Although I'm not a big fan of RUSH or YES, recordings from the 70s would kick the ass, up and down the street, of any current recording done with the latest digital technology. Why? Because these idiots that call themselves "recording engineers" no longer know how to work with the medium at hand and try to make everything as radio friendly as possible. Digital runs the risk of overloading easy but if recorded at a lower level, one can achieve pleasant dynamic range and clarity.
I say, have one recording that's been limited and compressed and squashed all to fucking hell to sound palatable over the radio without the level-pumping you get from a limiter trying to keep up with a dynamic fluctuation and one recording that sounds good over your stereo. And I'm not talking about these yuppie, all-in-one, don't-get-in-the-way-of-my-lifestyle pieces of crap that people call stereos. If I can hold one of the speakers in one hand, it's a piece of shit and should be thrown away.
All that said, we've let technology do too much of the thinking for us and no longer have the capacity to creatively use the medium at hand.
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2)
pablowapsi- pablowapsi
- Wapsi Square
Page Summary
- goraina : (no subject) [+2]
- steppinrazor : (no subject) [+0]
- ryuko_midori : (no subject) [+1]
- digital_panther : Lets kick it up a notch...OR, My audio Nerdery... [+0]
- ladyriv : (no subject) [+0]
- ocarina : (no subject) [+1]
- la_biscuit : (no subject) [+1]
- stuckintraffik : (no subject) [+0]
- mikeoquinn : (no subject) [+0]
- harmonatrix : Please forgive this fangirl moment... [+2]
- carsond : (no subject) [+2]
- ckretmsage : Woot [+0]
- dantewyrmfoe : (no subject) [+0]
- mcthag : (no subject) [+0]
Comments
The PROBLEM is when someone wants to entirely eclipse one medium with another, or fit them with clothes they don't belong in. Sometimes a warmer, breathier sound for an album better fits the music than a scrubbed, starched kind of tone. I like my more techno-ey stuff clear as a bell, but I do NOT take my Billie Holiday "cleaned up," but slightly scratchy, like the speakers it came out when she sang.
Anyway, I think the worse crime is the fact that technology can make abysmally bad singers who are moderately good looking or a moderately good gimmick get a record deal. They can just digitally fuck around with it until it sounds nice.
Of course, the same could be said for abysmally bad artists in photoshop, but that's saying a bit too much about my own talent, now isn't it...
Now THAT was some trippy shit for me to listen to when I was a kid and going to HS in the early '80s. I miss Quad. I don't miss 8 tracks but I do miss quad.
Till Anon,
Kuro
I thikn that's one of my favorite songs ever. My grandad used to play that for us all the time when we'd go to visit..
Also, transfered to CD, reel to reel or DAT still sounds better than digital recording, or maybe I'm just a music snob! ;D
Nowadays, folks who know of my tendency toward theatre tech know me as the guy who can make a decidedly sub-par system sound great. It's an art in and of itself. I can use the digital systems well (just purchased a digital recording studio so I can start cutting my own CDs, instead of having to do all the work in someone else's studio), but that's because I don't let them do the job for me.
People tell me that when I'm behind the board, be it for performance or recording, that the sound is crisp, understandable, a good volume, and rich. I could hope for no better compliment. When they find out what I'm running, though, they normally wonder how I was able to do it. I just smile and go back to having fun and making someone sound good.
I found your journal through the site. May I add it to my list?
Also will you be offering a syndication feed for LJ?
Thanks, and continued success w/ Wapsi Square!!!
I don't foresee a LJ feed for Wapsi any time soon, but that might be something that the group of us at Blank Label might be going over in the future.
Thanks for stopping by, feel free to jump in and introduce yourself at the Wapsi Forum. :)
I can't separate the Technicians from the Artists anyway - They all take something, an image, sounds, or .. and magically transform them into something "different", necessarily of lesser quality, compared to the original, but different - and from that difference, unique. Making a photograph, operating a 'sound board' (is that the proper name?) applying the chisel and striking it with a hammer, or applying pencil to paper - or a stylus to ...
ALL are equal in "rank" as far as I'm concerned.
(It dawned on me that "Gloomy and "Do me" are about the only things that really rhyme with "Gtiche Gumee" but I digress)
I agree, the digitization of music has effectively bled the heart and soul out of a lot of music.
There were times when a good drummer could make or break a song. (Marky Ramone still remains pretty high on my list.) But when I listen to the radio now I notice little more than an emotionless beat machine...sad really.
I read these sort of rants an wonder what everyone is talking about. My hearing is shot from dragsters and cannon. Tennitis is my constant companion. I have a friend who is a bleeding edge audiophile and he is literally in pain when riding in my car with its $100 each speakers and built-in amp head unit. He has offered to steer me through the process of getting an "acceptable" car system. I always counter with, "Why should I pay for quality I can't hear?"
Which brings me back to the audience. They have never trained their ear to hear the nuance that you enjoy from the original analog recording. And the market is catering to the uneducated masses (and making it worse by virtually eliminating anything to educate them). They aren't going to demand a difference they can't hear, and they aren't gonna hear it until taught. Hopefully rants like yours will steer them into trying better mixed music out. Keep up the good fight.