| March 24th, 2005 09:32 AM |
|
|
| maumau |
and yes  let's wait and listen!
be it digital or analog
let's do it raw and dirty! |
| March 24th, 2005 09:47 AM |
|
|
| ResidentMule |
Beck isn't enough to change my mind at all about digital recording. sounds just as sterile as anything else. sure, he can add distortion to make it sound gritty - but just listen to it, and ask yourself, was this recorded digitally or with analog. no way does the digital recording pass off as something truly natural.
sure you can make a decent record with digital recording, but why even bother? |
| March 24th, 2005 10:32 AM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
T&A wrote:
it's news - but, at the risk of being a wet blanket - why "good" news? The quality of the album will be judged when it's heard. It could still be a piece of crap.
agree 100%
saying "theres rockers, blues and reggae" on it means nothing really. Aside from the fact they probably havent yet chosen what songs are going to be on it, it says nothing about the quality of the songs, which in the end, is all that matters.
the hype season really is beginning to kick in!
Good to see I'm not alone in finding the hysteria and hype over this album ridiculously premature, especially considering the fact it isnt even near finished yet. I'll judge it with my own ears.
[Edited by Gazza] |
| March 24th, 2005 10:44 AM |
|
|
| Nasty Habits |
quote:
maumau wrote:
"I just hope they don't go too far with this digital recording and make songs that won't transfer too well to a live setting"
i think this is another point completely and i agree with that
sometimes there is a naivety in the approach to a new technology so that one thinks "if i can, i have to"
the result can be something worn out by overproduction
i agree with you JJF i like the rawness of the stones
i am just saying that you can have something raw even with a digital recording approach and production
you could have tracks cut live in the place and then different textures of instruments to pile up dirt on them and not to clean them
loops are not clean, loops can be very dirty
i would like to stress again Beck as an example. He is basically a country musician, but he also love funk very much, and in many ways his approach to music is punk.
He makes massive use of loops, his approach is electric/electronic in playing and digital in editing and producing his own music
the result is often a steaming love machine, and his live act is absolutely awesome, his music, though made according to a digital approach, is meant to be played on stage
I hear what you're saying, but I like the first three Beck records, the best, which sound like he's trying to reach for symphonic electronic overdubbing with little more than analog equipment. Mellow Gold's still got the most majesty for me because it sounds like a jug band trying to play modern music. As terrifickly ear-candy-cional as his last four records (Odelay, Mutations, Midnite, Sea Change) and the mixes I've heard of the Guapo are, they still make no genuine dive beneath the surface and a lot of that has to do with digital construction. I'll take Fume or the Truck Driving Neighbors Downstairs over Brenda most of the time.
My take on this "digital recording" thing, if this rumor is to be made any sense at all, is that they're using DAT in a kind of home audio environment, which doesn't mean lots of layers, it might mean less.
All in all it doesn't matter if they don't have a bunch of super good songs, and I totally agree with Gazza - this particular bunch of monged-rumors is the most ridiculous I've ever seen. If I had to put up with this kind of scrutiny I would never get anything done. |
| March 24th, 2005 10:54 AM |
|
|
| Snappy McJack |
quote:
Nasty Habits wrote:
As terrifickly ear-candy-cional as his last four records (Odelay, Mutations, Midnite, Sea Change) and the mixes I've heard of the Guapo[..]
I believe it's called "Guero" -- which I believe is Spanish slang for "White Boy". |
| March 24th, 2005 02:04 PM |
|
|
| MidnightRambler |
I dunno...I think that picture is NOT from 2004 but rather 1997 from the Bridges sessions. Here is the only other picture from those sessions and I think both pictures were from the same day. Although it's hard to tell due to the picture's lack of color--it looks like they're wearing the exact clothes they are in the IORR cover.
http://www.rollingstonesnet.com/lostreco.htm
[Edited by MidnightRambler] |
| March 24th, 2005 02:18 PM |
|
|
| maumau |
nasty habits: i see what you mean, to me, i would not divide beck's album in earlier versus late. i don't think there's nothing candy about odelay, but there is a lot in midnite, i love mellow gold as mush as sea change, i think one foot is unaccomplished as much as mutations, anyway it's taste
about the hype and the fact that you and others repeat: we'll judge when we'll hear it. what can i say? you're right, it's obvious, so...let's talk about weather, or the past, or the ungliest women on earth...bah
about the photo: it would be most unfair, i cannot believe IORR being so unfair, but the photo posted by midnight rambler is very very similar.... 
|
| March 24th, 2005 03:24 PM |
|
|
| Gazza |
quote:
MidnightRambler wrote:
I dunno...I think that picture is NOT from 2004 but rather 1997 from the Bridges sessions. Here is the only other picture from those sessions and I think both pictures were from the same day. Although it's hard to tell due to the picture's lack of color--it looks like they're wearing the exact clothes they are in the IORR cover.
http://www.rollingstonesnet.com/lostreco.htm
I see what you mean. Even the guitar is the same. I have to say when I did see that photo at first (I've had the magazine for a couple of months) it struck me that both Mick and Keith looked surprisingly more youthful than usual. Looking at the IORR cover again, Keith doesnt have the fishhooks etc in his hair, which he only started sporting during the No Security tour in early 1999. His hair is thicker and grey.
The credits in IORR just say "Keith Richards and Mick Jagger in studio by Kevin Mazur, Contour Photos/AllOver Press". No date given. I just took it that it was a recent photo, taken during the November 04 sessions (the room has a sort of 'homely' look, which would give the impression it was a home studio). Bjornulf has mentioned in a recent similar thread on IORR that it's from 2004 and that he has about ten of Kevin's photos from the same session, but I think in this case he's not correct. |
| March 24th, 2005 05:54 PM |
|
|
| prism |
Mick likes to record on his Apple, but I don't think Keith will go for that. |
| March 24th, 2005 09:38 PM |
|
|
| corgi37 |
So what about recording digitally? Everyone has been doing it since 1984. Just plug your guitar straight into the console, and add any effect you like. At home, i tape myself on old Phillips cassettes, then simply record it all straight to hard drive, convert it to WAV, and add all the magic fairy dust from Cool Edit Pro.
See, if i am playing live drums, i set up my (very) basic set- up of cassetted deck and 2 not too bad mikes. Record it. Download it. Then, i burn it, play it back in my garage (studio) and play live guitar to it. Tape the guitar, then download that. Add some fairy dust (echo, martian space fx, whatever), burn a new cd-r of the guitar and drum tracks, then add annother guitar. This time, maybe acoustic. And on and on it goes.
Some times, i just "make" a drum track using soundfonts from Fruity Loops - and just add guitars. Vocals? I add them last, then touch them up with some slight reverb and some compresssion.
It's all digital - yet, its not!
You guys dig? If i can do it on a 6 year old computer with only WIn98, a 500hz processor and wires everywhere, imagine what the Stones (or anyoned else for that matter) is doing? I guarantee the White Stripes new cd isnt all "live"!!
And, dont forget, b2b is so old, imagine the ancient shit they worked on then! Not even Win98 wasout! And, Britney was still a Mousekateer! |
| March 24th, 2005 10:20 PM |
|
|
| J.J.Flash |
quote:
corgi37 wrote:
So what about recording digitally? Everyone has been doing it since 1984. Just plug your guitar straight into the console, and add any effect you like. At home, i tape myself on old Phillips cassettes, then simply record it all straight to hard drive, convert it to WAV, and add all the magic fairy dust from Cool Edit Pro.
See, if i am playing live drums, i set up my (very) basic set- up of cassetted deck and 2 not too bad mikes. Record it. Download it. Then, i burn it, play it back in my garage (studio) and play live guitar to it. Tape the guitar, then download that. Add some fairy dust (echo, martian space fx, whatever), burn a new cd-r of the guitar and drum tracks, then add annother guitar. This time, maybe acoustic. And on and on it goes.
Some times, i just "make" a drum track using soundfonts from Fruity Loops - and just add guitars. Vocals? I add them last, then touch them up with some slight reverb and some compresssion.
It's all digital - yet, its not!
You guys dig? If i can do it on a 6 year old computer with only WIn98, a 500hz processor and wires everywhere, imagine what the Stones (or anyoned else for that matter) is doing? I guarantee the White Stripes new cd isnt all "live"!!
And, dont forget, b2b is so old, imagine the ancient shit they worked on then! Not even Win98 wasout! And, Britney was still a Mousekateer!
King Corgi, you Aussie muttafucka.....do ya work for any editorial section?!? Man...... I love every fuckin' thing you write..... as my fellow Joeykins.... no matter what you say..... Christ..... it is the way you say the things.....
Cheers! |
| March 24th, 2005 10:30 PM |
|
|
| voodoopug |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
agree 100%
saying "theres rockers, blues and reggae" on it means nothing really. Aside from the fact they probably havent yet chosen what songs are going to be on it, it says nothing about the quality of the songs, which in the end, is all that matters.
the hype season really is beginning to kick in!
Good to see I'm not alone in finding the hysteria and hype over this album ridiculously premature, especially considering the fact it isnt even near finished yet. I'll judge it with my own ears.
[Edited by Gazza]
I agree 100 percent. I enjoy the hype surrounding the stones whenever it comes, but this is definitely way to premature. Saying that it contains some blues, reggae, rockers, etc, could describe just about any album released by anyone even remotely in the Stones genre.
The Fenway park hype at least holds some truths behind it and i enjoy that hype. Until we get our "first listen" to album track, it is impossible to rate it... |
| March 25th, 2005 01:01 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
I did research and the last analog album for the Stones was Tattoo You. The last album in a house, I mean ALL there? They never did a whole album in that way, this will be the first. |
| March 25th, 2005 03:15 PM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
[quote]MidnightRambler wrote:
I dunno...I think that picture is NOT from 2004 but rather 1997 from the Bridges sessions. Here is the only other picture from those sessions and I think both pictures were from the same day. Although it's hard to tell due to the picture's lack of color--it looks like they're wearing the exact clothes they are in the IORR cover.
http://www.rollingstonesnet.com/lostreco.htm
______________________________________________________________________
You and Gazza need to stop fuckin with my head.
Now I'm......"back to zero"
Ian |
| March 25th, 2005 08:57 PM |
|
|
| Soldatti |
quote:
IanBillen wrote:
You and Gazza need to stop fuckin with my head.
Now I'm......"back to zero"
Ian
Why?
We will get many pics (+DVD?) from the new session later. |
| March 25th, 2005 09:25 PM |
|
|
| T&A |
quote:
maumau wrote:
about the hype and the fact that you and others repeat: we'll judge when we'll hear it. what can i say? you're right, it's obvious, so...let's talk about weather, or the past, or the ungliest women on earth...bah
fine by me. the point being that the thread is titled: "Good news" - to which I say, it's not. it's merely information, mostly not new. The "goodness" is unknown. The weather in SF, by the by, is spectacular! |
| March 25th, 2005 10:15 PM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
Soldatti wrote:
Why?
We will get many pics (+DVD?) from the new session later.
_______________________________________________________________________
No I figure that. I was just excited about the gritty background and Keith's old guitar and all. I thought wow, looks like they skipped the glamorous studio thing this time around and stripped it down to the core in order to dig deep and really do some good song writing. As well as try a no non-sense enviorment for possibly recording a gritty raw no nonsense piece.
That is why I was truly excited by the pic.
Oh well, I guess it doesn't always matter. This photo was taken from the B2B sessions. And look at Bridges....not the most cohesive Stones Work. (but still a real good album.)
Ian
|
| March 26th, 2005 12:35 AM |
|
|
| IanBillen |
quote:
Soldatti wrote:
I did research and the last analog album for the Stones was Tattoo You. The last album in a house, I mean ALL there? They never did a whole album in that way, this will be the first.
____________________________________________________________________
Great Research Job,
I for one really appreciate it and I think alot of folks are set at ease with the Digital Thing. Pro-Tools, Digital Hard Drives, ADAT Machines etc. etc. play a part in every single major studio in the world. There is no way to get around it really.
Secondly: Just because there is digital somewhere in the recording chain doesn't mean it will sound "cold", "tinny", or too "clean". There are a BILLION ways to record and the way it's done and the tricks used is what really makes the difference.
....In one way or another every single CD ever produced went digital in the end. A CD is a digital format. Reguardless, it doesn't really mean anything. Look how nice and warm the remasters sound. They were all remastered digitally using the new SA-CD encoding/decoding process known as DSD (direct stream digital). The live, realness, and dynamics are really good. Plus it keeps it warm sounding. Oh-Oh, Does this mean this release will be an SACD Hybrid??? I surely hope. What a great sound it is.
Ian |
|
CHAT
ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]