Members Purity_Control Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 Actually I'd quite like to hear it. I reckon Britney could do a great cover of comfortably numb. Maybe after we kidnap her and keep her suspended by her ankles and handcuffed and blindfolded with blacked out swimming goggles for a few weeks, and spoon feed her porridge laced with thorazine twice a day:D As to the original question - erm b*llocks, I got so excited typing the above I've forgotten what it was now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Yoozer Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 Originally posted by Purity_Control Maybe after we kidnap her... Don't forget the blots . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members urbanscallywag Posted January 19, 2005 Author Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 I was thinking about Brittany's cover of Comfortably Numb as I went to bed last night. It ended up being much more funny than scary. I think I let out a little chuckle imagining it and the music video to go along with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members urbanscallywag Posted January 19, 2005 Author Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 Originally posted by aeon That said, the fatigue caused by many modern recordings is caused by basically three things:Overall, it is really sad...we have the capability to sound as good or better than ever before, but the quality of many modern recordings is below what was capable in the 1950s. Very interesting information there. I didn't realize there was so much going on that gave modern recordings their fatiguing sound. Its also interesting that you say it could be done the same or better today, but I guess that's not what the industry wants. I know everything is compressed to hell for volume, but why exactly? So it sounds "better" on a stock car stereo or club speakers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wes-ninja250 Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 > I know everything is compressed to hell for volume, 'cause Willy Show wants *his* CD to be the loudest one in the jukebox, and loudest on the radio. Never mind that nobody uses jukeboxes, and radio stations compress everything they transmit, anyhow. Wes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members urbanscallywag Posted January 19, 2005 Author Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 Originally posted by wes-ninja250 'cause Willy Show wants *his* CD to be the loudest one in the jukebox, and loudest on the radio.Never mind that nobody uses jukeboxes, and radio stations compress everything they transmit, anyhow.Wes So loudest relative to other music on the same jukebox/radio, not loudest get yourself nicer speakers and an amp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members tucktronix Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 Originally posted by urbanscallywag Hahaha. Seriously though. What if Dark Side of the Moon was a "perfect" recording or at least a lot closer than the one recorded 30 years ago is. I do appologize for being sacrilegious, though. The recording of "Dark Side Of the Moon" sounds great even by today's standards and, IMHO, should not even be tampered with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members coyote-1 Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 The Floyd trio of "Dark Side", "WYWH", and "Animals" were absolutely state-of-the-art in those days. And I pray none of them are ever remixed or remastered; today's producers could learn a great deal from those recordings.Originally posted by tucktronix The recording of "Dark Side Of the Moon" sounds great even by today's standards and, IMHO, should not even be tampered with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members LANSTARR Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 I like the rawness of old recording by the likes of howlin wolf, dizzy, and them. I think I will record my band in a southern ditch using a tape cassette recording so I can get a similar effect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wes-ninja250 Posted January 20, 2005 Members Share Posted January 20, 2005 From what I understand, one of my favourite CD's was recorded live with only a couple of takes in a local bar. They put a couple of old-school room mics (I think they were gold-filament type) up, played on their set twice, and called it a day. The recording engineer then picked the best of two tracks, and made the CD. Oh, I think they might have also had something like an SM57 pointed at the audience with the inputs inverted, to help get rid of some of the audience noise in production. The CD? "Haskell and the Cleavers: Family Christmas" Another CD recorded in a studio with room mic's that I like is another semi-local band. "Big Rude Jake: Butane Fumes and Bad Cologne". I really like this CD, too, but there are a few problems which could have been cleaned up with better equipement. Some of the fortimisso soli sections for the double-bass distort (I think they are clipping, but don't quote me on it -- I don't have VU meters on my stereo). Also, there are spots where the horns were kind of sloppy -- beyond the sloppy-live-40s-band schtick they were aiming. Also from what I understand, that CD was recorded in a day, but in a studio (but just ambient micing). Both of these CDs are Jazz, I think it works well with that music mode fer-sure. It's damned hard (IMHO) to make good jazz a-track-at-a-time and/or with any great repeatability. Wes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wes-ninja250 Posted January 20, 2005 Members Share Posted January 20, 2005 That's nothing, there were lots of radio shows (Fibber McGee & Molly, The Lone Range) which I'm pretty sure were live-to-air. And, of course, my favourite radio show of all time... Now, what was it called? I'll bet the shadow knows.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mildbill Posted January 20, 2005 Members Share Posted January 20, 2005 if classics of the past were recorded with today's technology (recorded so in the past), there would be no difference. because what makes them classics is not so much technology, nor even the songs themselves, but the social situations people experienced while listening to them. there was also a much more limited amount of material that was spoon fed to everyone because of a limited amount of alternatives. this caused many more people to have a shared 'common knowledge base' of popular songs. things are much more fragmented now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wes-ninja250 Posted January 20, 2005 Members Share Posted January 20, 2005 > things are much more fragmented now. I'm not sure about that. I have a theory that says that the classics of 15 years ago are the television commercials of today. But, which came first -- the chicken or the egg? I think an argument could be made that television exposure increases the perception of classicness. This may imply that the classics of today will be actually chosen by advertising executives in the year 2020. Wes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members urbanscallywag Posted January 20, 2005 Author Members Share Posted January 20, 2005 mildbill: seems like you're the first one that thinks that classics would still be classics.Your reasoning is stuff I've thought of, but I'm not sure that its enough to say that the music would have the same effect.I do like you're optimism though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members urbanscallywag Posted January 20, 2005 Author Members Share Posted January 20, 2005 Reading back there are others that say classics are classics, but I appreciate your reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mildbill Posted January 20, 2005 Members Share Posted January 20, 2005 my reasoning simplified: what makes them classics, is social situations - not technology. there will be no more true 'classics'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members wes-ninja250 Posted January 20, 2005 Members Share Posted January 20, 2005 > there will be no more true 'classics'. Until WW IV. -- With reference to Einstein's Quote: "I don't know what WW III will be fought with, but WW IV will be fought with sticks and stones". Maybe we'll get another Inky Dinky Parlez Vous. And face it, if there was a social-situation classic, that was IT. What a wretched song. Wes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Boom Posted January 20, 2005 Members Share Posted January 20, 2005 Originally posted by urbanscallywag Hahaha. Seriously though. What if Dark Side of the Moon was a "perfect" recording or at least a lot closer than the one recorded 30 years ago is. I think Darkside is about as close to perfect as you can get. It sounds fantastic. What do you think is wrong with it? Do you really think today's technology could make it any better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Purity_Control Posted January 20, 2005 Members Share Posted January 20, 2005 Sometimes the imperfections and limitations of the technology are part of the charm and what makes it what it is, and 'modern improvements' aren't.Surely too it's only possible to really assess what is a classic from a fair distance in the future?I mean, some things sound pretty impressive at the time but when you come back to them after a few years they sound sh*te, and other things don't get appreciated until well after their time. So do we still appreciate them after 25 years because they're classics, or are they classics 'cos we still appreciate them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members urbanscallywag Posted January 20, 2005 Author Members Share Posted January 20, 2005 Originally posted by Boom I think Darkside is about as close to perfect as you can get. It sounds fantastic. What do you think is wrong with it? Do you really think today's technology could make it any better? You guy's have got me all wrong. I think its an amazing recording. Perhaps what I mean is crisper, or more modern. Or I hate to say it, but digital. Oops, I've said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nightsynth Posted January 20, 2005 Members Share Posted January 20, 2005 Originally posted by mildbill if classics of the past were recorded with today's technology (recorded so in the past), there would be no difference.because what makes them classics is not so much technology, nor even the songs themselves,but the social situations people experienced while listening to them.there was also a much more limited amount of material that was spoon fed to everyone because of a limited amount of alternatives.this caused many more people to have a shared 'common knowledge base' of popular songs.things are much more fragmented now. However, if Pink Floyd (for example) had not been limited to how ever many anaolg tracks they had, the outcome may have been greatly different. I don't think that would have changed it's classic status though because whatever the turnout was, that final recording would be the classic one we all know today. It's a very good point about things being more fragmented now, but that is a result of technology and commercialism. The world is a smaller place today then it was in 1973 and the music industry in it's current state is oversaturated with too many options and so nobody spends much time on any one thing. With the addition of downloading material, now not only do people commonly never see the album cover or read any credits or even care to, they may not even really know the real name of a song because they downloaded it as "Kama Camillia" (Karma Chameleon). (just an example of something I read on another post here). I feel that being a musician isn't as sacred of a thing as it used to be, in part, because of this. All this classic talk is a little off the original subject though, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members KarnEvil19 Posted January 20, 2005 Members Share Posted January 20, 2005 People would be complaining that Pro Tools was ruining the sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members aeon Posted January 20, 2005 Members Share Posted January 20, 2005 Originally posted by tucktronix The recording of "Dark Side Of the Moon" sounds great even by today's standards and, IMHO, should not even be tampered with. +1000. I think DSOTM is a *benchmark* in terms of audio quality. Then again, due to the timing and introduction of various studio and audio technologies, in a way, 1973 might have been the True Golden Age of studio tech. IMHO. cheers,aeon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mildbill Posted January 20, 2005 Members Share Posted January 20, 2005 put it another way: if DSOTM were released today, and produced and recorded with today's technology, how much attention would it get? and would it be considered a classic in the future? i say, 'not much', and 'no'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members urbanscallywag Posted January 20, 2005 Author Members Share Posted January 20, 2005 Originally posted by mildbill put it another way:if DSOTM were released today, and produced and recorded with today's technology, how much attention would it get? and would it be considered a classic in the future?i say, 'not much', and 'no'. This is what I was trying to get at in the first place. Nice and to the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.