Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17529
Posted: April 21 2013 at 14:32
Dean wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
Dean wrote:
Gavin Harrison is too mechanical?
No..definitely not. But to Pedro's taste?
Aye.
Maybe it is that PT's music is so tight to the DAW in precision, that the drumming, for my ears comes off a bit mechanical ... I promise to blare out the last 3 albums and listen to it again ... but compared to Mike, I like his work way better, as it is tidy, neat ... and well done! No showing off necessary!
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
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17529
Posted: April 20 2013 at 14:47
Surrealist wrote:
Moshkito,
Regarding your post on the ideology of individuality that has been lost on this culture, don't you think digital editing, midi and sound sampling had a significant contribution to the squashing of individuality in the creating of recorded music? ...
NO.
Because I write on a keyboard into the computer, does not make my writing any better if I was writing in the typewriter and then mailed it to you! ... So much slower, of course!
We're confusing the meat of the product ... with the WAY IT WAS DONE ... it doesn't matter if the guitar went through this wire and a digital amp, instead of an analog amp ... unless you are Neil Young, and you are living in the past ... not to say that the past had no meaning ... it DID, but to say that the present has no meaning, or ability, is wrong!
This is what Dean has also been saying all along ... it has nothing to do with anything else, except people transposing the time and place ... and thinking that yesterday's cars were better than today's! The MUSIC is by the person ... the car just makes it easier for you to get to place a or b ... has absolutely nothing else to do with it ... unless you are late and the car broke down ... stop it! ... that doesn't count!
Surrealist wrote:
... If a producer or engineer suggests using this or that kick drum sample ... it's not your sample. It's a move toward homogenization. "Play it your way... but it will sound like John Bonham on the low end... or Steve Gadd's perfectly tuned snare drum. ...
I don't think so ... it might be that the kid is not strong enough, or good enough to create that sound, and this is where things can go badly wrong ... the band in question ends up sounding better than it really is!
Steve Gadd, btw, is not about his perfectly tunes snare drum ... it is about using the snare drum correctly, instead of the metronomic use that the majority of beginning drummers use ... and if you listen to really good ones, check out the Guru Guru stuff, the metronome is shared by all members, and the bass is no more the leader than the drums and the guitar ... but they come together well ... but this is something that you have to trust your members with ... and not something that most folks work on ... when they are looking for a "Steve Gadd" drum sound! Steve is a magnificent touch and feel drummer and he knows when to touch and when NOT to touch ... he is LISTENING to the singer, and finding a way to "illustrate" and help show the form and the music and the singer even better ... and he does so magnificently ... with Rickie Lee Jones in the early days, and you can see the unbelievable "touch" he has when he helps Kate Bush in "50 Words for Snow".
Do NOT confuse ... what that engineer or producer are trying to do, with the player's ability ... or the band's ... and sometimes that is the difference between many of those and the ones we came to call "progressive" ... you did not have to tell anyone at KC, Genesis, or ELP, or Yes, or PF, and many others ... "how to do things" ... many of them go into the studio with an idea already.
However, that is like saying that Andy Johns or Tom Dowd are not capable of helping the band sound better, and the history was ... they DID ... but then, the band was good to begin with ... so it didn't matter!
Surrealist wrote:
... Spreading out a rhythm track across Pro Tools and using quantizing software to line up all the notes perfectly is homogenizing the music. Yes, I am aware there is software that adds "feel"... but again.. this is NOT the drummer playing his kit in real time sounding exactly like him. It's contrived into what someone else thinks it should feel lie like or even sound like.
...
And your career as "progressive" will likely have been over, a long time ago too!
To me, this is the greatest mistake that "metal" and most bands today are creating ... they want that "DAW" sound, and it will hurt their ability to get better in music and in the future ... the "personality" of the music disappears in the multitude of bands, none of which have an inch of personality over the other, because they are all copying each other ... and they forgot what music is all about! And the drumming side of things, is the worst these days ... all of them beginner drummers! Even Mike when compared to Steve Gadd.
Another problem ... how do we deal with Tangerine Dream, when the drummer in any piece is one fo the folks in the group? ... but in essense the drummer is not the important person in TD ... but you and I can not say that Bonzo and Moonie were not important in their bands because they were irreplaceable! And a lot of it had to do with their individuality and desire to "color" the music, not just use Pro-Tools and the beat! You must understand that and see it ... or the words won't mean anything to you!
IF, one of these days, ANY DAW wants to improve, they need to break apart the metronome and dump it ... but the DJ music is all about the beat and the time, and not the music itself ... which of course is causing serious issues these days in copyrights and such!
Here is an exercise for you ... you put Mike in a band and later add Steve Gadd. I guarantee you that Steve will make it all even better and find a place for his own drums ... now reverse the tables ... Mike can't do it ... why? ... he can't find the numbers for him to know where he is at! (He probably has learned some of it by now, just by hearing me complain about it!). It's a serious challenge for most drummers ... how much better do you want to get? ... I don't dislike folks like what's his name in PT, but he is way too mechanical for my tastes ... and that's a DAW influence more than anything else! And few people will know a DAW and Mastering, better than Steven in that band!
Edited by moshkito - April 20 2013 at 15:09
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
Joined: November 19 2012
Location: PDX, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 72
Posted: April 19 2013 at 15:11
Correct. Another reason why i prefer CDs to LPs for music produced during the mostly digitally edited/mixed/mastered mid-1980's era and on. I only buy LPs pressed pre-1984 as a general rule of thumb. It's not perfect of course...it's just a guide that i use. YMMV.
Happy listening!
dynaco THE FISHER Marantz Sansui Nakamichi Line Magnetic Oppo Yamaha Dynavector Sumiko Grado Denon Pioneer Advent Klipsch/Crites
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 19 2013 at 05:26
libertycaps wrote:
Gerinski wrote:
Dean wrote:
libertycaps wrote:
The only major problem i have with this arguement is how so many contemporary LPs are being pressed using digital masters. Defeats the whole point and purpose of the benefits of analogue playback mediums like LPs. So in short: Buyer be aware.
This is one of those arguments that we can never prove because there are no 'A' and 'B' versions of those recordings to compare against each other.
I guess that what Libertycaps meant was that those 'audiophilists' who rejoice themselves in how genuinely analog they are because they purchase an album in vinyl, may be fooling themselves and may be unknowingly be listening to a digitally-sourced recording.
Correct. I guess i'm proud to be an "Audiophilist" too.
Really though, i just love MUSE-IC. She deserves THE BEST gear i can afford.....
Agreed. However, what I said is valid and any counter argument presupposes that the digitally-sourced recording is inferior, which is something we can never prove one way or another. If people pay for the vinyl version and prefer it over the CD version from the same master (regardless of the source) then that is fine, but we can never prove that one source is better than another because different sources of the same recording cannot (by definition) exist.
Joined: November 19 2012
Location: PDX, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 72
Posted: April 19 2013 at 04:44
Gerinski wrote:
Dean wrote:
libertycaps wrote:
The only major problem i have with this arguement is how so many contemporary LPs are being pressed using digital masters. Defeats the whole point and purpose of the benefits of analogue playback mediums like LPs. So in short: Buyer be aware.
This is one of those arguments that we can never prove because there are no 'A' and 'B' versions of those recordings to compare against each other.
I guess that what Libertycaps meant was that those 'audiophilists' who rejoice themselves in how genuinely analog they are because they purchase an album in vinyl, may be fooling themselves and may be unknowingly be listening to a digitally-sourced recording.
Correct. I guess i'm proud to be an "Audiophilist" too.
Really though, i just love MUSE-IC. She deserves THE BEST gear i can afford.....
dynaco THE FISHER Marantz Sansui Nakamichi Line Magnetic Oppo Yamaha Dynavector Sumiko Grado Denon Pioneer Advent Klipsch/Crites
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: April 19 2013 at 03:16
Dean wrote:
libertycaps wrote:
The only major problem i have with this arguement is how so many contemporary LPs are being pressed using digital masters. Defeats the whole point and purpose of the benefits of analogue playback mediums like LPs. So in short: Buyer be aware.
This is one of those arguments that we can never prove because there are no 'A' and 'B' versions of those recordings to compare against each other.
