Home   Forum   Wiki   Notes   Register   FAQ   Sitemap   About Us   Contact Us  

1999 a glance: in your words

Topic started by Udhaya (@ 205.218.142.217) on Thu Nov 4 15:41:21 EST 1999.
All times in EST +10:30 for IST.

In this thread I would like people to editorialize their feelings about the state of TFM in 1999. What's the reason for this thread? I'm just craving that time in the Discussion Forum when thoughts were actually exchanged and posts had something to say. I bemoan the current state of discussions that are about clan forming and hurling insults from behind anonymous names. If you want to theorize, you can, if you want to vent you can do that too. Just make them palatable and classy however deep-seeded your put downs get. I prefer you write at length; brevity is for obituaries and classifieds. And please for the sake of progress, use a spell checker.

A simple tip to keep this thread from sinking to the pit: Just write your thoughts about the TFM in 1999. Try not to address another Dfer's post.

---

Responses:

• Old responses
  
• From: Udhaya (@ 205.218.142.166) on: Fri Nov 12 17:49:06 EST 1999
  
  As kiru prepares for his rebuttal, let me throw in a layman's perspective.
  
  Srikanth,
  While composition may not be affected by digital recording, the sound experience is entirely different. A song runs into the danger of getting overproduced sometimes. One can tell the different sounds of veenai in "Nam thana nam thana thaalam" and "Nee kaattru naan maram", both are undoubtedly great songs, but the veenai sound in the former song sounds more real and muscular than the much crispier, sharp sound heard in the latter. This trend can be seen in rock'n'roll music too, after music being overproduced in the studio by bands like Duran Duran, Whitney Houston, and Michael Jackson in the 80s, a departure from the highly technical music production was sought by the 90s grunge movement by bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, etc. While I'm not saying that dissonance is the answer, there's a case to be made for the natural sound of an instrument, voice in a song.
  
  
• From: MPR (@ wks112.viveca.com) on: Fri Nov 12 18:06:31 EST 1999
  
  Kiru & Srikanth:
  
  I can see your point. When comparing CDs and LPs,
  I still believe LPs sound better, atleast to me.
  I don't know my point is correct or not but this
  is my guess: "Whatever we hear in day-to-day life
  are not very clear to us. There will be always
  some signal loss while sound travels on the air.
  In the same way, when we use analog technology to
  record, there will be loss in the signal. OTH,
  when music is recorded digitally, you will not
  loose any of the signal. So our mind which has
  been trained for years easily associates with
  the analog recording and makes us to think that
  the sound is so smooth. And also makes digital
  recording looks like artificial to us".
  
  My point may be stupid, correct me if it is :)
  
  
• From: Srikanth (@ 216.32.18.74) on: Fri Nov 12 18:35:47 EST 1999
  
  Basically,
  It is very expensive to achive CD quality in Anlog recording, we need some super natural recording gadgets.
  Frankly, Having digital recording to your music is something having a great handwriting when you write exam, it promots the sound very well.
  
  Clarity is more, as MPR puts our ears are trained to analog, but I do not belive our ears will be able to distinguish between digital and Analog, sounds, it the brain tellus because of the sound clarity. There are digital earing aids now which are very popular, we have person in my team who is deaf and uses a digital earing aid, he tells me it is better than analog.
  
  Kiru, you cannot sound 100% like the original sound, but keeping this as a reason we cannot discount the quality of sounds produced in a keyboard.
  There are somethings natural instruments cannot produce,like bgm music for scifi movice, it is not easy with natural instruments.
  
  Also drum -- synth drum I still do not know what do you mean by synth drum,
  I have a drum machine (Roland r8) that be programmed play tabla perfectly, the sound quality is so good that it is as good as a natural tabla, since I am small timer, I cannot hire Zakir hussion and any other top notch tabla player. The reason I say ZH is he is one of tabla player who could play better than a drum machine.
  
  Also programming drum patterns is not easy, basically a drum programer has to think like a real drum player, he can play one 4 instruments at a time, hence our machine should also product 4 sounds at a time, these are basics.
  
  Try to hear drum programing in Samba Samba from Love birds, real a good work by Ranjit Bharot.
  
  Programming a good synth drum parts is as hard as playing good on a real drum, ofcourse, we can use technology to do little more jazz stuff like step recording etc. But sound quality wise , Synth percussion sounds are very close to real sounds.
  
