Very well put indeed. To realize the unforced, unedited perfection
that IS attainable- albeit by nearly superhumanly talented
performers- just go back to earlier "Golden Ages" of recording, like
the old 78 rpm days. Studio recordings as well as live recordings
done in one take. At the moment I am recalling the likes of Django
Reinhardt and Art Tatum (who at least were taped- earlier recordings
were not only uneditable but the performers also had to tailer the
movements to the time constraints of what could fit on one side of a
78 record surface. Without sacrificing performance standards!)
Dan
Unfortunately, this exceptional cleanliness is produced via a
huge number of digital edits which will be undetectable and therefore
in a sense, "natural." The problem with this is that the edits where
never conceived of or performed as an organic whole so that finished
product, while smooth, often lacks life. Imagine if Martin Luther
King Jr. would have recorded his "I have a dream" speech by reciting
it 50 times, re-saying certain problem clauses or stumbled words,
then having some audio engineer piece the various takes (some perhaps
comprising a single syllable) together with 900 edits. Yes, his
voice as an object might technically sound "better" once the quivers
and explosions were taken out, but would it have the same sense of
outrage and urgency? What would be the point?
Chris
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
