Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
There's an editorial of that title, by Steve Guttenburg, in the March 2012
"Stereophile". If J Gordon Holt is looking down on us (joke intended), he must be laughing his ass off. One of his classic articles (about 45 years old) shows the "process" through which the microphones' outputs go before reaching the cutter head. These include an "automatic dematrixing obfuscator" and (my favorite) the "dynamic subtlety suppressor". * Mr Guttenburg shows a startling ignorance of the history of recording. The major recurring theme (joke intended) throughout the history of recorded sound is the degradation of the original sound so that the recording will "sound good" on cheap playback equipment. This should have ended with the introduction of the Compact Disk, but didn't. ** Most music (except classical, and some jazz) doesn't have enough dynamic range to stress even modest playback systems, yet the recording industry insists on flattening what little dynamic range there is to the point of non-existence. If the purpose is make recordings subjectively louder -- what is the point? The home listener can set the volume wherever he wants. If a radio station feels it needs a competitive advantage, it can apply compression at the station. The problem, as I see it, is that most "popular" music has no meaningful acoustic equivalent. The mics' outputs are simply raw material to be altered however the producer cares to. This is not seen as a creative option, but an unalterable necessity. There is simply no need for this. But people are unaccustomed to hearing live, unamplified sound in an appropriate acoustic environment, and they know no better. * I designed a device that -- on paper -- would do that. ** It seems that SACDs and Blu-ray Audio disks have "better" sound, apparently because their producers and engineers really want to make honest recordings. -- "We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right questions." -- Edwin Land |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
On Feb 10, 3:56*pm, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: There's an editorial of that title, by Steve Guttenburg, in the March 2012 "Stereophile". If J Gordon Holt is looking down on us (joke intended), he must be laughing his ass off. One of his classic articles (about 45 years old) shows the "process" through which the microphones' outputs go before reaching the cutter head. These include an "automatic dematrixing obfuscator" and (my favorite) the "dynamic subtlety suppressor". * Mr Guttenburg shows a startling ignorance of the history of recording. The major recurring theme (joke intended) throughout the history of recorded sound is the degradation of the original sound so that the recording will "sound good" on cheap playback equipment. This should have ended with the introduction of the Compact Disk, but didn't. ** Most music (except classical, and some jazz) doesn't have enough dynamic range to stress even modest playback systems, yet the recording industry insists on flattening what little dynamic range there is to the point of non-existence. If the purpose is make recordings subjectively louder -- what is the point? The home listener can set the volume wherever he wants. If a radio station feels it needs a competitive advantage, it can apply compression at the station. The problem, as I see it, is that most "popular" music has no meaningful acoustic equivalent. The mics' outputs are simply raw material to be altered however the producer cares to. This is not seen as a creative option, but an unalterable necessity. There is simply no need for this. But people are unaccustomed to hearing live, unamplified sound in an appropriate acoustic environment, and they know no better. * I designed a device that -- on paper -- would do that. ** It seems that SACDs and Blu-ray Audio disks have "better" sound, apparently because their producers and engineers really want to make honest recordings. -- "We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right questions." -- Edwin Land ___________________________ Short answer: Y E S ! I have just scrounged the entire web for a decent mp3 or wav of "Urgent" by Foreigner - they are all "remastered" versions that make Lou Graham sound like he's yelling in your FACE! Unless you own the CD from LP that came out 25 years ago you out of luck! -CC |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:56:47 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article ): The problem, as I see it, is that most "popular" music has no meaningful acoustic equivalent. The mics' outputs are simply raw material to be altered however the producer cares to. This is not seen as a creative option, but an unalterable necessity. ------------------------------snip------------------------------ The answer to that is... it depends. I can think of certain pop recordings (even on vinyl) that had very wide dynamic range. Michael Martin Murphey's "Wildfire" (a #3 hit from 1975) would be one of them. But dynamic range alone is no determination of sound quality. Sometimes, emotion, feel, and melody are more important. I can think of tons of major Motown hits going back to 1961 that have maybe 5dB of dynamic range at best, even on the original vinyl... but it doesn't matter, because they're great songs, absolute classics that will last for decades. (Note that these are not slammed, hard-limited, digitally-compressed productions; they're done with all analog gear, often tube gear, 40 or 50 years ago.) Many, many pop songs were never intended to work in an acoustical setting, nor do they sound good that way. Pop and rock production merely present other creative choices from real acoustic music. It's no worse than synthesized music, which goes back to the 1940s (at least). Note also that there have been "unplugged" versions of many pop and rock hits over the years, presented live in concert, on radio, and on TV. Those are just as musically valid, but I don't think they're necessarily better than the "electric" originals. I would agree that the modern production trend of *perfecting* studio performances -- infinitely comping vocals, making thousands of edits, using Auto-Tune, and on and on -- tend to make them less human. Sometimes, the "flaws" are what make rock & roll what it is. Perfect sound quality is the last thing you want if it overwhelms and undermines the song's humanity. I haven't received my (old, archaic, analog, paper) copy of the new issue yet, and can't find the Guttenberg column in question on the website, so I'll hold off on further comment until I read it. What I will say is: I've generally found almost no audiophile writers who've ever worked in a modern recording studio or have any concept of how hit music is actually recorded in 2012. Saying that they're "out of touch" is being kind. I agree with you that many of them are woefully ignorant as to how music has been recorded, even going back a couple of decades. --MFW |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
"Marc Wielage" wrote in message
.com... Many, many pop songs were never intended to work in an acoustical setting, nor do they sound good that way. Pop and rock production merely present other creative choices from real acoustic music. It's no worse than synthesized music, which goes back to the 1940s (at least). But this manipulation isn't used for "creative" effects, but simply because it's available. I've heard Buddy Holly recordings more than a half-century old, and (to the extent it's possible to judge on the radio), they're beautiful. They're clean, well-balanced, and appear to be taking place in some sort of acoustically appropriate space. What's wrong with that? A note: More than a quarter-century ago, when I worked for Rupert Neve in Connecticut, I had the great displeasure of helping install a Neve computer-control system in Atlanta's leading recording studio. During playback in which the level was increased to hearing-damaging levels, I put my fingers in my ears. I was later told this was a rude and insulting thing to do. The recording industry produces a great deal of "sound and fury, signifying nothing". I could say much-worse things, but will bite my tongue. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
"William Sommerwerck" writes:
"Marc Wielage" wrote in message s.com... Many, many pop songs were never intended to work in an acoustical setting, nor do they sound good that way. Pop and rock production merely present other creative choices from real acoustic music. It's no worse than synthesized music, which goes back to the 1940s (at least). But this manipulation isn't used for "creative" effects, but simply because it's available. Yes, I've seen this too. And earlier this week I probably lost a project because I would not participate in this. playback in which the level was increased to hearing-damaging levels, I put my fingers in my ears. I was later told this was a rude and insulting thing to do. They're your ears! You surely did the right thing. Upon scolding I probably would have made a retort far ruder than the original finger-plugging action, and would have been fired on the spot. g The recording industry produces a great deal of "sound and fury, signifying nothing". I could say much-worse things, but will bite my tongue. Agreed. Mass-market food science, of the type that hooks a lot of folks on big macs and sodas, meets audio production. Sigh. And I'm actually okay with that (given that micro-management regulation would be worse, imo). What's sad and damning is the lack of education or exposure to other things, other methods, so that people understand the manipulation and could then laugh and walk away if they so chose. Still, time is a great filter of crap. After 4 centuries Bach survives but the formulaic insipid pop music from the 1920s and 30s is, thankfully, largely gone (to name just one time period). It'll take a while to sweep through the more recent decades. It's just annoying at times to live through the crap of the day; tough to realize that it is circling the drain and will one day be gone. But something has also shifted culturally -- it might be nothing more than many people becoming completely passive in their entertainment. Music, and entertainment, used to be participatory for nearly everyone, and often at a fairly high level. No one did it for you -- you did it for each other. And you did good things for your brain by making music all through your life. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
On Feb 12, 4:11*am, Marc Wielage wrote:
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:56:47 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote (in article ): The problem, as I see it, is that most "popular" music has no meaningful acoustic equivalent. The mics' outputs are simply raw material to be altered however the producer cares to. This is not seen as a creative option, but an unalterable necessity. ------------------------------snip------------------------------ The answer to that is... it depends. *I can think of certain pop recordings (even on vinyl) that had very wide dynamic range. *Michael Martin Murphey's "Wildfire" (a #3 hit from 1975) would be one of them. But dynamic range alone is no determination of sound quality. *Sometimes, emotion, feel, and melody are more important. *I can think of tons of major Motown hits going back to 1961 that have maybe 5dB of dynamic range at best, even on the original vinyl... but it doesn't matter, because they're great songs, absolute classics that will last for decades. *(Note that these are not slammed, hard-limited, digitally-compressed productions; they're done with all analog gear, often tube gear, 40 or 50 years ago.) --MF _________________ The bean counters at the record cos don't care Max. So there's "5dB dynamic range at best"? Squash it to 1dB and pin it to digital VU -.5 dB and re-sell it to the suckers!!! That's the mentality my friend. Sad but true. -CC |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
ChrisCoaster wrote:
The bean counters at the record cos don't care Max. So there's "5dB dynamic range at best"? Squash it to 1dB and pin it to digital VU -.5 dB and re-sell it to the suckers!!! It's not the bean counters anymore. It is now pretty normal for musicians to come into the mastering room and demand everything to be louder. The problem is now much more fundamental than that. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:39:48 -0500, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article ): "Marc Wielage" wrote in message .com... Many, many pop songs were never intended to work in an acoustical setting, nor do they sound good that way. Pop and rock production merely present other creative choices from real acoustic music. It's no worse than synthesized music, which goes back to the 1940s (at least). But this manipulation isn't used for "creative" effects, but simply because it's available. I've heard Buddy Holly recordings more than a half-century old, and (to the extent it's possible to judge on the radio), they're beautiful. They're clean, well-balanced, and appear to be taking place in some sort of acoustically appropriate space. What's wrong with that? A note: More than a quarter-century ago, when I worked for Rupert Neve in Connecticut, I had the great displeasure of helping install a Neve computer-control system in Atlanta's leading recording studio. During playback in which the level was increased to hearing-damaging levels, I put my fingers in my ears. I was later told this was a rude and insulting thing to do. The recording industry produces a great deal of "sound and fury, signifying nothing". I could say much-worse things, but will bite my tongue. Will, I think the point here is that The Buddy Holly recordings were done at a different point in time. There was a different approach to recording and to mixing. His arrangements were pretty sparse compared to some of today's works, including the original Beatles mixes. Yes, sound and fury, blah, blah, blah. I agree there's much ado about nothing compared to earlier, more technology-restricted periods. Just because you HAVE 48 bazillion tracks doesn't mean filling them makes the music better. Regards, Ty Ford --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:44:32 -0500, Frank Stearns wrote
(in article isition): Still, time is a great filter of crap. After 4 centuries Bach survives but the formulaic insipid pop music from the 1920s and 30s is, thankfully, largely gone (to name just one time period). It'll take a while to sweep through the more recent decades. It's just annoying at times to live through the crap of the day; tough to realize that it is circling the drain and will one day be gone. I agree, Frank, but then you have McCartney doing "standards" that the market seems to be very keen on. I listened and watched the iTunes video, which was VERY well shot and mixed, but I didn't really think McCartney connected well with that music. And maybe I missed the truly great versions of those songs done originally, but, I thought some of "standards" were below standard. Regards, Ty Ford --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
"Frank Stearns" wrote in message
acquisition... Still, time is a great filter of crap. After 4 centuries Bach survives but the formulaic insipid pop music from the 1920s and 30s is, thankfully, largely gone (to name just one time period). It'll take a while to sweep through the more-recent decades. It's just annoying at times to live through the crap of the day; tough to realize that it is circling the drain and will one day be gone. Do you think that badly recorded music is likely to make it harder for future generations to separate "good" music from bad? But something has also shifted culturally -- it might be nothing more than many people becoming completely passive in their entertainment. Music, and entertainment, used to be participatory for nearly everyone, and often at a fairly high level. No one did it for you -- you did it for each other. And you did good things for your brain by making music all through your life. This is an argument in favor of forcing all children to study music. Of course, recordings have an important place. I was listening to the Mahler 3rd and the Kindertotenlieder this morning. Without recordings, it's unlikely I would have ever this music. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
... ChrisCoaster wrote: The bean counters at the record cos don't care Max. So there's "5dB dynamic range at best"? Squash it to 1dB and pin it to digital VU -.5 dB and re-sell it to the suckers!!! It's not the bean counters anymore. It is now pretty normal for musicians to come into the mastering room and demand everything to be louder. Crank it up all the way to 12! The problem is not much more fundamental than that. I think there are many areas of art that are objectively "better" than others. When people aren't exposed to them, they have no standards against which to judge. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
"Ty Ford" wrote in message
al.NET... I think the point here is that The Buddy Holly recordings were done at a different point in time. There was a different approach to recording and to mixing. His arrangements were pretty sparse compared to some of today's works, including the original Beatles mixes. Well, that was my point. Strunk & White's basic rule applies to music as surely as it applies to writing. |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
Indeed, and this is what's hurting music, it's become
something to be casually "consumed' usually as background noise. Yet when we 'old farts" say that this hip-hop type stuff produced with samplers and loops as well as the auto tuned comped performances are bad music we get accused of snobbery, bigotry, and even worse. Good music requires interaction at some level. Even that single artist with a guitar and his/her voice develops a good performance by actually performing before audiences of flesh and blood people, who interact with the performer. music doesn't play the role it once played in average folks' lives, it's just something to be there to be background noise or the flavor of the moment. Well, when I listen to music, I usually sit down and listen to it attentively. Unfortunately, my attention span is barely an hour these days. Thirty years ago I could listen to music for six or seven hours at a time. Several years ago, I wanted to learn "Widmung" to sing to a friend I was very much in love with. I had never really understood/enjoyed Lieder, but when I learned this song, suddenly almost all Lieder made musical sense to me. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:00:25 -0500, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article ): "Ty Ford" wrote in message al.NET... I think the point here is that The Buddy Holly recordings were done at a different point in time. There was a different approach to recording and to mixing. His arrangements were pretty sparse compared to some of today's works, including the original Beatles mixes. Well, that was my point. Strunk & White's basic rule applies to music as surely as it applies to writing. A copy of which is less than 12 feet from me, right now. Regards, Ty Ford --Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
