From: owner-precious-things-digest@smoe.org (precious-things-digest) To: precious-things-digest@smoe.org Subject: precious-things-digest V10 #200 Reply-To: precious-things@smoe.org Sender: owner-precious-things-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-precious-things-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "precious-things-digest-request@smoe.org" X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body. precious-things-digest Friday, November 11 2005 Volume 10 : Number 200 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: first four bootlegs [Cyndi S Crawford ] Re: first four bootlegs [handal@r2d2.reverse.net (Richard Handal)] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 17:02:33 -0500 From: Cyndi S Crawford Subject: Re: first four bootlegs I haven't gotten my hands on any of the bootlegs because to be perfectly honest, I, still being quite a novice at the going-to-Tori-concerts thing, have to limit myself to Atlanta and Birmingham shows. (blame it on lack of money. yeah, that bad.) Tori hasn't released any bootlegs of the shows that I did attend (at least yet, I'm hoping), so I haven't gotten any because I wasn't there. probably seems dumb, I know, but that's generally the way I work as far as boots are concerned. so if she releases any Atlanta boots (preferably from the first leg--I couldn't make it to the second leg.. *cries and wails loudly*), I'm definitely going to snap 'em up. oh yes. but regarding her releasing bootlegs at all in the first place.. sometime last year, when I was talking to my mom about audience bootlegs, she said "why doesn't Tori just record all of her concerts and release 'em to her fans? she'll make more money that way and her fans won't have to sneak equipment into her concerts anymore." so the fact that she's doing this at all excites me, even if I haven't bought any of them. ...yet. Sincerely, Cyndi S. Crawford "I know we're dying / and there's no sign of a parachute / we scream in cathedrals / why can't it be beautiful / why does there gotta be a sacrifice?" -- Tori Amos ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 20:26:25 -0500 (EST) From: handal@r2d2.reverse.net (Richard Handal) Subject: Re: first four bootlegs Spaketh Brian: > The balance is distinctly different than the way it reaches one's ears > in the audience at a show, but it feels surprisingly good on these > recordings. (I sense Richard's about to disagree!) I'm in no position to comment on the sound of these recordings because, as I say, I've heard exactly zero moments of them. And I will note that I *tried* to play a sample on the official site, but encountered a technological moat which prevented me from doing so. I believe it was the Mac thing which I didn't understand, but this was some months back and I don't recall; I just decided not to buy any of the damn things unless and until I heard some of them, and that hasn't happened yet. Whatever. I'll get around to it. > I feared the official boots would be too sterile. But that fear proved > unfounded as well. I'm heartened to hear you say this, Brian. > Tangentially: Don't all professional live recordings involve a mix of > both the soundboard *and* strategically placed mics? Not by law, but one hopes they do that in practice, yeah. Mark had microphones placed in the house this year at the four shows I attended. I just saw three Charlotte Martin shows last week and they're recording many of the shows, and her engineer told me that he's using the microphone that I saw toward the back to the house and four direct inputs. I have no idea whether any of these recordings are likely to see light of day, or if they'll probably just sit on them as Tori used to do with the live stuff Mark recorded. Of course, Mark always used to record on R-DAT, so all the 1996 DDI shows he recorded are probably due to turn to iron oxide soon if they haven't already been transfered to another format. (Hey, I talked to him about this until I was blue in the face in 1996, and gave him articles from pro audio journals to back me up.) > And, in that case, do all sterility problems come down to the mix? Wow. A deep question. I'd say that would depend mainly on one's taste in terms of what one considered sterile. To me, I'm easily offended by unmatched sonic images. Film sound for me quite often makes a film unwatchable, especially the ones made over the past couple of decades. When I see the person on the screen walking down the street thirty feet away from the camera (the camera being a surrogate for the perspective of the viewer) and then the sound for the shoes walking was recorded in a Foley studio from two feet away, my brain screams loudly to me that there's something wrong, and that's a big distraction. Now, with clever addition of reverb and delay the sound of the shoes walking can be made to sound much less as if they were recorded from such close range, but they're never gonna sound as they would had they been recorded live with the film being shot. (Recording them live while filming invokes other audio troubles, though.) So to *my* ears, the direct input signals are likely to have the problem of not matching the sonic image of the microphone in the audience even if there's a lot of the sound from the audience microphone(s) mixed in, and it will probably sound at least a little bit off to me. Whether or not you or anyone else would find the result to be sterile is a matter of personal taste more than anything else, I think. This could fast turn into a monograph, but I'll retreat now rather than charge. Be seeing you, Richard Handal, H.G. ------------------------------ End of precious-things-digest V10 #200 **************************************