Quantcast
Editing the life out of classical music - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Editing the life out of classical music
Old 11th May 2009 | Show parent
  #1
Here for the gear
 
🎧 15 years
Talking Editing the life out of classical music

Folks,

This is half rant, half question. Lately I've run into a couple of classical music projects where the artists (all friendly and talented folks) have approached the project with the intention of recording the pieces in very short chunks and leaving it to me to edit it all together.

Now, I can do the editing to make it seamless. But for me (a non-classical musician) it just feels dishonest. Plus, there is absolutely nothing musical about the result. In fact, it stops even being music to me and becomes a technical exercise for both them and me.

The first time this happened I explained to them that the editing would probably take me around 30 hours (for a CD with a total of 50 minutes of music) and they said that they had already budgeted for that, so it's not like the project suddenly changed direction...they went into it with the editing in mind. We're talking about hacking away at a measure or two until it's right, then moving on. Rarely is there a keeper section more than 20-25 seconds long.

I'm not suggesting they do it all in one take, start-to-finish. A few edits here and there is a reasonable thing. But we're probably looking at 200+ edits for the whole CD! Oh, and these aren't large orchestras. These ensembles are sextets or smaller.

I like the hours, don't get me wrong. But, is this something you have run in to? And if so, does it feel a little unsettling to you too?

Thanks.

JH in New York
Old 11th May 2009
  #2
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Editing the life out of classical music

This has actually been common in the classical music world for years, long before the advent of hard disk recording...

I guess when you have dozens of musicians playing at once...even good ones...a single perfect take is a rarity.
Old 11th May 2009 | Show parent
  #3
Lives for gear
 
Lute's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
If it's a large piece in sonata form (a symphony, sonata, string quartet, etc) then the composers of the day often required the orchestra (or soloist) to repeat the exposition so the piece was well balanced. This may well be what the musicians you recorded were doing. Not sure why they'd do that with a short piece though...........
Old 11th May 2009 | Show parent
  #4
Here for the gear
 
🎧 15 years
I appreciate thee responses so far. Just to clarify, these are small ensembles (sextet or smaller) and they are often plugging away at as little as a measure or two until they get a take they like. Sometimes there will be keeper that is 20-30 seconds long, but more often than not a keeper section will be shorter. I'm anxious to hear from more of you.

Thanks,

JH in NY
Old 11th May 2009 | Show parent
  #5
Old 11th May 2009 | Show parent
  #6
Gear Guru
 
Thomas W. Bethe's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Join the club...
Old 11th May 2009 | Show parent
  #7
LX3
Lives for gear
 
LX3's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Yes, highly topical at the moment

See other thread. In short, it seems that mileage varies greatly from 10 edits per CD to 500! It appears that the only way classical albums get made without edits is to record a concert. And even then, they'll often record a rehearsal directly beforehand, which can be used to patch any howlers.

I'm fairly sure we'd have had less edits on our album if we'd had more time for the recording sessions. As we got up against the clock, the only way to get thru the material was to concentrate on a passage at a time. I also think they left the most difficult pieces to last, which maybe wasn't the best idea, as by the end of day 2 the choir were well past the "warmed up" phase and into the "dead on their feet" phase.

But the end result, in edited form, is much better than it would have been if these songs were recorded in one take, or with just one or two edits. Listening back, I have no idea where the edits are any more, so I guess that's a good sign - if anyone should be able to hear the edits it's me.
Old 11th May 2009 | Show parent
  #8
Here for the gear
 
🎧 15 years
The link above that Norse referred to is very helpful with plenty of responses to exactly my dilemma. That pretty much covers it so no need to respond here unless you want to.

Thanks very much to all.

JH in NY
Old 11th May 2009 | Show parent
  #9
Lives for gear
 
Larry Elliott's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
JH
I think the main difference is that your clients prepared their work and had the budget to be edited - the other didn’t.
Larry
Old 11th May 2009 | Show parent
  #10
Lives for gear
 
hollywood_steve's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
time to ruffle a few feathers.....

none of us got into recording because its a great way to make fast, big money; we do it because we really enjoy it. Even though I grew up playing in rock bands, I gravitated to acoustic music recording (classical, jazz, some blues, folk, etc, even opera) because I would rather spend time recording live musicians than sitting in a control room triggering 'sounds' or correcting late snare hits.

