Members UstadKhanAli Posted October 28, 2010 Members Share Posted October 28, 2010 That's definitely a good example. But in even less "extreme" examples, the medium / method / sound of the equipment used to record music cannot be separated from the music. It's all interwoven together. I know this sounds really obvious, but it's an important consideration since we're having this discussion at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rimmer Posted October 28, 2010 Members Share Posted October 28, 2010 I read a lot about here at one point. Check out this track she made 30 odd years before the known dawn of electronic dance music... :eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lukenskywalker Posted October 28, 2010 Members Share Posted October 28, 2010 I read a lot about here at one point. Check out this track she made 30 odd years before the known dawn of electronic dance music... :eek: on my birthdate...see, there is substance to this beautiful, svelte, talented and avant garde thinking Vixen, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lukenskywalker Posted October 28, 2010 Members Share Posted October 28, 2010 I don't see too many photos of audio pioneering females creating ground-breaking experimental music in the 1960s. That she's surrounded by BBC Radio Workshop equipment just makes it all the more fun. Not to mention a 'doubling' dubbing arousal for yours truly.... Jeez, I didn't know it was BBC gear she was utilizing... This calls for bringing out the Ermine Right Hand Glove for t'nights reprise viewing of Delias pix. AND...after I heard her actual voice announcing that old 'dance mix' she did... Heaven, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members michaelhigh Posted October 30, 2010 Members Share Posted October 30, 2010 I have a Tascam Portastudio 488 mkII, and I can second the emotion. I used to own a Tascam TSR-8 I bought brand new for $3200-some back in the 90's (not long ago...). It was selected in a blind A-B-C test with a Roland and a Vestax hard-drive-based unit in 1994. Some of my surf instros from that period are on Surf Guitar 101.com under the name Wave Rider, that TSR-8 was an awesome analog unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Beck Posted November 1, 2010 Members Share Posted November 1, 2010 I used to own a Tascam TSR-8 I bought brand new for $3200-some back in the 90's (not long ago...). It was selected in a blind A-B-C test with a Roland and a Vestax hard-drive-based unit in 1994. Some of my surf instros from that period are on Surf Guitar 101.com under the name Wave Rider, that TSR-8 was an awesome analog unit. It still is awesome... I still have one. A lot of thought went into that machine. Hard to believe they were able to sell for that price. And mine's still working like new 20 years later. Love that thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Beck Posted November 1, 2010 Members Share Posted November 1, 2010 Have you guys ever seen a girl before? Terry D. Yes! From the top of her head to the tips of her toes and everything in between. what would you like to know about them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Lucky #9 Posted November 2, 2010 Members Share Posted November 2, 2010 Both have merit, used correctly. I have both good and poor records from years back made with analog, certainly. The future, though, my friends, is...I think you know the answer. And I am nothing if not an observer of the soon to be present future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members share Posted November 2, 2010 Members Share Posted November 2, 2010 I'm with you Bruce. I love it as well. Cool of you for stepping out and saying so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goobers Posted November 2, 2010 Members Share Posted November 2, 2010 The medium may well be the key to everything. It Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members michaelhigh Posted November 3, 2010 Members Share Posted November 3, 2010 What, don't you just love the sound of lossy mp3? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Beck Posted November 3, 2010 Members Share Posted November 3, 2010 I think Lee's and ken's point about process has a lot to do with it. Lee's point in particular about the interaction between the music and the way it was made resonated with me. As she said, doubtless putting together those talented people would've culminated in something great. The Beatles weren't a tape machine and nothing else, after all, as if their own musical genius didn't also have something to do with their success. But it would have been different, because experimenting with their medium was a big part of what they did. Yes, but take the instruments out of their hands and what do you have? Analog tape was/is an instrument. More specifically it does effect sound in ways that are pleasant to the ear. The timing of analog technology was one of those, "Man, Moment, Machine" points in history. Accident or a destiny... that's for the individual to decide, but I will always maintain that the popularity of recorded music would not have occurred as it did without high fidelity analog recording. Wasn't a lot of rap made on analog machines? Rap started on low-fi analog, but as digital recording displaced analog, rap became more mainstream and grew with it and changed because of it. Rap mutated and evolved with digital into a soulless, unmusical genre. It epitomizes the effect that technology can have on art at it's most extreme. But the same can be said of other genres. At the same time rap was becoming dominant, rock was sounding more fatalistic, hopeless, depressing, angry, etc. Also, hasn't the pastime of listening to music become more not less popular? More people listen to music now than ever before. No, not at all. Music is not the focused activity it once was in this society. There are many reasons for this. Not the least of which is that digitally recorded music is more fatiguing to the ear. Music is still everywhere, but in the background. The art of listening as a focused activity is being lost to our culture. So I'm not sure I buy that people listen to less music now because engineers compensate for brittle digital highs with overly hot lows. The hot low end isn't the reason digitally recorded music is fatiguing to the listener. These are two separate issues. Certain genres don't lend themselves to thumping lows... it takes away from the music. More intricate and complex music has a lot going on in mid and upper ranges. If you mask it by increasing the low end you lose the essence of that music.... it ceases to be and becomes something different. This is why I say digital technology has literally changed the kind of music people listen to. As I said earlier digital doesn't flatter certain genres and in fact makes them hard to listen to. So music has evolved to accommodate the limitations of the recording medium... in this case digital. Keep in mind, the digital revolution was solely responsible for the tube revival, which followed closely behind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Folder Posted November 3, 2010 Members Share Posted November 3, 2010 The difference today is that the filters are gone and there's so much more music available. The filters are gone? I don't know how old you are but I can remember a time when there were virtually NO filters.. A time when DJ's actually had some say in what they wanted to play. A time when radio was localized and program directors had the power to break new artists. A time when if the DJ felt like playing the flip side of a single or the long version of In-a-gadda-da-vida he could do it. A time when radio stations had large playlists. A time when record companies were run by music fans and their A&R people were looking for new artists who were original, not just clones of what was popular last week. Thanks in part to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 radio stations today are owned and programed by large corporations who may or may not have any understanding or interest in music. Radio station playlists have shrunk from upwards of 1000s of songs thirty years ago to some stations playing the same 100 songs day in and day out year after year. If the corporate office tells your station to play Sweet Home Alabama at least sixteen times a day everyday then that is fifteen slots when you don't get to play something different. There is a lot of great music out there today. Wonderfully talented artists all over the internet. Sites like SoundClick and ReverbNation feature artist that in an earlier time would be superstars. But the music business has always been about radio. Radio is how artists get exposure and the filters for getting any kind of air time have never been tighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ernest Buckley Posted November 3, 2010 Members Share Posted November 3, 2010 So music has evolved to accommodate the limitations of the recording medium... in this case digital. The way we listen to music has evolved due to technological "advances". The way we produce music has evolved due to technological "advances" as well. I fail to see what analog recordings (or lack of) had to do with any of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Beck Posted November 4, 2010 Members Share Posted November 4, 2010 I fail to see what analog recordings (or lack of) had to do with any of this. Well I can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ernest Buckley Posted November 4, 2010 Members Share Posted November 4, 2010 Well I can Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.