|
|
Post by Time Lord on Mar 13, 2008 9:02:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by plateauphase on Mar 14, 2008 0:13:21 GMT -5
Not intending to start something unpleasant...
But really, I am getting so tired of the old authentic = good equation.
The overproduced MOR pablum of today is no less authentic than the overproduced 4-track MOR pablum of yesterday.
There is no such thing as "authenticity."
|
|
|
|
Post by Time Lord on Mar 14, 2008 15:58:20 GMT -5
The article has more to do with the way things are recorded and processed than performance necessarily. It did make the point that nowadays they tend to chop and loop everything and pitch correct it to the point that the human soul of the music is sort of lost. It's worth the time to read it.
|
|
|
|
Post by plateauphase on Mar 14, 2008 20:43:53 GMT -5
The article has more to do with the way things are recorded and processed than performance necessarily. It did make the point that nowadays they tend to chop and loop everything and pitch correct it to the point that the human soul of the music is sort of lost. It's worth the time to read it. Yeah... but the act of recording a performance alters it. I'm not convinced Johnny Cash's last recordings were any more distant from his first recordings. The technology is different, and produces a different result -- a different kind of illusion of intimacy -- but the article suggests that it is somehow less authentic than recording the character "of the room." More to the point, if you listen to mainstream pop from the 1960s or 1970s, it all sounds the same, too. This is not a new thing. To some extent, that's what MAKES it mainstream pop. Phil Spector and Barry Gordy approached their recording projects with similar intentions as today's producers -- admittedly with more technologically limited equipment. |
|