And more than anything else, if one aspect of the biz convinced me not to try and expand from 'hobby' to profession, it was the requirement of silly amounts of editing in music that is best captured in as a performance. I realize that pro classical sessions have been compiling finished masters from dozens of takes since the earliest days of tape, but it is that aspect of the business that makes it "less than fun" (for me). As a professional, you need to enthusiastically take on this type of work and hope that your skills bring in even more edit jobs. As a hobbyist, I can honestly tell prospective clients that I am not the right person for the job.

My point - not everyone who enjoys recording should try to turn it into a paying career. There is no shortage of talented engineers and the requirement to make money can quickly turn recording from amazing fun into a job, with all of the negative connotations associated with that word.
Old 11th May 2009 | Show parent
  #11
Gear Guru
 
John Willett's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Smile

This can edit the life out of the music - note perfect but boring. Listened to once and never again.

I like to get a take of the complete piece or two in the bag - both proper performances. If you don't have everything there, maybe patch some bits - but the idea is to get a performance take and then edit to repair the worst bits, rather than editing it all bar by bar.

Trying to "capture a performance" you will end up with a CD that will be listened to again and again and again........
Old 12th May 2009 | Show parent
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
The musicians above may be friendly and talented, but they're misguided.

YOU needed to tell them to play the material and put your foot down (firmly on their necks) if they tried to do differently.

I would have fired them.
Old 12th May 2009 | Show parent
  #13
Lives for gear
 
rumleymusic's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
I like to get a take of the complete piece or two in the bag - both proper performances. If you don't have everything there, maybe patch some bits - but the idea is to get a performance take and then edit to repair the worst bits, rather than editing it all bar by bar.
That is how I ask my clients to do it. If I have 3 or 4 complete takes, usually there is an acceptable complete compilation possible. Some clients don't come completely prepared and need to repeat a smaller sections several times in order to make it work, and that is a royal pain, not to mention a waste of time everyone's time.

That is why I enjoy live recording. I can record 1 or 2 concerts and a dress rehearsal and have a very musical finished product without the hassle of individual takes and micro edits.
Old 12th May 2009 | Show parent
  #14
Lives for gear
 
desotoslo's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush ➑️
The musicians above may be friendly and talented, but they're misguided.

YOU needed to tell them to play the material and put your foot down (firmly on their necks) if they tried to do differently.

I would have fired them.
I am refreshed.
Old 15th May 2009 | Show parent
  #15
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 15 years
Editing

Hello Northcountry, I believe we know each other from back in the KNO days? Warm regards from here.
I spend my days and nights editing classical when I'm not out on the road recording it, as you know. Editing - purely editing - was my job right out of college, when I spent hours a day for weeks on end editing some big-name chamber discs for Erato, at a now defunct little shop there. (I am not trying to name-drop but by big I mean Barenboim, Clevenger, etc. can't take credit for the amazingness of these recordings; I was merely the editing lackey. Besides, this was eons ago.)
I have found that it is the same whether it's the big boys or the small fry - editing is pervasive. Hundreds of cuts per disc is normal. 5 or 10? I have never been a part of a disc made that way (but it sure sounds like a refreshing relief).
I sort of agree with Plush in that part of a producer's job is to facilitate the best possible end product. And part of that is knowing how to be the liaison between the musicians, the technology, and just good music making (I know this is how you virtuously operate, JH, I'm just putting it here for discussion). Usually that does mean telling a group how to proceed, or how not to. (The more experienced the group is with recording, the more they'll just wait for you to tell them what to do actually.) I always start with a runthrough, and usually two or three, of each mvt. before we go back and hit spots. I am more picky about ensemble, intonation, line, tempo, pulse, dynamic contrast, etc. than the musicians are usually, and sometimes the process of getting multiple retakes gets frustrating. It is always hard work no matter what. But they thank me afterward for being rigorous - after all, that's what they're paying me for.
But to start in on a movt. going bar-by-bar is - as you imply in your initial post - at best crazy-making and at worst, counter-productive.
Really there are only 2 ways to reduce editing: a) the group should be able to play things the way they'd like them to sound on the disc, small random boogers being the only issues to edit around; or b) everyone accepts a slightly less-than-perfect end product.
It goes against mine and most musician's grain to consider b). But unless they've done a lot of recordings, a lot of let's say regional or mid-level groups have not really done what it takes to prepare for a).
Either way, spending four and a half hours editing one 2 minute long movement (which I just did yesterday)? It should NOT be that hard. Something is just wrong in the scenario if it feels like a Sisyphean hell to edit something to smithereens just so it will sound barely plausible musically. <Sorry, lost my composure there for a second. :-)>
Thanks for starting the thread!
Old 15th May 2009 | Show parent
  #16
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 15 years
Forgot to add one thing - the problem with only doing 2 or 3 or even 4 runthroughs is that the real problems do not just go away in repetition.
After the first runthrough, there's not usually much to comment on, since the mistakes that occurred may have been just random. If I can tell there's a systemic problem I'll mention it right away.
After take 2 I know where the overlapping problem areas are. I discuss them. We might rehearse them or tune them.
After take 3, if it still isn't right, we start with small chunks (sometimes as short as 20-30 seconds long, if necessary).
If a few short swipes at the passage doesn't get it still, it's something they just have not learned or prepared up to snuff. Then I have to put on the coach hat. Find creative ways to get them to hear it differently, work it differently, whatever, as the situation necessitates. Sometimes it means slow rehearsal, sometimes it means having them come in and listen, and sometimes I have to use trickery, psychological or otherwise :-)
I'm always surprised at the end of a take when I hear, "how did that sound?" (You were sitting right there in the room, did you not hear it?) Or, "was that sharp or was it flat, I can't tell?" (Then how do you practice?)
Old 15th May 2009 | Show parent
  #17
Lives for gear
 
