Quote:
Originally Posted by VicAjax /img/forum/go_quote.gif
i don't even think DSOM is that fantastic. it's fine for what they did... cramming overdub after overdub onto it. but it doesn't sound "real" or "natural," it sounds like a nifty recording by a bunch of talented guys on acid.
|
This is a very interesting issue. With the advent of electric and electronic instruments, and the rise of the recording-studio-as-instrument, an entirely separate aesthetic has been created, it seems to me. The Beatles famously stopped touring because, among other reasons, what they were doing in the studio could not, at the time, be reproduced on stage. They used the studio as an additional instrument, and created sounds and mixes that simply can't be reproduced with untreated acoustic instruments.
Contrast that with the recording of acoustic instruments in a traditional setting. The goal in recording acoustic instruments is to reproduce, as closely as possible, the sound of an unadulterated live performance. When that is done well, the results can be glorious, and represent one ideal to which performers, engineers, and listeners can aspire. I don't think one approach is better than the other. They are simply different.
But electronics instruments and the wealth of technology in the modern studio offer possiblities that just aren't available to say, a bluegrass band or a jazz piano trio. That does not mean that electronic music can't be every bit as well recorded, and as sonically rewarding, as a beautifully executed recording of a Haydn quartet.
I think what I've just written in not in the least controversial. What I think is less well understood is how much electronics have transformed LIVE performance. When you go to a live venue, even a small club, every musician on stage is mic'ed through a sound system. The results are often shaped by the sound system and the choices made by the house engineer as much as by the sounds of the musicians on stage.
Think about it. When you go to a medium-sized club, there are generally two big speaker arrays, one on each side of the stage, and maybe some additional cabinets suspended above the proscenium. You are typically hearing absolutely zero from the instruments themselves, uninfluenced by the sound system. The instruments and the electronics are fused into a composite sound. I would call that electronic music, even if the instruments themselves are acoustic.
Of course, there are still some very small performance spaces, mostly in classical or jazz venues, where there is nothing electronic between the player and the listener. But increasingly, even medium-sized classical venues make some subtle use of electronics. It tends to be referred to with euphemisms such as "sound shaping" or "sound reinforcement," and the justification tends to be that the electronics are not for amplification, but rather to correct for acoustic deficiencies in the performance space.
In sum, I'm not denying that the ideal of a transparent acoustic recording or performance is a beautiful thing. It surely is. But there is a whole range of timbres, rhythms, and textures that electronics bring to the party, and a stunningly recorded electronic work is not necessarily better or worse than a stunningly recorded acoustic work.
They are simply different.
If you had to choose between two recordings that you valued equally, with one having great sound quality and the other having poor sound -- most people would choose the better sounding recording. If you would choose differently, and I don't honestly believe that you would, then you are probably a rare exception. Similarly, I think the number of people who shop for music they don't much care for save for the fact that it is wonderfully recorded is very small...perhaps as few as zero.
