what % of new music do you think is done on tape?

[knobtwirler]

what the craziest thing is is he's a fantastic singer just singing. but like the "T" sound of "tomorrow" wouldn't be right on the beat so they'd either punch it or do some time compression to fix it. i mean we're talking CRAZY.

Wow, what some people call crazy appears to be every day at work for me. I wish we still worked on tape so we didn't have to toil over retarded edits and crossfades all day and actually make music. Before digital hysteria, there was less ADD and OCD and more talent.

[joel hamilton]

I am in the middle of some stuff with Soulive and we are on tape.

[Harry]

I am in the middle of some stuff with Soulive and we are on tape.

Nice!!! I love those guys..Great players.... sweet sounds. What more could you ask for?
Have fun!

[LeedyGuy]

www.hymnsband.com


that's tape. and its awesome!

[Seifer]

George Massenburg doesn't use tape. For Anything.

ooh we need another snotty catchphrase for this:

"George Massenburg can do it better with a saftey pin and a diaper than MacGyver with a Studer"

[ryanlikestorock]

I am saying that stuff like Wilco, Arcade Fire and other "big" but not "huge" bands are going through tape.

You'd be wrong about the Arcade Fire amigo.

The final mixes of Funeral were done to tape. Also, a lot of the tracking (maybe just the beds) was done to tape as well.

They were totally self-financed and definitely not "big" when they were recording this album though. Still, I'm sure Win likes tape and will probably keep mixing down to it.

[knobtwirler]

Back when there was only tape and there was never any issue of whether or not to use tape, I liked using tape. As a matter of fact I never thought twice about it because there was no second thought option. But now that digital is everywhere, reliable, sounds good, doesn't have to rewind, has at least 64 tracks and plugins galore, the idea of using tape actually bothers me. When people suggest it my pores start to open and secrete sebum as I think, "why do they want to make things more difficult than they have to be". I really hope the "tape sounds better and it's there so lets use it and then bounce it all to Tools after" is in its d?nouement.

[dokushoka]

Back when there was only tape and there was never any issue of whether or not to use tape, I liked using tape. As a matter of fact I never thought twice about it because there was no second thought option. But now that digital is everywhere, reliable, sounds good, doesn't have to rewind, has at least 64 tracks and plugins galore, the idea of using tape actually bothers me. When people suggest it my pores start to open and secrete sebum as I think, "why do they want to make things more difficult than they have to be". I really hope the "tape sounds better and it's there so lets use it and then bounce it all to Tools after" is in its d?nouement.

In my experience, sessions done to tape tend to go much more efficiently than those done directly to protools.

[knobtwirler]

Oh I forgot to say that if all there was was a tape machine and we didn't want to make a slave reel, I'm all for it. As far as the protools sessions not going smoothly, I'm sorry for ya.

[dokushoka]

As far as the protools sessions not going smoothly, I'm sorry for ya.

Its not that they don't go smoothly, just not as efficiently. The performance comes from the performers with tape, not an editor. We're not in the business of making Speilberg films...

[Derrick]

my pores start to open and secrete sebum as I think

Wow, ya might want to get that checked on. Maybe it was the brand tape you used?

[JGriffin]

As far as the protools sessions not going smoothly, I'm sorry for ya.

Its not that they don't go smoothly, just not as efficiently. The performance comes from the performers with tape, not an editor. We're not in the business of making Speilberg films...

The efficiency comes from the engineer, not the platform. If it disrupts the efficiency of the session to stop and do an edit, don't. Have the performers play it again.

[dokushoka]

As far as the protools sessions not going smoothly, I'm sorry for ya.

Its not that they don't go smoothly, just not as efficiently. The performance comes from the performers with tape, not an editor. We're not in the business of making Speilberg films...

The efficiency comes from the engineer, not the platform. If it disrupts the efficiency of the session to stop and do an edit, don't. Have the performers play it again.

The fact is, my opinion doesn't matter that much. I work with good players, most of the time, its more that some of them become hyper-focused and begin to over edit. They're paying the bill, so who I am to disagree with how they want their art presented?

[scott oliphant]

I've noticed a trend amongst boards like this. A lot of those who are digital vehemently defend HD recording, almost to the point of being rude. Why so defensive? We're not trying to convert you back to tape, if you ever used it to begin with. I know a lot of people who still track to tape, and a lot of young people who are outfitting their studios with decks and getting lots of work because of that.

[Cyan421]

About the vocal editing stuff. I've heard of engineers on the big pop records using a whole 2" reel for just the vocals, 2 tracks of music, 1 track of fax machine noise and 20 tracks of vocals, tons of mute automation. This kind of vocal editing has been hapening for a long time. It's not a side effect of digital recording, it just a lot easier when digital got good enough to use.

About recording schools. I learned how to align, calibrate, clean, demagnitize, run, use, and maintain two different specific tape machines of different brands, at a big time recording school. Please don't generalize one man's opinion as that of every recording school instructor.