Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 3:05:35 GMT -6
The tools DO matter though. Anyone who says they don't is either trying to sell something, or just trying to delude themselves into thinking that there's a cheaper, easier way to make art. The difference between virtual tools that do the same thing (or close enough) as hardware tools is HUGE from an esthetic point of view. You can SAY the results will be the same if they sound the same, but the results - the performance - will absolutely NOT be the same I'm afraid. At least not for me or those I work with. The esthetics is essential in creating art. To deny that is to deny truth. What I can get out of a musician when I hand them a vintage Tele that used to belong to Lowell George and plug them into a blackface fender deluxe that Paul Rivera modded is far different than what I can get from them when I had them a modded, top notch Chinese or Korean Tele plugged into Guitar Rig or even a Kemper. The keyboard part I get off a guy playing my 1980 prophet 5 on it's $**** keys is FAR different than the part I can pull out of him playing a virtual prophet 5 on a nice controller keyboard. The mind trips out when confronted with QUALITY HArDWARE - and people step up to the plate and perform. Same with a vintage mic like a real 47 or RCA44 compared to a chinese remake or virtual mic. Same thing with a tape sim vs a tape machine. The real deal makes people perform differently. The "tools" may SOUND identical (I'm being extremely generous about this in an effort to focus on esthetics), but the performance is almost always wildly different due to the interface (mic, instrument, console, outboard gear, etc.) between the soul and the resultant audio file. TOOLS affect performances. And performances are art. And art is what we listen to. TOOLS MATTER!!To claim the road to art, and the tools that build the road don't matter is missing the mark entirely. I've been working as a technical audio engineer (technical, telephony, holographic (conferencing), software, electronic, general audio R&D) for about 15 years and I'm going to stick my neck on the line somewhat because my personal opinion doesn't always match up to my professional opinion, in theory you can accuratley re-produce anything that's recorded in the digital domain even though it's a silly amount of work. Whether it be non-linear entities, harmonic's etc. etc. There is no reason for it to better / worse / different. I was speaking with Paul Frindle (SSL technical engineer, P.S love that guy) he said the same, but he wasn't sure why we'd want to in a lot of cases. You're talking about "cheap" gear, but it's not a matter of opinion that a modern Behringer desk in terms of specifications are far superior to some desireable vintage console. Your personal subjective opinion on what sounds better is of course up to you, but in terms of what engineers were trying to achieve back then, near enough anything you can buy today is "technically" superior / more accurate. Now where I'm going to contradict what I know, in terms of analogue / digital and representations is the transmission mediums. Through personal non scientific testing over the years, I've noticed one major thing. If you stick a half decent mic into a desk, generally it sound's like a relatively accurate representation of you.. When I hit the record button through an AD/DA solution it never really does (personally I don't even believe it's subjective), out of the thousands of recordings / mic's / tests / live venue's / comparisons etc. One constant is conversion still has a long way to go. Just a side note: The whole mastering scenario etc. doesn't help any of this, it pretty much becomes irrelevant across the board if everything else isn't done right. Some of these desks had digital effects and again it sounds like you with some effects so it's not a "digital" vs. "analogue" affair, when going through a complete ITB chain I'm always having to bastardize the signal to get it somewhat close to the original. I could write a book on the subject of converters, I've worked on or come across everything from basic pulse-width to R2R ladder. Tools are important to some extent sure, but the fundamentals are far more important in every sense.
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 25, 2017 4:07:54 GMT -6
Not to sound all social work , psych babble 101 , but I really appreciate that we are keeping this conversation so real and frank, even with a guy named steve (n) ! Hey, Isn't that the title of his new album ?
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Jan 25, 2017 5:45:51 GMT -6
So, we end up back where we started with Duke Ellington's statement about there being only two kinds of music, good or bad. Unfortunately, there's so much more of it now, we see much more bad than ever. I don't think that's true. There was just as much bad music in the 50's as there was in the 00's. We just tend to cherrypick the past.
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 25, 2017 10:57:13 GMT -6
The tools DO matter though. Anyone who says they don't is either trying to sell something, or just trying to delude themselves into thinking that there's a cheaper, easier way to make art. The difference between virtual tools that do the same thing (or close enough) as hardware tools is HUGE from an esthetic point of view. You can SAY the results will be the same if they sound the same, but the results - the performance - will absolutely NOT be the same I'm afraid. At least not for me or those I work with. The esthetics is essential in creating art. To deny that is to deny truth. What I can get out of a musician when I hand them a vintage Tele that used to belong to Lowell George and plug them into a blackface fender deluxe that Paul Rivera modded is far different than what I can get from them when I had them a modded, top notch Chinese or Korean Tele plugged into Guitar Rig or even a Kemper. The keyboard part I get off a guy playing my 1980 prophet 5 on it's $**** keys is FAR different than the part I can pull out of him playing a virtual prophet 5 on a nice controller keyboard. The mind trips out when confronted with QUALITY HArDWARE - and people step up to the plate and perform. Same with a vintage mic like a real 47 or RCA44 compared to a chinese remake or virtual mic. Same thing with a tape sim vs a tape machine. The real deal makes people perform differently. The "tools" may SOUND identical (I'm being extremely generous about this in an effort to focus on esthetics), but the performance is almost always wildly different due to the interface (mic, instrument, console, outboard gear, etc.) between the soul and the resultant audio file. TOOLS affect performances. And performances are art. And art is what we listen to. TOOLS MATTER!!To claim the road to art, and the tools that build the road don't matter is missing the mark entirely. I've been working as a technical audio engineer (technical, telephony, holographic (conferencing), software, electronic, general audio R&D) for about 15 years and I'm going to stick my neck on the line somewhat because my personal opinion doesn't always match up to my professional opinion, in theory you can accuratley re-produce anything that's recorded in the digital domain even though it's a silly amount of work. Whether it be non-linear entities, harmonic's etc. etc. There is no reason for it to better / worse / different. I was speaking with Paul Frindle (SSL technical engineer, P.S love that guy) he said the same, but he wasn't sure why we'd want to in a lot of cases. You're talking about "cheap" gear, but it's not a matter of opinion that a modern Behringer desk in terms of specifications are far superior to some desireable vintage console. Your personal subjective opinion on what sounds better is of course up to you, but in terms of what engineers were trying to achieve back then, near enough anything you can buy today is "technically" superior / more accurate. Now where I'm going to contradict what I know, in terms of analogue / digital and representations is the transmission mediums. Through personal non scientific testing over the years, I've noticed one major thing. If you stick a half decent mic into a desk, generally it sound's like a relatively accurate representation of you.. When I hit the record button through an AD/DA solution it never really does (personally I don't even believe it's subjective), out of the thousands of recordings / mic's / tests / live venue's / comparisons etc. One constant is conversion still has a long way to go. Just a side note: The whole mastering scenario etc. doesn't help any of this, it pretty much becomes irrelevant across the board if everything else isn't done right. Some of these desks had digital effects and again it sounds like you with some effects so it's not a "digital" vs. "analogue" affair, when going through a complete ITB chain I'm always having to bastardize the signal to get it somewhat close to the original. I could write a book on the subject of converters, I've worked on or come across everything from basic pulse-width to R2R ladder. Tools are important to some extent sure, but the fundamentals are far more important in every sense. I think you kind of missed my point - or maybe I missed yours, but no big deal. It wasn't about whether Digital can do what analog does. It was a creative comment not a sonics or technical one. What I was trying to say, was that as an artist - the tool I pick up to use will determine where my creative muse wanders. I cannot get to an identical same destination with two different sets of tools. I like traditional analog tools over virtual simulations of traditional analog tools. They get me where I want to go faster, more creatively, and ultimately in a more artful way. This is of course for ME.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 25, 2017 12:32:49 GMT -6
I don't agree Jakeharris :-) My point was referring to the lack of filters and barriers to recording and publishing music now that we have digital recording and Youtube. There are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of pieces of music that would never have seen the light of day if they had to get through all the people and roadblocks that the traditional record company product used to put in front of artists. So there is an indescribable amount of bad or mediocre music that is available now that was never available previously.
I think that's indisputable. Of course, it also allows for some brilliant new artists to get exposure and some mature artists to keep product available, long after a record company would have dropped them for lack of big sales.
|
|
|
Post by 79sg on Jan 25, 2017 12:50:36 GMT -6
The irony in all of this is that on the one hand musicians, writers, producers, engineers etc. have what appears to be an insatiable appetite for tools that are "close enough" because they are less expensive (well initially until you have to buy a new computer to make sure that less expensive software now updated will continue to run) than the real thing and that's why they buy them yet on the other hand wonder why it has become increasingly difficult to make a living at it. Maybe it's me but isn't that the same thought process as consumers that willingly take free music all day long but pause if they have to pay for it? I realize this thread is about Slates new Virtual Recording System, I haven't even looked at it (yet).
An example is this, I use and own all of Spectrasonics stuff, it's great. I use and own lots of U-he's stuff and it's great too. However, I also own and use a Minimoog Model D reissue and this piece of equipment is so inspiring and gives me an "experience" I cannot and will not ever get from software, period. Same goes for guitars and amplifiers, etc. There is something to be said for what you experience along the way vs. just getting to the end result.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2017 13:49:37 GMT -6
I don't agree Jakeharris :-) My point was referring to the lack of filters and barriers to recording and publishing music now that we have digital recording and Youtube. There are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of pieces of music that would never have seen the light of day if they had to get through all the people and roadblocks that the traditional record company product used to put in front of artists. So there is an indescribable amount of bad or mediocre music that is available now that was never available previously. importantly you will actively have to search for that sort of music if you want to listen to it. Radio stations here still pretty much play the same prescriptive, trite shite they have for years. Who ever said the A&R guys knew it all. And what about the backhanders DJ's (aka music industry leeches ) made for simply playing a tune. Good riddance to the corrupt elitist bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jan 25, 2017 14:07:05 GMT -6
Ah,, no offense, but I feel that is a misrepresentation. It seems to me Steven is not saying tools don't matter, but that they only matter to the extent to which they help the artist create their vision and he doesn't care which you use. Of course, he can share what it is about his products that he believes adds that value,but give the guy some credit, you can try 100% of his plugs ins any month for the price of 5 coffees , 2 beers, 1 bottle of wine or less then when I take my kids to mcdics: how much more opportunity can he give you to prove him wrong ? Exactly kcatthedog. Of course tools matter.. I don't think Jimi Hendrix would have been as legendary had someone replaced his Strat with a tree branch. But the point is that if someone is making great stuff and are happy with their tools, then that is all that matters. Cheers, Steven I have a home made bootleg CD of Hendrix noodling around on an acoustic guitar in his bedroom, allegedly recorded by his dad on one of those old cassette dictation recorders. Guess who he sounds like? Not album quality of course, but still unmistakable....
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jan 25, 2017 14:11:43 GMT -6
So, we end up back where we started with Duke Ellington's statement about there being only two kinds of music, good or bad. Unfortunately, there's so much more of it now, we see much more bad than ever. I don't think that's true. There was just as much bad music in the 50's as there was in the 00's. We just tend to cherrypick the past. I'm not totally certain of that. It's seeming to me that for the most part the dreck was more musical or at least more entertaining back then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2017 0:45:41 GMT -6
I think you kind of missed my point - or maybe I missed yours, but no big deal. It wasn't about whether Digital can do what analog does. It was a creative comment not a sonics or technical one. What I was trying to say, was that as an artist - the tool I pick up to use will determine where my creative muse wanders. I cannot get to an identical same destination with two different sets of tools. I like traditional analog tools over virtual simulations of traditional analog tools. They get me where I want to go faster, more creatively, and ultimately in a more artful way. This is of course for ME. Well as a musician myself I think that was a long over extended way of saying I respond to sonics, I've tracked enough people to know if you send a dry signal back from a DAW they look like a deer in a headlight (of course you add verb / compression into the relay) but it's a fun test. I've always found it rather jarring as well but of course you practice with what you have, if I slap a mic into a desk with a bit of compression and verb (even if it's a digital in-built effect to the board) it sounds like me so I always perform to the fullest. Mic's have a sweet spot as well, where just the right amount of compression and gain opens it right up and you start getting an accurate representation. Issue is you have to be careful with ITB tracking, like -8 / -6 peaks with -18 average is generally a good way to go. But on the mic's sweet spot it's easy to push over and in analogue you can get away with it, some times it's what you want. So I'm always too aware of what I'm doing.. You said and I quote "The tools DO matter though. Anyone who says they don't is either trying to sell something, or just trying to delude themselves into thinking that there's a cheaper, easier way to make art." Don't you think I want my ITB chain from end to end which is worth tens of thousands to sound better (as in natural) than slapping a mic into behringer desk? I have "the tools" and as it stands right now the "cheaper" way of doing things seems to bring the best results. I'd love to figure that one out (is it me? Is there some secret to digital recording that I somehow have missed?, I was primarily from an analogue background but I ain't actually that old so grew up with digital. I'm not a fan persay of analogue equipment, I can take or leave it. In terms of convenience I certainly would leave it, but it is what it is..
