[Richard Crowley]

"D.M. Procida" wrote ...
Laurence Payne wrote:
D.M. Procida wrote:
To his credit, the fellow doing the recording made a lot of effort to
get things like microphones set up properly before recording anything.
Even so, the knowledge even a misplaced syllable could be nudged back
into place or excised digitally changed the way we did everything,
especially in the later stages when we saw what could be done, and I
don't think it improved the performance.

That was your problem, not the system's and it shouldn't have been.

I disagree. I'm the human. The machines are at my service, not the other
way round. The system is supposed to be there for me, and it's
successful and useful to the extent that it works for me.

Then consider the possibility that you don't know how to use the
machines properly (to your advantage). Most everyone else on the
planet is relieved by eliminating the mechanical monstrosity from the mix.

Obviously, not everyone's like us.

As a musician, I find the possibility of easy digital editing very
liberating. I no longer feel pressure to "play safe" towards the end
of an otherwise satisfactory take. I can realise my compositions
without having to be a virtuoso on EVERY instrument. It helps me make
more music, more effeciently.

I had the opposite experience. For example, zero rewinding time gave me
no help at all. Rewinding time provided a few useful moments for
relfection.

If you truly believe what you said ("The machines are at my service")
then you shouldn't feel compelled to press the play button until you
have had your "few useful moments for reflection". Sounds like you
are more a slave to the equipment than those of us who have moved
on to the digital era. I'm beginning to suspect a troll here.