liqih quoth
so why everybody asks for more features in every synth we make?
Oh that's easy. Because everyone has a different idea of whats needed in a synth, and they keep wanting the developers to tailor them more and more to their own specific requirements, rather than realise the tools are generic.
Of course, the real answer is to go all BONES/xoxos about it, but not many people have the time, ability or inclination to do so, hence they exchange that money stuff instead.
Sgt. Pepper: "Crude" Eight-track recording?
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 35474 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
An idiot on Set Theory:
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
"In some cases there is an object called red that contains everything that is red. In much the same way a pot is a plate."
-
- DASH Guy
- 8157 posts since 20 Sep, 2001
absolutley true, I did a lot of recordings with my old Revox A77, two tracks, and the tape features + the Revox analog limiter deliver an incredible soundS_A_P wrote: One thing about tape is that you can overdub on tracks alot more successfully than with digital, since you can go over 0 db, so that worked in their favor.
-
- DASH Guy
- 8157 posts since 20 Sep, 2001
http://www.netzmarkt.de/thomann/thoiw2_index.htmlI have a stereo 10 inch TEAC reel to reel that needs refurbishing - it seizes up after a minute. I should get it repaired as it did sound nice and i still love watching the reels turn. Bue where the hell do you buy tape nowadys?
or ebay.com
-
- KVRian
- 658 posts since 29 Feb, 2004 from Toronto
hello to all
so, after a year of silent observation, here is my first post (actually this only the second time i ever typed publicly).
it was 1989 and i had just seen The Abyss (all tripped out). getting home i was in no shape to sleep and felt inspired musicaly. i spent 12 hrs with my Roland ES20, Yammaha 4trk, boss dly stomper and peavy studio guitar amp to make something that is still one of my faves. the point being, this was FAR less than what i have now yet the track was imho great. the reason = inspiration+need+limitation. the process was the art. all trks(15 or so) played live (no punches), out the keys - thru dly pedal (if needed) - thru amp(spring rev) - to tape. a few ping pongs and subsequent retakes (due to mix mud) and thats it. done.
well its a long winded way of saying hello and yes i agree with you. limitation is a boost to creativity, not just with technology. limiting allowed notes, playing time and orchestration all are fine ways to write music.
see ya 'round
so, after a year of silent observation, here is my first post (actually this only the second time i ever typed publicly).
it was 1989 and i had just seen The Abyss (all tripped out). getting home i was in no shape to sleep and felt inspired musicaly. i spent 12 hrs with my Roland ES20, Yammaha 4trk, boss dly stomper and peavy studio guitar amp to make something that is still one of my faves. the point being, this was FAR less than what i have now yet the track was imho great. the reason = inspiration+need+limitation. the process was the art. all trks(15 or so) played live (no punches), out the keys - thru dly pedal (if needed) - thru amp(spring rev) - to tape. a few ping pongs and subsequent retakes (due to mix mud) and thats it. done.
well its a long winded way of saying hello and yes i agree with you. limitation is a boost to creativity, not just with technology. limiting allowed notes, playing time and orchestration all are fine ways to write music.
see ya 'round
-
- KVRAF
- 6937 posts since 4 Jun, 2004 from Utrecht, Holland
Thats kinda cool I think... Registered for a year but not postingMorgaxx wrote:hello to all
see ya 'round
__________________________________________________
Joined: 29 Feb 2004 Posts: 1
A warm welcome to/from the writing people on KVR!
-
- KVRian
- 658 posts since 29 Feb, 2004 from Toronto
thanks COOkie...
i registered mostly for patch access but got hooked on all the love, hate, comedy and general hoo haa that happens here . though now i am doomed
i registered mostly for patch access but got hooked on all the love, hate, comedy and general hoo haa that happens here . though now i am doomed
-
- KVRAF
- 2830 posts since 2 Mar, 2003 from The only civilized county in Texas
Right. The more rules you have, the more freedom you have to break them.clueless wrote:that's the point - you can't really push boundaries if you don't have any.Wicker Man wrote:Quite interesting to think that choice and freedom could be considered as a hinderance to creativity...when one normally associates creativity with pushing boundaries and freedom.
V.
-
- KVRian
- 658 posts since 29 Feb, 2004 from Toronto
ever had to be creative on a deadline? sat staring, wondering how to start? tried one idea, only to be lured away by another tangent? back to the drwaing board?
one way to help is limitation. tools that have worked are things like equal scale division, atonal writing or using ones phone number as a chord/note progression etc... these are focused limitations that force creativity in a direction (hopefully toward meeting that deadline)
if one has never explored such limitations, i would recomend it. even a small world is a world
one way to help is limitation. tools that have worked are things like equal scale division, atonal writing or using ones phone number as a chord/note progression etc... these are focused limitations that force creativity in a direction (hopefully toward meeting that deadline)
if one has never explored such limitations, i would recomend it. even a small world is a world
-
Electric Phase Electric Phase https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=46215
- KVRist
- 345 posts since 29 Oct, 2004 from Close to the Edge...
Whenever I hear "A Day In The Life", that's when it strikes me of the brillance of the production. When I hear this tune on the radio I just have to stop what I'm doing and listen. 
-
- KVRAF
- 8705 posts since 24 May, 2002 from Tutukaka, New Zealand
I agree some of the Beatles stuff was fantastic...personally I'm not that impressed with many of the actual mixes though - it's the song quality that grabs me. Compared to many of more recent mixes, no I don't agree that they produced on the best equipment ever made by a long long shot.
And some people have got their wires crossed a bit with the Beatles and Pink Floyd etc. Yes, it's true that compared to what's available today, their gear and choice of gear was very limited to what we've got. BUT and it's a huge BUT....going by the standards of their day, the Beatles and Pink Floyd and all those other big names had access to the most expensive and flashiest gear that other lesser musicians only dreamed about - they also had access to the biggest best, most expensive studios, engineers, producers, musicians and anyone else involved in any way whatsoever with the music industry. They were in a bloody good position at the time. And they had an unlimited budget.
It wasn't just produced with a bass, two crappy guitars and a small drumkit you know....it was produced on the most expensive accurate microphones ever made at the time....in accoustically treated studios that were state of the art to record live reverb and ambience on those very same best microphones. On the biggest best mixing desks that were available, on the most expensive high speed 4-tracks - which not all musicians had acces to by any means, the best gold reverb plates etc (when everyone else used tin or whatever was cheaper) Mellotrons and the likes...which you'd need a f**king huge mortgage to buy at the time.
The budget the Beatles used to make something like Sgt Pepper would be comparable to how Michael Jackson makes records nowadays - you know? Multimillions per album, all the hottest engineers, millions of $$$$s-worth of equipment.
And anyway, like I said - the Beatles didn't stand out so much because of the fantastic production and expensive gear (although that certainly was a feature later on) they stood out because they produced extremely good music that was both ground-breaking and listenable to by the masses. And they could still have made good music on cheap accessible gear (but they didn't - it was state of the art and then some)
And some people have got their wires crossed a bit with the Beatles and Pink Floyd etc. Yes, it's true that compared to what's available today, their gear and choice of gear was very limited to what we've got. BUT and it's a huge BUT....going by the standards of their day, the Beatles and Pink Floyd and all those other big names had access to the most expensive and flashiest gear that other lesser musicians only dreamed about - they also had access to the biggest best, most expensive studios, engineers, producers, musicians and anyone else involved in any way whatsoever with the music industry. They were in a bloody good position at the time. And they had an unlimited budget.
It wasn't just produced with a bass, two crappy guitars and a small drumkit you know....it was produced on the most expensive accurate microphones ever made at the time....in accoustically treated studios that were state of the art to record live reverb and ambience on those very same best microphones. On the biggest best mixing desks that were available, on the most expensive high speed 4-tracks - which not all musicians had acces to by any means, the best gold reverb plates etc (when everyone else used tin or whatever was cheaper) Mellotrons and the likes...which you'd need a f**king huge mortgage to buy at the time.
The budget the Beatles used to make something like Sgt Pepper would be comparable to how Michael Jackson makes records nowadays - you know? Multimillions per album, all the hottest engineers, millions of $$$$s-worth of equipment.
And anyway, like I said - the Beatles didn't stand out so much because of the fantastic production and expensive gear (although that certainly was a feature later on) they stood out because they produced extremely good music that was both ground-breaking and listenable to by the masses. And they could still have made good music on cheap accessible gear (but they didn't - it was state of the art and then some)
-
- KVRAF
- 8705 posts since 24 May, 2002 from Tutukaka, New Zealand
And.........I read somewhere that it was the Beatles or their engineers who developed the spinning speaker effect, and flanging etc. OK - try this....as a complete nobody, book yourself a session at the most expensive studio you can find in your country. Make sure you've also hired the most expensive engineer etc. Then go in and tell them you're a pioneer and you want to experiment with abusing their gear - you want to see how it'll affect your groundbreaking ideas if you throw in some chewing gum into their RADAR system; you want to see what sonic effect happens if you pour diesel into their SSL mixer channels.
Because I can tell you for sure it was only and precisely because they were the Beatles that they got away with hanging up a studio's expensive monitors by ropes and spinning them around for fun, or sticking grubby fingers all over those expensive 4-tracks to create flanging. Most of us would be arrested and have to pay for the damage. The Beatles got away with it because of the prestige of having them record at your studio, and because the owners knew they could afford to buy new gear when/if it was damaged by those Scouse vandals. The Beatles were at the cutting edge and only because they were filthy rich and filthy succesful. Limitations didn't really mean much to them....by their own standards, they practically had no limitations to what they could do or what they could use.
Because I can tell you for sure it was only and precisely because they were the Beatles that they got away with hanging up a studio's expensive monitors by ropes and spinning them around for fun, or sticking grubby fingers all over those expensive 4-tracks to create flanging. Most of us would be arrested and have to pay for the damage. The Beatles got away with it because of the prestige of having them record at your studio, and because the owners knew they could afford to buy new gear when/if it was damaged by those Scouse vandals. The Beatles were at the cutting edge and only because they were filthy rich and filthy succesful. Limitations didn't really mean much to them....by their own standards, they practically had no limitations to what they could do or what they could use.
-
- KVRist
- 454 posts since 2 May, 2004 from somewhere behind my eyes
Interesting point.kritikon wrote:And.........I read somewhere that it was the Beatles or their engineers who developed the spinning speaker effect, and flanging etc. OK - try this....as a complete nobody, book yourself a session at the most expensive studio you can find in your country. Make sure you've also hired the most expensive engineer etc. Then go in and tell them you're a pioneer and you want to experiment with abusing their gear - you want to see how it'll affect your groundbreaking ideas if you throw in some chewing gum into their RADAR system; you want to see what sonic effect happens if you pour diesel into their SSL mixer channels.
Because I can tell you for sure it was only and precisely because they were the Beatles that they got away with hanging up a studio's expensive monitors by ropes and spinning them around for fun, or sticking grubby fingers all over those expensive 4-tracks to create flanging. Most of us would be arrested and have to pay for the damage. The Beatles got away with it because of the prestige of having them record at your studio, and because the owners knew they could afford to buy new gear when/if it was damaged by those Scouse vandals. The Beatles were at the cutting edge and only because they were filthy rich and filthy succesful. Limitations didn't really mean much to them....by their own standards, they practically had no limitations to what they could do or what they could use.
Anyone want to let me pour some honey on their Neumann to see if it adds that "sweetness" i,m looking for?
The above "words" are the ramblings of a depraved megalomaniac.Any similarity to normal communication is a hallucination on the part of the reader.Replying to this post will result in your family and posessions becoming the property of funkynuts.
-
- KVRAF
- 2017 posts since 21 Mar, 2002 from Hutchinson, Kansas
The suggestion that the Beatles had access to the best gear in the world is not quite right. At least early on. The fact is that Abbey Road and EMI studios were woefully behind the Americans when it came to studio equipment. If you were to compare what Sinatra had to record with at Capitol with what the Beatles had during "Please Please Me", you might be shocked that they did so much with so little. George Martin did a lot to try to rectify that situation, and by the end, Abbey Road was chock full of the best stuff available at the time.
What made those albums sound so good wasnt't just the music (though that was, of course, the most important aspect), but the engineering. Geoff Emerick or Norman Smith could record a great record on two straws and a toaster. Assuming, of course that Lennon/McCartney or Barret/Waters/Wright were providing the tunes to sing down the straws.
I beg to differ with the assertion that Sgt. Pepper doesn't make a good example of recording technique even by today's standards. The recording is immaculate. The distortions and treatments were all intentional (it was the working method on that album that nothing hit the tape in its original state). I still listen to this record (or Dark Side of the Moon and Abbey Road) when beginning a session.
One important aspect of these records is that any of the little processing and effects were largely printed to tape when tracking. Decisions were not left until mixdown time. You had to get it right when tracking. The 'board at Abbey Road (at least until the TG series came in during the White album) had only two basic tone controls for EQ. That meant the engineers had to capture the desired sound pretty much from the beginning. A good way to work. There was no chance for applying our modern "fix it in the mix" methods. Personally, I find modern methods of mixing tedious to the extreme. There is less mixing and far too much corrective surgery.
These records are still great lessons for us all.
A note of interest: it wasn't John Lennon that invented flanging. He just gave it a name. Lennon in fact was quite ignorant of most aspects of music recording. He was the one who suggested hanging from a rope and being spun round while singing. It never would have occured to him to spin the mic...LOL. Many of the insteresting effects that were tried with hs vocals were done because he was very self-concious about his singing.
What made those albums sound so good wasnt't just the music (though that was, of course, the most important aspect), but the engineering. Geoff Emerick or Norman Smith could record a great record on two straws and a toaster. Assuming, of course that Lennon/McCartney or Barret/Waters/Wright were providing the tunes to sing down the straws.
I beg to differ with the assertion that Sgt. Pepper doesn't make a good example of recording technique even by today's standards. The recording is immaculate. The distortions and treatments were all intentional (it was the working method on that album that nothing hit the tape in its original state). I still listen to this record (or Dark Side of the Moon and Abbey Road) when beginning a session.
One important aspect of these records is that any of the little processing and effects were largely printed to tape when tracking. Decisions were not left until mixdown time. You had to get it right when tracking. The 'board at Abbey Road (at least until the TG series came in during the White album) had only two basic tone controls for EQ. That meant the engineers had to capture the desired sound pretty much from the beginning. A good way to work. There was no chance for applying our modern "fix it in the mix" methods. Personally, I find modern methods of mixing tedious to the extreme. There is less mixing and far too much corrective surgery.
These records are still great lessons for us all.
A note of interest: it wasn't John Lennon that invented flanging. He just gave it a name. Lennon in fact was quite ignorant of most aspects of music recording. He was the one who suggested hanging from a rope and being spun round while singing. It never would have occured to him to spin the mic...LOL. Many of the insteresting effects that were tried with hs vocals were done because he was very self-concious about his singing.
-
- Banned
- 1842 posts since 4 Aug, 2004 from just right here
-
- KVRian
- 658 posts since 29 Feb, 2004 from Toronto
thats some interesting lore, all very inspiring. makes me wonder, if i were in the Beatles position today, would it be possible to be so experimental or creative with technology. ie whats next? (i'm not really asking, just saying)
as a note, i have never thought "thats not that great" toward ANY Beatles song. they are all perfect, for what they are, in craft and style. (followed closely by Floyd/Beach Boyzzz imo)
what must those lab coat wearing, short back n side hair cut sporting engineers have been thinking of those mad mop tops and thier red eyed artistry.
oh nostalgia......
as a note, i have never thought "thats not that great" toward ANY Beatles song. they are all perfect, for what they are, in craft and style. (followed closely by Floyd/Beach Boyzzz imo)
what must those lab coat wearing, short back n side hair cut sporting engineers have been thinking of those mad mop tops and thier red eyed artistry.
oh nostalgia......
Reverbnation
see ya 'round...
see ya 'round...