Hi Tim,
I'm partly continuing this out of a desire to explore what I think. I
don't necessarily disagree with you. What I *really* appreciate in music
is an awesome combination of ability and expression.
I realise that some wonderful recordings come from musicians at each end
of the technique/emotion spectrum.
tim hall wrote:
On Friday 27 January 2006 10:07, Michael T D Nelson was like:
In general, I can't help but feel that if the engineer always needs to
compress a acoustic recording, then the musician should really learn how
to control the dynamics of his performance better.
That really is a moot point.
I'm of the opinion that once behind the microphone, it's the musician's job to
perform their part with all their heart and soul.
Of course. But surely, the better the control that the musician has over
every aspect of his performance, the better he can communicate what he
chooses to?
Having to pull your punches
because the technology can't handle your dynamic range does not necessarily
produce good results,
No, but he can learn to step back from the microphone during loud
passages, etc.
and anyway, that's the engineer's job, surely?
Well, partly. But the engineer can only fix so much. The engineer's job
is much easier if the musician learns to contribute to getting a good
recording.
Too much control on the part of the performer tends to lead to sterile
recordings IMO. I like rattle and hum, I enjoy the effect of pushing certain
bits of technology beyond their factory specs (mostly in the analogue realm,
it has to be said). I like to hear the squeaky chain on a bass drum pedal.
Funnily enough, me too.
For me, too many studios are, like hospitals, airless pits where music goes
to die.
Which is exactly why I like to keep the music *alive*, by not
over-producing it. :o)
Regards,
Michael
PS Glastonbury's a lovely town, isn't it? I went round the abbey last
year - it's stunning. (I'm from a village in North Devon myself, about
to go home for a couple of weeks.)
