Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rob Darling]

It's just a tool.  As long as there has been a technologist in a room with an artist, there has been potential for abuse, in or outside of music.  Even among musicians, there are those who obsess about tone and chops over musical expression.  It is just a tool.

The fact is that all of the things that tape forces you to do are things you can do just as well in the computer, if you recognize their value and use them.  Listening to an artist's cue mix instead of your own mix, waiting for and searching for the right performance, trying to exercise musical ambition- all is there.  That people don't do this is a testimony to indict the users of the tools, not the tools themselves.  You try the murderer, not the gun.

I personally love having the computer around.  I'm comfortable, never worry about losing data, have never had an issue with it.  I spend money to make sure that everything is going well, but it is less than what I would spend to make the rest of a studio that would be hanging off the end of a tape machine always happen reliably.  

As a producer, I love the ability to be deep within a long, complicated record, and always have a developed mix that always comes back, with no questions about whether the assistant fucked up.  This security is a major aid to the creative flow of a record- there is never any question as to whether what we're hearing is what we had.

I love walking into a studio with my setup and not having to worry about how things work or are maintained or whether the assistant has any idea of what they are doing.  Give me my mic feeds, give me a return, let me go.

In addition, I like having lots of possible takes.  Not necessarily to use them all, but to always reassure the artist that if they keep pushing, they can get back to where they were.  Sure, sometimes it keeps growing, but a lot of times, that third take you blow over may have been all you had in you.

For those of you in love with the flow of tape, I'll say, that's just your custom.  There are plenty of places where wait times, wind times, etc. get in the way of energy.  It is all relative, in terms of this area.  Ever go to a band rehearsal?  Their energy does not fall into neatly spaced 15 minute chunks that let you switch reels.  Hit record in the computer, let it go, let them work at their own pace.  Producer sits back, listens.  No stopping, no worrying, no nothing.  One example of the value of the computer to the session's artistic flow.

At the end of the day, there are lots of people who use any given technology.  Most use it to be lazy, some use it to do different work.  It is your choice.  But it is just a tool.  Hating the DAW world would be like getting mad at power saws because they let people make crappy houses faster.

ps.  When tape hit, there are those who said all the same things of overdubs and layering- Why not just record to two track.  Go look at what people said about that first tape-loop Les Paul record.  Again, it is just a tool.  If you want to be pure, you'd never record in the first place (a grumble that can still be heard if you walk through the pit of any Broadway show or Orchestra.)

[Barry Hufker]

DAWs are just DAWs.  I don't care whose software you use.  They are not professional machines.  One can debate sound quality but surely in terms of dependability and session ease, they just aren't good enough.

Analog is wonderful.  There is no doubt but there is high maintenance with what is essentially a fragile system.  Tape against metal heads is somewhat akin to a constant car wreck where two metal bumpers keep colliding.

May I recommend RADAR?  I have no affiliation with the company except that I am an extremely satisfied user.  The system is highly robust, is as easy to use as any 2" machine, has 24 tracks, swappable drives -- and while it has fewer features than other HDRs, it does have all the basic features one needs.  Further, the system is simply bullet-proof.  Extensive testing of the software and hardware is done by iZ Technology before the machine or latest software go out the door.  And with each new update, the machine only gets better.

I use mine on remote, run it like mad, have owned it for several years and just wouldn't use anything else.  At least give it a demo!

Barry

[maxim]

barry wrote:

"DAWs are just DAWs. I don't care whose software you use. They are not professional machines."

what exactly does that mean?

professionals don't use them?

or the machines themselves don't belong to that distinguished group of lawyers, doctors, architects and engineers?

well, i bet, my laptop knows a lot more about law, medicine and architecture than your radar

admittedly, it's an armchair expert, but i trust it

it might not be wearing a suit and tie, but, by jove, it gets the job done

[electrical]

I'm holding my tongue with both hands right now. Soon I'll have to stand on it with both feet to keep from getting into this discussion.

In the mean time, there is an involved discussion of Radar on a technical level on the electrical forums here.

There is also an involved discussion of DAW usage in general on the same forum here.

I quote the first of my posts here, because it is pretty succinct:

Quote:

There is a long, involved response to this brewing in the back of my mind, and I will probably get to it eventually, but for right now, I want to call bullshit on two straw man arguments which digital recording advocates always postulate as reasons people like me don't like digital recording: Straw argument number one: "I prefer the warm analog sound to the cold digital sound." I want to take this issue off the table, because it has nothing to do with why I prefer analog systems. I don't think analog recording done properly should impose a specific sound on the music. "The sound" is an obfuscatory rationale that isn't rooted in the practical realities of recording, running a studio, preserving the work of people who pay you for doing so or making a lasting legacy for the artists. I don't think "the sound" is a prohibitive reason for not using digital systems. Some people quite like the sound of digital recording, and in the best implementation, I don't think the sound of digital systems is unuseable. Straw argument number two: "You don't use it because you want to be different, for a bunch of imaginary reasons that I can invent, ennumerate and dismiss." This is a similar argument to the one I heard in high school regarding my choice in music: "You only hate the Marshall Tucker Band (or Journey, or REO Speedwagon...) because they're popular, and you want to be different..." Fuck that. I have my reasons for almost everything, even reasons I can't articulate properly, and for things unique to me, which wouldn't apply to anyone else in the world. Searching deeply into my conciousness, I can't think of a single thing I dislike merely because other people like it. It's a stupid, dismissive argument that pretends to peer into the soul of the person being argued with. It is the sort of (ad-hominem by presumption of rationale) blow-off that only someone backed into a corner by reasoned discourse will resort to. A third (still stupid but less obvious) blow-off is the old hack saw about "the song is everything, then the performance, then everything else..." This isn't even part of the debate. No one is suggesting that we record for posterity things which are crap. These values can be assumed, and bringing them up to deflect the debate is trite and unenlightening. If some gentlemen of leisure get into a debate about which billiard cue tip is better, and for which reasons, it would be pointless and unenlightening for one of them to say, "well, the table, balls and cloth are the most important things..." because they were talking about cue tips at the moment. It can be assumed that they intend to play with balls on a table, covered with cloth. I am also becoming tired of the TapeOp rationale, "Use whatever you've got! Burn the manual! Try anything! It's all good!" These axioms (axiae?) are perfectly valid for people fucking around in the basement, where there is no money or pressure at stake, but they are irresponsible and destructive in a professional studio environment. I'm glad my doctor knows what he's doing, and how to operate the equipment he uses. I'm glad my plumber does too. I think our clients can expect no less of us. This includes knowing the limitations and risks of the processes and equipment. Unfortunately, the limitations and risks of digital equipment are not apparent to the untutored or inexperienced, and it is easy to get lulled into thinking that they don't matter. Pretending they aren't there is foolish. There for now. I'll come back when I have time to explain why digital recording is unsuitable for making records. _________________ steve albini Electrical Audio sa at electrical dot com

There is also a wealth of discussion on the PSW forums, both current and archived. Search there.

[Gone]

fuze wrote on Tue, 05 April 2005 05:24

the thing is.... ...it's the tracking/mixing engineers who drive the "fix it in pt" attitude.

My personal experience differs greatly from this.  I 'bit the bullet', and switched the studio and most of my clients over from 2" to Nuendo. As soon as I explained, in passing, the editing capabilities, most of them started using extensive editing right away. Many of them had done little 'punching' over the years, but seamless, painless cut and paste has been very attractive to them.

I will often suggest a little cut and paste to avoid puch-ins to duplicate an existing phrase, etc, but I have always been very happy and open to full performace recording.

I hear far more musicians talk about and demand Pro Tools than engineers. (yes, even GOOD musicians...)

[mark fassett]

electrical wrote on Wed, 06 April 2005 13:51

I'm glad my doctor knows what he's doing, and how to operate the equipment he uses. I'm glad my plumber does too. I think our clients can expect no less of us.

