the end of it
threaded onto a take up reel so when the band stopped, he hit stop and edit,
pulled the reel holders off while the second guy took both reels off, dropped
two new ones on, put the reel holders on, tensioned the tape and hit stop
and then play. The machine was balky so this did not always go as fast as
it might have.

I had to go in and apologize to the guys afterward. The next night we got
the second machine running. The thing did actually get released and it
sold enough that I should have asked for points.

Great story.

Funny thing about the ATRs, though. The pair of 102s purchased by a studio where I
used to work also had a power supply die on one of them less than a month after
going into service.

The crowbar sort of did its job -- though apparently for no reason. Hans Sproder
(IIRC), THE field service guy for Ampex of the day, actually did the fix. He could
find no reason why; the crowbar simply shorted and took down the supply. Weird.
Never happened again.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[[email protected]]

Problem I see is that you then become the engineer and producer
with no effective producer in the session. Crazy way to run a train IMHO.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

So this is a good discussion...
I'm a hobby level recording person, an EE by profession....

so I come to RAP to learn not so muchabout the technology, but about the logistics of recording, relations with the talent etc. (not that kind of relations :-) )

Here is my question..

When a group wants to record for the first time, the biggest question in my mind is always... Should they perform all together like they are accustomed to, or should we record them in isolation one by one or in separate iso areas.

I see this as a tradeoff between making it easy for the talent vs making it easy for the engineer.

My actual question, is DO YOU EVEN ASK THE TALENT ABOUT THIS.... or do you size them up and make the decision yourself. I can see that if you burden the talent with making this decision, they are already put off. Is this something the engineer, producer should desicde without consulting the talent?

So the 3 options a

1) Don' ask them, just tell them they can play together just like they are used to (and I'll deal with mic placement etc to get isolation I need)

2) Don't ask them, just tell them they are in a studio environment and need to play apart

3) Discuss the question with the group. Which may put unwanted burden on them.


thanks

Mark

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/17/2015 8:36 PM, Frank Stearns wrote:
Just finished a bluegrass album that was done
exactly that way. Good players, good voices; they were thrilled because for the
/first time/ they all felt that "the studio" wasn't herding them in a direction that
might not be the best for their way of performing. Great energy and tones; wonderful
synergy from them as a band because no part of what they were doing was being
siphoned off by something artificial or contrived.

The contrived or artificial parts are brought on by the artists' desires
to make what they think is a great record. When I'm recording an
acoustic band that plays together, I remind them that we won't be able
to fix things because of leakage. That's a problem that isn't going to
go away unless we put the band in an artificial situation. I tell them
that we can do a few takes and hopefully edit them to take care of
things that they want fixed, but I don't make them play to a click just
so the pieces fit together.

Probably the biggest benefit I get from the "new recording" technology
is that I don't have to say "wait a minute while I change reels" when
they want to do a second take. But I don't think I've ever had anyone
thrown off or ****ed off by that, they don't mind a little break, even
to rewind to the beginning of the take. I wonder how many artists thrive
on "let's do another one right now" as soon as the last note had died
out. Some do, some don't, and some just want to play.

I don't work with top flight artists, but I don't work with unprepared
artists or people who want to create something in the studio that they
can't do in real life. That's what home studios are for.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

On 18-11-2015 14:54, wrote:

Here is my question..

When a group wants to record for the first time, the biggest question in
my mind is always... Should they perform all together like they are
accustomed to
or should we record them in isolation one by one or in separate iso
areas.

What problem do you have to solve? - there HAS to be a reason for the
iso-solution, and mind you, this is about music, so it has to be a
musical reason. If it is a 6 piece band that wants to perform 18 voices
in the final product, then overdubs become a musical requirement. One by
one is not. It is quite possibly always bad. The iso recording is for
the solo's that ride on top of the oeuvre, it could be vox, but it could
also be cowbell. It is only the basement diy studios that need to build
layers one performer at a time. Internet coops have also used that
strategy, but what is isn't is ensemble playing and that is what most
music is about.

Note: when you record an ensemble, then isolation is nice for you, it
facilitates the mix. But eye contact is usually required for the
musicians if you want the end result to constitute music.

I see this as a tradeoff between making it easy for the talent
vs making it easy for the engineer.

It is not about making it easy, it is about the end target. First define
that.

My actual question, is DO YOU EVEN ASK THE TALENT ABOUT THIS....
or do you size them up and make the decision yourself.

The biggest recording error I have ever made was one recording that did
need a prior meeting to talk the choices, the priorities and the method
through. I don't advocate making it difficult, but forget "making it
easy" as parameter. Define the outcome and agree on a possible road to
get there.

I can see that if you burden the talent with making this decision,
they are already put off. Is this something the engineer, producer
should desicde without consulting the talent?

You are way off of the target. Musicians define what is possible for
them, you define what is possible for you. Those concerns have to be
simultanously meetable for a good outcome.

So the 3 options a

1) Don' ask them, just tell them they can play together just like
they are used to (and I'll deal with mic placement etc to get
isolation I need)

Ask them what result they want and what musical concerns they have.
Listen to their concerns and if you have concerns that are ultimate,
then explain them, but do not play the "must be so card" too often.

2) Don't ask them, just tell them they are in a studio environment
and need to play apart

There is no logically valid progression as described, it is well known
and described in the literature that ensemble playing in a studio
environment is often a very good choice. It could be a partial ensemble
for all kinds of practical reasons, but starting with less than the
basic rhythm - irrelevant of genre or style - is hardly ever a good
idea. And that basic section may be anything from keyboard, bass and
drums to a full symphonic ensemble that you then overdub cathedral bells
and 24 pound cannons on top of.

3) Discuss the question with the group. Which may put unwanted
burden on them.

They should then focus on the day job. Don't ask them how to align a
multitrack or what mic to use on the soprano, but you do have to ask
them what result they want and then help define the route to get there.
You have to understand their concerns and they yours.

Example: vocalists in classical context. They KNOW they sound best at 6
to 8 feet, you should know that they are right. So what you have to do
is to make them understand that yes, you can do that, but that it will
destroy orchestra imaging and that you can mimic that sound reasonably
if you can get their acceptance of a mic only 2 to 3 feet away. If you
fail to do that diplomacy and just put the mic "your kind of close" they
WILL back away to 6 feet, because they know that it makes their voice
sound absolutely best. They have ensemble discipline, but they need to
know why mic placement comes under those concerns.

Beware of undefined variables!

Mark

This is not the unique sole right way to do it. But you need to get
expectations defined, understood and respected. A lot of formality is
not always relevant and always remember that a happy musician makes good
music. And happy musicians are more likely to want to trust you with
their souls. Usually just that is what they do.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Frank Stearns]

JackA writes:

-snips-

Frank, no disrespect, but you write too much!!! :-)

Sorry, I don't think in 140 character snippets.

Keep it short and sweet. You make me feel guilty not covering everything yo=
u write!!

Uh, that's your issue, I'm afraid. Read or don't read as you wish.


Now, I need your honest opinion. Do YOU see/hear the electric guitar dying =
in Popular music? I do, but I need confirmation others hear it, too.

Pop music is not my field. Don't know.

Listen to Rap music, no musical talent needed. It seemed only to become "po=
pular" as part of a plan to decay the USA.

I can actually buy into that at some levels.

Me, if I recorded some group, NO OVERDUBBING WOULD BE ALLOWED. If you lack =
talent and need to overdub, hire more musicians for the group, or go elsewh=
ere. The one group I admire is The Knack - little, if any, overdubbing. The=
y (founder)wanted to sound as good live as in the studio.

Really depends. Some overdubbing is silly, some is sweet, some is the realization of
a remarkable vision by the artist. In the end, the question is whether it has
musical merit or not. And the only way to really judge that is whether it will be
played or sought after 3-500 years from now.

Frank

--

[JackA]

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 12:47:14 PM UTC-5, Frank Stearns wrote:
JackA writes:

-snips-

Frank, no disrespect, but you write too much!!! :-)

Sorry, I don't think in 140 character snippets.

Keep it short and sweet. You make me feel guilty not covering everything yo=
u write!!

Uh, that's your issue, I'm afraid. Read or don't read as you wish.


Now, I need your honest opinion. Do YOU see/hear the electric guitar dying =
in Popular music? I do, but I need confirmation others hear it, too.

Pop music is not my field. Don't know.

Listen to Rap music, no musical talent needed. It seemed only to become "po=
pular" as part of a plan to decay the USA.

I can actually buy into that at some levels.

Me, if I recorded some group, NO OVERDUBBING WOULD BE ALLOWED. If you lack =
talent and need to overdub, hire more musicians for the group, or go elsewh=
ere. The one group I admire is The Knack - little, if any, overdubbing. The=
y (founder)wanted to sound as good live as in the studio.

Really depends. Some overdubbing is silly, some is sweet, some is the realization of
a remarkable vision by the artist. In the end, the question is whether it has
musical merit or not. And the only way to really judge that is whether it will be
played or sought after 3-500 years from now.

Friend sent me a hit UK/US song from 1959, amazed it was stereo recorded in the UK.
Sure, man could create fine stereo, but overdubbing, like many Beatles songs, caused them to become lopsided stereo. Needed greater talent or a real audio engineer who would warn the "boys" top dog, G. Martin, that he was making a mistake.

But, really, I read stories about Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys only having one ear hearing; why a lot of BB tunes surfaced in mono; he "mixed" them. Really? But, more recently, you read about Brian heading over to Australia, since someone digitized a BB tune in Stereo, only available on tape in mono. What, did Brian all the sudden regain hearing in both ears?

Rap? I really don't have a problems with it, with lyrics that are decent. Ran across a song, I think they used Blue Note Records intro. An enjoyably song about the '90's.

Pop music, I make it my field of interest.

Jack


Frank

--
.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 1:03:23 PM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 17:52:44 -0800 (PST), JackA
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 8:36:18 PM UTC-5, Frank Stearns wrote:
JackA writes:

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 6:52:56 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Frank Stearns wrote:

"Uhhhh, 'scuse me, Mr or Ms Talent... I have to break your creative flow now and
**** you off, because I have to stop the sesion and allocate another hour of session
space on my crummy software, even though I had an hour assigned because you
originally told me it was one five minute song..." (Yes, in the old days you were
changing 2" reels every 16 minutes but those days are gone. People *expect* to now
be able to stay in the flow.)

I care less what People today expect, they are stupid, not I. So little talent left
in the music world, it's growing pathetic.

Too bad you haven't experienced working with top-flight people. I'm just thrilled
that the technology now enables me to support them -- nearly completely -- without
derailing what they're doing (assuming I've done the other details of my job
properly).

That's something I saw a lot of as a young engineer: primitive technology frequently
stepping directly into the artist's path, along with plain old engineering
incompetence.

Those weren't my sessions, I was just the gopher, but I learned a ton about the
importance of pre-production and planning (and avoiding session bottlenecks),
something many folks still don't do as thoroughly as they should.

Every gig I do is carefully thought through, every detail planned. But all of that
is mostly hidden from the talent, so that they can feel "casual" but still get right
down to business. Oh, and good pre-planning can actually leave you adequate wiggle
room for the unexpected.

It seems to be a win-win approach. Just finished a bluegrass album that was done
exactly that way. Good players, good voices; they were thrilled because for the
/first time/ they all felt that "the studio" wasn't herding them in a direction that
might not be the best for their way of performing. Great energy and tones; wonderful
synergy from them as a band because no part of what they were doing was being
siphoned off by something artificial or contrived.

Well, truth be told, studio recording is mostly artificial and contrived -- the
trick is to have a good performance blossom on top of all that.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--
.

Frank, no disrespect, but you write too much!!! :-)

Keep it short and sweet. You make me feel guilty not covering everything you write!!

Now, I need your honest opinion. Do YOU see/hear the electric guitar dying in Popular music? I do, but I need confirmation others hear it, too.

Listen to Rap music, no musical talent needed. It seemed only to become "popular" as part of a plan to decay the USA.

Me, if I recorded some group, NO OVERDUBBING WOULD BE ALLOWED. If you lack talent and need to overdub, hire more musicians for the group, or go elsewhere. The one group I admire is The Knack - little, if any, overdubbing. They (founder)wanted to sound as good live as in the studio.

Just posted A Little Bit O' Soul (The Music Explosion). Darn fine drummer, but was that really some studio musician? Why I'm confused who to credit, since music is faked. I grew to tolerate overdubbing, still REAL people playing instruments. When did I first realize overdubbing? Back in the 80's, playing my drums to records and radio, figured I needs more than two hands to replicate the drumming!!

Jack

No overdubbing? Bye bye Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd. They are
clearly rubbish. There is no problem with overdubbing, it keeps the
artistic input consistent and saves splitting up the cash too many
ways - important for a band. As for live performances - do something
different, but equally good. The fans haven't turned up to hear the
record playing anyway (OK, that's exactly what they have turned up for
with the more youthful of today's cohort).

Overdubbing? Save it for the non professionals. It seems like a plague in Pop music. Don't feel it's wanted in Jazz, Classical and other forms of music. If you need to overdub and lie to your fans, good luck. It's like do whatever necessary to achieve a hit. Poor musicians? Hire some to actually record for more impressive sound, but credit group members.

Live recordings? There's still some decent audio people out there, like the rerecord of Eric Clapton's "Layla". Not bad!!

Jack

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 12:00:13 -0800 (PST), JackA
wrote:

No overdubbing? Bye bye Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd. They are
clearly rubbish. There is no problem with overdubbing, it keeps the
artistic input consistent and saves splitting up the cash too many
ways - important for a band. As for live performances - do something
different, but equally good. The fans haven't turned up to hear the
record playing anyway (OK, that's exactly what they have turned up for
with the more youthful of today's cohort).

Overdubbing? Save it for the non professionals. It seems like a plague in Pop music. Don't feel it's wanted in Jazz, Classical and other forms of music. If you need to overdub and lie to your fans, good luck. It's like do whatever necessary to achieve a hit. Poor musicians? Hire some to actually record for more impressive sound, but credit group members.

Live recordings? There's still some decent audio people out there, like the rerecord of Eric Clapton's "Layla". Not bad!!

Jack

It's not lying. It's another way of making music. Do you object to a
painter who paints the red as well as the blue? He should get another
painter to do the red, surely. Any painting is a series of overlays
done by one, or a few painter(s) at different times. That doesn't
invalidate it as a work of art.

Every recording is not a "record of a performance". Some of them are
carefully crafted constructions. Maybe as such they will only exist in
recorded format. That's fine. There is no law that says they must be
performable live. Some are, of course - Brian May says that Bohemian
Rhapsody was one of Queen's easier pieces to perform live. For you, of
course, it isn't even music.

You appear to have a very narrow view of what constitutes music. One
must pity you and such limitations.

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[geoff]

On 19/11/2015 2:54 a.m., wrote:
Problem I see is that you then become the engineer and producer
with no effective producer in the session. Crazy way to run a train IMHO.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--
So this is a good discussion...
I'm a hobby level recording person, an EE by profession....

so I come to RAP to learn not so muchabout the technology, but about the logistics of recording, relations with the talent etc. (not that kind of relations :-) )

Here is my question..

When a group wants to record for the first time, the biggest question in my mind is always... Should they perform all together like they are accustomed to, or should we record them in isolation one by one or in separate iso areas.

Somewhat depends on:
- The recording space and what is actually possible in it.
- How the band *wants* to record.
- The desired attributes desired in the final recording (somewhat
limited by the space).

But even if the recording space makes everybody playing at once 'too
compromised' wrt the desired end product, certainly a run-through all
together (if possible record it for reference) is very highly desirable.

And then you might have a hugely professional and skilled group turn up
who are already totally together, and maybe they want to and can do
simply record individually straight off.

It would be usual to a minimum have bass and drums playing live
together, bass maybe DI-ed. A miked bass part can easily be added later
if desired, as the musical interaction is already there, to a degree.

Just my opinion.

geoff

[geoff]

On 19/11/2015 10:49 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
.

This is true. And it's not unreasonable to call the construction
"music." However, given enough skilled players and singers, such
construction could be performed live. That it's not convenient to do
that, or it's not in the artist's vision (he has to show us that he
can sing, play piano, bass, drums, and all the other instruments from
accordion to zither), then there is a modern recording technique to
allow him to create his work of art.

Phew - was a bit worried that you were starting to get a bit jackish
there for a minute Mike ;-)

geoff

[ssinzig]

JackA wrote:
On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 12:47:14 PM UTC-5, Frank Stearns
wrote:
JackA writes:

-snips-

Frank, no disrespect, but you write too much!!! :-)

Sorry, I don't think in 140 character snippets.

Keep it short and sweet. You make me feel guilty not covering
everything yo= u write!!

Uh, that's your issue, I'm afraid. Read or don't read as you wish.


Now, I need your honest opinion. Do YOU see/hear the electric
guitar dying = in Popular music? I do, but I need confirmation
others hear it, too.

Pop music is not my field. Don't know.

Listen to Rap music, no musical talent needed. It seemed only to
become "po= pular" as part of a plan to decay the USA.

I can actually buy into that at some levels.

Me, if I recorded some group, NO OVERDUBBING WOULD BE ALLOWED. If
you lack = talent and need to overdub, hire more musicians for
the group, or go elsewh= ere. The one group I admire is The Knack
- little, if any, overdubbing. The= y (founder)wanted to sound as
good live as in the studio.

Really depends. Some overdubbing is silly, some is sweet, some is
the realization of a remarkable vision by the artist. In the end,
the question is whether it has musical merit or not. And the only
way to really judge that is whether it will be played or sought
after 3-500 years from now.

Friend sent me a hit UK/US song from 1959, amazed it was stereo
recorded in the UK. Sure, man could create fine stereo, but
overdubbing, like many Beatles songs, caused them to become lopsided
stereo. Needed greater talent or a real audio engineer who would warn
the "boys" top dog, G. Martin, that he was making a mistake.

But, really, I read stories about Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys only
having one ear hearing; why a lot of BB tunes surfaced in mono; he
"mixed" them. Really? But, more recently, you read about Brian
heading over to Australia, since someone digitized a BB tune in
Stereo, only available on tape in mono. What, did Brian all the
sudden regain hearing in both ears?

Rap? I really don't have a problems with it, with lyrics that are
decent. Ran across a song, I think they used Blue Note Records intro.
An enjoyably song about the '90's.

Pop music, I make it my field of interest.

Jack


Frank

-- .




Funny you should mention Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys.

I understand that Brian Wilsons father/manager was a real pain in the
ass when they were in the recording studio. He would constantly complain
to the engineers that they didn't know what they were doing and would
fiddle with the controls on the recording console. To shut him up and
keep him out of the way they wired in a console all for himself. He
could fiddle with the controls to his hearts content, of course the
console was not in the recording chain, none of his 'improvements' made
it to the recording.
Sounds like someone familiar, huh?

I also understand that not only was he jerk in the recording studio, he
completely screwed over the boys by selling the rights to their songs to
a record company. Of course, keeping the profits for himself. Apparently
a complete asshole of a human being.

On a side note, Brian Wilson did have hearing damage in one ear. Didn't
affect his musical genius though, and their recordings were amazing
anyway. I have "Endless Summer', recorded in stereo, and it certainly
sounds great to my ears, though it doesn't have the 'ping-pong' stereo
you seem to like.


S.

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 17:52:44 -0800 (PST), JackA
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 8:36:18 PM UTC-5, Frank Stearns wrote:
JackA writes:

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 6:52:56 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Frank Stearns wrote:

"Uhhhh, 'scuse me, Mr or Ms Talent... I have to break your creative flow now and
**** you off, because I have to stop the sesion and allocate another hour of session
space on my crummy software, even though I had an hour assigned because you
originally told me it was one five minute song..." (Yes, in the old days you were
changing 2" reels every 16 minutes but those days are gone. People *expect* to now
be able to stay in the flow.)

I care less what People today expect, they are stupid, not I. So little talent left
in the music world, it's growing pathetic.

Too bad you haven't experienced working with top-flight people. I'm just thrilled
that the technology now enables me to support them -- nearly completely -- without
derailing what they're doing (assuming I've done the other details of my job
properly).

That's something I saw a lot of as a young engineer: primitive technology frequently
stepping directly into the artist's path, along with plain old engineering
incompetence.

Those weren't my sessions, I was just the gopher, but I learned a ton about the
importance of pre-production and planning (and avoiding session bottlenecks),
something many folks still don't do as thoroughly as they should.

Every gig I do is carefully thought through, every detail planned. But all of that
is mostly hidden from the talent, so that they can feel "casual" but still get right
down to business. Oh, and good pre-planning can actually leave you adequate wiggle
room for the unexpected.

It seems to be a win-win approach. Just finished a bluegrass album that was done
exactly that way. Good players, good voices; they were thrilled because for the
/first time/ they all felt that "the studio" wasn't herding them in a direction that
might not be the best for their way of performing. Great energy and tones; wonderful
synergy from them as a band because no part of what they were doing was being
siphoned off by something artificial or contrived.

Well, truth be told, studio recording is mostly artificial and contrived -- the
trick is to have a good performance blossom on top of all that.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--
.

Frank, no disrespect, but you write too much!!! :-)

Keep it short and sweet. You make me feel guilty not covering everything you write!!

Now, I need your honest opinion. Do YOU see/hear the electric guitar dying in Popular music? I do, but I need confirmation others hear it, too.

Listen to Rap music, no musical talent needed. It seemed only to become "popular" as part of a plan to decay the USA.

Me, if I recorded some group, NO OVERDUBBING WOULD BE ALLOWED. If you lack talent and need to overdub, hire more musicians for the group, or go elsewhere. The one group I admire is The Knack - little, if any, overdubbing. They (founder)wanted to sound as good live as in the studio.

Just posted A Little Bit O' Soul (The Music Explosion). Darn fine drummer, but was that really some studio musician? Why I'm confused who to credit, since music is faked. I grew to tolerate overdubbing, still REAL people playing instruments. When did I first realize overdubbing? Back in the 80's, playing my drums to records and radio, figured I needs more than two hands to replicate the drumming!!

Jack

No overdubbing? Bye bye Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd. They are
clearly rubbish. There is no problem with overdubbing, it keeps the
artistic input consistent and saves splitting up the cash too many
ways - important for a band. As for live performances - do something
different, but equally good.


Or, as they do these days, hire ringers to fill things in. It's
nearly standard practice.

The fans haven't turned up to hear the
record playing anyway (OK, that's exactly what they have turned up for
with the more youthful of today's cohort).


That's what we ( including non-musicians ) *USED* to turn up for, but
then they all more or less achieved that. They weren't the very first ,
but Kansas was one of the first bands that could do it all live.

It's hard to believe but for a long time, being able
to play your own record was unusual if it happened at all. In pop
music, musicianship has come a long way since I was even in high school
( late '70s ).

d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce wrote:

No overdubbing? Bye bye Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd. They are
clearly rubbish. There is no problem with overdubbing, it keeps the
artistic input consistent and saves splitting up the cash too many
ways - important for a band. As for live performances - do something
different, but equally good. The fans haven't turned up to hear the
record playing anyway (OK, that's exactly what they have turned up for
with the more youthful of today's cohort).

Well, the thing is that when you have a loud band with a backline, there
is no way to get clean vocals without overdubbing. Because the rock band
can only be balanced with electronic aid, you're limited in your ability
to get a clean vocal without a lot of leakage.

There are tricks you can use to get a little more isolation, but forget
having anyone playing drums and singing at the same time. It's not going
to work out.

I'm not sure Mr. Agnew even knows what overdubbing is. It's clear he
doesn't have any understanding of leakage or cancellation and is reluctant
to attempts to explain it to him. I think he just knows that he'll get
a reaction by saying a particular thing so he does; his only goal is to
get a reaction and he doesn't actually have anything to say himself.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/18/2015 5:11 PM, Don Pearce wrote:

You can do most things given enough players and singers, but do you
have the time and opportunity to rehearse them, and can you afford to
pay them?

I don't think that time and money is the only reason for recording
piecemeal. It's more a matter of convenience and a more efficient way of
achieving a higher level of perfection. There's ego involved, too. If
you can get Stevie Wonder to play on your recording by sending him a
file and having him send you back a part, that might be good for sales,
though it doesn't necessarily make the recording better.

I mean it is not necessary to reproduce the record live. If you are
going to do that, you may as well get a DJ instead.

A good DJ can be more entertaining than a famous artist with a small
band playing to recorded tracks. I don't recall whose show it was, but I
recently read an article in which the house engineer said that he uses
time code to automate much of the console during the show. That's
practically playing the record for the audience.

If you're talking about major artists, what the audience wants to hear
IS the record. Maybe not all the songs on it in the order that they're
on the album, maybe a new song, maybe a few old songs, but for most
artists, they expect to hear what they know. There are, of course,
artists who are known for never performing a song the same twice, and
their audiences expect that.

The live version
of a multi-tracked song can be something different - pared back. Layla
was mentioned and it is a good case in point. The original with
Delaney and Bonnie was a huge production number, but Clapton regularly
does his acoustic version with a totally different swing rhythm. It is
still recognizably the same song, and for the most part equally well
received.

I like the original version. The acoustic version does nothing for me. I
think the reason that it's well received is that it's become an
established version. But then I like Del McCoury's version of 1952
Vincent Black Lightning better than Richard Thompson's.

On the occasions when he has a big enough band to do the
original he invariably gives the main recognizable riff to a guest
guitarist.

I wonder why he doesn't travel with a band that can do his songs the way
most people remember them. Not enough money, I guess. Or maybe he just
wants to do them a different way.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 19/11/2015 2:17 p.m., Scott Dorsey wrote
Well, the thing is that when you have a loud band with a backline, there
is no way to get clean vocals without overdubbing.

Vocal booth, with visibility ?

geoff

[Nil[_2_]]

On 18 Nov 2015, (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

I'm not sure Mr. Agnew even knows what overdubbing is. It's clear
he doesn't have any understanding of leakage or cancellation and
is reluctant to attempts to explain it to him.

He clearly has absolutely no idea how music is recorded. Every
single one of his post comes from a position of utter and purposeful
misunderstanding of how and why it's done. To try to correct the
misconceptions would be a fulltime job... except that he obviously
doesn't want to know the truth. He'd rather cling to his absurd
fantasies.

I think he just knows that he'll get a reaction by saying a
particular thing so he does; his only goal is to get a reaction
and he doesn't actually have anything to say himself. --scott

Bingo.

[None]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
I wonder why he doesn't travel with a band that can do his songs the
way most people remember them. Not enough money, I guess. Or maybe
he just wants to do them a different way.

Well, aside from the fact that he doesn't really "travel with a band"
any more, he may just be doing things differently to keep it musically
interesting. And because some (most?) of the key players on the
"classic" version are dead or retired. Maybe he doesn't want to be in
a Dominos tribute band.

It gets really boring doing the same song the exact same way for
decades. There are songs I've been playing since the 1970's, and if I
had to play them the way they were played back then, it would drive me
crazy. And the lead singer on some of them died more than a decade
ago; nobody sings like him, and nobody's interested in trying to copy
his original recordings note-for-note. A song played live evolves over
time, unlike a recording.

I seriously doubt he's doing a different version for the money. He's
doing it for the music.

[Nil[_2_]]

On 18 Nov 2015, "None" wrote in rec.audio.pro:

Well, aside from the fact that he doesn't really "travel with a
band" any more, he may just be doing things differently to keep it
musically interesting. And because some (most?) of the key players
on the "classic" version are dead or retired. Maybe he doesn't
want to be in a Dominos tribute band.

Clapton's bands usually have the right instrumentation to do the
original arrangement of Layla if they want. I seem to recall him once
saying that he had trouble summoning a suitably passionate vocal
because he had performed it so many time.

It gets really boring doing the same song the exact same way for
decades. There are songs I've been playing since the 1970's, and
if I had to play them the way they were played back then, it would
drive me crazy.

The unplugged version of Layla is itself almost 25 years old. I'd think
he'd be getting tired of that one, too. I guess it has the advantage of
taking less energy and commitment to play, and it gets over quicker.

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
On 19/11/2015 2:17 p.m., Scott Dorsey wrote
Well, the thing is that when you have a loud band with a backline, there
is no way to get clean vocals without overdubbing.

Vocal booth, with visibility ?

Can work well, as long as the singer isn't playing an instrument too.
In which case it can go horribly wrong.

Some folks like to put the drummer in a booth and remote the guitar amps.

