the metaphysics of analog vs digital & gramophones

[ubertar]

To me it's overwhelmingly positive. Recorded music and live music are two entirely different media. There's nothing stopping anyone from playing live music, if that's what they want to do. If a lot of people are choosing to use recording as a composition tool rather than create music for performing live, there must be a reason for that-- as one of those people, my take is that it's more satisfying. Composing is creative and fun. When your composition process and recording process are intertwined, you can hear your composition as it exists throughout the process. You only have to get it right once. There's no need to practise the same thing over and over again, or teach someone how to play something, or notate it all and find a chamber group or orchestra willing to play it, no need to put together and keep together a band. There's no need to haul a bunch of gear around, either.

Live performance is fun, too, but it has lots of hassles, and unless your live set has a big improvisational component, it's mostly playing the same stuff every time, which isn't very creative (or maybe not creative at all). Keeping the set tight with whatever ensemble you're working with (or solo) plus booking shows, promotion all take time that's time not spent on the creative side of things. Unless you're making a living at performing, there's only so much time available for music. It's no surprise that a lot of people would choose to focus on the creative part of music which got them into playing music in the first place.

Also, it's possible to do all kinds of things in a recording that you can't do live. I can layer lots of strings to get the effect of an orchestral string section, for example. There's no way I could afford to do that live. And MIDI doesn't count... MIDI isn't live. It's a way of triggering samples (short recordings).

To me, making a recording has nothing whatsoever to do with documenting a performance. It's the creation of a work of art, like a painting or sculpture. Listening to the finished work is similar to looking at a painting or sculpture. There's no need for it to be social in the same way that a live performance is. JMHO...

[MoreSpaceEcho]

i'd say about 90% of the records i master are the work of people playing (oops...sorry....rocking out) together. i've heard plenty of cool one man band records too.

music is fine. the kids are alright. etc etc.

[Gregg Juke]

The Kids Are Alright Indeed.

Of special interest to this thread: http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/stop-the-p ... 35709.html

GJ

[zorf]

One of the most amazing musical moments i've experianced was when a collector of victrolas played me a caruso disk on one of his wind up machines.
The hairs stood up on the back of my neck.
i could swear caruso was in the room with me.
My ears didnt have to 'squint" at all.
i could hear caruso breathe and the sound of the pianist release the pedals.
I think it was the combination of the powerful voice of the singer, the ambiance of the room when it was recorded, the non electric nature of the recording, but most of all the huge horn.
it amplifies the sound acousticly and makes the sound appear to bloom in the listening space in an indescribable way.
It was like a ghostly holagraph. Help me obi wan kenobi!
As we've been conditioned to hear electronic music over time, it can be quite a revelation.
And maybe the scratches prime the brain to pay attention because when we usually hear a scratchy recording these days, it's usually a significant historical recording.
Not that there wern't plenty of forgettable recordings made then.

[Gregg Juke]

And the proverbial fly in the mechano-vinyllac ointment-- According to Bob Olhsson, even Caruso over-dubbed... (yes, way back then... not sure how, but he was adamant).

GJ

[fossiltooth]

One of the most amazing musical moments i've experianced was when a collector of victrolas played me a caruso disk on one of his wind up machines.
The hairs stood up on the back of my neck.
i could swear caruso was in the room with me.
My ears didnt have to 'squint" at all.
i could hear caruso breathe and the sound of the pianist release the pedals.
I think it was the combination of the powerful voice of the singer, the ambiance of the room when it was recorded, the non electric nature of the recording, but most of all the huge horn.
it amplifies the sound acousticly and makes the sound appear to bloom in the listening space in an indescribable way.
It was like a ghostly holagraph. Help me obi wan kenobi!
As we've been conditioned to hear electronic music over time, it can be quite a revelation.
And maybe the scratches prime the brain to pay attention because when we usually hear a scratchy recording these days, it's usually a significant historical recording.
Not that there wern't plenty of forgettable recordings made then.

A Victrola recording of Caruso gives us a sense of what Caruso "really" sounded like in much the same way that a sepia-toned photograph gives us a sense of what he "really" looked like. It seems "authentic" to us, only because it meets our expectations of the era.

That's not to say that old sepia photographs and victrola recordings aren't awesome. They certainly can be! But I think you mistake "emotional impact" with "realism" in the literal sense of the word. The two things are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually inclusive. They are wholly separate parameters, in no way directly intertwined.

And again: I'm not weighing in to trash on acoustic recording. We are talking about something that I love. I'm just trying to be clear about what's what. It doesn't need misleading salesmanship to be awesome. It just is.

[Snarl 12/8]

He said he could hear Caruso breathe and the release of the pedals. That speaks to realism. That's not something I hear every day on modern recordings. I don't think that's digital or analog, but I do think that the digital medium loans itself to editing and autotuning out all the "imperfections" that people had to live with back in the day.

Maybe it's a sepia-toned, analog picture of a piano pedal that you hold in your hand, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's less realistic than a color digital one viewed on a monitor. I really don't think you can claim to understand ALL the differences enough to claim one is more realistic than the other. Also one could be more realistic than the other for certain people. Whatever the hell realistic means. I think it's an unanswerable philosophical question.

[vvv]

To me it's overwhelmingly positive. Recorded music and live music are two entirely different media. There's nothing stopping anyone from playing live music, if that's what they want to do. If a lot of people are choosing to use recording as a composition tool rather than create music for performing live, there must be a reason for that-- as one of those people, my take is that it's more satisfying. Composing is creative and fun. When your composition process and recording process are intertwined, you can hear your composition as it exists throughout the process. You only have to get it right once. There's no need to practise the same thing over and over again, or teach someone how to play something, or notate it all and find a chamber group or orchestra willing to play it, no need to put together and keep together a band. There's no need to haul a bunch of gear around, either.

Live performance is fun, too, but it has lots of hassles, and unless your live set has a big improvisational component, it's mostly playing the same stuff every time, which isn't very creative (or maybe not creative at all). Keeping the set tight with whatever ensemble you're working with (or solo) plus booking shows, promotion all take time that's time not spent on the creative side of things. Unless you're making a living at performing, there's only so much time available for music. It's no surprise that a lot of people would choose to focus on the creative part of music which got them into playing music in the first place.

Also, it's possible to do all kinds of things in a recording that you can't do live. I can layer lots of strings to get the effect of an orchestral string section, for example. There's no way I could afford to do that live. And MIDI doesn't count... MIDI isn't live. It's a way of triggering samples (short recordings).

To me, making a recording has nothing whatsoever to do with documenting a performance. It's the creation of a work of art, like a painting or sculpture. Listening to the finished work is similar to looking at a painting or sculpture. There's no need for it to be social in the same way that a live performance is. JMHO...

This = genius.

This whole thread =

[fossiltooth]

He said he could hear Caruso breathe and the release of the pedals. That speaks to realism.

That speaks to compression! : )

Those early acoustic formats were quite compressed by nature. Very limited dynamic range with a very non-linear responses.

(In the modern era, hearing those things could also speak to the sensitivity of the transducer and the dynamic range and clean power of the playback system, but that's not what we're talking about here with an early Victrola recording.)

That's not something I hear every day on modern recordings.

That's 'cause people edit them out! (especially when using lots of compression). It's not because the format is incapable of capturing it.

I don't think that's digital or analog, but I do think that the digital medium loans itself to editing and autotuning out all the "imperfections" that people had to live with back in the day.

Too true.

Maybe it's a sepia-toned, analog picture of a piano pedal that you hold in your hand, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's less realistic than a color digital one viewed on a monitor.

Debatable, I suppose. Define "realistic."

I really don't think you can claim to understand ALL the differences enough to claim one is more realistic than the other.

I don't claim to understand "ALL" of anything. But I do insist that some things are understandable. And it's good to be clear about what those things are.

Also one could be more realistic than the other for certain people. Whatever the hell realistic means.

Right. And I think that's one of the issues we're having here: Definitions. It's like Einstein says: "If I had an hour to save the world, I would spend 59 minutes defining the problem and one minute finding solutions."

I think it's an unanswerable philosophical question.

Only if you insist! If we can agree on a definition of "realism" we can talk sensibly about it. But if we're using the same word to talk about two different things, say "accuracy to life" vs "emotional impact", then yes, it would be an impossible conversation to have. Since we're using that one word in two separate ways, maybe we should just abandon it for the purposes of this conversation?

If you want to defend this stuff from poetic grounds, that's possible too -- but take a cue from Picasso. There's an apocryphal tale that a stranger on a train once asked him why he didn't paint "realistic" pictures. So, Picasso asked to see an example of a picture that was "realistic". The stranger reached into his wallet and provided a photograph of his wife. (Presumably sepia-toned.) Picasso took it in his hand and looked it over. He replied: "That's your wife? She's so small. And flat, too."

I'm not sure that applies here, but hey -- that's bulletproof reasoning. And poetic as well. I'd like to see some of that!

[zorf]

all recording is artificial.
The fact of recording is artificial.
which is fine. It is what it is.

