d
Date: Sat May 26, 2012 5:45 pm ((PDT))
Jez wrote:
> as per my reply to Dan, there's no such thing as a
> neutral space - every bit of equipment has its own 'sound'.
The fact that in practice we can never reach, but only approach, an ideal l=
istening room for mixing (let's call it a studio, though the correct term i=
s really control room), is not an argument for abandoning that ideal in the=
first place. Every recording engineer knows well the impossibility of perf=
ection.
> when it comes to field recordings (used in
> whatever context) i'd put money on the fact
> that 99% of the work out there (on cd, lp,
> in libraries etc etc) hasn't been anywhere
> near a 'studio'.
I don't debate this fact, but in essence your point is a restatement of the=
above. Your contention is that because the ideal has not been reaching in =
a demonstrable number of existing artefacts, there is something wrong with =
the ideal itself. This simply doesn't follow.
> Given the point you're making here Robin,
> how would you account for the fact that the
> vast, vast majority of work in field recording,
> sound art & experimental or creative music has
> had no connection to studio production ?
That is too broad a statement. A lot of "experimental or creative music" ha=
s in fact been made in excellent studio circumstances, with equipment I cou=
ld only dream of. We could start with just about all electroacoustic and ac=
ousmatic music, add in anything ever recorded by the major radio institutio=
ns, and keep going from there.
But if we restrict the discussion to nature recordings, I can posit some ex=
planations.
First, perhaps many of these mixes were made on headphones, instead of stud=
io speakers, thus being in accordance with my initial statement that it was=
better and easier for most of us to mix this way. (The price of good headp=
hones being a couple of orders of magnitude less than good speakers and roo=
m treatment.)
Second, very little mixing in fact occurs on nature recordings. Generally o=
ne records in stereo and, after tidying up the files with a bit of trimming=
and EQ, releases the tracks in the same way. Yes, I do realise there can b=
e much more to it than that, but the purist nature recording ethos almost m=
andates getting it right in the recorder. Thus the mix environment has sign=
ificantly less impact than in other sonic genres. But, don't get me wrong, =
this is not to say it has no impact or that one shouldn't still be aware of=
the limitations imposed by the studio.
Third, it could well be that there are significant problems in the mixes of=
many of these releases, induced by lack of room treatment and so on. Only =
in the worst cases would we be likely to tell by listening to the end resul=
t. But if we have the source tapes we would be dismayed at how much better =
the results should be. Which is to say that, without a reference, the sonic=
ideal cannot be judged.
Fourth, following on the previous fact, consider how easy it is to judge a =
recording of, say, Chopin waltzes on a particular piano. We know the source=
material, we know what a Steinway Grand should sound like, we know a good =
room when we hear it. The more recitals we have been to, the more we form o=
ur own idealised sonic result and the easier this task of discrimination ge=
ts. The same can be done for natural sounds, but the number of variables ar=
e much greater, so the degree of discrimination is also much less.
For example, choose one subject, say the bittern, and find recordings of th=
e characteristic booming. (I pick this example after enjoying such a record=
ing recently posted to this list.) When we listen to these recordings, it i=
s rather unlikely that the aesthetics of the recording itself will be forem=
ost in our mind (unless it is severely lacking and calls notice to itself i=
n this way). Rather, we listen *for the subject*, and forgive a good deal o=
f sonic mayhem that a BBC engineer recording Chopin would never countenance=
.
In other words, the listening experiences are not the same. My point of vie=
w supports the plurality of listening(s) that you are also calling for, but=
without denying audio engineering.
> Personally, I like working with spatial
> acoustics in situ & this is always far,
> far more interesting a listening experience
> than using a studio.
Naturally. A studio is not supposed to provide an enjoyable listening exper=
ience. Instead, it is designed to support a clinical and exacting listening=
experience, so that the sonic result, played back in more comfortable and =
varied environs, will be as good as possible despite these vagaries.
> My own view is that I have never really been
> that interested in some 'middle of the road'
> idea of production that says the same thing
> to all listeners. It has to be personal for me.
I agree. Want a list of my favourite recording artists? It'd be pretty darn=
ed eclectic. The last three groups I mentioned in public discussion are The=
Pop Group, The Fire Engines, and The Passage, so consider that a start. Th=
e next concert I'll be attending is Einstein on the Beach. So I hardly thin=
k I'm writing from some MOR perspective.
But this is irrelevant. The aesthetics of production is a separate matter f=
rom room tuning.
> Furthermore I do ask whether assuming that
> listeners can't / don't respond to such
> work in the same meaningful way as they
> could to work produced in 'neutrally tuned
> spaces' is somewhat of a, shall we say,
> tricky view to hold.
Not at all, since the matters are not even congruent, as I hope I have now =
demonstrated.
-- Robin Parmar
|