In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article i,
Iain Churches wrote:
You don't work in my industry, Iain.

I have probably mixed and edited music for more TV documentaries and
corporate programmes than you would imagine. The transition from
music recording/editing to TV post is interesting and not difficult.
A transition in the opposite direction is not so easy.

You really are a patronising git, Iain.

If it "were" easy, then many people would do it, as it is generally
seen as a considerable step forward. I wonder why TV
companies "hire in" a music editor if a freelance TV sound
recordist could do the job much more cheaply?

They hire in IT people too. And of course most production managers don't
know the total skills of the people they employ. But pigeon hole them.
It's one major thin I dislike about being freelance - you tend to get
asked back for the same sort of prog you've been working on. Takes will to
refuse and branch out - even although you've got the experience for other
things.


You wouldn't have a clue how to set up the comms for even a minor
sporting event TV coverage, for example.

Comms for a minor sporting event? Sounds like an excellent
cure for insomnia:-)

You didn't quite get the bit about patronising, did you, regardless of the
smiley?
Lets put it this way. I'd make a fair fist of any music recording such
that the average punter would be happy. You wouldn't know where to start
with the sound facilities for even a small current affairs or sport
programme, etc, so the average punter wouldn't be able to judge your
results as it simply couldn't be made.

There's a lot more to TV sound than simple music balancing. Kids on
computers do that these days. With no training.

Not symphony or jazz orchestras they don't:-))

Most can sling a stereo pair and get acceptable results from a symphony
ork in a good hall. Jazz is often quite simple too as the band is
internally balanced. Of course you like to surround it with mystery...

*My* industry is basically all aspects of 'live' TV. And you've just
proved you know nothing about it. Or perhaps you don't realise that
music plays only a small part in TV. And that the background music
you've been involved with is usually hated by the viewer. ;-)

I am talking about music composed for the production
and recorded to picture. Most people in TV sound seem
to regard the role of music as paramount. There is no better
way to "set the atmosphere" for a sequence. One of my
tutors, Bernard Hermann, who wrote the music for most of
the Hitchcock films, illustrated this on many many occasions.
Is there any film buff who does not instantly recognise the "Eeek,
Eeek, Eeek" strings from the shower sequence in Psycho?

Ah - right. So suddenly your corporates have become feature films?

But it again shows your lack of knowledge of TV - most use library music.

Another classic example is the film "The White Deer", with music
by Einar Englund.

What I *do* realise, Dave, is that for the most part, people
working in TV live sound are playing second fiddle to the
camera crew, and so do not and can not get the best possible
results. Not too satisfying:-(( But most TV programmes
are viewed once only, so maybe it doesn't matter too much.

And I'd guess if you were recording a live gig you'd play second fiddle
to the front of house boys. So what? Even you will not produce perfection
every time, and getting a decent result in spite of not being the priority
of a production in some circumstances is still very satisfying
professionally. If you'd ever worked on radio drama *and* location TV or
film you'd soon realise that.

--
*You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.