 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I really like the song "Just Give Me a Reason" by Pink, but after the clean-sounding opening piano notes, a faint scratchy noise comes in under the music and stays there until the song is almost over. It ruins the song for me and I can't stand the fact that it was obviously done deliberately as an artistic choice in post production.
If I remember correctly (I'm not at home now), a similiar thing was done to the Kelly Clarkson song "The Trouble with Love Is."
True, the Beatles and some other groups long ago used certain effects once in a while, like simulating 1940's sound quality for portions of a song, but it was done with good sense, usually to be cute-- never with a nails-on-a-chalkboard mentality where the intention is to irritate.
Ruining the sound quality of a song is analogous to Miley Cyrus dispoiling her cute image with harsh make-up, her tongue hanging out, and an ugly grimace on her face. Why is ugly the new "in" thing? It makes me sick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On my death bed I want to watch videos of flowers, deers in meadows, sun sets all while listening to classical music.
I'm sure you'll make an excellent source of protein and calcium, as will I. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trevor Jones used a filtering effect in From Hell that briefly made the music sound like it was playing from an antique phonograph.
If it's brief rather than relentless, that might be a good addition of texture in a period horror film.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 7, 2013 - 5:43 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mr Greg
(Member)
|
The Monkees did this in 1968 with their song "Magnolia Simms", where they attempted a 1920s sound, complete with scratchy and skipping phonograph. They had to write a blurb letting dopey 1960s teens that it was intentional.
...whereas if they had done it today, they would have had to answer to an army of screaming fanboys, and termed it a "Deliberate Creative Decision", and had to justify on about 13,000 web pages why they did it, and secretively leak the untouched-sessions-in-96kbs-as-that's-the-best-they-had, and issued an apology, and said they had to use the audio stems from the DVD as their recordings had actually gone missing in Paris, and then apologised for having existed in the friggin' first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 7, 2013 - 6:32 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Metryq
(Member)
|
In video, all the artifacts that a generation of engineers fought to overcome are now "special effects." You can get plugins to create film grain, hair in the aperture, melting film, etc. One can also add flicker and color adjustments that look like old dyes. Video artifacts are also chic: frame roll, poor off-air reception, scan lines, etc. Let's not forget the "found footage" ShakyCam(TM).
And where would we be without the comic "Zoop!" of a needle being unceremoniously dragged off an LP? Retro is in. (Along with self-hatred.)
On the other side of the aisle are those who must see everything colorized, extruded into 3D, or remade/rebooted simply because the FX technology is "better" now.
Style, not substance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
