The future of recording.

[Sausagetime]

i was surprised that my niece, mid twenties, knew who daniel johnston was.

 

people she knows seem to really be into a lot of these lo-fi diy type bands.

also there seems to be a resurgence in low tech film cameras and processing

 

but, then again, she's a artist and not into popular mainstream culture.

 

i miss the days when music was special and not like it is today where everybody on earth and their grandmothers have a daw and glutting the planet with stuff, even if it meant i could only record my own music with only a bit of tape

[MikeRivers]

 

An under-appreciated aspect of modern DAW recording techniques is that you no longer need to do so many takes to have enough to paste together a good performance. Theoretically at least, this should allow for fresher, more inspired performances because you don't have to wear out the artist by doing 30 takes to get it right.

 

There are different approaches, and a responsible engineer or producer should figure out what's going to work best. One approach that's used almost automatically by some producers is to assume that any take will be usable, and you record half a dozen takes then send the band (or the singer) home and try to find the best parts of each take and paste them together to make what you think is the optimum. But that doesn't work for someone who's having trouble hitting a note or phrasing a line the right way. So you that's where you punch in that line or word so he doesn't have to do the whole song again. But today, there are still all too many who need to do 30 takes in order to get one even close enough to patch up.

 

Everything else being equal, people in their twenties generally create more exciting performances and write more heartfelt songs than people in their 50s.

 

I don't know how you can possibly generalize that. I really don't. Unless you simply relate better to the songs and performances of the 20-somethings.

 

I can't say that people in their 50s write better songs than they did when they were in their 20s (though I know many who I think do), but someone who has been performing pretty steadily for 30 years and still has an audience is bound to be doing something better, which will translate to either a better or less troublesome recording, than he was doing in his twenties. Otherwise, it would have been a pretty frustrating 30 year career.

[MikeRivers]

 

Yea and I got the Mellencamp album..It's UNLISTENABLE! Mono and sounds so {censored}ty and distorted that it's not enjoyable to me in the least...

 

That's disappointing. I'm not a big fan of his music so I probably wouldn't bother with it, but it's certainly possible to make very high quality recordings on analog tape and using a single microphone today.

 

It's possible that he was misguided in his choice of equipment, engineers, and producer. Or he just did what he wanted and up yours if you don't like it. In the interview I heard with Mellencamp today, he said that he wanted to record it directly to lacquer but that the equipment wasn't available. Of course he could have done that. One photo I saw of one of the sessions had an Ampex 600 or 601 set up. That's really not a very good choice if you want high fidelity, but a good choice if you want low fidelity. A 350 or AG-440 would have been a better choice if he was after the Sun Studio sound. And I'll bet it went to digital along the way for editing.

 

A curious rich-boy project,

[Kendrix]

As I think about Booshies question it occurs to me that perhaps the most significant advancements in recording tech & methods are already behind us.

 

It seems we are stretching to imagine what some breakthrough advancement might be. As users if we don't have any big problems with the current tools then why does it matter?

 

Current problems?

 

HW power- NOPE

SW usability- NOPE

track counts - NOPE

Quality of plugs - NOPE (if you are careful)

Range of affordable mics & Pres & comps- Check ( of course it would be nice to buy a 1176 for $599. However, economies of scale will likely prevent this from ever happening.)

Quality converters Check ( if you are careful)

 

I Dunno, Coming from the stone age I'm pretty damned thrilled with whats available to me at home these days. I declare victory.

[ggm1960]

It's impossible to know what the future of recording will be like but one thing I know for sure........I'll continue to do it wrong!

[Hard Truth]

i miss the days when music was special and not like it is today where everybody on earth and their grandmothers have a daw and glutting the planet with stuff, even if it meant i could only record my own music with only a bit of tape

 

 

Its no worse than when everybody on earth and their grandmothers had an acoustic guitar and sang Peter, Paul and Mary songs. at every gathering.

[Hard Truth]

I don't know how you can possibly generalize that. (Everything else being equal, people in their twenties generally create more exciting performances and write more heartfelt songs than people in their 50s.) I really don't. Unless you simply relate better to the songs and performances of the 20-somethings. I can't say that people in their 50s write better songs than they did when they were in their 20s (though I know many who I think do), but someone who has been performing pretty steadily for 30 years and still has an audience is bound to be doing something better, which will translate to either a better or less troublesome recording, than he was doing in his twenties. Otherwise, it would have been a pretty frustrating 30 year career.

 

 

Think of any artist talented and/or lucky enough to have a long career. Their best regarded work is from their early days not their later work. I can't think of many exceptions. I didn't use the word "better," I think many artists continue to refine their craft, but for inspiration and excitement, artist's early years are nearly always their best.

 

Johny Cash-Folsom Prison will always define him

Dylan-Few remember anything he wrote after 1975

McCartney-Few remember anything he wrote after 1975

Willie Nelson-again, his classic songs were already written by the mid-seventies (although he was one example of a late bloomer since he was in his thirties by then)

[UstadKhanAli]

Do rock and pop artists with long careers do better work? Or are they ignored because rock is a young person's game?

 

Do rock and pop musicians who are unknown do better work in their 20s? Or later on in life?

 

Is this only the case with rock musicians? Or is it the case with ALL musicians, whether they are jazz, classical, traditional, folk, or reggae?

 

Do all creative people fall into this category?

[Lee Flier]

Think of any artist talented and/or lucky enough to have a long career. Their best regarded work is from their early days not their later work. I can't think of many exceptions.

 

 

I can think of quite a few, and I have a theory about this - namely that it doesn't have a lot to do with physical age, but with the "burnout factor" of stardom. That is, if you're a mega-star (which generally happens to people when they're young), you're living an incredibly demanding lifestyle that really can't be sustained for more than a few years before you start to burn out, and that's bound to affect creativity. There's an intense amount of pressure from fans, record labels, promoters, and people in your employ to keep producing at a high level, not to mention the many celebrities who get caught up in substance abuse, which is easy to do. It just flat-out burns most people out by the time they're 30.

 

It's also easy for a mega-star to lose motivation when their sales drop relative to where they once were, even if they're still very high relative to most people. Between that and being exhausted from the crazy lifestyle, a lot of mega-stars don't bother trying to improve themselves continuously - they stop practicing, their life is pretty boring because they're rich and insulated from the world which doesn't make for very interesting songs. And so on.

 

But people who take decent care of themselves and never have reached the mega-star level seem to produce great work pretty consistently throughout their lives and sometimes even get better. A few examples off the top of my head: Richard Thompson, Peter Case, Sloan, Fountains of Wayne. I mean, Thompson is over 60 now and he's never stopped practicing for 8 hours a day. And it shows. His singing voice has gotten steadily better and has been WAY better in the last 15 years than when he was in his 20s and 30s and was very shy about singing. His guitar playing is possibly even more intense than it was when he was young, and his songwriting is as great as it ever was. He's also never done drugs, smoked cigarettes, doesn't even drink I don't think, so that's helped. But I think it's also to do with not really paying attention to current trends or other things that concern music biz people. He's got his own vision and just keeps on keeping on with it, which is no different from his 20s. Peter Case is pretty much the same way and he's 56. Don't know as much about the others, but I suspect it's a similar story.

[Jeff da Weasel]

Also Jeff, I don't see anything you are saying happening on a large scale bro. Just on a small scale like we have now.

 

 

It's a slow process that's hard to see on a day by day basis. If you went to Mars and came back in 5-6 years, you'd be astounded by the change.

[Bruce Swedien]

I still LOVE Analogue. (Very much actually)

Of course I am mainly hung up on the MUSIC part of what we do!!! I don't really care about the nutz and boltz that much....

Bruce Swedien

[Lee Flier]

There are different approaches, and a responsible engineer or producer should figure out what's going to work best. One approach that's used almost automatically by some producers is to assume that any take will be usable, and you record half a dozen takes then send the band (or the singer) home and try to find the best parts of each take and paste them together to make what you think is the optimum. But that doesn't work for someone who's having trouble hitting a note or phrasing a line the right way. So you that's where you punch in that line or word so he doesn't have to do the whole song again. But today, there are still all too many who need to do 30 takes in order to get one even close enough to patch up. I don't know how you can possibly generalize that.

 

 

Agreed... and also, this assumption that you can always patch together a good take from the first half dozen says nothing about whether the artist has turned in the most emotionally compelling take. There are some people who seem to get the most magic in the early going, but others don't seem to really hit their stride until they've done 37 takes and aren't even consciously thinking anymore about what they're doing, and maybe are a little worn out and ragged which (depending on the music) might even add to the emotional impact of the song.

 

Nowadays, we usually don't get that magic 37th take because hardly anyone does more than a few. So this can cut both ways.

[Lee Flier]

It seems we are stretching to imagine what some breakthrough advancement might be. As users if we don't have any big problems with the current tools then why does it matter?

I still have some big problems with them, and I still think there's a lot of room for improvement, which is why I keep going back to analog pretty frequently. Not because I have some abiding love for the technology so much, but because in many of the ways that matter to me, bottom line is it still sounds better.

Current problems? SW usability- NOPE

I disagree - I think we still have a long way to go in the usability and user interface department.

Quality of plugs - NOPE (if you are careful)

Plug quality has gotten a LOT better even in the past 3-4 years. But it can still stand some improvement, as can DAW engines in general. I still think we have several breakthroughs left to experience. That'll be fun - looking forward to it!

[Kendrix]

I disagree - I think we still have a long way to go in the usability and user interface department.

 

 

Lee, good to see you around.

 

Yeah.

I expect things like the i-pad to be configured as an ergonomic touch screen controller for all major DAW's - any minute now.

 

However, today we have control surface choices all the way from a mouse to a single channel fader port/alpha channel to the Digi IKON. Price performance will certainly improve as will configurability/usability.

Is that a breakthrough??

 

Cheers,

[Lee Flier]

I expect things like the i-pad to be configured as an ergonomic touch screen controller for all major DAW's - any minute now.

 

 

For sure. I've been waiting for multi-touchscreen DAWs for awhile now. I HATE mixing with a mouse, absolutely hate it. Being able to grab multiple faders and knobs at the same time and feel the mix along with the music is something that isn't very conducive to most DAWs.

 

Multi-touch still doesn't allow you to mix with your eyes closed, but it still beats the pants off a mouse, while being more flexible and cost effective than a hardware control surface.

 

 

However, today we have control surface choices all the way from a mouse to a single channel fader port/alpha channel to the Digi IKON. Price performance will certainly improve as will configurability/usability. Is that a breakthrough??

 

 

Sure it is. I'm not saying there haven't been any breakthroughs already! Just that we're still due for some. I'm not wild about most of the control surfaces that I've seen to this point - most of them emulate analog mixers and yet they don't sound as good. I think that entirely new interfaces will be developed and, at the same time, sonic quality will continue to improve. I see plenty of room to innovate in the future, in other words.

[sventvkg]

It's a slow process that's hard to see on a day by day basis. If you went to Mars and came back in 5-6 years, you'd be astounded by the change.

Quite true. Whatever happens I enjoy witnessing unfold!

[Ernest Buckley]

I did a lot of reading about the history of recording and was lucky enough to meet and get to know people who changed a lot themselves in the process of recording sound. Sometimes I wonder what the future of recording will be like. Or are we at a standstill? Is 32/192 enough or do we need to go higher? I mean,.. there are limits on top end and low end that are hearable so do we need to record the unhearable parts also? How about mixing? Will it all be in the box in 10 years? Any ideas about what we can expect the next say 50 years? Does every household have a fullblown recording studio in 25 years?

I thought the thread was about technology... lots of people talking about artists and music here... I`m confused.

[Beck]

I still LOVE Analogue. (Very much actually) Of course I am mainly hung up on the MUSIC part of what we do!!! I don't really care about the nutz and boltz that much.... Bruce Swedien

 

 

**This**

 

I logged in to say; perhaps the focus will be less on technology and more on the art of music.

[Phil O'Keefe]

I do use it. I don't abuse it.

That's my job.

[michaelhigh]

Maybe people will forget about recording and start listening to live music. If enough people do that, maybe musicians can make a living. But I suppose someone will come up with a good reason why we need 36.1 channels in our living room so we'll buy a new system.

 

 

There's already a version of this, it's called ambiophonics. It's like being surrounded 360 degrees with speakers. It's not like, it is.