I hesitate to do another analog v digital with Steve (it's been about 7 years since I last did that), but the difference he might be referring to could be the total time spent editing and not the physical activity of making a single edit. The advent of digital editing has ushered in an age of reliance on cut and paste even in situations where it's not a necessity. Exact quantization of digital and the true random access makes it possible to view time in many different frame of reference, and often simultaneously. One can edit a 60 minute or 60 sample section of digital audio with the same actions, options which are just too unwieldy or not possible with tape. With that understanding, a lot of things attempted in the digital realm would require a different solution in the analog domain, and at that point the comparisons between work-flows get a little more difficult. One thing is certain, the phrase 'ProTools it' has become part of the record-making process for a large number of artists, and it has both beneficial and negative impact.

cgc wrote:One can edit a 60 minute or 60 sample section of digital audio with the same actions, options which are just too unwieldy or not possible with tape. With that understanding, a lot of things attempted in the digital realm would require a different solution in the analog domain, and at that point the comparisons between work-flows get a little more difficult. One thing is certain, the phrase 'ProTools it' has become part of the record-making process for a large number of artists, and it has both beneficial and negative impact.

the problem, then, is not the tools but the laziness of hte people who make digital recordings. not that there aren't problems with the tools... but really, if you record properly and resolve not to be an edit monkey, there's no reason it should take longer.

shagboy wrote:[f you .. resolve not to be an edit monkey, there's no reason it should take longer.

I think the inherent problem is that it's just about as hard to not become an edit monkey on a digital recording platform as it is to not wanting to shoot yourself when Novotny tells the same joke for the hundreth time.

russ

shagboy wrote:
the problem, then, is not the tools but the laziness of hte people who make digital recordings. not that there aren't problems with the tools... but really, if you record properly and resolve not to be an edit monkey, there's no reason it should take longer.

It is simply the lack of thought about the process, which is by no means limited to those working with digital. From what I have seen in the recording industry, most things are done purely out of convention the vast majority of the time. I can count on one hand the folks who have rigorously gone against those conventions.

Part of my distaste for the computer recording method has to do with the reasons it came into being.

Recording is not the computer's principle function, and its software "recording" programs are primarily editing programs. They were designed from the first moment of conception to facilitate manipulation, not recording, of sound. As such, they all have their strong and weak points, but their basis is the same: Capture the sound however you like, and then fiddle with it using a bewildering array of tools.

If you don't have a tape recorder, but want to record sound, you can use a computer. In the same sense, if you don't have a shopping cart, you can use an artillery piece or a Ferrari to go through your inter-aisle maneuvers in Dominicks. I wouldn't recommend either, as they weren't made for the task, and eventually their design choices will impose themselves on the process.

Literally anything that can be done on a computer can be done on tape machines. Some stuff at the freakish margins will take more time on a tape machine (say, quantizing drum tracks to the nearest 16th note, or erasing all the bleed from every track), so it is only done when necessary, not as a standard practice. Because these things are easier on computers, they are done routinely, and have become cliches.

That's part of it. The standard we-need-to-do-this-all-the-time type of editing (compiling takes into a master, sequencing albums, etc.) is just as easy or easier on tape.

steve wrote:... (compiling takes into a master, sequencing albums, etc.) is just as easy or easier on tape.

Being the one who does quite a bit of the sequencing of albums on 1/2" around here, I would say, in my limited experience, that while it's by no means difficult, it's probably not any harder to do it on a computer. And, if you're doing it correctly (on the computer), it should be faster than on tape.

russ

PS - I realize all the problems that loading a 1/2" mix onto a computer would cause when not doing it at the mastering stage. Hence the reason we don't do it here.

steve wrote:Part of my distaste for the computer recording method has to do with the reasons it came into being.

Recording is not the computer's principle function, and its software "recording" programs are primarily editing programs. They were designed from the first moment of conception to facilitate manipulation, not recording, of sound. As such, they all have their strong and weak points, but their basis is the same: Capture the sound however you like, and then fiddle with it using a bewildering array of tools.

BTW, there are programs designed for people who solely wish to record - www.kreatives.org (read up about the Kristal program) -as opposed to programs designed for weekend hacks and button manglers who want to "make shit sound fucked-up" by figuring out what they can do with a compressor by randomly pressing buttons.
Because people often conceive of computers in a relatively static way, they don't take note of the fact that contemporary machines have dispersed processing components for different functions. If you change those components, the capabilities and qualities of the computer change. Recording can be a modern computers primary function, in reflection of its components task-specific strengths, even if people originally opted to start using computers for recording because they couldn't be arsed learning how to do things in a more traditional manner.

If you don't have a tape recorder, but want to record sound, you can use a computer. In the same sense, if you don't have a shopping cart, you can use an artillery piece or a Ferrari to go through your inter-aisle maneuvers in Dominicks. I wouldn't recommend either, as they weren't made for the task, and eventually their design choices will impose themselves on the process.

Heh heh - "we need supressing fire in aisle seven!"

Literally anything that can be done on a computer can be done on tape machines. Some stuff at the freakish margins will take more time on a tape machine (say, quantizing drum tracks to the nearest 16th note, or erasing all the bleed from every track), so it is only done when necessary, not as a standard practice. Because these things are easier on computers, they are done routinely, and have become cliches.

It is the use of these cliches that has undermined the use of computers as a legitimately creative recording tool. Make a tool a thousand times more widely available and a thousand times more people will suddenly think they are able to use it properly, which produces a thousand times as much crap.
But it's not true that anything that can be done on a computer can be done on tape too - for example, in the composition process employed by people like John Cage and Lou Harrison, a musical element may be employed because it is significant for other reasons than it's pitch, duration, volume, or voice. It might be significant because it employs indeterminacy, the great input of the moment, or because of what makes the sound, and the relationship that source might have with an idea or person or state. Because computers break everything down into a representation comprised of numbers, I am suddenly able to turn a text copy of dubya's colonoscopy results into a raw sound at 32bit/96kHz by changing the file extension from .txt to .wav, hell, it could be the video feed from the colonoscope itself, because it's just a big string of numbers. At which point it is up to me as an artist to use this in a manner that contributes to the world of music, but nonetheless - this could not be done using tape.

skinny honkie wrote:It is the use of these cliches that has undermined the use of computers as a legitimately creative recording tool.

No, it is their lack of usefulness that has undermined the use of computers as a legitimate recording tool. What can you do with a computer that you can't with tape? Well, you gave the following example:

skinny honkie wrote:I am suddenly able to turn a text copy of dubya's colonoscopy results into a raw sound at 32bit/96kHz

While I am sure that this would make a fascinating piece, this seems more like a novelty than a serious composition. There is no real playing involved, and there is no real musical substance. As far as editing and recording go, most of the computer's capabilities fall into two categories. They are either derived from tape functions or they are not necessary. In fact, I would go so far as to say that all of the non-tape practices one can perform on a computer are "novelties." Not beneficial, and capable of giving a novice the appearance of a professional in the eyes of an idiot. If people would stop "oooh"ing and "ahhh"ing over (and relying on) computer tricks, digital engineers would go to hell, where they belong.

-Noah

Noah wrote:No, it is their lack of usefulness that has undermined the use of computers as a legitimate recording tool. What can you do with a computer that you can't with tape? Well, you gave the following example:

skinny honkie wrote:I am suddenly able to turn a text copy of dubya's colonoscopy results into a raw sound at 32bit/96kHz

While I am sure that this would make a fascinating piece, this seems more like a novelty than a serious composition. There is no real playing involved, and there is no real musical substance. As far as editing and recording go, most of the computer's capabilities fall into two categories. They are either derived from tape functions or they are not necessary. In fact, I would go so far as to say that all of the non-tape practices one can perform on a computer are "novelties." Not beneficial, and capable of giving a novice the appearance of a professional in the eyes of an idiot. If people would stop "oooh"ing and "ahhh"ing over computer tricks, digital engineers would go to hell, where they belong.

-Noah

I disagree. If computers lacked usefulness in the studio then they wouldn't be used by anyone. They lack a degree of capability at the high-end of audio performance, and they fail to provide a solid archiving format other than the various states of RAID, which is admittedly impractical for studio use.
re. your subjective critique, I invite you to listen to a copy of John Cage's 4'33" on a good stereo in a still room, and then argue to me that novelty can't be serious composition, and vice-versa.
re. recording functions - I assume you mean functions, not capabilities - of course they have transferred over from the previously established paradigms. Given that people would try to use computers for this task, what would you propose as an alternative? And of the second category you refer to, who are you to presume to tell a musician what parameters they can create within? You sound like some old-school McCarthy-era moralist denouncing the wickedness of Elvis. If you establish a "way" in which you feel things should be done, then someone is going to come along and express dissent at some point, because they think you're being a close-minded dick. Thus was rock'n'roll given legs.
I am not here to state that digital is better. I don't think it is. But I know that computers have some capture functions which tape units cannot duplicate, and that there is room for them to exist in a creative performance and recording context. I find Steve's views on this very interesting, and I agree with the main thrust of his reasoning. But I did want to offer up some points which may add to his understanding of his enemy, if nothing else. For that matter, I kinda agree with you, too.....hell has a special place reserved for people making generic electronica on their Mac's and PC's.

To recap: this is not the A vs D debate. This is about pointing out that a computer is a glorified pocket calculator that happens to deal with all material in numeric form, and that they can add to the creative process. Because they do not distinguish between the states of the numbers they work with, their data workflow is essentially recorded simply by being.

Do feel free to disagree.

How's that fifty dollar pre going for ya?

skinny honkie wrote:hell has a special place reserved for people making generic electronica on their Mac's and PC's.

and for people making generic rock on their electric guitars.

i used to make a lot of electronic music (not "electronica", and rarely generic) and it taught me many many things about music, sound, and engineering that i would not have had an opportunity to learn otherwise. it's a good place to start for a 16 year old kid with no scratch.

in fact, i'd say that a lot of things that aren't necessarily great things ARE great ways to learn and develop more creativity. for example, ripping off your favourite band. whatever you make as the result of an attempt to rip off a band is bound to sound different because it goes through the filter of your own presumably unique tastes. and, most importantly, the quest to rip off gives you a specific end point and thus teaches you to use what you have at your disposal to a specific end, giving you a better mastery of your equipment and your skillz. people who make only derivative music may inspire boredom and derision, but it is not unwise to do the odd rip off.

what i'm saying is, there's something to be gained and learned from everything.