Only some of it. Some of what you say, requires a "belief"....a "new-age faith" because there is no science to back it up.

Yes, the body runs on electricity and everything we experience is down to an electrical impulse.

Certain rhythms and sounds do have a differing effect on humans - certain frequencies, for example, have been shown to alter the brainwave state, like moving from alpha to beta state.

It also can't be denied that a song captures a feeling of the moment, just as a photograph preserves a moment of history. There is also no doubt that music can contain healing properties (as well as others).

The universe is also made of vibration - matter itself is a vibration that is slow enough for us to see it and experience it. The universe possesses it's own frequency too - the "background" noise from the big bang. Even the ancient Hindu religion acknowledges this, as the "Ohm" in Hindu represents the "sound" of the universe.

All of that is sound (pun intended) reasoning! Where you start to reach is with your accusations about modern recording techniques.

My first problem with it is that all recording techniques are essentially modern, in comparison to both human and musical history. Mankind has been playing music ever since we were banging things and singing around fires, tens of thousands of years ago. Music has ALWAYS been important to humans, because it mirrors the rhythms and order found in nature.

We have only been able to record sound for a very short period of time, just over 100 years.....any method of recording sound is a modern invention. But your theory that being able to view a soundwave means the innocence is lost is a stretch - if anything, it gives you a further insight in to the behaviour of the sound and there is nothing wrong with that.

There is no reason you can give me that analogue recording is somehow closer to nature than making a digital recording. An analogue recording involves converting electrical current to magnetic, to order the magnetic particles on a tape. So, by your same logic, you could argue that recording to tape actually transforms the wave you recorded in to a different type of energy (hence why analogue recordings are generally less faithful than a digital recording.

I don't see why you could make an exception for recording with a computer, as a computer is actually much closer in essence to how we as humans operate! It runs on electricity itself and receives all its instruction and calculates things based on electrical signals turning themselves on and off - just like the human body does.

As I said before, your argument seems to be solely with using digital technology as a recording medium and you appear to be confusing a nostalgia for the past, your belief in the all pervasive electrical information in nature with the belief that a computer, somehow, absorbs all the life out of something and makes it artificial.....but that simply isn't true.

Digital recording is new, but it is more accurate, providing a more faithful representation of the recorded sound, which is the ultimate goal. I would have thought, then, that this would be a shared goal of yours - preserving, as best as possible, the original, perhaps "Sacred" sound that you were producing. For me, it is more "natural" for the computer to digitise information in a similiar way to our brains, than taking a signal and converting it in to something else (magnetic energy) as was our only means of storage before. And the simple error of trying to equate any modern recording technique with thousands of years of producing music but being unable to capture and preserve it, it was is far-reaching for me in your arguments.

I hope you can see that I agree with a lot of what you say, but I disagree strongly with your position against computers, as it doesn't seem to follow the same logic you are applying to your argument for analogue recording.

Peace

"computers have their place in recording, but not in the original source recording. for real, the last place you want to be looking when recording music, is at a computer screen watching soundwaves roll in."

well, that's you saying we should not record digitally!

hi there

ever heard of a digital multi-track recorder? it's like a mixing desk with a built in drive. the only screen you see is the one tellin you ur levels and a few other things, but definitely no soundwaves.

it works totally separate from a computer and in my opinion, it's the best way to record audio.

i'd love to discuss 'cause and effect' and the irony of how much the production of that song has pretty much proven everything i've said, but i understand how some would prefer a scientific explanation: sort of like wanting proof of love.

anyway thanks for the note mindflux, and i hope i cleared up that thing about digi multi-tracks having nothing to do with computers or looking at soundwaves.