...but I'm glad Jackson Pollack decided to say screw the rules and do it a different way.  

I don't care how Radiohead record.  I don't care how Wilco or Modest Mouse record.  I don't care how kd lang records.  

If some of the artists I like are using the recording studio as a tool, well, great!  If they accidently get a cool sound by putting something through a broken Pultec or using a broken speaker as a microphone, I don't care... if it works it works.

I guess I personally LIKE the tape op manifesto you cite... of course, I'm one of those basement wankers (garage wanker, actually) you speak of, so maybe I'm making your point for you.    

I guess there really are a wide variety of artists out there doing their thing... and those who want more of a documentation recording should use an engineer like Steve, or George Massenburg... or whoever.  I wouldn't trust me to get a world class drum sound, no less record an orchestra.  On the other hand, there's sonic exploration... and yes, you still need to know your tools, the basic tools of your trade, but those tools are different... you don't need to mic a kit, you need to know what plug in gets you that thing with the granualar synth sound or the big filter sweep or the wierd digital bit thing.  On my stuff and the stuff of the people I work with, that's what's needed.

I would NEVER disrespect those who have the chops to record an orchestra or get an awesome drum kit sound... I just don't have the facility or the need to do so.      

I know from an audio perspective I don't have the ability to wash Mr. Albini's gym shorts, so take all this for what it's worth.  

[natpub]

Quote:

...but I'm glad Jackson Pollack decided to say screw the rules and do it a different way. I don't care how Radiohead record. I don't care how Wilco or Modest Mouse record. I don't care how kd lang records. If some of the artists I like are using the recording studio as a tool, well, great! If they accidently get a cool sound by putting something through a broken Pultec or using a broken speaker as a microphone, I don't care... if it works it works. I guess I personally LIKE the tape op manifesto you cite... of course, I'm one of those basement wankers (garage wanker, actually) you speak of, so maybe I'm making your point for you.

I agree with you, I really do. I have been "playing the studio" (old Eno phrase) for 30 years, but I don't think that is what Steve is referring to. I consider that kind of experimentation to be part of composing, even when it overlaps with recording. I invite the engineer/producer, whatever, to join in that. Even if they don't, by making no choice they have made a choice (to quote Rush?).

Engineering transparancy as a philosphical approach is still an artistic contribution to the final work and part of the composition, regardless. Likewise, any minimal producer intervention approach, yada, yada...

My original topic is really referring to something else entirely. I'm speaking to the hassle factor of various mediums, not weather "acrylics or oils should be used to get a more vivid colour;" rather, that oils are just damn harder to clean up and/or acrylics dry out if you leave the cap off. That kinda thing. DUnno about my analogy though, hehe.

[edit--however, one thing I know I'm NOT saying is that using the drizzle technique or a paint knife makes anything better or worse--that is, as we hopefully realize, completely subjective]




cheers

[maxim]

kurt wrote:

"My original topic is really referring to something else entirely. I'm speaking to the hassle factor of various mediums, not weather "acrylics or oils should be used to get a more vivid colour;" rather tha oils are just damn harder to clean up and/or acrylics dry out if you leave the cap off. That kinda thing. DUnno about my analogy though, hehe"

i think your analogy is just great

and mr albini is about to tell us why oils are more professional than watercolours, and why acrylics are unsuitable for making art

one of my issues, though, is the fact that record-making ain't neurosurgery, if an audio enginner screws up, noone's gonna be paralysed or carried to the morgue (it might make you feel like it, but it's not quite the same)

as a doctor, i (begrudgingly) accept the controls imposed upon me by the state, that i must behave according to a set of guidelines

as a record producer, if you told me that, i'd kick you in the teeth

perhaps, it's THE difference between engineer and producers hats

[Barry Hufker]

No, PT and Nuendo are not professional quality systems.  Yes, they are used by professionals but professional engineers will some times use a Radio Shack mike for effect or convenience.  Can professional quality work be realized on them?  Sure.  Are they fully professional?  No.  How do I justify these statements? 35 years of professional audio experience.  I have worked all my life with professional audio recorders.  At some point one gets a keen sense as to what was made for every day professional use.  And those platforms aren't in that category.  Sorry.

I have worked a lot with ProTools.  I own Nuendo and use it regularly.  I have used analog machines my whole life (buying my first analog reel to reel recorder [home quality] at age 10).

When one speaks of the great professional recorders of the past, one can mention several respected manufacturers in one breath.  Among digital recorders used today by professionals one can hardly mention any.  There is Sadie.  There was Sonic Solutions. There is probably something else I can't recall at the moment as it's late here, but RADAR is in all respects a professional quality machine.  Its sound is more "analog" than most other digital recorders, it is as easy to operate as any 2" machine and  it is bullet-proof.  How can I justify these statements?  Again I base my statements on 35 years of experience (granted you may have more.  I just mean I've been around the block a couple of times) and I have 125 Audio Production majors at Webster University who use and abuse three RADAR systems around the clock each semester.  And to date (after several years) there has not been a single failure of any kind.

One can talk analog.  Fine.  I love that format.  But it is fragile by comparison.  One can love her DAW.  Fine but it is an audio system with professional pretenses using a *home* computer.     How is RADAR different?  It uses an operating system designed for multimedia.  It uses a proprietary and more robust system for writing data.  It uses high quality A/D and D/A (which have done quite well in blind "shoot-outs") and it is purpose built from the "ground up" only for audio recording -- not plug-ins, mixing or anything else.  It is a rock-solid recorder.

And no, it doesn't know anything about law.  And no, it doesn't wear a suit and tie.  But it will wear a pretty blue chiffon dress on the weekends and wants to be called "Shirley."


Barry

[natpub]

maxim wrote on Wed, 06 April 2005 20:47

and mr albini is about to tell us why oils are more professional than watercolours, and why acrylics are unsuitable for making art

Hmm, I just don't read Steve that way. To me, his use of our analogy would be more that the actual finished painting, and perhaps a printed 35mm photo of it, is a better way to keep the "Mona Lisa," than say, a jpg file of it. My wife has a different view--she says that reducing things to 0's and 1' adds some kind of evil spirit to them, lol. Amsuing perhaps, still, I am not too quick to ridicule her.

Anyway, I appreciate all the comments. I feel much calmer today, but am still fairly sure I plan to run a 2" machine along side my DAW in the future. I really need both for what I am doing. I am truly not speaking to any other of ya'lls situations, just mine.

Quote:

Are they fully professional? No.

As far as RADAR goes, I guess I'll continue to be "not fully professional"



--K

[Bob Olhsson]

maxim wrote on Wed, 06 April 2005 08:35

...there's also a great unpressured vibe, which i would find very difficult to justify in an analog tape studio...

When I quit Motown in 1972, I was dying to work where there was an unpressured vibe. Today, 33 years later with the benefit of hindsight, I've always found that unpressured generally means unproductive and self-indulgent. Sorry if that sounds harsh but I've seen it happen over and over. We aren't making art or writing a novel, we are recording musical performances. Performance is frequently lots more about turning off one's brain and rising to an occasion than hanging where there is a cool unpressured vibe. In many ways the concept of a "home studio" is an oxymoron. We must all do our best with the resources we have available but I think we are really kidding ourselves if we assume being unpressured will lead to better recordings.

[Curve Dominant]

maxim wrote on Thu, 07 April 2005 02:47

and mr albini is about to tell us why oils are more professional than watercolours, and why acrylics are unsuitable for making art one of my issues, though, is the fact that record-making ain't neurosurgery, if an audio enginner screws up, noone's gonna be paralysed or carried to the morgue (it might make you feel like it, but it's not quite the same) as a doctor, i (begrudgingly) accept the controls imposed upon me by the state, that i must behave according to a set of guidelines as a record producer, if you told me that, i'd kick you in the teeth

I'm not an advocate of violence, but cheers to your spirit.

The sentimentalilty towards gear choices was always something that bugged me about the status quo in music recording production. It's a very un-musical attitude.

Music was and is always about the new, the now, the today. Music artists have a passion, and we must get it out, now. Play it, record it, get it out, NOW. Quantegy having trouble getting tape to market? Fuck it! We got a digital ___ this or that, so LET'S GO.

You want art history analogies? Here's one:

Van Gogh had his "Blue Period." Dude was so dirt poor, he could only afford blue pigments, the cheapest in that day. So he painted a whole series of paintings with nothing but blue paint.

Wanna fancy a guess what any ONE of those paintings would sell for now? If Slint released one "Spiderland" a year for the next 50 years, they still wouldn't come close.

Recording craft sentimentality is the enemy of music art. Let's not forget what this is really all about.

[electrical]

Eric Vincent wrote on Thu, 07 April 2005 01:07

The sentimentalilty towards gear choices was always something that bugged me about the status quo in music recording production. It's a very un-musical attitude. (...) Recording craft sentimentality is the enemy of music art. Let's not forget what this is really all about.

I quite agree that sentiments, such as "recording is about NOW!" are unhelpful in recording. I think, by definition, recordings should last. Not "the music," whatever that is in the abstract, but the recording -- the thing we're hired to make -- that should last.  Otherwise, it isn't part of a permanent record, but part of a temporary magic show. However pleasing it is to the sentimental at the time, it may not be there in the future, and that makes it an unsuitable method for anything of value.

That's the first (probably best, but it'll do for a start) reason I don't use digital recording. It has proven to be as fragile as tissue over time for technical and practical reasons. It has nothing to do with a sentimental attachment; quite the opposite: It is a conclusion drawn from much experience and consideration.

For funsies, for stuff with only temporary importance, for work material that isn't meant to be used in its present form -- these are all perfectly appropriate uses of digital recording, and the technology has advantages for all of them.

For records, I trust tape because it has earned that trust for many decades, and I do not see any limitations in it from a creative or practical standpoint.

[maxim]

steve wrote:

"For records, I trust tape because it has earned that trust for many decades, and I do not see any limitations in it from a creative or practical standpoint."

that's the correct answer

because you're putting yourself in the picture

you don't see any limitations, but i do

or rather just one

money

you have and will continue to work, doing what you like doing best, using your well-trusted and well-known medium (because of your skills, experience, fame, contacts, your fervent obsession with your craft, whatever)

i could have tried to get a leg up from a label 10 years ago to record in analog studio with great gear and a talented experienced engineer like you (hell, maybe, even you)

however, i saw a chance to explore the dark side, the diy side

if i learnt my way around a computer, i could save a lot of $'s, which would allow me to be an independent artist/producer

of course, i would have to wait for at least 10 years, before i knew what i was doing, and about that long for the digital audio to find its legs (and, i'm quite happy to agree, that we are still waiting)

but, fuck, i agree with eric, the moment is NOW, and if i don't capture it NOW, it'll never be back

so i took the plunge two years ago, and kicked off my record

to me, it is a record

i know what you mean, when you say, something is not a 'record' (i've heard that terminolgy used before)

but i don't agree either

a record is an emotional experience, a story, it is, literally, a record of the time

if that time included dragging around a bunch of 16 bit files on a laptop around the world, so be it

if it included the linn shaker, we'll still listen to it

what makes something dated is when the obsession over gear/purism outweighs the artistic intent

if van gogh can connect with me using nothing but blue paints (oils, of course), i'll be a damn fool if i won't try and do the same with what i've got

[maxim]

barry wrote:

"Are they fully professional? No."

if we're going to mention wives, mine has taught me to be suspicious of the word "professional"

what does that mean, exactly?

convenient, reliable?

my daw is both, because i know what it can and can't do (comes from pushing it too far too many times)

i only have 10 years of experience, but it's enough to get a feel around a machine


"Fine but it is an audio system with professional pretenses using a *home* computer."

i'll let that pass


"But it will wear a pretty blue chiffon dress on the weekends and wants to be called "Shirley."

that's far too much information