micing for the "performer perspective"?

[slight-return]

I don't really have a specific question, just a topic

 

How do you guys feel about trying to capture the sound from the Performer's perspective in a recording ? (as opposed to a scheme for capturing an audience type perspective)

 

You see a number of sitarists these dasy not running an upper tumba which, from an audience perspective probably doesn't change that much, but it seems like from the player perspective, you'd lose that engulfing resonance from being inside the field of the 2 resonators

 

larger drum kits?

piano?

 

I suppose instruments that aren't a point source

 

what about issues with this image in an ensemble mix?

 

seems like there could be weirdness if you, say, recorded each instrument from this perspective then tried to mix them into one soundstage...just too much?

 

 

I'm not really much of a recording guy (just never really became part of my musical identity - which is weird I guess as "music" and "recorded music" seems almost synonymous these days -- I think it's a cool endeavor though) so forgive my ignorance

[Lee Knight]

Ever since we started moving mics in close as pop music grew up, reality was re-invented. What reality? Whatever works for a particular artistic sensibility... works.

 

A blue dog? There is no such thing as a blue dog. Oh wait, now there is.

[slight-return]

That's cool

I guess I'm left with the question of "how well"? and "when" in terms of that artistic sensibility

 

like do you find trying to mix too many (player perspective) channels just too much? (sonically, I mean does it get too dense, too mushy, sort of weird from perceptual cues not processing coherently in the ole gray matter)

When does it just not add that much? or when is it WOW? or even when is it initially WOW, and then gets sort of cloyingly sweet after a bit?

 

Sort of "where do you find the blue dog works"? type of thing is sort of sitting in there in my musings

[Lee Knight]

Sort of "where do you find the blue dog works"? type of thing is sort of sitting in there in my musings

 

 

When it doesn't. And then when it does, it does. I guess what I'm saying is, theory is one thing, but with art, it means nothing until you have it under your control and you decide when, and how much, and where, and why, and why not.

 

So your harpsichord. Through a Leslie. What perspective is that really? Put some words on it and it doesn't mean anything. Record it however and it might become the angel that pulls you out of the fire, or the demon that drags you in, or kind of silly... or boring even. All depending on your artistic perspective.

 

So what is this performer perspective. It's not something that someone listening to will say, "Hey! That's the performer's perspective!" More than likely, they'll hopefully just be transported with your ingenious hybrid of recording sense and technique.

[slight-return]

When it doesn't. And then when it does, it does. I guess what I'm saying is, theory is one thing, but with art, it means nothing until you have it under your control and you decide when, and how much, and where, and why, and why not.

 

Oh sure, I dig that, I mean the experience is still the experience - but I figure we can still relate parts of our experiences -- if we can't we might as well shut down the ole forums

 

Hell, In Doors of Perception , Huxley went so far as sort of invalidating art as merely pale commentary as opposed to the fullness of the direct experience itself (not that I agree, I guess I mean I find value in that commentary, and I find value in the commentary ABOUT the art too)

 

 

So your harpsichord. Through a Leslie. What perspective is that really?

 

 

It's a cool one -- the thing I like about actual rotating speakers (and probably more importantly, Rachal does too )

 

is that it is "modulated perspective" (and something I think the simulators miss out on ) in that you wind up shooting the sound out from a dynamically varying source, so it interacts with the room ambience differently from instant to instant

(note, I modified the beastie with motor speed controls...it was originally a single spped -- and a lot of time I find the really slow speed is great! -- the lessens the overall tremolo and doppler and puts more on the room ambience interaction)

 

 

[so there, for instance, I decided to comment on some things I, personally, artistically, aesthetically, find about the leslie. Specifically how it relates to a virtual dynamic listener perspective - where, other folks, at other times, might be going more for the "chorus" type effects from it. ]

 

Put some words on it and it doesn't mean anything.

I don't know if it doesn't mean anything -- I mean the very act of trying to assemble and convey the information to another puts a perspective overlay on it and may help me approach even the listening with "fresh" or "different" ears.

It can help with avoiding some pitfalls, some interesting technique, some prspectives on the process and results...some artistic context!

 

Record it however

 

Here's the funny thing - esp with something like a lesie - the recording is sort of like "talking about it"

It ain't like being in the room (binaural is a lot closer, but still...) with one - it's an imperfect image.

It doesn't mean I don't find it valuable and may have something to relate about the leslie in the room

 

 

So what is this performer perspective. It's not something that someone listening to will say, "Hey! That's the performer's perspective!" More than likely, they'll hopefully just be transported with your ingenious hybrid of technique.

 

I didn't mean to imply that a recording would have to be uber-explicitly "hey - look! it's like I'm playing it" to the listener (I mean, I think we've seen that prticular pitfall in some over-the-top audiodrama where it becomes sort of a Foley stunt)

 

, but rather when do you (personally, as an artist) find it works and when do you (personally, as an artist) find it doesn't do so well

 

Sort of like (who was it that said? ) "when taking interpretive liberties it can be wise to use bon gout"

[Lee Knight]

With classical recordings of pianos for instance... I'm a lot of times left dry by "wet" recordings. Horowitz sounded 100 yards away but Gould was 5 feet across from me. I like Gould's recordings because of that. His way of attacking an idea of Bach's. Getting inside with it... but you're allowed to come along for the ride.

