The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Is Steve Albini exaggerating when claiming he barely uses compression and EQ?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #181
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
that's it in a nutshell

yes you are being ripped off, but the more people that steal your music, the better your shot at eventually making something off of it!
Used to be, "shows sell records." Then it became "records sell tickets." Just when we got resigned to that... no shows. Clearly, from the turnout as the Red State bars have started to book bands, even irresponsibly, there's a demand. But boy is it painful to sit and wait and watch. Especially if it's part of your livelihood like it is mine.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #182
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkdvb View Post
TL;DR - I guess we all turn into our dads. Just depends on whether your dad was Neil Young (cool) or Ted Nugent (gross).

Sigh, the mollycoddle argument ... our generation (& the ones before) was so much "tougher" because we just shut up & accepted bullying (& racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) because that's just the way it is instead of demanding that it be eradicated?

Since we're speaking in generalities here ....

The kids are literally out there in the streets in the middle of a global pandemic, getting tear-gassed or worse, many of them fighting for others' equality, not their own, & you want to paint a whole generation or two as snowflakes while you bang on about how you don't have the budget anymore to sit in a studio for 16 hours while Bruce walks around hitting a snare drum?!? Well, Springsteen can still do that if he wants but you get the point.

Completely ignore the FACT that the generations who grew up with your heroes like the Beatles, Hendrix & whoever else you & Cameron Crowe worship ... those people are the ones so threatened by today's world that they've collectively elected complete incompetents like Trump & Boris, pulled UK out of Europe. Talk about mollycoddle & snowflakes.

But you do understand the crux of Albini's argument, at least. Celebrity music worship culture that you're so vested in is anathema to Albini & the scene he came from. If you could look past your own experience, you may see why it may be distasteful to some -- this idea that whole generations of people would define so much of their identities via corporate products designed to the lowest common denominator sold through people they don't know, have little chance of ever meeting & don't care about them on a personal level. "Look how unique & independent I am, rocking out to this album that 10 million other people bought too & dressing just like the person on the album cover!!!" Sounds like The Matrix to me but keeping raging against that machine, man!

But I get that you have a problem with Albini's hint of hypocrisy there, in that he benefited to a large extent from his interactions with a system that he derides loudly. I've always held Ian Mackaye (Fugazi, Rites of Spring, Dischord Records) as the gold standard for that ideal.

Today's selfie generation would rather worship themselves (to an obnoxiously annoying degree) than worship some egotistical rock star who's built an existence to separate themselves from their fans. As I asked you before, what makes a corporate, celebrity-fueled culture so great? It's given us a country where half the people don't believe in SCIENCE, think face masks are an affront to God & freedom & a celebrity president who's let tens of thousands of people die in the last few months.

It's not the kids who created the Idiocracy ...WE DID. Maybe they'll make it worse but we're hardly ones to talk.

As for music innovation, here's an entire album culled entirely from cell phone recordings in West Africa. Sure, no music industry corporation profited much from the release of this album but it's a perfect intersection of what's possible in today's technology-driven world:

https://sahelsounds.bandcamp.com/alb...ran-cellphones

I'd choose this any day over a world where more Motley Crues were still possible.
Unlike many people who claim that debating things online is a 100% waste of time, I often learn things from discussing topics online, provided two things:

1. The people with whom I am discussing the topic are reasonable and capable of intelligent discussion and

2. The people with whom I am discussing the topic are debating from good faith.

I do not believe #2 is true of you (and that is me giving you the benefit of the doubt, otherwise I would have to conclude that #1 is what is true of you), and therefore this will be my last post on the topic. The last word is yours.

Quote:
Sigh, the mollycoddle argument ... our generation (& the ones before) was so much "tougher" because we just shut up & accepted bullying (& racism, sexism, homophobia, etc) because that's just the way it is instead of demanding that it be eradicated?
That was an example to illustrate a theory, not an argument. It seems to have triggered two of you, although that was not the intention. I thought it was an off-the-cuff throwaway example. Sorry you got your ass beat so often when you were growing up.

Quote:
The kids are literally out there in the streets in the middle of a global pandemic, getting tear-gassed or worse, many of them fighting for others' equality, not their own, & you want to paint a whole generation or two as snowflakes while you bang on about how you don't have the budget anymore to sit in a studio for 16 hours while Bruce walks around hitting a snare drum?!? Well, Springsteen can still do that if he wants but you get the point.
Two things about that.

First, though you try (in bad faith, I think, or else you are simply stupid) to make this out to be about me, I've made it very clear that the reason it's so clear as to why the old model was better is because it was better for the entire ecosystem. No one who didn't want to wander around a live room for 16 hours and beat a snare drum was forced to do so, and many didn't. But people had choices.

Secondly, you know there are kids starving in Africa, right? So you better clean your plate. That's about how much sense the first part of your temper tantrum made in that paragraph.

Quote:
Completely ignore the FACT that the generations who grew up with your heroes like the Beatles, Hendrix & whoever else you & Cameron Crowe worship ... those people are the ones so threatened by today's world that they've collectively elected complete incompetents like Trump & Boris, pulled UK out of Europe. Talk about mollycoddle & snowflakes.
This is nothing short of a completely random rant about nothing anyone has even hinted at in this entire thread, and I believe it's also against GS rules. Unless I am mistaken political discussions are prohibited here.

Quote:
But you do understand the crux of Albini's argument, at least...But I get that you have a problem with Albini's hint of hypocrisy there, in that he benefited to a large extent from his interactions with a system that he derides loudly.
Finally. Thanks for that admission, though pretty late in the game.

Quote:
If you could look past your own experience...
I'm not the one who can't do that. You are. Albini is.

I'll prove it. With your own words.

But first, let's define some terms. Jealousy is when someone looks at what you have and thinks, "I want what Mr. Argue From Bad Faith has."

Envy is when someone looks at what you have and thinks, "I don't want what Mr. Argue From Bad Faith has, but damn if I can stand for him to have it either."

You are an extremely envious person.

You can't abide a world (your own words, only slightly paraphrased) in which the possibility would even exist for someone else to participate in a musical endeavor that you personally would not choose yourself.

No matter that such a world in which a healthy musical ecosystem existed would make it even more possible for musical endeavors that you would personally choose to happen to exist, which I've pointed out so many times now that the fact that you continue to pretend otherwise leads me to conclude that you are either dishonest or stupid. No matter that it would increase those things. It's more important to you that no one who wants to be Motley Crue gets to do so than it is that someone who wants to do something that you would approve of gets to do so.

That's pretty small of you, Ace. Albini too. Small, and petty, and insecure.

There's a Facebook meme that I've seen that I think is pretty accurate in this case and although it is defined according to politics I will share it not from a political standpoint—which I hope means that it will not violate GS terms in this context—but from a standpoint relative to this discussion. It goes something like this: If you're a conservative and you don't like something, you don't expose yourself to whatever it is. If you're a liberal and you don't like something, you want to see to it that it is banned so that no one can expose themselves to it.

I don't want that, but I'll be damned if you can have it either.

Like I have pointed out probably a double digit number of times so far, because Motley Crue was possible back then, the implication that everyone was forced to be Motley Crue is self-evidently false. You could be just as independent as you wanted to be back then. That possibility never went away or ever didn't exist.

You didn't have the huge corporate partners like Youtube or Spotify or Apple Music to distribute your music over the internet with that people could find through the mega-corporation Google, but not one single things stopped you from touring and selling albums and tapes out of the trunk of your car like Ani DeFranco did. Like Steve Albini did. Completely without any major record label help.

Quote:
As I asked you before, what makes a corporate, celebrity-fueled culture so great?
I never claimed that those things made anything great. This is another strawman; deliberate, I think. The fact that people used to pay for recorded music made the music industry a lot greater. That's been explained way too many times so far for me to explain it again. Just think about these words and maybe it will all come back to you: freedom, possibilities, resources.

Quote:
It's given us a country where half the people don't believe in SCIENCE, think face masks are an affront to God & freedom & a celebrity president who's let tens of thousands of people die in the last few months.
So, we have multiple problems here. First, I do think you may be breaking rules here, so I hesitate to respond to specifics. I will ask this: Do we have a corporate, celebrity based music industry still? If so, then you are claiming that the model hasn't, in fact, changed. If not, then what does any of that have to do with what we are discussing?

