Small Tape Op magazine critique

raweber · Post by **raweber** » Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm

You know, I was actually thinking about writing in about this same thing. Reading in the most recent issue, the interview with fascinating Homes brothers, I turned the page and what did I see, but another shot of them standing OUTSIDE of their studio! I immediately started wondering what the INSIDE of their studio looks like.

So, I love the interviews (and this issue seemed especially great in that regard) and I understand that you are consciously not going for the gratuitous gear-porn shots, but I think that two shots of the outside of a studio in the same article with no shots inside might be swinging the pendulum too far the other way. (The Moby shot of him in front of his "wall 'o gear" was great - really captured the feeling).

p.s. - I don't care about shots of tracking sessions, I'd just like to see the layout of their recording space.

Post by **TapeOpLarry** » Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:45 am

The Jackson Analogue studio's gear wasn't insanely special, but the historic building they are in was a centerpiece of the interview and quite unique.

monomedia · Post by **monomedia** » Sat Oct 10, 2009 11:36 pm

The Jackson Analogue studio's gear wasn't insanely special

Yeah, but why no pictures of their Roland Space Echo?

Snarl 12/8 · Post by **Snarl 12/8** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 6:08 am

One possible way around the "crummy photo" problem might be to provide some guidelines to the studios about how to take and submit photos. When I worked as a web designer I had the exact same problem, maybe worse because people think that since it's going to wind up on the web it can start off as crap. (there's another mp3 analogy that can be made here.)

The times that I've worked with people and told them up front "it needs to be so many dpi, get in close to your subject, no flash, use a tripod or set the camera on something," I've gotten better results. Simply tell them that you won't publish photos that weren't taken in the way you specify. Perhaps you could invest a small sum in a camera, like a Lumix or something, that takes stellar pictures very easily and loan it to people for a week along with the instructions. Many cameras let you tweak the default settings to yield better results in your typical "mood lit" studio setting.

This problem is about as solvable as the "coming into the studio unprepared" problem. I.e. not completely solvable, but you can present some guidelines that might make the sitch more workable, more of the time.

hank alrich · Post by **hank alrich** » Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:43 pm

Add the hassle that to use photos of people one should have releases from those people. Throw in a few musos from scattered places and one meets an administrative mess.

Post by **TapeOpLarry** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:08 am

Well, one of the problems is that we feel we ARE solving this situation most of the time!

Snarl 12/8 · Post by **Snarl 12/8** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:45 pm

For the record, I wasn't trying to join in the criticism of TO photographs. I barely look at them. I was trying to offer ideas for fixing the problem, as stated by Larry in his response. I agree that the problem appears to be a non-problem most of the time.

Meriphew · Post by **Meriphew** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 4:32 pm

I mentioned something similar to Craig Anderton (regarding EQ magazine) on his forum.

http://acapella.harmony-central.com/sho ... ?t=2451380

lancebug · Post by **lancebug** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 7:26 pm

+1 on wanting to see more space layout/ room treatment photos. I like diagrams too; studios, session layouts, how to stack the box on a goal-line stand. I don't care really what it is, I'm just a visual learner, so I like visual support of any sort. Not a criticism, just an observation about how I like to take in information.

Also, do you take submissions for cover art, or do you sort of have a set cover art crew?

TapeOpAl · Post by **TapeOpAl** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:28 am

lancebug wrote:+1 on wanting to see more space layout/ room treatment photos. I like diagrams too; studios, session layouts, how to stack the box on a goal-line stand. I don't care really what it is, I'm just a visual learner, so I like visual support of any sort. Not a criticism, just an observation about how I like to take in information.

Also, do you take submissions for cover art, or do you sort of have a set cover art crew?

As far as I know we take submissions - email John Baccigaluppi (john at tapeop dot com) about ONLY this matter, he's pretty busy and I'm sure he doesn't need any misdirected enquiries!

lancebug · Post by **lancebug** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:08 pm

Duly noted. -L-

W DeMarco · Post by **W DeMarco** » Fri Apr 02, 2010 9:49 am

Am I the only guy thats gonna say less photos more words? While it is nice to have some visual stimulation, presenting a pic of a drum setup will do very little to help anyone with their own drum setup. Other than novel ideas like the Kurt HiHat quieting device. I find in reading tapeop, compared to other mags, you come to understand the personality of those being interviewed which in the recording world is a very important component. BTW, Larry, whats with the jumbo font takin up all the space. If you knock it down to a 2 or 4 pt I would appreciate it!

johnny7 · Post by **johnny7** » Fri Apr 02, 2010 7:30 pm

Yeah, where are all the pics of Rudy Van Gelder's set-up?

kuene · Post by **kuene** » Thu May 20, 2010 1:33 pm

I think editorially, TapeOp is doing the right thing. These are interviews with people, not reviews of gear. With a print magazine or other piece of journalism, you have to 'edit' because pages are limited. The editorial judgment is correct - show photos of the people - if they happen to work well when the subjects are shot in their environment, great - but normally photographs of people inside of small rooms don't come out so hot.

Gorilla · Post by **Gorilla** » Tue Aug 17, 2010 11:10 am

I agree that a whole magazine of rack photos is boring and the editorial direction is very clear from Larry here.

BUT, what about some pictures of control room, racks, home studios, etc.?

I'm actually thinking of a feature in the old 'Musician' magazine where they showed someone's home studio and labeld every piece of gear with a little number that corresponded to the gear (the poor intern that had to do that job...)

There is a point to be made that, back then there were a lot of adats and mackie mixers in those pics. But when I first started reading that magazine, I had no idea what an adat was. You also start picking up on things... like wow, everyone has that same echo unit from 15 years ago and no one has an aural exciter (which is exactly the opposit of what musicians friend would have me believe.)

Most disinctly I remember seeing Ween's bedroom studio, which had a tascam 4 track and what appeared to be a guitar plugged into a sega genesis... which never sounded that good for me... probably need to have mine recaped.

Tape Op is more about the who, the how and the why, rather than the what and the where.

But sometimes, it could... maybe be a little more about the what and the where.

Message Board

Small Tape Op magazine critique

Who is online