Barry Hufker wrote on Wed, 02 February 2005 23:50 |
...No longer must one convince an A&R man at a label to sign you in order to have access to the process. ... |
bblackwood wrote on Thu, 03 February 2005 07:14 |
In the right hands, it is better, but those hands have to be experienced, as always. The real problem is the lack of real experience among a majority of the newer engineers, imo. |
WhyKooper wrote on Fri, 04 February 2005 22:59 |
If ANYTHING, this is a great time for an artist to fill up a zillion tracks, take it to an outside producer who might say...okay, we're only gonna use these four tracks, the other 200 gotta go. THAT'S OK. |
I've got a 1968 1/4" 4 track here where the wow and flutter is completely undetectable to my ears. I can record and playback a triangle, and there is no wobble that I can detect. Piano is no problem either. It is too bad that they made so many tape machines with so much wow and flutter... cheap? lazy? I wonder why?
Quote:
The rock solid stability of a digital medium was a breath of fresh air.
Was digital rock solid at one time?!
I think we could make better recordings today, but for the most part, we are not. The stuff I'm trying to beat is all from ca 1959...
Lee Flier wrote on Sat, 05 February 2005 11:06 |
...having limited tracks DID force people to commit to a frigging arrangement and let the performers play accordingly... cuz you really couldn't do it any other way. ... |
compasspnt wrote on Sat, 05 February 2005 11:34 |
I TRY to make as many decisions as possible as soon as possible....but I'd hate to totally give up my track availability! TM |
ted nightshade wrote on Sat, 05 February 2005 12:30 |
I've got a 1968 1/4" 4 track here where the wow and flutter is completely undetectable to my ears. I can record and playback a triangle, and there is no wobble that I can detect. Piano is no problem either. It is too bad that they made so many tape machines with so much wow and flutter... cheap? lazy? I wonder why? |
Quote: |
Was digital rock solid at one time?! |
WhyKooper wrote on Sat, 05 February 2005 17:07 |
... There was great stuff being made in the 60's-70's-80' that consisted of 50-100+ tracks. Today...same thing. It's just much easier to manipulate. Which I think is absolutely great. |
WhyKooper wrote on Sat, 05 February 2005 18:07 |
Nobody in the 60's after about 1965 was locked into any finite track count that I remember. And many many known artists were stretching the technology to come up with the 30-40-50-60-100 tracks they needed to record the stuff that are classics today...that to my knowledge, these are things that nobody complains about as being "vibe deficient" because of excessive track count. |
Quote: |
Have you ever read the session notes on what the Beatles had to go through on stuff like Revolver or the "Hello Goodbye", Penny Lane recordings? |
Quote: |
Stuff like putting the bass on last....ie recording the drums and a rhythm guitar by tehmeselves (that must've made for a good vibe and good idea of the final arrangment) |
Quote: |
I don't think those pencils/rubberbands 2" tape strung across the room (talked about in R-E-P in those days) made for a very instant "band recording vibe". |
Quote: |
I call it subtractive mixing. And I'm glad there's the flexibility we have now. |
Quote: |
...but if I want to have ten or twelve tracks devoted to an instrument and it's alternate takes...I can do that. x however many parts there are. It's all there for me to use...or not use ..at mix time. |
compasspnt wrote on Sat, 05 February 2005 12:34 |
The answers to the original topic question I posed have gone much farther than I originally envisioned, leaping into the realm of production decisions (which have always been there, just more options available today for execution) and more. This is great, I think, and all worthy of discussion. |
Bill Mueller wrote on Sat, 05 February 2005 15:51 |
Even the best analog recorder has detectable wow and flutter. Just because you can't hear it does not mean it's not there. |
Lee Flier wrote on Tue, 08 February 2005 20:17 |
ROFL!!! Oh man that is just too funny! Post of the year so far! |
McAllister wrote on Fri, 11 February 2005 00:10 |
I might be wrong. M |
Bob Olhsson wrote on Thu, 10 February 2005 23:25 |
In the old days, it was about everybody playing it right with the pressure of having to play it again if you screwed up and of not getting called again if you screwed up too much or got caught not saying anything about having screwed up. |
Ryan A. Mills wrote on Fri, 11 February 2005 10:33 |
I see the major label music industry game as more of a fashion show than something that has much to do with music. Find one ugly person in the Top 20. You can't tell me that ugly people aren't making great music somewhere... |
Samc wrote on Fri, 11 February 2005 12:36 |
With all due respect, this is beginning to feel pathetic. A bunch of old folks sitting around eulogizing music, music aint dead! AND IT WILL NEVER DIE! Music is not even sick, there is nothing wrong with music, but just like everything else in life, the business of music is changing for various reasons, and that has affected the way popular music is created, produced, distributed and consummated, that's it. Don't forget also that the taste of the younger generation (which is a big driving force for the business of music) has changed. In the same way that your musical taste changed from that of your parents. |
Quote: |
And since most if not all who post here are a part of that creation, production, distribution and consummation process, guess what...............we all play a part in the continuing evolution. I find it really lame that some of the biggest CURRENT players in this game are constantly discussing how great everything was 50 years ago and how bad things are today, and how worst it will get. To top it off there is also now a mad, (almost obscene) rush to see who can post up the latest industry bad news first, leaving the rest something to "wax rhetoric" about who is to be blamed. |
Quote: |
It doesn't do any justice if we make comparisons between the best of yesteryear and worst of today, If we choose to look beyond the Billboard charts, and the radio station playlist, if we choose to look beyond pop an rock, we will see that great music is still being made, good music played by good musicians and recorded and mixed by good engineers with good results. |
Quote: |
And if we want to be honest we will also admit that a lot of lousy shit was made in the past era too, and a lot of it sounded bad, even some of the stuff that have become poster examples of greatness don't exactly have stellar sound. While we're at it lets clear up another myth, not all the equipment that was being used back then always had this aura of romance that surrounds them now. - <snip for brevity> - |
Bob Olhsson wrote on Sat, 12 February 2005 21:25 |
The only past I'm interested in seeing a return to is one in which talented youngsters can earn enough from playing music that their talent rather than their family resources will determine their level of success. |
Bob Olhsson wrote on Sat, 12 February 2005 21:25 |
The only past I'm interested in seeing a return to is one in which talented youngsters can earn enough from playing music that their talent rather than their family resources will determine their level of success. |
lucey wrote on Sat, 12 February 2005 22:36 |
I have hope for the future but this era needs to end. |
Samc wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 05:28 |
...If we really want to see good bands and listen to good music with good production and good sound we really need to widen the horizon and look beyond MTV, Clear Channel and the Billboard charts et al. If we don't, we can't really blame them now can we, since they really have no control over that. Or do they? |
steveeastend wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 16:03 |
...Record companies used to find talented music to offer to the public. (Supply) Nowadays record companies try to find what they think what the public might want to hear. And that implies that you have to give as many bands as possible a "one-shot-opportunity" to be loved by the public. (demand). If the artists fails, the next one steps in. And this implies also that record companies got really no interest in building up an artist over a longer period of time and taking the risk of taking a loss in the short run... |
Bob Olhsson wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 18:37 |
To be honest, I'm utterly amazed by how LITTLE record labels have changed since the mid 1960s! Radio and retail are completely different although this has only been the case for the past ten or so years. |
WhyKooper wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 19:21 |
There is a ton of great stuff out now..and junk. Same thing, different decade. |
WhyKooper wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 18:21 |
...while the Beatles were being turned down by every company in town. Do you remember? Were you there? |
jazzius wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 23:07 |
...i'm sure the 40+ something engineers/producers/musicians were saying the same thing when the Beatles, Hendrix or Led Zep were banging out their best stuff... |
Bob Olhsson wrote on Mon, 14 February 2005 06:03 | ||
At least the ones I knew at that time were utterly impressed! There always are people who identify with a genre and have a hard time with anything else but there is also such a thing as just plain great music that transcends genre and style. |
Quote: |
For crying out loud, it's a business. And the buyers are kids. That never changes. |
fadeout wrote on Mon, 14 February 2005 10:04 |
"What he said" (see above) |
jazzius wrote on Mon, 14 February 2005 08:50 |
Absolutely Bob......it was meant somewhat tongue in cheek.....but the point is, if you say to a 20 year old today "did you know that music was better in the old days?", i expect you'll be greeted with a blank stare and silence....for about one second..... 'till their phone goes off with a BEP ringtone.....and lets face it, the young people are the future, like it or not....cheers!...D |
andy_simpson wrote on Tue, 15 February 2005 19:05 |
Btw, what would you do if you discovered a struggling band that were better than the beatles? Seriously? It is technically possible...... |
jazzius wrote on Mon, 14 February 2005 03:50 |
....but the point is, if you say to a 20 year old today "did you know that music was better in the old days?", i expect you'll be greeted with a blank stare and silence....for about one second..... 'till their phone goes off with a BEP ringtone..... |
lucey wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 04:36 |
As far as the 24 year old cut off, I disagree. Sarah Mclaughlin was older and is now established for life, |
Ryan Moore wrote on Sun, 27 February 2005 04:01 |
... Note - Sarah Mclaughlin was 'discovered' by an A&R man from Nettwerk Records when she was still in high school (pretty sure) playing in the opening band for his own band MOEV, I think it was.. |
Ryan Moore wrote on Sun, 27 February 2005 12:30 |
...they had full time promo staff who were working the phones every day, all day to radio, djs, distributors, press, stores and who knows who else, just building up relationships, getting the names & a buzz out there.. |
fadeout wrote on Thu, 17 February 2005 23:19 |
But "better than the Beatles" at what point? 1962? 1966? 1970? Before or after they worked with Sir George? They grew. And they grew because they were allowed to grow. They had help, they had resources, they worked, they kept getting better. And, don't forget luck and/or fate, depending your point of view. I would not doubt that there are people out there right now who are as gifted as the members of the fab four, in whatever genre. |
Ryan Moore wrote on Mon, 28 February 2005 11:28 | ||
And even the Beatles got turned down by nearly every label back then.. Another thing people forget about the Beatles is by the time they got signed, they had really learned the history of their craft eg: learned millions of classic rock n roll, skiffle, old time show tunes etc...not to mention paying major dues playing covers on the club circuit, Hamburg etc... I find it hard to imagine young musicians of today really learning the classics and history of musical genres.. It sure is amazing how the Beatles' music changed in the space of a single decade.. Nowadays it seems like all you have to do to score on the hit parade is know how to dance suggestively or look sullen / vaguely threatening - get some tattoos and maybe 50 grand worth of plastic surgery (for females)...and then your A&R will hook you up with so and so producer w a PT rig and some loops. Next stop a tour of 500 US malls and MTV fame, with maybe a Superbowl gig.. |
Joe Crawford wrote on Thu, 03 February 2005 13:20 |
As Harvey wrote - “I also believe that when we had less tracks to work with, the music had less chance to become "stale", both to the musicians and to the engineers and producers. All the comping, editing, and delaying of mix decisions has taken us to perfect, but often boring, levels of performance.” ‘Art’ is that which conveys emotion from the artist to the audience. Read that as ‘soul’! And, music used to be ‘art’. Now, with all the technical enhancements to recording (i.e., DAW’s, digital effects, unlimited tracks, unlimited edits, etc.) we have the capability to make recordings ‘technically perfect’. But, in doing so, we have removed all the ‘art’. Today’s music may still be entertaining. So is elevator music. But, where is the feeling? I guess it got lost in the production process. How can we, as the artist, feel a song when stuck in an isolation boot with a set of cans over our ears and half a dozen people staring at us (and the clock)? How can we, as the audience, feel a song when every drum hit has been timed within a millisecond, and every vocal note tuned within a couple of cents? It’s not just ‘stale’. We’ve removed all the soul, and the ‘live’ feel, of the music. Maybe we’re just in too much of a hurry to play it right, record it right, or just make money. I don’t know the answer. But I do know we’re slowly trashing what’s left of the ‘art’ in music. Joe Crawford Stony Mountain Studio Shanks, WV 26716 |