R/E/P Community

R/E/P => R/E/P Archives => Terry Manning => Topic started by: compasspnt on February 02, 2005, 10:15:01 PM

Title: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: compasspnt on February 02, 2005, 10:15:01 PM
So, since this is my part of the forum, at least for this short month, I want to ask all of you a question.  This came up in another topic here yesterday, but I think this is worth a whole new one.

Question:

In what ways is recorded sound BETTER today than it "ever  was," such as in the "last days of tubes/first days of discrete" 1960's-70's (or even direct to disk '40's),

AND

How is recorded audio WORSE today than in those so-called "golden days?"

I have my theories, but I'd like to read yours!

Terry
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Barry Hufker on February 03, 2005, 12:50:18 AM
Having a knack for stating the obvious, I will say that the opportunity to record music is greater today than it ever was.  In that regard recording has become a very "democratic" process.  It is now easier for band's of all "talent types" to be able to produce something.  No longer must one convince an A&R man at a label to sign you in order to have access to the process.  Unfortunately, the greater volume of available recordings has not necessarily created better quality in either the sound or the message.  But there is worthwhile recordings being made.

I also think that technology has enabled the average person to have access to gear that has at least decent sound.  I believe this to be truer than at any previous time.  "OK" sound can be had easily but I believe "great sound" is as elusive as ever.

Finally, I would add that technology has given people of all talent levels a convenience and flexibility that hasn't ever existed previously and so, for the people who understand what they've been given, quite possibly making great sounding records is easier than before.

Outside of these factors I would say things are about the same.  The talented produce "interesting" to "great" recordings and the vast majority of people produce something of much less (and varied) quality.  Only the volume (pun intended) of available recordings has increased.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: brandondrury on February 03, 2005, 01:30:56 AM
I come from a different side of things than the big boys on the forum, but one flaw that I really see with a lot of the high school kids I end up working with is they expect an engineer to create their sound.  They base so much on engineering.  I think a lot of them come to the studio simply to hear a guitar tone that they can't get in their bedroom.  That is fine, but so many are much more concerned with the tone of their instrument vs the quality of their songs.  You can see it.  When you mention the word "songwriting" people tend to look nervous or unprepared like a forgotten homework assignment is due.

I think back in the old days when you had just one or two mics in a room, something about the band and the music came first.  Now with all the multitracking and such, the idea of everyone playing together is getting lost.  I think that will hurt in the end.

I was lucky enough to record a bunch of rockers in their 40s who did everything live, except for a few vocals.  I think I used 6 mics for the whole band.  It was great.  The music was in the air, so to speak, and that's something that the kids coming up today do not have...

I can't speak for the big boys.
Brandon
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Level on February 03, 2005, 07:39:39 AM
Your question can invoke quite an emotional response from me but I will try to keep it on the "level" pun intended.

We have the oppurtunity to do better work now. Our tools are more transparent, we can get in the nano inches with editing and certainly acoustics and loudspeaker relationships are better understood..however, what I feel is an underlying problem is the wide range of different monitors being used and misunderstood during the tracking and mixing stages. I find it a shame that mastering is being used to "bail out" many projects that otherwise could have been done "better" had the engineer been able to hear "it all" from better references.

So part one..Inconsistancies of monitoring platforms from studio to studio has done more to hurt current productions than help. In the 60's/70's and even through "some" of the 80's, you pretty much knew what was being used because everyone had the same thing, (ie 4310/4311 etc) as an example of the 70's.

Part 2.

Care. Calibration is key. How many times do we visit another facility to find someone has a master amplifier with one gain turned down a shade or some funky eq chained into the 2 buss? When I visit a facility to sit down for a few weeks, I take a full day to get a grip on the calabration and see the entire path and make notes. If I change the house calibration, I want to be able to put it back before I leave. I don't want to get into day 2 of a session to find out something funky is going on and have to start pulling cables. These days, we must take time to familarize ourselves with the "system" even if it is our own!
I spend time each week checking calibration as things change. Equipment drift is a reality and I want to find it, nip it. I feel all too often people are not going through the "engineering aspects" of keeping the system in top shape and taking all too much for granted. In the older days, the systems had "maintenance" time logged. Folks these days flip on a computer and go at it. I don't trust any of it until I know everything is working properly and consistantly. How many times have we left a great mix up, went out to grab a snack and came back to a mix that sounded "much different"? I certainly have and I used to blame it on the old studio Ghost. We all know every decent studio has one or more of them! Smile

In summary, consistancy from facility to facility and utter detail in calibration is hurting the modern record. Just a little more attention to detail and it makes a huge difference.

Also, these days, I see engineers working way past the limit of being in touch. In the old days, after hour 10, we called it a day. It is common to see 17 hour sessions today..and subjectivity just goes out the door. The profession should be treated as such and we must remind ourselves..it is serious business. No time or need to suck!


Lastly, this God awful Loudness war. I may lose a gig from time to time because I am not going push it up that high and sound like ass. I feel people come to me because my catalog contains high quality work. They want to retain high quality, not have it ruined because joe six pack blow has a super loud record. I leave the Squash-0-Roma to my peers who take delight in seeing a -9dB rms master get pressed. I really don't understand why anyone would want to destroy all the hard work that goes into a great production by trying to fit a clique of "lets see how loud we can go". Their is a point where it sounds "bad" and if this is what an artist wants, I know a hundred mastering engineers that would be happy to give it to them..I cant bring myself to do it. I can afford not to play that game.

The loudest record of Hard rock I have ever done came in at -13.5. To me, it was 1.5dB too compressed but I bent some because it was needed "that time" but I convinced the artist that a -10dB would just sound like trash, everywhere it would be played. I still get "thank yous" for twisting their arm on that one.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Bobro on February 03, 2005, 09:03:53 AM
Recorded audio today sounds fantastic!

Unfortunately, most people have never heard a modern recording.
The music and the recorded sound tend to be intertwined, too.

A truly modern recording makes use of the historically unprecendented dynamic range of the medium. Which means, in general, no, or very little, compression.

Highly compressed recordings are contemporary, but they're not modern. In fact they're just that boring old mid-century
mass-conformity/dictatorship/genocide shit, embodied in sound. Think about what a compressor does. Pushes down, or straightup kills in the case of a limiter, the stuff that sticks out, so you can "bring up the average". Sound familiar?

Don't get me started on autotune.

Not being extreme about this, actually- compression happens in any society, the question is motivation. I suppress the scent of my underarms with roll-on on occassion, out of consideration for others. And there are offenders who are just asking to be on the recieving end of some serious hard limiting, I'm not against that.

Of course, there are artistic reasons for heavy compression- for example, you might want to express how shallow your emotions or life experiences are with a limited dynamic range, or your fear and timidity of making definite statements by shyly ducking down those attack transients. That's cool, it takes all kinds.

Yes these truly modern recordings sound great.

Lots of acoustic instruments of course- you've got this flood of inexpensive decent mics, old and new, all these musicians dicking around with them at home. What are they going to record? A Marshall stack in the kitchen? No, they remember how they used to play the sax in school, next thing you know they'e all over the place in modern music.

It's refreshing that 4/4 is more the exception than the rule- it took a long time for the sexual revolution to really sink in, but now you've got this kama sutra of waltzs and 7/8s and such, not so much one thousand subtle variations on the missionary position.

Equipment is highly portable, so you hear lots of different strange rooms of course, and you've got all the convolution impulses of rooms floating around too.  

What's worse? Well, there's no snapped-to-grid and often no click in modern recording, those techniques belonging to a former age and contradictory to the true, non-linear, power of a DAW. So you get a lot free-form stuff and very loose rhythms and it can swing too far.

Of course no modern producer goes near autotuning because intolerance and conformity aren't hip, love and diversity are, so tuning can run pretty damn loose, a matter of taste.

Probably the biggest real difference is visual, though. Because modern recording is all about creativity and musicianship, and no modern producer wants to be associated with the lick-the-ass-of-the-military-industrial-complex vibe of MTV, you tend to get quite a few frankly homely middle-aged folk in the bands, poorly dressed to boot. Another matter of taste of course.

-Bobro
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on February 03, 2005, 09:11:39 AM
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. ...

In many, if not most cases, this was never the only way to have access to the process. If you were really good, the large commercial studios and even session musicians would always advance you "spec" time in order to make a first class demo that could create future work for everybody. Today, you're strictly on your own. If you can't afford enough money to make a video demo along with a computer and some recording gear along with enough time to learn how to use it, forget about it.

While the cost of polishing turds has never been lower, the cost of access to a music career has never been higher. I want to choke every time I see a Silicon Valley press release about the "democratization" of the music industry. It's probably the biggest song shark's lie of them all.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: hargerst on February 03, 2005, 10:11:21 AM
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.

I remember many instances of finishing a take and saying, "that's it", and meaning it; there was nothing more that needed to be done.  And everybody in the place knew "that was the take"; the musicians, the engineer, the producer, and even the receptionist knew it.

In L.A. we had people like Ray Brown, Barney Kessel, Hal Blaine, Carole Kaye, and so many others with "taste"; Memphis had Steve Cropper, "Duck Dunn", and the "Horns"; Motown had the "Funk Brothers", Nashville had .... - you get the idea.  So many really great players contributing their unique talents to an often one-shot take and move on the the next.

With the exception of Nashville, most of that is gone.  You have self contained rock groups with varying levels of real talent within the group, but almost unlimited tracks and effects to "make it sound good".  

"But now old friends are acting strange
They shake their heads, they say I've changed
Well something's lost, but something's gained
In living ev'ry day"

I think we may have "lost" more than we "gained" this time.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: bblackwood on February 03, 2005, 10:14:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: j.hall on February 03, 2005, 10:22:36 AM
better today = tchad blake
worse today = vlad the impaler

Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: maxdimario on February 03, 2005, 11:45:40 AM
This is a very important issue for me.

Electronic equipment built for the purpose of recording music to me reached a peak in the mid to late 50's and began to become worse and worse with miniaturization of mixers, increased number of channels etc.

the absolute best stuff I've heard was designed in the 50s, in Germany.
the best recording medium is tape with tube electronics (if the whole machine has been completely overhauled and has no old capacitors, tubes, dirty contacts, magnetized transformers and heads etc.) the bigger the tape the better.
signal to noise is not a big problem with modern tape.

next comes the discrete silicon transistor stuff that was designed in the late 60's (OVERHAULED) since it is similar in design to tubes -- few active components, inductors, transformers of high quality.

then comes the last generation transistor stuff with improved specs but more active components, feedback etc. A little bit more boring emotionally because in the process of squeezing better specs out of the circuits they also reduced the feel factor

then comes modern op-amp based equipment, which I avoid.

last of all is early op-amp based equipment which to me is not suited for music recording...

music recording in the early days captured the performance in a convincing way and some old mono lps in good shape give you the feeling of being in front of that performance (if everything is fine tuned and aligned)

the best stuff is similar to high-end hi-fi: few components of the best quality possible, and an emphasis on music reproduction -- not specs.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: jfrigo on February 03, 2005, 12:15:58 PM
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.


Agreed. It's style over substance, all sizzle, no steak. Most people don't seem to even want to learn, or realize what they're missing; after all, the advertismenet says you don't need talent, knowledge, or experience - just the latest $299 software.

Certainly the tools offer more potential; sadly it is routinely squandered.

Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on February 03, 2005, 12:52:11 PM
When you consider what most live music sounds like today, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that several generations of listeners no longer have the experience of live music as their reference point for quality.

Nobody can be expected to aspire to something that they've simply never experienced. Somebody who's never tasted steak assumes it's only about different kinds of sizzle.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Joe Crawford on February 03, 2005, 02:20:39 PM
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
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Andy Simpson on February 03, 2005, 04:28:46 PM
In my opinion......Wink
.....distorted guitar amps have removed the dynamics from most popular music.

The kids think that dynamic is binary - normal distortion (0) and then a pedal for the chorus (even more distortion - 1). Binary.

The amount of dynamic that is lost simply using the classic crunch (often described as 'clean'!) sound of a marshall instead of clean can't be underestimated (let alone the 'lead' channels).
And to play with the binary guitars you get binary drummers who play as hard as possible on the hats in the verse and as hard as possible on the crash in the chorus.

It sounds very bad in the room, and it sounds very bad on record.

As for the human voice.....well....how can a shouting into a 1k monitoring system with a sm58 stuffed into your mouth improve your technique? I'm surprised more 'vocalists' don't have a stomp box for their chorus vocals.....

Bob is right on the money. It's sad.

Have you guys heard the first two Ben Folds Five albums? Those guys really had 'it' in every way (dynamics, songs, arrangements, craft, musicianship, performance, etc), except the recording.
Technically the dynamic is there, but there is no depth or life whatsoever. Transistors?
Then there's the major label'd 'unauthorized biography...' - really expensive transistors into PT?... but still no depth or life (just lots of polish).
Best band of the last 20 years in my book...should have sounded like carol kings tapestry (or thereabouts).

Andy

One of these days I'm gonna get a tube desk and a tube amp into a small club.....if the mackie sounds crap in a studio, it sounds really loud crap at 120dB.....


Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Earth Terminal Studios on February 04, 2005, 10:57:34 PM
We can capture sound more accurately than ever. Does it sound better?
I believe the tape/digital argument comes down to this - the distortions inherent in tape based recording give an impression of power, of something adjusting to cope. It's exciting. The inaccuracies of analogue lend music a sense of other place, because it doesn't sound real.
I recently recorded a jazz band in our live room with one mic, via a Manley 40db, Apogee Trak 2 and then straight to HD @ 96/24. We spent a few hours balancing sound in the room - changing kits/drums/amps etc. getting it sounding like a Mix In The Room. The recorded results were nothing short of fantastic. I don't want tape compression or distortions for this kind of session. The 40db supplied just enough harmonics to give a subtlety attractive edge to the whole thing.
Don't get me wrong - I love tape. Sessions tracked to tape run differently, and God knows i listen harder when I'm not looking at the stuff on screen.
I enjoy nothing more (?!) than engineering, mixing and taking a whole project to completion without touching a single eq, compressor or gate, spending all the time on how the damn thing sounds when you stand in front of it and just capturing it accurately. This is what digital is for, AND I can tell the artist/band, if they congratulate me on a fantastic recording, that it is, in fact, exactly what they sound like Smile
That said, I'm a sucker for a smashed, messed up other place of a sound. Just don't say tape, or vinyl (while I'm at it) is accurate.
I'm new to this forum and maybe don't know the protocol, blah, but I run a very busy commercial studio, and i record everyday, with everything from classical quartets to metal coming through the door.
Reccording is not about quality and eq & compression are an illusion. Thanks.

Lewis Childs
Earth Terminal Studios
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: WhyKooper on February 04, 2005, 10:59:25 PM
....."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......."


Woah Harvey, I DISAGREE with that one big time.  I remember those days vividly.  When there were less tracks to work with, my days were filled with the stress of submixing 4 tracks down to 2 in order to open up tracks...often in a desperate attempt to do so before the inspiration and magic of the session would disappear.  Those days were HORRIBLE.  It didn't get much better in the 8 track days.  Or even sixteen.  

And especially in the early days, there was the absolute frustration of dealing with submixes and not being able to undo something that was submixed ten passes ago and now no longer fit in the mix.....those days were HORRIBLE.  If working on tracks got stale...those were the days for it.

I read the Beatles sessions book a couple of years ago, detailing the nightmares THEY had to go through from 1962
onward.  Such frustration was not an uncommon thing.  

I think this is the best,best time there's ever been to be creative in the studio.  I wouldn't trade the repeatability, unlimited tracks, plug-ins for those old days for anything.  

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.

But the old days were terrible.  Less tracks would've only been great for Hootenanny/Kingston Trio guys...or bands who intended to go into the studio, spend two hours setting up mics, record Louie Louie in one pass and then go home.  I don't miss them at all.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Bill Mueller on February 05, 2005, 12:27:00 AM
Good question.

Music. In the case of Rock music, it was new and fresh in the fifties, sixties and seventies. It was also closer to it's blues roots, which made it more genuine. It is very difficult to create a song today that is not a rehash of some other song.

Naivete. Real naivete, not just letting the guitars feedback at the end of a song. Music used to mean more, so there was a greater range of acceptable emotions expressed. There were diverse individuals from Richie Havens to Ravi Shankar making music that was felt by millions. Today, so many musicians rely on image (or a lack of image, image) that it is very challanging to be naive about anything. Everyone is jaded and that makes the music stilted.

Church. Many of the greatest singers in pop history went from the altar to the stage. The depth of emotion that can be expressed when you either believe in something, or have felt that belief in church, cannot be created otherwise.

Meaning. I grew up in the Vietnam era and I think music meant something more then. Lots of us were getting killed. In this regard, unfortunately, we may soon be experiencing more meaning in our pop music.

Experience. Engineers and producers used to work under the supervision of an experienced mentor. After the Tonmeister programs, and apprentice programs of private studios, recording schools went on to train a few great engineer/producers. Artists were brought to professionals by PR experts who put them together with a writer, producer and studio like a great casting director teams up actors today. Today, anyone can walk into a Guitar Center with a decent credit card and come away with a 24bit 24 track recorder/mixer/sequencer/sampler/mastering suite/cd recorder. Giving a 10 year old a loaded pistol is not a good idea either.

Technology. Classical engineers were the first to adopt digital recording. In my opinion this was not due to the improved signal to noise, but to the incredibly improved WOW and FLUTTER performance of digital. If you have ever tried to record a concert piano on a 15ips 1/4" master, or worse yet tried to make a reference cassette for a client, you know what I mean. The rock solid stability of a digital medium was a breath of fresh air. However, there have definetely been ups and downs in equipment quality. Professional equipment has always swung 28 volts in my opinion. Now, we have "professional, -10db" systems that can't swing half that. Class A circuit design, discreet components, tube microphones; these will always have a special sound. I also agree that for some reason that I cannot understand, producers, or label execs are demanding their product be compressed to the point where they actually sound WORSE through a broadcast chain. Can't they be educated?

Sequencers. One time through a sequence and stick a fork in me, I'm done. These horrible devices are responsible for more unadulterated crap than anything else in the industry. Throw them OUT!

Digital editing/pitch correction. I have been guilty of moving a couple of bass drums in my time, however quantizing every beat takes the life (live) out of music. Keep the people in the music.

Best Regards,

Bill







Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Lee Flier on February 05, 2005, 11:06:01 AM
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.



No it's NOT OK.  In fact that's a good deal of what's WRONG with so many records - the "artist" throws everything AND the kitchen sink on a track and leaves the producer or mix engineer to figure out the "arrangement" later.  This whole process SUCKS IMO - it basically leaves the performance out of the hands of the performers.  And as a musician I know for a fact that what I'm going to play when I know ahead of time what the arrangement is, will be different and much more focused than if I didn't know.

Also that's why people are striving now for this utter boring "consistency" - no variations in tempo, only the most extreme variations in dynamics - because that makes it EASIER for some mouse jockey to cobble together an arrangement after the fact.

I agree with your basic point that submixing sucked.  But 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.  Now, you don't have to commit to ANYthing - the arrangement, the tempo, the tones of the instruments, the room sound, EVERYthing is subject to change.  And yet ALL of these things affect the vibe of the performance at the time the tracks are going down.  It's just one of the many things (some of which have already been mentioned) that kill the urgency of a recording.

Just because you CAN have 200 tracks doesn't mean you should.  Use em if you really need em - and yes it's great not to have to worry about it if you just need another track or two for that conga drum or those cool sound effects.   And yes it's great to be able to change an arrangement at the last minute if you really think it's going to make the song better.  But don't use the technology as an excuse to not have your shit together at the source.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: hargerst on February 05, 2005, 12:17:56 PM
What Lee said.  And what I said.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: ted nightshade on February 05, 2005, 12:30:14 PM
[quote title=Bill Mueller wrote on Fri, 04 February 2005 21:27]
Technology. Classical engineers were the first to adopt digital recording. In my opinion this was not due to the improved signal to noise, but to the incredibly improved WOW and FLUTTER performance of digital. If you have ever tried to record a concert piano on a 15ips 1/4" master... you know what I mean.
Quote
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...
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: compasspnt on February 05, 2005, 12:34:51 PM
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.  ...

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.

I think there are many great and valid points being made here on both sides of several issues.

However, "What Lee Said" is certainly very true concerning the quoted statement above.  As I said elsewhere, The Beatles did OK with very limited tracks available!  "Hey Baby" by Bruce Chanel, a tremendous recording, was recorded in a radio station bathroom, with one track available...it was one of The Beatles' favourite records, and one of the inspirations for their recorded work.  There are many examples like this.

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
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: hargerst on February 05, 2005, 03:20:35 PM
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

Just commit!  Stop being such a wuz!  Very Happy

Remember when 8 track  recorders came out ("what the hell are we gonna do with 8 tracks?")?
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: canada on February 05, 2005, 04:08:23 PM
It's better today because nearly every album sounds like it was recorded by the same guy.  So, I can use old engineer tricks that are totally not my ideas and sound really clever using them!

Just kidding.  I think the best recordings ever made are probably 60's: Orbison, Beatles, 50's Elvis, Beach Boys, Marvin.  You get the picture.  Then there's another breed of recordings from the seventies that blow me away of course, like some Pink Floyd, Supertramp and Abba (not joking).

Now that there's such a huge legacy of embarassing moments, like Metallica's movie "Some Kind of Monster," I'm not sure anything made in a modern studio can have the integrity it used to.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: WhyKooper on February 05, 2005, 06:07:30 PM
........."But 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...

What era are you talking about where that was the case?  1949?

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.
 
The 60's...there's the ha-ha story where some people like to promote that Sgt Pepper was all done on a 4 track.  As we all know, it was done on two four tracks..each consisting of a massive number of mono tracks overdubbed/submixed/overdubbed/submixed... many songs pushing 60 tracks in reality. I don't hear many folks say that Sgt Pepper has a bad vibe. 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?  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)....and then start stacking one or two tracks at a time...submix to a second machine...overdub two tracks....submix...overdub two tracks...submix...oops...overdub another piano because the original one's starting to fade away in all the submixing.....while tring to figure out what to leave till the end that absolutely must be able to be undone before being buried in the submixes.

And then there were the 70's...  Have you ever read about how places like Criteria had to cope on a daily basis to get the track count they needed...which was constantly exceeding at least 49-80 tracks.  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".