All of these approaches can sometimes work and sometimes make performers
feel like they are playing in a plastic bubble and totally kill any sense
of ensemble.
--scott

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/19/2015 12:52 AM, Nil wrote:
The unplugged version of Layla is itself almost 25 years old. I'd think
he'd be getting tired of that one, too. I guess it has the advantage of
taking less energy and commitment to play, and it gets over quicker.

That sounds reasonable to me. He knows that he's obligated to do the
song, and those who expect to hear it probably don't care how he does
it. Speaking of someone who isn't a raving Clapton fan, I'd rather he
fill that slot in his shows with something new that he's working on
rather than a not very interesting version of one of his greatest hits.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

geoff wrote:
On 19/11/2015 2:17 p.m., Scott Dorsey wrote
Well, the thing is that when you have a loud band with a backline, there
is no way to get clean vocals without overdubbing.

Vocal booth, with visibility ?

Can work well, as long as the singer isn't playing an instrument too.
In which case it can go horribly wrong.

Some folks like to put the drummer in a booth and remote the guitar amps.

All of these approaches can sometimes work and sometimes make performers
feel like they are playing in a plastic bubble and totally kill any sense
of ensemble.

All very true.

The recent bluegrass project done here was cut all live, and the players loved it.
(Their last album, done elsewhere, had some of the players in iso booths. Being
acoustic players, they were not thrilled about that.)

If you set up the room right, use the right mics in good positions, and have
instrumentation and voices that are all of roughly the same acoustic level, you can
actually get pretty workable isolation. I had enough to do a few selective pitch and
timing edits without anything sounding weird.

And, sometimes, a little leakage can add something to the overall sound. IIRC, this
was Rudy Van Gelder's "secret sauce" and he guarded that secret jealously.

Bottom line: if the players aren't happy as the take going down, it's a lot harder
to get a good performance. It might be "ideal" from an engineering point of view but
then you struggle and stuggle with the mix -- not because the sonics are bad, but
because you don't have any "musical soul" upon which to build that mix.

Frank
Mobile Audio

--

[[email protected]]

Mike Rivers wrote: "Speaking of someone who isn't a raving Clapton fan, I'd rather he
fill that slot in his shows with something new that he's working on
rather than a not very interesting version of one of his greatest hits.
- show quoted text -"

Nope - I, on the other hand, am a 99-percenter. In two
regards: I am a big Clapton fan(though not raving!), and,
I actually would not mind hearing him perform 3-4 hours
of nothing but his greatest hits.

[JackA]

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 4:25:34 PM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 12:00:13 -0800 (PST), JackA
wrote:

No overdubbing? Bye bye Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd. They are
clearly rubbish. There is no problem with overdubbing, it keeps the
artistic input consistent and saves splitting up the cash too many
ways - important for a band. As for live performances - do something
different, but equally good. The fans haven't turned up to hear the
record playing anyway (OK, that's exactly what they have turned up for
with the more youthful of today's cohort).

Overdubbing? Save it for the non professionals. It seems like a plague in Pop music. Don't feel it's wanted in Jazz, Classical and other forms of music. If you need to overdub and lie to your fans, good luck. It's like do whatever necessary to achieve a hit. Poor musicians? Hire some to actually record for more impressive sound, but credit group members.

Live recordings? There's still some decent audio people out there, like the rerecord of Eric Clapton's "Layla". Not bad!!

Jack

It's not lying. It's another way of making music. Do you object to a
painter who paints the red as well as the blue? He should get another
painter to do the red, surely. Any painting is a series of overlays
done by one, or a few painter(s) at different times. That doesn't
invalidate it as a work of art.

Every recording is not a "record of a performance". Some of them are
carefully crafted constructions. Maybe as such they will only exist in
recorded format. That's fine. There is no law that says they must be
performable live. Some are, of course - Brian May says that Bohemian
Rhapsody was one of Queen's easier pieces to perform live. For you, of
course, it isn't even music.

You appear to have a very narrow view of what constitutes music. One
must pity you and such limitations.

You ask about colors of paintings - no big deal. But if you had a Picasso painting, and later found others were instrumental in composing and finalizing it, would you still respect Picasso? No different with music. Sure, I still like the music, but just disappointed how it was created. I assume you are in favor of overdubbing. Some are, some aren't. Like, Tom Dowd (deceased), who I respect, preferred recording "live", unlike others who didn't care, like Al Kooper, allowed overdubbing.

Jack


d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[JackA]

On Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at 10:49:34 PM UTC-5, Nil wrote:
On 18 Nov 2015, (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

I'm not sure Mr. Agnew even knows what overdubbing is. It's clear
he doesn't have any understanding of leakage or cancellation and
is reluctant to attempts to explain it to him.

He clearly has absolutely no idea how music is recorded.


Absolutely correct!! But, unlike The Beatles, even this 1958 live Lonnie Donegan (UK) recording surfaced in Stereo!!...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...uchewingum.mp3

Jack


Every
single one of his post comes from a position of utter and purposeful
misunderstanding of how and why it's done. To try to correct the
misconceptions would be a fulltime job... except that he obviously
doesn't want to know the truth. He'd rather cling to his absurd
fantasies.

I think he just knows that he'll get a reaction by saying a
particular thing so he does; his only goal is to get a reaction
and he doesn't actually have anything to say himself. --scott

Bingo.

[Rick Ruskin]

On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 07:09:57 -0800 (PST), JackA
wrote:
..

You ask about colors of paintings - no big deal. But if you had a Picasso painting, and later found others were instrumental in composing and finalizing it, would you still respect Picasso? No different with music. Sure, I still like the music, but just disappointed how it was created. I assume you are in favor of overdubbing. Some are, some aren't. Like, Tom Dowd (deceased), who I respect, preferred recording "live", unlike others who didn't care, like Al Kooper, allowed overdubbing.

Jack


d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


If you are so disappointed in how music is being made by others,
create some of your own.


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

[JackA]

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 12:13:53 PM UTC-5, Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 07:09:57 -0800 (PST), JackA
wrote:
.

You ask about colors of paintings - no big deal. But if you had a Picasso painting, and later found others were instrumental in composing and finalizing it, would you still respect Picasso? No different with music. Sure, I still like the music, but just disappointed how it was created. I assume you are in favor of overdubbing. Some are, some aren't. Like, Tom Dowd (deceased), who I respect, preferred recording "live", unlike others who didn't care, like Al Kooper, allowed overdubbing.

Jack


d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


If you are so disappointed in how music is being made by others,
create some of your own.

Really?

I mean, listen to The Yardbirds, with all their overdubbing rendered them only in monophonic!! Not sure who the band members were, but not decent musicians, that's obvious!!

Jack


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/19/2015 12:26 PM, Neil wrote:

There are many types of musical constructions, and they aren't new. Back
in the mid 1950s, electronic music soundtracks and other recordings were
commonplace, created using a technique from the '30s called "musique
concrete", which involved razor blades and recordings of discrete sound
events.

There was little hope of (and even less interest in) performing these
pieces live.

Actually, there were live performances, often teamed with dance, or as
part of a multimedia project. There needs to be something more
interesting to see than someone pressing the Play button on a tape deck,
but just as there's canned music today being used in live performance,
tape-based musical compositions were also incorporated in performance.

Those in the music industry have long (if not always) made money by
having their music performed by people who had no involvement in the
recordings.

This is true for some commercial songwriters, but musicians still make
most of their money from live performance, and the opportunity that live
performance offers to sell CDs, T-shirts, lunch boxes, key chains, song
books, etc.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Rick Ruskin]

On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:13:23 -0800 (PST), JackA
wrote:

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 12:13:53 PM UTC-5, Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 07:09:57 -0800 (PST), JackA
wrote:
.

You ask about colors of paintings - no big deal. But if you had a Picasso painting, and later found others were instrumental in composing and finalizing it, would you still respect Picasso? No different with music. Sure, I still like the music, but just disappointed how it was created. I assume you are in favor of overdubbing. Some are, some aren't. Like, Tom Dowd (deceased), who I respect, preferred recording "live", unlike others who didn't care, like Al Kooper, allowed overdubbing.

Jack


d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


If you are so disappointed in how music is being made by others,
create some of your own.

Really?

I mean, listen to The Yardbirds, with all their overdubbing rendered them only in monophonic!! Not sure who the band members were, but not decent musicians, that's obvious!!

Jack


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com


The only thing that is obvious is that you are a talentless wannabe.
You bitch about what everyone is doing wrong and don't have a single
thing of your own shwoing how t do it "right." Classic bull****
artist behavior.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com

[JackA]

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 1:32:02 PM UTC-5, david gourley wrote:
Rick Ruskin
said...news:js4s4b181ph0ke0diip218l7er9trt9t1e@4ax .com:

On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 10:13:23 -0800 (PST), JackA
wrote:

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 12:13:53 PM UTC-5, Rick Ruskin wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2015 07:09:57 -0800 (PST), JackA
wrote:
.

You ask about colors of paintings - no big deal. But if you had a
Picasso painting, and later found others were instrumental in composing and
finalizing it, would you still respect Picasso? No different with music.
Sure, I still like the music, but just disappointed how it was created. I
assume you are in favor of overdubbing. Some are, some aren't. Like, Tom
Dowd (deceased), who I respect, preferred recording "live", unlike others
who didn't care, like Al Kooper, allowed overdubbing.

Jack


d

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


If you are so disappointed in how music is being made by others,
create some of your own.

Really?

I mean, listen to The Yardbirds, with all their overdubbing rendered them
only in monophonic!! Not sure who the band members were, but not decent
musicians, that's obvious!!

Jack


Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com


The only thing that is obvious is that you are a talentless wannabe.
You bitch about what everyone is doing wrong and don't have a single
thing of your own shwoing how t do it "right." Classic bull****
artist behavior.
Rick Ruskin
Lion Dog Music- Seattle WA
http://liondogmusic.com


And when you either question or offer a suggestion to the troll, he zigzags
his answer to something else. He's got nothing, not even wannabe. It
requires no effort on his part, anyway.

Between you and Rick, you'd both win a Grammy. Not for best engineered sound, but best noise making!!

Jack

david

[John Williamson]

On 19/11/2015 18:38, JackA wrote:
Between you and Rick, you'd both win a Grammy. Not for best engineered sound, but best noise making!!

And every time you post some of your remixed rubbish here, you win the
outright prize for worst sound of the month.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 19/11/2015 18:13, JackA wrote:
On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 12:13:53 PM UTC-5, Rick Ruskin wrote:
If you are so disappointed in how music is being made by others,
create some of your own.

Really?

I mean, listen to The Yardbirds, with all their overdubbing rendered them only in monophonic!! Not sure who the band members were, but not decent musicians, that's obvious!!

For your information, the lead guitarist on a lot of their big hits was
Jeff Beck, who is generally considered to be one of the best guitarists
and music arrangers of all time.

Eric Clapton also appeared on a couple of their early singles, which
didn't do as well as their later stuff.

Then there was Jimmy Page, who went on to found Led Zeppelin. And so on...

So, yeah, not "decent" musicians. Bloomin' brilliant ones, maybe, but
not "decent".

You might like to listen to some of their new stuff, with half the early
line up still playing, and it's recorded in glorious stereo.

A poor recording, but they are live...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMQo6ajwPbU

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[JackA]

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 2:21:40 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 19/11/2015 18:38, JackA wrote:
Between you and Rick, you'd both win a Grammy. Not for best engineered sound, but best noise making!!

And every time you post some of your remixed rubbish here, you win the
outright prize for worst sound of the month.

Look, just because you weren't gifted with great hearing like I am, don't take it out on me, take it up with your creator, whatever it may be!!

