| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Anaon 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 01 2005
Location: Kobaļa
Status: Offline
Points: 849
|
 Posted: December 09 2012 at 05:59 |
I'm really not sure about studio time today... I think it's still very expensive and if producers can save some time, they do it. It's different for bands who own their own studios though.
This discussion reminds me of what Mike Oldfield is saying concerning his upcoming new album : "I'm fed up with all these computers and samplers, the next album's going to be hard rock, lots of guitars, real drums, real vocals, Hammond organs."
|
|
|
 |
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 09 2012 at 06:16 |
 Anaon wrote:
I'm really not sure about studio time today... I think it's still very expensive and if producers can save some time, they do it. It's different for bands who own their own studios though.
This discussion reminds me of what Mike Oldfield is saying concerning his upcoming new album :
"I'm fed up with all these computers and samplers, the next album's going to be hard rock, lots of guitars, real drums, real vocals, Hammond organs."
|
I have to ask which artists and producers are you referring to? We are not a mainstream genre and so have lots of artists who are producing their own albums using a combination of hired studios and their own smaller "home" studios - modern technology allows them that luxury and freedom. The time element is not as restricting as it was back in the day and hired studios are more affordable than they were.
Oldfield is an interesting one because he has always used a "do it yourself" approach, whether that was "borrowing" spare time at The Manor or using his own studio. Certainly I find the pristine recording of Tubular Bells 2003 to be less satisfying than the undeniably flawed original, and I will always prefer the live version from 1973.
|
|
What?
|
|
Anaon
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 01 2005
Location: Kobaļa
Status: Offline
Points: 849
|
Posted: December 09 2012 at 07:25 |
Dean wrote:
Anaon wrote:
I'm really not sure about studio time today... I think it's still very expensive and if producers can save some time, they do it. It's different for bands who own their own studios though.
This discussion reminds me of what Mike Oldfield is saying concerning his upcoming new album :
"I'm fed up with all these computers and samplers, the next album's going to be hard rock, lots of guitars, real drums, real vocals, Hammond organs."
|
I have to ask which artists and producers are you referring to? We are not a mainstream genre and so have lots of artists who are producing their own albums using a combination of hired studios and their own smaller "home" studios - modern technology allows them that luxury and freedom. The time element is not as restricting as it was back in the day and hired studios are more affordable than they were.
Oldfield is an interesting one because he has always used a "do it yourself" approach, whether that was "borrowing" spare time at The Manor or using his own studio. Certainly I find the pristine recording of Tubular Bells 2003 to be less satisfying than the undeniably flawed original, and I will always prefer the live version from 1973. |
Well, as a home studio owner myself, I know what you mean. I can't really give you any real examples as you guess, I'd love to know how modern bands work today in recording studio. It's interesting to see that Steven Wilson records live in the studio his upcoming album, it's a new approach for him it seems and will certainly adds something to the overall sound.
|
|
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
Posted: December 09 2012 at 07:41 |
For sure generalizing is dangerous and unfair, there are a lot of modern albums which sound great and I have no doubt that they didn't get much if any tweaking, but there are some which certainly feel cold and clinical, and that was not possible in the 70's simply because the technology was not there, they might sound bad but not cold and clinical in the same sense.
Modern one-man projects are likely candidates for this since they are developed in a computer DAW (something which Oldfield's original Tubular Bells didn't suffer of). Without much thinking, I could name Birds And Buildings Bantam To Behemoth, some Phideaux or some Magellan as clinical-sounding for my taste.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 09 2012 at 07:42 |
Anaon wrote:
Well, as a home studio owner myself, I know what you mean. I can't really give you any real examples as you guess, I'd love to know how modern bands work today in recording studio. It's interesting to see that Steven Wilson records live in the studio his upcoming album, it's a new approach for him it seems and will certainly adds something to the overall sound. |
That's a point I've been emphasising for some time, it's not the technology but how you use it that is important. All the old methods are still applicable and are still in use - these techniques are not being re-learnt or rediscovered, modern studio engineers know how to mic-up a drum kit and they know how to record live in the studio, just as bands know how to play live. As far as I know Wilson has only mentioned one track off the album being recorded in that way because of how that particular track works so well when played live, but as you say, it will be interesting to see/hear what he produces. However, it is just a recording technique and few Prog albums were ever recorded like that even in the heyday. There are huge differences between recording a track live in the studio, recording live instruments individually in a studio and using "computers and samples" in a studio.
|
|
What?
|
|
Anaon
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 01 2005
Location: Kobaļa
Status: Offline
Points: 849
|
Posted: December 09 2012 at 08:09 |
I thought they recorded every tracks like that, so maybe it's just "Luminol" as they already played it live... ?
| few Prog albums were ever recorded like that even in the heyday. |
I think most of them were recorded live actually with added overdubs here and there. Or at least, the main instruments were recorded "on the fly", and they kept the best take even if it was not perfect. It's really a detail but for example, it's really rare to hear drum stick noises on recording today. It happens quite often on classic albums but they would never record the take again at that time if it was the good take and I love that!
Anyway, it's just to say that in my opinion, analog sound is more about a natural sound played live by musicians in a room (together or not).
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 09 2012 at 08:12 |
Gerinski wrote:
For sure generalizing is dangerous and unfair, there are a lot of modern albums which sound great and I have no doubt that they didn't get much if any tweaking, but there are some which certainly feel cold and clinical, and that was not possible in the 70's simply because the technology was not there, they might sound bad but not cold and clinical in the same sense.
Modern one-man projects are likely candidates for this since they are developed in a computer DAW (something which Oldfield's original Tubular Bells didn't suffer of). Without much thinking, I could name Birds And Buildings Bantam To Behemoth, some Phideaux or some Magellan as clinical-sounding for my taste. |
Perhaps that's just a problem with subjectiveness - I don't see Phideaux as being cold and clinical - I don't like what I've heard because it doesn't move me at all even though it has all the right ingredients and ticks all the appropriate boxes so should blow me away, it simply fails to connect with me on any emotional level - I just don't like the music but I don't get any sense of cold or clinical from it. I could cite Sylvan for the same reasons. However, none of those you mentioned are one-man DAW projects, (the number of those who we would consider are too few to warrant mention).
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 09 2012 at 08:42 |
Anaon wrote:
I thought they recorded every tracks like that, so maybe it's just "Luminol" as they already played it live... ?
| few Prog albums were ever recorded like that even in the heyday. |
I think most of them were recorded live actually with added overdubs here and there. Or at least, the main instruments were recorded "on the fly", and they kept the best take even if it was not perfect. It's really a detail but for example, it's really rare to hear drum stick noises on recording today. It happens quite often on classic albums but they would never record the take again at that time if it was the good take and I love that! |
I'm fairly confident that was not the case that most prog albums were recorded live with a few overdubs, from archive footage of bands in the studio, and all those retrospective Classic Albums documentaries on Sky Arts, it is evident that each instrument track was recorded individually. Stick noise, fret/string noise and breath/breathing noise are merely a matter of studio preference and technique, it is not an indication of how the track was recorded - modern recordings can have all those extraneous noises and some of them do, when miking-up an acoustic guitar I make a point of putting a mic near the fingerboard (12th fret works nicely) specifically to capture some of that.
Anaon wrote:
Anyway, it's just to say that in my opinion, analog sound is more about a natural sound played live by musicians in a room (together or not). |
Then that is an opinion I do not share. I don't think that is what an analog sound is at all. I think the two things are seperate - a natural sound is a natural sound and musicians playing live in a room is the sound of musicians playing live in a room. The recording technology and medium is not the definining characteristic of that sound nor should it be - the art of capturing a natural sounding recording is understanding the instrument you are trying to record, this cannot be bolted-on after the event by technology, whether that is analogue or digital - having analogue recording gear will not guarantee a natural sound.
|
|
What?
|
|
Anaon
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 01 2005
Location: Kobaļa
Status: Offline
Points: 849
|
Posted: December 09 2012 at 08:58 |
Dean wrote:
[I'm fairly confident that was not the case that most prog albums were recorded live with a few overdubs, from archive footage of bands in the studio, and all those retrospective Classic Albums documentaries on Sky Arts, it is evident that each instrument track was recorded individually.
|
Any references of archive footage, Classic Albums you are mentionning?
Dean wrote:
Stick noise, fret/string noise and breath/breathing noise are merely a matter of studio preference and technique
|
I'm not talking about just noises but more about what would be considered as a mistake like two drum sticks that touch themselves (sorry I don't know how explain it in english). You can hear some on Kim Crimson's Red for example.
| having analogue recording gear will not guarantee a natural sound. |
I totally agree, I meant that most of the time in this digital/analog debate, analog seems to be more a combination of musicians playing live, instruments and arrangements more than anything else.
My opinion is it's not a matter of technology anyway, so I'm probably not in the good thread 
Edited by Anaon - December 09 2012 at 09:01
|
|
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17511
|
Posted: December 09 2012 at 10:43 |
Anaon wrote:
Well, as a home studio owner myself, I know what you mean. I can't really give you any real examples as you guess, I'd love to know how modern bands work today in recording studio. It's interesting to see that Steven Wilson records live in the studio his upcoming album, it's a new approach for him it seems and will certainly adds something to the overall sound. |
I always thought that PT, had a "live" sound to them, and you could see it very well in their DVD's ... which I don't think is new, or something that Steven was not familiar with ... at issue, would be the more difficult things to do on stage that you devised elsewhere ... and this is not big deal ... all the bands go through this ... the usual concern ... am I a different band live than what I am on the record. For the record, the most obvious part of it all ??? ... PT and Steven STARTED on a garage with cassette tapes ... so saying they are going to this new approach ... is nothing short of bizarre! He knows ... better than anyone else ... what that means!
I don't think that it will "add" to the sound ... but it might take away the subtleties a lot more, because you know that it will be rehearsed with the idea of getting it down in one shot ... and this is one of the worse things in music when it comes to the abilities of a band ... bring it down ... instead of getting better.
It might be different in spots ... I do not remember Pink Floyd having any issues with that "playing live" idea, and it is not knew, and their bootlegs show it ... a bit different here and there, and it might be what Roger once said, that it was how they cleaned up some stuff! But 15 to 20 different versions of Echoes, suggests something else ... they were bored in parts with the same thing! Or Atom Heart Mother, for that matter. When it got to DSOTM and TW, it was all so industrial and mechanically controlled, that they could not getaway from it ... and that took away the freedom they had before!
And, btw, there is a nice interview with Edgar Froese, where he really says it all about the digital/analog thing ... and if you ever want to hear a master at work, check out their Phaedra anniversary concert in London for an example of what digital can do to analog ... and it has nothing to do with the "analog sound" in prog ... it was the instrument that existed in those days ... !!! We don't go around saying silly things about the "sound" of the baroque era, with that absolutely horrible harpsichord, and how chimsy, bad and childish it sounds!
We have to get past that "idea" that analog is what made that music live ... WRONG ... it was the folks that created the music that made it LIVE ... to the point where we still notice it! The best artists in the history of the arts DO THAT! And an instrument (or sound) is not enough to make a difference in the history of the arts!
We have to get past that analog/digital bs ... it has a tendency to say that there was no person behind that instrument, and you know that's wrong! These same folks would have stoof out if they had lived 100 years ago, instead of 50!
Edited by moshkito - December 09 2012 at 10:45
|
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
|
|
Neelus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 346
|
Posted: December 09 2012 at 13:43 |
|
There is a trade off. Recording live gives you the experience of the band members feeding off each others' emotions during the song that could be magical "under the right conditions". Recording individually gives you more control, but the musicians dont feel each other quite the same during it.
It depends what works for a particular group I guess, but it will give different results either way.
A good example of an album with live recording under the right conditions is OK Computer by Radiohead. And that is considered by many music folks as the best ever. It can be done.
|
|
Surrealist
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2012
Location: Squonk
Status: Offline
Points: 232
|
Posted: December 10 2012 at 01:35 |
|
Computers are good for sending emails, chatrooms, commercial art, reading the news, crunching scientific equations and a couple other things.. Keep them out of our cars, stereo systems and recording studios. The computer is a very over rated concept.
The best albums were done without computers. Tape machines record sound much better even to this day. If an artist can't get the track they should practice harder, not rely upon a computer program to fix it with quantization or pitch shifters.
|
|
Neelus
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 346
|
Posted: December 10 2012 at 02:32 |
|
^ You don't have naked ladies in the top of your list??? What is happening to the world???
|
|
awaken77
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 374
|
Posted: December 10 2012 at 02:38 |
most music is digital nowadays - doesn't matter was it recorded in analog in the first place. we listen it with car audio systems, mobile phones, TV , smartphones, notebooks, whatever - its all digital devices
production of vinyl LPs still exists, but they are mostly collector's items
p.s. and it's all has nothing to do with prog I believe that many modern prog bands don't exist in LP format at all, because they started to record music in digital era, on digital recording studios and equipment
Edited by awaken77 - December 10 2012 at 02:39
|
|
Aquiring the Taste
Forum Groupie
Joined: October 23 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 68
|
Posted: December 13 2012 at 04:02 |
Surrealist wrote:
Computers are good for sending emails, chatrooms, commercial art, reading the news, crunching scientific equations and a couple other things.. Keep them out of our cars, stereo systems and recording studios. The computer is a very over rated concept.
The best albums were done without computers. Tape machines record sound much better even to this day. If an artist can't get the track they should practice harder, not rely upon a computer program to fix it with quantization or pitch shifters.
|
Especially the recording studios!
|
|
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.
Oscar Wilde, De Profundis, 1905
|
|
progbethyname
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 30 2012
Location: HiFi Headmania
Status: Offline
Points: 7849
|
Posted: December 13 2012 at 11:47 |
Aquiring the Taste wrote:
Surrealist wrote:
Computers are good for sending emails, chatrooms, commercial art, reading the news, crunching scientific equations and a couple other things.. Keep them out of our cars, stereo systems and recording studios. The computer is a very over rated concept. The best albums were done without computers. Tape machines record sound much better even to this day. If an artist can't get the track they should practice harder, not rely upon a computer program to fix it with quantization or pitch shifters.
|
Especially the recording studios! |
I guess we are ruling out great scientific efficiency set forth by human beings in general. Geez. Too far guys.
As for the recording studio, computers are wonderful tools to weed out a lot of trail and error, so your hero's of today can put together quality albums without the burden of more stress that is already in effect during the recording process.
You guys should be kissing computers asses right now. What? You think STEVENWILSON doesn't use computers heavily on order to churn out wonderful remastered editions of all your favourites from TULL, CRIMSON and ELP.
Agh wait a sec? That's digital. You guys as vinyl heads. Ah screw it. Have fun in your Amish paradise. 
|
|
Gimmie my headphones now!!! 🎧🤣
|
|
verslibre
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 01 2004
Location: CA
Status: Offline
Points: 17149
|
Posted: December 13 2012 at 11:54 |
I know what Surrealist is getting at, but I love synthesizers, and synths are computers, and if I could buy a synth that also sent emails, I'd be set.
|
|
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
Posted: December 13 2012 at 12:15 |
verslibre wrote:
I know what Surrealist is getting at, but I love synthesizers, and synths are computers |
Analog synths were not
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: December 13 2012 at 12:25 |
Gerinski wrote:
verslibre wrote:
I know what Surrealist is getting at, but I love synthesizers, and synths are computers |
Analog synths were not |
Erm... well, as artificial constructs for processing mathematical functions they qualify as analogue computing machines - a lot of the techology present in an analogue synthesiser is also found in an analogue computer:
|
|
What?
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
Posted: December 13 2012 at 13:44 |
Nitpicky as usual 
In the context of the discussion it seemed clear that the defendants of analog sound referred to modern digital computer technology and that they would not have regarded analog synths (perhaps not even analog computers in general) as "computers" in this discussion.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
the importance of analog sound in prog