  Srikanth
  
  
• From: aruLarasan (@ psiphi.umsl.edu) on: Fri Nov 12 18:52:24 EST 1999
  
  MPR,
  
  by using the words "our mind", you are entering the arena of perception and psychology of music :-). let's not get in there. it's much much more (extremely more :-) ) complicated than the mundane things ;-) like electronics! you also used a very technical word "trained" :-). contrary to what you think your point might be, you have touched upon the ultimate question in music appreciation.
  
  kiru,
  
  i wanted to write about it nIngaL mundhik koNdIrkaL. once people attend a couple of good WC concerts, they are prone to change their ideas of sound; especially chorales. wow.
  
  btw, is there any saint saens fan out there?
  
  
• From: kiru (@ surf0004.sybase.com) on: Fri Nov 12 20:49:51 EST 1999
  
  Depending on the drum machine, it is quite possible not many people can notice the difference. That is why they do it in the first place. I just want to dispel the notion that you have to use it to sound good. Though I have to agree small timers have no choice but go digital for convenience and price.
  
  Funny thing is, many people will not pick a CD like 'A Meeting by the River' as good recording compared to some average CD. It is ironical that we do not have much knowledge/awareness about audio reproduction because of the high price of stereo equipment in India.
  
  Check out www.cadence.com. Their minimum price for speakers is Rs80000.
  
  MPR you are not alone in thinking that record players sound better than CD. Actually, lots of CD players want to mimic that sound. Rega Planet is the current rage, it is single disc CD player for $650. Check it out.
  
  BTW, there was a thread on good music systems. But I see not many people are interested.
  
  rAjan, send me your email address.
  
  For eg. here is a description of equipment used by Water Lily acoustics (www.waterlilyacoustics.com). One of the reasons they do analog masters is because they, just like Mobile Fidelity, make LPs. Actually LPs are their main source of income.
  
  ---------------------------------------------
  
  Microphones: Custom-built vacuum-tube design by Baron de Paravicini of ESOTERIC AUDIO
  RESEARCH (Huntingdon, UK), using PEARL dual rectangular capsules.
  
  Mic Pre-Amp: Custom-built vacuum-tube design by Baron de Paravicini of EAR.
  
  Recorder: Custom-built one-inch two-track vacuum-tube design by Baron de Paravicini of EAR.
  Run at 15 i.p.s., using proprietary equalization. Tape: BASF SM 900 maxima.
  
  Monitoring: EAR 549 Mark II power amps and YOSHINO SAIJO loudspeakers designed by
  Baron de Paravicini of EAR. Stax Lamda Signature Nova headphones and custom-built
  vacuum-tube direct-drive amp/meter bridge designed by Baron de Paravicini of EAR.
  
  Mastering: Digital mastering is done from the original analog master tapes to Exabyte DDP by
  Baron de Paravicini of EAR, using his custom-built vacuum-tube A to D converter. The glass
  master is made directly from the Exabyte DDP.
  --------------------------------------------------
  
  
  
  
• From: aruvi (@ cousin-it05.slip.yorku.ca) on: Sat Nov 13 23:15:16 EST 1999
  
  I think that TFM industry was pretty dull in 1999. There wasn't any 'song of the year' hype at all. It was pretty dull. ARR's compositions did not recieve the same excitement it did a couple of years ago. Raja fades in and out, and not to brightly at that. YSR's only credit is Poovellaam Ketuppaar, which is pretty good coming from him, although there were a lot of undesirous items in the album, and Sukhwinder dominates the list there. Deva was the same as usual:-). SAR, Vidhyasagar failed to make any impression as far as popularity goes.
  
  Of the up coming MD's, Bharatwaj's performance was pretty good on 'Amarkalam', the audio; I didn't watch the film. Yet half the share of credits go to VM.
  
  Satham illaatha - Became a hit for lyrics and Bala's singing. Every pitch had a different expression!
  
  UnnOdu Vazhatha - Again, one of Chithra's best number of the year. Wonderful starting piece and as 'Hinduonline' said, Chithra blended with the song.
  
  Meghankal - Good song. Good lyrics again. And the music was good. And it goes without mentioning that Bala was great.
  
  The rest of the songs were pretty normal, I thought.
  
  Other than those, there were very few songs that came out this year that was really good. And one thing missing last year and this year was a song of the year. In 97, it was 'Ennai thaalaadda varuvala'.
  
  

---

List all pages of this thread

---

Back to the Forum

Post comments