Jun 16, 2020 at 10:58 AM
- Apr 29, 2010
- Reaction score
- Blue Ridge Mountains
Who's arguing...?1. Then why argue?
2. Again, NO, it's not my opinion, it's the objective facts/history and it's even mentioned in the article you yourself linked to: "Pop music, in the meantime, was evolving a totally different way of working, which came eventually to require an infinity of souces and an infinity of tracks on which to record them". Even by the 1970's, how many commercial recording studios did not have or use multi-track recorders, how many don't today? The production techniques of Spectre, Martin and various others which came to dominate and even define pop genres, all required multiple mics/inputs and "manufacturing". And clearly, I did NOT state "all" recordings, I stated the vast majority.
3. Whether your personal experience is more or less "valid than another's" of course entirely depends on the extent of your experience (and knowledge) and that of others. However, that's irrelevant anyway because you're not pitting your experience against mine but against the historical facts of the evolution of music/sound recording. And, I did not even mention my personal experience, I asked "How hard do others try? If you don't know, how do you know they try less hard than the few you've mentioned?".
4. Yet again, it is not my experience, it's the historical facts.
4a. "In as live a manner as possible" is still NOT anything like "matching the sound of live music". Did the "various bands" use multiple mics on the drumkit, another on the vocals, others for each of the electric guitar/s and bass or did they just use "minimal mic'ing", say a stereo pair to capture everything together, including the PA and acoustics of the warehouse? If it's the former, then it's still largely "manufactured" and does not "match the sound of live music". If it's the latter, then it would be impossible to achieve a "valid" (balanced) mix. Either way, the vast majority of commercial music recordings are "manufactured", in DAWs/studios.
I'm here to present the actual objective/historical facts, that's my "joy". If that pisses "in others' Cheerios" because their Cheerios contradict the actual facts (IE. Are false assertions) then so be it. And why would anyone consider that a bad thing, unless they wanted to promote false facts/marketing over the actual facts?