On Feb 12, 11:07*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote: The bean counters at the record cos don't care Max. *So there's "5dB dynamic range at best"? *Squash it to 1dB and pin it to digital VU -.5 dB and re-sell it to the suckers!!! It's not the bean counters anymore. *It is now pretty normal for musicians to come into the mastering room and demand everything to be louder. The problem is now much more fundamental than that. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." _________________ Well fundamentally it all boils down to money. Artists are now of the mentality that if it isn't loud enough it won't be noticed or stand out. In any case, It's a shame that this is the new "norm" for popular music, especially with the lowest noise highest dynamic range flattest frequency response platform(digital) in the history of recorded sound! I would also appreciate it if past artists or their labels didn't apply this mentality - and processing - to past works that stand out by their own virtues in the deceptive guise of "remastering" or however they want to call it. -CC |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
ChrisCoaster writes:
Well fundamentally it all boils down to money. Artists are now of the mentality that if it isn't loud enough it won't be noticed or stand out. If they lack talent (and many of them do), they're probably right. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
On Sun 2012-Feb-12 10:44, Frank Stearns writes:
snip playback in which the level was increased to hearing-damaging levels, I put my fingers in my ears. I was later told this was a rude and insulting thing to do. They're your ears! You surely did the right thing. Upon scolding I probably would have made a retort far ruder than the original finger-plugging action, and would have been fired on the spot. g Ditto here! I"ve been known to do such things. The recording industry produces a great deal of "sound and fury, signifying nothing". I could say much-worse things, but will bite my tongue. Agreed. Mass-market food science, of the type that hooks a lot of folks on big macs and sodas, meets audio production. Sigh. Again we're in agreement. But, here again, you point out, as you and I have both done before why this is bad. YOu said: But something has also shifted culturally -- it might be nothing more than many people becoming completely passive in their entertainment. Music, and entertainment, used to be participatory for nearly everyone, and often at a fairly high level. No one did it for you -- you did it for each other. And you did good things for your brain by making music all through your life. Indeed, and this is what's hurting music, it's become something to be casually "consumed' usually as background noise. YEt when us 'old farts" say that this hip hop type stuff produced with samplers and loops as well as the auto tuned comped performances are bad music we get accused of snobbery bigotry, and even worse. Good music requires interaction at some level. Even that single artist with a guitar and his/her voice develops a good performance by actually performing before audiences of flesh and blood people, who interact with the performer. music doesn't play the role it once played in average folks' lives, it's just something to be there to be background noise or the flavor of the moment. We've had these phiosophical discussions before in this group, but this is the fundamental truth that underlies everything, the loudness war, marketing, the whole bit. The Black Eyed pEas may be good dancers, and even good showmen and women, but musicians they are not. Regards, Richard .... "In some hands, all the knobs are suck knobs." -- Jay Kadis -- | Remove .my.foot for email | via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet-Internet Gateway Site | Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own. |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
LEs writes: wrote: I haven't heard a country artist play anything but a straight four midtempo rock beat now for over a decade, once in awhile something with 3 beats per measure, but rarely a swing or a good fast shuffle. ITs' a rock beat with twangy guitars. I'd like to hear a good anthropologist or art historian do a real, serious piece on how this came to pass. I will note the following: 1) It has something to do with MTV, I bet. Nothing has ever fostered disappointment like the demographic shifts on MTV, it seems. Maybe that's just a Usenet trope, but it's been a consistent one. I would agree with that, it started with the so-called "urban cowboy thing imho. 2) A person who is a music publisher (with whom I also have had the occasional contact) was relocating from LA to Nashvegas in 1998. This was identified as a trend, not an isolated incident. YEah I know, all glitz. YOu notice guys like MErle can't beg airplay anymore g. 3) Country itself has splintered into multiple markets. There's the No Depression market, Texas Outlaw market, several others. Would agree, it's splintered quite a bit. 4) Cowboy boots should not have square toes unless you are shooting a Spaghetti Western. rotfl Also you're not a cowboy if you drive a Lexxus and live in the city. Urban cowboy is an oxymoron. And also, hello Sugarland! REal country doesn't need a 30 foot video screen and all the bull****. Richard webb, replace anything before at with elspider |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
"William Sommerwerck" writes:
"Frank Stearns" wrote in message nacquisition... snip Do you think that badly recorded music is likely to make it harder for future generations to separate "good" music from bad? Depends. If they've actively participated in music, have a little bit of music education (nothing fancy; just an 8th grade equivalent to, say, reading or arithmetic instead of total music oblivian), they'll be much more able to make a judgment about the recordings they experience. But something has also shifted culturally -- it might be nothing more than many people becoming completely passive in their entertainment. Music, and entertainment, used to be participatory for nearly everyone, and often at a fairly high level. No one did it for you -- you did it for each other. And you did good things for your brain by making music all through your life. This is an argument in favor of forcing all children to study music. In the same sense of teaching them reading, writing, arithmetic to, say, an 8th grade level (and making a suitable educational progression in music from kindergarten to the 8th grade), then yes, absolutely. This is nothing new; music at one time was an integrated and required part of the elementary school experience in the USA. It still is in many European countries. I am biased of course, because I am in the business and have music teachers in the family. But beyond that, the activity itself seems to have a vital influence on brain development, even brain repair. Ms. Giffords, the congresswomen shot in the head by the nut case last year in the Southwestern USA, has made a remarkable recovery. Reportedly, music therapy (a gentle acoustic guitar and singing of consonant melodies and not head-slamming noise) has been a crucial element in that recovery. IIRC, music was the single thing that helped her re-acquire language. Multiple brain studies have shown how much of the brain "lights up" when musically stimulated. And if you analyze what music is, what it does, and how it affects the typical human, this makes a lot of sense. Of course, recordings have an important place. I was listening to the Mahler 3rd and the Kindertotenlieder this morning. Without recordings, it's unlikely I would have ever this music. Absolutely; I agree. But as you point out in a later post about leider, experiencing (performing) it first-hand made it something special. So, too, would basic music education and hands-on participation enhance the recordings one might experience later in life. Educators and their critics have been misguided and too easily dismissive of music education, IMO. It doesn't matter what you do later in life; music is one of the "enrichers" that make us human and in aggregate makes life better. Where would we be if arithmetic was simply deemed "not worth the trouble so let's not teach it any more..." (Well, perhaps based on results we're half-way there anyway! But you see the point, I think.) I'm not overly hopeful that we'll get music back for the general elementary school population, but we should all nudge and suggest as we can. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
Frank Stearns wrote:
"William Sommerwerck" writes: "Frank Stearns" wrote in message acquisition... snip Do you think that badly recorded music is likely to make it harder for future generations to separate "good" music from bad? Depends. If they've actively participated in music, have a little bit of music education (nothing fancy; just an 8th grade equivalent to, say, reading or arithmetic instead of total music oblivian), they'll be much more able to make a judgment about the recordings they experience. But something has also shifted culturally -- it might be nothing more than many people becoming completely passive in their entertainment. Music, and entertainment, used to be participatory for nearly everyone, and often at a fairly high level. No one did it for you -- you did it for each other. And you did good things for your brain by making music all through your life. This is an argument in favor of forcing all children to study music. In the same sense of teaching them reading, writing, arithmetic to, say, an 8th grade level (and making a suitable educational progression in music from kindergarten to the 8th grade), then yes, absolutely. This is nothing new; music at one time was an integrated and required part of the elementary school experience in the USA. It still is in many European countries. I am biased of course, because I am in the business and have music teachers in the family. But beyond that, the activity itself seems to have a vital influence on brain development, even brain repair. Ms. Giffords, the congresswomen shot in the head by the nut case last year in the Southwestern USA, has made a remarkable recovery. Reportedly, music therapy (a gentle acoustic guitar and singing of consonant melodies and not head-slamming noise) has been a crucial element in that recovery. IIRC, music was the single thing that helped her re-acquire language. Multiple brain studies have shown how much of the brain "lights up" when musically stimulated. And if you analyze what music is, what it does, and how it affects the typical human, this makes a lot of sense. Of course, recordings have an important place. I was listening to the Mahler 3rd and the Kindertotenlieder this morning. Without recordings, it's unlikely I would have ever this music. Absolutely; I agree. But as you point out in a later post about leider, experiencing (performing) it first-hand made it something special. So, too, would basic music education and hands-on participation enhance the recordings one might experience later in life. Educators and their critics have been misguided and too easily dismissive of music education, IMO. It doesn't matter what you do later in life; music is one of the "enrichers" that make us human and in aggregate makes life better. Where would we be if arithmetic was simply deemed "not worth the trouble so let's not teach it any more..." (Well, perhaps based on results we're half-way there anyway! But you see the point, I think.) I'm not overly hopeful that we'll get music back for the general elementary school population, but we should all nudge and suggest as we can. Frank Mobile Audio +1 That, my friend, is an outstanding post. -- ---Jeff |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
On 2/12/2012 2:12 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
4) Cowboy boots should not have square toes unless you are shooting a Spaghetti Western. or have duck-shaped feet. I have such feet ... large ones! ... and never found comfy cowbody boots until I found some square-toed Ariats available in a large enough size. I'm wearing them now, and they are comfy enough that I can ... and do ... either walk 8 miles a day in passable but muddy or snowy weather or climb 2000 fett of stairs in them, never a problem. And they are great for slogging through mud, snow, or yes, horse **** (which I do on vacation.) Doug McDonald |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
Multiple brain studies have shown how much of the brain "lights up"
when musically stimulated. You can get the same effect by sticking miniature Christmas-tree lights up your nose. |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Marc Wielage" wrote in message .com... Many, many pop songs were never intended to work in an acoustical setting, nor do they sound good that way. Pop and rock production merely present other creative choices from real acoustic music. It's no worse than synthesized music, which goes back to the 1940s (at least). But this manipulation isn't used for "creative" effects, but simply because it's available. Your opinion, and probably not based on atending many sessions, William. What seems creative to one producer may not fit your own own concept of that. Mind you, I'm not fan of much present production that I hear, but the other side of that opinion is that I don't pay any attention to pop music and haven't for decades. When I took over managment of AWHQ en route to work the first day I stopped and bought a nice little Tandberg radio to run in the office so I'd know what was happening on the airwaves. I've heard Buddy Holly recordings more than a half-century old, and (to the extent it's possible to judge on the radio), they're beautiful. They're clean, well-balanced, and appear to be taking place in some sort of acoustically appropriate space. What's wrong with that? Nothing is wrong with that, if that's what an artist and producer want to do. If they want to do something else, that's all wrong. Norman's studio was in his home in Clovis NM. You can see it he http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH-AZhRpWW0 A note: More than a quarter-century ago, when I worked for Rupert Neve in Connecticut, I had the great displeasure of helping install a Neve computer-control system in Atlanta's leading recording studio. During playback in which the level was increased to hearing-damaging levels, I put my fingers in my ears. I was later told this was a rude and insulting thing to do. To assume that is a ubiquitous attitude is not sensible. Many engineers would have done the same as you. The recording industry produces a great deal of "sound and fury, signifying nothing". I could say much-worse things, but will bite my tongue. Perhaps you should produce some recordings. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
Ty Ford wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:44:32 -0500, Frank Stearns wrote (in article isition): Still, time is a great filter of crap. After 4 centuries Bach survives but the formulaic insipid pop music from the 1920s and 30s is, thankfully, largely gone (to name just one time period). It'll take a while to sweep through the more recent decades. It's just annoying at times to live through the crap of the day; tough to realize that it is circling the drain and will one day be gone. I agree, Frank, but then you have McCartney doing "standards" that the market seems to be very keen on. I listened and watched the iTunes video, which was VERY well shot and mixed, but I didn't really think McCartney connected well with that music. And maybe I missed the truly great versions of those songs done originally, but, I thought some of "standards" were below standard. McCartney supposedly took to those songs in his youth. You could find comments at PRW by the engineer who recorded and mixed it. As with all musical material one person may like material that others don't. Always been that way. I haven't heard Paul's take there. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
William Sommerwerck wrote:
"Frank Stearns" wrote in message acquisition... Still, time is a great filter of crap. After 4 centuries Bach survives but the formulaic insipid pop music from the 1920s and 30s is, thankfully, largely gone (to name just one time period). It'll take a while to sweep through the more-recent decades. It's just annoying at times to live through the crap of the day; tough to realize that it is circling the drain and will one day be gone. Do you think that badly recorded music is likely to make it harder for future generations to separate "good" music from bad? No, I don't any more than I expect agreement among a large group of humans upon what is good or bad music. Reread McCluhan. If he's right we're evolving toward a more visual and less aural being. But something has also shifted culturally -- it might be nothing more than many people becoming completely passive in their entertainment. Music, and entertainment, used to be participatory for nearly everyone, and often at a fairly high level. No one did it for you -- you did it for each other. And you did good things for your brain by making music all through your life. This is an argument in favor of forcing all children to study music. Forcing people to study things isn't working very well, regardless of the subject. Play music in your own household. Some of your children will take up playing music, and some won't, though all of them are likely to appreciate music and make it an ongoing part of their lives, unless you force them to study it and they stop listening or liking music, to abandon it as soon as they escape the home. Of course, recordings have an important place. I was listening to the Mahler 3rd and the Kindertotenlieder this morning. Without recordings, it's unlikely I would have ever this music. Get ourself a piano, and turn off the stereo. g -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
wrote:
LEs writes: wrote: I haven't heard a country artist play anything but a straight four midtempo rock beat now for over a decade, once in awhile something with 3 beats per measure, but rarely a swing or a good fast shuffle. ITs' a rock beat with twangy guitars. I'd like to hear a good anthropologist or art historian do a real, serious piece on how this came to pass. I will note the following: 1) It has something to do with MTV, I bet. Nothing has ever fostered disappointment like the demographic shifts on MTV, it seems. Maybe that's just a Usenet trope, but it's been a consistent one. I would agree with that, it started with the so-called "urban cowboy thing imho. I have an old friend, in both sense of that adjective, who is a cowboy. In the late 19080's he told me, "I always wear running shoes and a ball cap so that nobody mistakes me for a truck driver". 2) A person who is a music publisher (with whom I also have had the occasional contact) was relocating from LA to Nashvegas in 1998. This was identified as a trend, not an isolated incident. YEah I know, all glitz. YOu notice guys like MErle can't beg airplay anymore g. Airplay for that has shifted to the so-called Americana stations. Merle's album 'If I Could Only Fly" has sold about a half-million units. 3) Country itself has splintered into multiple markets. There's the No Depression market, Texas Outlaw market, several others. Would agree, it's splintered quite a bit. 4) Cowboy boots should not have square toes unless you are shooting a Spaghetti Western. rotfl Also you're not a cowboy if you drive a Lexxus and live in the city. Urban cowboy is an oxymoron. And also, hello Sugarland! REal country doesn't need a 30 foot video screen and all the bull****. Here's a take on "Real Country"! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAMK1fk-9rc -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
"Frank Stearns" wrote in message acquisition... Educators and their critics have been misguided and too easily dismissive of music education, IMO. It doesn't matter what you do later in life; music is one of the "enrichers" that make us human and in aggregate makes life better. Where would we be if arithmetic was simply deemed "not worth the trouble so let's not teach it any more..." (Well, perhaps based on results we're half-way there anyway! But you see the point, I think.) Already more than half-way, for some. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...on/6588695.stm http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-courses.html Predrag |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
"hank alrich" wrote in message
... William Sommerwerck wrote: The recording industry produces a great deal of "sound and fury, signifying nothing". I could say much-worse things, but will bite my tongue. Perhaps you should produce some recordings. My remark was in the context of the sound itself, not necessarily the music. I don't feel qualified to produce recordings, of any type of music. Have you seen photographs of Frank Sinatra's recording sessions? He performed "live", in front of the orchestra, in what I assume was a room designed specifically for pleasing-sounding recordings, and without (IIRC) a plethora of mics. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
"hank alrich" wrote in message
... William Sommerwerck wrote: Of course, recordings have an important place. I was listening to the Mahler 3rd and the Kindertotenlieder this morning. Without recordings, it's unlikely I would have ever this music. Get ourself a piano, and turn off the stereo. g If I can get my mortgage company to reduce the interest to 3% or lower, I'll be able to retire without having to worry about paying my bills. (Coincidentally, I'll be speaking to them today.) In such a case, I will doubtless find time for music lessons. When I was much younger, my mother wanted to get a piano (she could sort-of play), but it was under the condition that I'd take lessons and stick with them. As they'd never tried to encourage any interest in good music, I said no. In retrospect, I wish I'd said yes, then abandoned the lessons, leaving them stuck with the piano. I hurt my parents, but not anywhere nearly as much as I could have or should have. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
On Feb 13, 6:25*am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: "hank alrich" wrote in message ... William Sommerwerck wrote: The recording industry produces a great deal of "sound and fury, signifying nothing". I could say much-worse things, but will bite my tongue. Perhaps you should produce some recordings. My remark was in the context of the sound itself, not necessarily the music. I don't feel qualified to produce recordings, of any type of music. Have you seen photographs of Frank Sinatra's recording sessions? He performed "live", in front of the orchestra, in what I assume was a room designed specifically for pleasing-sounding recordings, and without (IIRC) a plethora of mics. ______ Your last paragraph reminds me of something I've been dying to do for some years now: Experiment with recording techniques that involve only as many microphones as humans have ears. Seriously! Think about how we hear andt it'll make sense. -CC |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
On Feb 13, 6:30*am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: "hank alrich" wrote in message , I wish I'd said yes, then abandoned the lessons, leaving them stuck with the piano. I hurt my parents, but not anywhere nearly as much as I could have or should have. _________ I'm really not sure of the meaning behind the above paragraph, esp in the context that my parents are both no longer alive. -ChrisCoaster |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
"ChrisCoaster" wrote in message
... On Feb 13, 6:25 am, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: Have you seen photographs of Frank Sinatra's recording sessions? He performed "live", in front of the orchestra, in what I assume was a studio designed specifically for pleasing-sounding recordings, and without (IIRC) a plethora of mics. Your last paragraph reminds me of something I've been dying to do for some years now: Experiment with recording techniques that involve only as many microphones as humans have ears. Seriously! Think about how we hear andt it'll make sense. You must be very new to recording. Simply-miked stereo recordings have been around for nearly 60 years. When I made live recordings, I almost always used only two mics. I did, however, make Ambisonic recordings using three mics, and quad recordings using four. The "correct" number of mics has no necessary relationship to the number of ears we have. The issue is whether the recording contains the necessary directional cues, and whether they can be correctly presented during playback. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
On Feb 13, 8:11*am, "William Sommerwerck"