Jack


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[John Williamson]

On 19/11/2015 20:05, John Williamson wrote:
On 19/11/2015 18:13, JackA wrote:

I mean, listen to The Yardbirds, with all their overdubbing rendered
them only in monophonic!! Not sure who the band members were, but not
decent musicians, that's obvious!!

You might like to listen to some of their new stuff, with half the early
line up still playing, and it's recorded in glorious stereo.

A poor recording, but they are live...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMQo6ajwPbU

There's a better recording he-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn7ZmI_wRv8

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Neil[_9_]]

On 11/19/2015 1:24 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/19/2015 12:26 PM, Neil wrote:

There are many types of musical constructions, and they aren't new. Back
in the mid 1950s, electronic music soundtracks and other recordings were
commonplace, created using a technique from the '30s called "musique
concrete", which involved razor blades and recordings of discrete sound
events.

There was little hope of (and even less interest in) performing these
pieces live.

Actually, there were live performances, often teamed with dance, or as
part of a multimedia project. There needs to be something more
interesting to see than someone pressing the Play button on a tape deck,
but just as there's canned music today being used in live performance,
tape-based musical compositions were also incorporated in performance.

True, if performance or live presentation was the goal, which isn't
always the case.

Those in the music industry have long (if not always) made money by
having their music performed by people who had no involvement in the
recordings.

This is true for some commercial songwriters, but musicians still make
most of their money from live performance, and the opportunity that live
performance offers to sell CDs, T-shirts, lunch boxes, key chains, song
books, etc.

Well sure, because by (union) definition, most musicians are performers.
Regressing again, Les Paul and Mary Ford did a lot of music on record
that was quite different from their live performances, by necessity. In
other words, none of this is new.

DAWs have made it easier for composers to get their ideas realized, and
though their work is not necessarily connected to performances or even a
viable income, it's still music!

--
Best regards,

Neil

[geoff]

On 20/11/2015 2:38 a.m., Frank Stearns wrote:
Bottom line: if the players aren't happy as the take going down, it's
a lot harder to get a good performance. It might be "ideal" from an
engineering point of view but then you struggle and stuggle with the
mix -- not because the sonics are bad, but because you don't have any
"musical soul" upon which to build that mix. Frank Mobile Audio

You can always give them them fundamentalist alternative of a only
stereo pair of mics and they just play. Sometimes that works for the
recording, and sometimes that convinces them that the alternative
method/s weren't so bad after all !

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 11/19/2015 3:20 PM, Neil wrote:
Well sure, because by (union) definition, most musicians are performers.
Regressing again, Les Paul and Mary Ford did a lot of music on record
that was quite different from their live performances, by necessity. In
other words, none of this is new.

Did you ever see Les Paul perform? The Les Paulverizer (a multitrack
player that he could control from a switchbox on his guitar) was an
essential part of his show. He could play live anything that he
recorded, but for performance, he obviously needed prepared tracks for
things that were processed in ways that he couldn't do live. Mary's
sister or cousin would sing her doubled parts hidden behind a curtain
when they did live shows. Les was not only a clever inventor, but a
first class showman and darn good guitarist. His live shows were better
than his records.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Neil[_9_]]

On 11/19/2015 4:03 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 11/19/2015 3:20 PM, Neil wrote:
Well sure, because by (union) definition, most musicians are performers.
Regressing again, Les Paul and Mary Ford did a lot of music on record
that was quite different from their live performances, by necessity. In
other words, none of this is new.

Did you ever see Les Paul perform?

Yes, more than once. Most recently about a year before he passed.

The Les Paulverizer (a multitrack
player that he could control from a switchbox on his guitar) was an
essential part of his show. He could play live anything that he
recorded, but for performance, he obviously needed prepared tracks for
things that were processed in ways that he couldn't do live. Mary's
sister or cousin would sing her doubled parts hidden behind a curtain
when they did live shows. Les was not only a clever inventor, but a
first class showman and darn good guitarist. His live shows were better
than his records.

No doubt, and I do not mean to suggest that his live shows were not fun;
they were a good time. But, they were not the same as his recordings.
Personally, I think that's a good thing.

--
Best regards,

Neil

[JackA]

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 3:10:23 PM UTC-5, John Williamson wrote:
On 19/11/2015 20:05, John Williamson wrote:
On 19/11/2015 18:13, JackA wrote:

I mean, listen to The Yardbirds, with all their overdubbing rendered
them only in monophonic!! Not sure who the band members were, but not
decent musicians, that's obvious!!

You might like to listen to some of their new stuff, with half the early
line up still playing, and it's recorded in glorious stereo.

A poor recording, but they are live...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMQo6ajwPbU

There's a better recording he-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn7ZmI_wRv8

Here's the "boys" as George Martin would call them, trying their best to replicate what studio musicians recorded for them...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU5zqidlxMQ


Jack

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
On 20/11/2015 2:38 a.m., Frank Stearns wrote:
Bottom line: if the players aren't happy as the take going down, it's
a lot harder to get a good performance. It might be "ideal" from an
engineering point of view but then you struggle and stuggle with the
mix -- not because the sonics are bad, but because you don't have any
"musical soul" upon which to build that mix. Frank Mobile Audio

You can always give them them fundamentalist alternative of a only
stereo pair of mics and they just play. Sometimes that works for the
recording, and sometimes that convinces them that the alternative
method/s weren't so bad after all !

For a bluegrass band, I have sometimes done a hybrid arrangement.
Single mike pair with the performers taking a few steps forward for
solos and stepping back for the rest, making two tracks on the tape.
Then a third and maybe fourth track with a vocal overdub.

In a good room this can work well without the vocals disappearing
and without the instruments getting mushy from leakage into the
vocal mike, but still the vocals front and center and more prominent
than they'd be if they were just recorded with the main pair.

Sometimes performers find it a lot easier to play when they aren't
singing, but sometimes performers find it harder too. Finding out
which is the case for your performers is the key to the whole thing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."