Re: Tracking bass is tedious
Or recording it in the first place. If they insist I don't mind providing a high def dcoument of their suckage.
I think - and I'm sure you agree - it's really just about getting the best representation of the songs as possible, by whatever means are at one's disposal.
The second quote answers the first - the "if he sucks then let him suck and everyone who listens to the CD will hear how bad of a player he is" argument is 100% wrong, because he's not the one who's going to be getting the blame in the end. People are going to hear the recording, hear how sloppy and un-tight it is, and think "Wow, this recording sucks. I wonder what hack did it?"
It's my job to produce the best sounding record possible given the circumstances they provide. If they provide a crappy drummer or bassist, both of which will be detrimental to the sound of the record, I will edit them until they sound good. If you want sloppy sounding records out there with your name on to them, then by all means go ahead and leave sloppy bass parts un-edited.
The problem is that you cannot mix sloppy performances and expect any kind of quality outcome. Unless sloppiness was the goal from the outset, the product you will end up with will suck as bad as the performances do. This is why well played, tightly performed parts almost mix themselves.
I never said I don't like modern production or that my way is the right way. What I said was that it grows old as a listener quickly. Do you know who BT is? He corrects his music down to the sample level, he's a fantastic musician but I tell you those records get tired in about 5 listens. Kids today I tell ya, get off my ****in lawn!!!
By the way the study simply says that humans prefer organic forms of music over machine generated.
Once again - the mystery study you're citing does not support your argument at all, because it says nothing about the longevity of or how well a given recording will hold up against time.
You say that "it grows old as a listener quickly" but that you're not implying that "[your] way is the right way." I can't reconcile those two statements given that the first implies an inherent wrong. It is 100% an opinion, as cannot be backed either way by empirical evidence (unless you've got access to a time machine that you're keeping a secret from the world?).
And yes, I'm sure Krank has heard of BT; we were both talking about how good Binary Universe was just last week. He corrects his music down to the sample level because he's usually glitching the hell out of things, and even then I don't think it gets old in 5 listens because I was raised on music with a similar production level.
Actually, come to think of it, there are some records that get tired to me in 5 listens or so... they're the ones with the undefined top end, constant clashing between instruments, laughable use of panning and reverb, and overall lack of impact/punch - you know, "classics" like the Stones, Beatles, Springsteen, Eagles, etc records that get heralded all the time as sounding so much better than modern productions.