I guess that what Libertycaps meant was that those 'audiophilists' who rejoice themselves in how genuinely analog they are because they purchase an album in vinyl, may be fooling themselves and may be unknowingly be listening to a digitally-sourced recording.
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Posted: April 19 2013 at 01:58
libertycaps wrote:
The only major problem i have with this arguement is how so many contemporary LPs are being pressed using digital masters. Defeats the whole point and purpose of the benefits of analogue playback mediums like LPs. So in short: Buyer be aware.
This is one of those arguments that we can never prove because there are no 'A' and 'B' versions of those recordings to compare against each other.
Joined: November 19 2012
Location: PDX, OR
Status: Offline
Points: 72
Posted: April 18 2013 at 19:47
Another Newbie post. (And no, i'm not reading 30+ pages of this....)
We have to choose one or the other? I love LPs. I love CDs. Both have their positive/negative playback traits. If i had to choose one over the other, i'd go with CDs. The higher up the audio food chain you go (and i've gone a ways), the more digital becomes as lush and "warm" as analogue (w/o the surface noise distractions.)
The only major problem i have with this arguement is how so many contemporary LPs are being pressed using digital masters. Defeats the whole point and purpose of the benefits of analogue playback mediums like LPs. So in short: Buyer be aware.
dynaco THE FISHER Marantz Sansui Nakamichi Line Magnetic Oppo Yamaha Dynavector Sumiko Grado Denon Pioneer Advent Klipsch/Crites
Joined: October 12 2012
Location: Squonk
Status: Offline
Points: 232
Posted: March 31 2013 at 12:51
Moshkito,
Regarding your post on the ideology of individuality that has been lost on this culture, don't you think digital editing, midi and sound sampling had a significant contribution to the squashing of individuality in the creating of recorded music?
If a producer or engineer suggests using this or that kick drum sample ... it's not your sample. It's a move toward homogenization. "Play it your way... but it will sound like John Bonham on the low end... or Steve Gadd's perfectly tuned snare drum.
Spreading out a rhythm track across Pro Tools and using quantizing software to line up all the notes perfectly is homogenizing the music. Yes, I am aware there is software that adds "feel"... but again.. this is NOT the drummer playing his kit in real time sounding exactly like him. It's contrived into what someone else thinks it should feel lie like or even sound like.
Most folks think CD's sound fine.. and they probably do on solid state store line equipment. The few audiophiles here are going to argue for the non interrupted analog stream.... because they know it sounds better.
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17529
Posted: February 20 2013 at 10:42
Anaon wrote:
...
"What you hear, apart from the vocals, is a live band playing", "Can you believe that? In 20 years of making studio records, I've never done that before. I've always cut the drums, you bring th bass player in and you cut the bass parts, and then add the guitars and the keyboards. And it's all done to a click track and everything's edited and put perfectly in time".
So it's not bizarre but quite suprising even though I don't find that PT sounds like a live band playing on records (which is quite logical as it's not).
I disagree a bit. It was rather clear listening to this that things were overlapped on each other at the start. However, in the last 10 years, I really think there is a lot more band input to make it better, different and more interesting ... it might (still) not be the whole thing live ... yet! ... but it is quite close.
This shows the "analog" process a lot more, so to speak, and less fooling around, until "after" everything is in there, because it would be too hard to nail down the "song" while it is still in your head, and tomorrow it might not be there!
When you see any of their DVD's this band is tight, and generally fairly well rehearsed and the material is quite faithful to the original ... and generally that is NOT something that comes out of anywhere ... it has a source somewhere, and the way the band plays together, suggests that there is some pretty good work in the background, not only in a rehearsal.
As a sordid (sort of eample), in 1999, Richard's Prophet 5 took a spill between the airport and the venue and when they got there, they opened up the thing, and a couple of folks kept trying to fix it, while some went after this and that in any electronics store they could find ... it didn't work. Richard spent a good 4 hours backstage while 2 other bands played setting up a couple other synthesizers, and when they came on at 8, they were still magnificent ... and I had no CD's at the time of them at all!!!! ... and I mean magnificent. A roadie was upset up and down that they sounded terrible, they didn't! But it tells you that there is a level of care, and musicianship in the band that is important, impressive and special, that helps their work ... and I doubt that many folks would have been able to redo things like Richard did on that day ...
