The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Leaf wrote: I'm referring to putting time into musician chops, for obvious reasons. It's all well and good to use technology to achieve a vision, and certainly all entertainment mediums seem to have benefitted, but you will NEVER be able to do that live.

Southwest Statistic said that his original raw guitar track is "a good live take" that "would have totally flown onstage" and "everyone would have been perfectly happy with it." I agree with the spirit of your argument: Good musicians are better musicians than bad musicians. They will make more interesting, compelling, and effective recordings no matter how hard technicians try to close the gap.

But recording is inherently artificial. Live performances don't ever happen again; playbacks of recordings do. And in the case of popular music, playbacks are almost intorably constant. Modern popular recording aims to make sounds that will wear the ears out as little as possible over time, like reducing friction to make the rocket go faster and farther. Anything a hair out of tune or a few milliseconds out of synch, while unremarkable in a live performance, will become excrutiatingly obvious on the 100th hearing of the recording. So that's the defining aesthetic of that genre.

I remember some blues guitarist complaining that when one of his recordings became popular, his concert audience expected him to play the solos exactly like he did in the recording. So he had to choose: keep the spirit of improvisation and feeling, or keep the audience happy. Tough choice, but it's the devil of the recording industry.

15-16 puzzle wrote:What's overkill about liking lots of different brands of equipment?

having it.

Mostess wrote:Modern popular recording aims to make sounds that will wear the ears out as little as possible over time, like reducing friction to make the rocket go faster and farther. Anything a hair out of tune or a few milliseconds out of synch, while unremarkable in a live performance, will become excrutiatingly obvious on the 100th hearing of the recording. So that's the defining aesthetic of that genre.

hmmm...that's exactly what wears out my ears with "modern popular". Some of the best studio stuff is pretty on the edge. My favorite reference along these lines are Steve Howes' solos on mid 70s Yes albums. He's very close to losing it, reaching just beyond his comfort zone, and it's at times a bit raw. I love that! Same goes for Steve Hacket, John McLaughlin, Alan Holdsworth, Jeff Beck, Al Dimiola, Robert Fripp... Once their playing became all smooth and clean and precise, I lost interest entirely, and after the first listen my ears are both tired and bored.

joshw wrote:In theory, I don't think that'll do much. 44.1khz already produces signals higher than our ears can hear. I've heard some techies talking about being able to subconsciously perceive higher frequencies, but I doubt it's significant. The jump from 16-24 bit is a pretty nice jump, but even that's barely audible. Better digital equipment will get closer to that "crystal clear" goal, but from what I can tell, it'll make things even less "warm". It's the imperfections in analog that give it warmth. It's just not worth the tradeoff for me. Give me a good warmer plugin for those rare times I want it, and I'm happy.

But the frequencies we can't hear contribute to the over-tones and under-tones we can hear. And so, higher resolution in digital will produce more real and better results.

Hoblit wrote:

15-16 puzzle wrote:What's overkill about liking lots of different brands of equipment?

having it.

You're weird. All that stuff on the list does different things. It's not like he's out buying crybaby wahs in 7 different colors so that they will always match his shoes. If I had a million bajillion dollars, I go buy way more stuff than that.

roymond wrote: Some of the best studio stuff is pretty on the edge. My favorite reference along these lines are Steve Howes' solos on mid 70s Yes albums. He's very close to losing it, reaching just beyond his comfort zone, and it's at times a bit raw. I love that! Same goes for Steve Hacket, John McLaughlin, Alan Holdsworth, Jeff Beck, Al Dimiola, Robert Fripp... Once their playing became all smooth and clean and precise, I lost interest entirely, and after the first listen my ears are both tired and bored.

Led Zeppelin 1 - first track Bonzo hits his sticks together accidentally in How Many More Times. One of my favourite moments cuz he is a drummer that doesn't really make mistakes.

Ask Miles Davis if he prefers to record jazz digitally. I think the analog vs digital argument is one that will be hard to win on either side yet. True to a certain degree that in digital, the microscope seems to have a bigger magnifier and editing has become easier, but not too many engineers were gonna edit 2 inch tape back in the day on a BED track. Those that did had some balls which is why some of the happy accidents in music are alive today. That stick hit in that tune off that Zeppelin tune I wait for everytime I hear that track. Makes me feel like I'm amongst one of my heros and he's come over for coffee at breakfast or something like that.

