A Quote Worth Quoting

[Mike Rivers]

I'm a little behind in my reading and just ran across this one today:

"Today's production equipment is IT-based and cannot be operated
without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it
can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John
Watkinson, Resolution Magazine, October 2006

[Robert Morein]

In article . com, "Mike
Rivers" > wrote...

> I'm a little behind in my reading and just ran across this one today:
>
> "Today's production equipment is IT-based and cannot be operated
> without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it
> can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John
> Watkinson, Resolution Magazine, October 2006

Describes me to a "t".

Bob Morein
Dresher, PA
(215) 646-4894

[[email protected]]

On Apr 12, 4:13 pm, Robert Morein > wrote:
> In article . com, "Mike
>
> Rivers" > wrote...
> > I'm a little behind in my reading and just ran across this one today:
>
> > "Today's production equipment is IT-based and cannot be operated
> > without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it
> > can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John
> > Watkinson, Resolution Magazine, October 2006
>
> Describes me to a "t".
>
> Bob Morein
> Dresher, PA
> (215) 646-4894

Forgery - don't reply and watch for crossposts

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
we organize chaos
http://www.bsstudios.com

[Les Cargill]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> I'm a little behind in my reading and just ran across this one today:
>
> "Today's production equipment is IT-based and cannot be operated
> without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it
> can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John
> Watkinson, Resolution Magazine, October 2006
>


Yup.

--
Les Cargill

[Walt]

Soundhaspriority wrote:

> But it's a shame that
> with all the fruits of technology, music hasn't gotten better, and by many
> measures, has gotten worse.

It is the duty of every generation to invent a form of music that sounds
like noise to their elders. I'm happy to report that the current
generation is performing their duty admirably.

//Walt

[[email protected]]

> "Today's production equipment is IT-based and cannot be operated
> without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it
> can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John
> Watkinson, Resolution Magazine, October 2006

Here we go again!

Today the biggest change is Joe Schmo doesn't have to pay homage or
money to someone like a sucker throwing money in a basket in a
Pentacost tent. The audio is whatever you are putting down, there is
no middle man.
Back in the day there were plenty of guys willing to take your money,
but most of them were, and still are relatively clueless as to the
basic structure of music. That is the thing after all..the music!

And how they would love to keep the clock running as the artist
struggled for a perfect take...

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 14, 6:50 pm, wrote:

> Here we go again!
>
> Today the biggest change is Joe Schmo doesn't have to pay homage or
> money to someone like a sucker throwing money in a basket in a
> Pentacost tent. The audio is whatever you are putting down, there is
> no middle man.

The point of the quote wasn't about money, it was about the need to be
able ot understand both phases of the technology. Understanding about
the money is a different, but equally important thing.

> Back in the day there were plenty of guys willing to take your money,
> but most of them were, and still are relatively clueless as to the
> basic structure of music. That is the thing after all..the music!
>
> And how they would love to keep the clock running as the artist
> struggled for a perfect take...

Unfortunately, that's true. But I believe that with good musicians in
the studio, the engineer who understands audio (the process) can make
an excellent recording effeciently. If there are poor musicians in the
studio, hooking up the best microphone with the best compressor in a
technically creative way won't make a better record. But the guy who
spends 20 hours editing at the computer after the "musicians" have
left the studio still won't make a good sounding record unless his
audio technologist side (or it could be someone else entirely) did a
good job of capturing the SOUND even though the pitch and tempo
weren't so hot and the arrangement sucked.

[hank alrich]

> wrote:

> > "Today's production equipment is IT-based and cannot be operated
> > without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it
> > can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio." - John
> > Watkinson, Resolution Magazine, October 2006
>
> Here we go again!
>
> Today the biggest change is Joe Schmo doesn't have to pay homage or
> money to someone like a sucker throwing money in a basket in a
> Pentacost tent. The audio is whatever you are putting down, there is
> no middle man.

The audio is likely to include a passing ariplane, the neighbor's dog,
highway traffic, and bull**** from less than cluefully staged gain.

> Back in the day there were plenty of guys willing to take your money,
> but most of them were, and still are relatively clueless as to the
> basic structure of music. That is the thing after all..the music!
>
> And how they would love to keep the clock running as the artist
> struggled for a perfect take...

I enjoyed every session I ever booked in a truly competnet commercial
studio, and I never booked a session in any other kind of studio. All I
had to do was play the music. The only session that was a drag was
booked by someone else. I was a sideman and the result of that got me
into recording other folks. But I greatly appreciate being able to focus
on the music and leaving the tech to someone else I trust.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:

> Back in the day there were plenty of guys willing to take your money,
> but most of them were, and still are relatively clueless as to the
> basic structure of music. That is the thing after all..the music!
>
> And how they would love to keep the clock running as the artist
> struggled for a perfect take...

If things are so much better in the home studio world of today, then
why isn't the market flooded by wonderful new music? You would think
if the process today is so much easier and cheaper and allows everyone
to make great music that everyone WOULD be making great music?

Instead what I hear kids listening to seems to include an awful lot
of stuff made back in the days of big studios.
--scott

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

[Chris Hornbeck]

On 15 Apr 2007 00:03:07 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>If things are so much better in the home studio world of today, then
>why isn't the market flooded by wonderful new music? You would think
>if the process today is so much easier and cheaper and allows everyone
>to make great music that everyone WOULD be making great music?
>
>Instead what I hear kids listening to seems to include an awful lot
>of stuff made back in the days of big studios.

"It's people like you wot cause unrest" - Monty Python

Otherwise, much thanks, as always,

Chris Hornbeck

"Beauty will save the world."
- Feodor Dostoevsky

"Information is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Truth is not
beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music."
- Frank Zappa

[anahata]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> If things are so much better in the home studio world of today, then
> why isn't the market flooded by wonderful new music?

Not the first time it's been said here, but good recording technology
isn't much better than it was (except digital may be marginally better
than professional analog tape), but it's far, far cheaper.

> if the process today is so much easier and cheaper and allows everyone
> to make great music that everyone WOULD be making great music?

It needs great musicians and good engineers with ears and experience.
There are as many (or as few) now as there ever were.
But you knew that :-)

It's not only in music. Anyone can print trashy graphics with a DTP
package and a colour printer, but mysteriously there's still a living to
be made by a good graphic designer who actually has some skill and
knowledge.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 14, 11:06 pm, (hank alrich) wrote:
> > wrote:

> The audio is likely to include a passing ariplane, the neighbor's dog,
> highway traffic, and bull**** from less than cluefully staged gain.

That's "sound," and of course that's important, too. I was thinking of
"audio" as a technical field, a general way of expressing how physical
and electrical things work when applied to the things that musicians
do in order to get their music out there. Having a basic understanding
of relative voltage levels, gain structure, gozoutas and gozintas,
data synchronization, effects and myths about sample rates and word
lengths, microphone sensitivity, sound pressure levels, grounding, and
so on.

Knowing how to keep stray noises out of your recordings and
controlling room acoustics are things that you can fix with a hammer,
but first you need to understand what problems they really cause in
order to know where to hit with the hammer. That's "audio" in this
sense.

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 15, 12:03 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> > wrote:

> If things are so much better in the home studio world of today, then
> why isn't the market flooded by wonderful new music? You would think
> if the process today is so much easier and cheaper and allows everyone
> to make great music that everyone WOULD be making great music?

While I respect that everyone has a right to create and disseminate
what HE thinks is great music, I find that so much of what is created
in home (and even professional) studios that only exist because the
current technology exists is of very limited interest and won't stand
the test of time. But this is more about people understanding music
than understanding the technology of creating music rather than
assembling gathered sounds.

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 15, 6:43 am, anahata > wrote:

> Not the first time it's been said here, but good recording technology
> isn't much better than it was (except digital may be marginally better
> than professional analog tape), but it's far, far cheaper.

Because the technology is now based around a computer that's a common
home appliance, it's possible to create something that resembles music
without a large investment, and also without an understanding of what
makes the recording appliance work well, and not work well.