[fossiltooth]

all recording is artificial.
The fact of recording is artificial.
which is fine. It is what it is.

Sure! Which brings me back to my original point:

It's worth noting that sound can not truly be "captured" -- ever -- whether on wax cylinder or solid state hard drive. Sound exists only as momentary vibrations in the air. We can not bottle it. The best we can do is measure the energy of sound and represent it in another form: as etchings on a surface, as magnetism or as electricity.

Whatever the format, we can attempt to draw a continuous line (known as "analog", which is very tricky to do well) or store discrete impulses, which are then used to perfectly redraw the line, using what we know about the laws of molecular motion.

One question then, is which of these measurements is most accurate and true to life? The no-nonsense answer to that is "good digital". Like evolution, and the earth's path around the sun, this is not a matter of debate. But we can also ask: Which charms us the most, regardless of accuracy? There is no correct answer to that one. Whatever floats your boat.

If you really want to get metaphysical, then we can ask what "artificial" means.

If recordings are "artificial", then doesn't music have to be considered "artificial" as well? They are both human creations, consciously constructed to please human beings. Would we say the sound of a waterfall is "better" than Beethoven's 5th Symphony because it's a "natural" construct rather than an intentional one?

On the other hand, couldn't we instead see music, recordings, books, roads and anthills as "natural", because they are things that a natural animal species does? (In this case, humans.) I mean, is a chimpanzee using a stick to fish for ants "unnatural"?

In the most basic sense, both acoustic music and recordings are made from "natural" elements: Changes in sound pressure on the one hand, changes in magnetism, voltage or a physical surface on the other.

Or do we take a different approach and consider these things "unnatural" because they're informed by culture, rather than being purely not purely innate? It's true that both are to some degree learned, rather than baked right into our DNA.

But the problem is if we take that tack, then we'd have to say that whooping cranes sitting on their eggs until they hatch is "unnatural", since it appears to be an activity that is learned from other cranes, rather than something that comes by pure instinct. (Surprising I know, but it's true: Many animals do in fact have "culture." In some cases it is 100% necessary for their survival.)

Anyway, that's one I can't answer: "What is natural and what isn't?" Like a preference for one recording medium or another, that's a value judgement more than anything else. Science doesn't provide those. It only provides parameters for a meaningful and coherent debate.

[themagicmanmdt]

oh boy! (oh boy....)

so, perhaps the crux of all of this is to start measuring something that hasn't been measured analytically yet? is this the only way for a scientific community of any sort to accept the shamanistic approaches to the world?

(i speak flagrantly here...)

but, seriously, Dakota on pg 2 had an amazing relation to the 'double slit experiment' findings:

I suspect that when audio is happening in an analog medium, it's carrying an un-collapsed quantum eigenstate of all the possible variations of how it "could be", and when it's converted to digital media, that collapses it to one observed and fixed state, which shears off the sense of wide possibility. Much less information rich.

I think we experience wide bundles of variations of possibility as more pleasurable than fully observed and fixed single outcomes.

...which science may start to answer, perhaps, more as a methodology of action (verb) rather than concrete identification (noun). in that case... let's talk string theory!

but rather than go that route, i propose something slightly different:


it's interesting to continually note the abundance of 'lively' sounding adjectives by the analog lovers that they claim digital doesn't have... 'soul'... 'warmth'....

...as well as what digital converts say about why they prefer digital... 'accuracy'... 'real to the source'...


one camp leans on experiences and perception.... 'the subjectivists'.... perception's 'reality' is it's weakest link; once realizing that, possibilities for opening doors (thanks, huxley & morrison for that one) abound...

the magical key of going through the fallacies of perception is seeing the inherant reflectivity of nature... as well as creating music...

you are what you eat
(or at least what you absorb)
if you live in a digital culture
you create like sounding music
and that music sounds best through it
if you live more akin to a natural experience
and your music is such
then simple machines and organic processes overlap much more


so, perhaps soul comes out and is captured in so many ways
but we just struggle with the soul we capture
because it's a plastic sunglasses hipster america, these days
and it sounds like it
and that's not a bad thing!
it's just reflective.

step outside of the box...
and we can see that the tools and materials we use
in which we create
have a direct impact on the sound they make...
plastic guitar / wooden drums / nylon tips

on one hand, it's 'accurate'
on the other hand, 'accuracy' is just what's focused on as a decision based on what's being weighed and equating the two.

perhaps the current 'most accurate' in the scientific realm looses something much more hollistic.

in a different sense... a dollar isn't very accurate on how much something really costs.




i think the difference can be measured by playing a combination of music through the means in which it was created in various locations and then seeing the magnetism of who goes where for what reasons.

and, then, it's just reflective, and at the end of the day, in a large way, we can simply choose what to reflect. yet at the same time, we can't.

(i wrote a three part paper about this... can't seem to get it published...)

there's not much more i can seem to say at the moment.

other than

smile away
and
ram on

[donny]

oh boy! (oh boy....)

so, perhaps the crux of all of this is to start measuring something that hasn't been measured analytically yet?

...

smile away
and
ram on

that's a great post!

... and I think analog sounds kind of 'artificial' and plastic (that's part of what I like about it), and seems to retain the 'breath of life' thing that people can't really put their finger on. but it's kind of like why you like a certain girl over another one ... you're not really gonna be able to 'justify' or explain your choice!

[zorf]

or maybe an analogy might be watching a movie actress on film as opposed to living with her?

Of course it's articficial because even if the recording is an old style capture the performance, the performers are not in the room with you, but instead a fixed
performance with no possibilty of variables in a bandwidth limited approximation is electronicly causing a cone shaped piece of paper in a box to vibrate.

of course, way more convienent. You don't have to wait for everybody to set up,
and you avoid the akward moment when you ask them to leave after just one song.

plus you can listen in your pj's.

[drumsound]

And the proverbial fly in the mechano-vinyllac ointment-- According to Bob Olhsson, even Caruso over-dubbed... (yes, way back then... not sure how, but he was adamant).

GJ

I'd assume they were using two disk cutters, much like Les Paul was doing early on.

One of the most amazing musical moments i've experianced was when a collector of victrolas played me a caruso disk on one of his wind up machines.
The hairs stood up on the back of my neck.
i could swear caruso was in the room with me.
My ears didnt have to 'squint" at all.
i could hear caruso breathe and the sound of the pianist release the pedals.
I think it was the combination of the powerful voice of the singer, the ambiance of the room when it was recorded, the non electric nature of the recording, but most of all the huge horn.
it amplifies the sound acousticly and makes the sound appear to bloom in the listening space in an indescribable way.
It was like a ghostly holagraph. Help me obi wan kenobi!
As we've been conditioned to hear electronic music over time, it can be quite a revelation.
And maybe the scratches prime the brain to pay attention because when we usually hear a scratchy recording these days, it's usually a significant historical recording.
Not that there wern't plenty of forgettable recordings made then.

A Victrola recording of Caruso gives us a sense of what Caruso "really" sounded like in much the same way that a sepia-toned photograph gives us a sense of what he "really" looked like. It seems "authentic" to us, only because it meets our expectations of the era.

That's not to say that old sepia photographs and victrola recordings aren't awesome. They certainly can be! But I think you mistake "emotional impact" with "realism" in the literal sense of the word. The two things are neither mutually exclusive nor mutually inclusive. They are wholly separate parameters, in no way directly intertwined.

And again: I'm not weighing in to trash on acoustic recording. We are talking about something that I love. I'm just trying to be clear about what's what. It doesn't need misleading salesmanship to be awesome. It just is.

Great post. I love that you're attempting to make people think about "emotional impact" and general awesomeness, while reminding them that "realness" isn't always what people think it it.

He said he could hear Caruso breathe and the release of the pedals. That speaks to realism. That's not something I hear every day on modern recordings. I don't think that's digital or analog, but I do think that the digital medium loans itself to editing and autotuning out all the "imperfections" that people had to live with back in the day.

Maybe it's a sepia-toned, analog picture of a piano pedal that you hold in your hand, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's less realistic than a color digital one viewed on a monitor. I really don't think you can claim to understand ALL the differences enough to claim one is more realistic than the other. Also one could be more realistic than the other for certain people. Whatever the hell realistic means. I think it's an unanswerable philosophical question.

I think, again, we're talking about a capture of live players onto a mono (or a stereo) source. Even with early multitrack you have the mix process, the mute button, the fader, the pan knob, the aux send, these ALL alter the process and, thusly, the end result. The mentioned recording are on disk, before magnetic tape, so editing could only theoretically be done with multiple playback machine and another cutter. These old recordings are ensemble performance captures, not capture stacks, in the way that multitracks recordings are.

all recording is artificial.
The fact of recording is artificial.
which is fine. It is what it is.

I've said this for years. Recording is it's own unique, cheat. We have all embraced this as both creators and consumers.

Film and television are no different. The scenes are rarely done in the linear order that we see in the end result.

And that's fine.