Protools Logic "cracking" music art

[No4PCs]

Hi folks.
My view is the following:
If you need build a bridge, buy a pc.
To make music, buy a real recorder.Means Microsoft and Apple want see musicians programming damn computers, not making music.
Or, audio companies need design a hd based recorder more "intuitive" to record music. With a computer style recording, we Musicians dont get the recording "feel".
With a pc, we need be a programmer and not a musician.
Since early 70s, the good music is recorded at magnetic tape machines.You can hear the difference, the sound is real, not metalic sound in "digital domain".
This multimilionaire pc companies think musician is a computer programmer.
No, we dont need be a computer guru to make music.
I understand the hd more cheap these days to buy and go to record, but i think companies need research recorders more "intuitive" with real record buttoms to press.
No for Microsoft making music, No for Apple making music, No for SOFTWARES make music.
Sorry my poor english.
I want hear your opinion about my poit of view.
Happy New Year

[dbbubba]

It certianly lowers the bar for anyone to enter the game!

It's kind of like the question of how many monkeys and how many typewritters do you need before one types the Gettysburg address?

Then again, when I had a LOT of money and most of my life invested in a recording studio open to anyone who could afford it about 95% had no real reason to record other than personal gratification or satisfying a dream. Now they can just buy a computer and get the same gratification.

I meet people all the time that have no idea that I have engineered for more than thirty years and they proudly tell me that they are recording engineers because they have Garageband or something similar.

I have some books on quantum physics, string theory, grand unification theory so move the F*CK over Stephen Hawkings!



Danny Brown

[Rand0mRoll77]

if you don't want to take time to learn how to record and mix on your computer then go pay a studio more $ than it would cost to buy a computer to record your album

and be quiet....

[famulous]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

I meet people all the time that have no idea that I have engineered for more than thirty years and they proudly tell me that they are recording engineers because they have Garageband or something similar.

I have some books on quantum physics, string theory, grand unification theory so move the F*CK over Stephen Hawkings!

There is a similar history with
1) photography -> digital photography -> photoshop and the spread of bad photos and highly degraded files being used in major publications because everybody now has Photoshop and is a digital artist. And
2) publishing -> desktop publishing -> type faces. Before the advent of desktop publishing, the general knowledge of typography in the publishing world had to be quite extensive. "Specing" out type was necessary - the typesetter had to know how to typeset what he/she was looking at. Then we all got a zillion fonts on our computers, laser printers, and the typesetter was out of business.But ask a classically-trained expert on typography what he thinks of the average print publication (magazine, journal, etc). He will immediately tell you if the person laying out the pages "knows" what he/she was doing.

As soon as something can be done cheaply on a computer, the 'art' of that field is dilluted. I suppose this is an inherently elistist point to be making. Recording multitrack music is now available to the masses. I'm a non professional. But this is my main hobby. So for every home-grown masterpiece/savant/naive genius with ProTools (that would NOT be me...) there are 25000 hobbyists calling themselves a producer, an engineer, whatever, who are pumping out that personal gratification. And I'm one of 'em!

[cdog]

Computers don't make music.

People make music.

Its not the Apple's fault musicians don't want to learn how to play "real instruments."

Whatever that means.

I've heard some really good stuff made in only garageband.

Computers allow all types of people to compose and record music.

More music in the world is only a good thing.

[DAWgEAR]

Nowadays anybody can produce music.

As has always been the case, relatively few of them can produce good music.

As long as it makes you happy, go for it.

[dbbubba]

Yes, thanks to programs like GargeBand or Acid anyone can now create repetitive, mindless and musically imature music.

If you lower the bar of expectation low enough you can satisfy yourself fo hours!

Let me tell you something.... if you don't work HARD to play an instrument well (and a voice is an instrument) you are just playing around. If you don't challenge yourself and grow it is only so much musical masturbation after a point.

Glueing snippets of pre-played music together is not being a musician in any sense of the word. If I cut out sections of books by the masters and re-assembled it in some fashion I am not a writer!

EVERY CREATION IS NOT INHERENTLY ART!

Danny Brown

[5down1up]

some of those opinions are dead since > 20 years

i am just repeating myself

[mogWai]

I totally disagree with the original post.

Sure you need some degree of computer literacy but thats just the enginneering skills needed in the 21st Century.

There are still the skills of actually being able to record something well, and assemble all the recorded bits into a production. That hasnt changed.. since forever.

Songs recorded on tape sound more real? Well, personally I think anything recorded before 1962 sounds like shit. You mean as analog technology developed recordings got better to the point at the end of the 70s/early 80s where analog reached its zenith and got as good as it probably ever will. Yes - that technology sounded great. But how many machines did it take to achieve that sound!? Digital is arguably still in its infancy (although growing up fast and is now a much misunderstood teenager) - look at the progress of the last few years alone.

If it sounds rubbish, its probably your fault

[Bryan Talbot]

Computers don't kill music, people kill.....wait.....what?

[dbbubba]

[quote=mogWai]Well, personally I think anything recorded before 1962 sounds like shit. You mean as analog technology developed recordings got better to the point at the end of the 70s/early 80s where analog reached its zenith and got as good as it probably ever will. Yes - that technology sounded great. But how many machines did it take to achieve that sound!?/QUOTE]

I have some jazz recordings (espeicially a Billie Holliday CD) that were recorded in the mid to late '50s and they couldn't really be improved on by today's technology. The Billie Holliday CD was probebly run through a CEDAR noise reduction system when it was re-mastered, but it sounds DAMN good. It's vocal, sax, piano, bass and drums.

I also have some stuff recorded at Capitol studios in Hollywood in the '50s and although it is mono it is pretty good. Interestingly enough, I have realized that in MONO the room sound and leakage from that era sound old fashioned, but if you play a STEREO session cut in the same room with similar players/instrumentation it sounds good. I noticed this listening to a Jimmy Bryant compilation CD that starts with recordings cut between 1952 and 1967. If you put the stereo mixes in mono they sound pretty much the same as the mono recordings!

I also think that analog recording contunued to improve until the late '90s because of tape formulations like Ampex/Quantegt 499 that allowed elevated tape levels. I was running levels of +8 on Ampex 456 in the mid to late '80s, so tape that was able to handle +9 was wonderful thing! Plus, if you needed noise reduction Dolby SR was quite an improvement over Dolby A. There were many situations where noise recduction was definitely required, too. Not everything is pop music production!

Danny Brown

[5down1up]

next science fiction thread !?

Tape is GREAT

If you have the power not just to talk about how superb & outstanding tape and old school recording techniques were,
then do me a favour please and change the world back into :

TAPEMODE

... for the music & art & philosophy .

meanwhile, we use the options that are available & payable .

> dont get me wrong !

[cdog]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

Yes, thanks to programs like GargeBand or Acid anyone can now create repetitive, mindless and musically imature music.

Danny Brown

http://www.garychang.net/

Gary Chang, who is a highly respected composer and film scorer, uses Acid extensively in his compositions. He is among many who use the software to create incredible music.

How is this possible? Talent. Not all men are created equal.

Just because you are unable or unwilling to see the value of a tool, or use it properly, does not make that tool "repetitive, mindless, and musically immature."

You might be "repetitive, mindless, and musically immature," but it is inherently impossible for tools to take on those qualities.

I can make some horrible music on my guitar, that certainly does not mean the guitar is not a "real instrument" or is impossible to create wonderful original music with. Only a fool would think otherwise.

That concludes today's lesson on metaphysics and composition.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by No4PCs

Hi folks.
My view is the following:
If you need build a bridge, buy a pc.
To make music, buy a real recorder.Means Microsoft and Apple want see musicians programming damn computers, not making music.
Or, audio companies need design a hd based recorder more "intuitive" to record music. With a computer style recording, we Musicians dont get the recording "feel".
With a pc, we need be a programmer and not a musician.
Since early 70s, the good music is recorded at magnetic tape machines.You can hear the difference, the sound is real, not metalic sound in "digital domain".
This multimilionaire pc companies think musician is a computer programmer.
No, we dont need be a computer guru to make music.
I understand the hd more cheap these days to buy and go to record, but i think companies need research recorders more "intuitive" with real record buttoms to press.
No for Microsoft making music, No for Apple making music, No for SOFTWARES make music.
Sorry my poor english.
I want hear your opinion about my poit of view.
Happy New Year

I think you've got some interesting points. I don't agree with too many of them for my own work but I can see how they make sense from some folks' perspective.

