New Yorker article - The Record Effect

[Robert J]

Interesting article on history of recording, classical performance etc

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/a...606crat_atlarge

[Michael Fitzgerald]

"even Glenn Gould would have had trouble executing the mechanically accelerated keyboard solo in “In My Life.” [by The Beatles]

- what a load of crap. Any pianist with ten years experience can do it. You can find someone at any music college.

Now, why wasn't discussion of Conlon Nancarrow's player piano works introduced?

Interesting article, but nothing revelatory. I think most people who have thought about recording and globalization and homogenization in music have considered these things.

Mike

[Alexander]

"even Glenn Gould would have had trouble executing the mechanically accelerated keyboard solo in “In My Life.” [by The Beatles]

- what a load of crap. Any pianist with ten years experience can do it. You can find someone at any music college.

Mike

←

Add to that the fact that the Beatles never *intended* for the solo from "In My Life" to be somehow "unplayable." All they were trying to do was create the sound of a harpsichord. There wasn't one available, so George Martin played the part slowly on a regular piano. When they sped it up, it sounded like a harpischord solo played at normal speed.

[Guy Berger]

Very interesting... thanks for posting that.

Guy

[Robert J]

I agree with the Beatles comment - I learned that solo as a teen and I'm not a classical pianist. And yes Nancarrow (and others ) were omitted. It was a New Yorker article after all.

Found some of the comments on how classical phrasing was affected by the recording process new to me. Would have like to had more on field recordings etc. It's also obvious Ross is not up on a host of recent electronic issues.

But the focus of the piece is sort of a long book review of 3 books and not a "critical" essay per se.

[Dave James]

Anyone else find the following sentence at all ironic? "I'm grateful for the humanizing touch of electronics." Not that I disagree, but I found it to be an interesting contextual assessment.

Up over and out.

[Robert J]

Anyone else find the following sentence at all ironic?  "I'm grateful for the humanizing touch of electronics." Not that I disagree, but I found it to be an interesting contextual assessment.

Up over and out.

←

Maybe he's a fan of recent advances in teledildonics.

[Stereojack]

Overall, an interesting article. Of course, Jelly Roll Morton's music was not yet available on record in 1916.

[AllenLowe]

just reading the article now - another problem is that he does not mention that Armstrong's ability to record clearly had as much to do with the development of the elctrical process as anything else - and he does not distinguish between acoustic/vs electric recording - also he does not mention the banjo, which recorded well acoustically and so was frequently used -

[Joe G]

I'm glad you posted this. Having just finished recording, editing, and beginning to mix our second cd, I've been pondering these things a lot lately. It's hard to come to any firm conclusions, I'm finding.

[Joe G]

Instead of grading this particular essay, how about posting some of our own thoughts on the subject?

[AllenLowe]

also, he talks about Ansermet bringing Stravinsky some Morton records in 1916 - interesting, as Jelly Roll did not record until 1923 -

Edited June 1, 2005 by AllenLowe

[AllenLowe]

so far I give him a B-

but I have not hit the mulitple choice section yet -

[Michael Fitzgerald]

Well, in the field of jazz, the idea of recording is incredibly important because it allows for improvisations to be revisited. Mimicry, transcription, analysis, comparison, etc. are all possible because the solo hasn't been lost in the ether. We can track the progress of a musician by his recordings - because in jazz, it's the performance (documented by a recording), not the composition (documented by a score) which gets the attention.

All the stylistic discussion from the classical world applies to jazz as well. Then there's the limitation of the 10" 78 rpm side, then the "liberation" of the 12" LP, etc. We discussed some of this in the intro to the Gigi Gryce book and I know it's been hashed out in other books too.

Mike

[Joe G]

Musicians who first heard their own recordings in the early years of the twentieth century were often taken aback by what they heard, suddenly being made aware of inaccuracies and mannerisms they had not suspected,” Philip writes. As they adjusted their playing, they entered into a complex process that Katz calls a “feedback loop.” Feedback is what happens when an electric-guitar player gets too close to an amp and the amp starts squealing. Feedback in classical performance is the sound of musicians desperately trying to embody the superior self they glimpsed in the mirror and, potentially, turning themselves into robots in the process.

I thought this was interesting. Listening to your own recordings too much can lead to an unhealthy narciccism.

One thing I find is that Jim and I both become much more self-conscious after listening to recordings that we've made, in particular, performances that we were very happy with. It can take a long time to get that out of my head and play something fresh and in the moment at the gig. I can get caught between wanting to play something that's as good as the recording, but trying to not play the solo from the recording. That's a good recipe for falling on one's face.

[Jim Alfredson]

I think the author may be attributing a little too much power to recordings, especially when he talks about Elgar conducting his symphonies vs. modern recordings of those symphonies. Is it really that surprising that the overall feel and sound of the symphony is going to be radically different when the actual composer is conducting than when someone else conducts?

Standard western notation is very limited in conveying anything more than an outline of music. We all know Brahms was very meticulous about dynamic markings, but he's the exception. It doesn't surprise me that Elgar's recordings of his own symphonies are a little more "raw" than modern interpretations.

Concerning Joe's point, one of the hardest things to balance when recording (and I'm speaking specifically to my own experience) is mistakes and perfection. Obviously with today's technology, you have an unprecedented amount of control over every aspect of recording. You can go in and not only fix single notes, but even the attack of single notes, the timing of those notes (is it too far behind the beat or too far ahead? Just move it!), the pitch, the dynamic, etc. etc. It's really easy to go too far. What I try to do is place feel over perfection... yeah, I messed up that bass line right there, but the it feels good, so I won't worry about it. And sure enough, there are some errors on our latest recording, but will anyone outside of us notice them? Probably not.

[BruceH]

Now, why wasn't discussion of Conlon Nancarrow's player piano works introduced?

←

Yeah, that would have been nice.

[AllenLowe]

"Magnetic tape meant that Bing could practically whisper into the microphone and still be heard across America" -

uhh, well, not really - as this was possible with the advent of electrical recordings - and not really related to magnetic tape - tape came into use in the late 1940s, Bing was singing/recording from the 1920s -

this guy just lost another half grade -

Edited June 1, 2005 by AllenLowe

[Free For All]

Musicians who first heard their own recordings in the early years of the twentieth century were often taken aback by what they heard, suddenly being made aware of inaccuracies and mannerisms they had not suspected,” Philip writes. As they adjusted their playing, they entered into a complex process that Katz calls a “feedback loop.” Feedback is what happens when an electric-guitar player gets too close to an amp and the amp starts squealing. Feedback in classical performance is the sound of musicians desperately trying to embody the superior self they glimpsed in the mirror and, potentially, turning themselves into robots in the process.

I thought this was interesting. Listening to your own recordings too much can lead to an unhealthy narciccism.

One thing I find is that Jim and I both become much more self-conscious after listening to recordings that we've made, in particular, performances that we were very happy with. It can take a long time to get that out of my head and play something fresh and in the moment at the gig. I can get caught between wanting to play something that's as good as the recording, but trying to not play the solo from the recording. That's a good recipe for falling on one's face.

←

Another similar situation is when you do multiple takes in a session- I find after about three takes pretty much any spontaneity is forced. I become very self-conscious about not repeating myself, so anything that seems redundant to me disturbs my concentration and the solo ends up being a bunch of strung-together licks. My feeling is that after two consecutive takes you should move to another tune and come back to the current one at a later time.

Otherwise you're "trying to sound spontaneous" which doesn't make it at all. Definitely a Zen-type of circumstance. Have you read any of the "Inner Game" books, Joe? My personal favorite is the "Inner Game of Tennis", which is helpful even if you don't play tennis at all.

[AllenLowe]

my own feeling is that I love recordings and am obsessed by the body of recordings of American music - which are, really, the literature of this music, like it or not - though I realize that certain music is represented more accurately on recording than certain other kinds of music - IMHO jazz is EASIER to appreciate on recordings than blues or country or vernacular forms, and this is based on direct experience. I've heard cajun music in the flesh, I heard Mutty Waters "live", and many other country/blues performers, and they are much less accurately represented by the sonic characrteristics of recordings than jazz is. They seem to require a certain kind of presence and witness, probably because they are less "technically" demanding and dependent upon feel and nuance in ways that ar harder to communicate on recordings - this is not to asay that jazz does not depend upon these things, only to indicate that it's easier to appreciate on records. CDs, etc -

[Jim Alfredson]

Yeah, the "two tries and then move on" technique seems to work the best. On the first day of recording for the new record, we started out with a tune that we know backwards and forwards. We did two takes, but it just wasn't happening. So we moved on to another tune, and nailed that one in one take. Then we went back to the first tune, and nailed that one. Sometimes it's good just to get away from it.

Another good technique is to try and convince yourself that this is a live situation. There is no stopping, no going back. So you have to be both focused and loose. That's what I try to do. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't!

Back to what Joe was saying, too... we've been recording ourselves a lot so that we'd get used to being recorded which is great when you actually go into the studio. But it's also bad, because as Joe says, you start to think about these great solos you've already laid down on a track and you're trying not to repeat yourself or you're trying to do something similair. Basically, you're trying. And as Yoda says, "There is no try. Only do."

[AllenLowe]

as for technically, I like recordings that use a real physical space that is audible, even multitracks, as long as they are recorded "live" - isolation has killed the sound of modern recordings, made it so that, essentially, everything is acoustically modelled in the mixing process - also I am unalterably opposed to compression of any kind - the best sounding records, to me, are the old Contemproary jazz ones, or the Chess blues sides. There is another side to this,however, as in a producer who creates certain sounds in the studio, like a Phil Spector or a Brian Wilson, and if intelligently done, it creates a certain type of acoustical layering - which is a separate art, in and of itself.

[Joe G]

Another similar situation is when you do multiple takes in a session- I find after about three takes pretty much any spontaneity is forced. I become very self-conscious about not repeating myself, so anything that seems redundant to me disturbs my concentration and the solo ends up being a bunch of strung-together licks. My feeling is that after two consecutive takes you should move to another tune and come back to the current one at a later time.

←

I hear ya! I don't know why we're so worried about that either. Maybe we're afraid of our alternate takes being released after we're dead, and then everyone will see how uncreative we really are.

Yes, I've read the Inner Game of Music, and Tennis, plus a host of similar books. Putting the stuff into practice is the trick!

[JSngry]

my own feeling is that I love recordings and am obsessed by the body of recordings of American music - which are, really, the literature of this music, like it or not - though I realize that certain music is represented more accurately on recording than certain other kinds of music - IMHO jazz is EASIER to appreciate on recordings than blues or country or vernacular forms, and this is based on direct experience. I've heard cajun music in the flesh, I heard Mutty Waters "live", and many other country/blues performers, and they are much less accurately represented by the sonic characrteristics of recordings than jazz is. They seem to require a certain kind of presence and witness, probably because they are less "technically" demanding and  dependent upon feel and nuance in ways that ar harder to communicate on recordings - this is not to asay that jazz does not depend upon these things, only to indicate that it's easier to appreciate on records. CDs, etc -

←

To play devil's advocate, is it possible that you find jazz easier to appreciate on recordings than those other musics simply because you yourself feel a more direct cultural connection to jazz than you do those other musics?

Speaking for myself, I know that after playing a few years on the so-called "chitlin' circuit", a lot of records sounded more "immediate" to me than they did before I had the "up close and personal" experience of playing that music in its natural environment. And I suspect that for somebody whose sole/primary music that was, the degree of seperation between recorings and live performance would be even less.

I do think that how one reacts to any recording of any music is colored to no small degree by what one brings to the listening experience in terms of life experience with, not just the music itself, but the whole extra-musical "thing" that comes with the music. In other words, a true hillbilly would have no difficulty whatsoever relating to a hillbilly record of a song/artist that he/she was totally unfamiliar with (assuming that the record was of a "good" song done by a "good" singer), whereas folks like us have to "come to it' from the outside. And vice-versa for those of us who relate to jazz and jazz culture vs. those for whom such things are totally foriegn.

[Joe G]

Concerning Joe's point, one of the hardest things to balance when recording (and I'm speaking specifically to my own experience) is mistakes and perfection.  Obviously with today's technology, you have an unprecedented amount of control over every aspect of recording.  You can go in and not only fix single notes, but even the attack of single notes, the timing of those notes (is it too far behind the beat or too far ahead?  Just move it!), the pitch, the dynamic, etc. etc.  It's really easy to go too far.  What I try to do is place feel over perfection... yeah, I messed up that bass line right there, but the it feels good, so I won't worry about it.  And sure enough, there are some errors on our latest recording, but will anyone outside of us notice them?  Probably not.

←

This is the other aspect of recording that I've been thinking about. The author of that article mentioned "the authenticity debate". Sometimes we refer to recordings as "documents", as in documenting the work, but that doesn't seem right if you're fixing things. If two takes are combined into one, what is that a document of? Not "the moment" obviously. A live recording with no edits would be closer to being a document, I would think. So are edits dishonest in a way?