|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 17, 2020 13:53:09 GMT
the purpose of this thread is to talk about things people used to do that we consider backward and crude, but actually fare rather well when compared to things we have done in more recent history.
for example, the thing which brought the idea to mind: most human cultures, at one time, made their shoes symmetrical. I.E. the shoe could be worn equally comfortably on either the right or left foot. by our modern standard, of course, that is ridiculous. because feet are obviously different, so shoes should also be different. however, consider, first, that clothing manufacturers in the late 70s introduced the "tube sock" to wide acclaim - a sock that ignored the fact the human foot has a heel. and consider second, that the purpose for making shoes symmetrical was so that they could be worn on either foot, so that the owner could alternate feet and thus the soles would wear more evenly, kind of like we rotate the tires on our cars so they wear more evenly.
so were they really all that backward? I mean, we do have modern cars that require a specific tire for each wheel, and the tires cannot be rotated.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jun 17, 2020 15:46:42 GMT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_warA big part of why vinyl has been making a come-back is people talking about its audio quality. On the surface, this is bonkers. Digital can produce clear, crisp audio that vinyl could never have even dreamed of back in the day. Thing is? There are upper and lower limits to the audio that any given recording medium can handle. Every new advancement in audio technology just results in people pushing the audio that much closer to those new limits in an effort to see how far they can go. Digital? Some producers are actually engaging in a process known as "brick-walling", where they have the audio mixed to the point that it meets or even exceeds the given limit. In contrast, when new material is mixed for release on vinyl, a different production team usually has to be brought in because the team has to be so darn careful about mixing the audio as vinyl is far more limited on its uppers and lowers. The end result is that if a new album has both a vinyl and a digital version, there's a chance that the vinyl will have the better audio quality while the digital is often so badly maxed out as to be incoherent. Better bands and production teams have realized this and so have been taking it back a notch. For example, when Rush had one of their albums ruined because of this, they personally re-did the mixing and convinced the label to have their new mix replace the original release in the label's catalog.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 17, 2020 15:58:27 GMT
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_warA big part of why vinyl has been making a come-back is people talking about its audio quality. On the surface, this is bonkers. Digital can produce clear, crisp audio that vinyl could never have even dreamed of back in the day. Thing is? There are upper and lower limits to the audio that any given recording medium can handle. Every new advancement in audio technology just results in people pushing the audio that much closer to those new limits in an effort to see how far they can go. Digital? Some producers are actually engaging in a process known as "brick-walling", where they have the audio mixed to the point that it meets or even exceeds the given limit. In contrast, when new material is mixed for release on vinyl, a different production team usually has to be brought in because the team has to be so darn careful about mixing the audio as vinyl is far more limited on its uppers and lowers. The end result is that if a new album has both a vinyl and a digital version, there's a chance that the vinyl will have the better audio quality while the digital is often so badly maxed out as to be incoherent. Better bands and production teams have realized this and so have been taking it back a notch. For example, when Rush had one of their albums ruined because of this, they personally re-did the mixing and convinced the label to have their new mix replace the original release in the label's catalog. also, there is the "small imperfections enhance the beauty of the art" factor in which a digital recording, while essentially perfect, is sometimes less pleasing than the ambiance produced by analog recordings. to put it another way, a digital recording sounds like listening in a studio; an audio recording sounds like listening in a nightclub. addendum: it could also be said a digital recording is like looking at a digital photograph. an analog recording is like looking at a painting. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Jun 17, 2020 16:51:43 GMT
Enya is a new age artist that was popular in the 90's and early 2000's. She was interesting that she made complicated songs that featured many different and often exotic instruments in addition to her vocals. And for her studio albums, she play all the instruments herself. This mean that each instrument was recorded independently and then all the various tracks were mixed together to form the final song.
I do not know how true it is, but there was a story going around that Enya was a good enough musician that she could play each part perfectly. However, when it all got put together, it seamed slightly unnatural, too perfect. Because of this, she would add in various defects to the music. For example, one instument would be slightly out of tune, another would miss a beat once in a while. The combined effect made the music sound better to the ear because it wasn't so perfect.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jun 17, 2020 21:53:07 GMT
Another one: US kids' cartoons ->
Many kids' cartoons produced in the 1980s and early 1990s were done in support of comic books, toy lines, or other endeavors, and so they're often dismissed as 30-minute commercials.
In contrast, most kids' cartoons today are made in conjunction with a network, and so are afforded a greater level of "respect" because they're network TV shows; that they so often incorporate "woke" political messages is a plus.
Thing is?
1. The different production techniques used back then versus now mean that the older programs often have more human warmth to them, with many of the more popular older shows clearly having been a labor of love on someone's part due to the obvious care and craftsmanship. In contrast, so much of today's animation is done through computers, which is ostensibly faster and cheaper but often leaves the work - especially the animation - feel cold and impersonal.
2. Many writers back in the 1980s not only had the courage to address various political and social issues but also had the deftness and experience needed to handle the subject matter intelligently. As a result, many cartoons from this period delve into issues such as substance abuse, PTSD, racism, bullying, discrimination, and other topics in a way that educated the target audience without being too overwhelming or insulting. A lot of modern cartoons, however, either won't touch these actual topics, or if the writers do they lack the skill to handle the subject matter.
Put it together, and a lot of these "30-minute commercials" have become timeless, while a lot of newer critical darlings are being forgotten almost as soon as they're off the air.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 18, 2020 2:58:30 GMT
Another one: US kids' cartoons -> Many kids' cartoons produced in the 1980s and early 1990s were done in support of comic books, toy lines, or other endeavors, and so they're often dismissed as 30-minute commercials. In contrast, most kids' cartoons today are made in conjunction with a network, and so are afforded a greater level of "respect" because they're network TV shows; that they so often incorporate "woke" political messages is a plus. Thing is? 1. The different production techniques used back then versus now mean that the older programs often have more human warmth to them, with many of the more popular older shows clearly having been a labor of love on someone's part due to the obvious care and craftsmanship. In contrast, so much of today's animation is done through computers, which is ostensibly faster and cheaper but often leaves the work - especially the animation - feel cold and impersonal. 2. Many writers back in the 1980s not only had the courage to address various political and social issues but also had the deftness and experience needed to handle the subject matter intelligently. As a result, many cartoons from this period delve into issues such as substance abuse, PTSD, racism, bullying, discrimination, and other topics in a way that educated the target audience without being too overwhelming or insulting. A lot of modern cartoons, however, either won't touch these actual topics, or if the writers do they lack the skill to handle the subject matter. Put it together, and a lot of these "30-minute commercials" have become timeless, while a lot of newer critical darlings are being forgotten almost as soon as they're off the air. that's more of a style thing to me. yes, a lot of modern cartoons are lazily written and animated. a lot of older cartoons were also lazily written and animated. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jun 18, 2020 9:33:06 GMT
There will be cartoons of today that are remembered as classics of their time and remembered in 40 years time, just as there are cartoons of 40 years remembered as classics now.
The dross will be forgotten, just as the dross of 40 years ago has been forgotten not everything from back then is as fondly remembered as He-Man or Thundercats.
Very few people outside of comic book and cartoon forums remember Gobots or Centurions.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 18, 2020 13:29:54 GMT
There will be cartoons of today that are remembered as classics of their time and remembered in 40 years time, just as there are cartoons of 40 years remembered as classics now. The dross will be forgotten, just as the dross of 40 years ago has been forgotten not everything from back then is as fondly remembered as He-Man or Thundercats. Very few people outside of comic book and cartoon forums remember Gobots or Centurions. I remember gobots as a transformers lookalike. I don't remember centurions at all. for that matter, I remember GI Joe as being a cheesy rip-off of the nickname the common infantry soldier got during WWII that turned a resepect for the guy who did all the dirty work to preserve freedom into some sort of marty stu superhero brigade. I much preferred the truly imaginative ventures like animaniacs. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jun 18, 2020 16:44:44 GMT
There will be cartoons of today that are remembered as classics of their time and remembered in 40 years time, just as there are cartoons of 40 years remembered as classics now. The dross will be forgotten, just as the dross of 40 years ago has been forgotten not everything from back then is as fondly remembered as He-Man or Thundercats. Very few people outside of comic book and cartoon forums remember Gobots or Centurions. I remember gobots as a transformers lookalike. I don't remember centurions at all. for that matter, I remember GI Joe as being a cheesy rip-off of the nickname the common infantry soldier got during WWII that turned a resepect for the guy who did all the dirty work to preserve freedom into some sort of marty stu superhero brigade. I much preferred the truly imaginative ventures like animaniacs. Animaniacs were good but from the early to mid 1990s so only 25-30 years old, it the same era as I was thinking of. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Jun 18, 2020 19:58:22 GMT
that's more of a style thing to me. yes, a lot of modern cartoons are lazily written and animated. a lot of older cartoons were also lazily written and animated. The key difference is that the older shows *had to* have more of a human touch at work on them due to the way things were done back then, leading to many instances where veterans of the industry were able to be brought in. |
|