But, you know, I'm assuming you spent a fair amount of time learning how to align and maintain your tape machines (you do align, clean demag, etc, before every session, don't you? That's the way I learned to do it.) Depending on the machine an experienced second could get that done on a 24 track in maybe 15 - 25 minutes, right? And while board routing is second nature to most of us oldtimers, it took a lot of us, I'm sure, some serious headbending to finally get a grip on big, modern boards with separate monitor sections and multiple sets of sends and returns.


Even without taking into consideration analog vs digital storage issues, I think there's much to be said for your desire for a straightforward, easty to maintain "pushbutton" system. (Like I suggest, I don't think we've ever really had that.)

But when I made the move to hard drive based recording I had a smoothly functioning 16 track digital tape based studio that I could yoke to MIDI on the computer, an then best-of-two-worlds kind of option, in some ways.

But I was more than extremely anxious to plunge into the new world of computer based audio.

There was a learning curve. There were frustrations. There was a tradeoff, going from the 16 record track digital tape rig (2 ADATs, surprise, surprise) to an 8 channel in/out hard-drive rig based around my PC. (This was back in '96.) It did let me sneak in a few more tracks... I could get up to 20 if things didn't get too crazy. (This was on a Pentium 'one' 133 MHz machine -- but, of course, that was before plug-in mania [at least for me] and it was all 16 bit.


Anyhow, I guess what I'm saying is that I could have stayed with what I had (with the understanding, of course, that sonically it wasn't any better or worse than what I was then doing on the computer) and just keep two fingering those red and green buttons. And I did keep doing that for my remaining clients for project portability reasons, if nothing else. It was late 96 before I got my first CD burner -- a neck-snapping 2x...)


But when I moved my personal projects completely to the computer, I experienced the most profound period of recording/production growth ever, even greater than when I got my first 4 track reel machine 15 years earlier.

The very first project I did on the computer convinced me I'd found my ideal production platform.

As, always, mileage varies.

[Zeppelin4Life]

Who cares? If anything, it just makes the talented sound better...

do what you can, and have fun. I personally like computers becuase without them..well, I sure as hell wouldn't be typing this

Something about right clicking and hitting keys seems to work better than razor blades and grease pencils...but it doesnt not sound as good...ahh life is all compromise

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

Yes, thanks to programs like GargeBand or Acid anyone can now create repetitive, mindless and musically imature music.

If you lower the bar of expectation low enough you can satisfy yourself fo hours!

Let me tell you something.... if you don't work HARD to play an instrument well (and a voice is an instrument) you are just playing around. If you don't challenge yourself and grow it is only so much musical masturbation after a point.

Glueing snippets of pre-played music together is not being a musician in any sense of the word. If I cut out sections of books by the masters and re-assembled it in some fashion I am not a writer!

EVERY CREATION IS NOT INHERENTLY ART!

Danny Brown

It doesn't make you a musician. It makes you a producer.

________________

Originally Posted by cdog

http://www.garychang.net/

Gary Chang, who is a highly respected composer and film scorer, uses Acid extensively in his compositions. He is among many who use the software to create incredible music.

How is this possible? Talent. Not all men are created equal.

Just because you are unable or unwilling to see the value of a tool, or use it properly, does not make that tool "repetitive, mindless, and musically immature."

You might be "repetitive, mindless, and musically immature," but it is inherently impossible for tools to take on those qualities.

I can make some horrible music on my guitar, that certainly does not mean the guitar is not a "real instrument" or is impossible to create wonderful original music with. Only a fool would think otherwise.

That concludes today's lesson on metaphysics and composition.

Well said.


One of the coolest tracks I ever found on the web was a minute and a half or so drum and bass thing -- where all the sound samples were from typical objects found in an office: a pencil snapping a blotter, a Rubbermaid trash can, a pencil sharpner -- you get the idea.

It was created by a bored IT worker who had to cool his heels in someone else's office. There was one of those little $5 computer store desk mics. He DL'd the old ACID demo off the web (I THINK that was the software he used, maybe it was CoolEdit... this was back around '99 or 2000, anyhow, some demo ware.)

I wish I had a link to it on the web but it died with the old Mp3.com.

Anyhow, the right man or woman can make music on just about anything. Ever seen one of those 'drum solos' Astaire used to do, banging and kicking furniture and props? (Then there's the real drum solo from "Damsel in Distress"... who needs pedals when you got feet? Damn.)

[Zeppelin4Life]

Originally Posted by dbbubba

.... if you don't work HARD to play an instrument well (and a voice is an instrument) you are just playing around
Danny Brown

Buddy Rich could play drum solos at the age of 3. He claims he never really practiced. No time. I mean, who has the time to practice when they've been called a prodigy before they can even speak?

[theblue1]

He was also born a PR prodigy, from what I hear.

[Zeppelin4Life]

Originally Posted by theblue1

He was also born a PR prodigy, from what I hear.

hah, I have tapes. Timeless.

[DaveC]

Where have I heard all of this before?
This thread should be moved to the Moan Zone.
An inspiring way to start 2006!

[No4PCs]

Originally Posted by mogWai

I totally disagree with the original post.

Sure you need some degree of computer literacy but thats just the enginneering skills needed in the 21st Century.

There are still the skills of actually being able to record something well, and assemble all the recorded bits into a production. That hasnt changed.. since forever.


If it sounds rubbish, its probably your fault

Ok, but can you imagine Jimmy Hendrix calling for Apple and saying " Hey Joe, what means driver ? Send me 100 now ! "

[Billster]

Originally Posted by No4PCs

Ok, but can you imagine Jimmy Hendrix calling for Apple and saying " Hey Joe, what means driver ? Send me 100 now ! "

There´s absolutely no need to record utilizing computers. Tape machines are already invented, sound very good and are getting cheaper by the minute.

Apart from that I believe that a lot of musicians and composers would have used computers if it were possible, because oftentimes musicians are open to new innovations (i.e. theremin, moog, multitrack, basically everything really ).

It´s a blessing that nowadays you can choose, how you make your records. It doesn´t hurt to play an instrument brilliantly though (well, I don´t)...

Cheers,
Bill

[mogWai]

Well, isnt it ironic that its that very 'pushing of the boundaries' that has got us to where we are today where technology is apparently killing creativity.

Very strange.

but perhaps not.. all digital and the 'DAW revolution' has done has opened up the possibilities to more people, so more people to complain.

If the only way you could record a demo was to hire a studio for £500 a day, we would be moaning that technology was killing creativity by not allowing us the freedom to create.

Shit, good music still gets made doesn't it?

and those old 40s jazz records - sound cool and have a great vibe to them, but in terms of... reproduction, they suck compared to anything recorded today.

[TankT34]

What advantage have painters, poets writers ?
a painter needs only canvas, brushes and paints to express himself totaly in his work
writer and poet needs only paper and a pen(well, or a computer these days)
what did a talanted composer need before the computer era came to get his idea alive ? --- too many things and Tooooooooo much money to pay other people for performing, engeneering, producing... nowdays we only need a computer and samples library to record anything from only few insruments to the whole orchestra- it all depends on ones imagination, talant and time. If you made a great song then you are great, if you made shit then, well there's nobody to blame for that... FREEDOM- THAT'S WHAT IS GRATE ABOUT COMPUTERS-they give freedom of doing everything you want with your music !
I personaly think we live in good times-))

[theblue1]

Welcome, Tank!

I think someone living in an "emerging democracy" like Russia, so long under repressive social and political control, may well have a vital perspective on freedom.

The home recording revolution, in general, is an enormous opportunity for musicians.

Does it mean there is more less-than-timeless music being recorded?

Of course, inevitably.

But it also means that the big money guys no longer control the gates to recorded music.

Paradigm shift comes in waves:

First, the means of production.

Then, the means of distribution.


And, ultimately, the means of promotion... ?