You can't do that, as Richard did, if he did not know what he was doing (#1), and the band weren't so well defined to the point where he had to spend that much time getting it right (#2), and then have had it rehearsed enough, that they would not miss a beat (#3) ... which tends to be a process that is much more akin and closer to the "analog" style. Steven's earlier material was not "complicated" because there were not 6 folks playing the same bridge part! Which, in many ways, made things easier all around!
The idea, or Steven commenting on his never having recorded anything "live" is not true ... he has been the owner of all the tapes and concerts for his band, since he owned all the rights to everything from the start ... and I kinda doubt that he has not given his band any credit for playing "live" and recording things ... like none of the members can add anything to make the music better, which you know is not true!
Steven learned a lot about mastering while watching the engineers work on Klaus Schulze' stuff with Lisa Garrard ... check out his interview with Klaus, and then catch the engineers working Pro Tools to add a very detailed moment to the live performance that you can only catch on the CD, and would never know existed on the live performance, that helped bring the whole thing even more alive than before! You don't think that Steven learned a bit more from that, do you?
So digital has a place in life ... so does analog ... but the hardest part of Klaus' thing is that he does his own mixing on stage while playing, and this takes it out of other people's hands, thus making the editing of the work tougher all around, but it also makes it "live", not "memorex".
The digital/analog thing is overblown and some folks think it's better here, there or somewhere else ... PT has always sounded "live" to my ear!
Edited by moshkito - February 20 2013 at 11:28
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
Joined: September 01 2005
Location: Kobaļa
Status: Offline
Points: 849
Posted: February 20 2013 at 07:28
moshkito wrote:
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!
About the new approach, I didn't have any content to share about Wilson recording live at that time but if you read his interview in the latest Prog magazine, he explained what I was talking about :
"What you hear, apart from the vocals, is a live band playing", "Can you believe that? In 20 years of making studio records, I've never done that before. I've always cut the drums, you bring th bass player in and you cut the bass parts, and then add the guitars and the keyboards. And it's all done to a click track and everything's edited and put perfectly in time".
So it's not bizarre but quite suprising even though I don't find that PT sounds like a live band playing on records (which is quite logical as it's not).
Joined: January 22 2013
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Posted: January 31 2013 at 02:08
A few more things about that from an engineer's point of view:
The discussion goes back to the rise of CD / DDD-recordings back in the 80ies, if I'm not mistaken. I remember the "revolution" in sound gusto when "Brothers in Arms" came out. People praised the clear treble, the extreme clarity etc. I think almost every single listener today would so much want the album to be remixed, using tape (simulation), vintage equalizers and a lot more muddy reverbs. So in the core of the matter, there *is* truth after all: You can sound a lot colder using digital techniques than you can sound on analogue technique. (But engineers have learned since then, on the one hand, and there is no need to achieve such an extreme contrast to analogue sound anymore: CD has been established alright..!)
On the other hand, what Steven Wilson did to some classic recordings - remastering them digitally! - can only be called brilliant, and this is what you can achieve with *modern* digital equipment: He has retained the warmth and character of the original source, yet he has added the broadth and depth that modern reverb and phase manipulating devices can achieve. And he has very tastefully added a lot of loudness / compression - thereby adapting those recordings for "younger" ears - without losing dynamics. All of this is also possible with classic analogue gear - but not quite as well and it would be a **** of a lot more work and twiddling and chance would be involved and things breaking down or things interacting in strange ways etc.
So, all of those who still say that LP just sounds better, are really just saying that their ears were conditioned to a sound fashion established in the 60/70ies. Analytically speaking, this is in no way plausible. This, however, does not mean that they are wrong - I who say that I prefer CD was as much conditioned as them - but to CD sound.
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Posted: January 30 2013 at 14:10
grumpy wrote:
So, I suggest you shouldn't fall for this. Think in qualitative categories like "warmth, depth, clarity, transparency, adequacy, crispness, punch..." - but don't connect them to the equipment used. That's simply not true.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.137 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
the importance of analog sound in prog
Topic Options
Dean wrote:
and welcome!