I think the microscope has gotten longer in range but our perception through the use of digital has made it more sterile, so much so that those bads are way more noticeable. No wonder everyone and their brother recording digitally is using some kind of plug-in that emulates analog. In the case of The Chemical Brothers they take their recordings and do the old school idea of pumping the master mix through two speakers in a room and re-recording the whole album through some MS mic and then inducing that into the mix. The Wall of Sound in Motown recordings were brought about by a plate rev that was recorded in a loft. Pretty hard for a plug-in to emulate that and by the time it's done sometimes the energy is lost.

I bought a system to do digital work cuz the price was better, but when I went to recording school I used 2 inch tape and the fairlight was the most modern synthesizer we had. I differ from Josh on the low end argument. The low end on tape is way lovelier than digital. The dynamic range in the low end is the reason tape hasn't been entirely emulated up to this point. And over-sampling and bit rate are definitely giving the tape medium a run for their money, but the complexities that physicts/programmers see in tape saturation are still a bit of an anomaly. They ARE still searching for the perfect algorithm to make engineers and producers take the leap entirely away from tape. They are close.... but no cigar yet! Records will never die. Neither will 2 inch tape.

P - stands for purist.

tonetripper wrote:I differ from Josh on the low end argument. The low end on tape is way lovelier than digital.

Just to clarify - that was directed at vinyl, not all analog in general. I agree, tape adds low-end warmth.

joshw wrote:

tonetripper wrote:I differ from Josh on the low end argument. The low end on tape is way lovelier than digital.

Just to clarify - that was directed at vinyl, not all analog in general. I agree, tape adds low-end warmth.

But even Vinyl used by DJs has something in the low-end that is not apparent even when the same song is digitally going down. Might be extra pick-up through the tone-arm from the output of the speakers but nonetheless a ton of DJs can't be wrong. Why also would there still be dance groups releasing stuff on vinyl? I'm not beating you over the head with it, but just saying there is sound in the analogous world that is just complex enough to not be properly emulated digitally. The predominant argument is that digital is better and my argument against it is that it isn't, not that it can't be in places but that that general posed concept is pretty broad. There are a bunch of engineers and producers who are very successful who would beg to differ. That's all I'm trying to get at. I'm not switching over to tape or anything, yet, but I'm not so naiive as to say that analog=poor quality (I'm paraphrasing Steak Sauce's concept). That last statement is completely subjective from my perspective

tonetripper wrote:

joshw wrote:

tonetripper wrote:I differ from Josh on the low end argument. The low end on tape is way lovelier than digital.

Just to clarify - that was directed at vinyl, not all analog in general. I agree, tape adds low-end warmth.

But even Vinyl used by DJs has something in the low-end that is not apparent even when the same song is digitally going down. Might be extra pick-up through the tone-arm from the output of the speakers but nonetheless a ton of DJs can't be wrong. Why also would there still be dance groups releasing stuff on vinyl? I'm not beating you over the head with it, but just saying there is sound in the analogous world that is just complex enough to not be properly emulated digitally. The predominant argument is that digital is better and my argument against it is that it isn't, not that it can't be in places but that that general posed concept is pretty broad. There are a bunch of engineers and producers who are very successful who would beg to differ. That's all I'm trying to get at. I'm not switching over to tape or anything, yet, but I'm not so naiive as to say that analog=poor quality (I'm paraphrasing Steak Sauce's concept). That last statement is completely subjective from my perspective

I always thought the predominance of vinyl in clubs was to facilitate cross-fading, scratching, mixing, and beat matching. I'd be pretty surprised if a sweaty noisy club were the place to best appreciate the "warmth" of vinyl recordings and playback, especially on equipment that gets used like a DJ's gets used.

jb wrote:

tonetripper wrote:

joshw wrote: Just to clarify - that was directed at vinyl, not all analog in general. I agree, tape adds low-end warmth.