Quote:
you may see why it may be distasteful to some -- this idea that whole generations of people would define so much of their identities via corporate products designed to the lowest common denominator sold through people they don't know, have little chance of ever meeting & don't care about them on a personal level.
You mean like when people upload music onto Youtube in the hopes of getting 50,000,000 hits? The notion that corporations aren't still at the center of popular recorded music is a complete myth. They are just hoarding even more of the money now and impacting even more of the music. That's the difference.

Lastly...

Quote:
As for music innovation, here's an entire album culled entirely from cell phone recordings in West Africa. Sure, no music industry corporation profited much from the release of this album but it's a perfect intersection of what's possible in today's technology-driven world:

https://sahelsounds.bandcamp.com/alb...ran-cellphones
I don't even understand what's being claimed here. This is a found art project? Found art has been being used in music since about the 80s (samples), and I didn't hear anything innovative about the actual music. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You think this is a profound example of creativity because this found art was found on cell phones? Not because the musical form is innovative (it's not). Not because the idea of putting together disparate sounds that already existed is innovative (it's not). But because the already existing sounds came from cell phones.

If I'm misunderstanding the fundamental nature of this project, please feel free to correct my understanding. If I'm not, then you'll probably have to explain why this is so profound to you.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #183
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
I didn't say it was a good thing, or that it put hair on your chest, or made a man out of you or was in any way desirable or anything like that.

The point of that was that my peers and I growing up related differently to social interactions than kids do today, and I believe that those differences at least in part explain why kids relate to music differently today and I think it's a better and more accurate explanation than simply, "Kids have more competition for their attention today."

It didn't have a single thing to do with bullying being good for anybody, and no one breathed a single syllable about the relative wisdom of standing up to a bully.

Good grief you people have limited reading comprehension.
Here's what you wrote:

Quote:
But something changed socially between my age group and the age group maybe 15 years younger and down. We were much more independent than kids are today. We were "older" somehow in many ways. We solved many more of our own problems and lived much more in our own worlds. For example, we lived with bullying from both older kids and sometimes even teachers and it never occurred to us to run home and tattle to our parents and expect them to fix it. Doing something like that wasn't even on our radar. We also much more so arranged and managed our own social opportunities.

Today kids' parents coddle them all the way through college, literally.
If you truly intended that passage to be a neutral, non-judgmental description today's generation gap, then your "writing comprehension" lags behind that poster's reading comprehension.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #184
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkdvb View Post
Here's what you wrote:



If you truly intended that passage to be a neutral, non-judgmental description today's generation gap, then your "writing comprehension" lags behind that poster's reading comprehension.
You forgot to quote the part in the same section where I freely admitted that I was having difficulty articulating what I meant. That's part of the post too, and provides the context for the rest. The lack of reading comprehension applies to the whole post, not one cherry picked part.

So, seldom right and wrong again you are.

Don't you ever get tired of losing?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #185
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkdvb View Post
But I get that you have a problem with Albini's hint of hypocrisy there, in that he benefited to a large extent from his interactions with a system that he derides loudly. I've always held Ian Mackaye (Fugazi, Rites of Spring, Dischord Records) as the gold standard for that ideal.
Random side note. Fugazi is one of the few bands that has actually been given free reign of Electrical whenever they want it. They don't pay a dime if they go there. The originally did In On The Kill Taker there, but the sound just didn't work for em so they went back home and did it again with Don as usual..
Old 4 weeks ago
  #186
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
You can't abide a world (your own words, only slightly paraphrased) in which the possibility would even exist for someone else to participate in a musical endeavor that you personally would not choose yourself.
I literally can't make out most of what you're rambling on about.

Literally 99% of the music world participates in an endeavor I would not personally choose for myself. What complete hogwash! Talk about bad faith debating ...
Old 4 weeks ago
  #187
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
You forgot to quote the part in the same section where I freely admitted that I was having difficulty articulating what I meant. That's part of the post too, and provides the context for the rest. The lack of reading comprehension applies to the whole post, not one cherry picked part.

So, seldom right and wrong again you are.

Don't you ever get tired of losing?
So like the last, last word then? How can anyone figure out what you mean if you don't mean what you say? It's our job to figure it out for you?!?

BTW, I don't have these debates to win or lose ... what a small-minded concept.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #188
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
You forgot to quote the part in the same section where I freely admitted that I was having difficulty articulating what I meant. That's part of the post too, and provides the context for the rest. The lack of reading comprehension applies to the whole post, not one cherry picked part.

So, seldom right and wrong again you are.

Don't you ever get tired of losing?
Just stop it - when you have to resort to sweeping ad hominem attacks towards some of the best debaters on this site, you may have to accept there’s an issue with you, not everyone else.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #189
Lives for gear
 
donnylang's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
I addressed this above.

... All I am asking for are examples of innovation ...

... I'm asking for facts, not opinions ...
Whether something is “innovative” or not is not really a matter of fact. There is no objective criteria for being innovative. I am “innovative” in creating the genre “Thrift-Shop Psych-Pop”. There, I am an example of an objectively innovative artist.

And before we start attempting to qualify what "innovative" is, we should look at the definition of the word:

(of a product, idea, etc.) featuring new methods; advanced and original.

(of a person) introducing new ideas; original and creative in thinking


We could argue all day on what is "original", "advanced", "new", etc. ... you could argue Led Zeppelin were innovative, or you could argue they were derivative. And on and on and on.

... innovative also doesn't have to be "good", for which there is no objective measure anyway. So I guess the question is: why are we using "innovation" as a measure of anything?

Not that I personally disagree that popular music since 2000 does not equal music from pre-2000 (or, IMO 1965-1981 or so) ... I just don't think it can be "proven" in any way, because this is all a matter of opinion. Pretty much anything we can talk about with regard to something like "quality" or "innovation" is a matter of opinion. You can try to back up your opinion with facts to support it, but it's still an opinion. I have many opinions on why the recordings of 1965-68 or so are by far the greatest. But this has nothing to do with facts.

I could make an argument that 4-track cassette is of a higher "quality" than any DAW system (which I happen to believe, but have no interest in trying to convince anyone else to agree with me, based on "facts").

Last edited by donnylang; 4 weeks ago at 09:15 PM..
Old 4 weeks ago
  #190
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mkdvb View Post
So like the last, last word then? How can anyone figure out what you mean if you don't mean what you say? It's our job to figure it out for you?!?

BTW, I don't have these debates to win or lose ... what a small-minded concept.
In my single unfortunate attempt to have a discussion with this guy, I found what you described is his debating technique - he agrees with you one minute, then sets you up as a nemesis and tries to knock down arguments you either never made, or he made himself. Best to avoid engagement unless you like chasing your tail.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #191
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
I didn't say it was a good thing, or that it put hair on your chest, or made a man out of you or was in any way desirable or anything like that.

The point of that was that my peers and I growing up related differently to social interactions than kids do today, and I believe that those differences at least in part explain why kids relate to music differently today and I think it's a better and more accurate explanation than simply, "Kids have more competition for their attention today."

It didn't have a single thing to do with bullying being good for anybody, and no one breathed a single syllable about the relative wisdom of standing up to a bully.

Good grief you people have limited reading comprehension.
Just keep digging the hole, mate. The phrase was:

we lived with bullying from both older kids and sometimes even teachers and it never occurred to us to run home and tattle to our parents and expect them to fix it

If you believe that the phrase "tattle to our parents and expect them to fix it" does not contain a pejorative implication and an endorsement of remaining silent, maybe your comprehension is lacking. I have a JD and and an advanced law degree from UCAL Berkley. and I read things that require precise interpretation for a living. The marketplace seem to find no problem with my reading comprehension, and pays me quite nicely for it.

If you can't express yourself without resorting to the sort of conservative tropes about "kids today" that grandmothers love to post on Facebook, that's not a problem with my reading comprehension. If you are persistently misinterpreted,as you claim is happening in this thread, maybe you should think about clearer expression instead of blaming everyone else.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #192
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolk martin View Post
Just keep digging the hole, mate. The phrase was:

we lived with bullying from both older kids and sometimes even teachers and it never occurred to us to run home and tattle to our parents and expect them to fix it

If you believe that the phrase "tattle to our parents and expect them to fix it" does not contain a value judgment and an endorsement of remaining silent, maybe your comprehension is lacking. I have a JD and and an advanced law degree from UCAL Berkley. and I read things that require precise interpretation for a living. The marketplace seem to find no problem with my reading comprehension, and pays me quite nicely for it

If you can't express yourself without resorting to the sort of conservative tropes about "kids today" that grandmothers love to post on Facebook, that's not a problem with my reading comprehension. If you are persistently misinterpreted,as you claim is happening in this thread, maybe you should think about clearer expression instead of blaming everyone else.
One of my favorite rabbit holes is searching the google newspapers archive - in almost every generation of every paper there’s an article, letter to the editor, or advert for what to do about “today’s generation”.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #193
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
One of my favorite rabbit holes is searching the google newspapers archive - in almost every generation of every paper there’s an article, letter to the editor, or advert for what to do about “today’s generation”.

"The world is passing through troublous times. The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint. They talk as if they knew everything, and what passes for wisdom with us is foolishness with them. As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behavior and dress."

(From a sermon preached by Peter the Hermit in A.D. 1274)

"I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless beyond words... When I was young, we were taught to be discreet and respectful of elders, but the present youth are exceedingly wise [disrespectful] and impatient of restraint".

(Hesiod, 8th century BC)

“Whither are the manly vigour and athletic appearance of our forefathers flown? Can these be their legitimate heirs? Surely, no; a race of effeminate, self-admiring, emaciated fribbles can never have descended in a direct line from the heroes of Potiers and Agincourt…”

Letter in Town and Country magazine republished in Paris Fashion: A Cultural History 1771

And so on.......
Old 4 weeks ago
  #194
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by donnylang View Post
Whether something is “innovative” or not is not really a matter of fact. There is no objective criteria for being innovative. I am “innovative” in creating the genre “Thrift-Shop Psych-Pop”. There, I am an example of an objectively innovative artist.

And before we start attempting to qualify what "innovative" is, we should look at the definition of the word:
Thrift shop psych pop sounds like a genre I'd be into ... like John Maus or somebody. Didn't find any sound samples on the troun site though (2-3 clicks or so in).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
In my single unfortunate attempt to have a discussion with this guy, I found what you described is his debating technique - he agrees with you one minute, then sets you up as a nemesis and tries to knock down arguments you either never made, or he made himself. Best to avoid engagement unless you like chasing your tail.
Yeah, it's weird to be accused of arguing in bad faith while also being constantly insulted by the same accuser but I tried to ignore the personal attacks. I will heed your advice.

I don't know why I let myself get sucked into this thread ... I literally have a few thousand vinyl LPs (which I need to be listing for sale) & not a single Nirvana title in the bunch.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #195
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Used to be, "shows sell records." Then it became "records sell tickets." Just when we got resigned to that... no shows.
Even the evil illuminati who profit from our losses probably would like the virus to go away.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #196
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn View Post
Used to be, "shows sell records." Then it became "records sell tickets." Just when we got resigned to that... no shows. Clearly, from the turnout as the Red State bars have started to book bands, even irresponsibly, there's a demand. But boy is it painful to sit and wait and watch. Especially if it's part of your livelihood like it is mine.
I'm too lazy to look up the numbers but my understanding was that the live/touring industry was doing well in this day & age, pre-Covid. Even holograms!

Seeing as wife & I often pay over $50 per ticket for smaller "indie" bands at 1-2k seat arenas, that was my impression.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #197
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
Good grief you people have limited reading comprehension.
If something happens to you occasionally, that could be the other guy's fault. But if something "keeps happening to you", then it's time to look in the mirror.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #198
Lives for gear
 
donnylang's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkdvb View Post
Thrift shop psych pop sounds like a genre I'd be into ... like John Maus or somebody. Didn't find any sound samples on the troun site though (2-3 clicks or so in).
oh ... yeh the bandcamp link is not super obvious:

https://magichero.bandcamp.com/
Old 4 weeks ago
  #199
Lives for gear
 
donnylang's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
If something happens to you occasionally, that could be the other guy's fault. But if something "keeps happening to you", then it's time to look in the mirror.
I get involved in online arguments/"debates" on occasion because I:

* Tend to have unconventional opinions, which I express freely
* Can be hotheaded
* Sometimes like drama

Anyone else care to go?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #200
Lives for gear
 
norfolk martin's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by donnylang View Post
I get involved in online arguments/"debates" on occasion because I:

* Tend to have unconventional opinions, which I express freely
* Can be hotheaded
* Sometimes like drama

Anyone else care to go?
I see nothing wrong with that.

If I were to post, as a hypothetical:

Modern Gibson guitar production is pure excrement. It's because today's kids wouldn't recognize a well-made guitar if you hit them on the head with it (which is probably a good idea). Those thieves at the factory take advantage of this ignorance to sell high priced garbage to gullible fools!! Burn the factory I say!

This would be
* unconventional
* hotheaded
* dramatic

The problem would arise when, in response to the many argumentative replies, I complain that everyone has misunderstood my general observation that Gibson needs to pay more attention to QC standards
Old 4 weeks ago
  #201
Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolk martin View Post
The problem would arise when, in response to the many argumentative replies, I complain that everyone has misunderstood my general observation that Gibson needs to pay more attention to QC standards
Yeah, that's generally the big backpedal. The point where a poster realizes that he has repeatedly eaten his own foot, and is now in the throws of a desperate attempt to save a shred of self respect.

Happens all the time on Facebook, especially with the current racial tensions, like "Hey man! What's the big deal. All I'm saying is I like statues, and hate to see any of them taken down. All statues matter!"
Old 4 weeks ago
  #202
Lives for gear
 
donnylang's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by norfolk martin View Post
I see nothing wrong with that.

If I were to post, as a hypothetical:

Modern Gibson guitar production is pure excrement. It's because today's kids wouldn't recognize a well-made guitar if you hit them on the head with it (which is probably a good idea). Those thieves at the factory take advantage of this ignorance to sell high priced garbage to gullible fools!! Burn the factory I say!

This would be
* unconventional
* hotheaded
* dramatic

The problem would arise when, in response to the many argumentative replies, I complain that everyone has misunderstood my general observation that Gibson needs to pay more attention to QC standards
True

But your responses would be where your hotheaded flair for drama can truly shine :D
Old 4 weeks ago
  #203
Gear Head
 
Stoneblack's Avatar
 

Funny thread - funny title.
I respect his work but he comes off as the kind of guy who is always exaggerating, sort of the big pretentious 'let me tell you' guy - no?
I think the answer might be easier than you think. (yes)
Old 4 weeks ago
  #204
Gear Guru
 
Drumsound's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monotremata View Post
Random side note. Fugazi is one of the few bands that has actually been given free reign of Electrical whenever they want it. They don't pay a dime if they go there. The originally did In On The Kill Taker there, but the sound just didn't work for em so they went back home and did it again with Don as usual..
For a while (and maybe still) Fugazi and Shellac would do a big show every year in Chicago. They are Simpatico.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #205
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drumsound View Post
For a while (and maybe still) Fugazi and Shellac would do a big show every year in Chicago. They are Simpatico.
I have one of them from 94 I think?? During the end of Spoke they tackle Todd and drag him off the stage heh. Nowadays they just take apart his drum kit piece by piece til its over.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #206
I have a couple takeaways from this thread. Steve Albini may or may not be using eq and compression or he is the reason the world is melting down. Maybe both?
Old 4 weeks ago
  #207
MoltenVoltage #1 4 weeks ago My Studio Is Steve Albini exaggerating when claiming

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoltenVoltage View Post
I've read more than once that Steve Albini claims to avoid compression.

"There will occasionally be compression on individual instruments in the mix, but not often. I don't normally try to get rid of wild dynamics."

Even on kick drums he says "I'll occasionally compress the front bass-drum microphone while recording, in the same way as the bass guitar, at a low ratio of a couple of dBs."

Listening to In Utero and some of his other masterworks, it seems like he's not being totally forthcoming. In Utero has good dynamics, but no "wild dynamics" and sounds like compressors and limiters are all over it.

Am I way off base here?
I believe he's being completely forthcoming. He's not in complete control over the final mix, as it will end up being mastered. Furthermore, the way he mixes can have an influence on how the mastering compression sounds. I very rarely use compression anywhere myself, but sometimes I'll mix into master compression or on one or more busses. That influences levels of individual tracks. That said, I generally use a ton of automation on individual tracks as well.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #208
Gear Head
 

I was around back when Napster was explained as being GREAT for musicians.

"Just think about the exposure you'll get!"

And as every artist in every medium knows, you can starve to death on promises of exposure.

So now we have what we have:

Record music to promote live ticket sales.
Perform live, and maybe break even, in order to sell t-shirts.

I'll just point something out that is new to this thread. It's not surprising that Albini views his role as being a technician in the practice of what you might call audio verite…trying to get in the recording what the band sounds like at their best in live performance. He views (or more precisely *practices*) music as being primarily about bands and in a band context.

Which is fine…for some.

But what about music that isn't about the expression of a band? What about music that is about the score, and the ensemble can vary…like orchestral music? How do they break even, let alone make a living?

Or what about music that isn't about live performance at all, and is intrinsically something that only comes out of the recording studio? Examples from the past would include Les Paul and Mary Ford, or late period Beatles, or Wendy Carlos.

Can't think of any current examples? There's a reason for that! How would they ever be able to work on their art with a similar full-time effort? Three months of effort yielding $15 in streaming fees?

So when critiquing the current system don't just think about how hard it is on bands. Think about the kinds of music that aren't being invented at all because without equitable record sales they are economically impossible. Think about music that only has life in the recording studio. Think about what we will never hear.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #209
The great thing about music is that there are a million ways to be "good" at it. There are people who are amazing virtuoso players of an instrument. There are people who can compose amazing melodies. There are people who can add textures and create moods. There are folks with amazing rhythms. Some people can just see the big picture and take otherwise mediocre stuff and put it in a context that makes it great. There are tons of other ways that music can be great. There are tools that let just about anyone make music. Steve Albini can help some of those people a lot, but could probably help all musicians a little bit.
Old 4 weeks ago
  #210
Gear Nut
 
occam's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by drpeacock View Post
I addressed this above.
I'm not articulating what I'm trying to say very well, but bottom line I think it has to do more with a social shift rather than more distractions. Kids these days don't identify with music like we did. It isn't an important social differentiator like it used to be. In 1985 whether you listened to R.E.M. or Megadeath or Husker Du or Whitney Houston or L.L. Cool J (or some combination thereof) actually gave big clues as to your personal social aesthetic. What kids listen to now is not relevant to them personally in the same way.

I think we used music as one way of developing our independence and forming our own identities. It's one reason we wouldn't have been caught dead listening to anything our parents would have listened to. I don't think kids today actually do this as much as we did.
Just curious, how many teenagers do you regularly spend time with?

I'm a high school teacher and have been for 20 years and I'm 46. None of this represents my current experience with kids. When I was in high school I was super into music and it was a huge part of my identity as it was for many of my friends but I also knew a lot of people that just listened to whatever was on the radio but didn't really care. I work with many people that are still those people and I know many people my age that are also super passionate about music. Music as an identity was far from universal at least in my Bay Area childhood.

As for my students, I know more kids making their own music today than did when I was a kid. Fewer bands today, but more individuals. Far more of my students know something about music production and recording that they did thanks to the digital revolution. Many of my students are quite fanatical about a lot of different types of music today, I think their personal tastes tend to be less tribal (punk vs. metal vs. indie vs rap vs pop) and it's also radically more international than it was in the 70's-90's. Teenagers are not now, nor were they really a monolith. Even the Beatles as huge as they were and as limited as the music market was in the late 60's probably sold fewer records than most people realize.
📝 Reply
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump