Read me:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/monitormix/2009/11/the_death_of_mistakes_means_th.html
And then, let's discuss:
I agree with the gist of this article. Over-correcting is a serious problem in modern music. Also, the dynamic range of modern rock and pop has become teeny-tiny.
As a musician I have spent many hours in the practice room trying to "perfect" my playing. The studio allows me to reach that goal in some ways which were not possible before digital recording. How do you know when to stop? If you're a model would you not want a blemish photoshopped out of a picture?
This reminds me of a part of an Ayn Rand book I read which more or less stated: if you see a person who's physically beautiful but has a weird birthmark on their face, you overlook it. If you see a painting of a beautiful person with a hairy mole on their face it's a giant slap in the face. It's a statement.
How does that relate to music?
Read this excerpt of Bill Evans' liner notes for the Miles Davis album "Kind of Blue"
http://www.billevanswebpages.com/kindblue.html
I agree that music is better with the blemishes left on it. I believe that dynamic range is a good thing. I'm also simultaneously worried that if I make a recording that could be used in a movie or a tv show and it's going up against another song that sounds bigger I'll lose the gig.
It's not possible for society to move back in time. It trips me out that we'll never again be in a movie theater that there isn't at least the possibility of someone forgetting to turn their cell phone off. This is the world we live in.
The great music of the 60's was recorded with eight or less tracks. That limitation was part of the creative process, and helped the artist achieve greater heights.
Read this for more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_multitrack_recording
Those limitations are toast, and there's no going back. You won't see athletes avoiding creatine and modern dietary supplements unless they're outlawed.
If we passed legislation banning auto-tune, wouldn't that just give way to bootleg-mafia pitch correction?
It's time to get dressed for my gig, so I'll have to leave this right where it is for the moment.
Tell me what you think...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think about this often. Rip Rowan has a great analysis of the dynamic issue strictly from a mastering perspective:
http://www.prorec.com/Articles/tabid/109/EntryId/247/Over-the-Limit.aspx
Regarding blemishes, for me anyway, it's all about context. Blemishes are completely acceptable in the context of a *great* take. Not so much in a mediocre or less take. but if you have a patch up a mediocre take, you probably shouldn't be keeping it.
I still believe great performances are what people intangibly like. But the combination of over-correcting mistakes, and squeezing out the dynamics (via mastering in particular) just leave listeners numb.
it could be argued that production is simply layer[s] of paint on the musical canvas. and as the the sophistication of these tools increases, so does the realm of artistic possibility.
of course, it goes both ways; it is, now more than ever, possible to manufacture "talent." but the alternative is too exciting to damn it all. i love watching innovative artists turn these tools on their heads and use them in ways originally unintended.
for example, when electronic musicians first started over-manipulating voices with autotune, i was totally captivated by it. it was a creative way of projecting sound, and it worked.
the problem, of course, is that people take a good thing and run it into the ground. or use it as a crutch. and now, when i hear autotune in popular music, i immediately clam up and get suspicious. but that's just part of the natural ebb and flow. real talent will never go out of fashion. devoted musicians will continue to innovate, always.
file sharing has changed the way musicians make money; live performances are more important than ever. on the stage, an over-produced act won't be able to hide from expectant fans. it kind of becomes an invisible hand effect in that way?
when i listen to a band's studio recorded CD, i do expect a highly sophisticated production value. not because i prefer it, but because that just seems to be the norm. however, i'm much more responsive to the stylistic nuances and raw emotion of unedited/live performances. and if i really love a singer's voice, i listen on vinyl.
you've probably already guessed that i'm not a musician/music producer, so take all of this with a grain of salt :D
Well,if I had to sing in a studio, I'd be happy about the possibility of pitching... But to be honest I don't like and need everything to be perfect. Little mistakes are human and likable. I want to listen to music made by human beings and not by machines or robots. I want to feel the spirit of the music. An overcorrected music is dead and boring. If you recognize after recording that one or two tunes aren't correct, OK, why not pitching them. But I know abot several "singer" who can't sing at all and almost every tune must be pitched. That's not the meaning of this invention. A singer who can't sing has no place in a studio or on stage.
The same with instruments. Computer tunes are dead. I love the squeking sound when you (or anybody else) change the chords. I don't know why, I just love it.
Post a Comment