> In preparing a recording for listening I would say
> that achieving some
> 'invisibility' of editing/mixing should be a
> paramount goal.
I've been lurking here sporadically for a few
months.....
and now I see a juicy subject that I can't resist on a
Sunday....!
but...SHOULD is a mighty big word!!!
I think it all depends on what claims you stake for
your work...
...aren't these all questions of personal taste and
also a person's (recordist's) place in history.....?
(what seems invisible today won't nec. seem so
tomorrow)
And then there's the matter of airplanes.
Should they stay in the mix or not?
I've always appreciated for instance Francisco Lopez's
take on this matter, with the emphasis on
subjectivity....
with the implication being that, in our rush to be
"truthful", authentic
and real, we invariably are covering up our own
presence, our trying to,
thus leading us down the road of faking, forgery and
simulation.......
rather than ddown the very road of authenticity we
aspire to.....
even the mic we choose can play a huge role in the
reality of the recording.....and will ultimately
reflect all kinds of things about us, for instance,
how much money we have to spend on toys, or how much
gall we have for keeeping a pair of schoeps in the
closet and recording with a homemade contact mic
instead.......
for my own part I love rich sounds of all
kinds.....but particularly the ones that ask me
unanswerable questions about how exactly they were
made.....
anyhow, thanks everyone for all the stimulating emails
in my box and
best,
chris kubick
>
> Danny
>
>
> >
> > ps, hyper-real is perhaps not a word that conveys
> precisely my
> > intent. is there a more typical word to refer to
> recordings where it
> > seems as if the sound was manipulated to make it
> sound better than
> > real, but does not?
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
|