Sound City film, lots of tapeoppery

[trodden]

Watched it last night. I thought it was a pretty cool story, and a few things jumped out at me.

- the image we have (or I have) of 70s rock bands recording in palatial places like Record Plant vs. the fact that so many astounding records were made in such a total dump. Seriously, I always wondered why the inner sleeve band photo on You Can Tune A Piano But You Can't Tuna Fish showed the band posing in front of an ugly grey plastic sheet, but it was probably the nicest background they could find in the place.

- the painstaking account of the gradual failure of the studio's business model as set against the creeping advance of digital/computer recording, and not a single interviewee said "gee, maybe we should have figured out a way to adapt to the changing landscape" or "hey, our studio's major successes grew out of an investment in the exciting new technology of the day (the mixing console that's the main character in this movie), and our studio's failure was a result of religiously avoiding the exciting new technology of the day (digital) twenty years later...that's odd."

(and yes, I know the entire big-studio world has collapsed, and it was probably unavoidable, but still.)

- the way everyone who talked about Trent Reznor had to dance around the fact that he's embraced the computer recording paradigm that they're blaming for the failure of their studio. "Well, sure, he's a Pro Tools guy but he's one of the good ones."

Bingo... All net... Agreed

[Dr. Mordo]

I've decided I think the movie isn't about the studio, it's not about the board, it's not about tape vs. protools.

In a broad way, it's about the way the recording biz has changed over the last 40 years.

40 years ago, people spent the cost of a house on a console that was the command center of the whole studio. Then they built a room that sounded great to go with it. Then a group of musicians came in and jammed in that room to create music.

Today, people record by themselves with the DAW in their untreated bedroom, spend hours autotuning and time aligning, and then mix on headphones.

The last third of the movie is there purely to show the modern DAW user what it can be like to get a bunch of folks together and create a collaborative track in the studio. I think the songs are mediocre, but the fun they have is self-apparent. And that fun is the whole point.

The people in this thread who have changed the way they record because of the movie are proof that Grohl was successful in reminding people what it used to be like and how much things have changed. I've seen the same thing over on GS; people are questioning the way they record because of this movie.

I do think the movie's title is misleading, but I think Grohl picked it because it's catchy. Also, I can't think of a better title.

BTW, I completely agree the music is way too loud. And definitely not enough Cheap Trick, which is weird cause I'd think Grohl would be a big fan.