loujudson's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
One of my email sig quotrs is this:


It has been said that Andre Kostelanetz said he had a problem listening to LP recordings, because after the engineers spliced all the takes together, the work was 'too perfect'. No real orchestra could play that well.
Old 15th May 2009 | Show parent
  #18
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 15 years
too perfect?

I have always believed this precept to be an understandable but benign fallacy, only propagated by performers (and maybe some audiophiles or collectors), but not actual listeners. I have heard many such stories from the olden days: Reiner, Kreisler, etc.
I can imagine in the loftiest realms this may be a valid point. Why mess with "close-to-perfection"? Especially if the "messing-with" detracts from a sense of "being there".
But Perelman, Barenboim, Shaham, Ma, Ax, Vieaux, name'em-- I especially think of GOULD -- any of the late or contemporary greats, they believe(d) in the process. "Make it perfect!" they say(ied). And for good reason.
I have never been in a situation where I or my group (whether big-name, small-name, orchestra, soloist, composer, or chamber group) tell me - it's "too perfect! Editing has made a hash out of our real music-making!" In situations where the editing is plain crappy, perhaps. Surely - Absolutely!!
But I've never had that problem. (Not aggrandizing here, only saying - why would a performer not want to have the "most heroic" version of their art portrayed? I have had one violinist ask me to make him taller, and his biceps bigger. We laughed.)
When listening to a CD, have you ever heard someone say, "oh thank God that shift was sloppy!" Or, "I am so glad that chord was not together and out of tune!"?
No, the composers did not write their music to be played imperfectly. They had a celestial ideal in their head.
Now, it is totally true that even magnificent recordings, from Hollywood soundtracks of John Williams' scores, to Berlin Phil's recordings of Mahler Symphonies (don't get me started -- often unknown little i.e. Bulgarian or Latvian orchestras have made not just cleaner but actually FUNNER recordings of much rep), contain many slight (or sometimes significant) intonation and pacing problems, and are NO LESS GREAT for those tiny boogers only few connoisseurs (or nitpicking fellow musicians) would notice.
Not the point.
(By the way, non-musical imperfections, like noise, subways, birds singing in the background, noisy performers' inhalations, audience sounds, etc. do not detract very much IMveryHO. We do right to eliminate them where we can, but we must stop short at the point where listeners would object. Our ears, listeners' ears, are better noise filters than our best plugs. No one cares about clinical noisefloors. Or maybe really anal folks do, but they are rarely happy anyway. :0)
The example of Kostelanetz is really vestigial of a time when there was actual money to be made in recordings, and recording companies would wrest artistic control from the music-makers to get a product in the market without artistic oversight. This kind of situation is rare or at least uncommon and in any case inadvisable now.
Artists should have the ability to give feedback on every stage of the process of creating a commercial (even moreso a "vanity") release. And in my business model they do - as I suspect most recording professionals who read this list.
We communicate. We find common ground. We arrive at a finished product all parties sign off on. Even if we have misgivings, we realize we have made the best thing we could. It's a beautiful thing.
I've never had someone come back and say, "oh, your edit is too perfect, please add a few intonation problems and a few slips of ensemble back in." That would not please the composer would it? But mainly it has not happened because it seems no one thinks like Kostelanetz in your example anymore.
When the consumer puts the recording on, anything that takes them out of the musical experience is contrary to our aims, right? Editing is only a way to facilitate their aesthetic immersion. Barriers on that immersion include musical issues, but even more so, production blunders. A bad edit is far worse than a performance error; but when a good edit can eliminate a performance blemish, I would love to hear a reason why it does not improve the listener's aesthetic experience.
