Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Stephen McElroy" wrote in message

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNE 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNe 109 wrote:
It's purpose was simply to make the master tape capable of being
cut to an lp with the minimum of alteration.

Unless you really, really wanted more handclaps or a nose flute or
something.

Then it ceases, by definition, to be a master tape.

There it it: arguing by definition, aka begging the question.

What's the resulting lp then?

A derivative work of art.

Arny demonstrates the sound of one hand clapping. If someone plays a
master tape in the woods and no one hears it, is it art?

Now that was nice and irrelevant of you Stephen, wasn't it?

It was exactly to the point. The "art" is in the end product, especially
when that end product has features unique to it (and missing from the
master tape). No way can this hypothetical lp be "derivative". To say so
is to prefer an incomplete and unknowable stage to a complete one.

I prefer "My Generation" with feedback, thanks.

Stephen

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:

snip

Well, that didn't go as expected. Sorry for the mangled post. I was
trying to correct an incorrect word.

Stephen

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain MiNE 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Now that was nice and irrelevant of you Stephen, wasn't it?

It was exactly to the point. The "art" is in the end product, especially
when that end product has features unique to it (and missing from the
master tape). No way can this hypothetical lp be "derivative". To say so
is to prefer an incomplete and unknowable stage to a complete one.

Our disagreement here is that the master *is* complete in the majority
of cases, and that the LP cutting master is the derivative which is
created purely for pragmatic, rather than artistic, reasons.

No disagreement here on the first part. The second part is debatable
because the pragmatic doesn't preclude the artistic. Indeed, pragmatic
limits can be a spur to creativity.

Altering the work after it has been mastered is something you'd usually
only do if you don't have the time or the resources to go back to the
master tape itself. It doesn't seem like something people would do
voluntarily.

It's easier than ever to do these days, especially if there's no master
*tape*.

Stephen

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

A certain MiNE 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Our disagreement here is that the master *is* complete in the majority
of cases, and that the LP cutting master is the derivative which is
created purely for pragmatic, rather than artistic, reasons.

No disagreement here on the first part. The second part is debatable
because the pragmatic doesn't preclude the artistic. Indeed, pragmatic
limits can be a spur to creativity.

Not in this case, as that extra creative step doesn't get applied to
non-LP formats.

Altering the work after it has been mastered is something you'd usually
only do if you don't have the time or the resources to go back to the
master tape itself. It doesn't seem like something people would do
voluntarily.

It's easier than ever to do these days, especially if there's no master
*tape*.

Yes, as the computer can just record everything you did and rebuild the
master from scratch from the source material. But if you do it a second
time and tweak it, you have a new "master". The point is not whether
it's better or worse (it may be either or none), just that it's
different.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain MiNE 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Our disagreement here is that the master *is* complete in the majority
of cases, and that the LP cutting master is the derivative which is
created purely for pragmatic, rather than artistic, reasons.

No disagreement here on the first part. The second part is debatable
because the pragmatic doesn't preclude the artistic. Indeed, pragmatic
limits can be a spur to creativity.

Not in this case, as that extra creative step doesn't get applied to
non-LP formats.

Nonsense. The creative step can be from the onset, including all media.

Altering the work after it has been mastered is something you'd usually
only do if you don't have the time or the resources to go back to the
master tape itself. It doesn't seem like something people would do
voluntarily.

It's easier than ever to do these days, especially if there's no master
*tape*.

Yes, as the computer can just record everything you did and rebuild the
master from scratch from the source material. But if you do it a second
time and tweak it, you have a new "master". The point is not whether
it's better or worse (it may be either or none), just that it's
different.

Yes, indeed.

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
Seen it. "Punching in," "comping," all that stuff. To see an experienced
engineer comp a vocal on a two-inch tape machine is quite something. And
there's nothing in your definition that precludes replacing part of a
quarter inch stereo tape.

In the cutting engineers lab to bring you back on topic?

So you assemble the entire orchestra and vocals, do an identical mix on
your portable mixer, arrange for a sync output to feed all their cans, and
do your overdub.

Yes it's possible. ;-)

--
*A woman drove me to drink and I didn't have the decency to thank her

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"MiNE 109" wrote in message

In article ,
Chesney Christ wrote:

A certain MiNE 109, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :

Now that was nice and irrelevant of you Stephen, wasn't it?

It was exactly to the point. The "art" is in the end product,
especially when that end product has features unique to it (and
missing from the master tape). No way can this hypothetical lp be
"derivative". To say so is to prefer an incomplete and unknowable
stage to a complete one.

Our disagreement here is that the master *is* complete in the
majority of cases, and that the LP cutting master is the derivative
which is created purely for pragmatic, rather than artistic, reasons.

No disagreement here on the first part. The second part is debatable
because the pragmatic doesn't preclude the artistic. Indeed, pragmatic
limits can be a spur to creativity.

Let's say that we have a painting, which is a complete work of art. Let's
say that some craftsman decides to copy the painting into some other media
that is more limited in many ways than oil painting, say mosaic tile. That's
almost exactly what a LP mastering engineer does to a master tape.

Now what does one say about the mosaic? Legally and ethically, it's a
derivative work. The creatorship and ownership of the art remains with the
original artist who painted the oil painting until he transfers ownership
to someone else. Creatorship is his forever.

If the craftsman tries to do anything with his mosaic without respecting the
wishes of the owner of the original oil painting, his efforts are at best
tainted and possibly illegal. The craftsman who made the mosaic can't claim
that the art is all his.

Furthermore, there is no question that the mosaic is not an accurate
representation of the original work of art. The mosaic is forever condemned
to a subordinate place in the artistic scheme of things. The painting is the
original work of art, and that is that. The mosaic is a derivative work.

Good analogy. In my hypothetical situation, the mosaic artist has his
own store where he sells mosaics based on oil paintings that he hides in
his basement. Not only that, the oil paintings were commissioned as
templates for his mosaics. The artist adds details and effects not found
in the template painting. His customers have a cultural bias towards
tiles.

Altering the work after it has been mastered is something you'd
usually only do if you don't have the time or the resources to go
back to the master tape itself. It doesn't seem like something
people would do voluntarily.

I think they'd only do it voluntarily.

It's easier than ever to do these days, especially if there's no
master *tape*.

There is still a master recording. This is begging the question or simply
ignorance.

Nope. I've already explained "begging the question" in this thread.

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Arny Krueger wrote:
Let's say that we have a painting, which is a complete work of art.
Let's say that some craftsman decides to copy the painting into some
other media that is more limited in many ways than oil painting, say
mosaic tile. That's almost exactly what a LP mastering engineer does to
a master tape.

That's a good analogy. Congratulations.

--
*Sherlock Holmes never said "Elementary, my dear Watson" *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
Dave Plowman wrote:

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
Well, that didn't go as expected. Sorry for the mangled post. I was
trying to correct an incorrect word.

You should have overdubbed it.

Indeed. A classic punch in.

Stephen

Valve superiority over solid state - read this (Lynn Olsen)
 

In article ,
MiNE 109 wrote:
You should have overdubbed it.

Indeed. A classic punch in.

Heh heh. 'Punching in' is what you do to pick up after a mistake.
Overdubbing replaces the original section completely.

--
*Xerox and Wurlitzer will merge to market reproductive organs.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn