|
Post by joshilynhoisington on Feb 4, 2022 17:07:32 GMT
So, in essence, "build it, and they will come"? Once it's possible, it will be used?
It's funny, because as much as I think expanded multi-tracking is a godsend--especially for hobbyists like myself, but also for professional musicians who have done amazing things thanks to technology--there is something truly lost in today's place on that path begun decades ago, a laptop-studio world with unlimited tracks and no decisions required until you decide you're done tinkering.
Oh, yeah -- I'm always very careful not to be reactionary to technology or throw the baby out with the bathwater -- I absolutely have had a more satisfying musical life because of lots of tracks (I still remember the first time I used what was then called "Cool Edit Pro" and later became Adobe Audition, in 1999; it changed my life) but the things that is too bad is that the multi-tracking mindset has largely replaced the live-to-tape mindset in popular music. There's no reason why there couldn't be a coëxistence. Orchestras and big bands are still recorded live (although big bands tend to use lots of tracks now, too, and I bet they are starting to up track counts on orchestras too, since they can) but I'd love to see some popular and rock outfits try doing an album live to 4 track. There's more potential for mutual spontaneity, true organic rubato, and if you're going live, that commitment to playing it right for the live take adds urgency.
|
|
sockit
The Surfer Moon
Posts: 234
Likes: 181
|
Post by sockit on Feb 5, 2022 20:46:21 GMT
So, in essence, "build it, and they will come"? Once it's possible, it will be used?
It's funny, because as much as I think expanded multi-tracking is a godsend--especially for hobbyists like myself, but also for professional musicians who have done amazing things thanks to technology--there is something truly lost in today's place on that path begun decades ago, a laptop-studio world with unlimited tracks and no decisions required until you decide you're done tinkering.
Oh, yeah -- I'm always very careful not to be reactionary to technology or throw the baby out with the bathwater -- I absolutely have had a more satisfying musical life because of lots of tracks (I still remember the first time I used what was then called "Cool Edit Pro" and later became Adobe Audition, in 1999; it changed my life) but the things that is too bad is that the multi-tracking mindset has largely replaced the live-to-tape mindset in popular music. There's no reason why there couldn't be a coëxistence. My thoughts exactly. I work almost exclusively with my Mac Studio Pro these days (especially since I'm doing nearly all the tracks myself), and that allows me almost limitless creativity in arrangements...well, within my simple skill level, anyway. But there is something to be said about the old limited-track analogue recording days. There was a different kind of creativity involved then. It was more "real-time" and in many cases spontaneous. There were more "happy accidents" then too. For example, I remember one time when I was recording a live-in-the-studio demo of one of my songs, and when we played back the take we discovered a cool sounding ghost chord created by harmonics between the rhythm guitar and my bass. I'm happy with the advances in digital recording, but I'm also happy that I'm old enough to have been around for some of the more primitive modes of recording.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 6, 2022 14:42:33 GMT
Isn't it funny that we (rightly) talk about multitrack home recording as "primitive" in this context? I mean, of course, it is VERY primitive compared to what is available to us now. I remember working in a music store through college, and we sold (and so I played around with) minidisc recorders. That was digital multitrack recording some 20-25 years ago, but of course it was very, very primitive compared to even, say, a MacBook with Logic Pro. Or hell, just with Garage Band.
But stripping out what has happened since, just think: digital (or even analog), multitrack home recording is magical in and of itself. It's far beyond the dreams of someone like Buddy Holly, for example. It's like talking about primitive space flight. It's true in context of what has happened since, but my god we're spoiled in a lot of ways.
Speaking of that difference between digital editing and previous methods, I think copying and pasting sections of tunes is one of those little conveniences that ends up hurting the final product. It's such a time-saver to be able to just take the tracks from a verse or chorus and paste them in 3, 4 times as necessary. But it also means you've got the exact same thing repeating 3, 4 times. Or you want to change it up? Great, you edit the parameters of your AI drummer, or you choose to cut a guitar (which you can always reinsert later if you change your mind), or you add a different amp sound after the fact. In effect, you're trying to mask the digital nature of it all with more digital magic. And you might have literally never played your own song from start to finish on any instrument!
Sure, in the past we know engineers and producers copied sections of tape and assembled them to repeat verses or choruses. But it was harder to do, and might in many cases have been easier to just have the musicians play the damn song. And by playing straight through, you get those little changes: the drummer picks up speed or intensity on that last chorus; the guitarist uses a different voicing or strumming pattern here or there; and so on. Pop music is usually almost inherently simple, which can be very tedious, very boring. Those little changes, including changes in energy or intensity or tempo, can really make or break a song.
I think we do lose some of that by being overly reliant on the digital tools we've got.
|
|
|
Post by joshilynhoisington on Feb 6, 2022 15:29:52 GMT
I think the question of what we lose vs. what we gain by choosing something over another thing is one that ought to be asked (even beyond the question at hand.). When discussing what we lose by being overly reliant on digital tools, beyond the things that we potentially lose as mentioned above, one of the more subtle things we lose is a mindset. And mindsets are harder to recover from the past than methods (even if they fuel each others.)
That's partly why I take such a deliberate effort to do my track recreations with as much of the right mindset as I can (which is also why it's taking so damn long to get them out to you...) Some of the more elaborate track recreations of the Beach Boys on the internet are, in my opinion, too reliant on digital tools to really be worth anything beyond the fun of the creator of putzing around sequencing MIDI triggers. It sounds...ok, and I think sounding ok is good, and sounding good is better -- but I think a lot of the choices I make are aimed more towards preserving a mindset AND illustrating the mindset to people.
For instance, I am trying to get my hands on a bass saxophone. They are not only expensive, but they are in short supply because there's not a huge demand for them. But man, I can think of no better way to effectively and even viscerally illustrate the mindset of the recording community in LA in the 60s than showing people the horn section for, say, California Girls. When you see 4 players (or in the case of my future educational video, 4 of me digitally composited in one shot) walking into a session with a Bass, Baritone, and Tenor saxes -- plus a trumpet, you can see that the creation of this song required literally dozens of pounds of brass, and it required these musicians to carry these things around town all the time in case they needed them. I think that seeing that could be a powerful illustration of how recording was (and still can be) a physical and material activity. I think that stuff gets encoded in the audio somehow, and that's much more exciting to me that hearing a "recreation" where a physical person is never directly in contact with the medium.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 6, 2022 15:54:51 GMT
I think that seeing that could be a powerful illustration of how recording was (and still can be) a physical and material activity. I think that stuff gets encoded in the audio somehow, and that's much more exciting to me that hearing a "recreation" where a physical person is never directly in contact with the medium. Yes! (And if anyone was intent on us sticking very specifically to arrangement, sorry. But I think we're having interesting diversions and I hope you agree.)
Playing music was always a very physical activity. No, it isn't football or futbol (sure, I could've said soccer, but I liked the two footballs!), but anyone who has been a performer understands. Whether it's knowing you have to stretch your hands and fingers before playing, or really work on proper (and well exercised) embouchure on your horn/wind instrument to avoid your cheeks or tongue becoming exhausted or cramping (yes, it happens!), or just carrying your sousaphone in a marching band, all of these things are physical activities. Playing certain guitar parts for even a song, to say nothing of a couple-hour set, can cramp and fatigue your hands or arms, as well as your back.
Playing with and through physical exhaustion is another aspect that we do indeed lose with some methods of digital recording or editing. You could argue the result is better because you played the phrase once perfectly and that is recreated six times, but you could also say that there's something beneficial about the mental and physical focus you need to fight through--just like happens with sports. We just don't think that way about artists in general.
|
|
sockit
The Surfer Moon
Posts: 234
Likes: 181
|
Post by sockit on Feb 6, 2022 16:49:28 GMT
I think that seeing that could be a powerful illustration of how recording was (and still can be) a physical and material activity. I think that stuff gets encoded in the audio somehow, and that's much more exciting to me that hearing a "recreation" where a physical person is never directly in contact with the medium. Yes! (And if anyone was intent on us sticking very specifically to arrangement, sorry. But I think we're having interesting diversions and I hope you agree.)
I am very much enjoying this discussion within this thread, and I feel it's all on topic, really. I think we're all in agreement that the different forms of recording and arranging music that we utilize are very dependent on our intentions or purposes in creating the music. There is no one "right way" to accomplish it, as long as the creator of the work is satisfied with it. I have always been fascinated by the actual ability to preserve musical ideas or the performance of such for all time, even as something to go back and reference at a later time. Once it's been recorded, it'll always be there in a tangible form.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 6, 2022 16:57:33 GMT
I have always been fascinated by the actual ability to preserve musical ideas or the performance of such for all time, even as something to go back and reference at a later time. Once it's been recorded, it'll always be there in a tangible form. Famed engineer/producer Steve Albini (who recorded Nirvana, among many others including the likes of Robert Plant and Jimmy Page, for the opposite end of the spectrum) speaks on this. He actually argues against digital recording in part because he says that unlike with tape, with digital media that music won't necessarily always be there in tangible form. He says once the hardware or software changes, that music is unrecoverable. Conversely, the music on tape or vinyl is literally physical, someone can always make a machine that will read it, and the music will still be there. He said that's why the final milestone in every project he works on is handing over those master tapes--and he means literally tapes--to his clients, even if they initially recorded digitally (which he doesn't prefer).
It's a fascinating thing to think about. (I should add, I don't actually really like much of any music Albini works on, or even likes. But he's an extremely interesting person with a lot of technical and philosophical knowledge about recording music.)
|
|
sockit
The Surfer Moon
Posts: 234
Likes: 181
|
Post by sockit on Feb 6, 2022 22:57:02 GMT
I have always been fascinated by the actual ability to preserve musical ideas or the performance of such for all time, even as something to go back and reference at a later time. Once it's been recorded, it'll always be there in a tangible form. Famed engineer/producer Steve Albini (who recorded Nirvana, among many others including the likes of Robert Plant and Jimmy Page, for the opposite end of the spectrum) speaks on this. He actually argues against digital recording in part because he says that unlike with tape, with digital media that music won't necessarily always be there in tangible form. He says once the hardware or software changes, that music is unrecoverable. Conversely, the music on tape or vinyl is literally physical, someone can always make a machine that will read it, and the music will still be there. He said that's why the final milestone in every project he works on is handing over those master tapes--and he means literally tapes--to his clients, even if they initially recorded digitally (which he doesn't prefer). I have read similar arguments on several other forums, some of them pretty heated and passionate, but I've never been able to fully agree with that position. I know that digital formats and programs change almost constantly, but in reality do you really think WAV, mp3s, etc, files are going away, at least in our lifetime? Would you like to take a guess at how many computers, players, playing devices, anything with a USB input, there are in each and every home on this planet? I really doubt it's all going into the landfill at once. Of course, if one is really worried about this, it's pretty easy to back up all the digital music onto analog tape. I was contemplated doing this in my studio...until my professional Onkyo studio cassette deck went belly up, and I can't find anyone local to fix it.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 7, 2022 12:27:19 GMT
It might be a cop-out, but honestly I don't know enough to have a strong opinion.
I can say that in my basement I've got some old 3.5" floppy discs with old compositions I did on computers in college. Those are, as far as I know, totally unplayable now unless I happen to find an old computer that can take them and that happens to have the software I used nearly 30 years ago. If I still had the files from my digital recording 20 years ago, I'm not sure whether I could open and use them with modern software. So my perspective is less the final audio file and more the multitracks, where I can see them becoming unreadable.
|
|
|
Post by joshilynhoisington on Feb 7, 2022 15:17:14 GMT
I actually took a class for one of my Master's programs where we sort of gamed out the future for digital storage (The class was called "Digital Archiving" or some such.)
I think two important scenarios have already been mentioned - first the "in our lifetime" comment; I think that's correct -- in our lifetimes we don't need to worry about losing all of our mp3s of flacs. But of course those formats will become obsolete at some point. There will be decades to convert to new formats, but how many kids out there do you think even store actual music files at all anymore? We might be looking at an all streaming future (Again, not in our lifetimes, but some time) where there are only a few actual files that are stored on streaming service's servers.
The other scenario/issue is that of the underlying formats vs. the final format. While mp3s and such are here for a while, it's absolutely true that multitrack files and such are likely to go unplayable quicker. Now that we've settled in on two-three major players in the DAW world, that's likely to be more stable, but i too have a bunch of Cool Edit Pro multitracks that I'm no longer able to access. I probably could if I tried hard enough, to find some way to boot up a legacy version of an OS and run a cracked old copy of the software or whatever, but who's going to do that?
Now, If I had a reel of 1" 8-track (Which I do) and needed access to the content of that reel (I don't), I'd also be out of luck, because I don't have a 1" 8-track machine at the moment, but I'd rather track down a tape machine than try to get ancient software to boot up.
There's also the question of some things we are just starting to understand about digital storage, with bit rot and other types of spontaneous file corruption that can happen -- it's not quite as stable as it's cracked up to be.
I think Albini's argument is sort of a quasi-justification of the fact that the man just enjoys working in analog better. And that's OK! he's allowed to prefer it! It's possible that tape is still a better long-term storage medium than digital. Hard to say, really.
|
|
|
Post by joshilynhoisington on Feb 7, 2022 20:11:39 GMT
If I may return to the subject of arrangements, specifically, Beach Boys/BW arrangements, I have been working on transcribing "Look" this week, and what an interesting track that is.
I'm still trying to determine exactly what's going on, but let's look at specific uniquenesses from the arrangement:
Piano/electric 12-string guitar unison arpeggiated chord action -- great sound
Horn section is a muted trumpet, a flute (have yet to check the compass to determine if it's something other than a concert C flute yet), a horn, and a Tuba.
The tuba functions almost like a synth bass-line when it comes in on the "verse" parts.
During the kiddie section, the tuba gets to show off with a nice little bouncy counter melody that evokes the Wake the World line a bit.
During the middle piano/guitar chordal section, the flute plays actual flutey lines!
Another instance of a harpsichord being so drenched in reverb that it sounds almost unreal.
Poundy drums, then the strict, almost military style in the kiddie section -- huge contrast.
Anyway, really exceptional arrangement. Tough to transcribe!
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 7, 2022 20:19:27 GMT
The countermelody you reference is one of my favorite moments in Beach Boys instrumental history.
What about the (somewhat harsh) electric bass thumping away, too.
This is definitely a very good one.
|
|
|
Post by joshilynhoisington on Feb 7, 2022 20:38:08 GMT
The countermelody you reference is one of my favorite moments in Beach Boys instrumental history.
What about the (somewhat harsh) electric bass thumping away, too.
This is definitely a very good one.
The bass situation is something that I'm puzzling over right now -- there are three bassists on the contract, and I'm struggling to figure out what all three of them are going, and which bass is which. In any case, there are at least two electric basses thumping away there, maybe three.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Feb 8, 2022 4:09:25 GMT
Would choice of chord inversions and/or bass lines be considered more an arrangement choice or compositional?
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 8, 2022 12:29:01 GMT
Would choice of chord inversions and/or bass lines be considered more an arrangement choice or compositional? My opinion would be that it can be either or both.
If a song was worked out by the composer--let's say a classical composition here--and the score includes a bass line, that's a part of the composition. But a composition of that sort includes an arrangement in it: an arrangement is part of the composition.
Conversely, if it's a rock song and the composer comes into the studio with chords and a melody with lyrics, and it's up to someone (bass player, producer, etc.) to come up with an actual part, I'd say it is more of an arrangement (as it clearly wasn't part of the composition). But muddying that even more, if the bass part ends up being a really integral part of the song, like let's say it's "Under Pressure," whoever comes up with that would be right to fight for a cowriting credit.
|
|