Date:Sat, 6 Jan 2007 21:28:11 -0600
Reply-To:Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
Sender:Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
<[log in to unmask]>
From:Scott Phillips <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:Re: It Goes To 11...The Spinal Tap Philosophy.
Comments:To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Your last line says it all. I can't remember the last session I was in
where the drummer/bass player/whatever was told to take a walk so that a
good musician could come in an play the part instead.
-----Original Message-----
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 9:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] It Goes To 11...The Spinal Tap Philosophy.
Hi Aaron:
Your point is very correct. I actually think that you and Parker and I
are now saying different bites of the same pie.
For what it's worth, Mix mag recently had a long article on "Mastering
Today" and several top-level mastering guys opined that the loudness
wars may be winding down from their perspective. So maybe the end of it
that I was talking about is less pronounced (maybe only because numerous
A&R types have lost their jobs due to conglomeration and downsizing?).
But what you're talking about starts with the band's own "studio"
(generally an acoustically poor rehearsal space and their Mac with
Protools). Throwing 50 different "slam it harder" plugins on every track
ends up with the same mush, or worse. And we won't even get into the
pitch-shifting and looping so no one actually has to play a whole song
or do anything in tune anymore. Since I try to keep up with what's going
on with the technology, today's new music sounds just about what I'd
expect given what most of them use to "create" (I would call it
"manufacture") it.
Hey, anyone who throws out a Tap reference must be right! Most of these
new "musicians" will be residing in the Where Are They Now bin very soon
anyway.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Levinson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] It Goes To 11...The Spinal Tap Philosophy.
> Tom-
>
> Both you and Parker are both better versed in the nuances of exactly
what is taking place in the
> Loudness Wars, the two of you are both gifted engineers and understand
the specific deficiencies
> that the signal suffers from and the many sources from which these
errors are introduced. I am not
> disagreeing with either of you on that level. I concede that big
label's are guilty of fostering
> this problem and with your exact and funny"my Britney" reference. That
is indeed the level of
> intelligence that we are dealing with here.
> But what I am saying is that just as the recorded signal is being
deformed and to the detriment of
> all the music that is subjected to it, the Loudness obsession is
originating from and being
> exacerbated by artists too and has been for a long, long time and
offer you the historical
> evidence to make this claim:
>
> *"It Goes To Eleven*"
>
> This reference is probably instanly understood by 90% of people on
this list. It is the most
> famous line from the infamous rockumentary Spinal Tap. I think one of
the reasons that film has
> become the enduring classic it has after 23 years is, in large measure
due to its depressingly
> accurate diagnosis of what makes a rock band bad. Really bad. And I
think that the funniness of
> that line is at heart its absolute truth. I found it telling that both
Parker and the youtube
> video signaled out rock music specifically as the emblematic genre for
the problem. I know
> unequivocally at their core, many rock bands are obsessed with
reaching 11 and have been since The
> Who. I think that the problem we are talking about has its roots as
much in the musicians
> themselves, particularly in rock, where Credibility is still measured
basically in decibels. I am
> respectfully submitting that while I don't deny the labels culpability
I do think and have seen,
> from working with rock bands, that the unfortunate final result of
"going to 11" is operating just
> as powerfully in the aesthetics of rock itself. You may still disagree
with me and feel that the
> pressure really comes from Don Ienner or LA Reid or Lyor Cohen but I
am equally convinced that
> Spinal Tap was utterly correct nearly in its characterization of Rock
music and the Coolness of
> Loud. So, I'm just saying in this war we need to spread the blame
around. I think that is probably
> a 50/50 tug in many cases from both sides, toward 11. As incredible as
it seems, /both/ sides of
> the /music business/ see the War as a win/win situation. I think all
three of us agree that the
> quality of music we must endure after the Loudness Wars is pretty
bleak. We live in a loud age, it
> is one the indisputable facts of modern times. It is a shame to me
that art has been made banal
> and identical by competing in a shouting match, but in my view, the
artists and the suits are
> sharing the Kool-Aid pretty fairly. That is my essential point.
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom Fine wrote:
>> Hi Aaron:
>>
>> I'm a fan of your work, and I think you'd sit there at a mastering
session and fight to preserve
>> dynamics (and the mastering engineer, if he's worth the space he's
occupying, would agree with
>> you anyway), but the whole Loudness War thing is mostly the product
of record company hacks
>> demanding "I want my Britney Spears wannabe to sound as loud as their
Britney Spears wannabe" and
>> passive mastering engineers just going along to cash the check and
keep the client. Bob Orban,
>> the inventor of most of what is used on way out of an FM control room
today, wrote a detailed
>> analysis of what radio stations should DEMAND an end to the "wars"
(see link below).
>> Unfortunately, the same breed of tool runs a typical ClearChannel
region as runs a typical Big
>> Music A&R department today.
>>
>> Hey, kewl. I Googled "Orban loudness wars" and got ... me.
>>
>> Two good articles linked here. And, another in a long list of my
bitching about CD remastering
>> "engineers".
>>
>> Tom Fine wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a link to the actual article in case you want to print for
the files.
>>>
>>>
http://www.austin360.com/music/content/music/stories/xl/2006/09/28cover.
html
>>>
>>> Thanks Dave, this is a good presentation of a vexing self-inflicted
wound.
>>>
>>> I think we've run this issue around, but that might be the Ampex
list. For more perspective, see
>>> Bob
>>> Orban's excellent article:
>>>
http://www.orban.com/support/orban/techtopics/Appdx_Radio_Ready_The_Trut
h_1.3.pdf
>>> which shows that these over-loud CD's sound even worse after being
put through FM processing.
>>>
>>> It's just disgraceful how 50 years of progress in sound recording
and reproduction -- to where
>>> at
>>> least a few recordings each year were truly life-like -- is being
erased in less than a
>>> generation.
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Parker Dinkins"
<[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 6:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Libraries disposing of records
>>
>>
>>> on 1/6/07 5:02 PM US/Central, Aaron Levinson at
aaron.levinson@VERIZON.NET
[log in to unmask]
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Loudness War is
>>>> really the result of radio stations compressing things to death and
to
>>>> place the blame on the labels alone is really just a facile answer
to a
>>>> more complex problem.
>>>
>>> Well, we might disagree there.
>>>
>>> Most of the mastering sessions we do are attended, and most clients
insist
>>> that their CDs be as loud as the one they bring with them for
comparison,
>>> without regard to the preservation of transients.
>>>
>>> As for radio processing, see
>>> http://www.masterdigital.com/24bit/radioprocess.htm.
>>>
>>> What radio stations do is much more than compression. Few audio
engineers
>>> have ever heard of phase rotation, yet virtually all audio you hear
on the
>>> radio undergoes this process.
>>>
>>> Many years ago it was grounds for rejection at the CD pressing plant
if
>>> there were too many 0dBfs samples in a row. Now, it's not uncommon
to see 20
>>> or more in a row on commercially released product. And these CDs are
being
>>> mastered by first tier mastering facilities, with international
reputations,
>>> as well as in house mastering engineers at record labels.
>>>
>>> Instead of radio, many people think the loudness war in CDs was
created by
>>> the CD changer.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, radio processing is also driven by the quest for
loudness, but
>>> rock CDs (for example) when broadcast are made much worse by being
clipped
>>> during the mastering process.
>>>
>>> Radio processing lessens the level differences between various
program
>>> sources; it doesn't increase it.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Parker Dinkins
>>> MasterDigital Corporation
>>> Audio Restoration + CD Mastering
>>> http://masterdigital.com
>>>
>>
>
