Here’s a fun read on the nature of our " vinyl discs"
Mine as well by the way…
Very interesting, and sobering.
Elk, considering the the 1964 time reference, we can take hope. I would imagine as technology
continuosly improves, recording labels will probably work at bringing forth better recordings
of the music we all enjoy so much…
I have a few of those ugh recordings but simply enjoy the music through it all…
Recordings have come along way…
I had a copy on 78 the original South Pacific …for a 78 the recordings were amazing in definition
instruments were not as compressed as I would have suspected…surface noise not bad at all…
I have always maintained a mental distinction between recordings which sound ‘live’ and those which sound ‘good’. In a live performance, even from the best seat in the house, the sound is often less than perfect. If you cannot hear the harpsichord above the screeching of the violins, what was the point of the composer including the harpsichord in his score? Clever use of multiple microphones and mixing can give a listening experience which is better than live, even if it is no longer wholly realistic. I am completely agnostic about this. Modern technology gives another layer of control over the sound. A trumpeter can modify the basic sound of his instrument through use of a mute. Is there any ‘moral’ difference here other than through straying into the murky areas of artistic vision and integrity?
For popular music the engineered sound is the artistic product, and live performances of the music struggle to emulate it satisfactorily. I think that insisting that an album should sound as close to a live recording as possible is arbitrary. I very much enjoy recordings of that sort, so that I can imagine I am present at the performance. I also enjoy recordings which have been massaged to give a better listening experience. Mixing and mastering add another dimension to the production of music, and should be evaluated much as one would judge a performance.
4 Likes
Yes, exactly that - the recording, mixing, and even mastering process is very much part of the musical endeavour (an a mixing desk and associated outboard was always my favourite instrument to play). Whether one likes the result or not is personal taste, but to say it is “not real music” is, quite frankly, utter bullschitt.
3 Likes
As for me…I found this article very informative…thought folks might be interested
in the historical background of complexities found in audio recording…
Yet even so… to enjoy music, either from well performed and recorded to man o’ days
how could this recording have so badly handled…
Either way enjoyment and appreciation of what we have in our music libraries is the goal…
Enjoy y’all
Well, in 1964: quarter-track pre-recorded 7 1/2ips open reel tape would’ve been analog “state-of-the-art” far above mass-produced records retailing for (then) about $4 USD (vs. $8.95 for the rtr counterpart of an album). The tape always had better stereo separation and bass range. I mean: THAT was the closest the consumer market ever got to, literally, having a copy made from a direct safety of a master recording on the same media (basically) the two-channel mixdown was made on. This situation only changed in the '70s; due to: increasing manufacturing cost, as well as the record industry getting copyright laws revised in 1972 which stipulated more expensive licensing fees to tape duplicators (precisely because everyone, especially illegal tape pirates…of all things!) knew at the time open reel was the High End format of home audio.
1 Like