There is a very cool obscure top 20 pop recording that I loved in the early 70's called "Rings".  Lots of air in that one and if you listen to it, you figure it might been done on an eight track machine...maybe 16.  Well, in speaking with the guys who did that recording (Chips Moman), the multitrack for that song is 32-48 tracks full of stuff...all the result of having to submix to get them all in....BUT..listen to it, you don't hear 32-48 tracks of STUFF.  You don't hear what was mixed below the surface.  You don't hear what was decidedly left off.  You also don't hear the long long long hours of submixing decisions that had to be made along the way just to end up with this great little recording.

I call it subtractive mixing.  And I'm glad there's the flexibility we have now.  I'm glad for stem mixes.  I don't personally conceive of putting 200 tracks towards a single song...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.  

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.

Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Bill Mueller on February 05, 2005, 06:51:49 PM
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?


Even the best analog recorder has detectable wow and flutter. Just because you can't hear it does not mean it's not there. Analog cassettes had horrible wow and flutter and they were the medium we sent home with clients for years before the CD came along. If you ever cut a record and had 30% of them manufacured with the hole out of center, you will also know what I mean.

Quote:



Was digital rock solid at one time?!



In terms of wow and flutter. Always.

Oh yes, I forgot a point before.

Collaboration.
From the beginning of time, music has been a social experience. Music is a collaborative endevour. Today, too much music is being created by one person trying to be the composer, multi instrumentalist, producer, engineer, cook and bottle washer. Music that is played by a group is rich with a variety of influences, by it's very nature. Without a group to influence it, music becomes thin, plain and uninspired. The real value in the human experience is that we are able to stand on EACH OTHERS shoulders. Come out of the basement. Find a friend. Let them help.

Best Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on February 05, 2005, 07:13:00 PM
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.


The difference was that we had to commit to both the performance and to a part of the final mix at every single step of the way. It was practically unheard of to record just one part at a time other than lead vocals. Prior to '65 most people also couldn't punch into record.

And by no means was everybody working that way. At Motown, arguably where using lots of tracks and mixing on the board was invented, we rarely used more than three generations of 3 to 3 or 8 to 8 and rarely bounced tracks after we moved to 16 track. MOST 3-track and early 8-track recordings were used as a backup for a live mono or stereo mix that was used for the record.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Lee Flier on February 06, 2005, 01:51:43 AM
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.


"Excessive track count" is not what I was complaining about - lack of committing to an arrangement is.  As I said... if you really need a bunch of tracks to make your song work, so be it.  But like Bob said, in the analog days although you COULD always make room for more tracks, you had to commit to something at every step of the way and you had to have some clue where it was all headed to make it work.  THAT is what a lot of people - and I mean a lot - don't do now.  So many records are made by throwing on a zillion tracks and deciding how the song is going to go later.  Most of the time I do not think this is good for the music or for the musicians.
 
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?


Yes.

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)


But that's just it, they DID have a good idea of the final arrangement ahead of time, which is how they decided on which tracks to do first.  It's not like they were just blindly piling on tracks and not having a vision of how the result was going to be.

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".


Hey, I was around for some of those kinds of sessions.  Some of them were kind of fun actually.

Quote:


I call it subtractive mixing.  And I'm glad there's the flexibility we have now.


I never said I wasn't glad.  I think you're reading a lot into my post that wasn't there.  I think the technology is great, I just don't think most people are using it very well.

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.


Yeah, for YOU to use... not necessarily for the performer to have played... or to have had any clue what the outcome would sound like.  THAT is what I have a problem with.  I've mixed a few records that involved comping 12 tracks of vocals that somebody laid down "because they could" instead of getting one really focused performance and maybe a couple of comps or punches... and that was a few too many.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Lee Flier on February 06, 2005, 02:36:20 AM
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.



Well, especially because it seems the engineer has more power than ever to actually shape the performance, and often does.  Therefore I think a lot of these decisions have a great deal to do with your original question!

And by the way, it's REALLY nice to have you aboard here Terry. Smile
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: lucey on February 07, 2005, 01:28:35 AM
audio is better, recorded music is worse ... which are you asking about?

music: suffers from less pre production, more reliance on technology ... and at the same time that gear has become so powerful and cheap, creativity is at an all time low in it's value and street cred.  the indistry is scared of it, and everyday people flock to re-create last weeks sound in most cases.  the youth are group thinkers, not creative thinkers.

recording:   limitiation gives rise to increase and unlimited technical tools have created some lazy work product for all but those whose real work needs all the latest tools (and those styles are out there) in response, i record my own and others music to 2" 16 by choice (with a computer to chase if more tracks are needed ... seldom)

mastering:  same thing ... better tools, more potential, more power to screw up.

Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: ted nightshade on February 07, 2005, 10:59:27 AM
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.



Right, but it's what I can hear that concerns me.



Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Radd 47 on February 08, 2005, 10:46:10 PM
Here's my relatively uninformed short answer to a long question:

http://vacuumbrain.com/The_Lab/TA/Pikatron/music.jpg
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Linear on February 08, 2005, 11:08:28 PM
that about sums it up.

Chris


Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Lee Flier on February 08, 2005, 11:17:31 PM
ROFL!!!  Laughing  Oh man that is just too funny! Very Happy  Post of the year so far!  Cool
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: compasspnt on February 08, 2005, 11:19:58 PM
Already downloaded, printed, and on my wall.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: jfrigo on February 09, 2005, 01:21:14 AM
Lee Flier wrote on Tue, 08 February 2005 20:17

ROFL!!!  Laughing  Oh man that is just too funny! Very Happy  Post of the year so far!  Cool



I reckon it don't get no clearer than that!

Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: McAllister on February 11, 2005, 12:10:43 AM
Seems to me that the quality of musicianship has decreased, as has the quality of arranging. So many things can be fixed post-tracking, there're fewer reasons to really be able to step up and nail it.

I love large-ensemble arrangements (some Miles stuff, Basie, Sinatra, etc.) and am always knocked out by the creativity that went into putting those songs together in a compelling way. Incredible. And the quality of players in those band (or on those sessions) was top shelf, all the way.

I might be wrong.

M
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: compasspnt on February 11, 2005, 12:26:12 AM
McAllister wrote on Fri, 11 February 2005 00:10


I might be wrong.

M

You are right.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on February 11, 2005, 02:25:34 AM
I had a heartbreaking talk about this with Phil Edwards. He was recording many of the musicians in the '80s who had made the awesome recordings of the '50s. He said that today it is all about a couple takes and punching all the mistakes in.

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.

Since moving to Nashville I DID get to do a couple sessions with my personal "dream team" of Bob Babbitt, Ed Greene and Reggie Young. Tom Dowd put me up to adding Reggie shortly before he passed away and I'm so glad he did. I reverted to mono style drum miking. It was high-end digital but loads of fun. Just a 57 in the room would have made an awesome recording of those guys! I hope to expose younger people to them.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Level on February 11, 2005, 02:52:58 AM
Yep, the graphic is truly accurate as it pertains to what gets big signing..however, each week I work with talent that is so awesome that it is painful to me if they don't get decent distribution.

After we finish, I like to start over. It is another level. On my dime if that is what it takes. Once you are "done", the pressure is off....lets do it one more time Smile

This is when the magic happens.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Bill Mueller on February 11, 2005, 08:42:51 AM
There is something else here and I think we can blame the record companies for it. If you want a record deal these days you have to be under twenty four years old and preferrably under 20 years old.

There can only be just so many beautiful, musically gifted people in the world. So when they run out, and I think they ran out a long time ago, the record companies take someone who might look the part and try to transform them into what they never were. There are lots of wonderful singers and musicians who can't get a break because they are too old or don't look the part. That's very sad.

Given the number of older boomers out there, I'm surprised that new music isn't be marketed to them. I would love to hear someone new that I could relate to.

Best Regards,

Bill
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on February 11, 2005, 10:33:30 AM
Anybody over 24 has always been at a pretty big disadvantage because its been unusual for anybody much older to break out as a new artist. This is partly because younger fans are much more open to adopting an artist they can identify with. Older folks have already developed their passionate relationships as fans. Just look at the total obsession with the Beatles and Led Zeppelin around here!
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Ryan A. Mills on February 11, 2005, 11:33:23 AM
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.

The internet gave everyone a voice. 5-6 years after the boom, we're realizing that most of the world doesn't really have much to say. I see the same trends in music production. I've got more than enough equipment here to record a clean album... but when I sit down with a guitar, nothing record-worthy comes out. Thankfully, I'm smart enough to realize that I'm not a songwriter.

Unfortunately for the world of music, that's a rare inner voice.

When a friend of mine first told me that his rock band was going to spend big money at a fancy studio to record their album, I offered to produce it. His response was: "What does a producer do anyway, besides hang out with the band and get their name put on the album?" -- Most songwriters in rock bands think they're great producers.

Anyone CAN do just about anything now. Money isn't the limiting factor. For $3000, you can get a laptop with pirated software and some sort of m-audio interface and music CAN be recorded.

Talent and commitment to professionalism are still just as rare as they were in the 50s and 60s. These days however, there's so much noise clouding the view of the talent, sometimes it's really hard to see.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Phil on February 11, 2005, 12:24:26 PM
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.

When I wrote some big band arrangements a few(?) years back, the caliber of the studio musicians just knocked me out. The first take was always perfect, with subsequent takes necessary only if there was a slightly different interpretation wanted. There is no thrill for a composer/arranger like hearing the count, and then the first bar coming to life.

I remember writing a French horn part that had a note one step higher than the horn range. At the session, I asked the horn player if that would be a problem, because I could rewrite the part if he wanted. He said, "Let's see how it sounds", and ran through the part, nailing it perfectly. Then he asked me if I wanted to hear it an octave higher, and proceeded to lip the whole chart up one octave. Amazing players.

Phil
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on February 11, 2005, 02:25:57 PM
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...

What you are seeing is what Madison Avenue wants you to see. A music-only performer has to be lots more important to get on TV than a model or an actor who happens to sing.

The record labels are obviously responding with what they think they can get on TV. If nothing else, American Idol made it clear you can be ugly and still be loved as a singer. The problem is that in many cases sales don't generate exposure as much as they used to. On the other hand live performance has moved mountains in the past and it could easily do so again. If people were half as excited about music as they are about Harry Potter, there'd be no problem with selling great recordings.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Samc on February 11, 2005, 03:36:09 PM
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.

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.

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.  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.  A lot of the old equipment was temperamental, and their technical limitations restricted or hampered the artistic process in some cases.  some of the modern pro-sumer gear run technical rings around the older stuff, and had Mackie been around back then......................No, I wont say it.

And yes, today we have the ability to create records with better sound quality than anything that was done before,  and sometimes it does happen.  
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Andy Simpson on February 11, 2005, 06:07:42 PM
I was listening to 'Don't ever change' by the Crickets yesterday, and Cliff Richard's 'I could easily fall (in love with you)'....
I can't get over how alive those recordings sound....massive personality....I haven't heard ANY recent recordings that sound so human.

Are any of you people making recordings with this much personailty? Seasoned proffessionals? amateurs? I put it to you that you cannot do it.

The recordings of this era are lifeless and uninspired. If we do not constantly refer to the benchmark of the best recordings how can we dare to assume we have improved upon them?

We get new gear and expect it to sound better, and we are convinced that it does because we want it to. But it doesn't.
Ask Geoff Emerick.
The Beatles, George Martin and co. didn't know any better than to record their final masterpiece with the worst sound of their career. Bummer.
But why did Geoff not speak up? What the hell was he thinking, allowing them to do all that work and knowing it wouldn't sound as good? Allowing them to set such an important benchmark so low.....

Current recording technology/theory is one of the most highly refined bad ideas in recent history, in my opinion. Right up there with smoking.

Andy

PS. I am recording a top london classical quartet next week - sm57's into tube pre's. I can't wait to see the look on their faces.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Phil on February 11, 2005, 11:28:10 PM
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.

Sam, your post jumbles, music, the music business, and equipment into one subject, but they each need to be addressed independently. Music is a taste thing - some like today's music, and some don't. Some can't live without a background of constant music - some prefer peace and quiet.

However, the music business is influenced by forces other than the younger generations' tastes. If a new artist or song can't be heard, they/it can't become popular. The playing field has never been level, but the chances were a little more even before the broadcast industry was allowed to assume such corporate power. The area of distribution has always been riddled with thievery, and it probably hasn't improved much today. I also don't recall hearing of musicians being routinely being shot, or attacked during televised ceremonies. Now that's pathetic.
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.

You can't deny that some of these closings are news, even though the bubble was bound to pop at some point. Unfortunately, studios are run by humans, and we're all subject to spending more than we should. When you sink a few million into a business that can charge hourly about what a decent therapist can charge, the arithmetic is against you.

By the way, I've rubbed a few folks the wrong way by trying to keep the blame away from home studios - perhaps a relatively 'new' phenomenon (though not for me).
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.

There were good musicians before recording was ever invented, and there are good ones today. My point is, it's hard to look beyond the charts and playlists, because they're being manipulated by people who see ledger sheets only.
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> -

I don't think anyone is going to argue with you on that, but, even with all the magic wands we have now, shitty performers still sound shitty. A lot glossier maybe, but still shitty.

I think you're missing the point on the gear, even though some might claim everything old is good (it isn't). What we've come to call 'classic' gear was made in a time when the manufacturer assumed that the gear was to be maintained by competent engineers, and used by trained professionals. Service manuals and schematics were part of the package when you bought the equipment, and the staff techs were expected to do repair and maintenance. Fifty year old Ampexes can still pull tape up to original specs today (if you can find the tape), while fingers are crossed everyday, hoping that this is not the day the computer's primary hard drive crashes - even though it's only a month old. Say what you will, the older equipment was built to last - today's gear is built to sell. Some old gear sounds great - some doesn't. The very same applies to new gear.

If you like the way things are now, then fine. Just remember the old saying about those who ignore history being fated to repeat the mistakes of history. Lord knows, there's a ton of mistakes to learn from in the music biz.

Phil
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Samc on February 12, 2005, 06:49:01 AM
Phil,

While I agree with most of the points you made, If you read my post again you will see that you give me credit for stuff that I did not say or imply.

I really understand about the gear thing, and yes I totally agree that the closure of some of the biggest and most well known studio complexes is news.  Did I say that the taste of the younger generation is the only thing that influences the music business?  

Basically, this post was to offer some balance to the general tone around here and to make the point that;

NOT EVERYTHING DONE IN THE PAST IS GREAT, AND NOT EVERYTHING DONE TODAY IS GARBAGE.

And although everyone will pay lip service to the above statement, just read some of these posts, read the lines, read between the lines and you will be led to believe differently.  This general tone usually covers music, the music business and equipment.

Like most here I earn my living from this industry and have been doing so for the past 26 years.  And while I agree that we have been dumped on the last few years by gear Mfg., record labels, radio stations and god knows who else.  I would like to put forward that this is not new, and also that WE should shoulder some of the blame for all the crap that's happening.  Like the big name engineers and producers who are crying about studio closures while most of them have stopped bringing work to these facilities in an effort to increase their own bottom line?  Like mastering engineers who are constantly complaining about the loudness war!?!?  I guess they have nothing to do with it.

I think it would be more instructive to give credit and pay some attention to the good stuff that's actually being produced today, which in some cases rivals or surpasses some of the classic stuff.

Studying history, so as not to repeat the same mistakes is certainly intelligent, but crying for a return to the past is rather backward thinking.      
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on February 12, 2005, 09:25:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: compasspnt on February 12, 2005, 09:31:09 PM
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.


Great sentiment Bob, but it's not gonna happen any time soon.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: lucey on February 12, 2005, 10:36:50 PM
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 what are you talking about?  Is Brittany Spears the result of a trust fund or something?  Are rich kids a trend? I know that Phish guy and Ben Folds were trust funders but I see that as a minority.   If anything the trust fund kids are the executives and A+R!

As far as the 24 year old cut off, I disagree.  Sarah Mclaughlin was older and is now established for life, Coldplay was almost 30 and is another U2 in all likelyhood, even Peter Gabriel broke late in life with So, and even Sting (his 'solo' fans today are not his fans from the Police days!)  Not everone is Leann Rimes or Justin Timberlake, nor do they need to be to suceed for many years.  Who says that this parade of youth will last, anyway?  I dont.

And define "talent" that we are lacking?  I say there is lots of "talent" out there today .. Pro Tools engineering, auto tune engineers, sexy dancers in hot outfits, gospel choir voice, and egocentric attitude ... these are the talents of today.




There's no changing the effect of videos and image-to-the-extreme on music, the effect of media conglomeration on the business of radio play, or the fact that the modern young person is a lemming thinker of new proportions when it comes to a need for social acceptance (picking new music is less individualistic)  yet that same person is an strong and individual consumer of new proportions (music downloading) on the other hand. Paradoxical.

These are new times with new youth and new rules.  No five or even ten factors tells the whle story, but I agree, it's not going in a good direction by and large.  

I just wish it would really crash so we could get on with the future.  I have hope for the future but this era needs to end.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Lee Flier on February 12, 2005, 10:45:17 PM
lucey wrote on Sat, 12 February 2005 22:36

I have hope for the future but this era needs to end.


LOL... I'd say that sums up my feelings exactly!  It's kinda like the 80's: "When the HELL are people gonna get over these horrid gated reverbs and Linn drums?" Laughing
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Samc on February 13, 2005, 06:28:54 AM
I'm a little confused here.  Because if we are only talking about the major label, MTV and Clear channel, pop-rock/hip hop offerings then most (if not all) the sentiments being expressed here are definitely on the money.  But, if on the other hand we are talking about music in general, there should be some revision.

Over the last 4 years I've worked with a number of bands that;
a) Are not signed to a major;  b) Their records are not played on national radio or MTV;  c) Apart from some of the musicians in one of these bands, they are all past 30 years old, the average age in one band is about 60 I think.

These bands are turning out good records that cover many styles from Afro Beat to Reggae, Ska, Funk and soul, they are touring a lot all over the world, and two of these bands played more than 200 (mostly sold out) gigs last year.  These bands are playing and selling records to a wide cross section of the population, from teenagers to grannies, and all of them and their support staff are making a good living.   Although none of these bands could be considered arena or stadium sized acts, one of them did open for two of the biggest stadium acts last year, and I know for a fact that the support staff of musicians and engineers were earning more that their counterparts who were working for the big stadium acts.

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?  
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on February 13, 2005, 02:14:44 PM
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?  

The facts of life are that the top of the charts represent the most popular music of the day. What I'm trying to get at is why so much of it isn't very good and why so much good music isn't very popular.

In many many cases today's most popular performers are entertainers having limited musical ability and whose rise to stardom happened outside the world of music. We can't change that however it's important to note that this has always been part of the record business as opposed to the music business. I believe it is the blurring of the line between the music industry and the record industry that confuses the issues.

Maybe we can change the ability of stars rising inside the world of music to reach a wide enough audience to compete with the actors, dancers and models who dominate the charts outside the world of Hip-Hop.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: stevieeastend on February 13, 2005, 05:03:25 PM
I think Alicia Keys, Ryan Adams, Keane (from the UK) or Jewel, just to name a few are very talented singer/songwirter/performer.
I think Destiny?s Child are very talented singer/dancer/perfomer...

am I wrong?

I love lot?s of the "old stuff" and I love the sound and music of Motown, the Beatles .... and  I think there will never be a record more pleasing to me than "The Cole Porter Songbook" by Ella Fitzgerald.

But I don?t think that music is better or worse, or that recordings sound better or worse in general. They are different. In every way. You can definitely say that the ability of the average playing musician decreased.
But on the other hand there is so much great programming out there, ... it is so hard to compare. You cannot compare it. Times just changed and there is still brilliant perfomance out there, as well as total crap.

And the reason why the crap is so upfront and is brought to the public so often nowadays is because the business has turned from a supply industry into a demand industry.
Record companies used to find talented music to offer to the puplic. (Supply)
Nowadays record companies try to find what they think what the puplic 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.

So as a results A&Rs are NOT searching for talent, they are searching for what they think what the puplic might want to buy immediately. So quality in terms of arrangement or great sounding record is not really the main goal. The main goal for the record companies is "does the record sounds like a record that people are used to nowadays in order to be bought".  So it is really up to the producer to be brave enough to find that small line between creating an "outstanding" record, which would imply something new, or something which is said to be sellable. Of course the decisions are finally made by the A&Rs and their power to overrule producers and artists, because of the pressure to sell immediately, leads more often than not to crap. (this kind of "think I heard this arrangement, song structure and lines a million times before" with a plastic touch)

cheers
steveeastend

Time may change me, but I can?t change time....
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on February 13, 2005, 06:37:35 PM
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...
I frankly can't think of any time the record industry wasn't demand driven!

I also can't think of a single successful artist at Motown, arguably the most successful talent development operation in history, that was signed based on talent or a demo tape as opposed to proven success and celebrity in either a talent contest or as a local performer. Stevie Wonder was about the only exception but even then he was signed as a novelty and nobody expected him to end up where he did. Talent development has also traditionally been role of management companies and not record labels.

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.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: compasspnt on February 13, 2005, 06:44:45 PM
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.


Bob has a great point here.  At least a part of the "problem" with the talent level within the major label music business now is that they HAVEN'T changed much.  They are in a pretty big mess right now, because they are dinosaurs, and not changing with the times....just look at downloading for a start!  It's a lot easier, especially for committees, to choose something which is 'just like something else which has been successful,' rather than sticking the proverbial neck out on something different.  How many labels or publishers passed on The Beatles?
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: WhyKooper on February 13, 2005, 07:21:12 PM
.....Record companies used to find talented music to offer to the public....

Like Fabian...Shelly Fabraes..all the kids with top ten hits who were stars on the tv westerns in 1960..while the Beatles were being turned down by every company in town.  Do you remember?  Were you there?

Then, the Beatles get in and get hold..which..then begets lots of talented acts getting signed...AND ..The Singing Nun..Mrs. Miller..B. Kim and the other guy doing the Archies...1910 Fruitgum Company...Those guys in kilts that did S-A-T-U-R-D-A-Y Night...ALL of who got hits.  And on and on it goes.

I see absolutely nothing different in the biz cycles regarding the stuff that gets signed or gets on the air.  However I do clearly see that what gets signed is an attempt at getting a product that will sell.  For crying out loud, it's a business.  And the buyers are kids.  That never changes.

There is a ton of great stuff out now..and junk.  Same thing, different decade.  
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: compasspnt on February 13, 2005, 07:29:49 PM
WhyKooper wrote on Sun, 13 February 2005 19:21



There is a ton of great stuff out now..and junk.  Same thing, different decade.  



