|
Post by kmc on Jun 14, 2006 14:41:20 GMT -5
I do. I disagree that being on a major is inherently worse than being on indie. Music, let's face it, is business. Business has the potential to fuck you up. If you're willing to make the case that majors bring more stress than indie, then I challenge you to provide the proof, because I don't see it.
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Jun 14, 2006 14:47:03 GMT -5
Man, I know guys in cover bands at the local bar who sold out. It's got nothing to do with labels.
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jun 14, 2006 15:04:27 GMT -5
No! NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO! As some one who as been working in the "buisness" for over 10 years now, you couldn't be more full of it. I have had more friends screwed over by indie labels who are just as evil as the majors. Get it through your thick skull that people with power corrupt bands, not a label. Bands who allow themselves to get talked into all of that crap corrupt their bands, not the guy is who is doing the schmoozing. Bands on indie labels get their heads swelled in the hopes that they will be the cool of the cool and critical darlings just like major label bands do. There aren't exceptions to the rule. Either you are a good band or you are not. Most people can tell if a band's intentions are less than pure, since mostly they will sound like their bad intentions. Sorry, but I dont see it in those kinds of absolutes. I've seen good bands turned shitty (or have broken up) due to not beign able to deal with the distractions. Due to getting caught up in the hype, due to drugs, due to any of the things I mentioned in the above post. Great bands may be able to overcome these things--thats a topic for argument. But simply just a good band, that seems unlikely... Moving on... QUESTION #4 and #5: Does converting analog recordings to digital pollute the artists original intent? Does digital conversions of analog recordings sound worse than analog original? As a sound engineer I can emphatically tell you that NO, converting to digital does not mess up the sound. If anyone tells you other wise it's propaganda nonsense. If you can honestly tell me that you can tell the difference between an analog record and a digital recording in this day and age, you are full of shit and a liar.
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jun 14, 2006 15:06:11 GMT -5
Converting back, there is going to be a bit of degradation because Analog has a noise floor due to the magnetic flux of the tape that is not present in Digital recording.
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 14, 2006 15:59:53 GMT -5
QUESTION #4 and #5: Does converting analog recordings to digital pollute the artists original intent? Does digital conversions of analog recordings sound worse than analog original? As a sound engineer I can emphatically tell you that NO, converting to digital does not mess up the sound. If anyone tells you other wise it's propaganda nonsense. If you can honestly tell me that you can tell the difference between an analog record and a digital recording in this day and age, you are full of shit and a liar. I'm talking in regards to the comparison between vinyl records and cds. To my ears good vinyl sound better because it has no form of quantisation and is not limited to a max frequency of 22khz--which most people should be able to hear above, seeing as a good speakers can go up to about 30khz. Plus vinyl has that smooth warm sound because it is is coming at you in a continuous motion, whereas digitial is coming at you broken up in bits and bites... I do. I disagree that being on a major is inherently worse than being on indie. Music, let's face it, is business. Business has the potential to fuck you up. If you're willing to make the case that majors bring more stress than indie, then I challenge you to provide the proof, because I don't see it. I think its sad to think of music as a business. Music IMO is one of those things that is just too damn beautiful and important to regard as 'just a business'. And I think if you view it that way you are missing out on so much. THere is so much more to music than just Business and Music has been around ALOT longer than capitalism has. When mothers sing to their babies at night, is music just a business then? When a 13 year old picks up a guitar and learn his first chords is it just a business then? It just seems so cynical to think of music in those narrow terms to me. Music is beautiful and if it is being made jsut as part of a business--then I feel its most likely gonna suck. IMO music is a creative expression. It is somethign that shoudl be shared with others to connect with them or communicate with them, either ideas, emotions or whatever. It's not something that shoudl be trivialized and reduced to 'jsut a business'.
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jun 14, 2006 16:42:48 GMT -5
CDs are at 44.1 KHZ or 48.1 KHZ depending if you do 5:1 or not. Quantisation is something that you do to make sure that it is on time, not better sounding. Also, the human ear is not capable of hearing beyond 20Khz, so really after that, it's a crap shoot. Most people our age as it stands tody due to the loudness of movie theaters and what not can not hear above 16 or 17Khz. I prefer vinyl, but you might want to talk about something you know a little bit more about.
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jun 14, 2006 16:43:13 GMT -5
Right, but we're not discussing music in general, we're discussing the rock biz. I mean, you're the one that brings up music labels. When you discuss the music business, it is important to know that the label you're in cannot denote quality. Indie or not, labels exist to market a product; big labels cannot ruin your music if you don't want it ruined, indie labels can't make you good if you suck.
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jun 14, 2006 16:45:00 GMT -5
I also agree that I think the words "music" and "buisness" should never be uttered in the same sentence, but that is simply just not the case. Get over it. Nothing is ever going to change so moaning about it is pretty futile isn't it? The only good thing that has come out of the last 5 years is that now with recording software being really cheap and people being able to trade files on the net, anyone can do it now. It's taken some power out of the majors hands, for now. I do believe that like everything, this will change at some point. When that is, I have no idea, but it's coming 'round the bend.
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jun 14, 2006 16:47:27 GMT -5
I mean shit, take Pavement. Pavement used Atlantic records and the Atlantic records money to help push "Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain". Did Pavement sell out? Did Pavement start sucking? Shit no. Crooked Rain is, to some, their best effort.
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jun 14, 2006 16:55:18 GMT -5
I thought that it wasn't Atlantic, it was Capitol and they were still on Matador at that time. It wasn't until "Brighten The Corners" that they made the leap to a major label and off of Matador completely. At least that was the impression I had, I could be mistaken. Either way, it doesn't really matter as some of the best stuff I have ever heard as been on a major label, like My Bloody Valentine's "Loveless". I can't stand this indie vs. major talk, really. Modest Mouse went to a major and released one of the best records they could have possibly ever made.
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 14, 2006 17:03:26 GMT -5
CDs are at 44.1 KHZ or 48.1 KHZ depending if you do 5:1 or not. Quantisation is something that you do to make sure that it is on time, not better sounding. Also, the human ear is not capable of hearing beyond 20Khz, so really after that, it's a crap shoot. Most people our age as it stands tody due to the loudness of movie theaters and what not can not hear above 16 or 17Khz. I prefer vinyl, but you might want to talk about something you know a little bit more about. If you cant tell the difference between cd and vinyl, then why do you prefer vinyl? Also, wouldnt it be better sounding if its on time? Also why do speakers go to 30khz if the human ear can only do up to 20?
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 14, 2006 17:11:35 GMT -5
I also agree that I think the words "music" and "buisness" should never be uttered in the same sentence, but that is simply just not the case. Get over it. Nothing is ever going to change so moaning about it is pretty futile isn't it? Well that's a piss poor attitude, isnt it? I mean if you were in Nazi Germany and saw Jews being killed, would you just say, "Oh well, nothing is ever going to change, so there's nothing I'm gonna do about it"? Look the music business as we know it has only been around for less than 100 years. Music itself has been around since the dawn of mankind. So it seems pretty likely that music will overcome the constraints of the music business. We are already sieing teenagers recording songs in their basements and putting them out on the internet all within the same day. Technology is changing Music in leaps and bounds, and to think music will always be shackled to the 'music business' is taking a rather short-term view of it...
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 14, 2006 17:15:38 GMT -5
I thought that it wasn't Atlantic, it was Capitol and they were still on Matador at that time. It wasn't until "Brighten The Corners" that they made the leap to a major label and off of Matador completely. At least that was the impression I had, I could be mistaken. Either way, it doesn't really matter as some of the best stuff I have ever heard as been on a major label, like My Bloody Valentine's "Loveless". I can't stand this indie vs. major talk, really. Modest Mouse went to a major and released one of the best records they could have possibly ever made. Your first album on a major might be allright--since youve probablly already written the songs for that album before you signed with the label. But after that the quality often goes right down the shitter...too many distractions. To0 many outside influences putting pressure on the artists.
|
|
|
Post by kmc on Jun 14, 2006 17:21:16 GMT -5
skvor, it was actually Atlantic, then Capitol in '96. Go figure.
Paul, that's crazy talk. You cannot possibly prove that being on a major would fuck your band up. Prove it. Where are the good bands that have been fucked specifically because of their label, and due to nothing else?
|
|
|
Post by Galactus on Jun 14, 2006 17:36:13 GMT -5
There are bands who had a less then impressive run on a major label, though I can't think of many who just started making crap. Alot of that has to do with not performing to the label's expectation for sales more then making bad albums. There's absolutely not enough examples of a bands turning to shit after to signing to a major to say it's the rule.
|
|