MOTM

Reading Ken's missive and thinking about how Tomita/Wendy never really "played"
any of their compositions all the way through: it was massive
editing/splicing/layering. Then was talking to a fellow MOTM'er that probably
95% of the records made today, the band/singer never played/sang the who song
all the way from start to finish. It's massive ProTools "snippets",
pitch-corrected/EQ'd/etc. Does anyone every make a "real song" anymore? I
remember seeing Harry Chapin play 3 weeks before he died: still the best concert
I ever went to (by a mile). 1 person singing, 4 playing. Greatness.

Which brings me to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzqumbhfxRo


Genius :)

Paul S.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2007, Paul Schreiber wrote:

> Reading Ken's missive and thinking about how Tomita/Wendy never really "played"
> any of their compositions all the way through: it was massive
> editing/splicing/layering. Then was talking to a fellow MOTM'er that probably
> 95% of the records made today, the band/singer never played/sang the who song
> all the way from start to finish. It's massive ProTools "snippets",
> pitch-corrected/EQ'd/etc. Does anyone every make a "real song" anymore?

It can sometimes be surprising where this turns out to be
the case. The Tallis Scholars have done so for a decade+ on their
recordings. And they're fully capable of a live performance...

m

--
Monty Brandenberg

Paul Schreiber wrote:

> It's massive ProTools "snippets",
> pitch-corrected/EQ'd/etc. Does anyone every make a "real song" anymore?

I think anyone is going to take advantage of the technology of the time
to make the best sounding record possible. Do you consider Beatles songs
with all the above back in the 60's to be "real music"?

Peter, Paul and Mary can hit it dead on live, though. ;-)

> Does anyone every make a "real song" anymore?

Sort of like movies - does anyone make a "real movie" anymore? I
remember watching Hitchcock's "Rope" and being impressed with how long
the shots were. Don't know if you can find anyone who can do that
kind of acting/filming/lighting/staging anymore. Now, typical movie
editing has each shot lasting only a few seconds...

I think that same ethic is part of why I like to do live gigs with no
pre-recorded tracks...

Doug

Doug Wellington wrote:

> Sort of like movies - does anyone make a "real movie" anymore? I
> remember watching Hitchcock's "Rope" and being impressed with how long
> the shots were. Don't know if you can find anyone who can do that
> kind of acting/filming/lighting/staging anymore. Now, typical movie
> editing has each shot lasting only a few seconds...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ark

Going OT I know, but... Reading some of the recording-oriented forums
lately, like Gearslutz, one of the things producers and engineers these
days are bemoaning is that many artists *won't* go back and do punch
ins and retakes. Too many artists now, particularly singers it seems,
expect to walk in, do one take-it-or-leave-it take, and tell the
engineer,
"You can fix it with Pro Tools, right?".

But I know what you mean. Although you do have to make allowances
for things that just aren't possible to do live. I don't think
anyone would
begrudge Delia Derbyshire the Doctor Who theme just because she put
it together one note at a time.

- cool video! Art and musical social commentary in its own right...

Many (most?) modern orchestral recordings are edited together from many source takes -
done section by section. This maximizes the high cost of recording high priced expensive
ensembles. I once heard an LSO session averaged out to about $50,000 an hour.

I co-produced a yet-to-be-released jazz trio/quartet session late last year that came in at
about $600/hr. for tracking alone (killer studio, engineer, piano and sidemen). We did
some save punches and inserts, but for the most part, it's musicians playing music - all
the way through.

Anyway, all this discussion, while interesting, reminds me of one of my favorite
oxymoronic statements: "you guys shouldn't be telling other people what to do or not to
do." Ultimate tolerance means being tolerant of the intolerant, too.

