smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Michael Bennett" <mrhonorama@hotmail.com> |
| Subject | Re: Pro Tools (for dumb fools) |
| Date | Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:13:29 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain (3.1 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
To some degree, what Billy is writing about is somewhat like talking about
special effects in movies. Nowadays, with digital effects, seemingly
anything is possible visually. Yet, this isn't necessarily a positive, as a
lack of technical limitations is sometimes the greatest limitation of all.
In addition to Ryan's well-informed comments, I'd speculate (i.e., Mike's
not well-informed comments) that some of uniqueness that Billy pines for was
due to the inherent limitations that every studio had and every engineer and
producer faced. Imagine if George Martin had the benefit of digital
technology at his disposal when he was producing The Beatles. Instead of
bizarre effects and pans and bounces and what nots, would it have been
samples and digital edits?
All these modern advances are still tools and at the mercy of who wields
them. Thus, in the right hands, there are probably some amazing sounds on
the horizon, that no one could have fathomed even 20 years ago. However, I
definitely think there is something to be said about having obstacles -- the
more of a challenge, the greater the possible response often.
Still, if the price of a little less distinctiveness is that more small acts
can make representative recordings, I don't think that's too bad of a trade
off. I remember back in my college radio days in the '80s the countless
number of poor recordings, drenched in so much murk you could never glean if
the artist had talent. That doesn't happen too much anymore.
I think that as producers and engineers and artists get a better idea of
what is best with all of these doo dads there may be more distinctiveness --
but it may never get back to '60s levels.
Mike Bennett
Record reviews and more at http://fufkin.com
>From: "Billy G. Spradlin" <bgspradlin@cablelynx.com>
>
>At 08:00 PM 10/15/03 -0400, you wrote:
>
>I agree somewhat - I think thats why 50's and 60's rock recordings sound
>more
>exicitng to my ears because they were recording everything at one take, on
>primative recording equipment with mic leakage between instruments at full
>blast. But even when United/Western and Abbey Road updated to 24 track
>equipment they kept most of thier unique sound quality.
>
>Why cant a home studio have its own unique sound like Gold Star, or even
>Drive-In or Reflection in the 1980's did? The people who built those
>studios
>were trying to create thier own recognizable sound. Why does everything
>have to
>sound like another hit recording?
>
>Again my apolgies to everyone who uses these programs to make thier
>recordings.
>The indie Power Pop revolution of the 1990's wouldnt have happened without
>low
>priced digital recording equipment and home computers. But try to discover
>and
>create your own original sound like Les, Phil, Brian, George, Curt, Joe,
>Roy
>Thomas did instead of trying to mix and EQ everything to sound like the
>stuff
>on the radio.
>
>Billy
_________________________________________________________________
Want to check if your PC is virus-infected? Get a FREE computer virus scan
online from McAfee.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.