Home » The PARIS Forums » PARIS: Main » Erector Set Music
Erector Set Music [message #102926] |
Tue, 24 March 2009 19:36 |
|
target="_blank">animix_spamless_@animas.net> wrote in message
news:42b5b128@linux...
> .........zzzzzzzzzzz..........very late session. Get to bed around 3AM.
>
> Wake up semi conscious and stagger z
Gantt Kushner
Gizmo Recording Company
Silver Spring, MD
www.gizmorecording.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Erector Set Music [message #102932 is a reply to message #102931] |
Tue, 24 March 2009 22:24 |
Aaron Allen
Messages: 1988 Registered: May 2008
|
Senior Member |
|
|
You can be blessed and get an artist in that doesn't need it, or you can
work your magic on someone who otherwise would suck so loudly it would sound
like a Dyson commercial, and make them tolerable.In the 2nd scenario, you
are the real artist. Either way, it's still just a tool. Pause for a moment,
step outside your own processes and just consider the whole picture bro.
What's it mean to the listener, to the 'artist'?
Charles Koch, Koch Industries Chairman and CEO
"Our vision controls the way we think and, therefore, the way we act...The
vision we have of our jobs determines what we do and the opportunities we
see or don't see."
AA
"Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote in message news:49c9c214$1@linux...
> Aaron,
>
> I hear you too.
> It is just a tool and I have no problem using it.
>
> The problem I have is many clients who can't
> sing expect the correction to be done in the studio.
> Okay I'll do that but the pretense is lame.
> This is with often times talentless projects
> and no song writing. That's painful.
>
> I guess it depends where you are in the food chain.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
> news:49c9bd76@linux...
>> It's just a tool guys. Never forget that.
>> AA
>>
>>
>> "Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote in message news:49c9abe0@linux...
>>>I hear ya.
>>>
>>> tom
>>>
>>>
>>> "Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:49c99cf3$1@linux...
>>>>
>>>> I might just be having a bad night too.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm beginning to really hate it.
>>>>>
>>>>>And if I ever meet the guy who invented AutoTune I think I'm gonna
>>>>>punch
>>>>>him in the nose. Unless it's a woman. In which case I'll say
>>>>>something
>>>>>like "Gee, thanks for ruining music".
>>>>>
>>>>>Maybe I really do need a new career.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
|
|
|
Re: Erector Set Music [message #102933 is a reply to message #102932] |
Wed, 25 March 2009 02:17 |
rick
Messages: 1976 Registered: February 2006
|
Senior Member |
|
|
it's been my experience...more often than not that if the singer
sucks, the rest of the music usually also does. i know, i know it's
money but i miss the days when people with talent and a drive to be
their best was the norm.
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:24:39 -0500, "Aaron Allen"
<know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote:
>You can be blessed and get an artist in that doesn't need it, or you can
>work your magic on someone who otherwise would suck so loudly it would sound
>like a Dyson commercial, and make them tolerable.In the 2nd scenario, you
>are the real artist. Either way, it's still just a tool. Pause for a moment,
>step outside your own processes and just consider the whole picture bro.
>What's it mean to the listener, to the 'artist'?
>
>Charles Koch, Koch Industries Chairman and CEO
>"Our vision controls the way we think and, therefore, the way we act...The
>vision we have of our jobs determines what we do and the opportunities we
>see or don't see."
>
>AA
>
>
>"Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote in message news:49c9c214$1@linux...
>> Aaron,
>>
>> I hear you too.
>> It is just a tool and I have no problem using it.
>>
>> The problem I have is many clients who can't
>> sing expect the correction to be done in the studio.
>> Okay I'll do that but the pretense is lame.
>> This is with often times talentless projects
>> and no song writing. That's painful.
>>
>> I guess it depends where you are in the food chain.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Aaron Allen" <know-spam@not_here.dude> wrote in message
>> news:49c9bd76@linux...
>>> It's just a tool guys. Never forget that.
>>> AA
>>>
>>>
>>> "Tom Bruhl" <arpegio@comcast.net> wrote in message news:49c9abe0@linux...
>>>>I hear ya.
>>>>
>>>> tom
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:49c99cf3$1@linux...
>>>>>
>>>>> I might just be having a bad night too.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm beginning to really hate it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And if I ever meet the guy who invented AutoTune I think I'm gonna
>>>>>>punch
>>>>>>him in the nose. Unless it's a woman. In which case I'll say
>>>>>>something
>>>>>>like "Gee, thanks for ruining music".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe I really do need a new career.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|
|
|
|
Re: Erector Set Music [message #102935 is a reply to message #102934] |
Wed, 25 March 2009 06:55 |
Sarah
Messages: 608 Registered: February 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I think, if I may, that Gannt might be referring to lifeless, sterile,
electronically purified music.
Can't sing to save your life, but you're cute as a bug's ear? Don't worry,
technology can make you a star anyway! (Provided you can learn a few simple
dance moves.)
Maybe there should be disclaimers on auto-tuned projects: "Certain
performances contained herein may be electronically enhanced -- the artist
makes no guarantee regarding the quality of live renditions."
Is it possible to autotune an entire mix? Because I've often wondered what
it would sound like to take some great classic rock songs and "tune" them.
What if you autotuned some Beatles, or Bob Dylan, or Led Zeppelin, or the
Band? Would they sound better? Or geez, what about the Stones? They'd be
unrecognizable.
Bah. Humbug. I prefer music.
S
"Neil" <OUIOIU@OUI.com> wrote in message news:49ca2ba3$1@linux...
>
> "Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>I'm beginning to really hate it.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "erector set music"? Do you mean
> assembling a song by & large piece by piece, track by track, as
> opposed to recording a whole performance by the band all at
> once?
>
> If so, I rather enjoy that - I think it allows the recordist
> to get more involved in the process with regard to massaging the
> composition & arrangement. But then, that's my favorite part of
> the recording process, anyway.
>
> Neil
|
|
|
Re: Erector Set Music [message #102936 is a reply to message #102934] |
Wed, 25 March 2009 07:34 |
|
I read an interview in Tape Op magazine with some famous old recording engineer/producer
- I can't remember who - and he talked about why he likes recording live
as much as possible. He talked about the concept of GETTING IT RIGHT as
opposed to figuring you can fix it all later and that got me thinking. In
the old days I was really involved with the tracking process in a very musical
way. I was constantly asking myself questions like this: Is it in tune?
Is it in time? Are they in the pocket? Can it be better? Do they have
one more take in them? Nowadays, the question I ask myself (and the question
the clients inevitably ask) is: Can I fix it later? Do I have enough tracks
to piece something useable together? Is there to much vibrato to be able
to use Autotune? So, the KIND of attention I pay is very different. ANd
the AMOUNT of attention I pay, as a result, has suffered. It's a very different
mind-set to be planning on doing my best to turn the sow's ear into a silk
purse later than to be trying to avoid the stinky old pig in the first place.
Do you know what I mean? And people expect me to fix everything. And what
I'd really want to say is "Go home and practice. Call me when you play your
instrument well enough to be worth recording. Call me when you learn how
to sing in tune. Call me when you get a drummer who can actually keep time.
But I can't - I need the money, so I fix and tweak and tune. Sometimes
it's fun - I like making a great vocal take with one or two funky notes sound
better. I love being able to edit a great solo from take two of a jazz tune
into take 5. I don't mind sliding a bass note to match the rest of the band
in an otherwise great take of a jazz tune or rhythm track.
Oops. This has become a Rant. I'll stop for now!
Gantt
"Neil" <OUIOIU@OUI.com> wrote:
>
>"Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>I'm beginning to really hate it.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by "erector set music"? Do you mean
>assembling a song by & large piece by piece, track by track, as
>opposed to recording a whole performance by the band all at
>once?
>
>If so, I rather enjoy that - I think it allows the recordist
>to get more involved in the process with regard to massaging the
>composition & arrangement. But then, that's my favorite part of
>the recording process, anyway.
>
>Neil
Gantt Kushner
Gizmo Recording Company
Silver Spring, MD
www.gizmorecording.com
|
|
|
Re: Erector Set Music [message #102937 is a reply to message #102935] |
Wed, 25 March 2009 08:42 |
|
You know, I don't mind using technology to create music from the ground up.
I don't like most of the computerized, drum machined, autotuned (SHEESH!
That's a fad that could end soon!) quantized stuff I hear on the radio, but
I've fooled with some fun noises using samples and synths. Sometimes it
actually sounds like music. Sometimes it even has a little bit of feeling
to it. What I object to is being expected to happily participate in fooling
people into thinking that the sow's ear really IS a silk purse. It totally
trivializes the 40+ years I've spent learning to play the guitar. It totally
trivializes the accomplishments of all the singers and players I've idolized
and emulated in my career.
Gantt
"Sarah" <sarahjane@sarahtonin.com> wrote:
>I think, if I may, that Gannt might be referring to lifeless, sterile,
>electronically purified music.
>
>Can't sing to save your life, but you're cute as a bug's ear? Don't worry,
>technology can make you a star anyway! (Provided you can learn a few simple
>dance moves.)
>
>Maybe there should be disclaimers on auto-tuned projects: "Certain
>performances contained herein may be electronically enhanced -- the artist
>makes no guarantee regarding the quality of live renditions."
>
>Is it possible to autotune an entire mix? Because I've often wondered what
>it would sound like to take some great classic rock songs and "tune" them.
>What if you autotuned some Beatles, or Bob Dylan, or Led Zeppelin, or the
>Band? Would they sound better? Or geez, what about the Stones? They'd
be
>unrecognizable.
>
>Bah. Humbug. I prefer music.
>
>S
>
>
>"Neil" <OUIOIU@OUI.com> wrote in message news:49ca2ba3$1@linux...
>>
>> "Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>I'm beginning to really hate it.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "erector set music"? Do you mean
>> assembling a song by & large piece by piece, track by track, as
>> opposed to recording a whole performance by the band all at
>> once?
>>
>> If so, I rather enjoy that - I think it allows the recordist
>> to get more involved in the process with regard to massaging the
>> composition & arrangement. But then, that's my favorite part of
>> the recording process, anyway.
>>
>> Neil
>
>
Gantt Kushner
Gizmo Recording Company
Silver Spring, MD
www.gizmorecording.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Erector Set Music [message #102949 is a reply to message #102947] |
Wed, 25 March 2009 18:34 |
|
You're right. Erector sets are awesome (as are Lincoln Logs, Aaron...).
I need a new analogy. Give me a minute...
Gantt
"chuck duffy" <c@c.com> wrote:
>
>Your post insults Erector sets, which were/are pretty much fantastic :-)
>
>Chuck
>"Gantt Kushner" <ganttmann@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>I'm beginning to really hate it.
>>
>>And if I ever meet the guy who invented AutoTune I think I'm gonna punch
>>him in the nose. Unless it's a woman. In which case I'll say something
>>like "Gee, thanks for ruining music".
>>
>>Maybe I really do need a new career.
>
Gantt Kushner
Gizmo Recording Company
Silver Spring, MD
www.gizmorecording.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Wed Nov 27 14:34:53 PST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01564 seconds
|