rpvee

The Quick Question Thread

3941 posts in this topic

8 hours ago, petaQ said:

Pishposh. His songs in Hook are excellent. 

He considered that experience to have been quite unpleasant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Not Mr. Big said:

How so?

One of the kids couldn't sing well and was blowing takes.  He said in his grandfatherly voice to relax and try to get it right or we'll find someone who will get it right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of drums is it that Jerry Goldsmith often uses, for example in "False Image" (00:13) or in "The Cage" (03:00 and 03:36 (newly inserted drums))?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are tuned tomtoms with the timpani in False Image.  Can you provide a link to the "The Cage"?  The track from "The Edge" on youtube had no drums at your time marks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh sorry, I meant "The Cage" from "Rambo: First Blood Part II". But I can't find the version WITH those inserts on YouTube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who was the first classical crossover artist?  Was it Malcolm Arnold who composed the Concerto for Rock Group in 1969?

 

 

1969 proto JW here:

 

This is freaking awesome in a psychedelic/JW way!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was composed by Jon Lord, and conducted by Malcolm Arnold (who absolutely loved it, btw!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Richard said:

It was composed by Jon Lord, and conducted by Malcolm Arnold (who absolutely loved it, btw!).

 

Right, my bad.  Very fun orchestral piece and it does seem to be the first rock band orchestral album.  I was reading more about it last night and the other members of Deep Purple didn't enjoy the experience. 

 

From Richie Blackmore:

"I was not into classical music then. I was very very moody and just wanted to play very very loudly and jump around a lot. I couldn't believe we were playing with orchestras. We kept getting lumbered playing with them. We started off in '68- this is my opinion- as a relatively competent band with a lot to say but saying it all at the same time as each other.

"in '69 we went into the classical stuff because it was Jon Lord's big thing to write a concerto for group and orchestra. He was very sincere. But I didn't like playing it or respect the fact that we were doing it. The orchestra was very condescending towards us, and I didn't like playing with them, so it was one big calamity onstage. But Jon was happy with it and management was happy with it because we had a press angle, which I resented very much.

"In 1970 I said, 'right, we're going to make a rock and roll LP. If this doesn't succeed I'll play in orchestras for the rest of my life', because Jon wasn't too into hard rock. Luckily it took off, so I didn't have to play with orchestras any more.

"I love orchestras, chamber music—unaccompanied violin is my favorite. But I respected them too much, and we just weren't in the same caliber. I'd been playing 15 years at the time, and stuck next to some dedicated violinist who's been playing for 50 years just to give an angle to the press—it's insulting. That's why it started and ended very abruptly."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To try to answer your question, karelm...pop/rock songs have been using classical instruments for well over fifty-five years. The album DAYS OF FUTURE PAST, by The Moody Blues, with its orchestral pieces, predated DP's record, by about three years. Also albums by Love, and The Zombies (not to mention Sgt. Pepper), used orchestras. 

As to a full orchestral/rock hybrid; I do believe that DP was the first to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking for a user-friendly freeware that allows you to separate/join channels of 5.1 audio files (and that is NOT Audacity or Eac3to). Basically just want a simple software that allows me to select an audio file (with multiple channels), and then just let me select which channels I want to keep, the ones I want to remove, which ones I want to join together, etc. Don't need any unnecessary options such as resampling or whatever.

 

Any suggestions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you find it let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/03/2017 at 4:56 PM, BloodBoal said:

Looking for a user-friendly freeware that allows you to separate/join channels of 5.1 audio files (and that is NOT Audacity or Eac3to). Basically just want a simple software that allows me to select an audio file (with multiple channels), and then just let me select which channels I want to keep, the ones I want to remove, which ones I want to join together, etc. Don't need any unnecessary options such as resampling or whatever.

 

Any suggestions?

 

After trying many softwares, finally found the perfect one, @Fal: http://www.xmedia-recode.de/en/download.html

 

It's completely free, has a portable version (so you don't even have to install it if you don't want to), and it has all the options I wanted: it can open not only audio files, but also video files to let you select the audio track(s) attached to them (so you don't even have to first demux the audio from the video with another software like tsmuxer), since it's not an audio editing sofware you don't have to wait for it to create the waveform when opening the file, and finally, it lets you do what is called channel mapping: basically select the channels you want to keep and where you want to keep them (which is exactly what we were looking for). So let's say, for example, you have a 5.1 DTS file, and want to make a 2.0 WAV file, with the right channel being the left rear channel from the DTS file and the left channel being the center channel from the DTS file, you can, and it's as easy as it can be. Really awesome. Don't have to use Audacity ever again. Good.

 

P.S.: one thing you should know before using this software (you may already know it, but just in case): when doing channel mapping, the channels are not identified as "Rear left channel", "LFE", "Front right channel", etc. Instead, you just have "Channel 1", "Channel 2", "Channel 3", etc., so here's what each is referring to:

 

Channel 1 = Front left channel

Channel 2 = Front right channel

Channel 3 = Center Channel

Channel 4 = LFE

Channel 5 = Rear left channel

Channel 6 = Rear right channel

Cerebral Cortex and Jay like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now