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 26, 2017 1:08:22 GMT -6
I think you kind of missed my point - or maybe I missed yours, but no big deal. It wasn't about whether Digital can do what analog does. It was a creative comment not a sonics or technical one. What I was trying to say, was that as an artist - the tool I pick up to use will determine where my creative muse wanders. I cannot get to an identical same destination with two different sets of tools. I like traditional analog tools over virtual simulations of traditional analog tools. They get me where I want to go faster, more creatively, and ultimately in a more artful way. This is of course for ME. Well as a musician myself I think that was a long over extended way of saying I respond to sonics, I've tracked enough people to know if you send a dry signal back from a DAW they look like a deer in a headlight (of course you add verb / compression into the relay) but it's a fun test. I've always found it rather jarring as well but of course you practice with what you have, if I slap a mic into a desk with a bit of compression and verb (even if it's a digital in-built effect to the board) it sounds like me so I always perform to the fullest. Mic's have a sweet spot as well, where just the right amount of compression and gain opens it right up and you start getting an accurate representation. Issue is you have to be careful with ITB tracking, like -8 / -6 peaks with -18 average is generally a good way to go. But on the mic's sweet spot it's easy to push over and in analogue you can get away with it, some times it's what you want. So I'm always too aware of what I'm doing.. You said and I quote "The tools DO matter though. Anyone who says they don't is either trying to sell something, or just trying to delude themselves into thinking that there's a cheaper, easier way to make art." Don't you think I want my ITB chain from end to end which is worth tens of thousands to sound better (as in natural) than slapping a mic into behringer desk? I have "the tools" and as it stands right now the "cheaper" way of doing things seems to bring the best results.I'd love to figure that one out (is it me? Is there some secret to digital recording that I somehow have missed?, I was primarily from an analogue background but I ain't actually that old so grew up with digital. I'm not a fan persay of analogue equipment, I can take or leave it. In terms of convenience I certainly would leave it, but it is what it is.. Then you have your answer. My answer is not the same though. Whatever inspires you is definitely the way you should go.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2017 2:33:15 GMT -6
Then you have your answer. My answer is not the same though. Whatever inspires you is definitely the way you should go. Well I am going to try it out again and just as a disclaimer this was something I tested years back and it could be hyperbole or just pure bullshit at this point. It's not the first time, I've ordered a piece of gear thought OMG that's amazing.. Couple of years later come back to it and thought, why did I buy this in the first place??! If nothing else I've learnt from this career is never understimate the power of psycho-acoustics and warped memories. P.S I saw you in a vid with James Lugo, so I know you actually exist >!
|
|
|
Post by kcatthedog on Jan 26, 2017 4:23:00 GMT -6
What Dr. Bill isn't virtual ?
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jan 26, 2017 11:01:01 GMT -6
I can barely remember that. Was it at his Hollywood place?
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 26, 2017 12:00:42 GMT -6
This is interesting and pertinent. Alex Oana at Vintage King hosts a mic shootout. It's almost an hour and a half long, so there's lot of fluff and filler, but listening to the incredible selection of high end LDC's is enlightening. A little past 24 minutes, and they compare the Slate U47 to the Telefunken U47. It's brief, and only s few spoken words, but it's still worth checking out.
Get a hot cup of coffee if you plan to watch it all, you'll need it.
|
|
|
Post by swurveman on Jan 26, 2017 12:43:43 GMT -6
Wish I could afford a Telefunken 251. Just love the way that mic sounds.
|
|
|
Post by joseph on Jan 26, 2017 13:27:18 GMT -6
Excellent shootout. Too bad they didn't do any Josephsons (unless you count the capsule in the Manley Gold) or Brauners.
Warren's episode with Joe Barresi is so good, btw.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 26, 2017 13:38:52 GMT -6
When I did my high end mic shootout at the Barbershop Studios with Jeremy Gillespie, the U47 was flawless, but I prefered the U67 for my vocal. But the Telefunken in the video seems to sound even better, (hard to say, of course), and in that video, I'd say the Telefunken U47 gets the gold, the Bock, the silver, and the Manley Cardioid Reference, the bronze. The Slate VMS has to get an honorable mention though, because in general, that was pretty frickin' close for $1,000.
|
|
|
Post by jakeharris on Jan 26, 2017 13:40:52 GMT -6
I don't agree Jakeharris :-) My point was referring to the lack of filters and barriers to recording and publishing music now that we have digital recording and Youtube. There are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of pieces of music that would never have seen the light of day if they had to get through all the people and roadblocks that the traditional record company product used to put in front of artists. So there is an indescribable amount of bad or mediocre music that is available now that was never available previously. I think that's indisputable. Of course, it also allows for some brilliant new artists to get exposure and some mature artists to keep product available, long after a record company would have dropped them for lack of big sales. The majority of music was released on independent labels though, of which there were millions. No filters and barriers to printing your own vinyl and getting it played on the radio. When I'm crate digging, pretty much 90% of everything I listen to is trash. Now yes, there's definitely much more music with easier distribution, but... 90% of everything produced today is still trash. My take is these ratio's never really change (I'm sure there was a lot of world-class garbage being recorded in the 1800's too)
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 26, 2017 14:47:38 GMT -6
No way to tell exactly, but when you said "the majority of music was released on independent labels", I don't quite see how you mean that. Almost every piece of music I ever liked or listened to was on a major label until more recently, basically everyone. Sinatra, Elvis, Dion, Beatles, Stones, Who, Beach Boys, Byrds, Sam Cooke, Nat King Cole, Hendix, C,S,N & Y, James Taylor, David Bowie, Roxy Music, and on and on.. Columbia and Atlantic alone probably account for half of the greatest music of the 20th century.
So if only for the sake of our discussion we say that the ratio of crap to good is still the same, the ability of anyone to put a product out inherently means that ratio flips to there being tons more crap. I was signed to a major label. My contract was 103 pages long. It took a herculean effort to get a product available for people to buy. Today, with Garage Band and a CD baby account, someones crap is global overnight.
So c'mon, unless I'm misinterpreting you, you have to see that there's more mediocre music available now than ever before in history.
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Jan 26, 2017 15:44:57 GMT -6
Your mediocre is someone's gold martin
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 26, 2017 16:48:10 GMT -6
That's probably true gouge, but it doesn't mean it IS gold though, does it. I don't have anything against anyone enjoying themselves and making art. But I do have my own standards, and I think we all do to one extent or another.
Getting back on topic, the Slate VMR system is in fact a case in point. To the beginner or someone with some experience, but not a lot, it might sound amazingly close to the original mic. In fact, it is amazingly close, from one perspective. But from another perspective, one where your goal is to sound truly world class, well that little bit that isn't quite the same is everything. The Slate system does give a tremendous value to someone who isn't at the point where they'll only be satisfied by the real thing.
In my case, I'd really like to own that Manley mic, but would take the Bock if they were only close in price, but I still wouldn't be satisfied until what I have sounds as good or better to me than that Telefunken U47. If I had the money, I'd just go buy it or a vintage U67 and move right on to recording.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jan 26, 2017 17:37:14 GMT -6
I don't agree Jakeharris :-) My point was referring to the lack of filters and barriers to recording and publishing music now that we have digital recording and Youtube. There are hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of pieces of music that would never have seen the light of day if they had to get through all the people and roadblocks that the traditional record company product used to put in front of artists. So there is an indescribable amount of bad or mediocre music that is available now that was never available previously. I think that's indisputable. Of course, it also allows for some brilliant new artists to get exposure and some mature artists to keep product available, long after a record company would have dropped them for lack of big sales. The majority of music was released on independent labels though, of which there were millions. No filters and barriers to printing your own vinyl and getting it played on the radio. When I'm crate digging, pretty much 90% of everything I listen to is trash. Now yes, there's definitely much more music with easier distribution, but... 90% of everything produced today is still trash. My take is these ratio's never really change (I'm sure there was a lot of world-class garbage being recorded in the 1800's too) I'd arge that although distribution these days is "easier", distribution in the older days was probably more effective. These days you throw your music out into the great sinkhole of the internet and it disappears without a trace. There's no promotion, no localized press, no nothing. Since everything is so universal and generalized acrfoss the whole internet there's no real way to focus attention on your product. In the earlier era you could get press in the local music mags and schlep your record around to the local radio stations and schmooze the DJs and program directors into giving it a few plays. Now there aren't even any local DJs and program directors at most stations, their playlists are are tightly controlled by some central entity that's pretty much inaccessible. There is NO equalivalent of the local music press, just genre blogs that get deluged by press mailings from paid publicity sharks. Which means you can't get a local hit, build it into something regional, and have a crack at going national if people like what they hear. So unless you're very, very lucky nobody knows you even exist and that "distribution" is worthless. And recording reproduction in the 1800s was so rare, difficult, and expensive that it's highly unlikely that any "world class garbage" was produced with the intent of distribution. A commercial release at the time was made by the performer recording into several machines at a time, ganged off of on trumpet and tube assembly. This allowed recording up to 10 copies. A bit later a pantograph based system was devised that couple produce 90-150 copies at once. Consequently to produced any reasonable number for commercial sale an artist needed to perform a song multiple times - as many as 50 times a day (at 20 cents per rendition.) It's not very likely that anybody was going to go through recording a song 20 times for an approximately 2000 copy release unless there was a real existing demand.
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jan 26, 2017 17:52:26 GMT -6
I've experienced exactly what you're describing Johneppstein, and I'm trying to figure out how not to make that happen if I release a new album.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Jan 26, 2017 17:59:54 GMT -6
No way to tell exactly, but when you said "the majority of music was released on independent labels", I don't quite see how you mean that. Almost every piece of music I ever liked or listened to was on a major label until more recently, basically everyone. Sinatra, Elvis, Dion, Beatles, Stones, Who, Beach Boys, Byrds, Sam Cooke, Nat King Cole, Hendix, C,S,N & Y, James Taylor, David Bowie, Roxy Music, and on and on.. Columbia and Atlantic alone probably account for half of the greatest music of the 20th century. So if only for the sake of our discussion we say that the ratio of crap to good is still the same, the ability of anyone to put a product out inherently means that ratio flips to there being tons more crap. I was signed to a major label. My contract was 103 pages long. It took a herculean effort to get a product available for people to buy. Today, with Garage Band and a CD baby account, someones crap is global overnight. So c'mon, unless I'm misinterpreting you, you have to see that there's more mediocre music available now than ever before in history. Well, a lot of the records that were big sellers in the '50s and '60s were in fact on indies, although we may not think of them as such. Motown, Sun, Chess/Checker, Stax/Volt, Fantasy, Verve, Blue Note, Excello, Imperial, Aladdin, Minit, VeeJay, Dot, Ace, Arc, Cadence, Red Bird, so many of the great jazz, blues, and early rock and roll records were recorded by indie labels. There were so many, I can't come close to remembering even a fraction of them - and those are all labels that had major hits. In addition there were specialty labels like Folkways, Tacoma, and Arhoolie that played a major part in the folk music scene of the late '50s and early '60s. In fact, if it hadn't been for the indies there probably would not have been rock and roll as we know it, and not much blues, either. The majority of music from New Orleans, Chicago,and Memphis was on indie labels. Incidentally, Atlantic records was an indie until 1967, when it got bought out by Warner - but all the stuff that the label was built on was when it was an indy.
|
|