toodamnhip wrote:I am known , (to those who know me), as a dude that plays my whole studio like an instrument. I play many real instruments of course, but DP is the FINAL instrument for me. And this is why I tax DP so heavily, taxing DP beyond what some here do it seems. And they ask me why I don;t bounce to disk to save processor etc....
It’s Because I want 1000% CONTROL till the very last second. I have taken 30,000+ $ strings sessions done at Capitol and completely sliced and diced them because I had a BETTER idea later. Because I NEVER like to turn down a better idea. I wish it all came to ME at once. But it doesn’t always do that. Sometime I need to build the whole trees before seeing the forrest. I play some pretty damn serious chordal jazz guitar, and also pop and other styles. I play great! But damn if I don’t end up playing for 2 hours and often, editing for 30 hrs in DP. The HELL with what I played, maybe I got a BETTER idea 2 days later after adding a cello. Everyone works there own way. For me, DP and the studio have become yet another INSTRUMENT, an instrument BEYOND the original players in most cases. (of course, without the great initial playing I’d have nothing to manipulate so the players are 100% vital). I mean, I come from a straight ahead jazz background where we RESPECT players. But in my commercial production, the best idea wins and I will turn all PLAYERS on their heads if it’s a better idea.
Thus, my desire for all the editing tools I can muster, including the sorely needed DP time stretch at least moving up to where Pro Tools is, if not better.
+1, David. If I were 10 years younger and living in L.A., I'd be doing what you're doing. I completely agree with your mindset and work ethic. I also was known for doing the stuff that others didn't want to do, because I could; DP was always the greatest instrument in the world for me, but I'm not comparing it to playing chamber music on my other instruments; just that it's the ultimate instrument for controlling what goes on a recording, especially AFTER it's been recorded. The trick has always been doing it fast enough to make it feasible. If you have weeks to spend on one mix, then you can do anything. But that's a pipe dream. Time stretching technology SHOULD be able to provide changes without sound imperfections, and the whole idea for having it is that you can do in a few seconds what takes many minutes to do otherwise. Suddenly it becomes possible to do a whole string section or the whole friggin orchestra. Without the rubber-band time stretching, that's just not feasible. I mean... yes, if you've got days and stamina. But who has that kind of time?
By all means we're talking about a significant feature. It's one of the top things on my list. If some people only use it for voiceover, it's because it hasn't been good enough to tempt them to use it for the orchestra. Make it that good, make it simple and easy, and you can get everything in the pocket in seconds. That's giving the engineer god-like control over his tracks, and of course we'll find that some engineers make poor audio-gods, because it takes musicianship of the highest degree to pull this off, but for those who CAN, it is an essential and welcome tool.
toodamnhip wrote:I will add that I agree the conductor shapes the orchestra. But I have found many orchestras to be notoriously behind the beat, and many conductors to be a bit square when dealing with anything with a beat, especially a driving one. Sometimes that’s nice. Sometimes, the conductor “hears" it behind the beat, and I dont.
That's what I was talking about when I said this:
Shooshie wrote:The problem, I think, is that the FEEL of the ictus when conducting isn't necessarily where the orchestra will PERCEIVE it. A conductor has to learn where the orchestra feels his beat and anticipate it. (it's usually later than he thinks)
Without getting too deep in shop-talk, I've always noticed that small groups and chamber groups respond to cues pretty much instantly, whereas large orchestras delay a couple hundred milliseconds, give or take. When your daily bread and butter is one or the other (small or large group), you're the fish out of water when you play in the other kind of group, and you have to adjust your thinking to their level of delay. Being a saxophonist, mostly (and flute, etc.), my groups were usually small, so when I would play in a big orchestra I'd have to stop looking at the conductor and just listen. (got me in trouble once when the conductor inserted a Grand Pause that he hadn't done the last time we performed it, and for some reason I was the only one who didn't know he'd added it, because James Galway had eaten up 100% of our rehearsal time on another piece)
For the conductor, it's just a matter of getting comfortable with where the beat is, and not trying to change your style or the players', but to live with the discord of hearing the beat after you cued it. But there are some conducting gods in this forum, and I'd be stupid to dissect their profession. I've conducted a lot of groups, onstage and off, but I bow to their profession in which I'm but a hack. Still, it's hard to resist figuring out why things are the way they are. Yet in the end, it's not to change them, but merely to understand and accept them. Good players just do.
Shooshie
