Unpopular music opinions

[MissMittens]

I think that the point Chas was trying to make is that Pro Tools has taken away the performance because you can piece together music so easily now. Most music is recorded in isolated overdubs now. This is done partly because many of the performers are not up to live recording. But it’s also done just because of what the recording technique has become because of Pro Tools.

I hate to disagree, but it was already being done with analog recording equipment for decades before Pro Tools came along. Remember the Beatles? All the layered multi-track recordings they did as far back as Sgt. Pepper?

Many listeners no longer have ears for performance. They are used to sonic homogenization. Auto tuners and so forth add to the “sound” that people expect these days. Add to that, that records are now mixed for ipods and crummy computer speakers and they have never sounded so horrible sonically.

I will agree with you there. The mix is horrible these days. It's completely bass-focused with little aural definition in the mid or high ranges.

In theory though, you are correct that Pro Tools in itself has not really killed the sound of records. But what has come hand in hand with Pro Tools, has. Since anybody in essence can record, “anybody” does. They don’t necessarily use good microphones and they don’t necessarily use an analogue pre amp. Those are the most important components to making a warm sounding recording.

The last point about Pro Tools is that a group had to have its act together in the older days to put out a record. Because you had to have a record company behind you to do so, it meant that you had to have a demo to shop to record companies. To even get that far, you had to be relatively serious.

I partially agree. I don't think that the majority of us hear what Joe Schmoe mixed using Pro Tools in his basement. What we hear are professionally-engineered recordings using Pro Tools, which have crappy mixes to people like us, but yet they're playing to their market - bass focus for the kids who want to vibrate the tag on the back of their cars and pretend to sing.

As for recording a demo, it's still done today. Only usually at a Pro Tools studio and not a studio using tape. I can't tell you the last time I saw ADAT in a studio, unless it was being recorded onto a hard drive in ADAT format.
3/4" reel was long gone when I started in the industry.

While we're on tape, I wonder how many FL loungers know that Bing Crosby had a lot to do with 3/4" tape, and actually magnetic tape of all kinds for A/V use?

 

[AtomicEraTom]

I know Motown was as early as the mid-1960s.

I hate to disagree, but it was already being done with analog recording equipment for decades before Pro Tools came along. Remember the Beatles? All the layered multi-track recordings they did as far back as Sgt. Pepper?

 

[Rundquist]

I hate to disagree, but it was already being done with analog recording equipment for decades before Pro Tools came along. Remember the Beatles? All the layered multi-track recordings they did as far back as Sgt. Pepper?




I will agree with you there. The mix is horrible these days. It's completely bass-focused with little aural definition in the mid or high ranges.



I partially agree. I don't think that the majority of us hear what Joe Schmoe mixed using Pro Tools in his basement. What we hear are professionally-engineered recordings using Pro Tools, which have crappy mixes to people like us, but yet they're playing to their market - bass focus for the kids who want to vibrate the tag on the back of their cars and pretend to sing.

As for recording a demo, it's still done today. Only usually at a Pro Tools studio and not a studio using tape. I can't tell you the last time I saw ADAT in a studio, unless it was being recorded onto a hard drive in ADAT format.
3/4" reel was long gone when I started in the industry.

While we're on tape, I wonder how many FL loungers know that Bing Crosby had a lot to do with 3/4" tape, and actually magnetic tape of all kinds for A/V use?

All of the Beatles overdubs on Sgt Pepper were carefully pre-planed; they were still only using a 4-track machine at the time. That record was never supposed to be about the performance so much as the sound-texture experience. But they still played live to the tape. Today the overdubbing is the performance. Recordings today are pieced together in a computer like a jigsaw puzzle.

Of course demos are being made today. My point was that it is much, much easier to produce a demo today than it was in other eras. Hence, some acts that have no business becoming professional get through. In another era, the stumbling block of a demo might have stopped them before they were unleashed on the unsuspecting music lover lol.

 

[MissMittens]

All of the Beatles overdubs on Sgt Pepper were carefully pre-planed; they were still only using a 4-track machine at the time. That record was never supposed to be about the performance so much as the sound-texture experience. But they still played live to the tape. Today the overdubbing is the performance. Recordings today are pieced together in a computer like a jigsaw puzzle.

They used 4 track machines to get one mix, inputted that mix into another 4 track as a single or double track, added 2 or 3 more tracks, and so on. Still exactly the same as doing it with Pro Tools, but more time/labor.

Of course demos are being made today. My point was that it is much, much easier to produce a demo today than it was in other eras. Hence, some acts that have no business becoming professional get through. In another era, the stumbling block of a demo might have stopped them before they were unleashed on the unsuspecting music lover lol.

I wish it were so, but it's not. No one gets a contract by sending in a demo anywhere. Not for the past decade. You mail in a CD/DAT/Flash stick/Whatever to the A&R dept of any major record company and it goes straight into the shredder. Why? Officially, it's because of legal reasons - if someone at, let's say Gigantic Records, listens to a demo from a band, doesn't like it, and a few months later there's another band that's similar that they put under contract, and they produce a song that uses a similar arrangement, the first band can file a copyright suit against Gigantic Records.

The real reason behind it though, is that it's no longer "come to us" but "we come to you". If an A&R man hears a buzz on the street about a band, they'll go check them out personally and it goes from there. But that's a VERY RARE occurence now. There are truly very few A&R guys left in the industry.

Here's how it really works. You get a band together, play out for a couple of years. Buzz surrounding your band reaches Mom + Pop Records. Mom + Pop records signs you, funds your recording, starts selling your CD's/MP3's on iTunes. Gigantic Records takes notice of the numbers, buys your contract from Mom + Pop, and now you're working for Gigantic Records. If the CD does well enough, Gigantic Records will make a deal for another CD or two. If it's huge, maybe a 5 record deal, tops. If it doesn't sell as well as Gigantic Records wants, you're cut from the label. Bye bye, but Gigantic Records still owns the material.

Here's the other way it works. Gigantic Records hears a buzz about a band signed to Mom + Pop Records. If Gigantic Records doesn't like the package, Gigantic Records will look for studio musicians with the right eye candy appeal or demographic appeal for the particular audience. They will then form a band with those musicians, and craft the sound to be very close to the band on Mom + Pop Records. Because Gigantic Records has a financial interest in their fledgling band now, they'll pimp the band in stores, provide a track or two gratis to whatever TV show the kids are watching nowadays, or an appearance on a kids TV show, like iCarly, etc. Once you've been "blessed" like this by Gigantic Records, if you're successful, you're given a multi-CD deal. If you're not successful, you're broken up, and the musicians that they like are recycled into other project bands until they get a hit.

That's how it works in the real world. No one sending a demo to any major label record company is ever signed, or even listened to. You can't blame the current musical trend on Joe in his basement with Pro Tools, because no one will likely ever hear Joe in his basement with Pro Tools, except Joe's mom.

 

[LizzieMaine]

While we're on tape, I wonder how many FL loungers know that Bing Crosby had a lot to do with 3/4" tape, and actually magnetic tape of all kinds for A/V use?

Crosby financed the company that became Ampex -- he wanted to be able to pre-record his radio programs, which he began to do on disc in 1946, but was unsatisified with the quality of the editing that was possible with disc-to-disc dubbing. A former Army officer named Jack Mullin approached him in 1947 with a tape machine he had reverse-engineered from the German Magnetophon system, and Crosby was sufficiently impressed to finance further development of the machine. He began using it for his radio show in the fall of 1947, although he never used any sort of overdubbing -- the program was performed as if it were live, but about forty minutes of material would be recorded for each half-hour broadcast, and the weaker parts removed to create a tight final package. The integrity of the original live performance was preserved -- the only real manipulation was to remove segments that weren't as well received by the audience.

 

[Rundquist]

They used 4 track machines to get one mix, inputted that mix into another 4 track as a single or double track, added 2 or 3 more tracks, and so on. Still exactly the same as doing it with Pro Tools, but more time/labor.



I wish it were so, but it's not. No one gets a contract by sending in a demo anywhere. Not for the past decade. You mail in a CD/DAT/Flash stick/Whatever to the A&R dept of any major record company and it goes straight into the shredder. Why? Officially, it's because of legal reasons - if someone at, let's say Gigantic Records, listens to a demo from a band, doesn't like it, and a few months later there's another band that's similar that they put under contract, and they produce a song that uses a similar arrangement, the first band can file a copyright suit against Gigantic Records.

The real reason behind it though, is that it's no longer "come to us" but "we come to you". If an A&R man hears a buzz on the street about a band, they'll go check them out personally and it goes from there. But that's a VERY RARE occurence now. There are truly very few A&R guys left in the industry.

Here's how it really works. You get a band together, play out for a couple of years. Buzz surrounding your band reaches Mom + Pop Records. Mom + Pop records signs you, funds your recording, starts selling your CD's/MP3's on iTunes. Gigantic Records takes notice of the numbers, buys your contract from Mom + Pop, and now you're working for Gigantic Records. If the CD does well enough, Gigantic Records will make a deal for another CD or two. If it's huge, maybe a 5 record deal, tops. If it doesn't sell as well as Gigantic Records wants, you're cut from the label. Bye bye, but Gigantic Records still owns the material.

Here's the other way it works. Gigantic Records hears a buzz about a band signed to Mom + Pop Records. If Gigantic Records doesn't like the package, Gigantic Records will look for studio musicians with the right eye candy appeal or demographic appeal for the particular audience. They will then form a band with those musicians, and craft the sound to be very close to the band on Mom + Pop Records. Because Gigantic Records has a financial interest in their fledgling band now, they'll pimp the band in stores, provide a track or two gratis to whatever TV show the kids are watching nowadays, or an appearance on a kids TV show, like iCarly, etc. Once you've been "blessed" like this by Gigantic Records, if you're successful, you're given a multi-CD deal. If you're not successful, you're broken up, and the musicians that they like are recycled into other project bands until they get a hit.

That's how it works in the real world. No one sending a demo to any major label record company is ever signed, or even listened to. You can't blame the current musical trend on Joe in his basement with Pro Tools, because no one will likely ever hear Joe in his basement with Pro Tools, except Joe's mom.

The point about the Beatles is that they had live tracking (loops were used for effect, not performance). They didn’t record one bit once and then lay it out over the course of the tune like a jigsaw.

You know a lot more about how modern acts are signed. I was just trying to figure out why new music by signed acts stinks. It seemed plausible to me that ease of recording was one reason. I retract it. But new music being put out on the market is horrible. It’s horrible from a music and sonic stance.

 

[MissMittens]

The point about the Beatles is that they had live tracking (loops were used for effect, not performance). They didn’t record one bit once and then lay it out over the course of the tune like a jigsaw.

In a couple of songs they did. But they also did a layering where, let's use Ringo as an example, he'd hit the ride cymbal and no other drums/cymbals. This track would then get added to another mix on top of the drum track. They did this with each of his cymbals during the recording of Sgt Pepper. I am NOT suggesting that you download these, but it makes interesting reading http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?8653-Sgt.-Pepper-Multitracks-Appear

The problem with what's being put out now, is that one band will come out and sound "different", and will have a cult following, and Gigantic Records will find/manufacture dozens of clones and end up homogenizing the sound to death until the kids backlash against it and call it uncool, and then start the whole thing over again.

 

[Rundquist]

In a couple of songs they did. But they also did a layering where, let's use Ringo as an example, he'd hit the ride cymbal and no other drums/cymbals. This track would then get added to another mix on top of the drum track. They did this with each of his cymbals during the recording of Sgt Pepper. I am NOT suggesting that you download these, but it makes interesting reading http://www.quadraphonicquad.com/forums/showthread.php?8653-Sgt.-Pepper-Multitracks-Appear

The problem with what's being put out now, is that one band will come out and sound "different", and will have a cult following, and Gigantic Records will find/manufacture dozens of clones and end up homogenizing the sound to death until the kids backlash against it and call it uncool, and then start the whole thing over again.

But the parts were being performed. They didn't piece the music together in a computer. They didn't use a computer mouse to drop this music here, and that music there.

 

[MissMittens]

But the parts were being performed. They didn't piece the music together in a computer. They didn't use a computer mouse to drop this music here, and that music there.

Well......yes and no. The parts are actually performed when you use Pro Tools too*. They didn't use a mouse to drop a track on top of another, they used synchronized tape. Same thing, different technology.



*you can buy drum tracks or samples to use with Pro Tools, but no one uses them in the industry, they're only used by home recorders because they're not studio quality "loops".

 

[Rundquist]

Well......yes and no. The parts are actually performed when you use Pro Tools too*. They didn't use a mouse to drop a track on top of another, they used synchronized tape. Same thing, different technology.



*you can buy drum tracks or samples to use with Pro Tools, but no one uses them in the industry, they're only used by home recorders because they're not studio quality "loops".

