Premier Rock Forum

Steve:

Isn't the point of archiving the multi track data, whether it is Pro Tools session data or 2" 24 track tape, to retain the potential to alter a mix in the future?

If so, then this is really a question of whether or not to allow the client to do so.

So, is the responsibility of the engineer to actually deny the client the opportunity to alter?

Do you deny your clients their multi tracks?

Respectfully,

can't talk, comin' down.

heh.

to address a couple things here...

cd has been around (and is still dominant in the music market, isn't it?) for over 15 years. i still listen to my frizzle fry cd (just this week) which i bought 15 years ago. and the first cd i ever heard was duran duran's Arena, which i believe was on the charts at the time... so cd itself has lasted over 15 years and doesn't show any sign of being completely eradicated from the face of mainstream culture any time within the next 5+ years, probably more. think of car stereos. or music stores.

and re: archives being a bitch to recover, data recovery, etc... yes, i have been through an experience as you describe, the Classical, trying to get data recovered off an old Zip disk. here's the thing though. i can get a 5.25 floppy drive off ebay for under $10, put it in my desktop computer (assuming proper slot available, which could be a potential problem down the road) and read a DOS disk from 20 years ago. can't i? and the example of the bitmap, like i said, i'm pretty sure that format will be useful pretty much forever. it's kinda like the raw digital format for a picture. kinda like how PCM data will probably be useful for a long time to come.

i agree completely with steve's assertion that there is unquestionable confidence and certainty with analog formats that one doesn't *necessarily* have with digital. i tend to believe, however, that once a digital format has proven itself over the course of many many years, like CD has, or like DOS has, it's not entirely foolish to think it will survive. ZIP being a great example of something that appears to be dead and/or dying and will probably fade away to a very large degree very soon.

we all make calculated risks. some people buy stocks and make a bank, some get busted. some put their money in a savings account.

etc.

The timidity -- unwillingness to make decisions -- is encouraged by the equipment and process. The indecision shows at every stage. Not one take, 40 takes. Not one edit, 120 edits. Not one overdub, 50 overdubs. Not one mix, but an infinite stream of mixes cascading over decades.

i could tell the moment i heard them that the new pornographers and the shins record on computers

not just b/c of the qual

the way those records are made reeks of protools or some other kind of software-based recording--too much too much too much too much

unless i'm wrong, in which case i just didn't like it

there are certainly examples of folks having done this with analog gear years ago, it's not that this is anything new. i think steve's point is that it becomes the norm with protools, whereas with analog it's more the exception? not sure. but a super-easy example is metallica's And Justice For All, where the guitars were each some absurd number of overdubs, like 16 or something? there must be plenty of other examples of the life being sucked out of a recording that predate protools.

yes but I think what tmidgett and steve are trying to say as that pro tools makes that option so much easier and therefore more tempting

Barry Phipps wrote:Steve:

Isn't the point of archiving the multi track data, whether it is Pro Tools session data or 2" 24 track tape, to retain the potential to alter a mix in the future?

If so, then this is really a question of whether or not to allow the client to do so.

So, is the responsibility of the engineer to actually deny the client the opportunity to alter?

Do you deny your clients their multi tracks?

Respectfully,

If I may:
Yes, that is the point. The point behind the point, however, is that analog tape is a much better medium in the long run for archiving. What you're asking for is a way to freeze the exact mixes in time, yet still change them at any point in the future. I can't think of a single technology that will allow that.

Archiving allows the client to re-visit the tracks, but each time the engineer must re-set the faders to an approximation of what they were. This is a skill that we (as artists) pay for, among others.

The computer world needs flexibility, so development can happen quickly in products and processes. This requires radical changes implemented in hardware, software and computer systems in a short development cycle.

this is true. and think of this: computer technology is driven to change by many factors; and digital audio technology probably isn't too high on the priority list for most people. it's easy to forget that when we record on a G4, we're using a machine in a way that say only %1 of people use it for. (of course i'm pulling this number out of my ass.) most people aren't making records on their computers. they want to surf the web fast, download music, run their businesses, and crunch numbers. digital recordists are using equipment designed to perform quite an amazing array of applications. hence the forces of change aren't always based solely on the needs of the digital recordist. he's along for the ride. i think this situation is why digital hasn't taken full advantage of the 25 years it's had to get it's shit together. no one is trying to shop online or run a pos with a studer a 820. i suppose there's a great deal of comfort in having a tool designed specifically to perform one and only one job well. then again, there's the swiss army knife....

My objection to the technology of digital recording is not a theoretical one. I don't like the way it has proven itself to be transitory over time. It has created nothing permanent.

hmmm.... i'm not sure if i can agree here. to say it has created "nothing permanent" is assuming a knowledge of the future that none of us have. i'll definitely buy that there are more obsolete formats in digital audio than in magnetic tape technology, but i can't agree that the logical conclusion of this scenario is that no digital technology is permanent. what's the projected life of a cd? 100 years or so? even if the physical disc deteriorates, the information can be transferred to a new disc or format.

My objection to the practice of digital recording (we can call it Pro Tools) is the underlying assumption that is the germination of this thread: Everything should be being tweaked and changed all the time, and wouldn't it be cool if that were true even of old archival material.

The timidity -- unwillingness to make decisions -- is encouraged by the equipment and process. The indecision shows at every stage. Not one take, 40 takes. Not one edit, 120 edits. Not one overdub, 50 overdubs. Not one mix, but an infinite stream of mixes cascading over decades.

This is why it is a childish method and unsuitable for making records.

i think the point you make here, steve, is more important than any digital vs. analog debate. get it right to tape (or disc) and get it done right the first time. having a nearly infinite degree of control is a double-edged sword because one feels seduced into exercising it. then, time disappears and there's never a final version of anything.

there are certainly examples of folks having done this with analog gear years ago, it's not that this is anything new.

what's new is that this slopbucket approach to recording is becoming the defacto way to do it. it has become cheap and easy--actually making up the songs and honing them beforehand them is now the 'hard' way to make a record.

people assume they are making a delicious stew when they are all too often making mud

i watched this mtv thing on the making of the new blink 182 record--classic protools clusterfuck

hmm. i guess what it boils down to for me is that i don't really give a fuck what the "defacto" way to do things is. we're all gonna do what we want, whether that be to follow the norm or to do whatever we think is the right way to go (i.e. think on our own). i guess i don't really care what most people do, or how most bands record. i guess if a band records on protools and you hate them for it, that's either their loss or yours.

i don't remember most of polvo's catalog having a stellar production value to it. nor do i care. i like the music. and shit, if a band is willing to use protools to suck the life out of their music, well they can go ahead and do it. maybe it'll get so lifeless i won't wanna buy the album. their loss.

didn't my bloody valentine spend a ridiculous amount of time making Loveless? isn't it a revered album by lotsa folks, even engineers who might not revere it for the shitty production quality they ended up with, but rather for the fact that even after laying down a zillion tracks a bunch of times, it's a fucking good album?

i dunno maign.

Barry Phipps wrote:Steve:

Isn't the point of archiving the multi track data, whether it is Pro Tools session data or 2" 24 track tape, to retain the potential to alter a mix in the future?

That's not the way it has been used or interpreted historically. The multitrack tape is a work product (equivalent to a camera negative in filmmaking) that is an effective defense against loss of the stereo master (what the whole exercise of making a record is supposed to be about). That is, until the remix frenzy started, it was used to re-create a lost master in a pinch.

If so, then this is really a question of whether or not to allow the client to do so.

It isn't, and there's nothing preventing the client from making a new mix at any time from any format. If you mean "tweak endlessly," then I suppose it is a bit of a deterrent, but it hasn't stopped anybody if they want to do it.

So, is the responsibility of the engineer to actually deny the client the opportunity to alter?

Is the responsibility to interpret as denial the provenance of those who have a stake in the position of denial as perjorative? Is the sentence as convoluted and as opaque as I can make it? Is the rhetorical question all about rationalizing a lazy work technique? Can I stop with the questions?

Do you deny your clients their multi tracks?

Nope, they paid for them. That's why they deserve to get something permanent and indefinitely useable for their money.

Respectfully,

Respectfully too. I'm less snippy in person.