OT: Exceeding Rock Sound Quality - Dave Brubeck Quartet - Take Five - 1961
Uni
easily top anything, even Pink Floyd's sound quality, 12 years in
advance!! No cash register gimmicks needed here! Rock/Pop music was
plagued with overdubbing, subtracting from sound quality! Distortion.
Yuck! But, who cared, only kids and teens were to enjoy it! Anyway, hit
it, Dave!... Whoops, got to wait for Joe's drum solo to finish!...
<--- 360· SOUND 360· SOUND --->
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abpsp/images/takefive.mp3
Ah, like ear candy! Take some bows guys!
RIP Great Sound Quality!
Uni :-)
Uni
TRUE or FALSE?...
This song initially had no title. However, after the recording engineer
mentioned "Take 5 went well", after 4 previous recorded Takes, the title
was adopted.
Uni
Taliesyn
@no.email.invalid:
> Uni wrote:
>> Put decent, experienced, recording engineers in charge, and they can
>> easily top anything.... This song initially had no title. However, after
>> the recording engineer mentioned "Take 5 went well", after 4 previous
>> recorded Takes...
Brubeck????
What? They messed up 4 previous takes? What happened to all those
decent, experienced engineers that were supposedly in charge???
-Taliesyn
Andreas
> Uni wrote:
>
> TRUE or FALSE?...
>
> This song initially had no title. However, after the recording engineer
> mentioned "Take 5 went well", after 4 previous recorded Takes, the title
> was adopted.
>
Of course, the name was taken from the fact that that song was written in
the (unusual) 5/4 time.
Another fine example of the 5/4 time is Jethro Tull's "Living in the Past".
Know of any other popular songs in 5/4 ?
Andreas
Uni
>>Uni wrote:
>>
>>TRUE or FALSE?...
>>
>>This song initially had no title. However, after the recording engineer
>>mentioned "Take 5 went well", after 4 previous recorded Takes, the title
>>was adopted.
>>
>
> LOL
Worked for me! :-)
>
> Of course, the name was taken from the fact that that song was written in
> the (unusual) 5/4 time.
>
> Another fine example of the 5/4 time is Jethro Tull's "Living in the Past".
>
> Know of any other popular songs in 5/4 ?
5/4 equates to 1-1/4 or 1.25
That is all I know :-)
Thanks, A'!
Uni
>
> Andreas
>
>
Uni
Ever notice record companies or recording artists aren't willing to tell
you how many Takes to record a "hit" song? Only many years later do you
discover it. Well, maybe not you, but me!!!
Uni
>
> -Taliesyn
>
Mr. Doubleshots
> Taliesyn wrote:
> > Uni <no.em...@no.email.invalid> wrote in news:498610EB.5070602
The Illusion
"Alright, stand by. This is take, uh, five, 'Did You See Her Eyes'."
Nailed it!
Vince
Phil Brown
> RIP Great Sound Quality!
>
> Uni :-)
Who cares? I'll take great performance over great sound quality any
day. I'd like both but I know that people buy performance, not sound
quality.
And overdubbing isn't the devil, it's just another way to do things.
Phil Brown
Lumpy
> ... I know that people buy performance, not sound
> quality.
Nonsense.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Something Years
www.LumpyMusic.com
Michael Black
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 10:14:27 -0700, "Lumpy"
> <lu...@digitalcartography.com> wrote:
>
>> Phil Brown wrote:
>>> ... I know that people buy performance, not sound
>>> quality.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>>
>
>
> what? You are saying for a fact that not one single person anywhere
> will purchase and album or a recording where the performance is
> terrific but the sound quality is not as great as the latest 20
> billion dollar mutt lange production?
>
I thought it was sarcasm, since there is someone here who apparently
would take any bubble gum artist over good music any day, so long
as the former had High Recording Quality.
I haven't a clue if "Take Five" is good quality recording or not.
I do know it's a unique piece of music, worth listening to.
I'd listen to Bessie Smith with a noisy recording and maybe fluctuating
speed long before I'd listen to The Archies.
Michael
Lumpy
> > > > ... I know that people buy performance, not sound
> > > > quality.
Lumpy:
> > > Nonsense.
Eddie:
> > what? You are saying for a fact that not one single person anywhere
> > will purchase and album or a recording where the performance is
> > terrific but the sound quality is not as great as the latest 20
> > billion dollar mutt lange production?
Michael Black:
> I thought it was sarcasm, since there is someone here who apparently
> would take any bubble gum artist over good music any day, so long
> as the former had High Recording Quality.
>
> I haven't a clue if "Take Five" is good quality recording or not.
> I do know it's a unique piece of music, worth listening to.
>
> I'd listen to Bessie Smith with a noisy recording and maybe
> fluctuating speed long before I'd listen to The Archies.
No, it wasn't sarc. But consider the orig statement,
and then compare apples to oranges.
"I know that people buy performance, not sound quality"
To which I say, "nonsense". People WANT their recordings
to sound good. Well engineered and recorded recordings
surely outsell marginally recorded live stuff.
I'm not suggesting Engineered Yoko is a bigger seller
than live recorded Moody Blues. That's rotten apples
and tree ripened oranges.
I may have misinterpreted Phil's orig comment. I took
it to mean people would rather have a recording of a
live "performance" rather than a well engineered version.
Uni
> Phil Brown wrote:
>
>>... I know that people buy performance, not sound
>>quality.
>
>
> Nonsense.
Thank you!!!!!
Uni
Uni
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, Eddie wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009 10:14:27 -0700, "Lumpy"
>> <lu...@digitalcartography.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Phil Brown wrote:
>>>
>>>> ... I know that people buy performance, not sound
>>>> quality.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> what? You are saying for a fact that not one single person anywhere
>> will purchase and album or a recording where the performance is
>> terrific but the sound quality is not as great as the latest 20
>> billion dollar mutt lange production?
>>
> I thought it was sarcasm, since there is someone here who apparently
> would take any bubble gum artist over good music any day, so long
> as the former had High Recording Quality.
>
> I haven't a clue if "Take Five" is good quality recording or not.
Blows away anything Chicago and Blood Sweat & Tears recorded for CBS!!!
Uni
Uni
> On Jan 31, 8:18 pm, Uni <no.em...@no.email.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>RIP Great Sound Quality!
>>
>>Uni :-)
>
>
> Who cares?
A young friend once said "Shame they didn't have digital recording back
then"; "then", being the '60's! Since he had no connected memories of
the songs, that people cherish, f' the "performance", he could admit
they sounded BAD!
Uni
Uni
> studio. The vast majority of stuff is layered, one track at a time.
> there is no "take".
NOT The Sweet Home Alabama guys! Person in charge of their recordings
was dead against it! Overdubbing adds more and more tape noise AKA
distortion!
Uni
Uni
> Phil Brown wrote:
>
>>... I know that people buy performance, not sound
>>quality.
>
>
> Nonsense.
Yeah, and that's why Phil admitted he frequently gets his hearing checked!
Uni
Uni
> overdubbing at all.
>
> You're completely wrong in every conceivable way.
>
> Overdubbing is often done on an ADDITIONAL track and therefore theres
> no loss of quality, not that a normal set of human ears can detect.
> Punch-ins are usually done on the same track but its only for brief
> passages.
Bull! I hear tape hiss pop out of nowhere, because of overdubbing!!!
Uni
>
>
Phil Brown
43 years I think I'm entitled to an informed opinion on the importance
of technical perfection versus performance. I take performance any
day. Music is the most vital form of emotional communication ever
devised by man. It bypasses the fore brain and goes right to the
reptile part in the middle to deliver its message. The reptile part
could care less about the technical part. It only cares about the
emotion.
I'd like both but if the best performance has a technical flaw and the
artist wants to use it more power to them.
Phil Brown
Phil Brown
> Bull! I hear tape hiss pop out of nowhere, because of overdubbing!!!
>
> Uni
>
>
How do you know? Perhaps it's a mic that was turned on with a noisy
preamp? Noisy amp? Lots of reasons that exclude overdubbing.
Phil Brown
Phil Brown
The easy way to settle this is to ask Dave. He has a website.
Phil Brown
Uni
> On Wed, 04 Feb 2009 02:38:08 GMT, Uni <no.e...@no.email.invalid>
>
> Overdubbing does not neccessarily create noise
OOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooh. First you claimed it didn't, but now you throw in
"does not necessarily create noise"! What, you had a chance to think some?
And don't knock Goldwave. I'd blow your remastering away with even a
Tonka Toy audio editor! :-)
Uni
or hiss in and of
> itself.
>
> you've never overdubbed a thing in your life on a real console using
> real 2 inch analog tape. I bet you've never even been within 50 feet
> of one.
>
>
Lumpy
> And don't knock Goldwave. I'd blow
> your remastering away with even a
> Tonka Toy audio editor! :-)
Ok prove it. Remaster the Yoko/Dylan duet version
of "Feelings" and make their voices sound good.
Taliesyn
news:498A461D...@no.email.invalid:
>
Uni finally divulges what he's been using to make those awful fake stereo
snippets recently:
> A Tonka Toy audio editor!
Must have been freeware. . .
-Taliesyn
Uni
Because I have been involved with electronics, since childhood, and know
the difference.
Uni
> Phil Brown
Uni
Maybe that would be easier for you to use to make a simple "Summertime"
edit :-)
Move along, Tali, you fail to amaze me :-)
Uni
>
> -Taliesyn
>
Uni
> Uni wrote:
>
>>And don't knock Goldwave. I'd blow
>>your remastering away with even a
>>Tonka Toy audio editor! :-)
>
>
> Ok prove it. Remaster the Yoko/Dylan duet version
> of "Feelings" and make their voices sound good.
Don't think my ears could take it! :-)
Mr. Lumpy, I applaud you for your fine sounding CDs. Thank you.
Uni
Lumpy
> Mr. Lumpy, I applaud you for your fine sounding CDs. Thank you.
Thank you. I used the Dylanizer plug in on the
bagpipe tracks to get that true nasal quality.
Lumpy
Oooh!
http://digitalcartography.com/jazz/
Taliesyn
@no.email.invalid:
> Because I have been involved with electronics, since childhood, and know
> the difference.
>
Sticking your little, snotty childhood fingers in the electrical outlet
DOES not constitute, by even the most liberal interpretations, as
"electronic" experience - unless your nose lit up in the process. In that
case we'll let it slide.
-Taliesyn
Lumpy
> I've got goldwave. For small quick little procedures that dont require
> any serious editing, like converting a wave to mp3, its fine.
>
> For serious sound editing? Nope. ProTools or SONAR or Cubase.
Yeah. Where would George Martin or any of the
guys in Hollywood in the 60s-70s have been if
they didn't have ProTools.
Lumpy
> > > I've got goldwave. For small quick little procedures that dont
> > > require any serious editing, like converting a wave to mp3, its
> > > fine.
> > >
> > > For serious sound editing? Nope. ProTools or SONAR or Cubase.
Lump:
> > Yeah. Where would George Martin or any of the
> > guys in Hollywood in the 60s-70s have been if
> > they didn't have ProTools.
Eddie:
> If he was mixing/recording today, he might use ProTools at some point.
>
> He sure as hell wouldnt use Goldwave.
What color socks would he be wearing?
jughead
> A young friend once said "Shame they didn't have digital recording back
> then"; "then", being the '60's! Since he had no connected memories of
> the songs, that people cherish, f' the "performance", he could admit
> they sounded BAD!
>
All he was likely admitting is that he's used to how things sound
today.
Uni
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 08:17:22 -0700, "Lumpy"
> <lu...@digitalcartography.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Eddie wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I've got goldwave. For small quick little procedures that dont require
>>>any serious editing, like converting a wave to mp3, its fine.
>>>
>>>For serious sound editing? Nope. ProTools or SONAR or Cubase.
>>
>>Yeah. Where would George Martin or any of the
>>guys in Hollywood in the 60s-70s have been if
>>they didn't have ProTools.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
> He sure as hell wouldnt use Goldwave.
True. I'd use Audacity!!!!!! :-)
Uni
>
>
>
>
>
>
Uni
> On Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:39:30 GMT, Uni <no.e...@no.email.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Overdubbing does not neccessarily create noise
>>
>>OOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooh. First you claimed it didn't, but now you throw in
>>"does not necessarily create noise"! What, you had a chance to think some?
>
>
>
> unless the source itself is bad, just like any other recorded track.
>
> And you're mucking around with freeware program, and acting like
> experience with it gives you expertise in actual multi-track
> recording, which you have NEVER DONE.
Never heard any of your WORK, Mr. Ed!!!!!
Not shy to let you hear mine!!!!! :-)
>
> I've got goldwave. For small quick little procedures that dont require
> any serious editing, like converting a wave to mp3, its fine.
>
> For serious sound editing? Nope. ProTools or SONAR or Cubase.
Pro tools in un-pro hands is worse than un-pro tools in pro hands :-)
Uni
>
>
Uni
> Uni <no.e...@no.email.invalid> wrote in news:498A7348.9050805
> @no.email.invalid:
>
>
>>Because I have been involved with electronics, since childhood, and know
>>the difference.
>>
>
>
>
> Sticking your little, snotty childhood fingers in the electrical outlet
> DOES not constitute, by even the most liberal interpretations, as
> "electronic" experience - unless your nose lit up in the process.
LOL! Not bad! :-)
Jealous SOB! :-)
Uni
Lumpy
> ...I'll try real hard to stop taking your idiotic
> theories as bait anymore.
I doubt you will.
It's quite simple to do so.
But I doubt you will.
Uni
> Eddie wrote:
>
>>...I'll try real hard to stop taking your idiotic
>>theories as bait anymore.
>
>
> I doubt you will.
>
> It's quite simple to do so.
> But I doubt you will.
Mr. Lumpy,
You can tell Eddie Haskell that an independent record company want a
file I personally mixed to stereo, on my site!
Leave that to Beaver! :-)
Uni
WilliamWMeyer
> Lumpy wrote:
> ...I'll try real hard to think of music I like
> rather than music I don't.
Uni
No direct access to Dave. Most fan or "official" sites are constructed
by producers, and/or the artists themselves, to promote music, not ask
questions.
Uni
> Phil Brown
Uni
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:03:33 GMT, Uni <no.e...@no.email.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Never heard any of your WORK, Mr. Ed!!!!!
>
>
>
>
>
> that "lynyrd skynyrd" guy, Rodney Mills, mastered that.
>
>
>
>>Not shy to let you hear mine!!!!! :-)
>
>
>
>
> Big deal.
>
> Uni, you're like some 12 year old kid with a Tonka Toy, proclaiming
> that all firetrucks turn left when they roll downhill and you know
> that because yours does, even tho you've never ridden on a real
> firetruck.
>
> Give it up... and I'll try real hard to stop taking your idiotic
> theories as bait anymore.
Okay. Maybe, someday, when I have a half minute, you can tell me all you
know about recording and mixing music, pro guy :-)
Uni
>
> Happy Friday everybody
>
>
>
Andreas
"Uni" wrote:
> Mr. Lumpy,
>
> You can tell Eddie Haskell that an independent record company want a file
> I personally mixed to stereo, on my site!
>
Andreas
Taliesyn
@no.email.invalid:
>
> ... an independent record company want a file I personally mixed to
> stereo, on my site!
Dream on...
I've heard your "stereo mixes", they were all unlistenable.
No "real" record company (as opposed to your invented one) would have
anything to do with an unknown file tinkered on by an anonymous, amateur on
the Internet. And if they really thought fake digital stereo effect might
be of interest to 2 people, they would first get the rights to the original
tapes and then find a real professional who didn't use freeware "Tonka
Toy" Editing software".
-Taliesyn
Uni
Hahahaha! No :-)
Uni
>
> Andreas
>
>
Uni
I am amazed how fast, especially, the UK record companies, come and go!
Anyway, stay tuned for a cut from a Radio Shack CD! Oddly, made in
Holland! :-)
Uni
>
> -Taliesyn