Hello Chris: Great characterization, which made Donna laugh aloud. We are in fact interested in using the simplest setup possible and that is where we have landed in our most recent recording of motets by Guerrero, Morales and Victoria. It's been a long haul trying to convince our engineers to exercise restraint but we nailed it this time. He set up three pairs of mics at different locations and we simply had him turn off all except one pair located seven or eight feet distant. We have developed a natural balance of voice and lute while using the same music stand and the sound doesn't need messing about. The church space for our 'Sicut cervus' on Youtube is St. Stanislaus in Cleveland, and we are working toward doing a live audio recording there (with very good mics instead of the Zoom) with our current engineer with the entire thing live, unedited and completely unprocessed, since the natural sound is ideal to my ears. Guitarist Jason Vieaux has recorded a few times in this location and it is our favorite concert venue. The problem lies in the potential for extraneous noise. You can hear at the end of 'Sitivit anima' the encroachment of the neighborhood. A hip-hop music fan decided to share his or her music, ruining the rest of the day's work. Best, Ron Andrico www.mignarda.com > Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 21:13:20 -0700 > From: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: Vice Nisee > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > CC: [email protected] > > Ron, > > Excellent points. I've given this matter a lot of thought and have come to the conclusion that the issue involves much deeper psychological matters of perception than simply what people regard as an ideal sound. > > There is a lot of "historical fiction" when it comes to recording the lute. There is a strange culture of preciosity surrounding the lute which seeks to capture not so much the actual sound of the instrument, but rather protray a pseudo-mystical aura. In this construct, the lute must not issue forth actual music; it must be transformed into a special body whose very sound is special and ancient and magical, coming vast distances from afar, as if it is somehow sent via pixie-dust waves from Olde Douland's fingers straight to your stereo speakers or laptop. This is why we have guys using 38 microphones arranged in 152 configurations on flagpoles to capture every out-of-phase echo bouncing off anything resembling a reflective surface in the giant, inhospitable airplane hangers where they choose to record. Great lengths (and expenses) are gone to in order to avoid having the finished product sound like a real instrument played by an real person in a > room that actually exists in 2010. This has been the norm for so long that we're now in the strange position that when one hears a realistic-sounding lute recording, many think it sounds unprofessional. > > This style of recording will eventually pass. Listen to any pop recording from the 1980's and it will be immediately identifiable by the ton of reverb, (especially gated reverb on the snare drum) chorusing effects, synth pads, etc - in short, a lot of extra fluff that adds nothing to the song, but everyone recorded that way because everyone recorded that way. You couldn't run a studio unless you could show off your closets full of floor-to-ceiling racks of analog effects processors and were willing to pile on mounds of the stuff with a shovel. The situation today with lute recordings and comically elaborate mic setups in gigantic caverns is analogous to that, although the aesthetic has been around a good deal longer than a decade. We're slow to change in ye olde lute world. I am encouraged, however, to hear that many players with smaller budgets are putting out recordings with better sound than many of the big guys. > > Recipe for a great solo lute sound: one good mic, a pair of good ears, a brain in your head and just a touch of reverb for seasoning. > > Chris > > > Christopher Wilke > Lutenist, Guitarist and Composer > www.christopherwilke.com > > > --- On Fri, 7/23/10, Ron Andrico <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Ron Andrico <[email protected]> > > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Vice Nisee > > To: [email protected], [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Date: Friday, July 23, 2010, 2:51 PM > > Hello Ned: > > Your point is well taken. > > Unfortunately, it is very difficult to > > convince the average listener, even those > > acquainted with the actual > > sound of the lute, that a real, dry, > > non-reverberant sound is ideal. > > The problem, as I see (or hear) it is > > that more people have heard the > > lute on recordings than live and close > > up. Certain > > prolifically-recorded players have opted > > for a sound that was described > > some years back by a Gramophone reviewer > > as a 'psycho-acoustic > > nightmare, distant and close at the same > > time'. If we don't gravitate > > towards a reverberant sound, we can be > > easily dismissed as not ideal. > > Another dimension of the problem lies > > with available technology. It is > > very, very difficult to find a recording > > engineer who understands the > > simplicity of the lute sound well enough > > to record it simplistically. > > When we first approached our current > > engineer (Grammy-award winner, > > Will Russell) and played as an example > > our favorite recording of Emma > > Kirby and Jakob Lindberg on BIS, his > > immediate reaction was to ask > > permission to make us sound better than > > that. It was a process, but we > > finally convinced him that a simple mic > > placement yielded the sound and > > natural balance we were seeking. > > We have experimented on Youtube with a > > few different representations of > > sound, and it is interesting to see the > > results. Typically, the more > > reverberant sound seems to get more > > repeated hits. Our recent posting > > of Sicut cervus/Sitivit anima by > > Palestrina is recorded in a live space > > with absolutely no tampering with the > > Zoom H2, place about 10 feet > > away. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUDplApE45U > > But we deliberately recorded the Christ > > Child Lullaby at home in a dry > > acoustic with the Zoom closely placed in > > an attempt to judge how > > listeners would react. The appeal > > of the music seems to have attracted > > hits despite the dry sound. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9atiweh44WU > > Personally, I agree that one does not > > want to hear a lute's volume > > boosted to represent something it is > > not. The idea of having my head > > trapped inside of a lute makes me > > afraid. But the fact is, we have to > > aim for a standard that is not going to > > drive the average listener away > > because the music is 'better than it > > sounds.' A quandary indeed. > > Best, > > Ron Andrico > > www.mignarda.com > > > Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:53:26 > > -0400 > > > To: [email protected] > > > CC: [email protected] > > > From: [email protected] > > > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Vice Nisee > > > > > > I think my point about lutes being > > 'enlarged' in the recording > > process could best be made by referring > > to specific lute recordings. > > Comparing Jakob Lindberg's recordings of > > Dowland (reissued on Brilliant > > ) with Hopkinson Smiths recording > > "Dowland: A Dream" on Naive, I hear > > considerably more reverberation on the > > Smith recording than on the one > > of Lindberg. At the same approximate > > volume, Smith's instrument sounds > > much larger (to me) than Lindberg's. More > > importantly, Lindberg's > > instrument sounds more natural to me than > > Smith's; more like what I'm > > accustomed to hearing from a lute played > > live. To be sure, the > > recordings of both instruments underwent > > some electronic processing > > before being transferred to CD. My > > subjective impression is that > > Smith's received more added reverb than > > Lindberg's. That's what I hear > > in the Vice Nisee video/audio and - > > perhaps(?) - what Suzanne also > > heard. > > > > > > Ned > > > On Jul 22, 2010, at 6:37 PM, howard > > posner wrote: > > > > > > > The lute would necessarily be > > amplified and there would necessarily > > be microphones; that's the nature of > > electronic transmission of sound. > > If it sounds too loud for you, turn down > > the volume on your computer. > > If it then doesn't sound loud enough, > > turn the volume up. Repeat > > process until it sounds just right. > > > > > > > > On Jul 22, 2010, at 3:05 PM, > > Edward Mast wrote: > > > > > > > >> I agree with Suzanne, both > > about the sound and the playing. I've > > made this observation here before; the > > tendency of recording engineers > > today seems to be to make lutes sound as > > large as concert grand pianos. > > > >> > > > >> Ned > > > >> On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:36 > > AM, Suzanne Angevine wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Was it the acoustic > > that was lush? I almost had the feeling that > > it was an amplified instrument and was > > looking for the cord or tiny > > mike somewhere. But it was nice playing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To get on or off this list see > > list information at > > > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________ > > > > Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for > > the New Busy. Get more from > > your inbox. [1]See how. -- > > > > References > > > > 1. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL :ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2 > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________
The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with Hotmail. [1]Get busy. -- References 1. http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
