The perfection is in the imperfection.

[mistersully]

 

I just started listening to Junior Kimbrough on some YouTube clips, and it falls so much into what we've been discussing here. The beautiful push/pull of the rhythm, varying, weaving in and out. So gorgeous. I just ordered two of his CDs. I wish I could have seen this guy when he was alive. I have a feeling it would have been revelatory. Anyway, beautiful hypnotic Mississippi rhythms, just amazing...deceptively simple, but oh so great.

 

 

i'm a big fan

 

also check out 'Chulahoma' by the black keys (if you haven't already)... it's an album of them doing Junior Kimbrough songs

[UstadKhanAli]

Thanks for the tip! I already bought a Dan Auerbach CD yesterday. I like his guitar playing and approach to songwriting quite a bit from what I could tell. And I knew about "Chulahoma" by title only but now really need to check this out. That sounds great.

[Lee Knight]

The usefulness of what is depends on what is not - Tao Te Ching

 

The ratio of playing to silence is the most obvious musical correlation to the Lao Tzu quote above. The silence from which each note emerges is more important than the note itself. Taking the concept a little deeper then, the groove is comprised of an ebb and flow of note values and reference to strict time. Not forgeting the role of silence in the mix too. And that can only be accomplished by turning off and tuning in. Relaxing into the groove. Falling back into it. Letting it happen and not making it happen.

 

"Performance Editors" are stumped when the get to deep cuts like the stuff below. Or they get smart and leave it alone.

 

Mistakes be damned when a badass is laying it down. I reference David Hood, Barry Beckett, Roger Hood and Jimmy Johnson from the Muscle Shoals Rhythm Section as a great example of that kind of playing. Muscle Shoals Rhythm Section in the examples below...

 

[video=youtube;uY3vgBzgYn4]

 

[video=youtube;d2Z9qN8R9Bg]

 

[video=youtube;h3BJl5Zy7HQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3BJl5Zy7HQ

[kanetoads]

I've noticed some backlash to new country being so polished, pop artist tours in Europe being canceled at the mere rumor or autotune or lip-sync.

[Phil O'Keefe]

 

 

 

All of these are great "feel" tracks IMO.

[Phil O'Keefe]

I've noticed some backlash to new country being so polished,

 

You know, it's kind of funny to watch it from an "outsider" (or west coast) perspective, but Nashville seems to have a cycle they go through. It starts traditional and fantastic, then some suit decides that it would have more mass-market / crossover appeal if they "sweetened it up" a little; added in some strings, or a pop-dance beat, and then layer some fiddles and pedal steel and call it "country" - oh, and don't forget the vocals with the southern drawl from a pretty face... Then people get sick of it and some hot youngsters come along and throw the country music world on its ears. Emmylou Harris and the Hot Band did it, along with bands like the Flying Burrito Brothers, Byrds, Eagles and Poco and others in the 70s. Funny, but a lot of that was west coast... hmm. Then in the 80s we had some new traditionalists in the likes of Steve Earle, Randy Travis, Mary Chapin Carpenter, Dwight Yoakam (west coast again), etc.

 

Then it went over-produced, posh and polished again... it's about time for another course-correction IMHO.

 

pop artist tours in Europe being canceled at the mere rumor or autotune or lip-sync.

 

Those sorts of shenanigans seem to be more readily accepted in the pop music world; at least people don't seem to mind it unless and until that wall comes down and it just becomes painfully obvious that they're being played for fools - ala Milli Vanilli, Ashlee Simpson, etc. It gets used all the time, but unless it's something like the whole song being played back off of a recording, people don't usually call them on it.

 

Maybe that's starting to change. I know that I for one don't expect the concert to sound like the record; I realize that, like a Broadway play vs a movie, they're similar, but distinctly different art forms, and each has its merits. But I DO want to hear you actually PLAY and SING when I go to hear you play live. I am probably not going to balk at someone using a sequencer or pre-recorded track to supplement and augment what they're playing (well, I probably would for Jazz, but not for pop), but if the augmentation tools all come crashing down, you ought to still be able to convey the song with whatever live musicians and singers you're using. I don't need to spend a hundred bucks just to watch you dance around under some flashing lights while you play the CD back to me.

[kanetoads]

Phil -

 

I agree...I think 'credibility' is the word...maybe 'substance over image' is a term that applies as well. Some people have complained about movies as well being so effects driven, that it's not about the story or acting anymore.

 

More then a few famous actors have gone to Broadway looking for respect rather then a paycheck to show they can produce now, live, no takes, no effects, in a live show, for no other reason that hey can do the tough stuff, that they aren't propped up.

 

It's hard to argue the charts, ratings, success of those enterprises that are so 'well' produced...but ponder like 80s metal, that had so much skill involved, if at the core of it, hypothetically Grunge came along with a bunch of players that said 'we just aren't going to try to top those guitar solos, let's change the game'.

 

 

Could we be seeing a new trend in art...where artists have to show talent under fire...reality so to speak?

[Flogger59]

Wut?

[Phil O'Keefe]

Yeah, either he accidentally got the wrong thread, or it's a spammer who racks up several questionable posts, then adds sig spam later.

 

If it was a legit mistake post about the Beyer headphones, please send me a PM. Otherwise, it looks very suspicious...

[LowYaw]

 

But again...why is *everyone* either using loops or quantizing/fixing their tracks? I don't understand this aesthetic, this desire to do this at all. It seems to me that this would sound better to do sparingly rather than making your tracks sound completely rigid and lock-stepped. borrrrrrrrrring .

 

 

I find that a LOT of bands that do not quantize drum parts often sound sloppy, as opposed to sounding loose or free or whatever. yes, it comes from lack of practice, lack of ability - you name it, but people want results - in a shape of a ready-made product - from a recording engineer, regardless of how the piece was performed initially. So REs cut, paste, quantize, mix samples in, etc.

[LowYaw]

Yeah, either he accidentally got the wrong thread, or it's a spammer who racks up several questionable posts, then adds sig spam later. If it was a legit mistake post about the Beyer headphones, please send me a PM. Otherwise, it looks very suspicious...

 

It's the Owner of Beyer, desperately trying to boost sales LOL

[WRGKMC]

Perfection in the imprefection = No

 

Audio engineer being able to artistically doctor imperfections = Yes

 

You can bend words or thoughts to see imperfection as human and derive satisfaction from mans limitations.

A Father for example may see his child attempt to do something skillful and fail and undersatand the failure was human.

That doesnt change the fact the goal posts of perfection exist and there are many who achieve results near perfection

or surpass those goals set by those before him.

 

Its truely an experience to see or in the case of audio, hear someone achieve perfection. You are taken on a jorney sharing

that experience to know it exists. Settling for less weather you are a performer is just that.

 

Music is a human event consisting of time frozen in time. You can understand that man is not a machine and he cannot achieve

perfection 100% of the time nor anywheres close to that. To achieve 3 hours of exceptional performance he must train like a machine

playing 8 hours a day for many months to achieve the physical control to perform well. Thats 49.5% of the formula. Another 49.5% is his

book learned/earned skills in music theory, arrangement, etc that tie the performance into something special.

 

The last 1% comes from the Gods. You cant fake it you cant doctor it you cant steal it and you cant learn it.

It comes from someplace unknown and is just as often fleeting. Capturing it on an audio recording is as rare as

capturing a UFO on film. Those who perform and experience it for any length know its the source of all music.

 

Once they experience it they often spend the rest of their life trying to duplicate the achievment only to learn

its not a thing that can be obtained through power. Power must exist within a person to use it. Physical and musical skill

is that power. The 1% ties it all together into something whole but it is truely a gift that comes and goes unexpactantly.

 

So when you say perfection is in the imperfection I again say no. It may be perfect accidental luck, but thats no different than saying

I drove off the road and didnt get hurt, didnt hurt anyone nor had a scratch on the vehicle. That my friend is not perfection unless you can duplicate

those results at will. A stunt man who uses his skills to pull that accident off time after time is an example of someone whose perfected imperfection.

Settleing for imperfection is second best at best in my book. Second best performed by a great artist may seem like perfection to some, but to the artist

its not perfection, and the minute he comprimises himself and accepts imperfection as good enough, he kills the passion that drives him to achieve perfection.

[Lee Knight]

 

Perfection in the imprefection = No ____ That doesnt change the fact the goal posts of perfection exist and there are many who achieve results near perfection or surpass those goals set by those before him.

 

 

No. I disagree. Perfection is a way too slippery concept. Shooting for the ideal is a great structure to improve. But there is no "ideal". Only some common themes and understandings. Believing that perfection does exist and has ever been attained is just associating an incorrect definition with the word.

 

Perfection is only a concept. Or rather... a direction. Aim toward it and see how close you can get to "it".

[WRGKMC]

 

No. I disagree. Perfection is a way too slippery concept. Shooting for the ideal is a great structure to improve. But there is no "ideal". Only some common themes and understandings. Believing that perfection does exist and has ever been attained is just associating an incorrect definition with the word. Perfection is only a concept. Or rather... a direction. Aim toward it and see how close you can get to "it".

 

 

 

I dont see it as slippery. The word has a definition.

 

Perfection

 

1. the state or quality of being or becoming perfect.

2. the highest degree of proficiency, skill, or excellence, as in some art.

3. a perfect embodiment or example of something.

4. a quality, trait, or feature of the highest degree of excellence.

5. the highest or most nearly perfect degree of a quality or trait.

 

 

Imperfection

 

1. an imperfect detail; flaw: a law full of imperfections.

2. the quality or condition of being imperfect.

 

The entire post was defining the goal as perfection.

It is highly subjective in degrees of perfection but saying perfection resides within imperfection is a preversion of terms.

Its like saying good resides within evil, light resides with darkness. Its a dellusion that only bobbelheads

would agree with. If you cant clearley separate the two, you have no yardstick to measure the amount of

perfection exists within a piece of work. The yardstick has no ends to it and perfection and imperfection exist at

the two extremes. They join in the center but that center varies for each individual.

 

You could say nothing is perfect or imperfect because the two extremes can never be obtained.

But the purpose of that yard isnt being seen as a measurement tool. Its being seen as a "thing"

You could say extremes of any antonym cannot be obtained and and paint your entire world gray,

but how boaring your life would become. Why wake up in the morning if you dont see the new

day as being a new challange.

 

I do think thats why so many fail to strive for perfection. They havent learned its the quest making step by step

improvements along the jorney in life that gives you enjoyment. Some try and make one great leap to a goal and expend so much

energy doing so they have nothing left when they realize theres always another goal beyond that and give up.

So perfection existing within imperfection? I say someone has their compass screwed up and lack the ability to follow one or the other.

[Lee Knight]

I know. And that's why it is a slippery slope. Because the word's pure meaning is...

 

Perfect: 1) being entirely without fault or defect

 

Merriam Webster. But because that definition is impossible, there are modified and extended meanings. Like the one you quoted:

 

2. the highest degree of proficiency, skill, or excellence, as in some art.

 

I'm not trying to be contrary. I just think it is an important point. The idea of Perfect. Without flaw. Is "the highest degree of proficiency" without flaw? Of course not. What's the criteria being fulfilled? These are slippery ideas when you talk art. For who? And at what exact point in time? Because the ideal of art is ever shifting if it ever really even pauses anyway. That's why I see it as a direction but not a destination.

 

Now, Perfect can mean to fulfill all criteria. So, if the criteria for an engineer were that he record a snare with no distortion, is that recording perfect? Based on that definition, it is.

[WRGKMC]

Yea, we're not in disagreement.

The problem you have to deal with as an audio engineer is the work is never perfect when you get it.

Its simply better or worse then benchmarks set by experience. than tracking, mixing and mastering is a separate stages of a single proces,

The objective being a good recording and occasionally a great one.

 

Mastering and Mixing is all about dealing with imperfections. They are inherent in that snapshot of time captured in the tracking process.

 

The chain begins in the performers mind which "May" be the closest to perfection as a thought.

Next is the physical performance which can fall short of the thought.

Then you have the Tracking process which has its limitations. Mics arent ears and they all add their own

limitations as well as all the other gear up to the point of digital conversion.

 

By the time you receive work for mixing you already have imbeded obsticals within it.

If you're luckey, those impediments will be correctable, if not thats where an engineers talent

comes into play. You have no impact on the performance, that snapshot in time generated by the performers.

A mixing engineer only has whats been captured to work with. There are a few tricks in the magic bag like auto tuners and

harmonic exciters that can rewite whats been written but for all intents you're dealing with audio quality enhancement and RX.

 

A mixer will attempt to remove flaws and "perfect" what wasnt captured (or accidentally captured) tracking.

Since you're often dealing with many tracks you often have to add imperfection to a track to balance it with

a weaker track for the good of the entire mix. But in general, the focus is on perfecting the entire mix whatever that may be.

 

This is the slippery slope you speak of because art is all about drawing an emotional responce from the work.

Those who get a favorable responce from Urine in a bottle probibly wont want me as their engineer though.

I'm too experienced to tolerate such nonsence and have no desire to indulge garbage recyclers.

 

When I was younger and had the endurance tolerate garbage I'd take anything I could get my hands on and pumped it

out like a factory assembly line. I'd work all hours of the night till my ears melted.

Later I knew I was wasting my talent on junk and I wasnt doing anything for my reputation and worst of all I was beginning to

hate the work. I felt like I was a rocket scientist pumping gas and just got burned out on it all.

I was luckey because I had a degree in electronics and could easily switch professions and earn decent money.

I'm now able to focus on nothing but quality work only and pushing the limits of perfection. Its out there someplace.

Maybe I'll leave my mark behind in my work, maybe not, but I wont be bitter because I didnt take the chance

striving for perfection and settled with mediocraty.

 

I have no problem giving customers referals to other audio engineers who can hold their noses and indulge making those customers happy.

I'm not saying I cant be bought. If somethings unusual and draws my interest, I make time and indulge myself with it so long as it doesnt

become a factory assembly line that sucks my passion away. I know when enough is enough and move on. Theres just to many great things

to do that require real talent.

[Lee Knight]

I'm going to have to go with traulkcluff on this one...

[beatpoet]

The hard part for many players is coming up with the perfect imperfections. What do you think?

 

That's definitely the case in alot of my recording work. I'm proficient at playing with a click and put alot of work into my parts, but I have to work hard on trying to put back in all the first-take nuances, which, if I'm not careful, I end up working out of the song through repeated playings. It's only natural that you get more proficient at a song the more times you play it, but you don't want to play it like a robot.

[DerkStiepelmann]

That is very zen like! My favorite tracks of all time are the home recordings of John Frusciante...out of tune guitars, coughs, shrill out of tune voice and whatnot - but still - this music really affects me emotionally and I

[stevesherbert]

when i'm in the studio, i want the mic on as soon as i pick up my guitar until i put it down! my best take is almost always my first take, warts and all. i actually prefer guitar solos that aren't perfect, a little behind the beat, for instance can add lots of character. i like solos to be wild rather than clinical.