Lorin David Schultz wrote:

It's not about the sound of the instrument being recorded. It certainly
doesn't have anything to do with the way the instrument is played. The
arrangement of the song doesn't even factor into it.
It's not about using mics that are appropriate for the recording. It's
not about mic placement. It's not even about mix decisions.

Heck no, it's the SOFTWARE.

The inmates have the keys to the asylum.

I had to de-lurk to answer this (I've been reading since Gabe was
posting).

My take on this is summed up by a story a friend of mine told me about
his
teenage son and his friends. He has been a professional musician since
the 60's.
At a baseball game, his son's friends were all telling him how they
wanted to
be a musician like him. He was suprised, because his experience was that
none
of (other than his son) played an instrument. After some questions he
understood that they were talking about creating CD "mixes", like DJs.
They all rip "mixes" and trade CDs. That's what they think a musician
does.

If you think music is something you extract from a CD, then all this
talk about
microphones and rooms is gibberish at best. This concept of music as
something
that is manipulated rather than created is a big part of the present,
and
probably the future for a while. This also goes for "composers" who
build MIDI
sequences of sophisticated orchestra sample CDs as the final product
instead
of templates for eventual recording sessions, in the hope that is sounds
just
like a "real" orchestra.

What these people and those who record acoustic instruments have in
common is
that they use recording equipment to "organize" the sounds they
"capture". But
the 2 user groups have very different needs and goals, even though they
use
the same hardware and many of the same techiques.

Don't confuse the guy who slaps a coat on the side of the barn with
the guy who does portraits and landscapes.

Henry Salvia