the other problem I'm having is, as noted in the very short entry I mailed from my phone, the difference between "perfectionism" and "attention to detail". This has to be good. It's going to be good. And for it to be good, we have to care about the mistakes, we have to have the patience to keep trying until we play it right and get a good track. But there's a line in there somewhere, and on the far side of that line are the thing that never gets finished because the artist can't leave it alone
Exactly. Precisely. And, also, in many ways, the difference between art and craft.
The craftsman works toward perfection, but his craft is often sterile in its flawlessness. Technique -- check! Materials -- check! Precision -- check!
The artist goes beyond craft. He uses technique, but is aware of when a flaw adds to the work.
My favorite example of that sort of thing is David Gilmour, playing the acoustig intro solo on "Wish You Were Here". I have no doubt that, had he wished, he could have worked hard to eliminate the audible fingers-sliding-up-strings and knocked out the cough in the studio. But they WORKED, taking a good piece and, by bringing the listener into the studio for a second or two, making it great.
Yes, a listener to a CD wants the track to be as close to perfect technically as possible, especially for the sort of music that you're recording. But assuming there are no flagrant fouls -- nothing that clearly "ruins" the piece -- something like the weak Bm can easily get chalked up to diminishing returns. (How many of those can be tolerated is the line each artist must chalk -- how many hours do you want to spend on one flaw? Or do two require a retake? Or is the number six? Or whatever.)
Remind me, one of these years, to make sure I have the complete D'Glenn Collection...
My favorite example of that sort of thing is David Gilmour, playing the acoustig intro solo on "Wish You Were Here". I have no doubt that, had he wished, he could have worked hard to eliminate the audible fingers-sliding-up-strings and knocked out the cough in the studio. But they WORKED, taking a good piece and, by bringing the listener into the studio for a second or two, making it great.
Good thought, bad example. That cough was deliberate and part of the song. They were such perfectionists it took them from January 1975 to July 1975 to record "Wish You Were Here" (although some of that time was for a tour, still there was a lot of time in the studio.) In fact the below quote implies that they wanted that track to sound that way, like some one was playing badly along to the radio.
"When it sounds like it's coming out of a radio, it was done by equalisation. We just made a copy of the mix and ran it through eq. to make it very middly, knocking out all the bass and most of the high top so that it sounds radio-like. The interference was recorded on my car cassette radio and all we did was to put that track on top of the original track. It's all meant to sound like the first track getting sucked into a radio with one person sittng in the room playing guitar along with the radio."
Glenn, of course, good luck with the rest of the recording. Hopefully it will be good and quick. Maug is struggling with the same issues on a nonexistent budget.
That they did it by intent does weaken the example, but, IMO, strengthens the point -- that the art of it is in the imperfection. In this case, the imperfection is deliberate and preconceived, which dispels the concept of serendipity, but strengthens my concept of the creators as artists.
(no subject)
Exactly. Precisely. And, also, in many ways, the difference between art and craft.
The craftsman works toward perfection, but his craft is often sterile in its flawlessness. Technique -- check! Materials -- check! Precision -- check!
The artist goes beyond craft. He uses technique, but is aware of when a flaw adds to the work.
My favorite example of that sort of thing is David Gilmour, playing the acoustig intro solo on "Wish You Were Here". I have no doubt that, had he wished, he could have worked hard to eliminate the audible fingers-sliding-up-strings and knocked out the cough in the studio. But they WORKED, taking a good piece and, by bringing the listener into the studio for a second or two, making it great.
Yes, a listener to a CD wants the track to be as close to perfect technically as possible, especially for the sort of music that you're recording. But assuming there are no flagrant fouls -- nothing that clearly "ruins" the piece -- something like the weak Bm can easily get chalked up to diminishing returns. (How many of those can be tolerated is the line each artist must chalk -- how many hours do you want to spend on one flaw? Or do two require a retake? Or is the number six? Or whatever.)
Remind me, one of these years, to make sure I have the complete D'Glenn Collection...
(no subject)
Good thought, bad example. That cough was deliberate and part of the song. They were such perfectionists it took them from January 1975 to July 1975 to record "Wish You Were Here" (although some of that time was for a tour, still there was a lot of time in the studio.) In fact the below quote implies that they wanted that track to sound that way, like some one was playing badly along to the radio.
"When it sounds like it's coming out of a radio, it was done by equalisation. We just made a copy of the mix and ran it through eq. to make it very middly, knocking out all the bass and most of the high top so that it sounds radio-like. The interference was recorded on my car cassette radio and all we did was to put that track on top of the original track. It's all meant to sound like the first track getting sucked into a radio with one person sittng in the room playing guitar along with the radio."
From http://www.pink-floyd.org/artint/99.htm
Glenn, of course, good luck with the rest of the recording. Hopefully it will be good and quick. Maug is struggling with the same issues on a nonexistent budget.
(no subject)