|
|
#31
02-28-2019, 04:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I think you can see it :-) So no problem with wind here. Maybe another shotgun mic hidden in the grass in front of him ??? And there is a cable running from his guitar. Can be seen at 1:20 and 1:28 (in the lower left croner) and from 2:25 to 2:32. Some post processing and there you go. If its a playback itīs done pretty much perfect, but I dont think so. 
|
|
#32
02-28-2019, 06:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's a great production but to the best of my ears and eyes 100% play back. The guy on the little Martin is faking here and there some solo but he for sure does not play them exactly the way you hear them. Most of the time he continues playing rhythm. Moreover, I am pretty convinced that the little licks are played on another (bigger) guitar. But they worked on the details, like the tambourin. Yet, how can it be so well recorded live if there isn't a microphone even near. And than the back ground sound. The dubbed in 'waterwaves' cannot be made imho by the rather calm surface we see; and all the birds we hear (sparrows, tits, etc.)... they are recorded in a green surrounding; certainly not on that bare rock massive where they don't live and we don't see them.
Last edited by Karel; 02-28-2019 at 12:52 PM.
|
|
#33
02-28-2019, 09:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
BTW - The hot dog tasted really good and the final score of that game was St.Louis 8, Cincinnati 1.
|
|
#34
02-28-2019, 10:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#35
02-28-2019, 01:29 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
I've got a hilarious music video story. I producer brought me a near-finished video from an Alt. folk band that had been recorded in a farm field, but this time it was actually performed out there with mics and all. Firstly, he wanted it mixed. No problem. However, he also wanted to insert about seven seconds worth of shots into the video between the second verse and second chorus. The band was on the bus on the other side of the country and, besides, how would they match the sound of the original performance?
I watched the video and noticed that there was just, as I remember, acoustic guitar, bass, and some rhythm at the point where we would be spreading it and adding time. I brought in my dreadnought and bass and found some percussion instruments to match. Then I did an edit, opening up more space than I needed for my little part. Next I re-performed the part they were playing at the edit and repeated a couple of measures. Once I had the new part, I pulled the back of the song up and edited it onto my performance in time, making it seamless, except for the farm noises in the background. The company I work for has a HUGE sound effects library with all sorts of ambiences so I started out with some beds and blended them to match the ambience of the farm. Next, hearing and watching a car driving across on-screen in the background that started before the new section and continued after it, I found a similar "automobile passing by on a dirt road, medium speed" sound and blended it at the in-edit and the out-edit so that you couldn't tell the car sound had stopped. I mixed the band and then turned over the expanded sound track to the editor. He added the shots the producer wanted and, et voile'! Producer pleased, editor please, and no-one was the wiser when the video was released a few days later. Bob
__________________
"It is said, 'Go not to the elves for counsel for they will say both no and yes.' " Frodo Baggins to Gildor Inglorion, The Fellowship of the Ring THE MUSICIAN'S ROOM (my website)
|
|
#36
02-28-2019, 01:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
In the meantime I do appreciate the underlying concern DPT is expressing re: the integrity of a real performance vs. a virtual one. This is a very modern conundrum that I personally feel can only be resolved by artists and performers defining their own limits and tolerances. And accepting that others may have very different limits and tolerances. This may be a topic better left to another thread. I only raise it here because it has come up as a direct result of the topic at hand.
|
|
#37
02-28-2019, 01:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#38
02-28-2019, 03:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#39
02-28-2019, 07:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Looking his left shoulder, I really can presume there is a lavalier mic under the shirt. I agree this way the wind is no problem, but his shirt wouldn't scratch the mic and make some noise? Again, sorry any stupid question, but I have no experience with recording. And I saw the cable running from his guitar and going along the grass! Thanks to answer my question, I really appreciate your time spent here!
|
|
#40
03-01-2019, 12:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 . But what I don't see, among all the other things I noted before, is that they play (finger) for instance the B-accents in the G chord and the G-accents in the Em chord (0:58... and elsewhere). Oh, and a cable 'going along the grass'... ? That's no evidence of eagle eyes.
|
|
#41
03-01-2019, 03:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#42
03-01-2019, 09:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#43
03-01-2019, 01:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
 I'm doubting this is recorded "live" on location. From photo.. I see some off the shelf gear. Shure SM57 / Dynamic Mics Focusrite Scarlett 18i8 USB Audio Interface MacBook (not sure model) Powered by some type of battery on the ground.   I hear birds chirping .. but saw none. Last edited by JakeStone; 03-01-2019 at 02:13 PM.
|
|
#45
03-05-2019, 10:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
For an example of what's possible when it comes to fakery, watch the CSN performance of "Judy Blue Eyes" in the 1996 recut and extended version of "Woodstock." It's pretty perfect -- if you had never seen and heard the fairly awful original I don't think you'd ever suspect is was 100% dubbed.
|
