quite simple Robin, my main point is as follows:
you stated: 'because the ideal has not been reached in a
demonstrable number of existing artefacts, there is something wrong with th=
e
ideal itself'
my view is simply that I don't not agree that there is such a thing as this=
ideal & that whatever it is that is being referred to is not something tha=
t should be seen as the 'right' way to do things. It is just one way.
The 'ideal' you seem to be speaking about is just an invention & if we take=
your point about electroacoustic / acousmatic music then i'd argue that of=
the material that was studio based it was recorded in different studios wi=
th very different ideas of build. Furthermore you'll find that institutions=
like GRM for example were not, are not concerned with neutrally tuned room=
s per say & most of the composers involved in these forms of music play wit=
h sound in spaces. I doubt any of them would argue that there is an ideal s=
pace or that all music / sound should be mixed & edited there. Most created=
/ create works in different spaces & the edit was done in a variety of dif=
ferent ways / locations.
I'll state again that I have no problem with studios, with tuned rooms or t=
he different ways in which people use them. I just hold the view that what =
matters is the result & the ability of music / sound to be creative, intere=
sting, engaging, emotive etc etc does not depend on these things.
There is one thing you've said here that I think is key: the fact that a st=
udio might have been built to some 'ideal' for transparency but, as you've =
stated, the mixing is actually done in the control room & these are not spa=
ces that are built to be neutral at all. In fact every studio i've ever bee=
n in (including some of the worlds 'best') has had a totally different set =
up & each engineer has their own favourite speakers / position of speakers =
etc etc.
'A studio is not supposed to provide an enjoyable listening experience. Ins=
tead, it is designed to support a clinical and exacting listening experienc=
e, so that the sonic result, played back in more comfortable and varied env=
irons, will be as good as possible despite these vagaries' - i'd disagree=
with this Robin. Its not the way studios were ever built & furthermore its=
not the way they operate at all when it comes to mixing / editing. As near=
as they get to this is that, especially in the route to mastering, attempt=
s are made to make the music sound ok on different speakers - this again is=
100% subjective & more to the point is based, again, on mainstream ideas o=
f popular music culture. Interestingly when you refer to classical music re=
cordings what you find here is that these attempts are narrowed significant=
ly. The way most classical mixing is done is to leave the path as clear as =
possible & to include the dynamics of the room & the effect on the tone of =
the instrument intact. Very rarely are recordings put through the same proc=
ess of testing for compatibility with different listening environments.
I don't think we're going to agree on the basic points here Robin but I sta=
nd by the entire history of music & sound - in so much as it has, up until =
the 20th century been pushed forward, developed & enriched by work created =
outside of studio environments &, i'll place my bet on the fact that the wo=
rk that is & will be seen as having done the same more recently will be tha=
t which plays with these spaces & hasn't attempted to be made in any 'ideal=
' - whatever that is. If there really was an ideal then all studios would b=
e made that way & all musicians / artists would pick the same one. In truth=
they pick the producer or do it themselves because they want the human. Th=
ey want to record the sound 'well' (based on pop culture history & the soun=
d engineering ideas of mainstream technical experts who's ideas of what con=
stitutes music / sound are also subjective) & then have it moulded by an in=
dividual set of ears. The content matters & that is audible through our emo=
tive response to the music too.
there is no ideal Robin.
--- In "robin_parmar_sound" <> w=
rote:
>
> 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=
listening room for mixing (let's call it a studio, though the correct term=
is really control room), is not an argument for abandoning that ideal in t=
he first place. Every recording engineer knows well the impossibility of pe=
rfection.
>
> > 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 t=
he above. Your contention is that because the ideal has not been reaching i=
n a demonstrable number of existing artefacts, there is something wrong wit=
h 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" =
has in fact been made in excellent studio circumstances, with equipment I c=
ould only dream of. We could start with just about all electroacoustic and =
acousmatic music, add in anything ever recorded by the major radio institut=
ions, and keep going from there.
>
> But if we restrict the discussion to nature recordings, I can posit some =
explanations.
>
> First, perhaps many of these mixes were made on headphones, instead of st=
udio speakers, thus being in accordance with my initial statement that it w=
as better and easier for most of us to mix this way. (The price of good hea=
dphones being a couple of orders of magnitude less than good speakers and r=
oom treatment.)
>
> Second, very little mixing in fact occurs on nature recordings. Generally=
one records in stereo and, after tidying up the files with a bit of trimmi=
ng and EQ, releases the tracks in the same way. Yes, I do realise there can=
be much more to it than that, but the purist nature recording ethos almost=
mandates getting it right in the recorder. Thus the mix environment has si=
gnificantly 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. Onl=
y in the worst cases would we be likely to tell by listening to the end res=
ult. But if we have the source tapes we would be dismayed at how much bette=
r the results should be. Which is to say that, without a reference, the son=
ic 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 sour=
ce material, we know what a Steinway Grand should sound like, we know a goo=
d room when we hear it. The more recitals we have been to, the more we form=
our own idealised sonic result and the easier this task of discrimination =
gets. The same can be done for natural sounds, but the number of variables =
are much greater, so the degree of discrimination is also much less.
>
> For example, choose one subject, say the bittern, and find recordings of =
the characteristic booming. (I pick this example after enjoying such a reco=
rding recently posted to this list.) When we listen to these recordings, it=
is rather unlikely that the aesthetics of the recording itself will be for=
emost in our mind (unless it is severely lacking and calls notice to itself=
in this way). Rather, we listen *for the subject*, and forgive a good deal=
of sonic mayhem that a BBC engineer recording Chopin would never countenan=
ce.
>
> In other words, the listening experiences are not the same. My point of v=
iew supports the plurality of listening(s) that you are also calling for, b=
ut 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 exp=
erience. Instead, it is designed to support a clinical and exacting listeni=
ng experience, so that the sonic result, played back in more comfortable an=
d 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 da=
rned eclectic. The last three groups I mentioned in public discussion are T=
he Pop Group, The Fire Engines, and The Passage, so consider that a start. =
The next concert I'll be attending is Einstein on the Beach. So I hardly th=
ink I'm writing from some MOR perspective.
>
> But this is irrelevant. The aesthetics of production is a separate matter=
from 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 no=
w demonstrated.
>
> -- Robin Parmar
>
|