Klarinet Archive - Posting 000532.txt from 1999/10

From: "Michael Whight" <michael@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: [kl] Funny Nielsen recording
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 10:24:30 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: Benjamin Maas <benmaas@-----.com>
Subject: RE: [kl] Funny Nielsen recording

> > Having said this I think you would agree that Gould used the
> > studio in a far
> > more creative way than 99% of the recordings sound from the
> > 1980's and 90's.
> > The process of editing to look for a definitive performance actually
kills
> > the creative process because it naturally breaks the flow of expectation
> > between one note and the next no matter how sensitively it is done.
> >
>
> Not necessarily.... What I have been trying to say over the past several
> weeks of posts about recording is that the process is not perfect. When
you
> step into the studio, you need to make a product that is commercially
> viable. Since the advent of tape based recording, splicing has been
> possible. As a result, the general audience's acceptance of mistakes has
> been pretty low. Most "live" performance recordings these days are
edited.
>
> I don't want be an arrogant snot, but with a statement like the one above,
> you obviously have no idea what is possible on today's editing
workstations.
> Today we have the capability of editing with the accuracy of 1 sample.
That
> means 1/44,100 second (with new technology, now 1/96,000 sec.) We can
> manipulate sound in ways that you wouldn't be able to dream of.

Well yes I am well aware of what is possible but just because we have the
technology doesn't necessarily mean that it is good to use it. I am not in
favour of trying to produce a "definative" recording- in fact I am against
anyone trying to tell the public what is " the best" as the whole process
seems to me to be contrary to what live music is all about. My posting is
not against your prowess as an engineer/producer but rather more directed to
the industry. I would like to see recording become different to a live
performance and I hinted at this with my reference to Glen Gould who as you
probably know experimented with distancing. The problem with recordings is
that they are too permanent. In an ideal world you would like to have as
many recordings of an artist playing the same piece so that you can get
several snapshots into the mind of the performer on different occasions. In
this way the idea of something which is definative and to be emulated would
become less rigid. It is perhaps the sterility of the recording process even
at the best of times that has turned people off buying and maybe with the
advent of being able to buy live recordings of concerts(unedited) the
public will realise that a standard recording can only be the next best
thing to going to a live performance. The edited live recording is a good
first step towards bringing a sense of occasion to a recording.
>
>
> > > As a musician and recording engineer, I am a firm believer in editing.
> > > However, when I run a session, I like to take complete takes
> > and use that
> > > for most of the final edits. Anything not covered in complete
> > takes gets
> > > fixed, but usually in chunks large enough to keep musical continuity.
> >
> > Good policy if you want a flawless product but how much better would the
> > result be with a fine performance with a few blips. What is your view of
> > recording? Is it to try to capture the performance or produce a
flawless
> > product?
>
> Once again, I don't want to burst your bubble, but this flawless product
is
> what is required in this day and age. I don't believe in 1,000 edit per
> piece projects. If you can't play it, don't record it. If the performer
is
> good enough to give a convincing performance, it WILL come through on the
> CD. The bad recordings I have made haven't been because of the technical
> side of things, but because of a substandard performance. With good
> musicians, it always shows through regardless of what is happening behind
> the glass.

Not necessarily. You are talking now as a businessman and I can well
understand the pressures to achieve this goal. However would it not be
better to record the atmosphere of a performance. Some of my favourite
recordings come off the radio from live concerts. The engineering of these
can be questionable and there may be many mistakes but all of them have a
feeling of interaction. I guess for me it's the difference between going to
the movies or hiring a video. And again technical wizardry can make the
average performer sound fantastic. Is this right?
>
> > >
> > > One last bit of editing lore... M. Pollini's recording of the Chopin
> > > Etudes. Op. 10. #1 is rumored to have about 1,000 edits in it.
> > For those
> > > of you who don't know the piece, it equates to one edit every 3 notes.
> > With
> > > today's digital technologies, it is not only possible, but standard
and
> > > you'd never know...
> >
> > Bet you I would!
> >
>
> Comments like this are totally un-needed. When I edit a project, *I*
> wouldn't be able to tell that it has been edited. AND I DID IT!!!! I can
> look at the little edit panel on the workstation and see the little lines
> indicating edits, but when I have done my job well, you can't hear it.
Not
> even on headphones. I have, at times, spliced inside a note, I have even
> spliced inside words (in a spoken word recording), and many other places.
>
> Granted, there are a lot of bad engineers and bad editors working out
there.
> Engineering is just like playing.... There are good engineers and bad
ones.
> Just as all of you out there on this list don't play in the Chicago
> Symphony, not all engineers are good enough to work for Deuche Grammophon,
> Telarc, or Dorian. As an engineer, I am appalled at the quality of many of
> the recordings out there. I have head CDs with massive clipping on it (so
> bad I had to return it as it was unlistenable), CDs with splices that can
be
> heard. (most often in a reverb trail) The point here is that with good
> performers and engineering, you'd never know the difference.

Again I have not sought to attack your prowess and you seem to be taking
this very personally. With good engineering you are right that it is
possible not to hear the snips but my point is that despite this degree of
technical skill you can still hear the degradation of performance whether it
be in the architecture of the performance or the interaction with the
listener. This is subjective I admit but I can usually tell if something has
been over engineered. No matter how technically superb it can still be dead
and this can have nothing to do with the ability of the performer.
>

>
> Michael
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
> Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
> Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
> Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org