general questions, comments and ideas about recording, audio, music, etc.
- gettin' sounds
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
- Location: South Bend, Indiana
Great thread!SKEETER wrote:Rigsby
My point to that was meant to be that, it is easy now to look back and poke at the inadequecies of music from the rock era, but in fact if much of the newer music out there had to be recorded under the same conditions, it wouldn't be any better, and in my estimation wouldn't be as good.
Another thing is, bands like the Beatles because good in part because of doing 25 live takes directly to tape to get a song right, rather than going back and dubbing in a bad guitar lick or a flat "YeahYeah". You cannot do your songs that much in a row and not learn two things, one is the song so you can do it in your sleep, and the other is how to play and sing in key in general. I am betting that recording sessions were the best practice the Beatles ever got.
Modern bands may not have that advantage, technology is not forcing them to become perfectionists about it.
In the past, by the time a band go on stage with their first hit song, they had their material down perfect from having played it over and over and over until they were sick of it.
Older bands even lip synced better. You couldn't really tell if the Stones were playing live on Ed Sullivan or not, or doing a willy vanilly, they did it so well.
If everything were in perfect pitch, the songs would sound, ah... - perfect! Sometimes when I am not listening to a song, something out of place will catch my ear and before I can figure out what it is, it's gone. I have written this off to the way my brain processes sound, first at a subconsious level and then at a concious level. I have never been able to put my finger - or ear - on what it is. I think it a Zen-like "listening is not listening" thing.
The human ear is easily fooled, see the thread about placing instruments "outside" of the apparent stereo field at http://messageboard.tapeop.com/viewtopic.php?t=10580.
Over the years, I have found certain chord inversions and combinations that produce "phantom" notes. To me, it is part of the holy grail of music. A good choral arranger knows this technique very well and applies it to create more voices than are written. A good example is when you are moving up in a progression and your ear perceives that the progression is actually falling. The field of study is psychoacoustics.
IMHO, tracking in a studio is the "applied" part of music "theory". The session is wrong place for song development, although it probably happens quite a bit. I though that the idea was to know your part in your sleep before tracking; your mileage may vary. It is easier to create arrangements on the fly now because of the low entry level price of setting up a basic studio. If you approach a song this way you will get the same result, but the step of going back and mastering the take that actually made it to the mix is easily skipped.
just my .02
What? No Gravy???
was just listening to moody blues days of future passed and there's a section of falsetto background vocals on one piece thats so friggin flat it's amazingly bad. "Evening time" i think
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests