Some interesting comments for Digidesigns Dave LeBolt

(edited)

DMN: Various aspects of the production workflow are merging these days.

Lebolt:

I’d add that we are touching specifically on what Digidesign does as its core business. I can only peripherally talk to the idea that we are certainly looking outside of our core business to other areas where digital audio can be used that are adjacent market segments. So, while I can’t talk to the particulars of that, I can say, where else could you be using digital audio and where would it be of value to have integration and to offer some of the expertise that we’ve garnered with control surfaces or processing? That’s what we look to do. Certainly, live sound is an area like that for us.

DMN: A lot of the live sound guys still use analog boards.

Lebolt: Yeah, that’s it. And of course, if you’re Linkin Park or whoever and you’ve just done your CD and cut it with tons of Pro Tools plug-ins, and it changed your life on the record, you want to go out and use those effects live and have some of that stuff repeatable. Let’s make some of that stuff happen.

[Kaneepa]

ProTools LIVE 1.0 ???

[Kenny Gioia]

Yeah, that's what the music business is missing. More automated backing tracks in live performance. People are getting sick of real musicians.

We need more Flacid Donuts.

[Brad Blackwood]

Great, the last bastion that separates the men form the boys is going to go away. At least now you can still go out and hear the band play live and know whether they suck...

[ozraves]

I saw a friend here in OKC at a tour stop. He asked me about the sound. It came up that the board was a Yamaha DM2000. I'm still working it out intellectually. :) It could be a good thing but my gut tells me it's not. I'd love to have a DM2000 here at my humble studio.

Steve
www.mojopie.com

[Midlandmorgan]

Seems like a logical if not unfortunate evolution...AutoTunes have been in major artist racks for years, computer controlled effects processing and switching are almost passe now, off-stage musicians, etc...what is heard through the FOH is most definately not what is being played/sung on stage...

Perhaps that's why I prefer bluegrass - like it or not, its honest.

[fifthcircle]

Originally posted by ozraves
I saw a friend here in OKC at a tour stop. He asked me about the sound. It came up that the board was a Yamaha DM2000. I'm still working it out intellectually. :) It could be a good thing but my gut tells me it's not. I'd love to have a DM2000 here at my humble studio.

Steve
www.mojopie.com

What's wrong with mixing digital live? Of course, there are issues with gain staging, etc... that are a bit more difficult to deal with on a digital live board, but they certainly do the job- and in many cases quite well.

The DM2000 actually has several features built into it that make it ideal for live work. Compared to the cost of analog live boards, the DM2000 is pretty reasonably priced.

--Ben

[heinz]

This is incredibly disturbing news as I've always firmly believed that Linkin Park are incredible musicians, a new breed of rock stars who demonstrate both mastery of their disciplines as well as sensitive inter-member improvisational moments. My world is officially rocked.

[toledo3]

Originally posted by heinz
This is incredibly disturbing news as I've always firmly believed that Linkin Park are incredible musicians, a new breed of rock stars who demonstrate both mastery of their disciplines as well as sensitive inter-member improvisational moments. My world is officially rocked.

[drew]

In case anyone cares.

LP uses ProTools live but only for the electronic stuff. There are no vocals coming out of the computer and there is no autotune going. Chester's voice is so gravely that AT hates it! I know because I mixed their MTV $2Bill concert as well as b-sides from the Somewhere I belong Single.
drew

[Curve Dominant]

I think we have to look at this from a different perspective. Like, from the audience's perspective.

Audio engineers tend to be old-school purists in regards to musical performances. Current artists' audiences, on the other hand, don't give a **** about those nostalgic sentiments. They've paid their $$$ for tickets, parking, etc...and they want to be entertained. Who are we to stand in their way?

This is, after all, SHOW business. The artist doesn't have perfect pitch. So what? The show must go on. The audience in attendence CHOSE to shell out the $$$ and the time to see their favorite artist perform. We are at the service of both that artist and his/her audience to present the best possible show.

We are in the business of illusion. When you go to the movies to see your favorite pretty faces, do you really think they are that pretty in "real life"?? Do you care? It's a movie, after all.

I don't think any of us can truly front like we are purists in that regard. As soon as you let a musician plug something into a wall, all bets are off. As soon as you set up for a musician to overdub a track, all bets are off. As soon as you sum a vocal track from more than one take, all bets are off. As soon as you add reverb, delay...you get my point by now, hopefully.

If you are going to go there for your artists and their audiences, be prepared to go all the way. That's the way I interpret Dave LeBolt's ideas, and I personally find it way cool that he's thinking on that level.

If there is something you find asthetically offensive in that, then I suggest you either let the market decide, or find another more asthetically pleasing career for yourself. But I personally believe in letting the artists be what they are, and letting their audiences have what they want of them, and not standing in the way of that.

[Medicine Dog]

Originally posted by Curve Dominant
We are in the business of illusion. When you go to the movies to see your favorite pretty faces, do you really think they are that pretty in "real life"?? Do you care? It's a movie, after all.

The flaw in your analogy, though, is that depsite make-up and good lighting, it's still easily apparent to tell if an actor can actually ACT. With crappy cop-outs like Autotune, the average audience member has NO idea if the singer can really sing.

Illusion or rip-off?

To each his own, I guess...

[blackcatdigi]

Originally posted by Curve Dominant
This is, after all, SHOW business. The artist doesn't have perfect pitch. So what? The show must go on. The audience in attendence CHOSE to shell out the $$$ and the time to see their favorite artist perform. We are at the service of both that artist and his/her audience to present the best possible show.

We are in the business of illusion. When you go to the movies to see your favorite pretty faces, do you really think they are that pretty in "real life"?? Do you care? It's a movie, after all.

I see your point, Curve. The deeper question is why does a singer (who can't sing) have any fans, to begin with?

Shouldn't the most basic requirement for a singer, be (by the very definition) someone who is able to sing? Seems logical, to me...

These comments bring to mind a question I've considered, about entertainers of today vs. the past:

Does anyone remember when an 'entertainer' could probably sing, dance, tap, play 3 or 4 instruments, act, do comedy, juggle, etc...?

The major studios had 'star school' and even if you were 'just' an actor, you still had dance class, vocal lessons, etc.

Bob, didn't Motown have a 'finishing school' for all their artists?

What IS considered to be talent, these days?

SHORT ANSWER: Marketability, of course!

On with the downward spiral...

We don't need no stinkin talent... We got Pro Tools!

A wise man once said: "You can't make chicken-salad out of chicken shit. No matter how good it smells..."

Perhaps this in no longer true. I turn on the radio and there is chicken(shit)salad, everywhere... Nothing but. I cook it up (myself) most days. But is that a good thing?

Talent has not ceased to exist... Why is it so rare? Should we even care?

[RobMacki]

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Curve Dominant
We are in the business of illusion. When you go to the movies to see your favorite pretty faces, do you really think they are that pretty in "real life"?? Do you care? It's a movie, after all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Medicine Dog
The flaw in your analogy, though, is that depsite make-up and good lighting, it's still easily apparent to tell if an actor can actually ACT. With crappy cop-outs like Autotune, the average audience member has NO idea if the singer can really sing.

Illusion or rip-off?

To each his own, I guess...

I think the analogy is or should be:
Movies are to CDs as Theatre is to Live Music

[jlotto]

Originally posted by blackcatdigi
Talent has not ceased to exist... Why is it so rare?

There is alot more talent out there then back in the days, it's just so many artists & labels on the scene today that you have to wade thru a whole lot to find it. The other perspective is, if you are selling records & have a big fan base all because of the "auto-tune", so be it. Fans don't go to shows with the idea of "can these guys really sing?" They don't know anything about autotune and don't care to know.

[Medicine Dog]

Originally posted by RobMacki
I think the analogy is or should be:
Movies are to CDs as Theatre is to Live Music

Still, in the theater you can tell how good an actor is.

My problem with Autotune is that it has become the defacto-standard and not so much a tool to be used to repair things that are otherwise unrepairable.

The other day an engineer I (used to) respect dropped by and was listening to rough mixes of a new project we're producing here for a well-known Folk/Americana artist. His first statement was a great compliment - "Are these mixes mastered?" That felt great. Next, he shot himself in the foot by saying "Wow, you've really got the Autotune working great on the vocal!"

I coulda' slapped him! After I explained that there was no Autotune and that the singer could actually sing, he seemed bewildered and confused - Like it was unthinkable that Autotune could actually be left OUT of a mix! Oh, the horror!

In any event (to get back on topic), I have no problems when tools are used judiciously - Either live or in the studio. My beef is when they become crutches to prop otherwise sub-standard performances. Or worse, when they get used when they're not even needed! I watched a TV special not too long ago that featured many big artists from the 70s/80s. Whoever was mixing the live feed had Autotune on EVERY artist. I mean, Autotune on Aretha Franklin??? Ferchrissakes!

So, yeah, we still do vocal comps in the studio. We still do overdubs. We still do multiple takes. However, all these things do one thing that Autotune doesn't - They capture a PERFORMANCE.

Again, I ask - Illusion or rip-off?

[blackcatdigi]

Originally posted by jlotto
There is alot more talent out there then back in the days, it's just so many artists & labels on the scene today that you have to wade thru a whole lot to find it.

Yes and No.

Again, I posted "talent has not ceased to exist." I would venture that x percentage of the general population has talent. A fairly static percentage. The whole of population has grown, so Yes, there is potentially "alot more talent out there these days"...

But I disagree with your "so many" position. There are very few labels, all owned by corporate conglomerates, no real (major) indies, and so very many aspiring 'artists'.

The 'cream' so to speak, used to rise to the top. I don't believe that to be the current case (with some notable exceptions, of course). It is a sea of mediocrity, or worse...

I'm sorry if this comes off wrong. I'm trying not to appear overtly negative. But I do feel you must first identify a problem exists, before it can be addressed.

Sorry for going so OT. Carry on.

[Bob Olhsson]

I agree that while there is the same percentage of talent around, there is nowhere near the infrastructure that used to exist to identify and advance exceptionally talented MUSICAL performers.

I also disagree with the idea that a music recording is the equivalent of a movie. Radio drama, yes but not music recordings. Amusement park rides are probably the closest live experience to movies. Nobody devotes the same amount of attention to anything musical other than some concert music.

It's also interesting to me that it's very rare for a successful recording artist or movie actor to not have extensive live performance experience. Live performance, movies and recording really ARE joined at the hip in the real world. The problem is we seem to have more successful actors and dancers than musicians and singers at the moment.

[jlotto]

Technological advancements like autotune are as common a recording tool as the U87. There will be even newer advacements that will help the "less talented" to make records. The same way sequencers helped the "less talented" to make records & drum machines helped the "less talented" to make records. If you don't like them, don't use them. But don't hate on the next artist because he does. The public doesn't care. They just want to latch on to the nice marketable product that they see on MTV/BET.

[Medicine Dog]

Originally posted by jlotto
Technological advancements like autotune are as common a recording tool as the U87.

I think you're missing my point. I don't "hate" Autotune or "hate" the artists that use it. I hate that it's abused. I hate that the prevailing attitude about AT is one of "we need to use it on everything 'cause if we don't, we might not be cool".

And besides, I can't remember the last time a vocalist said to me, "I can't sing, better get me a U87"

Sorry to turn this into an Autotune debate, that was not my intention. Just using it as an example.

[jlotto]

Originally posted by Medicine Dog
I think you're missing my point. I don't "hate" Autotune or "hate" the artists that use it. I hate that it's abused.

You give not so good singers a chance to be good singers- of course it's gonna be abused. Sequencers are abused, so are drum machines. They are all tools.

[kevinc]

Originally posted by Medicine Dog
I think you're missing my point. I don't "hate" Autotune or "hate" the artists that use it. I hate that it's abused.

I`ll say it.

I ****in HATE !!!!!! autotune.

I will never ever use auto tune on anything I record!
The only real purpose I can see for auto tune is to save lazy engineers a few bucks by not having to overdub and comp vocals.
I don`t buy the philosophy that auto tune can "save" an otherwise good vocal take. If you need autotune on something it could easily be fixed by an overdub. Yes you could say an overdub isn`t natural either but it is more natural than modifying notes that werent sung right. Of course the MOST natural way of doing it is do 5 - 6 vocal takes of a song, pick the best one and actually LIVE with the fact that there is a few SLIGHTLY off notes that nobody in their right mind would even be able to detect.
(And I`m sorry but most engineers/producers are apparently out of their minds these days.)

But your right. This is a ludicrous idea. We have no actual talent these days do we ? Studios have to make money these days don`t they ? We can`t have sub par musicians actually sounding as bad as they are can we ?
Or maybe we can.
Ringo Starr wasn`t the best drummer in the world but he certainly had his charm.
The old punk musicians were actually TRYING to sound raw and sloppy and unrefined.
Why the hell do punk bands sound so refined these days.
Modern producers and engineers are taking away the very things that give music it`s charm.
I hate to say it but imperfect vocals and drum hits are what gives music it`s feel and charm in ANY genre of music.
None of it is EXACTLY perfect including classical music where perfection is purposely sought after a hell of a lot more than joe songwriter who thinks he`s got a hit song in his pocket.
Why are we trying to make a musician/singer sound perfect when perfection is not something that`s even sought after in most cases. Pop musicians want to sound "****ing amazing" not "perfect".
Things that are considered "off" or "mistakes" in this day and age would never have been thought of that way 20 years ago.

I think were all getting a litttle too up tight with the fixes these days and it`s becoming a very sterile musical world because of it.

Again. **** Autotune!


Leave this SHIT out of music!!!



This has been an official oldman rant brought to you tonight by:

Kevin

[Curve Dominant]

posted by blackcatdigi:
I see your point, Curve. The deeper question is why does a singer (who can't sing) have any fans, to begin with?

I highly doubt that in any case the singer "can't sing." I honestly believe there is not such a thing. Anybody who likes to sing, and does, can sing, and should. How well they do it is purely subjective.

Any singer who has enough fans to be a concert draw has obviously connected with an audience on some level. It could be their lyrical content, or the emotional intensity with which they perform a song, or the originality with which they interpret a lyric. It could be the way they use their looks and their physique to communicate a dramatic action, for which music happens to be the medium. It could be some combination of any or all of the above.

A singer who lacks any of those attributes, yet possesses perfect pitch, may satisfy the asthetic criteria of someone who "hates Autotune." But isn't that a recipé for a dreadfully boring artist?

Anyway, I see way too much emphasis being placed on Autotune on this thread. From what I read of Dave LeBolt's comments, there is a much bigger picture than Auto-tuning "pitchy" vocalists involved here. He specifically mentioned the analog mixing board and it's continued preponderence in the live arena. I see Dave's comments pointing towards some of the automation of mixing, sends, and plugins that we enjoy in the Pro Tools studio environment being somehow integrated into the live FOH engineering environment. And THAT's some seriously cool possibilities, Autotune-abuse of the vocalists notwithstanding.

I have family members who tour globally with major acts, and it's amazed me that none of them use digital consoles live for FOH. I can understand how every venue is different, and so requires individual attention in achieving balanced acoustics. But even so, recall-able templates for certain types of venues could at least make setup faster for a FOH mixer, from which he or she could make adjustments at soundcheck. I think what would be key for Digi is to write software that would let those incremental changes simultaneously adjust the existing mix automation proportionately.

Then, there is the plugins. I think if a guitarist wants the plugins used on the recording to be triggered live on the console, rather than hitting stompboxes on stage, that doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Or some dope-sounding stereo flange effect on the drums that was done in the studio - if that could be recreated on a digital FOH console with the same plugin used in the studio. The possibilities are endless, once you start thinking about it that way. Just as Pro Tools enabled a whole new creative aspect to producing recordings, the same approach could lend a new creative aspect to mixing live sound.

As far as Auto-tuning vocalists in the live arena, that's already being done, in the racks of outboard gear, along with harmonisers, compressors, and the rest of the stuff we're used to using to treat live vocal tracks with, not to mention the canned backing tracks. This is nothing new.

Integrating it all into a digital FOH console, on the other hand, WOULD be new. And if it would make high-quality live performances cheaper and easier to produce, it would be a cool thing.

[Bob Olhsson]

I frankly don't think Dave has a clue about what consoles are really all about. If he did, ProTools would be a lot different. The whole point of having a console is to be able to adjust everything immediately in real time WITHOUT THINKING. Anybody ever tried to play a keyboard part with a mouse?

[Fibes]

Once again Bob gets to the crux of the biskit. .

[Medicine Dog]

Agreed, Bob. I spent 20 years on the road doing FOH. While some digital console aspects are great (recalling scenes or song set-ups, storing EQ curves, etc.), the thought of mixing "in-the-box" is frightening, indeed. Besides, there's already enough latency being 60-100 feet from the stage!

Trying to integrate an in-the-box mentality into the "real" world is something that will have to be done VERY carefully. There's no substitute for being able to quickly grab a fader when the doofus lead singer sticks the mic into his monitor for a "cool efffect".

[Fibes]

The in the box processing that goes on with the DBX drive rack and the (mithra forbid) Bear ringer units is far from fun also. I've seen many clubs forgo monitor eqs and FOH compression for these things and its a total PITA. I just convinced a club I fill in for to get two 31 band eqs and three compressors for inserts just so i could grab and go. There's nothing like fumbling through menus while a monitor is ringing after the second band decides it wants to use a 55 instead of the 58...

That's why i got out of live sound, the tools just aren't there anymore. Not to mention the advent of 3-6 band bills. Sure I live for nightmares but low profile live gigs don't pay enough anymore. A Mcjob is more rewarding...

[David Herbert]

Soon the whole world will be run by robots. I only hope they are friendly.
NO computer will replace me until it can outdrink me.

David

[Curve Dominant]

posted by Bob Olhson:
Anybody ever tried to play a keyboard part with a mouse?

You don't need a mouse if you use a touchscreen instead.

I think that's part of the problem with people not "getting" this: we tend to assume the GUI's in future systems will be the same as the ones we're using now with all of their inherent limitations, instead of envisioning something more intuitive and innovative.

And whether Dave LeBolt is the right guy to develop this or not is irrelevent. The opportunities are there; SOMEBODY's going to do it, inevitably, if history's patterns are going to continue at all. And inevitably, there will be people who complain about it at every step of its development, just as with DAWs. But the people who really benefit from progress are those who see the potential in it.

There will always be bugs.

[C.Lambrechts]

Originally posted by Bob Olhsson
I frankly don't think Dave has a clue about what consoles are really all about. If he did, ProTools would be a lot different. The whole point of having a console is to be able to adjust everything immediately in real time WITHOUT THINKING. Anybody ever tried to play a keyboard part with a mouse?

Bob, this is the first time I actulally read one of your posts and disagree ... for which my humble apologies.

The realtime part of the statement ok ... lot of development to be done in that department but without thinking ???? I'm probably reading this wrong but one can hardly say that one does not have to keep his brain in shape when working on a 'conventonal' console.