messina@ihuxl.UUCP (08/28/83)
OK maybe i got carried away when i said a 4 track can sound just as good as a 32 track recording. One could tell the difference if it was brought to their attention, but when someone hears a recording that does not sound quite so good, they don't think to themselves, "Damn this record was recorded in a 4 track studio, those *&^%%$", they usually think it sounds bad for some other reason. My point was you can get a good recording off of a 4 track system and it will not be that noticable, if at all. When the beatles were recording back in the 60's, most of the records sounded like sh*t anyways, but again the sterios where not that fantastic either, it was a big thing to have sterio back then. Analogy: back in 1930 why use colorful sceens, costumes, and lighting effects when the show is going to be filmed in B&W anyways ? I can see using multi track studios today because the average person usually owns a sterio that's halfway good, and good sound quality is in a high demand. Lets get more conversation going here !! So voice(type) your opinion, talk about music, else why have net.music. ihuxl!messina
ellis@FLAIRMAX.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (08/30/83)
4 track has one BIG advantage over 32 track - lack of hi-tech elitism! I'm not saying a lotta technology makes creativity impossible, just less likely. A few artists manage too be good even with all that hi tech crap. The most creative music I've heard lately was by people who could barely play their instruments, and recorded under the crudest possible circumstances. -michael 'got the eric clapton money in the bank blues' ellis
dembry@hplabs.UUCP (Paul E. Dembry) (08/30/83)
#R:ihuxl:-51800:hplabs:17200002:000:50 hplabs!dembry Aug 30 12:48:00 1983 It's "stereo", not "sterio". (I couldn't resist!)
burris@ihopa.UUCP (08/31/83)
Well, once again I find myself about to jump into the same argument about multi-track as discussed months ago. You (FLAIRMAX!ellis) may consider a mullti-track recorder to be high-tech elitist but I would ask you to consider that if there were not a GOOD reason to develop them they would not exist if for no other reason than expense. To make such a rediculous statement which suggests that multi-track users forego the artistry is at best uninformed superstition. The artistry of a particular piece either exists or not independant of the recording technology. The advancement of the technology has in fact opened the doorway to creativity by providing an expanded repertoire of possible sounds and effects to chose from. The fact that some musicians fail to select a combination of sounds which appears to be artistic is completely independant of the technology. The sophistication of consumers of music has increased substantially in the last few years. The playback equipment and the expectations of the listeners have reached a point that it is near impossible to produce an acceptable result with a four-track machine. I am speaking here of popular music so all you two-mike-audiophile-type classical listeners curtail your flames, ok! There is another factor to support multi-track usage in major album projects; sometimes a group of musicians may lay down some excellent tracks which they decide are a take. But for economic or scheduling reasons the side-men (such as the Earth, Wind & Fire horn section) must perform at a later date. Multi-track recording allows the luxury of adding these tracks without disturbing the originals. Also, suppose the artist has what was originally considered a finished product and decides that an oboe part should be added to spice up a particular section of the piece. Would you prefer to have a totally seperate track or to add noise doing an overdub? Dave Burris ihopa!burris BTL - Naperville
ellis@FLAIRMAX.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (09/09/83)
Sorry if my statement about `hi-tech elitism' suggested a total putdown of expensive production techniques, but the feeling is a reaction against recent trends, as quoted below: > The sophistication of consumers of music has increased substantially in > the last few years. The playback equipment and the expectations of the > listeners have reached a point that it is near impossible to produce an > acceptable result with a four-track machine. The advanced technical sophistication of much recent music is, of course, not inherently bad. It's just that some of the best new stuff, like punk and third world music, or just garage bands of any kind, is made by people who don't have access to expensive crap. Pop artists who are innovative with expensive technology can be interesting provided they don't lose sight of the real goal, which is to make music, Even so, their innovations are beyond the means of many 18 year old rowdies who have traditionally been the life blood of R&R. To that extent, hi-tech makes itself irrelevant. When listeners are referred to as music consumers attempting to produce acceptable results with sophisticated equipment, I am reminded that the audience here does, in fact, consist of upwardly mobile technocrats perhaps more in tune with Human League than the Sex Pistols. If pop music becomes overly saturated with music produceable only in big-money studios, I have no doubt another `punk revolution' will be the natural result. -michael `music by the people' ellis