|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
100.35.67.208
In Reply to: RE: Madeline requests that you read her essay before commenting posted by Chris from Lafayette on April 16, 2017 at 17:03:15
C'mon Chris, flubs restore the human element? Who wants to hear the same mistakes over and over every time ya listen to a recording? Does anyone go to a concert hoping to hear a pianist screw up the first 4 bars of a sonata so that it sounds more "human"? I doubt that clarinetist is "thrilled" to have his flub on that recording because it makes him sound "human".
If mistakes represent the human element why not write them in? Think how much more "human" pieces could sound. For variety you could write in a few blatantly wrong notes for the clarinet to be played on Monday's performance, on Tuesday the first trumpet could blat out a high C three bars early, on Wed. the 2nd bassoonist plays bars 120-128 instead of bars 110-118 and so on. Oh, the humanity!
I don't have personal experience with editing "classical" recordings, but if some things I've read are true I do think they've gone over the edge. Hundreds of edits in a single piece? If that really is done, to me that's nuts, and I can't see how it could be even remotely necessary. What orchestra is so lame that they'd require hundreds of edits in one piece? An orchestra and/or soloist that bad shouldn't be recording in the first place.
But sane and *judicious* use of editing/overdubbing to correct a few mistakes and/or improve a recording makes sense to me. Beginning section of a 2nd movement is too sluggish but everything else is good? Why would an artist/producer/conductor not want to correct that by recording that section again and editing it in seamlessly?
Follow Ups:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: