THE TUBA TERROR CONTINUES…
After reading your puerile editorial in the July 2005 [The Guitar Issue] EQ, it simply reinforced my opinion concerning the demise of our industry. It is ignoramuses like you with no knowledge of traditional music or music in general who spread misinformation, ignorance, and prejudice to the uninformed.
First, I am a tuba player.
As in the case of any other traditional instrument, I have spent many years, including four years at the Curtis Institute of Music, studying, practicing, and perfecting my skills as a tuba player. I have performed with the Philadelphia Orchestra, Symphony of the Air, Radio City Music Hall, Goldman Band, and U.S. Air Force Band among many other organizations. I earned a very good living for 45 years as a tuba player.
That I don’t know three basic chords on the guitar had very little effect on my sex life.
I have operated a very successful recording studio, Sear Sound, in New York City for the past 42 years.
If you had ever attended an orchestral or operatic performance, you might notice a very well paid tuba player as part of the ensemble.
It is a journalistic disgrace for you to have taken such a stupid position. For shame!!
NOT GETTING IT: A STUDY IN CONTRASTS
I was not impressed with your recent article in EQ magazine [January 2006, The Wrong Issue]. I would have assumed that a person of your stature in the recording industry would have contributed to an article that encouraged up-and-coming producers/engineers to earn respect from the recording community through innovative thought and graceful behavior. It would seem that you stand for the opposite end of the spectrum, however, which, after visiting your website, seems to fit perfectly with your list of clientele (high dollar pop garbage).
Despite what you may feel, there are boundless opportunities available for the intelligent and humble producer/engineer who wishes to be more receptive to the desires of new and innovative artists. It simply takes having an open mind to challenge and perhaps even change the standard of what sounds “good.”
I once looked at your reputation with feelings of respect. I now view it with pity, for it seems that you have lost sight of what producing music is really all about. Or did you ever really know what it was?
It goes a lot deeper than golden ears and a studio with no walls.
M. U. B.
NATHANIEL KUNKEL responds: Did you think that article was serious? If not, I’m not sure I understand your letter. But, in fact I agree with you wholeheartedly that, “there are boundless opportunities available for the intelligent and humble producer/engineer who wishes to be more receptive to the desires of new and innovative artists.”
That article was satirical.
I’m sorry you didn’t find it funny. But that is what it was meant to be. A list of what not to do, in a Machiavellian sort of way. You were supposed to laugh. Not get bummed out. I would elaborate more but I think you misunderstood the article. You may not have found it funny, and that I can accept, but don’t think for an instant that I condone those pointers. They are the fastest path to failure. Presented in a funny kind of way.
And even though your letter was nasty and hurtful to me (and my clients), you did speak your mind. And contrary to how you (incorrectly) feel about me, I respect you for that. Speaking your mind is the only way that this industry will continue to innovate and, how did you say it? “Challenge and perhaps even change the standard of what sounds ‘good.’”
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
SHORT, SWEET, PETITE
The Music Software Revolution issue [April 2006] is a simply great issue. Individual stories create a history.Brilliant and obvious.
NOT-SO-SHORT, NOT-SO-SWEET, & NOT-SO-PETITE
We’ve never met but I read EQ each month and actually used to write for the mag until a few years back. Ah, but that is a story for another time. . . . I am writing this note to say thanks for the cool cover story about the origins of this crazy music software biz, and am hoping that this is only part 1.
Why is that?
Because even though you have covered some great moments and interviewed some of the best you have also missed a couple of the early originators that have made more than a huge difference, not to mention sizable contribution to the world of music software. The duo of whom I speak are two dear friends of mine, Gerhard Lengeling and Chris Adam who, along with Clemens Homburg, created one of the industry-standard programs by the name of Logic Pro, formerly eMagic Logic Audio, formerly C-LAB Creator and Notator.
I was the guy who introduced Creator and Notator to America and was a long time tech evangelist and face for both C-LAB and eMagic (as well as starting up eMagic Inc. with Sven Kindel here in Nevada City) until I left the company in 1996 to pursue a more musical life once again.
I am certain you are aware of these cats, but why they were not included when you have so many of the others that have helped make our modern musical world a better place, I have no clue. Perhaps it’s due to some contractual nonsense with their new bosses at Apple or, God forbid, just an oversight on the magazine’s part. I mean, bro, these days Gerhard lives just down the road from your office and I am sure he would love to talk about his and Chris’ contributions to the industry if given the opportunity.
For reference sake, we’ve all been a very deeply bonded family since the mid-’80s and Chris and Gerhard even go back to the Commodore 64 days with their precursor to Notator called Score Track, which only briefly made an appearance here in the U.S. in around 1985. And then when Clemens joined the team in the late ’80s and we began to move away from the old Atari to the Mac, well, the world of music software life changed forever and I doubt anyone on the planet would disagree with me about that fact.
I would argue that Notator revolutionized the world of music software in ways that had never been seen before. Certainly Charlie Steinberg set the stage and was also an early mentor of Gerhard’s, but I just find it a total crime that neither Gerhard nor Chris were ever mentioned in this article after all, they have contributed to the world and to your magazine and all those mags that came before it.
Clearly, I have some deep-rooted passion about this subject and find no fault with any of those great minds and personalities you did include as they are all quite gifted, but I just can’t believe you left out the folks who arguably changed the playing field for us all, not to mention many of the other companies/competitors of the day. In the early days, we were all so committed to coming up with the next big thing, and all of us were sparring left and right at every trade show to come up with the next cool feature set and the next greatest widget, man what a time it was, a real renaissance IMNSHO [In My Not So Humble Opinion —Editors], perhaps the golden years, not that we don’t have some wicked new folks coming up strong today, it’s just that those days were a time when everything was new and had not been done before and well, nuff said.
OK, enough waxing on the good old days, just wanted to make contact and mention these folks as they deserve all of the strokes you can give them as they were never ones to brag, just damn good folks. I just think the kind of history you shared should include them as they were at the beginning and they are still going strong today more than 23 years later.
Keep up the good work.
All the best,
THE OTHER S.M.C.
Editor’s Note: Wellllllll . . . you know when we set out to do this issue we knew there’d be omissions that’d have people screaming, but in the case of the folks you mentioned we’re going to have to file that under Not For Lack Of Trying. We called, we wrote, outside of sitting in front of folks’ houses . . . at 5a.m. . . . in a ninja suit. After a certain point, you just gotta go to press. But magazines are on-going concerns and in upcoming issues we hope to have more in-depth pieces with Gerhard, Gilad Keren and everyone else who belonged, but didn’t get back to us on time.