LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  January 2008

ARSCLIST January 2008

Subject:

Re: How not to mike an orchestra/the death of high fidelity

From:

Scott Phillips <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 3 Jan 2008 19:33:58 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (128 lines)

Roger,

	As an owner of a great deal of wonderful vintage equipment as
well as a large assortment of very current digital studio gear,
(including Protools HD), I feel compelled to say, don't blame the gear,
blame the humans using them. I've got mics ranging from RCA 44's,
original (and wonderful) original issue M49's to cheesy mics made in
China. Gear ranging from Pultec's, LA-2A's through Focusrite preamps.
The first hardware Eventide Harmonizer, gritty ugly, and wonderful.
Ultra modern digital processing gear along with lots of plug-in's. It is
ALL good !! You just don't need to use everything on everything... just
use the least possible the music needs. Sometimes that is my 2 analog 24
track machines, sometimes Protools. Many times it is just a couple of
microphones, now and then quite a few. The trick is not letting the gear
get in the way of the music, and as Tom said, PRODUCE the durn stuff. It
shouldn't be a plan of throw up 80 tracks of microphones and a click
track, we can sort it out later ! Know where you want to go, make the
choices along the way, and it mixes itself at the end. Forget the click
track... that and editing strip out any chance of the humanity and feel
from the music. Humans are never 100% on time... so why would we want
the music to be..?

As I heard on a Utube segment, compress very gently. Without quiet,
there is no loud. I don't remember who said it, but that about sums it
up.

Just an opinionated rant, please ignore as desired... :>)


\Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Roger and Allison Kulp
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2008 7:06 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] How not to mike an orchestra/the death of high
fidelity

Hi Tom,

Sounds to me like you learned a lot from your parents.Sometimes I think
it's too bad that you didn't stay in the family business,you might have
been just as good at it !

You should see some of the posts at the Google classical recordings
group a lot of us belong to.There are certain folks over there,who are
always chastising us "audiophools",who prefer to listen to 50 year old
Mercurys,or bluebacks,or 75 year old Victor scrolls,or whatever,saying
that recording technology has improved so much  since the
fifties.Frankly,I don't know what they are talking about.As I said over
there,and was promptly whacked like the proverbial mole,stereo sounded
great from the start.So did electrical recording.It took digital nearly
twenty years to sound musical,and the best sounding digitally recorded
music, today is done as broadcasts/webcasts of concerts,not for CDs.

There is a reason people who make indie vinyl restore,and rescue vintage
studio equipment.and make new records with it.There was a reason Paul
McCartney got Bob Ludwig to master the vinyl of "Memory Almost Full".Go
back to the article, on rollingstone.com,and look for what Michael
Fremer,of Stereophile wrote.As he said,newer is not always better.

                                       Roger

Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Hi Steve:

I agree very much with your points.

There seems to be an engineer/technologist driven lust for clinical or
"perfect" sound nowadays, especially in carefully-made classical
products. This may well be a "super-fidelity" version of what took place
at that recording session, but I'd argue it usually isn't very exciting
or gut-grabbing like the great older recordings.

If you're a fan of the "classics," take your favorites among them and
given them a good listen with fresh ears -- consider it a New Year's
gift to yourself. Then think about this -- exactly what seat in any
concert hall would you sit in to get that same aural/emotional
experience? I'd argue -- NONE! 
That's the whole point of a great recording, to give you a
super-realistic experience so you can play it many times in many places
on many playback setups and get the same feelings. Thus, the music has
to be much more polished than most live performances can hope to be. And
the very best conductors understood how to imprint their distinct
personality on the recording without going off the cliff; when they
pulled it off, they have the listener's emotions under their complete
control. 
And, the recording should be cleaner and clearer than the sound would
ever be in a roomful of shuffling, sniffling, sound-muffling people. And
the perspective of the recording will usually be sharper and, for lack
of a better term, bigger than is heard from any one seat in the venue --
in the best cases it is all the good of all the good seats with no
drawbacks.

So what is this magic? My goodness, it's PRODUCTION. Yep, your favorite
recordings were most definitely PRODUCED, not "documented" by
white-coated lab technicians with calibration-grade equipment carefully
placed in theoretical positions. The whole problem with too many modern
classical recordings is that there seem to be one of two bad goals from
the outset -- 1) to produce a complete artificial reality, using many
mics and all sorts of mixing and production techniques but discarding
the age-old values of ambient room-tone, conductor-controlled dynamics
and giving acoustic instruments the air and space for their sounds to
flower. Or, 2) to "document" a performance with clinical-cold "perfect"
equipment and yet manage to capture not one ounce of the soul and
vibrance of a human being playing a beautiful piece of music with
passion. I think also there is either a lower level of skill and art or
a false modesty among too many conductors and orchestras. They just
don't let it rip anymore!

This is all one man's perspective, but I will say I've listened to MANY
classical recordings, and listened very carefully. What I seek in the
listening experience is to be uplifted and touched, for the recording
medium to transmit to my soul what the musicians were "saying" that day
the recorder rolled. You can't fake it with over-production and you can
easily miss it with a clinical-technician approach. Somewhere in the
middle live the best recordings, the ones that stand the test of time.

Happy New Year to all of you.

-- Tom Fine 


       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try
it now.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager