As far as recording rock guitar, simply putting a micro right on the amp is not the way used by many (perhaps most) rock guitarists in studio, it is usually a combination of various mikes in different positions, including mikes quite some way away from the amp. The latest trend (not exactly new Phil Spector may have used this technique on the last Beatles album) is to re-amp, recording the pure signal direct from the guitar (and also sending it to an amp) and then if the amp sound is not what is desired, in the mix process send the guitar track through a different amp or using different effects or even mikes.
As far as the "HIP"ness of recording and concert situation, our belief in the playing for 5 people and lute songs being only used in intimate performances, is questioned by Liz Kenny in a very interesting article in Early Music Vol. XXXVI entitled The uses of Lute Songs. Worth checking out. All the best Mark All On Mar 17, 2010, at 3:44 PM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > (Back to commercial recordings, not folks' 'tube submissions) > > In my view, if you notice the reverb, its too much. > > I'm also a big advocate of close miking. This is another thing that is > especially appropriate for a soft instrument like the lute, but is rarely > done. Its funny, I've done a fair amount of recording with LOUD rock bands > where the philosophy is to get the cleanest example from each instrument by > putting the mics right on the amps or drums. > > Name the last movie you've seen that featured a scene with characters > whispering in which the sound engineer decided it would be a good idea to > record in a warehouse with mics on the other side of the room. > ("Hhhhere'sssss thhhhheeeeh ssssseecccret-t-t-t iiinnnnfffforrrmmmmmationnnn > yyyoouuu wwwwannnt-t-t-ed-ed-ed." "Wwwwhhhhat-t-t-t?") How ridiculous would > that sound? > > > --- On Wed, 3/17/10, Arto Wikla <[email protected]> wrote: > >> From: Arto Wikla <[email protected]> >> Subject: [LUTE] Re: Modern lute recordings >> To: "Daniel Shoskes" <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected] >> Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2010, 2:23 AM >> Hi Danny and the List, >> >> The sound of that "tubing is really very natural, and I >> cannot hear any extra reverb, either. And very nice and >> relaxed playing, too! >> >> All the best, >> >> Arto >> >> >> Daniel Shoskes wrote: >>> I've posted several times the processing >> I use, based on the >>> recommendation of my sound engineer >> uncle. I apply an "inverted smile" >>> EQ and if I am recording in my small >> office, I add a small amount of >>> reverb (if I am alone in the house and >> can record in the big living >>> room the reverb is not necessary). The >> "inverted smile" corrects for >>> inadequacies in the response of the mic. >> I was once recorded with a >>> $15,000 mic and that led me to believe >> that cheaper mic+EQ is very >>> close to the reality captured by the >> expensive mic and therefore that >>> the EQ isn't "cheating". In my most >> recent recording, using a superior >>> mic (but not in the thousands of dollars) >> I thought the sound was much >>> better and only the tiniest adjustment >> (taking down the highest and >>> lowest bands in the EQ) was needed: >>> >>> [1]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2w15WCzoWY >>> Danny >>> (not a "lute hero" but a regular >> "y-tuber") >>> >> >> >> >> To get on or off this list see list information at >> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >> > > > > >
