****Type casting is a no-no as there are always exceptions to the rule: long
haired rockers who always use 11; studious geeks who defer to exactitude;
free thinkers who tend to experiment. **** - Nonoise
That was going to be, essentially, my first comment in answer to
Charles1dad's questions. This is a difficult issue to address because of the
above and because there is no way for me to address it honestly without
ruffling some feathers.
My absolutely honest, no-pulled-punches, sure-to-offend-some opinion,
which many will disagree with, is that there is an unavoidable and
fundamental conflict that always occurs when music and technology meet.
I am, of course, not referring to the technology that makes possible the
existence of electronic instruments, but the technology of the
record/playback and live-sound engineering processes. In these situations
the end result is not fully in control of the musicians but of those coming at
it from the technical side of things. Even in cases where the technical
engineers are themselves musicians they are usually not part of the
creative process, so it takes a very special and sensitive individual to fully
understand the need to get out of the way as much as possible; and by that
I mean, to use the technology to capture as faithfully as possible what the
musicians are creating without putting his own stamp (vision) on it. Of
course, there are instances when that is precisely what the musicians want;
wether it is by way of wanting the engineer to alter a particular aspect of the
performance, or the extreme case of surrendering every consideration to
the producer's vision for the project. The existence of this conflict is the
fundamental reason why I have always insisted that live unamplified sound
is, with all its problems and inconsistensies, the best reference for judging
what an electronic component is doing right or wrong. As far as gear goes
I have always been a fan of the "less is more approach". Gear
that has always sounded the most like music to me is: electrostats without
complex xovers, tube amplification (I use a passive pre) and analog (which,
from my perspective, is simpler in nature than digital). That's not to say that
I haven't heard great sound of a different persuasion, but in my experience
the "less is more" approach has a far better batting record.
One of the most often mentioned music cliches is that there are only two
kinds of music: good and bad. Absolutely true, but it would be naive to not
recognize and acknowledge that, while not necessarily an indication of
ultimate value and worth, some music is simply more sophisticated or, at
least, more complex than others. To be honest and direct, anyone who
thinks that there is as much sophistication of sheer craft in the Beatles', or
even Frank Zappa's, musical legacy as there is in that of Bartok, R.
Strauss, Wayne Shorter or Miles is kidding himself and should do a little
more listening. Anyone who would question that should take a look at the
score for "Der Rosenkavalier" or a transcription of Coltrane's
"Giant Steps"; then, let's talk. Please note that I am not passing
judgement on ultimate merit; rock and pop music bring different things to
the table: the visceral aspect, current social relevance (for better or worse),
and in the case of the best of the genre, SOPHISTICATION IN ITS
SIMPLICITY AND ACCESSIBILITY. Good music is not about complexity
but about its ability to touch our emotions; and that is what makes it good or
bad. Still, the level of nuance in tonal and dynamic shading that one hears
(and is required) in great classical and jazz performance far surpasses that
heard in most rock/pop performances.
What does any of this have to do with Charles1dad's questions? The
sophistication (complexity) of much classical and jazz music DEMANDS a
similar level of sophistication from the engineers if the music is not to
suffer. One example: When a composer orchestrates a piece of music he
takes into account how the chosen set(s) of instruments interact
acoustically to create a certain tonal color via the balance of the volume at
which each instrument is expected to play each individual part; an effect
that no amount of artificial ambience created by the engineer can recreate
and is utterly destroyed by multimicing. Detractors of the live-music
reference often cite how the pin-point imaging heard from high-end audio
systems is missing in live music. YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO; it's
seldom what the composer wanted. The multimicing used by some
engineers to "help" matters usually do little more than destroy
those delicate balances; which is but one of the reasons why so many of
the classic recordings form the "Golden Age" sound so great.
Simple mic techniques and respect for the effort that the players put into
balancing their individual parts within the whole is key. Additionally, my
own personal experience in recording studios is that the more commercial
(pop/rock) the project, the less likely it is that the engineer will leave the
booth, stand in front of the players and actually listen to what the music
actually sounds like in the room before it gets picked up by a mic. I think
the implications of that are obvious.
There is an often expressed opinion among musicians that the proliferation
of technological toys to "fix" and "help" the product
in the recording process was not born out of a need for them, but rather,
that engineers actually had to find uses for them. Clearly, many of these
electronic band-aids are put to good use and there clearly are many really
good sounding rock/pop recordings, but it is easy to see how this can also
lead to less reliance on ingenuity and very careful and sensitive
LISTENING on the part of many engineers as was the case in previous
eras when all that gear didn't exist. From my perspective it is not difficult to
understand why the absence of (or, arguably, the absence of a need for) a
true reference (live acoustic sound) in rock/pop could yield fewer examples
of really great sound.
haired rockers who always use 11; studious geeks who defer to exactitude;
free thinkers who tend to experiment. **** - Nonoise
That was going to be, essentially, my first comment in answer to
Charles1dad's questions. This is a difficult issue to address because of the
above and because there is no way for me to address it honestly without
ruffling some feathers.
My absolutely honest, no-pulled-punches, sure-to-offend-some opinion,
which many will disagree with, is that there is an unavoidable and
fundamental conflict that always occurs when music and technology meet.
I am, of course, not referring to the technology that makes possible the
existence of electronic instruments, but the technology of the
record/playback and live-sound engineering processes. In these situations
the end result is not fully in control of the musicians but of those coming at
it from the technical side of things. Even in cases where the technical
engineers are themselves musicians they are usually not part of the
creative process, so it takes a very special and sensitive individual to fully
understand the need to get out of the way as much as possible; and by that
I mean, to use the technology to capture as faithfully as possible what the
musicians are creating without putting his own stamp (vision) on it. Of
course, there are instances when that is precisely what the musicians want;
wether it is by way of wanting the engineer to alter a particular aspect of the
performance, or the extreme case of surrendering every consideration to
the producer's vision for the project. The existence of this conflict is the
fundamental reason why I have always insisted that live unamplified sound
is, with all its problems and inconsistensies, the best reference for judging
what an electronic component is doing right or wrong. As far as gear goes
I have always been a fan of the "less is more approach". Gear
that has always sounded the most like music to me is: electrostats without
complex xovers, tube amplification (I use a passive pre) and analog (which,
from my perspective, is simpler in nature than digital). That's not to say that
I haven't heard great sound of a different persuasion, but in my experience
the "less is more" approach has a far better batting record.
One of the most often mentioned music cliches is that there are only two
kinds of music: good and bad. Absolutely true, but it would be naive to not
recognize and acknowledge that, while not necessarily an indication of
ultimate value and worth, some music is simply more sophisticated or, at
least, more complex than others. To be honest and direct, anyone who
thinks that there is as much sophistication of sheer craft in the Beatles', or
even Frank Zappa's, musical legacy as there is in that of Bartok, R.
Strauss, Wayne Shorter or Miles is kidding himself and should do a little
more listening. Anyone who would question that should take a look at the
score for "Der Rosenkavalier" or a transcription of Coltrane's
"Giant Steps"; then, let's talk. Please note that I am not passing
judgement on ultimate merit; rock and pop music bring different things to
the table: the visceral aspect, current social relevance (for better or worse),
and in the case of the best of the genre, SOPHISTICATION IN ITS
SIMPLICITY AND ACCESSIBILITY. Good music is not about complexity
but about its ability to touch our emotions; and that is what makes it good or
bad. Still, the level of nuance in tonal and dynamic shading that one hears
(and is required) in great classical and jazz performance far surpasses that
heard in most rock/pop performances.
What does any of this have to do with Charles1dad's questions? The
sophistication (complexity) of much classical and jazz music DEMANDS a
similar level of sophistication from the engineers if the music is not to
suffer. One example: When a composer orchestrates a piece of music he
takes into account how the chosen set(s) of instruments interact
acoustically to create a certain tonal color via the balance of the volume at
which each instrument is expected to play each individual part; an effect
that no amount of artificial ambience created by the engineer can recreate
and is utterly destroyed by multimicing. Detractors of the live-music
reference often cite how the pin-point imaging heard from high-end audio
systems is missing in live music. YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO; it's
seldom what the composer wanted. The multimicing used by some
engineers to "help" matters usually do little more than destroy
those delicate balances; which is but one of the reasons why so many of
the classic recordings form the "Golden Age" sound so great.
Simple mic techniques and respect for the effort that the players put into
balancing their individual parts within the whole is key. Additionally, my
own personal experience in recording studios is that the more commercial
(pop/rock) the project, the less likely it is that the engineer will leave the
booth, stand in front of the players and actually listen to what the music
actually sounds like in the room before it gets picked up by a mic. I think
the implications of that are obvious.
There is an often expressed opinion among musicians that the proliferation
of technological toys to "fix" and "help" the product
in the recording process was not born out of a need for them, but rather,
that engineers actually had to find uses for them. Clearly, many of these
electronic band-aids are put to good use and there clearly are many really
good sounding rock/pop recordings, but it is easy to see how this can also
lead to less reliance on ingenuity and very careful and sensitive
LISTENING on the part of many engineers as was the case in previous
eras when all that gear didn't exist. From my perspective it is not difficult to
understand why the absence of (or, arguably, the absence of a need for) a
true reference (live acoustic sound) in rock/pop could yield fewer examples
of really great sound.