In issue #84 I wrote an End Rant entitled "The Big Misconception." In it, I railed against the concept that a computer could replace an entire studio. I still say it can't really do as such, and to claim otherwise is a lie, but I never said it couldn't open up other doors of creativity. Below are some letters we received, as well as some of my thoughts to these responses.
You omit any reference to electronic music. What about that vast area of music that uses the computer to create? And, dare I say it, which has forged a different skill set only partly informed by traditional studio craft?
"drissa" via the Tape Op Message Board
If you are discussing electronic music that is created purely within a computer, then maybe it has no real precedent in the analog/studio recording world that it could be replacing. If so, then this is not what journalists and such are referring to. But consider that electronic-based artists like Kraftwerk, Steve Roach, Larry Fast [Tape Op #38] and many others built their own studios to record in those "pre-DAW" days. And they spent fair amounts of money to do so. -LC
Times have changed. The majority of truly relevant recordings right now are being made in bedrooms, on cheap headphones and without engineers. The world doesn't really run on twee indie pop that is tracked on 1" tape.
J. Infamous <_j_biz@yahoo.com>
In my opinion, anyone that records music into some device is "engineering" at some level. Do you mean not "professional" engineers? Sure, this happens occasionally. No problem with that! But even Owl City's first album (an example I used in my initial article), was mixed by John Goodmanson [Tape Op #35] — very much a professional engineer. However, if you are inferring that Tape Op or myself present a Luddite attitude towards recording, I'd say take a far closer look at our actual content.