shooting a film about analog recording with digital equipment
lol
shareOh I'm sorry, did you want it on a 4:3 betamax? Not gonna be shown in many theatres, is it?
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Sound City (2013) Discussion > shooting a film about analog recording w...
Psst...music and film are two different mediums.
shareYou can't quite believably state that for music, the old school style with all analog and tape and no computers is the best ever, and showing that point invalid for film by using all digital equipment. But then, this is a glorified music video dvd, and as such I find the picture quality fitting.
They're both creative mediums though, and VERY similar.
I wouldnt and dont have problems with those that LOVE analog gear and sound. But Grohl subtly grits his teeth at ANYTHING DIGITAL and has thrown those that use digital equipment to "assemble" music under the bus. Then he makes his doc digitally lol.
I think that's awesome that u pointed that out. I was wondering it myself and found here on IMDB it was shot on a Red Epic. I wonder if it was edited in Final Cut Pro....ultimate hypocrisy.
Audio and video production equipment have BOTH made huge leaps in this recent digital era. Grohl goes on to bash and berate them, and subtly diss musicians and engineers who take advantage of digital audio equipment.
Then he makes a documentary using digital equipment!! Why?? Cause it's cheaper, easier, looks "almost pretty much just as good" if not better to some people. It's also a whole lot easier to manage digital information than actual film (have u seen how big and heavy one roll of 35mm film is?). Hey wait a minute.....those are the exact same reasons that the entire professional audio/music recording and production industry is quickly moving over to nearly complete digital formats....for efficiency!! While the veterans will always still love their analog gear (and rightly should), it would be dinosauric to cling to that past.
So Grohl elaborates on his love for that analog path in music, but makes his doc in digital video. Maybe he doesn't LOVE analog film and could care less. Regardless, audio and video production share so many similarities its ridiculous...ESPECIALLY the evolution of the equipment being used.
I think Grohl's a hypocrite and should just shut up with his anti-digital era rants....his music's pretty boring too.
Except this isn't exactly a fair comparison. Yes, film and audio production have their similarities, but Grohl isn't trying to say that analog is necessarily better than digital. Sure, he may personally feel that way, but the point he's trying to make is about the lack of human connection to music when it's altered so drastically with digital tools.
A fairer comparison would be the altering of music with pro tools and excessive amounts of cgi in films.
Also, you have to remember that Dave Grohl is not a filmmaker, he's a musician with a passion for this subject matter. I'm willing to bet he doesn't know much about the actual process/differences of shooting film versus shooting digital, and so his decision to shoot on RED was probably influenced by his DP, who i'm pretty sure owned the camera, and the fact that this is a documentary. It's not a controlled environment like a narrative, aside from the interviews of course, and for someone who's never made a film before, digital offers a helpful learning curve.
The point is, the fact that this movie was shot on digital doesn't affect the point it's trying to make. It's simply a way for audiences to see this story, nothing more.
Also, insulting him or his music doesn't help your argument and just makes it sound like you have a personal problem with him.
I couldn't have said it any better myself.
I only want to emphasize, in my opinion, the two most important facts in your post - Dave Grohl is a musician, NOT a filmmaker and this is a documentary, NOT a feature film.
"Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity." - George Carlin
Just watched this last night. Being a filmmaker, I see your point, but I don't think he was throwing digital under the bus, just saying that there's something about learning how to play an instrument vs. sequencing them by sitting behind a computer. There's the human element. And don't forget that half the movie is analog film stills/polaroids, and old film & video clips that were tirelessly poured through, scanned, and edited. Can you imagine trying to edit this thing conventionally on a flatbed and optical printers?
shareeh, we have more virtuosos than ever now. It's easy to find young people who could play a thousand way better than Grohl nowadays. Just look at youtube videos. And because of the wonder of digital recording, they're able to produce their own records without having to waste huge amount of money for additional players or an entire orchestra (if their compositions need it). There's no need to remind people to pick up an instrument. I honestly think it's just Grohl's misguided elitism.
In the end it's all about the music. It doesn't matter what tools you're using. If your music is mediocre and derivative like Grohls', no amount of million dollar analog equipments could fix that.
To Op..
Yes true, I think a few posts may not of realised you weren't having a small dig, I think the op meant it as more of an observational "technicality style" joke. I also laughed at this when I read it, realising the catch 22, for lack of a better word.
Good engineers see audio equipment like a tool, like a hammer, screw driver, depending on what Im building, depends on what I use. Analog, or digital, it should only matter when your trying to decide what you want as your outcome, and what will deliver it in the best way. The movie was never meant to be a debate over analog v digital, it was just about Grohls love of that magnificent desk, (and I share it! lol), he just set up how important it was, by showing us from the start what ground breaking music was recorded through it. That Neve is no longer just a desk, it really is an historical artefact that should be kept alive, it helped capture amazing art. Plus the movie also more emphasised the "way" of making an album, rather then just tracking over and over as 90% of pop music is now made, we capture, "as much" as we can in one take. He believed that bands playing live, in the studio gather a different feel.
Regards
As has been mentioned above..its not all about purists and recording to reel. The guys at Sound City even realised that they were doomed by not going digital. Its about the making of the music...and yes that board did give something special. Without Studio City Buckingham-Nicks may never have met Fleetwood Mac....The whole purist point is about using equipment where the musician has to make the music to some sort of perfection for it to be at a quality to be releases. Tom Petty talked about doing 130 odd takes for refugee...I imagine the satisfaction after take 139 is far greater than just doing a few and tweaking it digitally.
Who cares what it was filmed on..it is a video about the musicians and the location and a board (that happens to be reel to reel) that obviously all these top musicians have a special association with.
The point about the whole digital thing was highlighting that because of digital you get crap like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZgzSwTW0Qs) being released
This issue could be argued any way possible. But why not listen to the how and the what about this documentary?
I found out about Sound City by listening to the digital cinema cafe podcast and there's an episode (the first guest episode as a matter of fact) that's dedicated to this documentary.
One key factor in not shooting film (at least not exclusively) was cost. Much like recording to tape, it all has a significant cost and none of these costs are getting cheaper (from tape to maintenance to equipement).
Here's a link to the episode : http://digitalcinemacafe.com/2013/06/02/dcc002-capturing-rock-history- feat-kenny-stoff/
OMG U SO DEEP BRO
shareExactly my thoughts. It was quite ironic that all of these musicians complain about the fact that, today, any old dude with a guitar and a computer can put out an album, the same way that, in Keanu Reeves' "Side by Side" (which is excellent, by the way) certain directors complained about the fact that any old dude with a camera and a computer can put out a movie.
Ironically, that's exactly what happened here: Dave Grohl is the faceless dude, and the movie is Sound City. Yes, yes: I understand that he's an accomplished musician and a very public figure. But in the world of movie making, he was nothing until this.
It further always amuses me when people complain about how digital technology and the internet have destroyed everything. Funnily enough, these musicians are completely ok with using Netflix instead of Blockbusters, are addicted to their iPhones and rely heavily on Facebook and Twitter to promote their music on the cheap.
Good documentary, though. And it was a trip to watch the Nirvana crew play with Paul McCartney.
[deleted]