Crowdsource

Are you a die-hard vinyl fan? Why do you prefer records over CDs? CDs over records? Have you even listened to a record? Tell me about your favorite format and why.

Crowdsource: Is Music Cheating Listeners?

The Foo Fighters took home five Grammys this Sunday for their home recorded album Wasting Light. Lead singer and guitarist David Grohl (former drummer for Nirvana) took the opportunity to take a swipe at the current state of popular music.

Girl you know it's
not the Foo Fighters.

"This is a great honour, because this record was a special record for our band. Rather than go to the best studio in the world down the street in Hollywood and rather than use all of the fanciest computers that money can buy, we made this one in my garage with some microphones and a tape machine... To me this award means a lot because it shows that the human element of music is what's important. Singing into a microphone and learning to play an instrument and learning to do your craft, that's the most important thing for people to do... It's not about being perfect, it's not about sounding absolutely correct, it's not about what goes on in a computer. It's about what goes on in here [your heart] and what goes on in here [your head]," said Grohl during his acceptance speech for Best Album.

What Grohl is advocating is for music to return to a more "honest" live sound without all the technological enhancement. Phooey. Grohl may be taking a purist stand on what music should be, but where does he draw the line? Dave Grohl's "garage" and "tape machine" is worth more than my house. He admits that his tracks are spliced together from different takes, and this old school editing process is exactly what a computer does except instead of scissors and adhesive, digital uses (ctrl+x) and (ctrl+v) respectively. And the album was digitally mastered anyway. So in the end, what you hear coming out still isn't the same as when it when in. Isn't that still using technology to convince listeners that you're better than you are?

Even before Grohl made his point about enhanced modern music, I was looking for ways to get my non-recordist readers involved. I thought I would talk about so-called "studio magic," or exactly what Grohl is talking about. So I headed over to HomeRecording.com, an online forum for - wait for it - home recording to ask some of the members whether using technology or editing techniques was "cheating" or "lying" to listeners.

"Honestly, if you're recording something in any way other than completely live; no [effects], no pitch correction, no level automation... And you're doing it all in one take, it's technically cheating," says MrWrenchey, a home recordist. But for MrWrenchey and every other forum participant (from hobbyist to professional) whether it's cheating the listener or not isn't the point. The processing or lack thereof is just part of the artistic process.

"Just call your efforts 'art' and POOF! it's art. There is no 'cheating' in art." says wheelema.

The truth is that many recordists and most of the music industry doesn't care whether we're given an accurate account of the musician's talent, nor do they have "humanity" in mind. They just want it to sound good and will do whatever it takes to do it. There's a lot of tinkering involved which just isn't natural. If I screw up on a verse 99 out of 100 times, I can just copy and paste the good take. I can mute out or replace a bad note. If I'm singing out of tune, I can run a pitch correction program (the infamous auto-tune). It's standard to run voice through an EQ and a nice reverb to make it sound more pleasant than it naturally is. Even live music can use the full weight of technology to enhance a performance.

So yes, musicianship matters. The heart and the head matters. But let's be real: A recording artist is like a magician. You practice and perfect your slight of hand, but at the end of the day, it's the secret pocket in the bottom of the hat that makes the rabbit appear.

Thanks to bruiser1964 for the Foo Fighter's tip and everyone else at www.homerecording.com for their input.

------

I want to know your opinion! Are you a purist who thinks music should rely solely on talent, not technology? Or is it the product that ultimately counts? Is there something wrong with presenting a performance as natural when it isn't? Does it change your thinking about music knowing that a multi-Grammy winning singer has millions of dollars worth of technology behind her?

Shure SM48 Mic Review

Last week, I needed to make a quick stop at Guitar Center for a fresh pack of strings. But of course I couldn't help but wander the store for 30 minutes, checking out all the neat toys. In the middle of the recording section, a folding table with stacks of black boxes and a sale sign caught my attention. Shure SM48's for dirt cheap? Why yes, I think I will.

Shure has a reputation for making quality microphones. I've used (but never owned) the SM57 for vocals, guitars and drums in the past. It certainly earns its place as the most popular all-around mic for musicians. I haven't yet have the opportunity to use an SM58, the vocal variant of the 57.

Holding the 48 just gives me warm feelings inside. It's solid steel construction makes it extremely heavy for its size (half a pound for something the size of a banana). It certainly doesn't feel like a toy. Shure is known for durability, and some musicians carry their 57s and 58s around for decades before they go bad. I have the same confidence in this mic, though only time will tell.

I bought the SM48-LC version of the microphone. The only difference between the LC and XLR version is that the XLR version comes with a cable. But I was very happy with the accessories it did come with: A hard plastic mic clip, a mic bag and a cable tie.

So how does the SM48 perform in the basement studio?

My first experience with the mic was frustrating. The 48 takes a lot of gain to even register. When I tried plugging the XLR straight into my Zoom R16 audio interface the pre-amp could barely push the signal above audible. So instead, I had to use my Mackie 1402-VLZ Pro mixer with higher quality pre-amps. Much better.

The sound doesn't meet the performance of the 57, and presumably the 58. It's very dim and took some EQ work to brighten it up and grab some air. This may of course be due to my low singing, but it's something I didn't have problems with on the 57.

But after the pre-amp switch and the EQ fix, it sounds decent and worth the money I paid for it. I would not, however, pay the full $49.99 asking price when I could get a top-shelf 57 or 58 for under $100. But for $20 off and the added accessories, it was definitely a value buy and will get me through 'til I'm looking for a serious vocal mic.

Do you own an SM48? Ever been pleasantly surprised with a cheap mic? Disappointed in an expensive one?