Steve Albini & Ken Andrews on PBS s Wired Science

41
If the discernible difference in analog and digital recordings is due to method and aesthetic approach as Steve mentioned above, then it's evident that if one applied an analogous (hehe) approach to a digital recording, and refrained from digital editing muckery then the differences would be minimal.

I fully agree with the arguments as to why one should master to tape, but I don't see such a great advantage in tracking.

Much of the music I make is improvised and we may be playing for an hour before everything clicks and something inspired appears out of the air. I want to capture those moments and recording digitally makes that possible. I can record to hard disk for hours on end with just short pauses to save the files. I seem to remember from when I recorded to tape in studios that a reel would run out after about 15 minutes and that a reel of tape cost a significant chunk of change. It would be completely impractical to record music the way I create it if I was using an analog system. If I didn't approach recording this way, I wouldn't capture the music in the spirit that I create it.

As tacky as it may be, it's also a great help to have the visual information present and the ability to jump cue instantly when sifting though an hour of recordings for the five minutes that you remember were awesome.

I agree in that it's not about the sound quality of the medium per se, but what the medium allows for the aesthetic approach. Digital is more flexible in this regard.
Last edited by bluegreengold_Archive on Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:11 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Steve Albini & Ken Andrews on PBS s Wired Science

42
joelb wrote:The woman in the band saying "Yeah, digital's great cause you can move the bridge around and see where it fits, and it's not like you have to get it all right on the first take."

You wouldn't want to have to actually practice and perfect your art on your own before you record it, now would you?


I believe it was the producer who said the stuff about mving parts of the songs around.

Great Northern are a good band and super fine people, by the way. They opened for some friends of mine, so I caught them by accident. It was a good show. The songs are really creative. I'm glad I saw them.

Having had one of the more enjoyable dinners I've had with a band in a long time, and getting a pretty good idea of what kind of people they are, my guess is that the term "breakout band" was not their idea.

-A
Itchy McGoo wrote:I would like to be a "shoop-shoop" girl in whatever band Alex Maiolo is in.

Steve Albini & Ken Andrews on PBS s Wired Science

43
alex maiolo wrote:
joelb wrote:The woman in the band saying "Yeah, digital's great cause you can move the bridge around and see where it fits, and it's not like you have to get it all right on the first take."

You wouldn't want to have to actually practice and perfect your art on your own before you record it, now would you?


I believe it was the producer who said the stuff about mving parts of the songs around.

Great Northern are a good band and super fine people, by the way. They opened for some friends of mine, so I caught them by accident. It was a good show. The songs are really creative. I'm glad I saw them.

Having had one of the more enjoyable dinners I've had with a band in a long time, and getting a pretty good idea of what kind of people they are, my guess is that the term "breakout band" was not their idea.

-A


Incidentally, and maybe i'll get flamed for pointing this out, but some music is meant to be created in a recording studio setting, not just practiced and perfected before the band heads to the studio. Granted, this is more applicable to hip-hop and stuff like Paul's Boutique or maybe a Negativland release, but as more artists start liberally borrowing from the production techniques of multiple genres and such, that sort of thing starts to bleed together, and you start seeing bands using the studio as another instrument. And maybe i'm in the minority here, but i don't see that as a bad thing, provided it suits the art being produced.

That being said, most of the music i enjoy (and the rest of us here enjoy, i'm sure) is pretty much a live beast, and for most of the bands i love, using digital recording techniques to "cheat" (looping drums, autotuning, pasting parts together) doesn't add anything to the finished product, and is just laziness (which is what i'm guessing Tim and Steve are talking about when they say they can tell that someone's using digital processes). If four dudes are just going into the studio to bang out their three-chord punk songs with minimal overdubs, i don't see why that can't be done with either tape or computers.

Use all the digital shit you want; just don't be all Metallica about it and you'll be fine. That's my take anyway.

*goes back to lurking through all 1400 of these threads*
http://www.ifihadahifi.net
http://www.superstarcastic.com

Marsupialized wrote:Thank you so much for the pounding, it came in handy.

Steve Albini & Ken Andrews on PBS s Wired Science

44
Did anyone else notice how our studio looked dim and gloomy compared to the shimmery clear, bright aesthetic of the PT studio?
Steve, we need more theater lighting, like an Apple Store.
I like how they were vague about how the "analog" mix was made as compared to the "digital" mix. I am also assuming they did the AB-ing with a DAW.
The show was stunningly half-assed. It will probably serve as a reference point for people who are dumb or could barely give a shit.
"They did a show on PBS about that didn't they... and no one could tell the difference"?
Greg Norman FG

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests