Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Celluloid vs digital: what are the REAL differences?
40hz:
I agree with the historical value of celluloid. It should be preserved and encouraged as an art form. But it shouldn't be used as a criticism against digital. I really dislike that.
-superboyac (August 05, 2014, 03:33 PM)
--- End quote ---
My feeling is why chose one or the other when you can have both?
Like analog vs digital - or tube vs solid state - in music technology. Just mix and match for the results you're shooting for and enjoy the best of both worlds.
Edvard:
Pointless meanderings about technology in musicRE: the heavy metal rant video:
I used to have a rant down pat about the damaging effects of vinyl vs. CD on the music 'scene' in general. It was a rather similar argument that basically more mediocre bands could be signed and make money for the record company because CD technology was dirt cheap but cost fans half again what they would pay previously for tape and vinyl. It used to be that when a record company signed a band and put out a record, they were taking a risk that damn well had to pay off, or people would be fired and bands would get dropped. After CD technology became the norm, the risk factor ceased to be an effective 'talent filter' and the quality of music in general went down (to my ears, anyway).
A similar thing going on in his rant, that basically bedroom jukebox heroes can take up a few plugins and a DAW and become superstars overnight, with the corollary lack of talent and experience suddenly being the technology's responsibility. I don't think (and neither does the guy in the video) that bedroom production is generally bad (I do this myself, without the 'overnight superstar' part :-[), but he's right that if someone or group of someones has the audacity to call themselves 'musicians' they had better well be able to pay off the risk to fans buying tickets or paying cover charge, and entertain the folks who bothered to show up. If you're dashingly interesting or laudably skillful you'll be probably do well. If you need your bedroom get-up to do anything at all, you're not 'there' yet (IMHO).
The bottom line is, talent (whether the abundance or lack thereof) will shine through no matter the medium. Ginger Baker will never need time-sync, whether on tape or bits (though he's probably good enough he'll be accused of it), and the average bedroom finger-drummer with 24-bit stereo samples will be exposed the first time he gets handed the hickory and skins.
Technology has taken the place of quality
--- End quote ---
Yep, I believe it. I remember the 'demo tape' days of the '80s when a jam session recorded on a boombox in the middle of the basement practice space would be enough to get attention if the band was good enough. Not so much as a 'click track' to be found, but the talent was still glaringly obvious. Seems these days, "plugins covereth a multitude of sins" ;)
they are fantastic writing tools
--- End quote ---
Yes. I first started recording myself when I got a Tascam Porta-05 cassette 4-track at a pawn shop in 1991. I must have written about 25 or more songs in the 4 years after. However, no way would any of those tracks see the light of day without an accompanying band and proper studio treatment. I feel the same way today even with my modern DAW, finely-coded plugins, and carefully-chosen amp and speaker simulations. I'm even excited about projects like LANDR that seek to automate the mastering process. Polished though it may turn out to be, I had better have the talent and chops to back up the polish that modern tools allow me to aspire to before I release a single note.
would autotune make bohemian rhapsody better?
--- End quote ---
Queen was at the top of their game with plenty of steam left when they made that track, and it sounds like the recording process was the result of top talent struggling with technological limitations as well: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1995_articles/oct95/queen.html
Modern recording techniques would have made it cleaner perhaps, but then it would have lost much of it's charm, 'grit' and what-have-you that made it such a landmark production of it's time. Put a mediocre talent, inexperienced, modern 'artist' in front of the raw tape and live backing they had back then, and it would fall apart quickly.
machines push sound. people make music
--- End quote ---
An echo of my sentiment when replying to somebody pointing out the potential technical difficulties of using Linux as a digital recording platform: "I will ALWAYS say, however, use what works for you. Killer tracks are made by people, not operating systems. ;)"
BACK ON TOPIC:
The argument can be said much the same about film vs. digital
There are supremely talented photographers out there plying their craft using DSLRs and Photoshop, and there are visionless shutterbugs thinking that real film has some sort of 'magic' that will transmogrify their flat, underexposed snapshots into timeless classics. The argument used to be pixel density vs. film grain, but with gigapixel cameras in the lowliest of feature phones, that's gone out the window. I agree with the basic premise that there is no longer an argument of which technology is inherently 'better', all that is left to judge upon is the talent showcased in it's use.
superboyac:
, all that is left to judge upon is the talent showcased in it's use.
-Edvard (August 06, 2014, 02:37 AM)
--- End quote ---
I like that. :up:
Renegade:
Check it out:
-40hz (July 31, 2014, 12:37 PM)
--- End quote ---
I LOVED that! :D
At first I'm thinking of a specific song as a stellar example of great playing & audio engineering, then the first band he plays - same band! :D
(I loved the Brittany jabs!)
But on a bit more meta level, abstracting out a bit, the core of this boils down to the ability of humans to be imperfect in interesting ways.
Here's an example of combining that high tech stuff with that more fluid human "groove" (also NSFW):
Right at the start in the melody line (cello), you can hear a slow down in the tempo -- like a "stagger" -- but it still keeps the beat. That's done by a human playing to start - it's not programming. But, it's still all done electronically.
It gets to the point of homogeneity or uniformity or conformity or predictability - I hope I've sort of made the point. I don't feel like typing an essay.
The same principle goes on and on for many other things.
People often crave predictability like junkies crave heroin. Sometimes there is little to distinguish humans from much lower lifeforms.
Digital delivers predictability in ways that analog doesn't.
For video vs. audio, I think there is a very big difference. Our visual environment is much more constant than our audio environment, so the predictability in video (visuals) is less of a "jarring" experience when digital. Sound on the other hand isn't predictable like visuals are. Things enter our field of vision more gradually than sounds do. (Usually.)
But, as mentioned above, the right tools for the right job to create the right product/experience. They're only tools for the artist.
There are engineers out there that can actually not abuse the b'jeez out of digital technology, or than can really make it work much harder.
Here is an example. Here's the original song:
And a "cover":
Now to illustrate a bit there, 2 screenshots:
The guys doing the original have a TRUCKLOAD of better equipment and professional audio engineers -- they have massive production behind them. The fellow doing the cover doesn't. He's just a dude at home doing cool stuff.
What you can see in the cover though is that Zhou Tong uses a far wider dynamic range and manages to build tension far better than the original.
Look for the slope in the waveforms.
In the original it's relatively flat. That's what commercial audio engineers do.
In the cover, it builds and builds much more. That's what artists do.
Check that same tactic out with a LOT of classical music. You'll see the same thing. They know how to build tension to rouse emotion.
The clinical approaches in a lot of what happens today are stale, dead, lifeless -- they're trapped in a sterile corporate culture of lifelessness fueled by LCD - the lowest common denominator. That's what buddy in the video 40hz was going on about - the lack of life.
It's not the tools. It's the artist.
40hz:
The clinical approaches in a lot of what happens today are stale, dead, lifeless -- they're trapped in a sterile corporate culture of lifelessness fueled by LCD - the lowest common denominator. That's what buddy in the video 40hz was going on about - the lack of life. -Renegade (August 08, 2014, 08:23 AM)
--- End quote ---
Unless, of course, you actually like that sort of thing. No accounting for taste, but far be it from me to tell somebody what they should be listening to or watching.
It's not the tools. It's the artist.
--- End quote ---
It's also the audience. If you do your art purely for art's sake, there's no need to publish it. You just do it for yourself. Like Emily Dickenson.
But if you want somebody else to experience it, it's a little more complicated. The audience has rights too. It's not all about the artist once you take it public.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version