h2o2 wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 11:59 |
NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35 |
seem to think we're having a debate.
Rather than trying to prove anything to you, I'm simply suggesting that what you accept to be "the right way to do things," might be a minority opinion. Majority opinions, I realize, are not necessarily more valid. However, I've improved my craft tremendously by learning who to filter out here, who to listen to, and how to benefit from seemingly contradictory information: trying things for myself.
To be blunt, my thoughts and reasoning were more focused on not getting into heated arguments with possibly unstable internet cranks. Not that you're necessarily that person, but 'they' are certainly out there, aren't they?
Anecdotally, I had the pleasure of meeting an Abbey Road trained engineer (now a producer) at Cello one time, as he was producing my friend's band. Unlike you, that producer uses EQ and compression during tracking. If we presume for a moment, that you and this producer/engineer have the exact same skill level and experience, then you've cancelled each other's 'vote' out in the grand debate over great audio.
I guess that makes me the tie breaker.
|
NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35 |
seem to think we're having a debate.
|
I think is just a matter of professionalism to provide good argumentation in comment in professional community.
NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35 |
Rather than trying to prove anything to you, I'm simply suggesting that what you accept to be "the right way to do things," might be a minority opinion.
|
I can accept however is difficult to check representatively and more or less objectively.
NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35 |
To be blunt, my thoughts and reasoning were more focused on not getting into heated arguments with possibly unstable internet cranks.
|
What harm can this make? While not entering discussion you are not doing any impact and effectiveness of the discussion is close to zero. While everybody is happy this is purely "false safety" thing and a big deal of hypocrisy.
NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35 |
Anecdotally, I had the pleasure of meeting an Abbey Road trained engineer (now a producer) at Cello one time, as he was producing my friend's band. Unlike you, that producer uses EQ and compression during tracking. If we presume for a moment, that you and this producer/engineer have the exact same skill level and experience, then you've cancelled each other's 'vote' out in the grand debate over great audio.
|
Here comes the catch... You make decisions without listening to argumentation from both sides. Constructive discussions are usually made by exchanging series of arguments by both parties. You are absolutely right that at the end it is personal decision of everyone to take whichever party they want. But it is important not to forget that doing this without listening to argumentation is a very narrow decision.
NelsonL wrote on Tue, 09 March 2010 12:35 |
you've cancelled each other's 'vote'
|
Cancelling may occur only in case we will have a dilema, this is in a case when number of arguments is more or less equal and they have the same strength. But the guy could just have told you: I never really thought why I am doing it like this, maybe it might be a good idea to try the other way around. in case of dilema, if you dont find argument which is closer to you you might consider using weight.
|
My point is that the quality of the "argumentation" has no actual relationship to the quality of the methodology or the results. Ergo, it is pointless to have the sort of debate that you clearly think is so vital.
I simply do not "make decisions without listening to argumentation from both sides." This is an illogical assumption, it is in fact, the exact mistake that I was suggesting you might wish to avoid in your ignorance. I specifically mentioned that the best course upon receiving contradictory advice from multiple respected sources, is to try things for yourself.
I don't think anyone owes you any professional courtesy as you have either willfully or ignorantly misinterpreted not only the spirit, but the substance of the responses you've received here.
One of the first things you're taught in constructing a discourse is that broad, sweeping generalizations like "because of sexism, racism, agism, or any other "ism" currently popular in US," weaken your argument and demean the venue.
Additionally, every time you refer to the East, you're again making broad, grandiose generalizations and reinforcing Orientalist stereotypes. This too weakens your rhetorical stance as there is no singular "East" nor is there one "West." These are outdated constructs, and not particularly useful or relevant to the discussion here.
When you begin statements with "we" you weaken your argument by presuming to speak for an incredibly large segment of the population. Alternatively, if you meant to define "we" less broadly, then you failed to do so.
Furthermore, while I commend your multilingualism, I suspect that your reading comprehension needs improvement as you continue to misrepresent my views as promoting a certain technique.
I would never tell anyone that they must use X during tracking.
It is intellectually irresponsible to tell people you don't know, and who's work you've never knowingly heard, that they should never use Y during tracking based on a theoretical argument.
Results trump theory in this discipline, and yet I agree with you when you say that we should not discount minority opinions.
In fact, I said that first and you ignored it, then you told me that I had offered no thoughts or ideas, and then you co-opted that idea as if it were your own, when clearly it's just common sense.