[George M. Middius[_4_]]

First, let me assure you that I am not stoned. Or drunk or high in any
way. This is just a question I ran across that I can't answer.

For the purpose of home audio, which is more important: the musician or
the recording engineer?

My first response, of course, was the musician. How can anybody who
contributes after the music is played originally outrank the performer?
But then it was suggested that the agency of recording can elevate or
destroy the quality of the performance as it's heard on your home
system. I had no answer for that.

What is the answer?

[TT]

"George M. Middius" wrote in
message ...
:
:
:
: First, let me assure you that I am not stoned. Or drunk or
high in any
: way. This is just a question I ran across that I can't
answer.
:
: For the purpose of home audio, which is more important:
the musician or
: the recording engineer?
:
: My first response, of course, was the musician. How can
anybody who
: contributes after the music is played originally outrank
the performer?
: But then it was suggested that the agency of recording can
elevate or
: destroy the quality of the performance as it's heard on
your home
: system. I had no answer for that.
:
: What is the answer?
:
How many times have you been totally disappointed with a
live performance of a singer whose recording you actually
liked? Or have you ever listened to an interview with singer
where the TV crew captures some audio as they are recording?
It often sounds dreadful!

IMHO the answer would be the engineer. He makes or breaks
the performance - literally ;-)

Cheers TT

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
George M. Middius wrote:

First, let me assure you that I am not stoned. Or drunk or high in any
way. This is just a question I ran across that I can't answer.

For the purpose of home audio, which is more important: the musician or
the recording engineer?

My first response, of course, was the musician. How can anybody who
contributes after the music is played originally outrank the performer?
But then it was suggested that the agency of recording can elevate or
destroy the quality of the performance as it's heard on your home
system. I had no answer for that.

What is the answer?

IMO, the answer is obvious: If your question is interpreted as "Whom
can you least do without", then it's clearly the musician. There is no
music to record with the musician. Someone like me, who has minimal
recording experience and training, can set up the mics and set the
levels, and then play. Now, before someone makes up some story about me
discounting the engineer's role, I'm doing no such thing. To make a
GOOD recording takes an engineer's experienced/trained hand. But I'd
much rather listen to a recording performed and engineered by a
professional/good amateur musician (presuming no engineering experience)
than I would a recording performed and engineered by a professional/good
amateur recording engineer (presuming no musical experience)!

That said, great recordings are obviously a collaboration between the
two.

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...



First, let me assure you that I am not stoned. Or drunk or high in any
way. This is just a question I ran across that I can't answer.

For the purpose of home audio, which is more important: the musician or
the recording engineer?

My first response, of course, was the musician. How can anybody who
contributes after the music is played originally outrank the performer?
But then it was suggested that the agency of recording can elevate or
destroy the quality of the performance as it's heard on your home
system. I had no answer for that.

What is the answer?

**The musician, obviously. Followed by the instrument/s. Then the recording
engineer. I readily concede that recording engineers are the lowest form of
human life, given their regular capacity to stuff up a good performance.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jun 12, 12:29*am, George M. Middius
wrote:

What is the answer?

Nice try. You're *still* not going to tell me what to eat.

If you really want to know the answer, have Stereophile do a blind
test, first without the musician, then without the engineer. Let your
ears be the judge.

We really need the F-22. Call your congressman.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! :

What is the answer?

Nice try. You're *still* not going to tell me what to eat.

If you really want to know the answer, have Stereophile do a blind
test, first without the musician, then without the engineer. Let your
ears be the judge.

We really need the F-22. Call your congressman.

All very well, but you forgot to blame it on illegal immigrants. Scottie
"wins" again.

[Clyde Slick]

On 12 Iun, 01:29, George M. Middius wrote:
First, let me assure you that I am not stoned. Or drunk or high in any
way. This is just a question I ran across that I can't answer.

For the purpose of home audio, which is more important: the musician or
the recording engineer?

My first response, of course, was the musician. How can anybody who
contributes after the music is played originally outrank the performer?
But then it was suggested that the agency of recording can elevate or
destroy the quality of the performance as it's heard on your home
system. I had no answer for that.

What is the answer?

Flip the coin.
Just think of what would result
if JA recorded Arny's church choir. There is your answer

[Arny Krueger]

"George M. Middius" wrote in
message

For the purpose of home audio, which is more important:
the musician or the recording engineer?


Speaking as RAO's *only* currently active recordist, I would say that the
musician and the space where the recording was made are more important than
any peculiar genius that the recording engineer might have.

I've recorded amateurs and pros, and I've recorded in good rooms and bad.

It is far easier to get a good recording by using good musicians playing in
a good room. In that context the recording engineer need have only nominal
skills. Elaborate micing and mixing may be unnecessary. Cheap mics sound
better.

[Clyde Slick]

On 12 Iun, 06:43, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

. Elaborate micing

"Rediculous"!



Cheap mics sound
better.


Ridiculous generalization
though some cheap ones sound quite good and much better than other
cheap ones.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message


On 12 Iun, 06:43, Art's Master and Commander"Arny Krueger"
wrote the following, which was obviously way over his
head:

. Elaborate micing

"Rediculous (sic)"!


Cheap mics sound better.

(in better rooms with better musicians)

Ridiculous generalization

How so, Art?

You don't have much respect for musicians, do you?

[Clyde Slick]

On 12 Iun, 07:28, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 12 Iun, 06:43, Art's Master and Commander"Arny Krueger"
wrote the following, which was obviously way over his
head:
. Elaborate micing
"Rediculous (sic)"!
Cheap mics sound better.

(in better rooms with better musicians)

Ridiculous generalization

How so, Art?

You don't have much respect for musicians, do you?

You said "cheap mics sound better"
in the context of recording good musicians
The assumption of a normal person like
me would be that the statement would be
an assertion that they sound better than expensive ones.

I neither said nor implied ANYTING AT ALL
about musicians.

[Arny Krueger]

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message

On 12 Iun, 07:28, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Clyde Slick" wrote in message



On 12 Iun, 06:43, Art's Master and Commander"Arny
Krueger" wrote the following, which
was obviously way over his head:
. Elaborate micing
"Rediculous (sic)"!
Cheap mics sound better.

(in better rooms with better musicians)

Ridiculous generalization

How so, Art?

You don't have much respect for musicians, do you?

You said "cheap mics sound better"

And it obviously confused you, Art.

You lashed out as if I had I said:

"Cheap mics sound better than expensive mics."

For the record, I neither own nor have I directed anybody to buy cheap
microphones. The last 4 microphones that I bought had a list price of $499.
Most of the microphones I use are mid-priced microphones costing $100's. A
few are very inexpensive microphones for whom the next logical upgrade would
be microphones costing $500 or more.

If you had an ounce of sense and intrapersonal skill Art, you'd ask for a
clarification instead of flying off the handle as you habitually do. You're
so deep into ridicule that you are impossible to have around and carry on a
decent conversation.

in the context of recording good musicians

Meaning, that recording good musicians often makes cheap mics sound better.
Furthermore, some very good vocalists seem to have a talent for getting the
best out of whatever mic you put in their hands.

The assumption of a normal person like
me would be that the statement would be
an assertion that they sound better than expensive ones.

You're not the standard of a normal person Art, as any reasonable person who
has read your vast spew of childish and mean posts can tell.

I neither said nor implied ANYTING(sic) AT ALL about musicians.

As you admit Art, the context was good musicians, and you didn't apply it
properly.