They didn't use a mouse to get the timing and other aspects right either. Look, my point is that using tape (or whatever medium) as a canvas from which to layer upon is different from a computer creating the whole thing for you. To you it’s splitting hairs; to me it’s not. Overdubbing a part in time for the duration of a song is different than recording a part once and spreading it out over the entire track by means of a mouse. It just is.

 

[Bourbon Guy]

Sometimes music and dance are inseparable. I would say that you can't get rock, or blues, or jazz, or even the earliest delta blues, unless you can get this first, because this predated all of it

[video=youtube;DsIBS0l7Hqg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsIBS0l7Hqg[/video]

 

[VitaminG]

They didn't use a mouse to get the timing and other aspects right either. Look, my point is that using tape (or whatever medium) as a canvas from which to layer upon is different from a computer creating the whole thing for you. To you it’s splitting hairs; to me it’s not. Overdubbing a part in time for the duration of a song is different than recording a part once and spreading it out over the entire track by means of a mouse. It just is.

They didn't use a mouse to get things like timing right - they used trial and error and experience. Hendrix was playing with overdubs and things too. Eddie Cochran had recorded every instrument himself on some songs, so there was no interaction between musicians during the "performance" of those songs.

As for your point about "overdubbing a part in time for the duration of a song", overdubs are most often used to drop in textures and parts that may only last a couple of bars, or even a couple of notes. Guitar solos are rarely cut live. Not just today, but for as long as tape technology has allowed it. Guys like Eddie Van Halen would record rhythm tracks and then "drop in" their solos, once they had the budget to allow longer recording sessions. Many guys in the 80s would lay down a bunch of solos, piece together a solo using the best bits and then have to learn the solo they built in the studio before they hit the road.

it's not a new thing though. Didn't Another Brick in the Wall only have one verse originally? The producer decided it wasn't long enough to release as a single and so reused the earlier recorded verse. Something like that.

Thin Lizzy had famously recut many of the tracks & parts on their Live and Dangerous album. So that was rerecording short fills and other bits and pieces from throughout the concert. How's that for diluting the true performance?

Point being, there are many, many examples of older artists using tape to do just what you are deriding all modern music for doing in computers.

That is, unless you are talking about "assembling" music from recordings of single notes stored in the computer. If that is the case, I find it highly unlikely. The time it would take to piece together each track by each instrument in a whole song would far outweigh the time and cost of getting in professional studio musicians who could lay down a perfect take in their first or second pass. The musicians are playing to click tracks to make it easier to quantize during mixing, but they are still live performances. Even when using triggers while tracking drums, they may have samples of perfect percussion strikes, but it's still the drummer playing a kit who is triggering those samples on the recording. No different to playing electronic drums - the sound might be a simulation but the performance is real.

 

[HepKitty]

Wow I have a lot to catch up on…

Wake up......Come on and put on a little makeup......
QUOTE]

lol sweet, thanks!

Celine Dion, Kiss, Rod Stewart, Bon Jovi, Pink *gag* Floyd… just... no thanks

Coheed & Cambria: intriguing, the few songs that I’ve heard

Brian Sezter: YES!!!

With your posts I really started to apreciate Kay Kayser. Tks!!

Ditto

Oh, and Johann Sebastian Bach is better than Mozart.

My dad would kill me if he knew that I agree with this lol

Golden era swing music in general is lame.
That’s a broad statement; there are many exceptions to this and it’s only my opinion, obviously. But in general, swing is a still-born, neutered music. This is not to say that I don’t appreciate jazz. It’s just that I like jazz that preceded the swing era, and jazz that followed the swing era. Swing for the most part was contrived, corny, and utterly unhip.

Clearly you don’t dance. Pity

Blanket statements are hard to defend.

Shall we leave them out then, and focus more on specifics?

Agreed. People don't buy music these days without controversy though. Be it wearing a dress made from steak, or drug abuse, or fighting. Seems controversy sells their "art" rather than the art selling itself.

Sad that talent gets ignored unless it's accompanied by a circus show of some sort

I don't care if it's done by a banjo, a big band, or a heavy metal band. A good tune is a good tune.

:eusa_clap

Modern country is window dressing. It's the same as very bad pop music and not much more.

Isn't it though

That, and it is culturally influenced. Take for example, Banghra.