But even Vinyl used by DJs has something in the low-end that is not apparent even when the same song is digitally going down. Might be extra pick-up through the tone-arm from the output of the speakers but nonetheless a ton of DJs can't be wrong. Why also would there still be dance groups releasing stuff on vinyl? I'm not beating you over the head with it, but just saying there is sound in the analogous world that is just complex enough to not be properly emulated digitally. The predominant argument is that digital is better and my argument against it is that it isn't, not that it can't be in places but that that general posed concept is pretty broad. There are a bunch of engineers and producers who are very successful who would beg to differ. That's all I'm trying to get at. I'm not switching over to tape or anything, yet, but I'm not so naiive as to say that analog=poor quality (I'm paraphrasing Steak Sauce's concept). That last statement is completely subjective from my perspective

I always thought the predominance of vinyl in clubs was to facilitate cross-fading, scratching, mixing, and beat matching. I'd be pretty surprised if a sweaty noisy club were the place to best appreciate the "warmth" of vinyl recordings and playback, especially on equipment that gets used like a DJ's gets used.

Speaking as a DJ who works with vinyl all the time, I can safely say that the predominance of vinyl in clubs is to facilitate scratching, mixing, and beat matching. I've been working with the <a href="http://www.numark.com/index.html?http:/ ... erview&n=5" target="_blank">Numark TTX-1</a> from the time it came out. I love vinyl the first few times around, but it looses its quality very fast to an ear that has been trained to hear and appreciate super high frequencies. For this reason I want a set of <a href="http://www.numark.com/index.html?http:/ ... view&n=101" target="_blank">Numark CDX</a>'s. They actually let you sit a vinyl record on top of the turntable and then it transfers the movements of the Record into the digital audio playing in the MP3/CDAudio player, meaning if I drag my hand on the table and slow the rotation speed to beat match it with my other turntable, the audio slows down just like a vinyl record would. Backspinning, scratching, you name it. It's awesome.

Touche. That is definitely a consideration in terms of that, but these days they are releasing digital equipment to emulate all the scratching and beat matching that I dont think is going to fly, yet, but I've asked a couple of pro DJs about their use of vinyl and they just say it sounds better and is less volatile. All I'm trying to get across is there are feelings to analogous content that we can not possibly understand by stemming the physical understanding of it through digital manipulation. It's as complex as a wave form of a slamming car door or a crash cymbal. Not saying it can't be emulated digitally, but they still haven't created a true digital emulation of acoustic drums. Most use samples for that. I am empassioned cuz I'm a purist.... sniff...... I miss my old 45s..... sniff

tonetripper wrote:Touche. That is definitely a consideration in terms of that, but these days they are releasing digital equipment to emulate all the scratching and beat matching that I dont think is going to fly, yet, but I've asked a couple of pro DJs about their use of vinyl and they just say it sounds better and is less volatile.

I am a pro DJ. I also hang out with 6 other pro DJ's on a regular basis. the guys making the most money don't use vinyl because it wears out too fast and it's unreliable and embarrassing (skipping and such) when you get out in front of a crowd of people. All of us own laptops to enhance the performance digitally, and 2 of us just use digital interfaces like the Pioneer DVJ-X1 to our laptops to scratch & beatmatch.

southwest wrote:The fact that modern studios can synchronize individual guitar strings and drum hits to within a few milliseconds is one of the primary reasons that most of the modern youth music market don't pay attention to the classics. Modern recordings just sound better.

Ok, this is the original statement that led me to question your methods. I 'll tell you why: there is something here that has not been mentioned yet: feel. Where is the feel in moving things digitally? IT is the feel of something being manipulated by technology. But there is a superior feel to stuff that grooves, that fits together through the process of the human mind, directly linked to the music. THAT sounds more perfect than anything. I mean, what are you gonna do, eliminate all character eventually until all that is left is a few rhytmically altered syne waves????Time keeping is not about syncing up to a click. The time in music should float, to mimic the reality of the moment.


Also, I teach about 18 kids a week, ranging in age from 8 - 57. What, do you ask is the predominant listening choices? Take a deep breath, it's AC/DC, and for some strange reason, Motley Crue!! These kids (12-17 yrs) tell me that they are sick of all this fake stuff. They're sick of the Ashley's and Britteny's and Simple Plans. In fact, the kids that are enmoured (ikes sp!) with the Good Charlotte's and Simple Plans are UNDER THE AGE OF 12. The appeal to the kids looking to older tunes is THE FEEL, the GROOVE, the important things.

I'm not saying digital is bad, I record in Cubase. I 'm not saying editing is bad, I edit stuff. I'm not saying that any one medium is more superior than another. I'm saying that the musical art I appreciate is the art of the musician, not the techinician. ANYONE can figure out cubase, and learn the choices to make to create clinically correct sounding recordings. Big fucking deal. Let's see you play it. WE SHOULD NOT ABANDON the feel, the groove, the art with lame arguements that merely exuse effort.

Everyone wants to be the special star so bad, they're willing to cheat and lie to get there, and I suppose that's the crux of this to me. We are negelecting those individuals with superior talent and ability in the name of faking perfection. I admire a tune that shows me where someone ACTUALLY is, not where they fantasize they are. I admire the blood and sweat of people devoted to their craft.

And Josh, RADIOHEAD? Lameo example man, they suck.


Finally, Mostess, this bit about it being played over and over... whippety do. Think about films, movies like "the day after tomorrow" are dull as shit, yet it has the visuals to be a blockbuster, medium-altering moment, except EVERYONE can do that shit now. IT's common. What does the film lack I wonder?? Effects, and perfection ain't it.

IF I scan the Mona Lisa, does that make me a painter? It looks good,... hmm. must be a painter.

You know what this boils down to? Staying power. It's the quality of the song, and the character, the performance, the MESSAGE that evokes staying power, not the technology. I don't even have to prove that statement, it's as obvious as needing air.

Leaf wrote:

southwest wrote:The fact that modern studios can synchronize individual guitar strings and drum hits to within a few milliseconds is one of the primary reasons that most of the modern youth music market don't pay attention to the classics. Modern recordings just sound better.

Ok, this is the original statement that led me to question your methods. I 'll tell you why: there is something here that has not been mentioned yet: feel. Where is the feel in moving things digitally? IT is the feel of something being manipulated by technology. But there is a superior feel to stuff that grooves, that fits together through the process of the human mind, directly linked to the music. THAT sounds more perfect than anything. I mean, what are you gonna do, eliminate all character eventually until all that is left is a few rhytmically altered syne waves????Time keeping is not about syncing up to a click. The time in music should float, to mimic the reality of the moment.

Thank goodness leaf. I've been waiting for somebody to say that the Feeling, Grove & Emotion behind the music is more important then the process. But, under that logic, wouldn't that apply to far more then just Rock music?

As far as your students taste in music goes, couldn't that just be an indication of them being fed up with “Commercial Music” which is written very poorly verses “Production Quality”? Or is it specifically against production? (Not saying one way or another, I don't know. Just making a question).

Remember that my background is Techno and Electronica. I went and got myself an electric guitar and started putting distorted tracks down and I became "Industrial Electronica". While everyone is putting down the idea of digitally editing stuff, it doesn't seem like such a big deal to me because I am digital at heart and soul. Putting down my editing methods puts down my entire genere, because in my world they are the same.

(P.S. Radiohead is awesome.)

Southwest_Statistic wrote:everyone is putting down the idea of digitally editing stuff

learn to read more betterer

15-16 puzzle wrote:

Southwest_Statistic wrote:everyone is putting down the idea of digitally editing stuff

learn to read more betterer

I hereby retract the above statement.

Southwest_Statistic wrote:I am a pro DJ. I also hang out with 6 other pro DJ's on a regular basis. the guys making the most money don't use vinyl because it wears out too fast and it's unreliable and embarrassing (skipping and such) when you get out in front of a crowd of people. All of us own laptops to enhance the performance digitally, and 2 of us just use digital interfaces like the Pioneer DVJ-X1 to our laptops to scratch & beatmatch.

Some people like Rolls Royces and some people like Mercedes...... that said, it doesn't mean shit to me that you are a DJ. That would be like me telling you that I am a professional recording engineer (which I am) and telling you that your opinion means shit which I'm not. The DJs I'm speaking of are world renowned (meaning travelling to various parts of the world to encroach on people with their art (whatever that means )). These same cats are embracing the technology, but they also started on vinyl and by virtue understand the power of it. You seem to have started in digital and all the power to you, but in the short and skinny of it you voiced an opinion that digital is better and I think that is a narrow-sighted vision of the recording process (albeit whatever that may be for whomever). Two inch tape has better dynamic range..... ACDC's records were all recorded with those needles pinned on those tracks. You'd be pouring over plug-ins to get that sound and probably still never achieve it. There is something anomolous about Analog recording. All the technology in the world can not stop the silky sound of 2 inch tape that has been properly recorded on a well calibrated machine. What I'm trying to say is your opinion doesn't really hold. I don't think one is better than the other, but to state it as you have done is naiive IMO and from what I've read of your posts has very little basis to it.

As in Leaf's argument mine is much the same. Performance rules over technology and technology has served to allow people with no talent at points to be confused with having talent (not saying they don't have the talent per se, but before the dawn of the technology they were school kids left off the teams at recess). All the power to them, but to state unequivocably that digital is better is a point of view without any real precidence. In fact I'd gather to say that it is the other way around. We've lost the understanding of the moment at points by slipping into a technological abyss. All the tweaking in the world in the digital realm sometimes ain't gonna get you there as much as some good 2 inch tape. Not all analog is better, but there are reasons guitarists still buy into tube amps and cool pedals that make a lot of noise.

If noise is the problem than that is an opinion based thing. If convenience is the reasoning then ya digital has the oomph to make a difference on time, although the time spent for most engineers to give it that silky sound of warmth (noise?!) doesn't seem to from my opinion to make that big a difference in the time arena. If it is a portability thing, no argument there. In the end it is a losing proposition to state that unequivocably that digital is better than analog. That's like saying you like peaches beter than apples. Both are fruit and one is more tender than the other, but somedays it's apples and other days it's peaches.

i must have missed the part that talks about how the 2 mediums are mutually exclusive.

having digital has opened doors for me and others no doubt. my entire recording studio can fit under the crook of my arm. i can create effects that would have cost me thousands of dollars to try and replicate. the artist know as Puce has singlehandedly shown me that awesome shit can come from a digital setup.

digital is about convenience. it's not about making things sound better. i will always record analog to digital. it's just what i want to do and i use both for entirely different reasons and motivation. it's also nice not to have to choose one or the other. i say have your cake AND eat it too.

jack shite wrote:stuff

Amen brother.

tonetripper wrote:All the power to them, but to state unequivocably that digital is better is a point of view without any real precidence. In fact I'd gather to say that it is the other way around.

tonetripper wrote:That's like saying you like peaches beter than apples. Both are fruit and one is more tender than the other, but somedays it's apples and other days it's peaches.

Leaf wrote:RADIOHEAD? Lameo example man, they suck.

Dude, what a stupid thing to say.

Southwest_Statistic wrote: Thank goodness leaf. I've been waiting for somebody to say that the Feeling, Grove & Emotion behind the music is more important then the process. But, under that logic, wouldn't that apply to far more then just Rock music?

Yep! I certainly hope you aren't assuming that the only music I enjoy is rock...

southwest_statistic wrote:
As far as your students taste in music goes, couldn't that just be an indication of them being fed up with “Commercial Music” which is written very poorly

southwest steaksauce wrote: Or is it specifically against production?

Not specifically against production. Production, good production, rules actually! It's against using production as a smoke screen for no talent, song or ...I really think that the answer to this is well implied in my previous post...

steaksauce wrote: While everyone is putting down the idea of digitally editing stuff,.....

I don't think I did that. It's not the idea that I question, or even YOU in particular, it's particular reasoning or choices that I take issue with.

subway representative wrote: (P.S. Radiohead is awesome.)

Ok, no, they are not awesome. They are ok. Just my view... look, "production" does not equal staying power. It is the ideas communicated , and the LIFE that have staying power. Granted, a rock will most likely outlast a human, however, it is nowhere near as interesting, unless it's big enough to have Radiohead pinned underneath.