One of my favourite sayings "back in the day" (I forgot who actually said it first) still hold true:

"Ninety percent of everything released for public consumption is evanescent tripe."
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: jazzius on February 14, 2005, 12:07:24 AM
Isn't it always the way that the older generations say "it was better in the old days"?........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.....that's just the way it goes......i'm sure the kids of today will be saying the exact same thing when all commercial music is created solely by computers in about 25 years or whatever.......personally i listen to very little new music, but i'm also aware that that's just what part of becoming and moany old fart is all about!...........cheers!....... Very Happy
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Phil on February 14, 2005, 12:38:22 AM
Well, it used to be that....ummm....
but, with the newer...uh....

ah...the hell with it. NASCAR season started today, so I'll check back around November to see if anything important happened here.

Phil
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on February 14, 2005, 12:54:34 AM
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?
At least we framed our copy of our rejection letter to the Beatles and hung it on the wall! The Beatles were an utterly amazing wild-card and just about as far as one could possibly get from being a product of the music industry. The rest of the "British invasion" was pretty conventional.

The point I was trying to make is that I don't think record labels have ever had nearly as much power as people seem to attribute to them other than obviously the power to screw up.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on February 14, 2005, 01:03:33 AM
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...

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.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: stevieeastend on February 14, 2005, 02:45:57 AM
@bob, whykooper

I was afraid that you gonna write this. You have to be, and you are right as you know the whole story of the record biz in america.
What I wrote has been actually true for my country and germany a couple of years ago. Because the subsidiaries  of the majors in my country earned 80% of their income with selling the international, already well known, acts they used to have the possiblity to search for talents and build them up in order to get some payback in return in a couple of years, which is, and was also true for germany but isn?t anymore as well as here.
f.e. Herbert Groenemeyer(maybe some of you know the name) has been build up as an artist because the company believed he might sell in a couple of years. Now he is the biggest act in the whole german spoken region and sells millions.

Actually this way of a "supply-driven-policy" is the way I run my label. Giving talented people the opportunity to develop over a couple of years and let them record whenever the studio is not booked...

cheers
steveeastend
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: jazzius on February 14, 2005, 03:50:37 AM
Bob Olhsson wrote on Mon, 14 February 2005 06:03

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...

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.


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
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: lucey on February 14, 2005, 04:17:36 AM
My view of "Good Music" is diverse, but it shares one thing ... depth of character and musicianship that is present, yet not wanking.  Stars are not the ticket, the music is the ticket. In that sense I feel more British than American in my tastes.  No musicianship is okay, but musicianship that's not wanking is best.

Kind of Blue era Miles/Pink Floyd/Zeppelin/some Beatles/some King Crimson/Gabriel/Eno/JJ Cale/Talking Heads/Police/The Clash/Joni Mitchell/The Band/ACDC/Ozzy/Sarah Mclaughlin/Coldplay/some Clapton/Audioslave/Tool/some Dylan/some Bjork/Bob Marley/Taj Mahal/Jimi, etc

The whole Motown era you keep referring to Bob is your unique and interesting experience, yet with the exception of Marvin Gaye, it's not the gold standard for my musical world over the last 30 years, nor is the pop/image/sexy sensibility that's been the focus since Video killed the Radio Star.

In the UK they've had enough of this disposable crap, and let's hope they can influence US.  As a large market with GROWING sales numbers... they have a point or two.  Maybe longevity is not a young person that makes records like widgets for 30 years ... maybe longevity is a creative force that has something more than a hook and a smile to offer over time.  

Maybe love and truth still matter.   Maybe what people want is fleeting, but what they need is better music and selling what we need is better business?

Read this and see if you think they're on to something.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: maxdimario on February 14, 2005, 06:11:08 AM
If record companies would only press records of 'artistic' (to paraphrase the article) young bands instead of computer-pop singers, the whole industry (and the whole country culturally) would certainly benefit.

As far as mediocre or 'green' product goes it is far better to teach the kids to appreciate real artists, be they excellent entertainers or just enough, and have the chance that those artists will grow in some way.

let's not forget that, no record executive or A&R man has ever really had any clue of what would be a hit or not for an unknown artist!

for precisely this reason execs and investors have applied the tried and true methods of mass marketing and advertising to the music industry in order to 'control' it by making only certain kinds of products accessible to the masses via MTV radio etc.

They control the money that fuels the music media.

A lot of the so-called disposable groups or artistes only last between 6 months and 2 years anyway until forgotten forever...almost.

once the kids understand that music is a cultural and artistic fenomena that can change their lives they will become more interested overall and will become better buyers.

Computer pop and rap-dance tries to eliminate the human element along with anything that resembles individuality both in sound and in artistic vision, in order to make the product fit into the existing market in the easyest way possible.

too bad that some kids think that that's all there is to music.

music need not be old to communicate something to the listener, it is the record companies that in their infinite wisdom have conditioned the market to their cost/production needs by eliminating the art of music.

music without art...HA HA HA now that's funny!!!!!

.. they'll reap what they sow.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: fadeout on February 14, 2005, 10:04:19 AM
Quote:

For crying out loud, it's a business.  And the buyers are kids.  That never changes.



Some buyers are kids, not all. I think that the notion that only kids want/buy contemporary music is a throwback to the early days of rock'n'roll, when there was a truer cultural divide between the classical or big band era (parents) and the new rock/pop that the kids listened to.  

The kids - which now really means KIDS, as kids get older younger, the 16-18 year olds of the 60's are the 10-12 year olds of now - are a fickle and ludicrously short-term marketing prospect. There's a double-whammy here - not only is all this effort being put into trying to captialize on a short-term market, but we're doing little or nothing to nurture our future generations and develop their creativity and musical interest that will foster (a) a long term record buyer and (b) the creative talent of the future.

We're parents feeding our kids bubblegum instead of food, and the kids aren't gonna HAVE a future! A little bubblegum is fine, but where's the beef???!  

The word "talent" has come up a lot in this thread. This sticks out to me like a sore thumb. Maybe I'm being pedantic, but mere talent was never good enough, was it? The music industry of old was not built on talent - it was built on GENIUS.  Talent just fills in the blanks, picks up the slack, gives people something to do. Genius is what makes the difference.

Zeppelin, Beatles, Hendrix, whoever...all the names that keep coming up again and again.... these people were not merely talented. Cole Porter was not merely talented.  Bob Marley wasn't merely talented. There's a long long list. The term genius is so overused and abused (like so much of the language) that it's lost its meaning, but I do think that this is perhaps the one thing that has changed - genius has all but disappeared from the music industry. Along with honesty and integrity. As a culture, we now seem to value conformity over creativity.

By "genius" I mean not just exceptional talent, but a spiritual involvement with the art, a visionary approach, an implicit understanding of music (or whichever discipline), an ability to channel something greater than simply craft, and at the same time, the practical down-to-earth ability to develop those ideas into fully developed end-products. A level of creativity that goes far beyond the mundane. Very hard to define or describe, very easy to recognize.

The good thing about geniuses is that they raise the bar for everyone else. They light the way. One or two even minor geniuses might help us out enormously right now.

Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: compasspnt on February 14, 2005, 10:16:11 AM
fadeout wrote on Mon, 14 February 2005 10:04

"What he said" (see above)


Very nicely said Chris!  This forum certainly has some good thinkers tuning in!
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: stevieeastend on February 14, 2005, 11:03:35 AM
very interesting post chris! Wink

cheers
steveeastend
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: phist on February 15, 2005, 10:08:27 AM
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


well, i can't say i agree. i'm 22 and hate over 90% of the "music" that's produced nowadays. i think that old soul/funk/etc records sound waay sweeter than all this new "r&b". i'm sure it's also because of worse songwriting but i like the sound too.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Andy Simpson on February 15, 2005, 07:05:54 PM
Now, genius is a great term, and highlights the plight of the industry....

However, what is required is multiple geniuses in the same band. That is how you get real results.

Andy

Btw, what would you do if you discovered a struggling band that were better than the beatles? Seriously?
It is technically possible......
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: fadeout on February 17, 2005, 05:19:27 PM
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......


Offer to produce them? Beg, maybe?!

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.

Their challenge is not just to be discovered, it's to get past the industry!

As for the topic question, I think it's almost unanswerable, except to say that I think that the potential for greatness has increased in tandem with the potential for screwing up. Just personally, my own ability to record quality audio on my own terms has skyrocketed.

Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Lee Flier on February 17, 2005, 06:53:20 PM
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.....



Well maybe if you just say that without any context, but I've seen too many 20 year olds' faces light up of late when they first hear an old recording spin off a reel of tape, to really agree with you.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on February 17, 2005, 10:37:47 PM
Human beings respond to all kinds of music. Lynn Anderson gave me chills and tears streaming down my face in a club a few months ago yet I was never particularly a fan of her or country music. Recording Levi Stubbs of the Four Tops had the same effect.

There's lots more going on with music than just style, genre, pitch or time.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: jdsowa on February 19, 2005, 02:50:56 PM
I think recorded audio today sounds _different_, that's all.  And that's great.  I used to think that the sounds of recordings from the late 60s/early 70s were ideal and that anything that sounded different was somehow fundamentally flawed.  Now, I can imagine how boring music would've been if things had never moved on from that ideal (great, though, it may've been).  

I agree that the editing capabilities of modern equipment have discouraged people from learning/practicing instruments.  Not only are bands able to 'fix it in the mix', but there are entire genres being made by people who couldn't tell you what a major triad is.  Whether this is bad or good is a matter of perspective.

As far as whether or not some Beatles-equivalent band or artist will come along and 'save' music, I don't think it will happen.  

Musicians were so much more important to the youth in the past because they were pretty much the harbingers of 'cool'.  Everything else going on in society (television, etc.) at that time was tame in comparison to what musicians represented (extravagent dress, long hair, sex, drugs).  

While musicians may still create the fashions of the day--the social barriers that existed in regards to the above topics have all been broken down.  There's nothing a musician can do these days that can't be done by you or me.  It's not uncommon to see a kid at the local mall with a 6" pink mohawk.  The topic of sex is bandied about pretty regularly on cable TV.  Elvis' style of dance created a revolution because that's all there was at the time.  Now, you can see the most graphic pictures on the internet from sex to beheadings.  Musicians are no longer on the vanguard of edginess.  

When the next Beatles fly into town you won't see girls lined up on the guardrails fainting and in tears--they'll be met with a big collective yawn.

Your average person never has, and never will, care about the 'quality' of the song or the recording.  It has never mattered.  Everything will be taken to its logical conclusion.  In music's case, this means one thing: repetition/recognition.  Producers realized that nobody really needed the strings in a disco song, just the 4-on-the-floor beat.  Then they realized that harmony and even the singing itself wasn't necessary; only some kind of repetitive sound.  

There is a portion of society that is appreciate of 'quality music'.  It is a fairly small group.  When 'quality music/recordings' sold to the masses (as they had in the 60s and 70s) it was only because the industry had not yet figured out that they could get away with selling THIS kind of music.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: RMoore on February 27, 2005, 05:01:26 AM
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,  



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..

She then came straight to Vancouver after grad where she was put together with various producers, engineers, songcrafters etc etc and 'groomed' for years and years..
PLUS - she then TOURED endlessly playing tons of crap gigs, small bars across Canada for ages before breaking through...
So she was already working hard for years and years..

FWIW - I witnessed that all close by because I was involved with Nettwerk Records and knew people on the scene who were working with her.
I even played on demos for the Solace album and even 2 album tracks (but got replaced later by the Neville Bros bass player ! Smile )..
I think I ended up on the thank you's tho..

Even though the label clearly saw a lot of potential in her & were channeling lots of resources to the Sarah project, I don't think ANYONE could have predicted her eventual huge success in the USA back then...

FWIW 2 - the manager Terry McBride was 'born to be a manager' IMO
...I've seen him do incredible things like stand at the gates of a troubled festival and collect cash at the door, $5 here $10 there, until ALL his artists were paid (!)..meanwhile the rest got  rubber cheques from the promoter..

Also I saw at a shmooze a thon / free booze party for Nettwerk records he went onstage and announced over the mic 'all you press people, I see you standing  standing at the back, you'd better come up to the front and pay attention to this band or I'm CLOSING THE BAR - I MEAN IT!'...Smile
Incredible! And they obeyed of course cuz he wasn't bluffing..

I recall that moment crystal clear cuz I was playing in said band!





Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on February 27, 2005, 08:08:14 AM
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..

This is a very common story. Another is that most people generally have their first hit record on their SECOND major deal.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: RMoore on February 27, 2005, 01:30:31 PM
I think SM scored big on or after her 3rd album after being signed up to Arista in the USA via the Canadian label..

An interesting thing about Nettwerk Records / Productions, similar to what you once said about Motown, is that (in retrospect) it seemed more like a management company with a label - at least at the time I was involved (late 80's early 90's) eg: a band would sign but they would get a whole master plan of action for their career and activities being laid out following the managerial acumen of the label CEO ...
Indeed it seems since then that the NWerk CEO Terry McBride moved completely into artist management..
At that time it seemed their plan of action was to groom artists north of the border and then try and set up big deals with US majors - in the case of SM that seemed to work out rather well with Clive Davis & Arista I think it was..

Another interesting thing, for a smaller indie label operation (that they were at that time), was 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..

Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: Bob Olhsson on February 27, 2005, 02:40:55 PM
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..

This is what record labels are all about. It's amazing how few people, even those who've been signed to the majors, seem to understand this.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: vernier on February 27, 2005, 11:50:45 PM
Examining old records is making me question newer ones ..I don't think a tube-pre in front of a bunch of digital weirdness is cutting it.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: RMoore on February 28, 2005, 05:28:30 AM
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.



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 the bump n grind  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..
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: maxdimario on February 28, 2005, 08:09:14 AM
Ryan Moore wrote on Mon, 28 February 2005 11:28

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.



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..

The Beatles were continually growing musically and as performers as a result of an active music scene.

Played live every day and learned to be heard above the crowds.

now bands in Europe have to pay to play at the big clubs, don't know in USA, which makes the whole concept of performing live different.

If you want to have great records tomorrow you have to support your local music scene.

It doesn't have to be rock'n'roll either.

Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: mr. moon on February 28, 2005, 12:27:25 PM
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




IMHO, you hit the nail on the head! We refuse to use Auto Tune for anything. We also leave mistakes in our tunes (which we call "Lenny's" - after Lenny Kravitz who does the same) just so folks know it is "real" music created by "real" people. Some folks dig the technically perfect thing, but personally, music is more about chaos than perfection anyways...

-mr moon
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: vernier on February 28, 2005, 07:22:44 PM
quote "We refuse to use Auto Tune for anything."

I can't listen to records processed with autotune.
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: magicchord on March 03, 2005, 10:44:38 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v237/magicchord/music2.jpg
Title: Re: IS RECORDED AUDIO BETTER OR WORSE TODAY...?
Post by: RMoore on March 03, 2005, 10:52:46 AM
LOL

Nice graph!