"Are Modern Recording Practices Damaging Music?"

[William Sommerwerck]

There's an editorial of that title, by Steve Guttenburg, in the March 2012
"Stereophile".

If J Gordon Holt is looking down on us (joke intended), he must be laughing
his ass off. One of his classic articles (about 45 years old) shows the
"process" through which the microphones' outputs go before reaching the
cutter head. These include an "automatic dematrixing obfuscator" and (my
favorite) the "dynamic subtlety suppressor". *

Mr Guttenburg shows a startling ignorance of the history of recording. The
major recurring theme (joke intended) throughout the history of recorded
sound is the degradation of the original sound so that the recording will
"sound good" on cheap playback equipment.

This should have ended with the introduction of the Compact Disk, but
didn't. ** Most music (except classical, and some jazz) doesn't have enough
dynamic range to stress even modest playback systems, yet the recording
industry insists on flattening what little dynamic range there is to the
point of non-existence. If the purpose is make recordings subjectively
louder -- what is the point? The home listener can set the volume wherever
he wants. If a radio station feels it needs a competitive advantage, it can
apply compression at the station.

The problem, as I see it, is that most "popular" music has no meaningful
acoustic equivalent. The mics' outputs are simply raw material to be altered
however the producer cares to. This is not seen as a creative option, but an
unalterable necessity.

There is simply no need for this. But people are unaccustomed to hearing
live, unamplified sound in an appropriate acoustic environment, and they
know no better.


* I designed a device that -- on paper -- would do that.

** It seems that SACDs and Blu-ray Audio disks have "better" sound,
apparently because their producers and engineers really want to make honest
recordings.

--
"We already know the answers -- we just haven't asked the right
questions." -- Edwin Land

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 10, 3:56 pm, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

___________________________
Short answer: Y E S !

I have just scrounged the entire web for a decent mp3 or wav of
"Urgent" by Foreigner - they are all "remastered" versions that make
Lou Graham sound like he's yelling in your FACE! Unless you own the
CD from LP that came out 25 years ago you out of luck! >:(

-CC

[Marc Wielage]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:56:47 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article <jh43sc$b2r$1...@dont-email.me>):

> The problem, as I see it, is that most "popular" music has no meaningful
> acoustic equivalent. The mics' outputs are simply raw material to be altered
> however the producer cares to. This is not seen as a creative option, but an
> unalterable necessity.

>------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<

The answer to that is... it depends. I can think of certain pop recordings
(even on vinyl) that had very wide dynamic range. Michael Martin Murphey's
"Wildfire" (a #3 hit from 1975) would be one of them.

But dynamic range alone is no determination of sound quality. Sometimes,
emotion, feel, and melody are more important. I can think of tons of major
Motown hits going back to 1961 that have maybe 5dB of dynamic range at best,
even on the original vinyl... but it doesn't matter, because they're great
songs, absolute classics that will last for decades. (Note that these are
not slammed, hard-limited, digitally-compressed productions; they're done
with all analog gear, often tube gear, 40 or 50 years ago.)

Many, many pop songs were never intended to work in an acoustical setting,
nor do they sound good that way. Pop and rock production merely present
other creative choices from real acoustic music. It's no worse than
synthesized music, which goes back to the 1940s (at least).

Note also that there have been "unplugged" versions of many pop and rock hits
over the years, presented live in concert, on radio, and on TV. Those are
just as musically valid, but I don't think they're necessarily better than
the "electric" originals. I would agree that the modern production trend of
*perfecting* studio performances -- infinitely comping vocals, making
thousands of edits, using Auto-Tune, and on and on -- tend to make them less
human. Sometimes, the "flaws" are what make rock & roll what it is. Perfect
sound quality is the last thing you want if it overwhelms and undermines the
song's humanity.

I haven't received my (old, archaic, analog, paper) copy of the new issue
yet, and can't find the Guttenberg column in question on the website, so I'll
hold off on further comment until I read it. What I will say is: I've
generally found almost no audiophile writers who've ever worked in a modern
recording studio or have any concept of how hit music is actually recorded in
2012. Saying that they're "out of touch" is being kind. I agree with you
that many of them are woefully ignorant as to how music has been recorded,
even going back a couple of decades.

--MFW

[William Sommerwerck]

"Marc Wielage" <mwie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.CB5CC235...@news.giganews.com...

> Many, many pop songs were never intended to work in an acoustical setting,
> nor do they sound good that way. Pop and rock production merely present
> other creative choices from real acoustic music. It's no worse than
> synthesized music, which goes back to the 1940s (at least).

But this manipulation isn't used for "creative" effects, but simply because
it's available.

I've heard Buddy Holly recordings more than a half-century old, and (to the
extent it's possible to judge on the radio), they're beautiful. They're
clean, well-balanced, and appear to be taking place in some sort of
acoustically appropriate space. What's wrong with that?

A note: More than a quarter-century ago, when I worked for Rupert Neve in
Connecticut, I had the great displeasure of helping install a Neve
computer-control system in Atlanta's leading recording studio. During
playback in which the level was increased to hearing-damaging levels, I put
my fingers in my ears. I was later told this was a rude and insulting thing
to do.

The recording industry produces a great deal of "sound and fury, signifying
nothing". I could say much-worse things, but will bite my tongue.

[Frank Stearns]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> writes:

>"Marc Wielage" <mwie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:0001HW.CB5CC235...@news.giganews.com...

>> Many, many pop songs were never intended to work in an acoustical setting,
>> nor do they sound good that way. Pop and rock production merely present
>> other creative choices from real acoustic music. It's no worse than
>> synthesized music, which goes back to the 1940s (at least).

>But this manipulation isn't used for "creative" effects, but simply because
>it's available.

Yes, I've seen this too. And earlier this week I probably lost a project because I
would not participate in this.

>playback in which the level was increased to hearing-damaging levels, I put
>my fingers in my ears. I was later told this was a rude and insulting thing
>to do.

They're your ears! You surely did the right thing. Upon scolding I probably would
have made a retort far ruder than the original finger-plugging action, and would
have been fired on the spot. <g>

>The recording industry produces a great deal of "sound and fury, signifying
>nothing". I could say much-worse things, but will bite my tongue.

Agreed. Mass-market food science, of the type that hooks a lot of folks on big macs
and sodas, meets audio production. Sigh.

And I'm actually okay with that (given that micro-management regulation would be
worse, imo). What's sad and damning is the lack of education or exposure to other
things, other methods, so that people understand the manipulation and could then
laugh and walk away if they so chose.

Still, time is a great filter of crap. After 4 centuries Bach survives but the
formulaic insipid pop music from the 1920s and 30s is, thankfully, largely gone (to
name just one time period). It'll take a while to sweep through the more recent
decades. It's just annoying at times to live through the crap of the day; tough to
realize that it is circling the drain and will one day be gone.

But something has also shifted culturally -- it might be nothing more than many
people becoming completely passive in their entertainment. Music, and entertainment,
used to be participatory for nearly everyone, and often at a fairly high level. No
one did it for you -- you did it for each other. And you did good things for your
brain by making music all through your life.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--
.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 12, 4:11 am, Marc Wielage <mwiel...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:56:47 -0800, William Sommerwerck wrote

> (in article <jh43sc$b2...@dont-email.me>):

>
> > The problem, as I see it, is that most "popular" music has no meaningful
> > acoustic equivalent. The mics' outputs are simply raw material to be altered
> > however the producer cares to. This is not seen as a creative option, but an
> > unalterable necessity.
> >------------------------------<snip>------------------------------<
>
> The answer to that is... it depends.  I can think of certain pop recordings
> (even on vinyl) that had very wide dynamic range.  Michael Martin Murphey's
> "Wildfire" (a #3 hit from 1975) would be one of them.
>
> But dynamic range alone is no determination of sound quality.  Sometimes,
> emotion, feel, and melody are more important.  I can think of tons of major
> Motown hits going back to 1961 that have maybe 5dB of dynamic range at best,
> even on the original vinyl... but it doesn't matter, because they're great
> songs, absolute classics that will last for decades.  (Note that these are
> not slammed, hard-limited, digitally-compressed productions; they're done
> with all analog gear, often tube gear, 40 or 50 years ago.)

>

> --MF
_________________
The bean counters at the record cos don't care Max. So there's "5dB
dynamic range at best"? Squash it to 1dB and pin it to digital VU -.5
dB and re-sell it to the suckers!!!

That's the mentality my friend. Sad but true.

-CC

[Scott Dorsey]

ChrisCoaster <ckoz...@snet.net> wrote:
>The bean counters at the record cos don't care Max. So there's "5dB
>dynamic range at best"? Squash it to 1dB and pin it to digital VU -.5
>dB and re-sell it to the suckers!!!

It's not the bean counters anymore. It is now pretty normal for musicians
to come into the mastering room and demand everything to be louder.

The problem is now much more fundamental than that.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Webb]

On Sun 2012-Feb-12 10:44, Frank Stearns writes:
<snip>

>>playback in which the level was increased to hearing-damaging levels, I put
>>my fingers in my ears. I was later told this was a rude and insulting thing
>>to do.

> They're your ears! You surely did the right thing. Upon scolding I
> probably would
> have made a retort far ruder than the original finger-plugging
> action, and would have been fired on the spot. <g>

Ditto here! I"ve been known to do such things.

>>The recording industry produces a great deal of "sound and fury, signifying
>>nothing". I could say much-worse things, but will bite my tongue.

> Agreed. Mass-market food science, of the type that hooks a lot of
> folks on big macs
> and sodas, meets audio production. Sigh.

Again we're in agreement. But, here again, you point out,
as you and I have both done before why this is bad.

YOu said:

> But something has also shifted culturally -- it might be nothing
> more than many people becoming completely passive in their
> entertainment. Music, and entertainment,
> used to be participatory for nearly everyone, and often at a fairly
> high level. No
> one did it for you -- you did it for each other. And you did good
> things for your
> brain by making music all through your life.

Indeed, and this is what's hurting music, it's become
something to be casually "consumed' usually as background
noise. YEt when us 'old farts" say that this hip hop type
stuff produced with samplers and loops as well as the auto
tuned comped performances are bad music we get accused of
snobbery bigotry, and even worse. Good music requires
interaction at some level. Even that single artist with a
guitar and his/her voice develops a good performance by
actually performing before audiences of flesh and blood
people, who interact with the performer. music doesn't play the role it once played in average folks' lives, it's just
something to be there to be background noise or the flavor
of the moment.

We've had these phiosophical discussions before in this
group, but this is the fundamental truth that underlies
everything, the loudness war, marketing, the whole bit. The Black Eyed pEas may be good dancers, and even good showmen
and women, but musicians they are not.


Regards,
Richard
... "In some hands, all the knobs are suck knobs." -- Jay Kadis
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:39:48 -0500, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article <jh88fm$2pi$2...@dont-email.me>):

Will,

I think the point here is that The Buddy Holly recordings were done at a
different point in time. There was a different approach to recording and to
mixing. His arrangements were pretty sparse compared to some of today's
works, including the original Beatles mixes.

Yes, sound and fury, blah, blah, blah. I agree there's much ado about nothing
compared to earlier, more technology-restricted periods. Just because you
HAVE 48 bazillion tracks doesn't mean filling them makes the music better.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:44:32 -0500, Frank Stearns wrote
(in article <_tudnXsvNPH9Q6rS...@posted.palinacquisition>):

> Still, time is a great filter of crap. After 4 centuries Bach survives but
> the formulaic insipid pop music from the 1920s and 30s is, thankfully,
> largely gone (to name just one time period). It'll take a while to sweep
> through the more recent decades. It's just annoying at times to live through
> the crap of the day; tough to realize that it is circling the drain and will
> one day be gone.

I agree, Frank, but then you have McCartney doing "standards" that the market
seems to be very keen on. I listened and watched the iTunes video, which was
VERY well shot and mixed, but I didn't really think McCartney connected well
with that music. And maybe I missed the truly great versions of those songs
done originally, but, I thought some of "standards" were below standard.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Frank Stearns" <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:_tudnXsvNPH9Q6rS...@posted.palinacquisition...

> Still, time is a great filter of crap. After 4 centuries Bach survives but
the
> formulaic insipid pop music from the 1920s and 30s is, thankfully, largely
> gone (to name just one time period). It'll take a while to sweep through
the

> more-recent decades. It's just annoying at times to live through the crap

of
> the day; tough to realize that it is circling the drain and will one day
be gone.

Do you think that badly recorded music is likely to make it harder for
future generations to separate "good" music from bad?

> But something has also shifted culturally -- it might be nothing more than
many
> people becoming completely passive in their entertainment. Music, and
entertainment,
> used to be participatory for nearly everyone, and often at a fairly high
level. No
> one did it for you -- you did it for each other. And you did good things
for your
> brain by making music all through your life.

This is an argument in favor of forcing all children to study music.

Of course, recordings have an important place. I was listening to the Mahler
3rd and the Kindertotenlieder this morning. Without recordings, it's
unlikely I would have ever this music.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:jh8o34$5g7$1...@panix2.panix.com...

> ChrisCoaster <ckoz...@snet.net> wrote:

>> The bean counters at the record cos don't care Max. So there's "5dB
>> dynamic range at best"? Squash it to 1dB and pin it to digital VU -.5
>> dB and re-sell it to the suckers!!!

> It's not the bean counters anymore. It is now pretty normal for musicians
> to come into the mastering room and demand everything to be louder.

Crank it up all the way to 12!


> The problem is not much more fundamental than that.

I think there are many areas of art that are objectively "better" than
others. When people aren't exposed to them, they have no standards against
which to judge.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Ty Ford" <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.CB5D7440...@News.Individual.NET...

> I think the point here is that The Buddy Holly recordings were done at a
> different point in time. There was a different approach to recording and
to
> mixing. His arrangements were pretty sparse compared to some of today's
> works, including the original Beatles mixes.

Well, that was my point.

Strunk & White's basic rule applies to music as surely as it applies to
writing.

[William Sommerwerck]

> Indeed, and this is what's hurting music, it's become
> something to be casually "consumed' usually as background

> noise. Yet when we 'old farts" say that this hip-hop type

> stuff produced with samplers and loops as well as the auto
> tuned comped performances are bad music we get accused of

> snobbery, bigotry, and even worse. Good music requires

> interaction at some level. Even that single artist with a
> guitar and his/her voice develops a good performance by
> actually performing before audiences of flesh and blood
> people, who interact with the performer. music doesn't
> play the role it once played in average folks' lives, it's just
> something to be there to be background noise or the flavor
> of the moment.

Well, when I listen to music, I usually sit down and listen to it
attentively. Unfortunately, my attention span is barely an hour these days.
Thirty years ago I could listen to music for six or seven hours at a time.

Several years ago, I wanted to learn "Widmung" to sing to a friend I was
very much in love with. I had never really understood/enjoyed Lieder, but
when I learned this song, suddenly almost all Lieder made musical sense to
me.

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 14:00:25 -0500, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article <jh926n$sj2$1...@dont-email.me>):

A copy of which is less than 12 feet from me, right now.

[0jun...@nomail.bellsloth.net]

On 2012-02-12 grizzle...@comcast.net said:
>> Still, time is a great filter of crap. After 4 centuries Bach
>survives but the
>> formulaic insipid pop music from the 1920s and 30s is, thankfully,
>>largely gone (to name just one time period). It'll take a while
>to sweep through the
>> more-recent decades. It's just annoying at times to live through
>the crap of
>> the day; tough to realize that it is circling the drain and will
>one day be gone.
>Do you think that badly recorded music is likely to make it harder
>for future generations to separate "good" music from bad?

I do, for one. it will be much more difficult for future
listeners to separate signal from noise, wheat from chaff,
however you want to put it. EVerybody will have their own
bit of "nostalgia" music and, just like today's popular
music, nobody will step outside his favorite genre or
comfort zone.
A few years ago while doing some antenna work one of the
guys working with me pulled his truck up in the yard and
fired up a local station out of New ORleans that billed
itself as retro, playing '80's hits. A whole bunch of '80's
synth pop. <eeew> But, that's what he heard growing up, so
that was his nostalgia trip.

Culturally we're much to fragmented, and the dreck will
survive inside its cultural niches. Heck, even my mother
can recognize Beatles songs she liked that were heard on
popular radio along withcountry, some light jazz, a little
bit of everything back in the '60's. I doubt if she'd
recognize one pop tune of today, because she doesn't listen
to anything but that "new country" stuff. I'm much the
same, I spin the dial when listening to broadcast radio past
all the pop stuff, I don't pay any attention to it at all,
and, I hate to say it, but the same with the "new" country.
When I do listen to it because I"m in a public place where
it's playing i don't find it compelling or interesting
listening.
I haven't heard a country artist play anything but a
straight four midtempo rock beat now for over a decade, once
in awhile something with 3 beats per measure, but rarely a
swing or a good fast shuffle. ITs' a rock beat with twangy
guitars.



Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 12, 11:07 am, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

_________________
Well fundamentally it all boils down to money. Artists are now of the
mentality that if it isn't loud enough it won't be noticed or stand
out.

In any case, It's a shame that this is the new "norm" for popular
music, especially with the lowest noise highest dynamic range flattest
frequency response platform(digital) in the history of recorded
sound! I would also appreciate it if past artists or their labels
didn't apply this mentality - and processing - to past works that
stand out by their own virtues in the deceptive guise of "remastering"
or however they want to call it.

-CC

[Les Cargill]

0jun...@nomail.bellsloth.net wrote:
> On 2012-02-12 grizzle...@comcast.net said:
<snip>

> I haven't heard a country artist play anything but a
> straight four midtempo rock beat now for over a decade, once
> in awhile something with 3 beats per measure, but rarely a
> swing or a good fast shuffle. ITs' a rock beat with twangy
> guitars.
>
>

I'd like to hear a good anthropologist or art historian do a
real, serious piece on how this came to pass.

I will note the following:

1) It has something to do with MTV, I bet. Nothing
has ever fostered disappointment like the demographic
shifts on MTV, it seems. Maybe that's just a Usenet
trope, but it's been a consistent one.

2) A person who is a music publisher (with whom I also
have had the occasional contact) was relocating from LA
to Nashvegas in 1998. This was identified as a trend, not
an isolated incident.

3) Country itself has splintered into multiple markets.
There's the No Depression market, Texas Outlaw market,
several others.

4) Cowboy boots should not have square toes unless you
are shooting a Spaghetti Western.

>
> Richard webb,
>
> replace anything before at with elspider
>
>
>

--
Les Cargill

[Mxsmanic]

ChrisCoaster writes:

> Well fundamentally it all boils down to money. Artists are now of the
> mentality that if it isn't loud enough it won't be noticed or stand
> out.

If they lack talent (and many of them do), they're probably right.

[0jun...@nomail.bellsloth.net]

LEs writes:

>0jun...@nomail.bellsloth.net wrote:
>> I haven't heard a country artist play anything but a
>> straight four midtempo rock beat now for over a decade, once
>> in awhile something with 3 beats per measure, but rarely a
>> swing or a good fast shuffle. ITs' a rock beat with twangy
>> guitars.

>I'd like to hear a good anthropologist or art historian do a
>real, serious piece on how this came to pass.
>I will note the following:
>1) It has something to do with MTV, I bet. Nothing
>has ever fostered disappointment like the demographic
>shifts on MTV, it seems. Maybe that's just a Usenet
>trope, but it's been a consistent one.

I would agree with that, it started with the so-called
"urban cowboy thing imho.

>2) A person who is a music publisher (with whom I also
>have had the occasional contact) was relocating from LA
>to Nashvegas in 1998. This was identified as a trend, not
>an isolated incident.

YEah I know, all glitz. YOu notice guys like MErle can't
beg airplay anymore <g>.

>3) Country itself has splintered into multiple markets.
>There's the No Depression market, Texas Outlaw market,
>several others.

Would agree, it's splintered quite a bit.

>4) Cowboy boots should not have square toes unless you
>are shooting a Spaghetti Western.

<rotfl> Also you're not a cowboy if you drive a Lexxus and
live in the city. Urban cowboy is an oxymoron.

And also, hello Sugarland! REal country doesn't need a 30
foot video screen and all the bullshit.

[Frank Stearns]

"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> writes:

>"Frank Stearns" <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote in message
>news:_tudnXsvNPH9Q6rS...@posted.palinacquisition...

snip

>Do you think that badly recorded music is likely to make it harder for
>future generations to separate "good" music from bad?

Depends. If they've actively participated in music, have a little bit of music
education (nothing fancy; just an 8th grade equivalent to, say, reading or
arithmetic instead of total music oblivian), they'll be much more able to make a
judgment about the recordings they experience.

>> But something has also shifted culturally -- it might be nothing more than
>many
>> people becoming completely passive in their entertainment. Music, and
>entertainment,
>> used to be participatory for nearly everyone, and often at a fairly high
>level. No
>> one did it for you -- you did it for each other. And you did good things
>for your
>> brain by making music all through your life.

>This is an argument in favor of forcing all children to study music.

In the same sense of teaching them reading, writing, arithmetic to, say, an 8th
grade level (and making a suitable educational progression in music from
kindergarten to the 8th grade), then yes, absolutely.

This is nothing new; music at one time was an integrated and required part of the
elementary school experience in the USA. It still is in many European countries.

I am biased of course, because I am in the business and have music teachers in the
family. But beyond that, the activity itself seems to have a vital influence on
brain development, even brain repair.

Ms. Giffords, the congresswomen shot in the head by the nut case last year in the
Southwestern USA, has made a remarkable recovery. Reportedly, music therapy (a
gentle acoustic guitar and singing of consonant melodies and not head-slamming
noise) has been a crucial element in that recovery. IIRC, music was the single thing
that helped her re-acquire language.

Multiple brain studies have shown how much of the brain "lights up" when musically
stimulated. And if you analyze what music is, what it does, and how it affects the
typical human, this makes a lot of sense.

>Of course, recordings have an important place. I was listening to the Mahler
>3rd and the Kindertotenlieder this morning. Without recordings, it's
>unlikely I would have ever this music.

Absolutely; I agree. But as you point out in a later post about leider, experiencing
(performing) it first-hand made it something special.

So, too, would basic music education and hands-on participation enhance the
recordings one might experience later in life.

Educators and their critics have been misguided and too easily dismissive of music
education, IMO. It doesn't matter what you do later in life; music is one of the
"enrichers" that make us human and in aggregate makes life better. Where would we be
if arithmetic was simply deemed "not worth the trouble so let's not teach it any
more..." (Well, perhaps based on results we're half-way there anyway! But you see
the point, I think.)

I'm not overly hopeful that we'll get music back for the general elementary school
population, but we should all nudge and suggest as we can.

[Jeff Henig]

+1

That, my friend, is an outstanding post.

--
---Jeff

[Doug McDonald]

On 2/12/2012 2:12 PM, Les Cargill wrote:

>
> 4) Cowboy boots should not have square toes unless you
> are shooting a Spaghetti Western.
>
>

or have duck-shaped feet.

I have such feet ... large ones! ... and never found
comfy cowbody boots until I found some square-toed Ariats
available in a large enough size. I'm wearing them now, and they are comfy
enough that I can ... and do ... either walk 8 miles a day in
passable but muddy or snowy weather or climb 2000 fett of stairs in
them, never a problem. And they are great for slogging through
mud, snow, or yes, horse shit (which I do on vacation.)

Doug McDonald

[William Sommerwerck]

> Multiple brain studies have shown how much of the brain "lights up"
> when musically stimulated.

You can get the same effect by sticking miniature Christmas-tree lights up
your nose.

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:

> "Marc Wielage" <mwie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.CB5CC235...@news.giganews.com...
>
> > Many, many pop songs were never intended to work in an acoustical setting,
> > nor do they sound good that way. Pop and rock production merely present
> > other creative choices from real acoustic music. It's no worse than
> > synthesized music, which goes back to the 1940s (at least).
>
> But this manipulation isn't used for "creative" effects, but simply because
> it's available.

Your opinion, and probably not based on atending many sessions, William.
What seems creative to one producer may not fit your own own concept of
that.

Mind you, I'm not fan of much present production that I hear, but the
other side of that opinion is that I don't pay any attention to pop
music and haven't for decades.

When I took over managment of AWHQ en route to work the first day I
stopped and bought a nice little Tandberg radio to run in the office so
I'd know what was happening on the airwaves.

> I've heard Buddy Holly recordings more than a half-century old, and (to the
> extent it's possible to judge on the radio), they're beautiful. They're
> clean, well-balanced, and appear to be taking place in some sort of
> acoustically appropriate space. What's wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with that, if that's what an artist and producer want
to do. If they want to do something else, that's all wrong.

Norman's studio was in his home in Clovis NM. You can see it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH-AZhRpWW0

> A note: More than a quarter-century ago, when I worked for Rupert Neve in
> Connecticut, I had the great displeasure of helping install a Neve
> computer-control system in Atlanta's leading recording studio. During
> playback in which the level was increased to hearing-damaging levels, I put
> my fingers in my ears. I was later told this was a rude and insulting thing
> to do.

To assume that is a ubiquitous attitude is not sensible. Many engineers
would have done the same as you.

> The recording industry produces a great deal of "sound and fury, signifying
> nothing". I could say much-worse things, but will bite my tongue.

Perhaps you should produce some recordings.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/walkinaymusic
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Ty Ford <tyre...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 10:44:32 -0500, Frank Stearns wrote
> (in article <_tudnXsvNPH9Q6rS...@posted.palinacquisition>):
>
> > Still, time is a great filter of crap. After 4 centuries Bach survives but
> > the formulaic insipid pop music from the 1920s and 30s is, thankfully,
> > largely gone (to name just one time period). It'll take a while to sweep
> > through the more recent decades. It's just annoying at times to live through
> > the crap of the day; tough to realize that it is circling the drain and will
> > one day be gone.
>
> I agree, Frank, but then you have McCartney doing "standards" that the market
> seems to be very keen on. I listened and watched the iTunes video, which was
> VERY well shot and mixed, but I didn't really think McCartney connected well
> with that music. And maybe I missed the truly great versions of those songs
> done originally, but, I thought some of "standards" were below standard.

McCartney supposedly took to those songs in his youth. You could find
comments at PRW by the engineer who recorded and mixed it. As with all
musical material one person may like material that others don't. Always
been that way. I haven't heard Paul's take there.

[hank alrich]

William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:

> "Frank Stearns" <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote in message
> news:_tudnXsvNPH9Q6rS...@posted.palinacquisition...
>
> > Still, time is a great filter of crap. After 4 centuries Bach survives but
> the
> > formulaic insipid pop music from the 1920s and 30s is, thankfully, largely
> > gone (to name just one time period). It'll take a while to sweep through
> the
> > more-recent decades. It's just annoying at times to live through the crap
> of
> > the day; tough to realize that it is circling the drain and will one day
> be gone.
>
> Do you think that badly recorded music is likely to make it harder for
> future generations to separate "good" music from bad?

No, I don't any more than I expect agreement among a large group of
humans upon what is good or bad music.

Reread McCluhan. If he's right we're evolving toward a more visual and
less aural being.

> > But something has also shifted culturally -- it might be nothing more than
> many
> > people becoming completely passive in their entertainment. Music, and
> entertainment,
> > used to be participatory for nearly everyone, and often at a fairly high
> level. No
> > one did it for you -- you did it for each other. And you did good things
> for your
> > brain by making music all through your life.
>
> This is an argument in favor of forcing all children to study music.

Forcing people to study things isn't working very well, regardless of
the subject. Play music in your own household. Some of your children
will take up playing music, and some won't, though all of them are
likely to appreciate music and make it an ongoing part of their lives,
unless you force them to study it and they stop listening or liking
music, to abandon it as soon as they escape the home.

> Of course, recordings have an important place. I was listening to the Mahler
> 3rd and the Kindertotenlieder this morning. Without recordings, it's
> unlikely I would have ever this music.

Get ourself a piano, and turn off the stereo. <g>

[hank alrich]

<0jun...@nomail.bellsloth.net> wrote:

> LEs writes:
> >0jun...@nomail.bellsloth.net wrote:
> >> I haven't heard a country artist play anything but a
> >> straight four midtempo rock beat now for over a decade, once
> >> in awhile something with 3 beats per measure, but rarely a
> >> swing or a good fast shuffle. ITs' a rock beat with twangy
> >> guitars.
>
> >I'd like to hear a good anthropologist or art historian do a
> >real, serious piece on how this came to pass.
> >I will note the following:
> >1) It has something to do with MTV, I bet. Nothing
> >has ever fostered disappointment like the demographic
> >shifts on MTV, it seems. Maybe that's just a Usenet
> >trope, but it's been a consistent one.
>
> I would agree with that, it started with the so-called
> "urban cowboy thing imho.

I have an old friend, in both sense of that adjective, who is a cowboy.
In the late 19080's he told me, "I always wear running shoes and a ball
cap so that nobody mistakes me for a truck driver".

> >2) A person who is a music publisher (with whom I also
> >have had the occasional contact) was relocating from LA
> >to Nashvegas in 1998. This was identified as a trend, not
> >an isolated incident.
>
> YEah I know, all glitz. YOu notice guys like MErle can't
> beg airplay anymore <g>.

Airplay for that has shifted to the so-called Americana stations.
Merle's album 'If I Could Only Fly" has sold about a half-million units.

> >3) Country itself has splintered into multiple markets.
> >There's the No Depression market, Texas Outlaw market,
> >several others.
>
> Would agree, it's splintered quite a bit.
>
> >4) Cowboy boots should not have square toes unless you
> >are shooting a Spaghetti Western.
>
> <rotfl> Also you're not a cowboy if you drive a Lexxus and
> live in the city. Urban cowboy is an oxymoron.
>
> And also, hello Sugarland! REal country doesn't need a 30
> foot video screen and all the bullshit.

Here's a take on "Real Country"!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAMK1fk-9rc

[Predrag Trpkov]

"Frank Stearns" <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote in message

news:c92dnbk5fp74oaXS...@posted.palinacquisition...

> Educators and their critics have been misguided and too easily dismissive
> of music
> education, IMO. It doesn't matter what you do later in life; music is one
> of the
> "enrichers" that make us human and in aggregate makes life better. Where
> would we be
> if arithmetic was simply deemed "not worth the trouble so let's not teach
> it any
> more..." (Well, perhaps based on results we're half-way there anyway! But
> you see
> the point, I think.)

Already more than half-way, for some.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6588695.stm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099022/Maths-hard-students-dons-Universities-drop-subject-science-courses.html

Predrag

[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message
news:1kfd9ue.ti9oo61ru3i8pN%walk...@nv.net...

> William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:

>> The recording industry produces a great deal of "sound and fury,
>> signifying nothing". I could say much-worse things, but will bite
>> my tongue.

> Perhaps you should produce some recordings.

My remark was in the context of the sound itself, not necessarily the music.

I don't feel qualified to produce recordings, of any type of music.

Have you seen photographs of Frank Sinatra's recording sessions? He
performed "live", in front of the orchestra, in what I assume was a room
designed specifically for pleasing-sounding recordings, and without (IIRC) a
plethora of mics.

[William Sommerwerck]

"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message

news:1kfdaba.dtpgtk1uiviqiN%walk...@nv.net...

> William Sommerwerck <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:

>> Of course, recordings have an important place. I was listening to the
>> Mahler 3rd and the Kindertotenlieder this morning. Without recordings,
>> it's unlikely I would have ever this music.

> Get ourself a piano, and turn off the stereo. <g>

If I can get my mortgage company to reduce the interest to 3% or lower, I'll
be able to retire without having to worry about paying my bills.
(Coincidentally, I'll be speaking to them today.) In such a case, I will
doubtless find time for music lessons.

When I was much younger, my mother wanted to get a piano (she could sort-of
play), but it was under the condition that I'd take lessons and stick with
them. As they'd never tried to encourage any interest in good music, I said
no. In retrospect, I wish I'd said yes, then abandoned the lessons, leaving
them stuck with the piano. I hurt my parents, but not anywhere nearly as
much as I could have or should have.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 13, 6:25 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> "hank alrich" <walki...@nv.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1kfd9ue.ti9oo61ru3i8pN%walk...@nv.net...

>
> > William Sommerwerck <grizzledgee...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> The recording industry produces a great deal of "sound and fury,
> >> signifying nothing". I could say much-worse things, but will bite
> >> my tongue.
> > Perhaps you should produce some recordings.
>
> My remark was in the context of the sound itself, not necessarily the music.
>
> I don't feel qualified to produce recordings, of any type of music.
>
> Have you seen photographs of Frank Sinatra's recording sessions? He
> performed "live", in front of the orchestra, in what I assume was a room
> designed specifically for pleasing-sounding recordings, and without (IIRC) a
> plethora of mics.

______
Your last paragraph reminds me of something I've been dying to do for
some years now: Experiment with recording techniques that involve
only as many microphones as humans have ears. Seriously! Think about
how we hear andt it'll make sense.

-CC

[William Sommerwerck]

"ChrisCoaster" <ckoz...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:11acb6d1-8ce5-4898...@m7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...

On Feb 13, 6:25 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>> Have you seen photographs of Frank Sinatra's recording sessions? He
>> performed "live", in front of the orchestra, in what I assume was a

studio

>> designed specifically for pleasing-sounding recordings, and without
(IIRC)
>> a plethora of mics.

> Your last paragraph reminds me of something I've been dying to do for
> some years now: Experiment with recording techniques that involve
> only as many microphones as humans have ears. Seriously! Think
> about how we hear andt it'll make sense.

You must be very new to recording. Simply-miked stereo recordings have been
around for nearly 60 years.

When I made live recordings, I almost always used only two mics. I did,
however, make Ambisonic recordings using three mics, and quad recordings
using four.

The "correct" number of mics has no necessary relationship to the number of
ears we have. The issue is whether the recording contains the necessary
directional cues, and whether they can be correctly presented during
playback.

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 13, 6:30 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> "hank alrich" <walki...@nv.net> wrote in message
>

>, I wish I'd said yes, then abandoned the lessons, leaving
> them stuck with the piano. I hurt my parents, but not anywhere nearly as
> much as I could have or should have.

_________
I'm really not sure of the meaning behind the above paragraph, esp in
the context that my parents are both no longer alive.

-ChrisCoaster

[ChrisCoaster]

On Feb 13, 8:11 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> "ChrisCoaster" <ckozi...@snet.net> wrote in message

______

So then perhaps the industry should put more effort into those
techniques instead of quickly resorting to simple 'pan-pot' mono with
a dozen or more mics and racks of fx. As I recall music is supposed
to come from a stage - not a small box with blinking lights &
knobs. ;)

[Les Cargill]

Only if you ignore radio. In Colin Escott's biography of Hank
Williams, people used to ask radio sellers "does this thing get
Hank Williams?"

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill <lcarg...@comcast.com> wrote:
>0jun...@nomail.bellsloth.net wrote:
>> On 2012-02-12 grizzle...@comcast.net said:
><snip>
>> I haven't heard a country artist play anything but a
>> straight four midtempo rock beat now for over a decade, once
>> in awhile something with 3 beats per measure, but rarely a
>> swing or a good fast shuffle. ITs' a rock beat with twangy
>> guitars.
>
>I'd like to hear a good anthropologist or art historian do a
>real, serious piece on how this came to pass.

What you are experiencing is the New Country Movement. It predates MTV
I think, but MTV has probably helped it.

[hank alrich]

Thank you, Chris. RIP, Mom and Dad.

[hank alrich]

Thanks for that. To deny the music boxes would be funny in contest of
this thread, which is all about what's coming out of those boxes.

[Jeff Henig]

Sorry to hear it, Chris. May they rest in peace.

---Jeff

[Jeff Henig]

Why does this make me think of Steve Martin singing "It's Just
Impossible" and sticking a piano up his nose?

---Jeff

[Jeff Henig]

I sympathize with you, William.

Since I already brought up my background in an OT thread, I don't want
to threadjack this one. But suffice it to say, I feel your pain, my friend.

---Jeff

[Frank Stearns]

ChrisCoaster <ckoz...@snet.net> writes:

>On Feb 13, 8:11=A0am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>

>wrote:
>> "ChrisCoaster" <ckozi...@snet.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:11acb6d1-8ce5-4898...@m7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 13, 6:25 am, "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgee...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Have you seen photographs of Frank Sinatra's recording sessions? He
>> >> performed "live", in front of the orchestra, in what I assume was a
>> studio
>> >> designed specifically for pleasing-sounding recordings, and without
>> (IIRC)
>> >> a plethora of mics.
>> > Your last paragraph reminds me of something I've been dying to do for

>> > some years now: =A0Experiment with recording techniques that involve

>> > only as many microphones as humans have ears. Seriously! Think
>> > about how we hear andt it'll make sense.
>>

>> You must be very new to recording. Simply-miked stereo recordings have be=

>en
>> around for nearly 60 years.
>>
>> When I made live recordings, I almost always used only two mics. I did,
>> however, make Ambisonic recordings using three mics, and quad recordings
>> using four.
>>

>> The "correct" number of mics has no necessary relationship to the number =

>of
>> ears we have. The issue is whether the recording contains the necessary
>> directional cues, and whether they can be correctly presented during
>> playback.
>______

>So then perhaps the industry should put more effort into those
>techniques instead of quickly resorting to simple 'pan-pot' mono with
>a dozen or more mics and racks of fx. As I recall music is supposed
>to come from a stage - not a small box with blinking lights &
>knobs. ;)

If it could only be that simple. But often it's not. Much depends on the players,
the space, and the music.

In the case of, say, a large symphonic/choral ensemble, you're attempting to
translate all that plus the big recording space into a small playback space at home
-- and not lose something important in the process. (Also, you're trying to make up
for the lost visual element plus the "at the moment" excitement of seeing a large
ensemble live. And, underlying all of that are the substantial short-comings of even
the best microphones and speakers.)

Spots **are tools** that can help you do that translation, making up some
ground for the lost visuals and transducer failings.

But it is a matter of judgement -- you have to know what the music should sound
like and what feelings it should evoke (thus my frequent harping that engineers
need to go to unamplified live music events as often as they can).

Mis-use spots and it's awful; use them properly and no one will identify that you've
used spots. Rather, you've maintained a delightful illusion that a lone stereo pair
rarely can (not saying it can't; but it is rare).

YMMV

[Peter Larsen]

ChrisCoaster wrote:

> So then perhaps the industry should put more effort into those
> techniques instead of quickly resorting to simple 'pan-pot' mono with
> a dozen or more mics and racks of fx. As I recall music is supposed
> to come from a stage - not a small box with blinking lights &
> knobs. ;)

On raw-tracks.com you will find some practice mixes I made with tracks I
purchased there. They are characterized by using real stereo engineering in
the mix process even though I do not state that in the on site notes.

To learn real stereo: get a pair of mics, an R44, a pair of mic cables and a
12 feet manfrotto stand and locate a chamber music society.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[PStamler]

Hee's the problem with doing that in classical music: you're paying
75-100 musicians scale for being there. Under those circumstances time
is money, lots of money, and you don't have the luxury of doing the
experimentation with mic positions that good simply-miked stereo
requires. You have to get something, nail it down, fast, and get those
musicians out of there while you still have some cash left. Multiple
spot mics are the quick'n'dirty way to get something usable fast.

In pop recording, current musical styles mostly demand multi-tracking,
overdubs, etc.. I teach a course which assigns a project using multi-
miking direct-to-two-track. I add, parenthetically, that if they want
to try a hip-hop recording using live musicians and do it direct-to-
two-track they will have my admiration, and a probable A. Only a few
have taken me up on it; hip-hop as a style is based on multi-track
recording.

Peace,
Paul

[polymod]

"PStamler" <psta...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:e7fc85d7-aa1b-497d...@t24g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

Fascinating course to say the least.
I'd love to hear some of the finished products.

Poly

[PStamler]

On Feb 14, 10:27 am, "polymod" <poly...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "PStamler" <pstam...@pobox.com> wrote in message

Not released, alas. There have been some really nice recordings in the
six years I've taught the class, including one dynamite rendition of
"Take the A Train" that matches any I've heard on record. That student
is Going Places.

Peace,
Paul

[Ralph Barone]

Martin Mull, perchance?

[geoff]

ChrisCoaster wrote:

> So then perhaps the industry should put more effort into those
> techniques instead of quickly resorting to simple 'pan-pot' mono with
> a dozen or more mics and racks of fx. As I recall music is supposed
> to come from a stage - not a small box with blinking lights &
> knobs. ;)

Works fine for some forms of music, totally can't for others.


geoff

[geoff]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> ChrisCoaster <ckoz...@snet.net> wrote:
>> The bean counters at the record cos don't care Max. So there's "5dB
>> dynamic range at best"? Squash it to 1dB and pin it to digital VU
>> -.5 dB and re-sell it to the suckers!!!
>
> It's not the bean counters anymore. It is now pretty normal for
> musicians to come into the mastering room and demand everything to be
> louder.


Exactly. If they are 'restrained', they want it to be as loud as X. If
pushy, they want it louder than X.


geoff

[Peter Larsen]

PStamler wrote:

> Hee's the problem with doing that in classical music: you're paying
> 75-100 musicians scale for being there. Under those circumstances time
> is money, lots of money, and you don't have the luxury of doing the
> experimentation with mic positions that good simply-miked stereo
> requires.

I do not understand the point made here, the mic adjustment time for a main
pair is between 0 and 10 minutes, only rarely more. You'll get tired and
confused if you don't get it done in that time.

> You have to get something, nail it down, fast, and get those
> musicians out of there while you still have some cash left. Multiple
> spot mics are the quick'n'dirty way to get something usable fast.

Strictly no, spot mics are generally about being able to change ones mind,
but some of the time necessitated by other setup logistics such as
impractical physical placement of soloists. A simple example: they are
usually needed for an oratorio type reoording with soloists near the
conductor, but you can forego them if you instead place the vox soloists
centered in front of the choir. If the event is a ooncert then you can
expect little or no say in where to put them, you _should_ have some in case
of a recording. Some of the time the soloist wants to be next to the
conductor, and then the spot mic gets essential.

Choir pair or not is also a geographic issue, including whether there is
real estate to put it on.

> In pop recording, current musical styles mostly demand multi-tracking,
> overdubs, etc.. I teach a course which assigns a project using multi-
> miking direct-to-two-track. I add, parenthetically, that if they want
> to try a hip-hop recording using live musicians and do it direct-to-
> two-track they will have my admiration, and a probable A. Only a few
> have taken me up on it; hip-hop as a style is based on multi-track
> recording.

A very different ball game.

> Peace,
> Paul

[Frank Stearns]

"Peter Larsen" <dig...@hotmail.com> writes:

>PStamler wrote:

>> Hee's the problem with doing that in classical music: you're paying
>> 75-100 musicians scale for being there. Under those circumstances time
>> is money, lots of money, and you don't have the luxury of doing the
>> experimentation with mic positions that good simply-miked stereo
>> requires.

>I do not understand the point made here, the mic adjustment time for a main
>pair is between 0 and 10 minutes, only rarely more. You'll get tired and
>confused if you don't get it done in that time.

Typically closer to 0 minutes. (Plus, I really don't want very much fussing around
from my end to distract the group. Do too much of that and they wonder if you know
what the hell you're doing. This might make them "hold back," second guess what
they're doing, et al. I NEVER EVER want to distract their flow. They are the stars,
not me.)

If you do have 10 minutes, often it's the warm-up, and it's likely you're not
getting a "real" performance from them anyway. This can throw off what you think
you're hearing. And, in the field, you'll likely not have optimal monitoring.

More than that, though, in the "herding cats" mind-set that can be taking place
*you* will not be in the correct head-space to make optimal decisions
on-the-spot (no pun).

I like to be at least 2-3 weeks past the tracking session before making any
dialed-in decisions. The many different worries that go through one's mind the day
of tracking are no longer distracting you/fooling you; you can come at it with a
clean sonic palette.

That said, experience will be on your side (both in general and specifically with
the group and room). Many hours of pre-production work is on your side as well,
including getting to at least one rehearsal, perhaps two. Rehearsals for session
work can be slightly less helpful than those for live performances, but they're
still well worth your time.

To this day, with all the gigs I've done (many with the same personnel or the same
group after many similar sessions/events), there hasn't been one time when a
rehearsal has failed to alert me to something that the conductor/players forgot to
tell me, or didn't think was worth mentioning.

On session day I'll be on site several hours early to get EVERYTHING set and tested
based on a plan I drew up, thought about, and ran by the conductor many days
earlier.

Then, even before the group arrives, I'll have preliminary levels set based on
my knowledge of my kit, the room, and what I heard them do dynamically in one of
those rehearsals.

>> You have to get something, nail it down, fast, and get those
>> musicians out of there while you still have some cash left. Multiple
>> spot mics are the quick'n'dirty way to get something usable fast.

>Strictly no, spot mics are generally about being able to change ones mind,
>but some of the time necessitated by other setup logistics such as
>impractical physical placement of soloists. A simple example: they are
>usually needed for an oratorio type reoording with soloists near the
>conductor, but you can forego them if you instead place the vox soloists
>centered in front of the choir. If the event is a ooncert then you can
>expect little or no say in where to put them, you _should_ have some in case
>of a recording. Some of the time the soloist wants to be next to the
>conductor, and then the spot mic gets essential.

Agreed.

Think of it like this. You're directing an epic movie with the climatic scene that
needs to be shot -- the stars will all on set, huge numbers of extras, one-time live
effects, animals etc.

One take is all you get. You're sure as hell not going to plunk down just one
camera. Capture it from many angles, then use good judgement in post as to how to
cut it all together (an homage to the scene, rather than some editor's ability to
make several annoyingly dizzy cuts per second -- but I digress).

>Choir pair or not is also a geographic issue, including whether there is
>real estate to put it on.

And a pair might not be practical if space is tight (you can't get an appropriate
acoustic mix if you're right on top of them). Times like this I'll use 3-4 choir
microphones or, as is the case with some of my groups, two pairs on the main poll: a
50 cm A/B pair somewhat low for the orchestra, with an ORTF using hypercardioides
set up higher to "reach across" the orchestra and give me a fuller choir sound.

[Adrian Tuddenham]

Frank Stearns <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote:

[...]
> To this day, with all the gigs I've done (...), there hasn't been one time

> when a rehearsal has failed to alert me to something that the
>conductor/players forgot to tell me, or didn't think was worth
>mentioning.

Have you got some stories you can tell us?


--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

[Frank Stearns]

adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Adrian Tuddenham) writes:

>Frank Stearns <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote:

>[...]
>> To this day, with all the gigs I've done (...), there hasn't been one time
>> when a rehearsal has failed to alert me to something that the
>>conductor/players forgot to tell me, or didn't think was worth
>>mentioning.

>Have you got some stories you can tell us?

A few... <w>

1. Prelim: we have "some brass" for this concert...

Rehearsal reality: For the Schutz we move out the wind section and put trombones
(pretending to be sackbuts) in the middle. For the Gabrieli we'll have two brass
chiors way out in the far left and right wings. Then for the Bach, 3 trumpets over
by the tymps.

(The twin pairs saved the day, and gave the mix flexibility to cover it. Close
spotting really wasn't needed and that's good, because physically it would have
been close to impossible.)


2. Prelim: It's the usual chorus plus small orchestra, and in one piece we have a
few soloists...

Rehearsal reality: The first number was a singing processional into the hall, then
turned into a ring around the house as they finished the piece. At the applause they
moved up to the choral risers. In another number, four soloists moved off stage to
four points center, house rear, mid-house left and mid-house right. Four spots
required. The "ring of spots" also helped with just a bit of presence on the
"surround singers."

A single stereo pair (even omnis) would have been a disaster in that room on those
tunes. Having not gone to the rehearsal would have been an even bigger disaster.


3. Prelim: it's really a rather simple organ recital

Rehearsal reality: it's a tracker in a loft at the back of the church, and they
didn't allow cables across any place where people could walk, not even with covers
or tape. So the A/B pair went to the prayer rail at the front of the church with
cabling run on the outside wall; about 1/3 of the way back from the organ Gefell
M940s got strapped 12 feet up on opposing pillars left and right, angled in toward
the organ, and the cables flew like telephone wire pillar to pillar back to the
organ loft, then dropped down to my location under the spiral stairs that led to the
loft. Whole thing worked better than it should have.


4. Prelim/rehearsal: it's just four clarinets in the wind section (36 piece wind and
brass ensemble)

Session reality: hope you don't mind; we added a fifth clarinet.

Grr. For the music and the sound needed, it was not optimal to spot that section
with just one mic. Four was a stretch as it was. But, it worked well enough. I did
re-arrange the clarinet section to form a very sharp arc (nearly a semi-circle)
around the spot (Gefell M300).



5. Prelim/rehearsal: it's mostly tablas and flute, but we *might* have a tambura.

Peformance Reality: the tambura player showed up 10 minutes before the concert and
they squeezed him onto the rear of a small stage. While the tonality could be fixed
with EQ and delay (and sounded great), the tambura bleed into the flute was epic,
enough to disallow the producer the editing abilities he wanted.

Flute and tabla isolation was excellent, though (this guy keeps hiring me because
normally I can get darn near studio isolation on stage -- if I know what the hell is
going on and work with the players for best positioning). But not only was the
tambura loud, it was forced into the worst possible location on stage. Sigh.

If the tambura player had shown up for the sound check, we could have restaged and
gotten much better isolation.

As it was, that recording was not usable for what the producer wanted but he
recognized the problem and didn't blame me. We're doing the show again in a few
weeks, but with a chance to check everything!


And so it goes, there's always something. :)

[polymod]

"Frank Stearns" <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote in message
news:mpudnQBRpuv3DaPS...@posted.palinacquisition...

You should publish this stuff.....Priceless!

Poly

[Frank Stearns]

"polymod" <pol...@optonline.net> writes:


>"Frank Stearns" <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote in message
>news:mpudnQBRpuv3DaPS...@posted.palinacquisition...
>> adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Adrian Tuddenham) writes:
>>
>>>Frank Stearns <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote:
>>
>>>[...]
>>>> To this day, with all the gigs I've done (...), there hasn't been one
>>>> time
>>>> when a rehearsal has failed to alert me to something that the
>>>>conductor/players forgot to tell me, or didn't think was worth
>>>>mentioning.
>>
>>>Have you got some stories you can tell us?
>>
>> A few... <w>

snips

>> And so it goes, there's always something. :)

>You should publish this stuff.....Priceless!

Guffaw. Thanks! Maybe I'll do that one day.

[hank alrich]

Frank, what he said! People from the trenches don't put out enough info
about the mud down in the ditch, and your experience is well worth
sharing widely.

[Richard Webb]

On Sat 2012-Feb-18 17:29, hank alrich
<big snip>

>> >You should publish this stuff.....Priceless!
>> Guffaw. Thanks! Maybe I'll do that one day.

> Frank, what he said! People from the trenches don't put out enough
> info about the mud down in the ditch, and your experience is well
> worth sharing widely.

iNdeed, would agree with Hank. I also find that, if i"m
going to be doing the producer's gig, or recording the folks live, attending rehearsals, even with the surprises helps me have an idea what to expect, and adapt to those last minute
gotchas. Even when I was doing the studio I'd attend a
rehearsal if i had the chance. When you mentioend that
earlier in this thread Frank I was ready to chime in then
and state how important it is to me and the way I work.



Regards,
Richard
--
| Remove .my.foot for email
| via Waldo's Place USA Fidonet<->Internet Gateway Site
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

[Peter Larsen]

Frank Stearns wrote:

>> Have you got some stories you can tell us?

> A few... <w>

Same concert at two locations on consecutive days. Went to the first
concert. Made plan. Arrived at the next days concert, in another church.
Ensemble decided to experiment with a new positioning scheme.

> Frank
> Mobile Audio

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Steve King]

"hank alrich" <walk...@nv.net> wrote in message

news:1kfnvyy.hbd2i4evlzpoN%walk...@nv.net...

> Frank Stearns <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote:
>
>> "polymod" <pol...@optonline.net> writes:
>>
>>
>> >"Frank Stearns" <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote in message
>> >news:mpudnQBRpuv3DaPS...@posted.palinacquisition...
>> >> adr...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid (Adrian Tuddenham) writes:
>> >>
>> >>>Frank Stearns <franks.pa...@pacifier.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>[...]
>> >>>> To this day, with all the gigs I've done (...), there hasn't been
>> >>>> one
>> >>>> time
>> >>>> when a rehearsal has failed to alert me to something that the
>> >>>>conductor/players forgot to tell me, or didn't think was worth
>> >>>>mentioning.
>> >>
>> >>>Have you got some stories you can tell us?
>> >>
>> >> A few... <w>
>>
>> snips
>>
>> >> And so it goes, there's always something. :)
>>
>> >You should publish this stuff.....Priceless!
>>
>> Guffaw. Thanks! Maybe I'll do that one day.
>
> Frank, what he said! People from the trenches don't put out enough info
> about the mud down in the ditch, and your experience is well worth
> sharing widely.

What they said. "What You Really Need to Know about Location Recording"

Steve King

[Steve King]

"Richard Webb" <Richard.We...@116-901.ftn.wpusa.dynip.com> wrote in
message news:4b4_2012...@ftn.wpusa.dynip.com...

> On Sat 2012-Feb-18 17:29, hank alrich
> <big snip>
>>> >You should publish this stuff.....Priceless!
>>> Guffaw. Thanks! Maybe I'll do that one day.
>
>> Frank, what he said! People from the trenches don't put out enough
>> info about the mud down in the ditch, and your experience is well
>> worth sharing widely.
>
> iNdeed, would agree with Hank. I also find that, if i"m
> going to be doing the producer's gig, or recording the folks live,
> attending rehearsals, even with the surprises helps me have an idea what
> to expect, and adapt to those last minute
> gotchas. Even when I was doing the studio I'd attend a
> rehearsal if i had the chance. When you mentioend that
> earlier in this thread Frank I was ready to chime in then
> and state how important it is to me and the way I work.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> Richard

When I was a studio engineer, I tried to go see every band I was about to
record live; I'm talking R&R, Blues, Jazz here. If you haven't seen a
performer or group when they are really connected to their audience, then
you can't know if what your getting in the studio is the best they can do.
I know that's normally a producer's job, but with groups new to recording
the engineer usually had to also play the producer's role.

Steve King

[Scott Dorsey]

Steve King <steveSP...@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote:
>
>What they said. "What You Really Need to Know about Location Recording"

65VAC between the grounds of two different outlets at the 9:30 Club.

[Frank Stearns]

Steve is absolutely right.

But even if there is a producer, by catching the "live vibe" at a show you, as
engineer, can get a sense of a "musical arc" about the group -- how they perform,
how they relate, what they communicate -- even their "out of frame" personal and
group histories that influences who they are and what they do. (It's always good to
chat up the band a bit too, hopefully inspiring confidence and not unease! -- but
also quietly getting more background on their music and playing, perhaps even
getting some initial clues about their instruments/voices.)

It's conceivable the producer might miss some of that during the session; you can
gently back-stop that "loss" and try to make sure it's all being captured.

While I'm busy with my stuff, when needed I'll try to toss out a single word or
phrase that will remind or help the producer with something. (I know we all often
must produce and engineer at the same time; and that can be fun. But these days,
looking back, for anything but the simplest sessions I'm not so sure that's the best
way to go, even when it seems to have worked... YMMV)

Ya gotta be careful, though. Some producers start deferring to you, and that defeats
their purpose and distracts you. Or, they can start to wobble a bit if there's a
stronger personality out on the floor.

At this moment, in fact, I'm taking a break from editing an orchestral project where
the conductor got out in front -- he started producing from the podium. It sort of
works, though because at times there was not optimal production guidance from a
single authority -- the actual producer -- some of these edits are going to be
crazy, and it'll be interesting to get a final mix. (So far, the music is holding
up.)

But it's not ideal because while producing from the podium it felt as if conducting
duties might have been short-changed; and while the producer deferred to me or the
conductor, HIS job was perhaps short-changed -- things like watching tempos,
intonation, togetherness, etc.

This was a complex series of sessions with new clients; I wanted to make sure the
tech end was squeaky clean. Also, I did not want to overly and suddenly change the
session flow that had been established, quirky as it was good work was getting done.

But there will be some moments pulling digital rabbits out of hats (already had to
do this with some tempo mis-matches -- too many artifacts with PT's time stretcher
for this type of music, so tempos of some inserts were corrected manually: break
just in front of a beat transient, slip 10 or 20 ms, back-expand pre-transient of
the slid chunk and cross fade. Lather, repeat. Tedious, but at least it sounds
natural, believe it or not. (That's the solution if the insert was too fast; if too
slow you tighten chunks in a similar fashion.)

But I digress.

Thanks to Hank and Richard and others for their suggestions to recount more.

Actually, there are a few things along these lines in the works. I've been turning
down a fair amount of work lately in favor of doing some more teaching and writing.
It's a ways out, but coming. Thanks for the comments.

[Richard Webb]

On Sun 2012-Feb-19 11:52, Steve King writes:
>> Indeed, would agree with Hank. I also find that, if i"m

>> going to be doing the producer's gig, or recording the folks live,
>> attending rehearsals, even with the surprises helps me have an idea what
>> to expect, and adapt to those last minute
>> gotchas. Even when I was doing the studio I'd attend a
>> rehearsal if i had the chance. When you mentioend that
>> earlier in this thread Frank I was ready to chime in then
>> and state how important it is to me and the way I work.

> When I was a studio engineer, I tried to go see every band I was
> about to record live; I'm talking R&R, Blues, Jazz here. If you
> haven't seen a performer or group when they are really connected to
> their audience, then you can't know if what your getting in the
> studio is the best they can do. I know that's normally a producer's
> job, but with groups new to recording the engineer usually had to
> also play the producer's role.

Would agree with that as well. I used to try to attend a
gig even if I didn't do a rehearsal, especially with folks I knew weren't old hands at the studio, with no producer,
which is often the case with these folks. It's given me
some very useful info over the years that helps me plan
things to flow a bit smoother, even if doing the studio and
not live on location.

I remember one group, I've told some stories on these guys
in this ng before, we did their foundation tracks at a
warehouse downtown Burlington, Iowa. First time I heard
them was at one of these outdoor party/festival things, and
it was fairly drunk out for those guys that night. When I
was approached to record them I was dreading it, but wanting a chance to get a bit more familiar with my new digital
recording gear. So, I went to a gig they played at a local
club. They were actually sober and lucid that evening, so I got a much better idea what they were about.

I also had a chance that evening to sit down and talk with
them, to find out if they'd ever done the studio anywhere
before and waht they were happy with, and more important,
what they weren't. I was able to tell them to give me
examples of sounds they liked and wanted to reflect in their recording, especially drum sounds.

IT seemed one of the things they were most unhappy with, as
I expected when I found out they'd recorded before was drum
sounds. Everybody else that had recorded them either used
triggered electronic drums or close mic techniques, whereas
their drummer was more into the JOhn Bonham thing.

I'm setting up for the session at the warehouse, and teh
drummer's almost incredulous when he sees that I've got a
stereo pair of sd condensers, sm-81 iirc overhead, and a mic on the snare and one on the kick. HE's wondering where the
close mics are. We also had him in a big room and created a microclimate around him with large rolls of canvas.


A fun sesion, wish I'd done the final mixes for 'em, I'd be
more than happy to show them off to people, but I didn't,
and whoever did them screwed the pooch.

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey <klu...@panix.com> wrote:

> Steve King <steveSP...@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote:
> >
> >What they said. "What You Really Need to Know about Location Recording"
>
> 65VAC between the grounds of two different outlets at the 9:30 Club.
> --scott

Why, that's just shocking!