- Barry

http://www.ancientsun.com/

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@...> wrote:
>
> Reading Ken's missive and thinking about how Tomita/Wendy never really "played"
> any of their compositions all the way through: it was massive
> editing/splicing/layering. Then was talking to a fellow MOTM'er that probably
> 95% of the records made today, the band/singer never played/sang the who song
> all the way from start to finish. It's massive ProTools "snippets",
> pitch-corrected/EQ'd/etc. Does anyone every make a "real song" anymore? I
> remember seeing Harry Chapin play 3 weeks before he died: still the best concert
> I ever went to (by a mile). 1 person singing, 4 playing. Greatness.
>
> Which brings me to this:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzqumbhfxRo
>
>
> Genius :)
>
> Paul S.
>

- another side side of the infinite sided coin...

Spastic Ink!

http://www.ronjarzombek.com/thenewprince.wmv

Check out the other videos (his 13 tone thing is quite interesting):

http://www.ronjarzombek.com/rjvideos.html

Ron needs a modular!

- Barry

http://www.ancientsun.com/

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "coyoteous" <antithesist@...> wrote:
>
> - cool video! Art and musical social commentary in its own right...
>
> Many (most?) modern orchestral recordings are edited together from many source takes
-
> done section by section. This maximizes the high cost of recording high priced
expensive
> ensembles. I once heard an LSO session averaged out to about $50,000 an hour.
>
> I co-produced a yet-to-be-released jazz trio/quartet session late last year that came in
at
> about $600/hr. for tracking alone (killer studio, engineer, piano and sidemen). We did
> some save punches and inserts, but for the most part, it's musicians playing music - all
> the way through.
>
> Anyway, all this discussion, while interesting, reminds me of one of my favorite
> oxymoronic statements: "you guys shouldn't be telling other people what to do or not to
> do." Ultimate tolerance means being tolerant of the intolerant, too.
>
> - Barry
>
> http://www.ancientsun.com/
>
>
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@> wrote:
> >
> > Reading Ken's missive and thinking about how Tomita/Wendy never really "played"
> > any of their compositions all the way through: it was massive
> > editing/splicing/layering. Then was talking to a fellow MOTM'er that probably
> > 95% of the records made today, the band/singer never played/sang the who song
> > all the way from start to finish. It's massive ProTools "snippets",
> > pitch-corrected/EQ'd/etc. Does anyone every make a "real song" anymore? I
> > remember seeing Harry Chapin play 3 weeks before he died: still the best concert
> > I ever went to (by a mile). 1 person singing, 4 playing. Greatness.
> >
> > Which brings me to this:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzqumbhfxRo
> >
> >
> > Genius :)
> >
> > Paul S.
> >
>

- of course, I meant "12 tone" - not 13!

-slip of the key pad

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "coyoteous" <antithesist@...> wrote:
>
> - another side side of the infinite sided coin...
>
> Spastic Ink!
>
> http://www.ronjarzombek.com/thenewprince.wmv
>
> Check out the other videos (his 13 tone thing is quite interesting):
>
> http://www.ronjarzombek.com/rjvideos.html
>
> Ron needs a modular!
>
> - Barry
>
> http://www.ancientsun.com/
>
>
> --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "coyoteous" <antithesist@> wrote:
> >
> > - cool video! Art and musical social commentary in its own right...
> >
> > Many (most?) modern orchestral recordings are edited together from many source
takes
> -
> > done section by section. This maximizes the high cost of recording high priced
> expensive
> > ensembles. I once heard an LSO session averaged out to about $50,000 an hour.
> >
> > I co-produced a yet-to-be-released jazz trio/quartet session late last year that came
in
> at
> > about $600/hr. for tracking alone (killer studio, engineer, piano and sidemen). We did
> > some save punches and inserts, but for the most part, it's musicians playing music -
all
> > the way through.
> >
> > Anyway, all this discussion, while interesting, reminds me of one of my favorite
> > oxymoronic statements: "you guys shouldn't be telling other people what to do or not
to
> > do." Ultimate tolerance means being tolerant of the intolerant, too.
> >
> > - Barry
> >
> > http://www.ancientsun.com/
> >
> >
> > --- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Schreiber" <synth1@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Reading Ken's missive and thinking about how Tomita/Wendy never really "played"
> > > any of their compositions all the way through: it was massive
> > > editing/splicing/layering. Then was talking to a fellow MOTM'er that probably
> > > 95% of the records made today, the band/singer never played/sang the who song
> > > all the way from start to finish. It's massive ProTools "snippets",
> > > pitch-corrected/EQ'd/etc. Does anyone every make a "real song" anymore? I
> > > remember seeing Harry Chapin play 3 weeks before he died: still the best concert
> > > I ever went to (by a mile). 1 person singing, 4 playing. Greatness.
> > >
> > > Which brings me to this:
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzqumbhfxRo
> > >
> > >
> > > Genius :)
> > >
> > > Paul S.
> > >
> >
>

So here's long-winded Bill chiming in:

IMHO Some cutting, pasting, pitch-correction can be a good thing...
there are some things that can't be done any other way. But in my
experience, when the core tracks of a record - including the main
vocal are, essentially, performed - and mostly straight through rather
than constructed, it makes a huge difference.

About 8 years ago, an old friend played me the master of his band's
latest record. It had been recorded using the world's highest
technology. For one cut, he had even rented time on a satellite so a
session could be done with people in LA and NY simultaneously. He
asked me what I thought.

I told him that I thought it sounded sterile and that it didn't
capture the energy of those times when his group just stood and sang
with their accompanists like I've heard them do in rehearsals and when
they've been just laughing it up backstage.

He agreed. He bemoaned the olden days when they'd just stand around a
couple microphone and sing their hearts out.

Yup. Me too.

He and I had just co-produced a live recording on an old 8-track
analog machine (one of mine) - pre-mixing some of the inputs with an
emphasis in catching the ambiance of the space. In contrast it was
alive and vibrant... it had "problems" hiss, hamonic distortion - but
the recording leaped out of the speakers and demanded your attention.
It was riveting. Since then, he and his pals used a lower-tech
approach which I think sounds a lot better.

Jay - Peter, Paul, and Mary live is different thatn PPM in the studio.

Now - Paul S., to be fair, the best Harry Chapin concert in the world
isn't the same as a studio recording of Harry Chapin. In live
performance all kinds of other things are happening. (Live recording
has its own demands - one of my specialties - ahem).

On the other hand - there's my friend Jack Hardy who did some of his
records live in the studio - one take. Fantastic work.

Frank Sinatra - well - how were those recordings made? Big room - big
performance - you can't beat them.

I can see how, extended to the orchestra, Barry, one might take
various sections of a longer performance and edit them together to
form a better whole than one performance as you're saying, Barry.
Clearly there'd be economical benefits... but I don't know if that
makes it a better recording. I suppose it could - like maybe after
the recording of a few performances, the conductor says: Oh god - the
first movement of take 1 was perfect, but movement two sucked... let's
use the second take's version of the second movement - it was
great..." Well - I can see that.

So my question is, Barry, that jazz thing you produced - was it worth
the $600 / hr? Honest question. I'm thinking for someone with the
600 to spend and an eye on a kind of "sound" - a kind of perfection...
well... it probably was. I mean, I'll wager it sounds friling great,
right?

And as Jay has pointed out - let's not forget the making of Strawberry
fields. Brilliant - spliced together - speed/pitch all weird - but it
all made it surreal. Perfect. But there it was two performances -
married, right? Still - it's a performance - not piecemeal. The
white album - overdubbed, but still performed, right? Even "Let it
Be" - lots of over-dubbing - but not shredded, right? Much simpler -
much more direct that what that old friend of mine did over satellite
- then spliced together all kinds of takes.

OK - but then there's Brian Wilson's Pet sounds recordings, right? So
what made that "work?"

In my current project (one I reluctantly embarked on at the insistence
of those old friends of mine - and at Will's) I am playing all the
core instruments myself - guitar, piano, drums, percussion, bass,
electric guitars, synths. (Although I'll have a couple of those
friends come and play instruments I can't play - like strings, horn
section work, (banjo) etc. - and do harmonies - greatfully, they're
vying for those so I might not even have to pay them <LOL>).

Poses a dilemma - I can't play with myself in a live recording. But
I've found that by playing the song all the way through, and, again,
essentially performing the song with myself - and by re-recording
every track at least two or three times - performing it with the other
tracks - there is a point where the recording gels -it becomes a
recording of a band - albeit of one - because I'm playing along with
the other performances - like band members do - reacting to the other
parts - they just happen to all be me.

And a few punch-ins are fine too, as you say, Barry - but I try my
damnedest to do the take straight through and I rarely "fix" the takes
of main tracks. I never do a recording with the attitude that "I can
always fix it later." For me - it's simply verboten.

But I drive people crazy. I do take after take after take - all the
way through with as little snipping as possible. And I have a huge
advantage - no hourly charge for the studio - I own it. <shrug> I've
spent the better part of the last year re-building this particular one
especially with this project in mind - including building these d*mned
MOTM things <g>)

Ah - and what else does all this have to do with MOTM? <LOL>

Well - for me, it's not so far off topic at all. Because It comes to
- how do you record essentially mechanical technical stuff? Is it a
performance? I think so - but of a different kind.

I think there are times when the recording itself is the performance.

Clearly - when there's other stuff being done, there is a performance.
Like Scott and Terry - or you, Doug - when you guys go out to play
live, right? (BTW - I wanted to get down to Philly to see Scott and
Terry - but I wasn't in the NY / NJ / Philly area and couldn't there
in time. I wanted to see how you guys would perform your stuff.)

But - OK - so if the recording is the performance, how does one keep
it alive? Or is it alive? Or what?

I know this sounds like a recording issue - but I find it interesting
that it arose now in parallel with a discussion of the nature of
imitative or invocative (?) synthesis and new modules that would be
useful.

It comes down to - well - how do we make the best sound? How do we
record it? How can we be "musical and expressive" (Elhardt)? Where's
the filter bank, Paul? <G>

Bill (Will's just finishing up a World of Warcraft session - a whole
different kind of session)

On 4/27/07, wjhall11 <wjhall@...> wrote:

> Clearly - when there's other stuff being done, there is a performance.
> Like Scott and Terry - or you, Doug - when you guys go out to play
> live, right?
> [snip]
> But - OK - so if the recording is the performance, how does one keep
> it alive? Or is it alive? Or what?

I've been at three of the four Different Skies performances. It's an
interesting ethic - twenty of us show up, create things for a week and
then perform them. This has included both music and visual
performances. One year, I showed up an hour before the show and was
able to join in - complete improv on my part, and probably my favorite
performance of the lot.

We've recorded almost everything, but for various reasons not much has
actually been released. I think the biggest impediment has been that
many of the participants are gearheads and recovering perfectionists.
(Yours truly included...) I recorded 15 tracks the first year, and
would have done the same for the subsequent years, but my equipment
wasn't up to some standard, and I was told not to bring it. (rolls
eyes) So, we ended up with a FOH recording from the video gear one
year, and a couple hand-held device recordings another.

Quite the interesting thing - do you hold out for some mythical "best"
recording gear and then panic and only get a video machine's tracks?
Do you accept a recording from a mini-disc player even if you can't do
a digital transfer? Do you use a vocal performed through an SM-58 or
do you redo it with some kind of high end large diaphragm condenser
even if you might lose the spontaneity?

Doug

P.S. The rest of the story on the video machine track year is that it
was the only one that has actually been released on DVD, including the
visual performance! So many times, it really boils down to one
motivated individual that makes things happen...

Well - I'm a recovering perfectionist myself - and "perfectionism" has
been the bane of my existence. Too often an excuse for not risking
exposure to critisicm and my own self-consciousness.

Doug:

> Quite the interesting thing - do you hold out for some mythical
> "best" recording gear and then panic and only get a video machine's
> tracks?

Right exactly... I think you can have access to the best equipment in
the world and it all comes down to how you use it - and how good your
performance is... and how good your music is - I mean if your music
sucks nothing's going to make it better.

I've heard incredible instruments played incredibly well - playing
music with no soul - empty. I've heard mediocre instruments played
pretty well performing music that transforms me. You can have access
to the best recording equipment in the world - limitless tracks - a
satellite to span the continent - and come out on the sterile side.
You can have an old 8 track recorder and come out with a recording
that's alive and vibrant - has soul. I've heard great recordings made
with SM-58s and Oktava Mics. Of course, I've also heard great
recordings made with great instruments on great equipment with
phenomenal mics. And, let's face it - those recordings are - well -
higher quality on the technical side - so, if anything, you can hear
the music better, fuller. And let's face it - there is a point where
the instrument or recorder just isn't good enough - at least not for
release.

I've come to think that the mythical best is just that - mythical.
And that what you've got to be after instead is magic.

It's the magic of that Chapin concert - the magic of PPM live - the
magic that happens when you guys get together in AZ and create that
music together.

The better your synth, the more flexibility you have, the more colors
you have on your pallet - well - the better you can do your human job
of gluing it together - your job of infusing the sound with soul.
That's what makes it music, after all - at least thats what I've come
to think. Like that - the better your recording equipment, the better
fidelity recording you can make. You can't make the music better but
you can do a better job of technically recording it.

So my own philosophy has become to get the best equipment I can
afford. Then use it to try to create and capture magic - if there's
magic to be captured in the first place. If there's not magic, all
the snipping and pitch correction can't help anyway. If there is
magic, too much snipping and correction can bleed the magic right out
- so I guess it's "do only what you have to do and stay out of the way
of the music."

Sound about right?

Bill

- long winded, but a good read, Bill!

Yeah, $600/hr. is a lot - that's for everything, though. It's a pianist's recording and getting
a good recording of a good piano is a challenge. We brought in an $80,000 Yamaha, so
there was about $100/hr. - including cartage, insurance and tuning. The 3 sidemen were
about $200/hr. The other $300 went to the engineer, studio and misc. - mainly travel and
food.

We chose the studio because of the acoustics for the piano. We got one of the best
engineers in SoCal, or anywhere for that matter, Rich Breen - he brought in some of his
best mics and pre's. We ended up with ORTF B&K 4011's and an alternate pair of
Sennheiser MKH-80's on the piano.

Everything tracked at 96/24 on PTHD (stock 192 converters) - Neve "Air" reissues on the
drums - the studio's vintage tube mics on the sax and upright - TC6000 for ambience. We
treated it like a live to 2 track gig, even though everything is multitracked. Rich
reintegrated the few punches and inserts into the 2 mix!

You get the idea - and yes, it sounds great! MOTM content: we're doing another session
this fall for a more electric album and I hope to take a monosynth equivalent modular for
some analog solos.

Oh yeah, the room was Conway C: http://www.conwayrecording.com/studioc.html

- Barry

http://www.ancientsun.com

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "wjhall11" <wjhall@...> wrote:
>
> So here's long-winded Bill chiming in:
>
> IMHO Some cutting, pasting, pitch-correction can be a good thing...
> there are some things that can't be done any other way. But in my
> experience, when the core tracks of a record - including the main
> vocal are, essentially, performed - and mostly straight through rather
> than constructed, it makes a huge difference.
>
> About 8 years ago, an old friend played me the master of his band's
> latest record. It had been recorded using the world's highest
> technology. For one cut, he had even rented time on a satellite so a
> session could be done with people in LA and NY simultaneously. He
> asked me what I thought.
>
> I told him that I thought it sounded sterile and that it didn't
> capture the energy of those times when his group just stood and sang
> with their accompanists like I've heard them do in rehearsals and when
> they've been just laughing it up backstage.
>
> He agreed. He bemoaned the olden days when they'd just stand around a
> couple microphone and sing their hearts out.
>
> Yup. Me too.
>
> He and I had just co-produced a live recording on an old 8-track
> analog machine (one of mine) - pre-mixing some of the inputs with an
> emphasis in catching the ambiance of the space. In contrast it was
> alive and vibrant... it had "problems" hiss, hamonic distortion - but
> the recording leaped out of the speakers and demanded your attention.
> It was riveting. Since then, he and his pals used a lower-tech
> approach which I think sounds a lot better.
>
> Jay - Peter, Paul, and Mary live is different thatn PPM in the studio.
>
> Now - Paul S., to be fair, the best Harry Chapin concert in the world
> isn't the same as a studio recording of Harry Chapin. In live
> performance all kinds of other things are happening. (Live recording
> has its own demands - one of my specialties - ahem).
>
> On the other hand - there's my friend Jack Hardy who did some of his
> records live in the studio - one take. Fantastic work.
>
> Frank Sinatra - well - how were those recordings made? Big room - big
> performance - you can't beat them.
>
> I can see how, extended to the orchestra, Barry, one might take
> various sections of a longer performance and edit them together to
> form a better whole than one performance as you're saying, Barry.
> Clearly there'd be economical benefits... but I don't know if that
> makes it a better recording. I suppose it could - like maybe after
> the recording of a few performances, the conductor says: Oh god - the
> first movement of take 1 was perfect, but movement two sucked... let's
> use the second take's version of the second movement - it was
> great..." Well - I can see that.
>
> So my question is, Barry, that jazz thing you produced - was it worth
> the $600 / hr? Honest question. I'm thinking for someone with the
> 600 to spend and an eye on a kind of "sound" - a kind of perfection...
> well... it probably was. I mean, I'll wager it sounds friling great,
> right?
>
> And as Jay has pointed out - let's not forget the making of Strawberry
> fields. Brilliant - spliced together - speed/pitch all weird - but it
> all made it surreal. Perfect. But there it was two performances -
> married, right? Still - it's a performance - not piecemeal. The
> white album - overdubbed, but still performed, right? Even "Let it
> Be" - lots of over-dubbing - but not shredded, right? Much simpler -
> much more direct that what that old friend of mine did over satellite
> - then spliced together all kinds of takes.
>
> OK - but then there's Brian Wilson's Pet sounds recordings, right? So
> what made that "work?"
>
> In my current project (one I reluctantly embarked on at the insistence
> of those old friends of mine - and at Will's) I am playing all the
> core instruments myself - guitar, piano, drums, percussion, bass,
> electric guitars, synths. (Although I'll have a couple of those
> friends come and play instruments I can't play - like strings, horn
> section work, (banjo) etc. - and do harmonies - greatfully, they're
> vying for those so I might not even have to pay them <LOL>).
>
> Poses a dilemma - I can't play with myself in a live recording. But
> I've found that by playing the song all the way through, and, again,
> essentially performing the song with myself - and by re-recording
> every track at least two or three times - performing it with the other
> tracks - there is a point where the recording gels -it becomes a
> recording of a band - albeit of one - because I'm playing along with
> the other performances - like band members do - reacting to the other
> parts - they just happen to all be me.
>
> And a few punch-ins are fine too, as you say, Barry - but I try my
> damnedest to do the take straight through and I rarely "fix" the takes
> of main tracks. I never do a recording with the attitude that "I can
> always fix it later." For me - it's simply verboten.
>
> But I drive people crazy. I do take after take after take - all the
> way through with as little snipping as possible. And I have a huge
> advantage - no hourly charge for the studio - I own it. <shrug> I've
> spent the better part of the last year re-building this particular one
> especially with this project in mind - including building these d*mned
> MOTM things <g>)
>
> Ah - and what else does all this have to do with MOTM? <LOL>
>
> Well - for me, it's not so far off topic at all. Because It comes to
> - how do you record essentially mechanical technical stuff? Is it a
> performance? I think so - but of a different kind.
>
> I think there are times when the recording itself is the performance.
>
> Clearly - when there's other stuff being done, there is a performance.
> Like Scott and Terry - or you, Doug - when you guys go out to play
> live, right? (BTW - I wanted to get down to Philly to see Scott and
> Terry - but I wasn't in the NY / NJ / Philly area and couldn't there
> in time. I wanted to see how you guys would perform your stuff.)
>
> But - OK - so if the recording is the performance, how does one keep
> it alive? Or is it alive? Or what?
>
> I know this sounds like a recording issue - but I find it interesting
> that it arose now in parallel with a discussion of the nature of
> imitative or invocative (?) synthesis and new modules that would be
> useful.
>
> It comes down to - well - how do we make the best sound? How do we
> record it? How can we be "musical and expressive" (Elhardt)? Where's
> the filter bank, Paul? <G>
>
> Bill (Will's just finishing up a World of Warcraft session - a whole
> different kind of session)
>

That nails it, Bill!

Look at early rock and soul records. A few hillbillies with old
instruments, an unknown choirgirl and a hacked together studio in an
old theater equalled - Chain of Fools. And many others.

Music doesn't require the highest technical standards - either in the
gear or the ability of the musician(s) to be valid. It simply needs
to be presented from the heart. When kids come over (practically
every other day!) to learn about the various instruments lying around,
I encourage them to relax and play something simple. Something that
makes them feel good as opposed to creating the "correct" sound.
Music doesn't have to be smart. Best of all, I learn more than the kids!

Chub - immature and built to stay that way!

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "wjhall11" <wjhall@...> wrote:
>
> Well - I'm a recovering perfectionist myself - and "perfectionism" has
> been the bane of my existence. Too often an excuse for not risking
> exposure to critisicm and my own self-consciousness.
>
> Doug:
> > Quite the interesting thing - do you hold out for some mythical
> > "best" recording gear and then panic and only get a video machine's
> > tracks?
>
> Right exactly... I think you can have access to the best equipment in
> the world and it all comes down to how you use it - and how good your
> performance is... and how good your music is - I mean if your music
> sucks nothing's going to make it better.
>
> I've heard incredible instruments played incredibly well - playing
> music with no soul - empty. I've heard mediocre instruments played
> pretty well performing music that transforms me. You can have access
> to the best recording equipment in the world - limitless tracks - a
> satellite to span the continent - and come out on the sterile side.
> You can have an old 8 track recorder and come out with a recording
> that's alive and vibrant - has soul. I've heard great recordings made
> with SM-58s and Oktava Mics. Of course, I've also heard great
> recordings made with great instruments on great equipment with
> phenomenal mics. And, let's face it - those recordings are - well -
> higher quality on the technical side - so, if anything, you can hear
> the music better, fuller. And let's face it - there is a point where
> the instrument or recorder just isn't good enough - at least not for
> release.
>
> I've come to think that the mythical best is just that - mythical.
> And that what you've got to be after instead is magic.
>
> It's the magic of that Chapin concert - the magic of PPM live - the
> magic that happens when you guys get together in AZ and create that
> music together.
>
> The better your synth, the more flexibility you have, the more colors
> you have on your pallet - well - the better you can do your human job
> of gluing it together - your job of infusing the sound with soul.
> That's what makes it music, after all - at least thats what I've come
> to think. Like that - the better your recording equipment, the better
> fidelity recording you can make. You can't make the music better but
> you can do a better job of technically recording it.
>
> So my own philosophy has become to get the best equipment I can
> afford. Then use it to try to create and capture magic - if there's
> magic to be captured in the first place. If there's not magic, all
> the snipping and pitch correction can't help anyway. If there is
> magic, too much snipping and correction can bleed the magic right out
> - so I guess it's "do only what you have to do and stay out of the way
> of the music."
>
> Sound about right?
>
> Bill
>

Jay writes:

>>I think anyone is going to take advantage of the technology of the time to

make the best sounding record possible.<<

Probably right. But that technology is so inexpensive and everybody has it
now, which leads to everybody including those without musical abilities
flooding the earth with recordings. That leads one to think back to older
days when first you had some kind of musical talent.

>>Do you consider Beatles songs with all the above back in the 60's to be

"real music"?<<

Which reminds me, I've wanted to call for some kind of synth pop/rock
competition where people would pick some tune from the 60's - 90's and do a
synthesized version. I've always wanted to do a synth version of the
Beatles "Strawberry Fields Forever", but I'm wondering if even with a synth,
it's possible to get it as strange and psychedelic sounding as the original.
However, as you know, over the years the only synth competitions that
succeed are the non-musical aleatoric ones, and any other suggestions to
doing something that requires musical ability can't get any support beyond
about two people. Which supports the point in my other thread about synth
use.

-Elhardt

>
>>> Do you consider Beatles songs with all the above back in the 60's
>>> to be
> "real music"?<<
>
> Which reminds me, I've wanted to call for some kind of synth pop/rock
> competition where people would pick some tune from the 60's - 90's
> and do a
> synthesized version. I've always wanted to do a synth version of the
> Beatles "Strawberry Fields Forever", but I'm wondering if even with
> a synth,
> it's possible to get it as strange and psychedelic sounding as the
> original.
> However, as you know, over the years the only synth competitions that
> succeed are the non-musical aleatoric ones, and any other
> suggestions to
> doing something that requires musical ability can't get any support
> beyond
> about two people. Which supports the point in my other thread
> about synth
> use.
>
> -Elhardt
>

For me sound synthesis is almost completely in the realm of my EE
knowledge/experience, rather than my musician experience - and I
suspect it is that way for most people who use synths. At the very
least, programming a synth is a technical task, particularly if you
are trying to create a specific sound and not just randomly turning
knobs. There probably aren't many people in the world who really
understand sound synthesis and are also talented musicians; most
people who are great at one are not great at the other. This
observation may be obvious, but I think it may partially explain why
the aleatoric synth competitions get more interest. People who can
listen to a song, transcribe it, arrange it in a novel and creative
way, perform and record it, generally are not also people who can
program a (modular analog) synth with creative and interesting sounds
for all the parts. Almost all the demos AH people post for example,
are some variety of dance/techno or whatever the latest name is -
drum machine (or at least loop) -based rhythm tracks. Not to knock
it; some of it I enjoy listening to (once anyway). One of the
reasons I like W. Carlos is he has lots of musical talent as well as
technical skills, and the combination of the two results in some
really interesting music. This may be really getting off-topic, but
all the most talented musicians I know - players and writers - are
drawn to acoustic instruments to write and perform on - very few
people seem to write traditional music for synthesizer. (I was going
to say "actual music", but don't want to open that can.) Maybe its
because the synthesizer is still a relatively new instrument, or
maybe its something inherent about it - I guess time will tell.

ld

I almost forgot about this post getting lost in the shuffle of my email.

Larry David writes:

>>There probably aren't many people in the world who really

understand sound synthesis and are also talented musicians; most
people who are great at one are not great at the other. This
observation may be obvious, but I think it may partially explain why
the aleatoric synth competitions get more interest.<<

Yes, this is the problem. But you would expect that the majority of people
buying a synth (or it's full name, music synthesizer) would be at least be
somewhat musically capable. Before I plopped $10K down for a wall sized
modular, I would want to know how to do more than repetitive drones,
self-running patches, or bleeps and bloops. My mind would get bored in 10
seconds even if I accomplished those things myself.

>>One of the

reasons I like W. Carlos is he has lots of musical talent as well as
technical skills, and the combination of the two results in some
really interesting music.<<

Yes, being a good performer, synthesist, orchestrator of sounds, recording
engineer, and a composer if doing ones own music, are all needed to be a
really good synth musician. That'a a rare thing. But with 6.5 billion
people on the earth, you'd think we'd have seen albums using analog synths
in the last 25 years that could even come close to Carlos or Tomita.

>>all the most talented musicians I know - players and writers - are

drawn to acoustic instruments to write and perform on - very few
people seem to write traditional music for synthesizer.Maybe its
because the synthesizer is still a relatively new instrument, or
maybe its something inherent about it - I guess time will tell.<<

Actually it seems the synth is an old instrument, in that it was already
explored by a few in the 60's to 80's, then those people moved on to other
things, then it died. Seems composers and musicians are more interested in
getting their music done then in exploring synth timbres, so they go with
samplers or acoustic instruments. That's why it's a bit refreshing when I
visit non-synth sites like Northernsounds. That's where most of the
musicians are, but they're all using samples.

-Elhardt