Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[David Sykes]

Hi all,

I do mostly pop/rock stuff and generally the keep the studio's
7-ft grand piano mic'd up with a couple of DPA 4011's at about 10-18 inches over the hammers, equidistant on either side of middle C.

I recently had a piano student in to do a demo for Julliard.  He arrived before I had a chance to re-mic the piano "classical style".  Observing the close mic configuration, the pianist posed a rather obvious question: "since no one ever hears the piano from that perspective, why would anyone mic the piano inside the case like that?"

Caught a little off guard, my not-so-eloquent retort was something like: "that's just the way we do it in pop music".  

Obviously, mic technique varies with the objective being pursued---which may not be realism.  Nevertheless, somehow this seemingly naive question started me wondering how/why pop/rock recording evolved into using all these "unrealistic" close mic'ing techinques everywhere: guitar cabs, acoustic guitars, drums, keyboards, Leslie's, etc.

Thoughts, comments, ... snide remarks   ?


David

[Invisible Member]

These are a couple of quotes that have stuck in my mind and I think it relates to part of the evolution question. The original context is microphone choice.

Bob Olhsson wrote on Mon, 29 November 2004 14:41

I think the change was caused by everybody wanting to be able to punch in their mistakes. Separate tracks for each instrument became the norm while leakage became unacceptable. In order to do this,  people began using headphones and no longer needed to be close enough to each other in order to create an acoustic balance in the studio. We eventually moved to overdubbing almost everything so you rarely had multiple parts ever being performed at once. I still use figure-8 a lot because it sounds better but it's a technology from the days when we recorded everything live to two or three tracks without headphones.

Bob Olhsson wrote on Tue, 30 November 2004 11:02

The important thing is ensemble as opposed to ambiance! A great studio sounds good with the mikes considerably farther back than they can be used in a lesser room. In the case of vocals, it dramatically reduces the amount of limiting needed in order to make a vocal sit right in a track. In many cases that "great vintage vocal sound" was really about the distance from the singer's mouth rather than the microphone and limiter being used.

Peace,
Dennis

[KungFuLio]

David Sykes wrote on Wed, 29 December 2004 18:53

I recently had a piano student in to do a demo for Julliard.  He arrived before I had a chance to re-mic the piano "classical style".  Observing the close mic configuration, the pianist posed a rather obvious question: "since no one ever hears the piano from that perspective, why would anyone mic the piano inside the case like that?" Thoughts, comments, ... snide remarks   ? David

I want the speakers to be the source of the sound and let whatever room the speakers are in be the ambience.  Why add the ambience of another room into the recording unless it is artistically craved?

Great question though.

[Leo]

The piano lid does more than keep dust off of the strings.
It reflects sound.

It's all preference. Sometimes i close mic, sometimes not.

Jim Dickinson got me hip to distant piano mic'ing. Been using more so than close mic'ing since.

[Phil]

[Bob Olhsson]

I've never heard a closely miked piano touch the majestic sound of a Steinway B miked from 8 feet away in a good room. The low-end is pure goosebumps.

[wwittman]

It's all an ILLUSION.

The bass guitar really comes out of a speaker bigger than the one your listeners probably end up listening to the entire BAND out of... so nothing is real.
No one hears ANYTHING in real life like what we cram onto a little record coming out of a 4" car speaker.

It comes down to what creates the most satisfying illusion in any given situation.

And often that immediacy, of close mic'ing, sits better in that dream world than more 'realistic' approaches.

Really this only proves that piano players don't know more about recording than recording engineers do! <g>

[J.J. Blair]

It seems to me that classical engineers typically try to capture a sound that is closest to what somebody standing there would actually hear.  As has been mentioned, since mics don't pick things up the same way that we hear them, recording like that is an art that always impresses the shit out of me.  

I remember in the late '80s and early '90s, it seemed that 'that Bonham sound' was the buzz phrase for bass drums.  Everybody was trying to get some sustainy, realy deep and low sound with a lot of presence.  It's funny that that was what everybody's impression of what his kick sounded like, because he was never close mic'd, and if you listen to those sounds compared with something modern like a Dave Sardee recording where everything is up close sounding, it seems like the tracks are on two different planets.  (Robert Planet)  In fact, I don't think anything was ever close mic'd on Zeppelin records besides acoustic guitar. (Waiting for Electrical to chime in at any moment here on his experience with 'Bob and Jim'.)

Whether or not I close mic something always depends on the context of the music.  I love that ambient Steinway like Bob was talking about, but sometimes close mic'ing a Yamaha C7 sits so beautifully in the track.  Even when I ambient mic though, I will generally mix some close mics in for a little extra presence.

[Peter Simonsen]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Thu, 30 December 2004 04:16

I've never heard a closely miked piano touch the majestic sound of a Steinway B miked from 8 feet away in a good room. The low-end is pure goosebumps.

Ditto..Im lucky enough to hear this at least once a week. Another facinating piano would be the fazioli..a way better sounding upper midrange to my ears, but hey in this class its heavenly delight differences *S*

Kind regards

Peter

[Jason Phair]

Because your sometimes need to make things smaller to fit it all into the mix.  If the piano is fulfilling a major role though, I'd prefer a more ambient, bigger recording of it.

[maxdimario]

You can mic everything more or less from a distance, but beware of losing the sense of proportion between instruments.
If the drums are ambient miked and there are ambient mics for most other instruments you can get away with it.
this is the major difference between recordings made up to the late 60's.

But you have to consider that a small room will make ambient miked instruments fuzzy and  distant because the early reflections will smear the sound to the point where the rhythm between instruments is lost and the mix will not play as a whole.

you can't hear this as much in the room until you plug up one ear, so that the brain can't localize the sound source as it normally does -- using both ears to determine location and depth etc.

A big room will improve things.

I don't like close mics either but you need to improve the whole audio chain from the mic to the recorder to make recordings that have impact and detail, if you choose to ambient mic.

[compasspnt]

I can attest to the fact that several things on Zeppelin recordings were (relatively) close mic'd.  There just weren't a LOT of mics used, that is, often only 2 or perhaps 3 on drums (rather than one, or even TWO close mics on EACH drum within the kit).  But bass amp, guitar amp, vocals, and certainly acoustics were usually in the "close" mic category.

Terry Manning

[Tim Gilles]

In rock music.

Size vs. Control.

You can have the size.

I'll take the control.

Things scale 'up' better than 'down' in dense mix topologys.

Best to all.

Rumblefish

[djui5]

David Sykes wrote on Wed, 29 December 2004 11:53

Hi all, "since no one ever hears the piano from that perspective, why would anyone mic the piano inside the case like that?" Caught a little off guard, my not-so-eloquent retort was something like: "that's just the way we do it in pop music".   David

Well,
I feel the main reason is that in pop music your creating something not normally heard. Most pop music sounds nothing like a real band/orchestra/artistic group playing live at a venue down the road.
Pop music creats something entirely new. When recording/mixing pop music your not trying to capture the sound a band makes, your trying to create a mood from the instruments and sometimes (most times) this involves some drastic techniques like sticking the drum kit in an iso booth and close micing the pianos, auto-tuning the vocals to death, processing the guitar tracks to oblivion and using samples/fx to create sounds not humanly playable.

When recording classical/jazz music your trying to capture what's there, capture what you hear when listening to the band and this involves using a great room with great room mic's and minimal close micing.

Nice post Tim, I agree completely

[ted nightshade]

I'm convinced that a great deal of it results from engineers not willing to look as silly as you have to look to find THE place to put the microphone for a great recording. All that leaning about with one finger in the other ear and that- it really does look ridiculous.

With random mic placements based mostly on the visual, close mics work better more often.

The casualty of all this is the utter magic of all the instruments and voices blending together in a real space. So we get sterile, sterile, and still more sterile. Too damn bad. You can call that control, but the when magic happens it's not because we are controlling it.

[Bill Mueller]

Mr. Manning!

What a pleasure to have you grace these halls. I toured with ZZ TOP on the Rio Grande Mud and Tres Hombres tours with Pete Tickle and Dave Blainey while your were making those classic masterpieces. I met you once in Nashville while I was schlepping a Studer back for repairs. I think that was about 1980.

Either you are new to this forum or I have just missed your posts. I look forward to reading your posts in the future.

Best Regards,

Bill Mueller

[PP]

[PP]

[Fifthcircle]

Many interesting points have been raised here...  What I see it coming down to is what we are trying to accomplish in our recording.  A classical recording is about documentation of an event.  That event more often than not is the performance of an ensemble (even if that ensemble in the case of solo piano is a single instrument).  Ensembles have a sound that we associate from a distance.  

In popular music, we are creating the event through the assembly of disparate parts- the tracking process.  Rather we are creating something that is a "pseudo-event."  As somebody else said, the rock recording process is creating something that just doesn't happen live in real life.

I see Jazz recording being somewhere in between.  While there is an ensemble, it is an ensemble that these days exists in an amplified domain.  When we hear it live, it is rarely unamplified.  (I won't even touch aesthetic judgements about amplificaiton of jazz here)  Therefore the sound we here is a closer mic'd sound.  A lot of jazz go with a multi-mic closish setup, but they will often have ensemble micing as well.

Oh well, my $0.02...

--Ben

[wwittman]

Hey Terry!

We met back when I was a Columbia Staff Poducer/A&R Weasel..
nice to, virtually, "see" you.

william

[compasspnt]

Hello both Bill's!

TM

[J.J. Blair]

compasspnt wrote on Thu, 30 December 2004 07:15

I can attest to the fact that several things on Zeppelin recordings were (relatively) close mic'd.  There just weren't a LOT of mics used, that is, often only 2 or perhaps 3 on drums (rather than one, or even TWO close mics on EACH drum within the kit).  But bass amp, guitar amp, vocals, and certainly acoustics were usually in the "close" mic category.

Terry, I think the point I'm getting at is if you listen to those records, there is a definite lack of proximity effect compared to today's standards, particularly in the bass drum. The important thing though is that while the actual recording of Bonham's kick did not contain a lot of low end, it certainly gave the impression that there was.

[ted nightshade]

[quote title=J.J. wrote on Fri, 31 December 2004 13:09]

compasspnt wrote on Thu, 30 December 2004 07:15

The important thing though is that while the actual recording of Bonham's kick did not contain a lot of low end, it certainly gave the impression that there was.

This is true of the whole band! A great case of letting the listener's imagination fill in the blanks- a heavier, ballsier, more exciting sound is heard and remembered than is actually on the album.

[Tim Gilles]

ted nightshade wrote on Thu, 30 December 2004 19:00

The casualty of all this is the utter magic of all the instruments and voices blending together in a real space. So we get sterile, sterile, and still more sterile. Too damn bad. You can call that control, but the when magic happens it's not because we are controlling it.

I don't get it.

Are you saying that if a great band plays a great song and I close mic it to blue bejesus and back..... And in this way... have the control of close micing in mix.... That it's not gonna be "magic"? And, by proxy.... that I can't assemble a lucid, evocative, and compelling listening experience from this collection of tracks?

If so...... Please explain further.


Rumblefish

[ted nightshade]

Tim Gilles wrote on Fri, 31 December 2004 14:40

ted nightshade wrote on Thu, 30 December 2004 19:00 The casualty of all this is the utter magic of all the instruments and voices blending together in a real space. So we get sterile, sterile, and still more sterile. Too damn bad. You can call that control, but the when magic happens it's not because we are controlling it. I don't get it. Are you saying that if a great band plays a great song and I close mic it to blue bejesus and back..... And in this way... have the control of close micing in mix.... That it's not gonna be "magic"? And, by proxy.... that I can't assemble a lucid, evocative, and compelling listening experience from this collection of tracks? If so...... Please explain further. Rumblefish

Well, there's more than one way to have the magic happen. I happen to be really partial to the sonic magic that happens there in the room, and there are a lot of recordings of great bands playing great songs that would be that much greater if the real interaction of the sounds in the room were captured. (The performances tend to be a lot more exciting when the performers get to hear all the instruments making one big glorious noise in the room, instead of headphones, but that doesn't rule out close mic'ing).

An example of what I'm thinking of- I saw the SF Jazz Collective play a great arrangement of Ornette Coleman's Lonely Woman, from the 2nd row, with Ornette himself sitting a couple rows and a couple seats behind me. The perfomance was absolutely hair-raising- the performers were being animated by the music and not the other way around. Some of them looked really frightened by the experience! Trombone, Tenor Sax, Alto Sax, Trumpet, all blending into one glorious sound there in the room. I have a recording of the performance, all made with close mics- it's really bizarre. It's NOT what happened in that room. The horns do not blend into one glorious sound that's greater than the sum of the parts. It's a damn shame- a whole big part of the magic went missing. I'd say about 90% less magic than a well placed stereo pair or even a single mic would have captured .Possibly if the close-mic'ed and electronically mixed recording were done better, we might gain some, but not enough, not at all enough.

So, that's jazz, and pop music is supposed to be a whole different thing. Personally, I do not believe that at all- not if Elvis was pop, not if "Mule Train" was pop, not if a real band playing a pop song live in a real room is pop. I just don't buy the whole idea that pop music is by definition a construct of multitracking and overdubs and close-mic'ing- that's how it is, too often, but not by any means how it's always been or how it needs to be.

I would conclude my biased little rant by proposing that the magic that really happens in the room, if it's really happening, just has dimensions that we can only hope to approach at the mixing board if we get equally lucky there. We can process, tweak, and manipulate with great freedom with overdubs and close mic'ed tracks, but if magic happens in the mix it's not due to our skills but because we were blessed by whatever mysterious source provides the magic.

That's all really, just that when magic happens it's not because of our great tools and great skill, it's when we get the hell out of the way and let it happen.

YMMV!

[David Sykes]

[quote title=ted nightshade wrote on Fri, 31 December 2004 18:21

...
I would conclude my biased little rant by proposing that the magic that really happens in the room, if it's really happening, just has dimensions that we can only hope to approach at the mixing board if we get equally lucky there. We can process, tweak, and manipulate with great freedom with overdubs and close mic'ed tracks, but if magic happens in the mix it's not due to our skills but because we were blessed by whatever mysterious source provides the magic.
...

[/quote]


I agree that a lot of the time, a lot of the magic seems to lie in the blend of the sounds in the room. I remember reading how Roy Halee tried recording Simon & Garfunkel on separate mic's a few times, but found too much of the vocal specialness was lost to justify the added control of separte mics.

On the other hand, as indicated in other posts to this thread, recordings aren't heard in an "audio vacumm": the blended sounds & ambience recorded will be heard in the context of the listening room's ambience.  The trick/art, I guess, is to capture live blends and ambience so that the magic holds up in some reasonable playback environment on some reasonable playback gear; or better yet, a range of playback enviroments/gear---a magical feat in itself.  Anyone have any thoughts as to issues/problems/techniques? Surely, someone's written a book...

David

[Bob Olhsson]

Funny how all of this stuff seemed much more obvious before huge PA systems became common.

[David Sykes]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Sat, 01 January 2005 11:49

Funny how all of this stuff seemed much more obvious before huge PA systems became common.

Bingo!!  Nothing sucks more to my ears than the bigger-than-life excessively Phat sound of close mic'd drums in a large hall or coliseum.  But I guess that's a matter of taste...the hyperbole of WWF events don't really do it for me either.

[Tim Gilles]

ted nightshade wrote on Fri, 31 December 2004 18:21

I would conclude my biased little rant by proposing that the magic that really happens in the room, if it's really happening, just has dimensions that we can only hope to approach at the mixing board if we get equally lucky there. We can process, tweak, and manipulate with great freedom with overdubs and close mic'ed tracks, but if magic happens in the mix it's not due to our skills but because we were blessed by whatever mysterious source provides the magic. That's all really, just that when magic happens it's not because of our great tools and great skill, it's when we get the hell out of the way and let it happen.

An interesting viewpoint Ted, and one that is sure to be a hit(At least from the creative totem-pole standpoint..) with 'threatened' musicians everywhere... Ya know the ones.... The kind who desperately need to 'reaffirm' the half century long mantra of "service provision" for AE's in our roles as Recordists.

But...

When ya strip away the bullshit....

that's just the BEDSIDE MANNER.

The inherited WAY OF THINGS.

The LIP SERVICE.

'Cause IN REALITY....

Unfortunately(I guess)... I'm one of those 'trench-digging' rock and roll guys who has to assume a somewhat more practical approach to making records.... Something I'd like to continue to be able to do for another coupla decades if possible....

Which means that I don't often have the luxury of hanging around waiting for those glorious intersections of chance and fate and skill to settle into fortuitous juxtaposition with my transductive efforts.

And in light of the fact that this assessment appears to be the 'reality of my surroundings'.... If I agreed with you... I seriously doubt that I'd bother doing this for a living.

In short.... I'd probably attempt to find a more profitable way of achieving 'footnote' status.

I, for one, am utterly through with 'apologizing' for clinging to the idea that I, or others like me, can make a MASSIVE difference in what is eventually(hopefully) enjoyed by the folks who listen to the end product that is the outgrowth of my ARTISTIC MARRIAGE with the artist and their initial sonic offerings.

We're all grown men(and women) moving air about.

The shift in "power and creative potential" to 'our side of the glass' is inexorable.

The line between what we do and what the 'Musicians' do is blurring, fading.... failing.

Is this a good thing?

I dunno.

But I sure as hell ain't gonna stand around and wait for my clients to come up with the next 'Sgt. Peppers' all by their lonesome. In fact.... The more I do this wacky record making thing.... The more I'm getting the distinct impression that they are COUNTING on me to do EXACTLY the OPPOSITE.

Because.....

Most days, we ain't making documentaries here.

We're making "Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom".

No giant stone ball rolling down the tunnel?

No golden skulls that tip to open the secret chamber door?

No malevolent Nazi bad guys that we burn up with apocalyptic fire fingers?

No workee.

Yep.... looks like I'll be close micing(and engaging every other supposedly 'vibe/truth-killing' audio practice I can get my hot little hands on...) till the friggin' cows come home, thank you.

Best to all.

Tim 'Rumblefish' Gilles

[Curve Dominant]

I actually agree with everything Tim just said.

The cat is out of the bag these days. Musicians and singers everywhere know the producer/engineer can "make it happen," and they expect as such.

Fine with me. I happen to LIKE making it "happen." It's a pretty cool gig if you think about it.

[ted nightshade]

These are great replies! I can definitely appreciate all these points of view. And I'm grateful to anybody who made a great recording out of a band that could have just made a pretty good one- especially if I will be listening to it!

My approach and tastes are clearly the result of the way I stumbled into all this- hearing wonderful music live in a room and wanting to capture that thing that moved me. I can see how it's really different for those who are recording a huge variety of acts that can clearly benefit from some mix mojo and surreal approaches to recordmaking.

[dirkb]

What a great thread!

I once, if only once, hope to be in a position that I can just put 3-4 mic's in the room and listen amazed behind my console to the magic being documented.

However, as long as I'm still fighting 15dB level differences and more on drumtracks, have to deal with completely non-working arrangements bewteen drums, bass and guitar; as long as the musicians will never be able to perform together what will ultimately end-up on cd....

I'll pass on the documentory also and dig in to get the band sounding as if they were able to play this shit live.

Greetings,
Dirk

[Bob Olhsson]

dirkb wrote on Sun, 02 January 2005 05:23

... I'll pass on the documentory also and dig in to get the band sounding as if they were able to play this shit live.

Is making somebody sound like they can do things they'll never be able to pull off on stage really doing them or the music community a favor?

Music is not doing very well today relative to other forms of entertainment. All sorts of excuses are made for this but somehow it seems obvious to me that authentic performing talent has been missing in action a lot more frequently than I remember from 30 years ago. I'm not talking about style, I'm talking about people having enough balls to take an audience right up to the edge and then outperform everything the fans have heard on their records.

[dirkb]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Sun, 02 January 2005 17:31

dirkb wrote on Sun, 02 January 2005 05:23 ... I'll pass on the documentory also and dig in to get the band sounding as if they were able to play this shit live. Is making somebody sound like they can do things they'll never be able to pull off on stage really doing them or the music community a favor? Music is not doing very well today relative to other forms of entertainment. All sorts of excuses are made for this but somehow it seems obvious to me that authentic performing talent has been missing in action a lot more frequently than I remember from 30 years ago. I'm not talking about style, I'm talking about people having enough balls to take an audience right up to the edge and then outperform everything the fans have heard on their records.

I agree, but I'm not going to pass on every band that isn't up to those standards, but are at a level where I think I can get a decent cd out of them. I might as well stop producing rock records...

For example: the current band I'm producing write excellent songs, play a decent live show, but aren't tight enough to put them in a room, record them together and commit to the bleed. Thus, it's an overdub situation, because I know I will be replacing 5-10 snares per song, doing 2-3 punches on the drums and probably will be cutting and pasting a little here and there.
On the other hand, we did spend quite some time in preproduction and all takes so far (with all drums, bass and most of basic guitar parts recorded) are first or second takes and we're cruising through the recordings.

But definitely not a documentary type of production...

Greetings,
Dirk

[Phil]

[Bob Olhsson]

I certainly can't afford to be turning down work myself but it's a very real dilemma I think we've all got to start looking at.

Where it gets utterly bizarre is that I know of a pop diva who has never even been offered the opportunity to get her vocal right without crutches.

[lord]

I think the central issue is that recorded music has evolved stylistically far beyond that which it is humanly possible to "perform live."

You will have wide agreement that the level of musicianship today is not what it used to be, but even yesterdays heroes could not play through a lot of modern music with the level of mechanical precision to which the audience has become accustomed. Of course, the sounds we are used to are not exactly "naturally occurring" either.

What's someone to do to change that?

[ted nightshade]

This is indeed a great discussion. I do feel strongly that people should at least have the opportunity to put themselves under whatever discipline, coaching, or inspiration lets them pull it off live. And that those who do not receive this opportunity, or are steered prematurely away from it, are being deprived of crucial opportunities for artistic growth. I really wonder what kind of music we would be hearing today if more of the prominent artists had done the long hard road of making an album without all the crutches- surely it would help their "assisted" work too?

I feel that from the artist's perspective, and very possibly the live audience's, taking a similar approach in the studio as one would do in live performance lets the artist take the advances they have made in the studio straight to the stage. Plus, there is nothing like the feedback of hearing your performances back, well recorded, for learning what works and what doesn't work as well.

Adding to what Lord wrote above, even I, puriste freak of the weak, can not help but compare performances recorded live and unedited to the mechanical precision of performances that have edited to grid and all that. Such a contrast seems to make a poor case for the natural performance, until I have to listen to something made thoroughly "perfect"- which is enough to have me digging for the rawest old John Lee Hooker record I can find...

[Bob Olhsson]

lord wrote on Sun, 02 January 2005 14:23

I think the central issue is that recorded music has evolved stylistically far beyond that which it is humanly possible to "perform live."

I've got a friend who produces karaoke records using session musicians who probably couldn't agree less with this! Cheap production values are not a popular "style" and "the public" seems to care less about new popular music today than at any time in my memory.

What I think needs fixing first is live performances but I have a hard time imagining recording being profitable if it remains divorced from live performance for very long.

[Lee Flier]

I think what some of this boils down to is that if you want to do this for a living, there aren't enough truly talented musicians to pay all our bills so you're gonna have to take on a lot of work that, ummm, well you can fill in the blanks.  This is why I decided NOT to make all of my living from engineering:  dealing with one too many hair metal bands in the 80's.

So now I do it part time and only work with artists I really appreciate, as well as my own bands.  So I can well relate to what Ted is saying.  On the other hand I also have a lot of appreciation for the "hyper-reality" approach of making records as well as the more natural, all-in-one-room approach.  I don't like stuff that sounds like processed cheese , but certainly a lot of the records I love were done with close mics and tons of overdubs, as well as lots that were done more or less live.

It's doing stuff to make up for artists' shortcomings or because you have to make it sound like the latest hit or because nobody wants to spend the time to do something right - that's what causes me to run screaming from a session.  And yeah, when you have to make your living at it, there's WAY too much of that going on.

[ted nightshade]

And doing it by default!

Sometimes it can be as easy as giving people a couple chances to pull it together live and for real- one chance today, another chance when they've had a chance to live with the results and think of everything they wish they'd done differently...

[Lee Flier]

Yeah, good call on that one Ted.  "Having a chance to live with stuff" is another thing that's way underrated.  So is really getting to know the individual musicians, their playing techniques and preferences, etc. as opposed to having to take a "one size fits all" approach for expediency's sake... which never quite seems to capitalize on the particular artist's abilities.

[David Sykes]

Lee Flier wrote on Sun, 02 January 2005 20:00

...I also have a lot of appreciation for the "hyper-reality" approach of making records as well as the more natural, all-in-one-room approach.  ... certainly a lot of the records I love were done with close mics and tons of overdubs, as well as lots that were done more or less live.

Touche e' Lee. This really is about abuses and excesses, not about right or wrong recording techniques/styles.  I suppose, the pendulum began to swing in this direction when screaming fans and technological developments (e.g.multi-track) lead the Beatles (and others at the time) to began approaching the studio as an "instrument"--there sure as hell ain't much wrong with "painted audio landscapes" like Strawberry Fields, Penny Road, Sgt Pepper etc.

But now here we are 30-40 years later recording half-ass players and singers because..."we can"?  I believe this feeds into Bob O.'s remark about people not caring about POP music like they use to.  Why should they?  It's not special anymore. In fact, most of it is downright "common"...everybody and their 1st cousin is a singer/songwriter or some-such.  Well, at least their CD sounds pretty damn good, even if they ain't hittin on much in a live performance.  

Clearly there's room for all the approaches...good art is never about technique. It just seems that the ability to take the ordinary and make it sound better-than-ordinary on "tape" has maybe gone to far. It's created a massive musical landscape comprised mostly of mediocrity...which is bound to make "the public" lose interest, even while it generates revenues for studios and producer/engineers.  

On that other hand, I don't think I really want to make a case for exclusivity.  

Like the wise old farmer says in the Chinese parable: "who knows what's good and what's bad"?

[ted nightshade]

It's just like cookin' folks. I've seen 5star chefs who do their shopping at United Grocers- dead as a doornail stuff bred for long distance shipping. Nobody is masterful enough to make that stuff into what it isn't with any amount of skill.

But if you have really good ingredients to begin with, all that slice&dice stuff can lead to something really wonderful.

You HAVE to start with magic performances! There's got to be an opportunity for the whole team to get lucky together.

[Phil]