wrote: "ChrisCoaster" wrote in message ... On Feb 13, 6:25 am, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: Have you seen photographs of Frank Sinatra's recording sessions? He performed "live", in front of the orchestra, in what I assume was a studio designed specifically for pleasing-sounding recordings, and without (IIRC) a plethora of mics. Your last paragraph reminds me of something I've been dying to do for some years now: *Experiment with recording techniques that involve only as many microphones as humans have ears. Seriously! Think about how we hear andt it'll make sense. You must be very new to recording. Simply-miked stereo recordings have been around for nearly 60 years. When I made live recordings, I almost always used only two mics. I did, however, make Ambisonic recordings using three mics, and quad recordings using four. The "correct" number of mics has no necessary relationship to the number of ears we have. The issue is whether the recording contains the necessary directional cues, and whether they can be correctly presented during playback. ______ So then perhaps the industry should put more effort into those techniques instead of quickly resorting to simple 'pan-pot' mono with a dozen or more mics and racks of fx. As I recall music is supposed to come from a stage - not a small box with blinking lights & knobs. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Feb 13, 8:11 am, "William wrote: wrote in message ... On Feb 13, 6:25 am, "William wrote: Have you seen photographs of Frank Sinatra's recording sessions? He performed "live", in front of the orchestra, in what I assume was a studio designed specifically for pleasing-sounding recordings, and without (IIRC) a plethora of mics. Your last paragraph reminds me of something I've been dying to do for some years now: Experiment with recording techniques that involve only as many microphones as humans have ears. Seriously! Think about how we hear andt it'll make sense. You must be very new to recording. Simply-miked stereo recordings have been around for nearly 60 years. When I made live recordings, I almost always used only two mics. I did, however, make Ambisonic recordings using three mics, and quad recordings using four. The "correct" number of mics has no necessary relationship to the number of ears we have. The issue is whether the recording contains the necessary directional cues, and whether they can be correctly presented during playback. ______ So then perhaps the industry should put more effort into those techniques instead of quickly resorting to simple 'pan-pot' mono with a dozen or more mics and racks of fx. As I recall music is supposed to come from a stage - not a small box with blinking lights& knobs. Only if you ignore radio. In Colin Escott's biography of Hank Williams, people used to ask radio sellers "does this thing get Hank Williams?" -- Les Cargill |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
Les Cargill wrote:
wrote: On 2012-02-12 said: snip I haven't heard a country artist play anything but a straight four midtempo rock beat now for over a decade, once in awhile something with 3 beats per measure, but rarely a swing or a good fast shuffle. ITs' a rock beat with twangy guitars. I'd like to hear a good anthropologist or art historian do a real, serious piece on how this came to pass. What you are experiencing is the New Country Movement. It predates MTV I think, but MTV has probably helped it. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Feb 13, 6:30 am, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: "hank alrich" wrote in message , I wish I'd said yes, then abandoned the lessons, leaving them stuck with the piano. I hurt my parents, but not anywhere nearly as much as I could have or should have. _________ I'm really not sure of the meaning behind the above paragraph, esp in the context that my parents are both no longer alive. Thank you, Chris. RIP, Mom and Dad. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
Les Cargill wrote:
ChrisCoaster wrote: On Feb 13, 8:11 am, "William wrote: wrote in message ... On Feb 13, 6:25 am, "William wrote: Have you seen photographs of Frank Sinatra's recording sessions? He performed "live", in front of the orchestra, in what I assume was a studio designed specifically for pleasing-sounding recordings, and without (IIRC) a plethora of mics. Your last paragraph reminds me of something I've been dying to do for some years now: Experiment with recording techniques that involve only as many microphones as humans have ears. Seriously! Think about how we hear andt it'll make sense. You must be very new to recording. Simply-miked stereo recordings have been around for nearly 60 years. When I made live recordings, I almost always used only two mics. I did, however, make Ambisonic recordings using three mics, and quad recordings using four. The "correct" number of mics has no necessary relationship to the number of ears we have. The issue is whether the recording contains the necessary directional cues, and whether they can be correctly presented during playback. ______ So then perhaps the industry should put more effort into those techniques instead of quickly resorting to simple 'pan-pot' mono with a dozen or more mics and racks of fx. As I recall music is supposed to come from a stage - not a small box with blinking lights& knobs. Only if you ignore radio. In Colin Escott's biography of Hank Williams, people used to ask radio sellers "does this thing get Hank Williams?" Thanks for that. To deny the music boxes would be funny in contest of this thread, which is all about what's coming out of those boxes. -- shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/ http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"
ChrisCoaster wrote:
On Feb 13, 6:30 am, "William Sommerwerck" wrote: "hank alrich" wrote in message , I wish I'd said yes, then abandoned the lessons, leaving them stuck with the piano. I hurt my parents, but not anywhere nearly as much as I could have or should have. _________ I'm really not sure of the meaning behind the above paragraph, esp in the context that my parents are both no longer alive. -ChrisCoaster Sorry to hear it, Chris. May they rest in peace. ---Jeff |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Volume Level of "Tuner" vs that of "CD" "Tape" or "Phono" on my homestereo, boombox, or car receiver | Tech | |||
FA: "Tom Dowd & The Language of Music" - DVD on recording and music production | Pro Audio | |||
FA: "Tom Dowd & The Language of Music" - DVD on recording | Pro Audio | |||
Bob Dylan Calls Modern Recordings "Atrocious" | High End Audio | |||
recording "classical" music | Pro Audio |