Speaking of world music, Rai is pretty cool but can be annoyingly repetitive. I like this song a lot but there’s not a lot of variation in it

[video=youtube;mC2GaJWKNTY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC2GaJWKNTY[/video]

 

[Rundquist]

They didn't use a mouse to get things like timing right - they used trial and error and experience. Hendrix was playing with overdubs and things too. Eddie Cochran had recorded every instrument himself on some songs, so there was no interaction between musicians during the "performance" of those songs.

As for your point about "overdubbing a part in time for the duration of a song", overdubs are most often used to drop in textures and parts that may only last a couple of bars, or even a couple of notes. Guitar solos are rarely cut live. Not just today, but for as long as tape technology has allowed it. Guys like Eddie Van Halen would record rhythm tracks and then "drop in" their solos, once they had the budget to allow longer recording sessions. Many guys in the 80s would lay down a bunch of solos, piece together a solo using the best bits and then have to learn the solo they built in the studio before they hit the road.

it's not a new thing though. Didn't Another Brick in the Wall only have one verse originally? The producer decided it wasn't long enough to release as a single and so reused the earlier recorded verse. Something like that.

Thin Lizzy had famously recut many of the tracks & parts on their Live and Dangerous album. So that was rerecording short fills and other bits and pieces from throughout the concert. How's that for diluting the true performance?

Point being, there are many, many examples of older artists using tape to do just what you are deriding all modern music for doing in computers.

That is, unless you are talking about "assembling" music from recordings of single notes stored in the computer. If that is the case, I find it highly unlikely. The time it would take to piece together each track by each instrument in a whole song would far outweigh the time and cost of getting in professional studio musicians who could lay down a perfect take in their first or second pass. The musicians are playing to click tracks to make it easier to quantize during mixing, but they are still live performances. Even when using triggers while tracking drums, they may have samples of perfect percussion strikes, but it's still the drummer playing a kit who is triggering those samples on the recording. No different to playing electronic drums - the sound might be a simulation but the performance is real.

Let me put this another way. I'm not putting down overdubs as a means for creating a track (nor did I in any of my posts). I'm putting down an artist that cannot exist without technology because he doesn't have the musical goods. There have always been contrived acts in music, but never as so prevalent as today. Is that ok to say fellas? Or is my opinion wrong on that too?

 

[martinsantos]

I'm too "acustic" to believe in music made by electronics. Who can make music is the musician - and with the instrument he must be able to play it. So I agree with you now. I can't see real value in something created electronically, only in the recording tape, and impossible to happens live.

Let me put this another way. I'm not putting down overdubs as a means for creating a track (nor did I in any of my posts). I'm putting down an artist that cannot exist without technology because he doesn't have the musical goods. There have always been contrived acts in music, but never as so prevalent as today. Is that ok to say fellas? Or is my opinion wrong on that too?

 

[MissMittens]

This will be VERY unpopular here, but I can no longer live with myself if I'm being so untrue....

I absolutely loathe, detest, even hate, Johnny Mercer.

Now I'm ducking under my desk to avoid the flak that's inevitably coming in my direction

 

[LizzieMaine]

What do you dislike about him? His clever, witty lyrics? His insouciant singing style? His natty wardrobe? The roster of stars he attracted to Capitol Records?

 

[MissMittens]

What do you dislike about him? His clever, witty lyrics? His insouciant singing style? His natty wardrobe? The roster of stars he attracted to Capitol Records?

I have nothing against the man, or his legacy, I just cannot stand the lyrics or the way in which his music sounded the same no matter which song he wrote.

 

[Chasseur]

I really dislike "artsy modern jazz" that does not sound like music. You know all the pretentious stuff from the late 1950s through today (I guess after bebop and West Coast Jazz, I know I am not using the correct terms since I really do not care for this 'music'). It always reminds me of the the skit Jazz Club from The Fast Show.

-what are you gonna play for us today?
-trumpet
-ah, no the tune...
-tune? this is jazz!!
[video=youtube;MsQYzpOHpik]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsQYzpOHpik[/video]

 

[dr greg]

They didn't use a mouse to get things like timing right - they used trial and error and experience.

exactly, listen to any Miles recording by Teo Macero, and you'll hear bits spliced in and out all over the place, the Jack Johnson album was made up of a LOT of different takes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complete_Jack_Johnson_Sessions
I think that technology has made it possible these days for any idiot to do it , and you get a commensurate lowering of the bar, but as a musician myself, it can sure save us time and money in the studio.