2. music
  3. 1294363261

...and now a word from your anti-sponsor...

"...the whole artifice of recording. I see it like this: a voice into a microphone onto a tape, onto your CD, through your speakers is all as illusory and fake as any synthesizer—it doesn't put Thom in your front room—but one is perceived as 'real' the other, somehow 'unreal'... It was just freeing to discard the notion of acoustic sounds being truer." - Johnny Greenwood of Radiohead.

Personally, I couldn't agree more.
128x128ghosthouse
blkadr
739 posts
 
I like to listen to recordings of Stephen Hawkin.
chadnliz
3,736 posts
 
Kinda blan if you ask me lol
spiritualized
138 posts
 
Ironically, it is reported that Jonny owns a very high-end turntable, and has a taste for expensive electronics.
bryoncunningham
890 posts
 
I think Johnny was saying...

1. An acoustical sound is generally regarded as real.
2. An electronic sound is generally regarded as unreal.

However…

3. A reproduced acoustical sound is no more real than a reproduced electronic sound.

Therefore...

4. A reproduced acoustical sound is no more truthful than a reproduced electronic sound.

And…

5. The use of electronic sounds doesn't make music less truthful.

Personally, I disagree with both (4) and (5).

I do, however, like some of Radiohead's music.

Bryon
onhwy61's avatar
onhwy61
5,259 posts
 
I agree with Bryoncunningham's interpretation of the statement. If all reproduced sound is synthetic, then it really doesn't matter what instrument is used in the recording process as far as one instrument being more "real" than another. That's the freedom he is referring to.
More to discover