> It's not only in music. Anyone can print trashy graphics with a DTP
> package and a colour printer, but mysteriously there's still a living to
> be made by a good graphic designer who actually has some skill and
> knowledge.

But not as much as there used to be. The difference is that there
seems to be more interest, at least among certain age groups, in
making music than creating graphic designs. Do you see people loading
pictures on their iPods and looking at them? Do you see people sharing
copyright paintings or posters? You can't even find a decent cover on
a home made CD these days.

[[email protected]]

> If things are so much better in the home studio world of today, then
> why isn't the market flooded by wonderful new music? You would think
> if the process today is so much easier and cheaper and allows everyone
> to make great music that everyone WOULD be making great music?
>
> Instead what I hear kids listening to seems to include an awful lot
> of stuff made back in the days of big studios.
> --scott

there is no room for new great music.
Too risky...
The recording process is cheaper, the promotion to make something
heard on a large scale is much more expensive.
Look at Nashville. It takes hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a
new artist in that league. Better be sexy, better be autotuned, better
have a song that sounds exactly like Rascal Flats's latest cookie
cutter release.
The same applies to any genre nowadays. Rap/Rock
Doesn't have a damn thing to do with IT or audio expertice.
Money and the looks to make it to the monopoly club, where you can get
your **** played 10,000 times a day. What does that have to do with IT
or audio? You speak of the symptom not the disease.

[Scott Dorsey]

anahata > wrote:
>Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>> If things are so much better in the home studio world of today, then
>> why isn't the market flooded by wonderful new music?
>
>Not the first time it's been said here, but good recording technology
>isn't much better than it was (except digital may be marginally better
>than professional analog tape), but it's far, far cheaper.

Depends what it is. Digital recording has been an absolute miracle for
the classical recording guys. But, classical recording is far more
expensive than it's ever been before (in spite of some excellent orchestras
available in the former Eastern Bloc for reasonable prices).

For the most part, good recording equipment is still as expensive as it
has ever been. What has happened is that a huge amount of lower quality
gear at low prices is now available.

The thing is, the things that make good recordings, which include things
like good studio musicians and good acoustically-treated rooms, are more
expensive than ever.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[mcnews]

On Apr 15, 12:03 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> > wrote:
> > Back in the day there were plenty of guys willing to take your money,
> > but most of them were, and still are relatively clueless as to the
> > basic structure of music. That is the thing after all..the music!
>
> > And how they would love to keep the clock running as the artist
> > struggled for a perfect take...
>
> If things are so much better in the home studio world of today, then
> why isn't the market flooded by wonderful new music? You would think
> if the process today is so much easier and cheaper and allows everyone
> to make great music that everyone WOULD be making great music?
>
> Instead what I hear kids listening to seems to include an awful lot
> of stuff made back in the days of big studios.

not *everyone* has the music in them........

[[email protected]]

On 15 Apr 2007 00:03:07 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>If things are so much better in the home studio world of today, then
>why isn't the market flooded by wonderful new music?

There is a flood of great new music out there, but I'm not sure you
can say it is on" the market" as it has always existed.
It is not as visible.
Folks are selling of the stage and on CD baby and off there personal
websites and anyway they can think of.
Albums from these artists may or may not be in the current style and
may or may not be well recorded, but there are thousands being
produced weekly with some great material and even great performances,
by really talented folks.
My own CD in my humble opinion at least fulfills the great material
aspect, and I know that folks who have bought it love it and listen to
it often, I trade mine with other independent artists all the time,
and usually feel I got the better end of the bargain because there
album is so wonderful.

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 15, 10:16 am, "mcnews" > wrote:

> not *everyone* has the music in them........

They should try golf, or fishing, or photography, or audition for
American Idol.

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 15, 1:00 pm, wrote:

> Folks are selling of the stage and on CD baby and off there personal
> websites and anyway they can think of.
> Albums from these artists may or may not be in the current style and
> may or may not be well recorded, but there are thousands being
> produced weekly with some great material and even great performances,
> by really talented folks.

And this is EXACTLY the point. They don't know enough to realize that
they're making a poor quality product. It would be better if they went
to a competent studio to record, or learned more about how to do it
right before the continue doing it badly. The fact that someone is a
great singer, songwriter, or musician doesn't necessarily mean that
they're a good audio engineer. However they insist on trying because
they have a computer and they've been led to believe that it doesn't
take more than that to make their own studio.

What it DOES take, which your friendly local music store doesn't sell,
so they don't tell you this part, is that it takes some understanding
of the fundamentals of several disciplines in order to make good use
of the stuff you've bought.

Back in the goode olde dayes, you could expect, and receive assistance
from your dealer when it comes to choosing equipment that will work
properly together, and get the right cables, and he'd show you how to
hook it up. But he probably wouldn't teach you about microphone polar
patterns or which gain control to set high and which one to set low,
or how to send reverb to the headphones, or how to set a record level
properly. Those are things that you can learn from manuals
(sometimes) if you experiment a bit, but it really helps to have a
real live mentor.

Today, most people don't depend on a dealer for anything but to
deliver the boxes and take their money. And unfortunately, that's
about all that many can do.





> My own CD in my humble opinion at least fulfills the great material
> aspect, and I know that folks who have bought it love it and listen to
> it often, I trade mine with other independent artists all the time,
> and usually feel I got the better end of the bargain because there
> album is so wonderful.

[Les Cargill]

Mike Rivers wrote:

> On Apr 15, 12:03 am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
>
>>If things are so much better in the home studio world of today, then
>>why isn't the market flooded by wonderful new music? You would think
>>if the process today is so much easier and cheaper and allows everyone
>>to make great music that everyone WOULD be making great music?
>
>
> While I respect that everyone has a right to create and disseminate
> what HE thinks is great music, I find that so much of what is created
> in home (and even professional) studios that only exist because the
> current technology exists is of very limited interest and won't stand
> the test of time.

There has to be some filter for who is "for real" and who is just
fartin' around in the garage.

The Shins (according to a several years' old TapeOp )
homerecord, or at least did then. They're not mainstream,
but they've songs on movie soundtracks, were on
Austin City Limits and SFAIK, are a continuing musical
concern.

> But this is more about people understanding music
> than understanding the technology of creating music rather than
> assembling gathered sounds.
>

If a person who is a musician uses home recording technology
properly, they can use it to enhance their musicianship.

The old bunch on alt.music.4-track had several people who,
given a real producer and the right spin, could have made
something decent. Did they have the temperament or
determination? Maybe, maybe not. Some managed to
self-produce quite effectively.

Some people improve on the "just get out there and
tour until your sanity is under suspicion" thing, but
most just don't. There's really no substitute for it.

And it's not like four track machines didn't exist 20 or thirty
years ago. If you were interesting, you could possibly
leverege that into something more interesting, but you
were unlikely to sell it outright.

It's just another tool, after all.

--
Les Cargill

[hank alrich]

Les Cargill wrote:

> The old bunch on alt.music.4-track had several people who,
> given a real producer and the right spin, could have made
> something decent. Did they have the temperament or
> determination? Maybe, maybe not. Some managed to
> self-produce quite effectively.

In some ways the limitations and directness of that stage of technology
forced people to make the kinds of decisions that are essential to
effective production, the very kinds of decisions that the present "all
the tracks in the world and more plug-ins than ever" mentality strives
to avoid until it's too late to save the patient.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[[email protected]]

> And this is EXACTLY the point. They don't know enough to realize that
> they're making a poor quality product. It would be better if they went
> to a competent studio to record, or learned more about how to do it
> right before the continue doing it badly. The fact that someone is a
> great singer, songwriter, or musician doesn't necessarily mean that
> they're a good audio engineer. However they insist on trying because
> they have a computer and they've been led to believe that it doesn't
> take more than that to make their own studio.
>
> What it DOES take, which your friendly local music store doesn't sell,
> so they don't tell you this part, is that it takes some understanding
> of the fundamentals of several disciplines in order to make good use
> of the stuff you've bought.

Nonsense. The everyman tools today are -->more<-- than adequate for
self production. Someone with as much savy as you should realize, it
is all about just showing you have something that is marketable to 17
year olds. A & R people are way more concerned with local followings
for bands than they are the polar pattern of the mic they used for an
independent release.

SHow me something in Joe Schmo's laptop DAW that can't be transferred
to a high end studio and finished? If you have something that is
obviously marketable the middle man is quite obsolete.

But a guy or gal that is hip to sweetening DAW tracks, tightening and
sincing them up them up beat wise, mastering it down, ...well that is
a lot more realistic than an artist spending a lot of time or money in
someone elses studio.

I guess that would be a point of compromise between our opinions.

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 16, 2:40 am, wrote:

> Nonsense. The everyman tools today are -->more<-- than adequate for
> self production.

You just don't get it, do you? Re-read the quote. It's not the tools
that are the problem, it's the knowledge to use them effectively
that's the problem. Too many people believe that because they have the
tools, they can make good recordings.

I have a hammer and a saw, but I know better than to try to build a
house, particularly in a week or two.

> Someone with as much savy as you should realize, it
> is all about just showing you have something that is marketable to 17
> year olds.

Again, that's not the point. Do you want your music to be so vacant
that only 17 year olds will be interested in it? How long will they
remember it? But I digress. The quote is not about musical content,
it's about making good audio.

> SHow me something in Joe Schmo's laptop DAW that can't be transferred
> to a high end studio and finished?

Presumably the person running the controls in the high end studio will
KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT AUDIO. That's the point. Maybe he can save it,
maybe he can't, but because of his knowledge, which extends beyond
knowing something about computers, is what lets him work whatever
magic he can work. It's not because he has more computers.

> But a guy or gal that is hip to sweetening DAW tracks, tightening and
> sincing them up them up beat wise, mastering it down, ...well that is
> a lot more realistic than an artist spending a lot of time or money in
> someone elses studio.

Sounds like knowledge to me. But all too many people buy a program and
can't figure out how to hear themselves in the headphones, don't know
which mic to use and where to put it, ask why they can't hear anything
when they plug a phantom powered mic into a input that doesn't have
phantom power, can't set the record level correctly . . . When they
learn, then they know something about AUDIO.

[Laurence Payne]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 20:42:43 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>> The old bunch on alt.music.4-track had several people who,
>> given a real producer and the right spin, could have made
>> something decent. Did they have the temperament or
>> determination? Maybe, maybe not. Some managed to
>> self-produce quite effectively.
>
>In some ways the limitations and directness of that stage of technology
>forced people to make the kinds of decisions that are essential to
>effective production, the very kinds of decisions that the present "all
>the tracks in the world and more plug-ins than ever" mentality strives
>to avoid until it's too late to save the patient.

Oh, you could get into just as much of a mess on 4-track, if you tried
hard :-)

The tools have got cheap. And actually they're pretty good. Lots of
newbees use them to make lots of crap. But that's no reason to
despise the tools. A few old-timers have trouble with this :-)

[Mike Rivers]

On Apr 16, 6:53 am, Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom>
wrote:

> The tools have got cheap. And actually they're pretty good. Lots of
> newbees use them to make lots of crap. But that's no reason to
> despise the tools. A few old-timers have trouble with this :-)

Nothing wrong with the tools. The tools are great. It's the users that
are the problem. It's one thing to have a good sounding limiter plug-
in and twiddle the knobs until it sounds good. It's another to post on
a newsgroup:

"I have ProTools and L2. Does anyone know the settings for mastering
my project?"

That's displaying the lack of knowledge of audio of which I speak.

[Scott Dorsey]

In article . com>,
> wrote:
>
>Nonsense. The everyman tools today are -->more<-- than adequate for
>self production. Someone with as much savy as you should realize, it
>is all about just showing you have something that is marketable to 17
>year olds. A & R people are way more concerned with local followings
>for bands than they are the polar pattern of the mic they used for an
>independent release.

If this is the case, why don't I hear very many good self-productions?

>SHow me something in Joe Schmo's laptop DAW that can't be transferred
>to a high end studio and finished? If you have something that is
>obviously marketable the middle man is quite obsolete.

The room. The room is 90% of the sound, and it's the one thing that
Joe Schmo usually doesn't have and almost always neglects. You can
survive with poor converters and even poor microphones but you cannot
survive with a bad room. If you set mikes up in an untreated living
room, you will get tracks that sound like they were recorded in an
untreated living room.

>But a guy or gal that is hip to sweetening DAW tracks, tightening and
>sincing them up them up beat wise, mastering it down, ...well that is
>a lot more realistic than an artist spending a lot of time or money in
>someone elses studio.

I don't know about you, but classical music doesn't work that way.
Jazz occasionally does, but it shouldn't.

I'll also tell you that I charge a _lot_ of money to clean up tracks
that were badly recorded in the first place. It is _much_ cheaper to
do it right in the first place in a good room with good equipment than
to try and polish a turd after the fact.
--scott

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

[[email protected]]

On Apr 16, 4:06 am, "Mike Rivers" > wrote:
> On Apr 16, 6:53 am, Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom>
> wrote:
>
> > The tools have got cheap. And actually they're pretty good. Lots of
> > newbees use them to make lots of crap. But that's no reason to
> > despise the tools. A few old-timers have trouble with this :-)
>
> Nothing wrong with the tools. The tools are great. It's the users that
> are the problem. It's one thing to have a good sounding limiter plug-
> in and twiddle the knobs until it sounds good. It's another to post on
> a newsgroup:
>
> "I have ProTools and L2. Does anyone know the settings for mastering
> my project?"
>
> That's displaying the lack of knowledge of audio of which I speak.

But that is such an easy one to answer: Bypass on the L2, bundle the
project and send with appropriate amount of money to a real mastering
engineer with a real facility (read very very good room acoustics and
monitors).

bobs

Bob Smith
BS Studios
we organize chaos
http://www.bsstudios.com

[Romeo Rondeau]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On Apr 16, 6:53 am, Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom>
> wrote:
>
>> The tools have got cheap. And actually they're pretty good. Lots of
>> newbees use them to make lots of crap. But that's no reason to
>> despise the tools. A few old-timers have trouble with this :-)
>
> Nothing wrong with the tools. The tools are great. It's the users that
> are the problem. It's one thing to have a good sounding limiter plug-
> in and twiddle the knobs until it sounds good. It's another to post on
> a newsgroup:
>
> "I have ProTools and L2. Does anyone know the settings for mastering
> my project?"
>
> That's displaying the lack of knowledge of audio of which I speak.

Lot's of people paint their houses and don't know how to do it properly,
too. I say let them **** their projects up... then they can pay you to
fix it and end up paying you to record their next one since you know
what you're doing and they obviously don't. For god's sake, why do you
want everybody to learn how to make good audio, what you are trying to
do... put us all out of work? :-)

[hank alrich]

> wrote:

> The everyman tools today are -->more<-- than adequate for
> self production.

Tools do not produce. Humans produce, or not, and mostly, based on the
"self-produced" stuff I hear, not.

The tools do not come with built-in engineering skills and developed
musical talent, good material and arrangements, sound isolation and
acoustic treatment, all of which are the meat of effective musical
production.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
Romeo Rondeau > wrote:

> Mike Rivers wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 6:53 am, Laurence Payne <lpayne1NOSPAM@dslDOTpipexDOTcom>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> The tools have got cheap. And actually they're pretty good. Lots of
> >> newbees use them to make lots of crap. But that's no reason to
> >> despise the tools. A few old-timers have trouble with this :-)
> >
> > Nothing wrong with the tools. The tools are great. It's the users that
> > are the problem. It's one thing to have a good sounding limiter plug-
> > in and twiddle the knobs until it sounds good. It's another to post on
> > a newsgroup:
> >
> > "I have ProTools and L2. Does anyone know the settings for mastering
> > my project?"
> >
> > That's displaying the lack of knowledge of audio of which I speak.
>
> Lot's of people paint their houses and don't know how to do it properly,
> too. I say let them **** their projects up... then they can pay you to
> fix it and end up paying you to record their next one since you know
> what you're doing and they obviously don't. For god's sake, why do you
> want everybody to learn how to make good audio, what you are trying to
> do... put us all out of work? :-)

In my case, I'm paid to teach people how to make good audio.

But even with the high quality of the available tools, if you start with
garbage you end up with garbage. It's a lot easier to go out and buy
the tools than it is to create something worth recording in the first
place. That hasn't changed.

-Jay

--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x ---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

[[email protected]]

"You just don't get it, do you? Re-read the quote. It's not the tools
that are the problem, it's the knowledge to use them effectively
that's the problem. Too many people believe that because they have
the
tools, they can make good recordings. "


Basically, anyone with a passable knowledge of operating a program can
record... I believe the average musician can have the expectation of
WYRIWYG, if you don't like the sound of what you recorded the re-do it
or change something. The tools are so easy to use.
You see-->You don't get it<-- I don't have to buy a thousand
dollar compressor and spend a month figuring out how to adjust the
attack and release and the ratio and the input and output signal.
Anyone can plug it into their DAW and get a sound THEY like in about 5
minutes.


"Sounds like knowledge to me. But all too many people buy a program
and
can't figure out how to hear themselves in the headphones,don't know
which mic to use and where to put it," ask why they can't hear
anything
when they plug a phantom powered mic into a input that doesn't have
phantom power, can't set the record level correctly . . . When they
learn, then they know something about AUDIO. "

This is not esoteric knowledge! All this **** comes with manuals, and
user forums, friends who run the program and can show them the basics,
the truely inspired will read some of your posts here or buy a book,
watch a DVD whatever.
I agree you have to learn about audio to have a good product. But you
can do it on your own terms!

You don't have to pay to use someone elses equipment and have them
twaddle the knobs. That is and has been my only point.

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>Basically, anyone with a passable knowledge of operating a program can
>record... I believe the average musician can have the expectation of
>WYRIWYG, if you don't like the sound of what you recorded the re-do it
>or change something. The tools are so easy to use.

No, they're not. Most of the time folks in those home studios don't
have the monitoring to know what they have recorded really sounds like,
or the skills to hear what is going on.

>You see-->You don't get it<-- I don't have to buy a thousand
>dollar compressor and spend a month figuring out how to adjust the
>attack and release and the ratio and the input and output signal.
>Anyone can plug it into their DAW and get a sound THEY like in about 5
>minutes.

They like that sound, until they get into the mastering room and hear
their sound on the big monitors, and the mastering engineer starts pointing
out the problems. And once they hear the flaws, they can't stop hearing
them.

>This is not esoteric knowledge! All this **** comes with manuals, and
>user forums, friends who run the program and can show them the basics,
>the truely inspired will read some of your posts here or buy a book,
>watch a DVD whatever.

The hard part is learning how to listen critically to sound and tone. This
is not a skill that most musicians have, because it's not a skill that really
helps you as a musician.

>You don't have to pay to use someone elses equipment and have them
>twaddle the knobs. That is and has been my only point.

You never did, though. Forty years ago you could buy a Wollensak, record
yourself in the living room with your friends, and take the tape to a local
radio station to have them cut the lacquer for you. Of course, it wouldn't
sound very good, but people did it.

Some of the difference is that our standards today for "sounding good" are
lower than they were back then.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> The hard part is learning how to listen critically to sound and tone. This
> is not a skill that most musicians have, because it's not a skill that really
> helps you as a musician.

I think it does, right from the gitgo, as that skill allows one to get
the kind of sound one is after directly from the instrument insofar as
possible. There is a reason the same instrument in different hands
sounds different, and I think it's down to that very skill allowing one
person to develop a truly quality sound from the instrument. One's tone
is one's instrumental signature, in a way, and some are far more legible
than others.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Ron Capik]

hank alrich wrote:

> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> > The hard part is learning how to listen critically to sound and tone. This
> > is not a skill that most musicians have, because it's not a skill that really
> > helps you as a musician.
>
> I think it does, right from the gitgo, as that skill allows one to get
> the kind of sound one is after directly from the instrument insofar as
> possible. There is a reason the same instrument in different hands
> sounds different, and I think it's down to that very skill allowing one
> person to develop a truly quality sound from the instrument. One's tone
> is one's instrumental signature, in a way, and some are far more legible
> than others.
> --
> ha
> Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

However, musicians don't listen to themselves from the audience.


Later...

Ron Capik
--

[[email protected]]

"The hard part is learning how to listen critically to sound and
tone. This
is not a skill that most musicians have, because it's not a skill that
really
helps you as a musician. "

Most musicians don't know how to analize sound and tone!!!?
okay..........at this point you are obviously grasping at straws.

The argument from another guy..about the room being 90% of the sound
is another specious argument. Probably 90% of what you hear on the
radio is recorded line in via midi or samples, PODs etc. Give me a
break. I know you record ambient music, jazz etc. but this does not
apply to most people!

"Forty years ago you could buy a Wollensak, record
yourself in the living room with your friends, and take the tape to a
local
radio station to have them cut the lacquer for you. Of course, it
wouldn't
sound very good, but people did it. "

Oh that's really comparable to the capabilities of today's equipment!
You guys should stop before you dig yourselves in much further. (your
hand reaching up in a raging river grasping at a straw)



"Some of the difference is that our standards today for "sounding
good" are
lower than they were back then. "

You should fire up a 45 of Lewie Lewie, the standards wern't that high
dude...

[Romeo Rondeau]

> "Some of the difference is that our standards today for "sounding
> good" are
> lower than they were back then. "
>
> You should fire up a 45 of Lewie Lewie, the standards wern't that high
> dude...

Notice how loud it was and how much distortion it had. The "loudness
wars" started a LONG time ago :-)

[hank alrich]

> wrote:

> Most musicians don't know how to analize sound and tone!!!?
> okay..........at this point you are obviously grasping at straws.

I have been playing professionally for over forty yearsl. I concur with
Scott's statement. I have met and played with plenty of folks who think
they know a lot about sound but who are patheticly ignorant of the
basics.

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[studiorat]

Ok, We can all work Pro-tools now, and we all have vocal microphones
choosen with the help of the good men on R.A.P. What is really lacking
is a group of people who want to make records for other people. Who
spend years experiimenting, assisting engineers and producers,
generally building up the experience and knowledge to actually record
and mix a good project.

What we have too many of are people who use the term producer or
engineer when really what they want is to be the artist.

Frankly I'm tired of meeting trainee engineers etc who seem more
interested in promoting their own band, crew whatever than actually
learning how to help other people make records. Why does every studio
now seem to have an assistant who knows more about myspace or bebo
than what's going on in the studio.
Unless you are flavour of the month or one of the choosen few with
your mug on the front of some magazine, being an engineer is hard work
and not particularly well paid. (plumbers get more) So one of the only
pleasures in the business is seeing people leave with a product they
are happy with and proud of. And knowing that without your help it
would not have been possible.

That's what being an engineer is about, not having a collection of the
latest gear which incidentaly is not priced for what it's worth but
what people will pay for it....

[Laurence Payne]

On 17 Apr 2007 03:00:00 -0700, studiorat > wrote:

>Ok, We can all work Pro-tools now, and we all have vocal microphones
>choosen with the help of the good men on R.A.P. What is really lacking
>is a group of people who want to make records for other people. Who
>spend years experiimenting, assisting engineers and producers,
>generally building up the experience and knowledge to actually record
>and mix a good project.

Yeah. We all drive our own cars now, too.

[studiorat]

Personally,
I could do the Pro Tools thing first. :o)

[Jason]

In article >,
says...
> Soundhaspriority wrote:
>
> > But it's a shame that
> > with all the fruits of technology, music hasn't gotten better, and by many
> > measures, has gotten worse.
>
> It is the duty of every generation to invent a form of music that sounds
> like noise to their elders. I'm happy to report that the current
> generation is performing their duty admirably.
>
> //Walt
>
I just passed a milestone birthday (not telling). My 30-year old
daughter gave me a refrigerator magnet. It has a picture that looks like
it's from the 50's with a prototypical dad leaning down to tell his
prototypical teenaged son: "It's not that I'm old, your music really
*does* suck." Cracked me up.

Jason
--
reverse my name in email address