Re: DAW options overload

[John Neilson <jneil@echonyc.com>]

> I read an interesting interview with CAN (the German band from the 70's)
> who, after recording most of their early albums using rudimentary or DIY
> systems (developed by Holger Czukay), eventually got into 16-track
> recording. This lead to the demise of CAN. They now admit that the (then)
> newly available option of being able to monitor tracks separately and to
> re-record them if necessary (until perfection had been achieved) was the
> culprit. I'm all for live mixes and letting "mistakes" (slight
> imperfections) stand. Talk to you later...
> 
> Rob
> 
Actually, I think most of CAN's classic albums were recorded live to
2-track, and post-production consisted of editing their improvisations
with a razor where necessary.

I've heard a number of bootlegs over the years, and in almost all cases
the music (if not the sound quality) was on par with what got released.
And all the pieces were in endless flux.  If you compare a couple of 
versions of any song it's obvious that the album version was just a
snapshot of that improvisionation at one point in its evolution.

One of the things I like about DAWs is that it makes it easy to keep 
first takes and one-shot parts and build those into the final work.
You can save the "brilliant bits" -- even a few seconds worth -- that
would be too much work to save before the days of sampling and random
access editing.  It used to be the rule that exciting-but-flawed takes
got recorded over by ones that had less inspiration but and more 
consistency.  

Now you at least have the option to keep the never-to-be-repeated parts 
and just excise the bum notes, should you choose.

----------------------- Tear Along Dotted Line -----------------------
John Neilson                                             www.mixup.com 
jneil@mixup.com                                  "a site for sore ears"