Frank Zappa, and I use him as a proxy for (forgive me, I only use him for his recognition - - I have always worked with lots of living composers, and I have some inkling that the breed is not so different now than ever) other great composers who did not have the benefit of the recording process, used to express his hope that his music could just be "heard right." Not played right - a vain hope, since perfection is not a human capability - "heard right." That's _our job_.
Old 15th May 2009 | Show parent
  #19
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 15 years
Lastly, and after having read the previous thread you claimed definitive, Joel, - which was most informative, btw -
I should state the model I use for pricing:
I give a package estimate for CD projects, usually commercial at this point.
The package estimate includes generous (50+ hours) of editing for 1 commercial CD (plus session time - use per-day rates since it's all on-location -- plus travel, lodging, assistant or engineer's fees, etc).
My editing is only billed however by hour (not by edit??? that's really old-school), no matter if the total comes up short of the proposal. (Back in the day, a producer would make edit choices and the edit lackey would do the editing - now I believe it's more common, and certainly my way, to produce and edit concurrently - much faster, and I get paid for my time whether I'm comparing takes or making the edit.)
Herein, I explain to my clients, is your chance to cut costs: come prepared to play it right, and editing will be really brief. If it is, you save money and I have more time to make love, sail, bike, cook, read, hike, whatever.
If they really want to cut costs and I trust them artistically then I propose they make initial editing choices once I've given them takesheets, rough-mixed Cds with commensurate tracks per take, and a few weeks with my marked scores from the sessions. Making 20 edits an hour is no prob if they have made the initial choices, so they save bundles! And I get more time for, ahem, what I will. Could get hit by a bus tomorrow, you know, got to LIVE.
Jamey
Old 15th May 2009 | Show parent
  #20
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by jglamar ➑️
Lastly, and after having read the previous thread you claimed definitive, Joel, - which was most informative, btw -
I should state the model I use for pricing:
I give a package estimate for CD projects, usually commercial at this point.
The package estimate includes generous (50+ hours) of editing for 1 commercial CD (plus session time - use per-day rates since it's all on-location -- plus travel, lodging, assistant or engineer's fees, etc).
My editing is only billed however by hour (not by edit??? that's really old-school), no matter if the total comes up short of the proposal. (Back in the day, a producer would make edit choices and the edit lackey would do the editing - now I believe it's more common, and certainly my way, to produce and edit concurrently - much faster, and I get paid for my time whether I'm comparing takes or making the edit.)
Herein, I explain to my clients, is your chance to cut costs: come prepared to play it right, and editing will be really brief. If it is, you save money and I have more time to make love, sail, bike, cook, read, hike, whatever.
If they really want to cut costs and I trust them artistically then I propose they make initial editing choices once I've given them takesheets, rough-mixed Cds with commensurate tracks per take, and a few weeks with my marked scores from the sessions. Making 20 edits an hour is no prob if they have made the initial choices, so they save bundles! And I get more time for, ahem, what I will. Could get hit by a bus tomorrow, you know, got to LIVE.
Jamey
thumbsup
Old 4th October 2016
  #21
Here for the gear
 
Anyone knows of any orchestra that rejects editing/post-production?
Old 4th October 2016
  #22
Lives for gear
 
TMetzinger's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 5 years
My classical experience is limited, as most of my work has been with rock or jazz, but what I've taken away from jazz is that it's ok to take several performances and edit them together, assuming they blend ok and give the right vibe. Building a "performance" bar-by-bar kills the "life" from a piece of music, even in rock and roll.

It reminds me of Zappa's Synclavier work on "Jazz from Hell" - very intricate music, that was probably impossible for humans to play.
It's important to hear the "standard" the composer had in mind, and for that purpose the edited-to-death version might be useful. But it's an intellectual response, not an emotional one.

It's much more engaging to hear a live performance of difficult music, because while the players may sometimes fall short of the composers intent, they sometimes surpass it.

Edit - so in summary - edit to balance the composers ideal with the ensembles skill. Somewhere in there is a balance that's true to the piece without lying about the player's abilities.
Old 4th October 2016 | Show parent
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Plush's Avatar
 
5 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by weizhengg ➑️
Anyone knows of any orchestra that rejects editing/post-production?
I don't think that that is what people are talking about here.
Editing is essential and part of a tonmeister's job.

But what about the piano record with 1000 edits?
What about the string quartet record with 400 edits?

The two examples above mean that the player(s) cannot play the pieces well.

It turns in to a nightmare because of all the extra endless takes and the silly job of creating a performance in post.

I just send them home and suggest they come back when better prepared.
As lot of inexperienced musicians believe that when you record in a studio that it is automatically good sounding.
Old 5th October 2016 | Show parent
  #24
Gear Guru
 
Thomas W. Bethe's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plush ➑️
I don't think that that is what people are talking about here.
Editing is essential and part of a tonmeister's job.

But what about the piano record with 1000 edits?
What about the string quartet record with 400 edits?

The two examples above mean that the player(s) cannot play the pieces well.

It turns in to a nightmare because of all the extra endless takes and the silly job of creating a performance in post.

I just send them home and suggest they come back when better prepared.
As lot of inexperienced musicians believe that when you record in a studio that it is automatically good sounding.
Or the piece is extremely difficult or taxing for the artist.

I did a recording of a famous string quartet (I do not want to ID them because of what I am posting). They just came off a three week national tour and were well rehearsed. In one of the pieces the cellist had to do some amazing bow work and then diminuendo to silence. After four hours of recording the majority of the piece he was exhausted and we did 20 takes of the end of the piece with the diminuendo before he was satisfied. Great player, difficult music and personal exhaustion. No one's fault but we got though it and I, with the cellist help, was able to make it sound perfect. He had played this piece probably 20 times on tour and probably did it perfectly every time but the circumstances and the pressure to make it "perfect" came into play. He is a good friend and at the end of the session he basically laid down on the floor for 10 minutes before he could go on.


The idea that editing and post production are somehow "evil" and by doing them they take away something from the recording is laughable. We are, after all, human beings and we do make mistakes and we do get tired and we do need some "help" once in a while to make things perfect.

I have done enough live on air broadcasts of classical performances that I know there are lots of places that the artist or artists would love to do over because it was not "perfect" but it was live and on the air in real time so there is no way to correct it.

I did a live broadcast of Benjamin Britten's Requiem in Time of War and there were some flubs, nothing earth shattering but the vocalist wanted me to "fix the problems" before it was rebroadcast on NPR. This was in the era of reel to reel tape so there was not a lot I could do. I did my best and corrected what I could but if it had been done today my trusty Wavelab and I would have been able to "fix" almost all the problems before the rebroadcast.

I have done over 3500 live recordings in my career and can only remember a few concerts that could not have been made better by some editing and post.

FWIW
Old 5th October 2016
  #25
Lives for gear
 
Wyllys's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
The problem as I've experienced it is that they're listening to the notes and not the music. In addition, they're doing critical listening within a short time frame and tend to subjectivity rather than objectivity.

I made a recording playing solo, direct to stereo, no post due to lack of funds. I just threw the demo master into my car and forgot about it. My wife dug it out from under the seat while looking for a dropped pencil...just an un-labeled cassette. We listened to it and I didn't remember the first piece at all, but thought, "Hey...this guy's not so shabby!!!"

When the second piece came on it was one of my originals, unique to me and I realized the first piece was one I had learned just prior to the session. The interval between recording and listening was over a year. After "ripening up" in the can it was just fine. To date it is my most successful although at the time I had my doubts.
Old 5th October 2016
  #26
Lives for gear
 
edva's Avatar
 
26 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
One of the most difficult jobs I've ever done was an album by two harpists, both extremely experienced and very talented, but, they had devised a plan for some reason to perform all the pieces in approx. one minute sections, and then have me edit it all together.
Not being a harpist myself, or even a trained classical musician, and add to this that is was all avant-guarde music which as far as I know had not been recorded before, so I had no reference, and it was brutal. Came out well in the end, but so, so difficult, and with their levels of virtuosity, hard to understand their method. Apparently they had practiced it this way in preparation for recording, so it did not seem odd to them, even though they were fully capable of playing any of the pieces all the way through. Perhaps page turning was what they were concerned about?
I learned a lesson though, and would never accept such a task again. The sheer amount of work was worth far more than the money, for one thing; and the emotional payoff was more negative than positive, for me at least. YMMV. Good luck.

Last edited by edva; 5th October 2016 at 06:57 PM.. Reason: +
Old 5th October 2016 | Show parent
  #27
Lives for gear
 
Wyllys's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by edva ➑️
One of the most difficult jobs I've ever done was an album by two harpists, both extremely experienced and very talented, but, they had devised a plan for some reason to perform all the pieces in approx. one minute sections, and then have me edit it all together.

(snip)

I learned a lesson though, and would never accept such a task again. The sheer amount of work was worth far more than the money, for one thing; and the emotional payoff was more negative than positive, for me at least. YMMV. Good luck.
Rate schedule:

Do it my way, $x.

Do it your way, $x squared.
Old 5th October 2016
  #28
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
I just have to sit here laughing to myself about all these holy opinions. "I would never...."

The fact is, as a classical engineer, editing is part of the job. Sometimes albums are heavily edited- and it doesn't necessarily mean the performers aren't prepared or not good. Also, heavy editing does not guarantee that there won't be a good musical thought. If the session is produced with musicality being important, then the final product will be musical- at least assuming the editor has enough musical sensitivity not to screw it up.

The sources of the most heavily edited sessions that come through here that I've done are either contemporary music or Bach. The reasons for each being completely different. In new music, there are often complexities that are nearly impossible to get right in any session. There is quite definitely a difference between groups that fake it and those that play what's on the page. In addition, in those projects, you often have not only the performers to work with, but also a composer who has their own ideas as to how the piece needs to work. In the case of Bach, you have music that has a history behind it and a musical transparency where you cannot get away with anything and not have it obviously a problem. I've done solo guitar, guitar ensembles, solo string instruments (violin, cello), choral, etc... All ends up with micro-editing to make it work.

It isn't just albums that get the editing treatment. Much of the music that I record that ends up getting broadcast through the major classical media outlets (NPR, etc...) gets at least some level of editing. The reasoning there is different- audiences have become used to listening to perfect music. Unfortunately, live is no different. Live shows will show the human condition- aka mistakes by even the best of musicians. Those humans have reputations and egos that don't want to hear that- hence the editing.

--Ben
Old 5th October 2016 | Show parent
  #29
Lives for gear
 
edva's Avatar
 
26 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyllys ➑️
Rate schedule:

Do it my way, $x.

Do it your way, $x squared.
Very true, but in that particular instance, as is often the case, they did not have the budget for $x squared, being only two classical musicians with the income level that implies, so it was either meet their budget, or refuse the job, which in hindsight.....
Old 5th October 2016 | Show parent
  #30
Lives for gear
 
edva's Avatar
 
26 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by fifthcircle ➑️
I just have to sit here laughing to myself about all these holy opinions. "I would never...."

--Ben
Not sure to whom that was directed, but I did use those words, so - to be clear, I've edited my fair share of classical music, and have no problem in general with the concept. And my opinion is certainly not "holy" Just sharing a horror story there which seemed to be in line with the OP; however in retrospect perhaps more appropriate to the Moan Zone In my humble and not holy opinion. Some posts and opinions more holy than others eh?
πŸ“ Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 108 views: 11883
Avatar for d_fu
d_fu 3rd April 2007
replies: 217 views: 51614
Avatar for Leverson
Leverson 7th June 2014
replies: 67 views: 6325
Avatar for darbyclash34
darbyclash34 16th December 2013
replies: 129 views: 20379
Avatar for bam_sound
bam_sound 30th May 2021
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump