Thanks, Tom for your usual insightful commentary.........
When I left a perfectly good and well paying motion picture film
editor/assistant position (I was bumping between the two classifications
depending on openings in the editor's field) to go to work in a video tape
facility with the latest new CMX time code machines, many film people thought I
was crazy. "After all", they said, "They're just button pushers". So, with my
heart in my hand, I learned the craft from making dubs on the night shift to
finally getting my hands on various types of editing systems, since they hired
me to see what a motion-picture editor would add to their on-line/off-line staff
using this new equipment. When a project opened up on a comedy series shot on
video called "The Ghostbusters", they loaned me out to cut it, since I had had
comedy experience cutting "The Odd Couple" and the "Sandy Duncan Show" at
Paramount. The shooting was a cross between single camera and switched ISOs
techniques recorded to 2" videotape. The tools for creating an off-line 3/4"
videocassette "edits" were primitive to say the least, but I DID learn
"on-the-job" and found solutions to problems as I went along. "On-the-job" was
also the way I learned to be a film editor through the apprentice system that
had been set up many years ago in the studios. So, even though I had a
Bachelor's Degree from a California college, my best training for my future in
motion-pictures came from a two year stint in the Army Signal Corps. When I
started teaching CMX editing at the Editors' Guild in later years, I was still
suspect as a turncoat to this new technology, and many film editors feared it
would replace them in their traditional roles. Of course, I felt that I was
making a bridge from one technology to another more advanced one. As I said to
my students, "Use the best tool for the job", and I'm glad to say in these
latter years, creative editors have indeed made friends with these digital
tools. With things moving so quickly, there now are other training programs in
the Guild and outside schools that bridge the gaps that can be part of the
continuing learning process. I had hopes that the future would turn out this
way, but the editor is still that same person who creates "the first cut" (not
"rough" as jargon would have it) to show to the producer and the director what
is the potential of this newborn entity created by a "button pusher" with
"better tools" at his or her fingertips.
Rod Stephens
________________________________
From: Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tue, July 24, 2012 10:57:30 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Acetate vs. Lacquer and The State of Recorded Sound
Research
Hi Carl:
The perfect response to someone who thinks a skilled recording engineer is a
button-pusher with
fancy equipment is, tell them that you'll leave off a pile of expensive chain
saws and axes so they
can cut down their own trees. Minus a few fingers or limbs, they might just turn
out a nice
clearing.
Disrespect of craft is indicative of the general disrespect for learning and
skill-perfecting that
is part of our culture today. A free-lunch mentality leads too many people to
dismiss the time and
dedication required to perfect a skill or learn a craft.
As an aside, I see cooking as jazz. A recipe is a "standard," best followed
carefully and learned
right the first time through, but then often improvised upon in future
renditions for better-tasting
results. Baking is a different matter, I've never had very good luck deviating
from the
chemistry-lab-ish recipes. My wife seems to have a better understanding of the
chemistry, so she can
get good results tweaking ingredients or mixing sequences.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Pultz" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 1:37 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Acetate vs. Lacquer and The State of Recorded Sound
Research
> Thanks Richard, Tom. WE know there's craft, do others? It's just the way it
> is in this day. Actually, I'm lucky to work for some people who do know it
> and appreciate it, and can sort of afford it. Particularly pro musicians,
> because they can relate to the idea that you show up with expensive stuff
> and do a practiced thing, and that is worth something. How much it's worth
> is the dismal question. It's a bit harder to impress people when you're not
> a studio recordist, with all the cool stuff with knobs and lights and
> meters.
>
> Love the story about the photographer. Sounds like Elliott Erwitt. Cooking
> is chemistry. When my wife remarked about my careful measuring of
> ingredients, I told her I learned to follow recipes in the darkroom.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 9:08 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Acetate vs. Lacquer and The State of Recorded Sound
> Research
>
> If there weren't a LOT of craft involved in sound recording, there wouldn't
> be so many lousy
> recordings out there. Anyone can accumulate a lot of gear to play with, very
> few can use it to make
> excellent recordings. Even more true for mastering, which is a subtle art
> and is often done badly,
> in my opinion. The same is absolutely true of photography and cooking. Even
> baking, which I liken
> more to chemistry than jazz (which is how I go about cooking), requires a
> skill set and craft,
> otherwise all cakes would taste equally good.
>
> The craft thing even gets into using software. I've never liked automating
> or batch-processing much
> of anything (except simple stuff like "take this folder of WAV files and
> crunch them to new MP3
> files in a separate folder"). This is my beef about blanket heavy-handed use
> of "noise-reduction" or
> "cleanup" software. It usually results in worse overall sound than tackling
> the worst imperfections
> by hand.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard L. Hess" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2012 8:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Acetate vs. Lacquer and The State of Recorded Sound
> Research
>
>
>> Hi, Carl,
>>
>> To put your photographer example in perspective...I saw this go by on
> Facebook and I'm
>> paraphrasing.
>>
>> A wealthy patron of the arts invites a well-known photographer to a dinner
> party. When the
>> photographer enters, the host says, "Oh I love your work. You must have a
> really good camera."
>>
>> As the evening progresses, the photographer says nothing but enjoys a
> sumptuous meal.
>>
>> At the end of the evening, the photographer says to the host, "I had a
> wonderful time and really
>> enjoyed the food. You must have a really good stove."
>>
>> The other side of this is people who do recordings and don't listen to
> what they are recording. I
>> have long since decided that I cannot afford to do location recording
> unless I want to, because
>> the effort is not understood. And yes, in both photography and recording,
> I do believe that having
>> top end lenses or microphones is the most important part of equipping ones
> self to reach the
>> aesthetic end that you're aiming for.
>>
>> On the other hand, while not publication quality, I was very pleased with
> some of the images my
>> sons took when they were first given 2 MP digital cameras (that made
> good-looking, if not detailed
>> enough, images--but looking at that another way, the "High Definition"
> monitors we're using
>> (1920x1080) are 2 MP). In the same vein, recordings made with a properly
> placed $200 portable
>> digital recorder (even with quadraphonic capability) can be far better
> than they have the right to
>> be at that price point. The interesting thing here is that many of these
> recorders are capable of
>> recording 48 ks/s at 24 bits (in quad in one case) and even stereo at 96
> ks/s and 24 bits.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> On 2012-07-24 7:13 AM, Carl Pultz wrote:
>>> I'd be careful about what self-definition one internalizes.
>>>
>>> "Image capture" "Sound capture" Tiny, maintenance-free recording devices
>>> make the term "recording engineer" seem overblown. I prefer "sound
>>> interpreter" or "recordist" as a symbol of a learn-ed craft.
> Unfortunately,
>>> the apparent ease of the operation can make one's client think you're
> just a
>>> clerk (clark), and assume that your time is worth no more than a guy who
>>> runs a copier at Staples. A similar fate has befallen the photographer,
> who
>>> now competes with the image-stabilized, auto-focused, face-recognized,
>>> multi-zoned, cyber-aided, unlimited-exposure clicker who can buy their
>>> professional status - - at Staples.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Richard L. Hess email: [log in to unmask]
>> Aurora, Ontario, Canada (905) 713 6733 1-877-TAPE-FIX
>> http://www.richardhess.com/tape/contact.htm
>> Quality tape transfers -- even from hard-to-play tapes.
>>
>
|