|
Ruphus -> RE: What is flamenco today? (Oct. 14 2015 12:12:44)
|
Ches´,
It´s not about hypothetical potential, but about the leap between good recordings and stellar ones.
Some of the replies here show that the difference is not being understood, and that there is no respect for what it takes to achieve the skills for the difference.
Many musicians, surprisingly, are rather deaf anyway. And those who tinker with prosumer gear in basements, for matter of self-confirmation, anyway.
If you visit AE forums you´ll see what is being said about criteria of private clients. First thing is location. If its beautiful, that´s half the deal. Next thing is large mixer panels, no matter of what crappy build, and naturally the feature of Neumann microphones. And the clients will be coming back, even though the recorded and edited quality of their album indicating that they´d better not.
Same with the countless studio stories of bands whose hearing is compromised. Or worse even, the experience with pre-recorded tracks brought in for mixing. The engineers who don´t need doing any job, usually reject such projects, as it is too frustrating to tweak on end trying to tailor the stuff into a mix. (Related expression: "You can´t polish a turd.")
Just make a search on this and other forums and see how the majority reacts when it comes to refinement through precision in mechanical gear or strobe tuners. They can´t hear what´s lacking without, so that they dismiss it from the get go.
Each to his own, but what I dislike is the levelling-in of top skills (and top gear), and the ignorance and disrespect behind it.
I have heard some really nice tracks from home studio guys, and was quite impressed by what a classical guitarist produced with even just entry level gear in his living room.
Still, I know what the difference would had been if a William Wittman would had been there. Magic, no matter room and gear.
AE on top level is a true and high art, and it is deaf ignorance to dismiss it.
quote:
People also evolve and learn along with the evolution and accessibility of technology.
Right, in the same way like one becomes a flamenco player just by listening to the genre.
Talking out of one´s rear like this:
quote:
the guy in his basement/bedroom now has access to the same tools as the big boys. he can produce a product every bit as good as them ... i think producing an acoustic guitar oriented album is hardly more than a matter of picking a good sounding space and mic'ing technique ... you just need the experience/know-how is based on untrained hearing and bias founded on wishful thinking to advantage amateur trackers´ overview.
quote:
How many flamenco records are big studio productions?
Which is why they often are sound-wise outperformed by productions from decades ago.
quote:
How many of the budget conscious flamenco records sound really bad?
Not sounding bad is a nobrainer in view of highly refined sonics.
Anyway, as deaf as many musicians, and as little discriminate as public may be: Sonic perfection in the end works unconsciously on the listener. It contributes quite some to the perception of music.
And in contrary to arbitrary estimations uttered here, the very least productions leading the billboards come from amateur / semi-pro environment. The very most of them still have been produced in expensive places and by highly rewarded staff.
Even tracks from home studios of rock stars that have been built with great budgets, for most end up as just lead tracks in a pro environment. (Where not seldomly even the material is played in then by professional studio musicians.)
Pretty much everything aimed grand-scale at national / international market has been re-done.
It would be only fair if the uninformed had a little respect for the proficiency of top notch audio engineering and actually go and directly compare home-made or semi-advanced output to professional production, instead of arbitrarily projecting just self-related bias.
Ruphus
|
|
|
|
