Print

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

[bblackwood]

Ashermusic wrote on Fri, 07 October 2005 13:04

Wrong. Art is about the work.

Argh, I guess my sarcasm didn't translate well...

I was making the point that that the art was not about the consumer but about the artist's needs.

[bblackwood]

Jerry Tubb wrote on Sat, 08 October 2005 02:08

Yes Jay, but you're making a comparison between timeless "Fine Art" and faddish "Pop Art", they don't really fit in the same universe. Hasn't that always been the case in the "Modern" Era ? Van Gogh's paintings seen hanging in a gallery are simply breathtaking. (One of Vincent's paintings worth more than Garth's entire catalog.) Mozart was perhaps the greatest musical genius (and prodigy) of all time. Charles Ives was a great American composer who, iirc, also sold insurance. Garth Brooks sold a zillion records of commercial "pablum" in the 80's & 90's. Apples and Oranges, different stuff altogether.

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere!

Who's likely to be the artist who has the greatest impact on a 14 year-old girl's life - Mozart or Kelly Clarkson?

Don't dismiss my point here too quickly - what I'm saying (and this has been the root of my point the whole time) is while Mozart is far more important as an artist in my opinion, this does not mean that that is the opinion of most/all people. Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, so I think we have to treat every client as if they are indeed making a piece that will last a millennium.

The attitude of 'not everything is art' or 'we have to determine whether or not it's worthy' just smacks of elitism to me. We're mastering engineers for goodness's sake. We need to stop acting like we're saving people's lives and remember that we are here to serve our clients - even when that means doing something we disagree with. Feel free to pass on work that you aren't 100% behind in every way, but don't condemn others for their desire to help the artist achieve their goals.

[Ed Littman]

there's sometimes a big difference between art & entertainment & yes some times they combine.

In general

Art= personal expression
Entertainment= commerce

Ed

[Ashermusic]

Brad, once again, for me it simply comes down to me not being willing to put my name on something if I think I am making it worse rather than better no matter what the client thinks of it.

The only time I had a film score tossed was when I let one of the producers bully me into making the score what he thought it should be when I knew it was just wrong. I should have walked. Instead I tailored it to his micro-managing. He pronounced himself pleased, even at the picture mix, Then later, when he discovered that others thought it didn't work, he replaced it. And  the composer did a score that was very close to what I originally wanted to do.

Art or no art, if my name is on it it must reflect well on me or I am walking.

Unless they pay me LOTS of money:)

[blueboy]

Forgive me for barging in on your thread (and I know you were being facetious), but isn't this the root of the whole problem...

Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 08 October 2005 08:01

Unless they pay me LOTS of money:)

The "artist's" desires are being influenced not by a need for personal expression, but rather by what they know will "sell".

Isn't it all about people doing things they might not normally do, because of the potential monetary returns.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, but sometimes it seems there is a little too much "commerce" and not enough "art".

Regards,

JL

[lagerfeldt]

I just wish I could get my money back for The Prodigy album "Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned".

Go back into the store, "SAY, What's up the level on this album? Is it music or a goddam square wave of white noise WITH ABSOLUTELY NO DYNAMICS FROM START TO END?".

Crap. That just ruins my day.

I can image Liam Howlett sitting with the ME and shouting: "LOUDER, LOUDER, I WANT PEOPLE TO BLEED FROM THEIR EARS."

Problem is of course, you have to turn it down or take it out the cd player entirely and toss it in the bin to remain sane.

[bblackwood]

Ashermusic wrote on Sat, 08 October 2005 10:01

Brad, once again, for me it simply comes down to me not being willing to put my name on something if I think I am making it worse rather than better no matter what the client thinks of it.

Yah, I think we got that.

[Chris Cavell]

bblackwood wrote on Sat, 08 October 2005 07:53

Aha! Now we're getting somewhere! Who's likely to be the artist who has the greatest impact on a 14 year-old girl's life - Mozart or Kelly Clarkson? Don't dismiss my point here too quickly - what I'm saying (and this has been the root of my point the whole time) is while Mozart is far more important as an artist in my opinion, this does not mean that that is the opinion of most/all people. Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, so I think we have to treat every client as if they are indeed making a piece that will last a millennium. The attitude of 'not everything is art' or 'we have to determine whether or not it's worthy' just smacks of elitism to me. We're mastering engineers for goodness's sake. We need to stop acting like we're saving people's lives and remember that we are here to serve our clients - even when that means doing something we disagree with. Feel free to pass on work that you aren't 100% behind in every way, but don't condemn others for their desire to help the artist achieve their goals.

 

I couldn't have expressed my own view any better.

[bobkatz]

TotalSonic wrote on Fri, 07 October 2005 02:23

Having said that - the libertarian survivalist in me don't want no goshdarned "dialnorm" - and I don't want no goshdarned self ordained RMS police ever telling me what to do either.  That doesn't mean I don't try and advise clients as to the disadvantages of hyperlimiting - it just means that I don't need a regulating committee to try and do this behind the artists back.  The disadvantage of communistic equalizing is that instead of making everything excellent it just makes everything mediocre. Best regards, Steve Berson

"Dialnorm" and the "RMS police" are two completely different constructs, Steve. This is a libertarian issue in that the Howie Weinbergs and Vlado Mellers of the world are not only "creating a sound" but also forcing us to match it. Because the sound and the average level are intrinsically tied if you normalize to full scale peak.  Would Howie still smash it if he had to turn up his monitor volume to make it sound just as loud as before?

Despite what Brad Blackwood says, I wager that he has to make CDs which are compromised in sound because of the loudness race. If you don't admit that, then you're lying. Otherwise, why are the CDs you (we) make today decibels hotter than the ones you made in 1990? And don't sound as good?

[bblackwood]

bobkatz wrote on Tue, 11 October 2005 14:08

Despite what Brad Blackwood says, I wager that he has to make CDs which are compromised in sound because of the loudness race. If you don't admit that, then you're lying.

Where did I say that? I'm saying (again and again) that it should be the artist's call...

[bobkatz]

bblackwood wrote on Tue, 11 October 2005 15:15

bobkatz wrote on Tue, 11 October 2005 14:08 Despite what Brad Blackwood says, I wager that he has to make CDs which are compromised in sound because of the loudness race. If you don't admit that, then you're lying. Where did I say that? I'm saying (again and again) that it should be the artist's call...

I was referring to Brad saying that he routinely produces CDs which are considerably lower than others and are accepted by the client. Which I believe. But I'm saying that in spite of that, are these CDs sonically compromised than the ones you made 2, 3, 5 years ago that were 2-3 dB lower?

Our standards are eroding.

BK

[bblackwood]

bobkatz wrote on Tue, 11 October 2005 14:26

bblackwood wrote on Tue, 11 October 2005 15:15 bobkatz wrote on Tue, 11 October 2005 14:08 Despite what Brad Blackwood says, I wager that he has to make CDs which are compromised in sound because of the loudness race. If you don't admit that, then you're lying. Where did I say that? I'm saying (again and again) that it should be the artist's call... I was referring to Brad saying that he routinely produces CDs which are considerably lower than others and are accepted by the client. Which I believe. But I'm saying that in spite of that, are these CDs sonically compromised than the ones you made 2, 3, 5 years ago that were 2-3 dB lower? Our standards are eroding.

Well, mine aren't, but the client's may very well be.

It is their record.

[TotalSonic]

bobkatz wrote on Tue, 11 October 2005 20:08

"Dialnorm" and the "RMS police" are two completely different constructs, Steve. This is a libertarian issue in that the Howie Weinbergs and Vlado Mellers of the world are not only "creating a sound" but also forcing us to match it.

Howie and Vlado have never "forced" me to do anything!  They've yet to attend a session of mine or even send me a note, let alone try and barge in while I'm working and grab the controls on the L3  

I happen to actually be a big fan of a lot of Howie's work - although I admit I haven't really kept up with what has been involved with for the past 6 years or so - but a number of CD's he mastered in the mid 90's are some my "reference discs".  As far as Vlado - I really don't know what his credits are like before the recent heinous squashings such as the Johnny Cash CD's on the American label - but in his defense got to say once again that the premaster he prepared for the David Morales 12" that I cut was actually nice and punchy and well balanced, and while the average level was pretty hot it wasn't smashed at all.   So on at least one recent example master he didn't "smash by default".

Getting back to the topic:
What their hyperlimited masters have done however is give clients an optional sound that they can certainly request to have on their own releases if they wish to.  I happen to dislike this sound and will present clients with other options that I think will sound better.  but as Brad keeps repeating over and over during this thread - it's the client's record - NOT the ME's!

Quote:

Because the sound and the average level are intrinsically tied if you normalize to full scale peak.  Would Howie still smash it if he had to turn up his monitor volume to make it sound just as loud as before?

Dunno.
I do however know that what other ME's do does not ultimately effect the sound of a master that I create.  Dialnorm however WILL.  If Dialnorm is bouncing the relative levels up and down between tracks instead of having them playback as the artist chose them to then it will in many cases DESTROY an integral part of the drama that is possible in experiencing an entire album through.


edit:  just saw this info that BK posted on another thread and seems what I posted above in italics is wrong:

Quote:

Steve. Dialnorm will not affect the integrity of the track to track levels within a single work. A single dialnorm level will be assigned to the entire work. You won't have to worry about whether an artist knows how to take it off or not.

SO:
BK - I need a LOT more info on how you propose "dialnorm" to be implemented on audio discs for me to be able to determine whether this is something I can get behind or something I really don't want.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[bobkatz]

TotalSonic wrote on Tue, 11 October 2005 15:46

Howie and Vlado have never "forced" me to do anything!  They've yet to attend a session of mine or even send me a note, let alone try and barge in while I'm working and grab the controls on the L3

They may not "force" you to do anything, but clients who are concerned about plays on CD changers may ask you to make it louder for that reason alone, regardless of the quality reduction. That is the only reason I'm advocating dialnorm.

Quote:

Quote: Steve. Dialnorm will not affect the integrity of the track to track levels within a single work. A single dialnorm level will be assigned to the entire work. You won't have to worry about whether an artist knows how to take it off or not. SO: BK - I need a LOT more info on how you propose "dialnorm" to be implemented on audio discs for me to be able to determine whether this is something I can get behind or something I really don't want.

Since there is no decent and complete proposal and since the developers of the next disc are going full speed ahead without stopping to smell the roses---- I can dig your concerns. But a solution based on the ideas of dialnorm is the only one which can marry "quantity" with "quality."

BK

[button]

bobkatz wrote on Wed, 12 October 2005 01:40

But a solution based on the ideas of dialnorm is the only one which can marry "quantity" with "quality." BK

HOW?  
Who will calibrate the dialnorm meter?
The FCC?  
... As in:   "The value of the dialnorm parameter in the AC-3 elementary bit stream shall indicate the level of average spoken dialogue within the encoded audio program." (A/53 Annex B 5.5 Dialogue Level)


The whole discussion hangs on the implementation.