 

So Gould's method is like the performer's perspective. Dryer. More direct instrument signal, less room. Engaging in it's up frontness.

 

 

Of course Horowitz playing Rachmaninoff would sound funny up close like that.

 

Are the early recordings of Dylan considered performer's perspective to you?

 

I like those recordings 'cause I feel like I'm with him, or am him to a degree. Those early recordings would lose something if we were put in the 50th row of Carnegie Hall.

 

So I equate performer's perspective most with closeness. There's direction of course but that's less apparent

[slight-return]

Kinda funny thing

 

"Talking about Music is like dancing about Architecture" (I've heard it attributed to all kinds of guys from Zappa to Martin Mull)

 

is a comment that is supposed to be dismissive, but I tend to find it a validation

 

Dancing about architecture seems to me, to be a really honest approach (worked in architecture for a short time after leaving software - didn't particularly care for the day-in-day out) to it

I mean we are concerned with spaces for human activity -- and being essentially static things, they have to be very very clever shapes that both fit and shape the motions of humans (I find this especially important for the blind)

It's like enzyme or catalytic chemistry in that way

 

 

I think a lot of the visually oriented work that shows up on the cover of AD...man, workflow in those things can SUCK

 

So dancing (the motion of the uman through space and time) about it...I can dig that as valid

[slight-return]

 

With classical recordings of pianos for instance... I'm a lot of times left dry by "wet" recordings. Horowitz sounded 100 yards away but Gould was 5 feet across from me. I like Gould's recordings because of that. His way of attacking an idea of Bach's. Getting inside with it... but you're allowed to come along for the ride. So Gould's method is like the performer's perspective. Dryer. More direct instrument signal, less room. Engaging in it's up frontness. Of course Horowitz playing Rachmaninoff would sound funny up close like that. Are the early recordings of Dylan considered performer's perspective to you? I like those recordings 'cause I feel like I'm with him, or am him to a degree. Those early recordings would lose something if we were put in the 50th row of Carnegie Hall. So I equate performer's perspective most with closeness. There's direction of course but that's less apparent

 

 

Ah, see, really good commentary

 

hmm, would I consider The Dylan recordings from a performer's perspective?

 

Well, I'm not sure (from an emotional sense) it has to be a boolean, from a purely sonic perspective (I suppose that's from where I was originally approaching it, but the convo has taken a new turn...which is a cool part about convos! interview as in inter- -view) I guess we'd have it a little more clearly defined (in terms of how it it relates to directionality, HRTFs, etc)

 

Personally, I hear the Dylan stuff (if Im thinking of what you are thinking ) as an "intimate listening environment" perspective

 

Now I've only owned Dylan on vinyl and I think it was mono (always liked him better as a songwriter than a performer myself) so that, I suppose would compromise the soundstage image, and a guitar is a bit more of a "point source" I suppose (compared to say a sitar with both tumbas, which was what sparked my musings)

 

So those might detract from being "behind the guitar" (I assume the micing was up front)

 

It does bring up the point with some instruments that are designed to project - where "behind the instrument" might not really be the most balanced sound (I find this with cello, and that's why playing in an acoustically weird room is hard for me...I have trouble locking down my intonation b/c I can only hear me "behind the instrument sound" -- Oh, and I suck)

 

I suppose there might be some "personal background" perspective too in that a lot of my (live) listening happens more in "intimate listening" environments, so the difference between being "at the instrument" and "in the room" might be a different deal than guys who go to a lot of larger venue shows

 

I wonder if that "sense of intimacy" - gets translated differently as "behind the instrument" for different folks

 

Here's one that gets me as far as "player perspective" -- pipe organ - I mean you are IN the instrument! (both as listener and player)

[UstadKhanAli]

The minute you start putting mics two inches from a guitar amp or a snare, you've already distorted reality. I tend to mic things from an audience perspective when possible, but I've already acknowledged that few things I'm doing - close-micing, overdubbing, funny effects, changing guitars to differentiate the chorus, using digital reverb, etc. - are "realistic" or "representational" to begin with.

[slight-return]

OH BTW - hope I didn't get too wordy

 

I fear that my thoughts might be getting interpreted as

a question of "ultimately realistic fidelity"

 

I'm not about to say "misinterpreted" as that's a totally valid take on the subject too

 

For clarity, I guess my thoughts on the issue were tending more to approaches and opinions on imaging that perceptually (as opposed to cognitively) positions the listener "behind" the instrument [i suppose this applies more dramatically to some of the instruments I mentioned]

 

but I'm really enjoying reading your thoughts guys

(actually, that we are approaching it from, apparently, different ways of thinking about it is kinda cool -- loads to chew on)

 

 

Well, I guess I blew the "not too verbose" thing all to hell

It actually doesn't sound as bad verbally, over a cup of coffee

[UstadKhanAli]

I gotcha...what I was trying to say is that I'm not really concerned with either perspective very much because of the "unrealistic" nature of a lot of recording in the first place. But if I do get an opportunity to do so, I usually prefer audience perspective for the simple matter that I am optimistically creating a recording for a listener (i.e., an audience). However, I say whatever sounds good!! Sometimes there may be instances in which a musician's perspective is awesome (micing a piano comes to mind; also, sometimes percussion can really benefit from a player's perspective).