[sdiy] Synergy (was Re: OT: Music movies)

[KA4HJH]

*snip*

>But if correct, one might say, very broadly speaking, that it's another
>Luddite slight at processed/synthesized sound.

I don't know about the Eagles but there was a backlash over "excitation" at
the time. Some perceived it as being a cheap attempt to make up for poor
technique, bad recording, or simply a lack of engineering know-how and/or
talent. Of course this was probably true in some cases but not all. It's
not always up to the artist(s)--there's that famous business of getting
saddled with a producer who insists on using this "hot new thing" because
"everyone else is doing it". This could be any trendy new thing--*electric*
guitars, digital drum machines, gated reverb on the snare, that gadget
called a "synthesizer", and what may be the penultimate bugaboo so far,
pitch correction.

Nothing is intrinsically artistically illegitimate, it's what you do with
it that matters. All of the above have been used in highly questionable
ways over the years. The next you know there are snide remarks on LP
jackets and CD booklets. Some people have a great deal of talent and some
have none. In many cases this is not the determining factor in someone's
musical career. As technology progresses it becomes more and more possible
to make someone with NO demonstrable talent at least carry a tune or even
superficially sound "musical". I'd expect to see liner notes with the
sentence "no pitch correction devices used in the making of this album" if
it weren't for the fact that almost everyone appears to be using it, if
only in secret.

>In the context of tape recording and other attendant recent technologies
>used by the Eagles and others pop artists a-plenty, it's another arbitrary
>and confounding distinction (maybe the anti-exciter fashion theory posted
>is indeed more on the mark here).  And if from the Eagles heyday, yet
>another from the 1970s. 
>
>Whatever the reasons, I wonder if such a non-usage announcement would seem
>as important to them nowadays.  And whether they'd stand by that notice or
>think it needless & silly in retrospect.

In this case you'd have to ask them. They may mention some of what I just
said. The people who engineered their albums almost certainly will.

Aside from the aforementioned overuse of pitch correction (a double-edged
sword if there ever was one), one of the biggest technical problems with
most pop albums today is the insane overuse of dynamics processing, which
is virtually unnoticeable to the average listener but immediately obvious
to anyone who knows what good dynamics sound like. This is a result of the
"my album sounds louder than your album" war currently going on and the
fact that it's technologically convenient to squash the life out of a
recording now. Throw in record company suits who are convinced it sells
more albums and it's a given. Even heavy metal albums are over-compressed
now, something that would have seemed like a ridiculous oxymoron fifteen
years ago (if you thought they had no dynamics back then, think again--it's
even worse now).

For an in-depth analysis of dynamics on some famous (and infamous)
recordings, check this out:

http://www.airwindows.com/analysis/Dynamics.html

For those who want some DIY content check the speakers Chris built.

-- 

Terry Bowman, KA4HJH
"The Mac Doctor"

"You'd PAY to know what you REALLY think"--Dobbs