Members urbanscallywag Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 This was inspired by which ever thread had the arguement over Madonna's 80s music sounding dated. It got me thinking, what if 20, 30, or 40 year old music was recorded today using the latest and greatest in mics, mixing, DAW, effects, and mastering? As mentioned, what would Brittany Spears' producer do with Pink Floyd, the Beetles, the Stones, the Beach Boys, Elvis...or any recording regarded as classic or ~20+ years old. Would these recordings be as timeless or "classic" as they are now? Would millions (or thousands) of copies of the recordings still sell each year? Would we be able to listen to them countless times? Would the clarity of PTHD destroy some of the magic or would mastering to 2" tape warm it up? Don't get me wrong, many/most of those recordings had extremely talented musicians and engineers behind them. I do enjoy the quality of 30 year old music, but could it sound better recorded today? Could it sound worse recorded today? What do you think? No analog/digital wars please. I'm looking for deeper thoughts than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mike51 Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 most of the records would sound like {censored} 5 years later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members urbanscallywag Posted January 19, 2005 Author Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 Originally posted by Mike51 most of the records would sound like {censored} 5 years later. Insightful. Hahahah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DonoftheDead Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 I'd love to hear Miles Davi's album 'Kind of Blue' re-recorded by all the greats that worked on that album. But with a better mix engineer on the job, god the hard left/right panning can get annoying, especially when its Bill Evans solo parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members keanu reeves Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 the recording industry and FM radio is in shambles. its all product - not art. my prediction is that there will be fewer 'classics' taken from todays pop into the next 50 years than the pop music of yesteryear. you see this from the 'classics' of a decade or even 20 years ago. where are they? i mean sure you can name a few - but the ratio of popularity of then to now of 80s and 90s music is far less than the ratio of popularity of then to now of the supergroups mentioned in the initial post of the thread. this trend will only worsen. there are exceptions. this is just what i see in general. the true artists - artists on PAR with the super artists of yesteryear - are ususally placed into indie obscurity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members urbanscallywag Posted January 19, 2005 Author Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 I'm not focusing on whether classic can be made today, more on whether old music would have ever been classic if it used today's technology in recording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DonoftheDead Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 Originally posted by urbanscallywag I'm not focusing on whether classic can be made today, more on whether old music would have ever been classic if it used today's technology in recording. If thats what you were getting at, then I'll use the previous artist as an example. I think that it would still be a classic if recorded today. It might not top the charts, but it would still be considered a classic. If not for the general masses, it would be a classic amongst musicians, for the composition techniques used. But when I discuss Miles Davis, you have to take what I say with a grain of salt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mintbeetle Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 i understand the reasoning for keeping the bass and drums low in a Jazz mix, but Kind of Blue's solo brass is like 8 million times louder than the rest of the instruments combined. I'd really like to hear some jazz recorded with a little more of the rhythm section. I think current pop recording is extremely fatiguing to the ears, what with the relentless limiters and multiband compressors throbbing to squeeze out every last bit of volume. Of course, the old Beatles recording had heavy compression too, but they weren't quite as tacky sounding. The plastic production, endless razorblade edits, overdubs, glossy ProTools processing... it gets old. Every style has its place. I love the hiss and lo-fi sound in cheap analog tape recordings. I also love the pristine sound of hard disk recording, with incredibly perfect and real-sounding instruments. Timeless records are still being made; they're just not as popular or widely recognized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members keanu reeves Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 oh... well you ask for no analog/digital wars. i kind of think the artists limitations was their inspiration in a way. abbey road would NOT be the same album if it werent recorded on a four track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DonoftheDead Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 I completely agree with Mintbeetle. When I was demoing monitors, I brought Kind of Blue with me, and when Miles first part came on Blue in Green, I thought my head was going to explode. They've remastered the album, so I assume they still have the masters - I don't see why they don't re-mix the album. The levels and panning are atrocious, yet its still one of the greatest jazz albums of all time, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members urbanscallywag Posted January 19, 2005 Author Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 Originally posted by Mintbeetle I think current pop recording is extremely fatiguing to the ears, what with the relentless limiters and multiband compressors throbbing to squeeze out every last bit of volume. I always thought the fatiguing was due to the crystal clear DACs capturing all the high end to the point that its harsh. I didn't know that its also the compressors. Timeless records are still being made; they're just not as popular or widely recognized. This is also interesting. I think that's a lot more open minded than most people are. I agree that there are still good records being made, though hard to find, but I don't think I'm qualified to rate them as timeless or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members DonoftheDead Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 Originally posted by urbanscallywag I agree that there are still good records being made, though hard to find, but I don't think I'm qualified to rate them as timeless or not. When you think about it, no one is really qualified to rate something as being timeless, its far too subjective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members urbanscallywag Posted January 19, 2005 Author Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 Originally posted by DonoftheDead When you think about it, no one is really qualified to rate something as being timeless, its far too subjective. Great point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Mintbeetle Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 my obvious examples would be: radiohead - ok computer (maybe kid A)wilco - yankee hotel foxtrotmodest mouse - pretty much everything except for the new one and "sad sappy sucker"menomena - i am the fun blame monster (brilliant) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members urbanscallywag Posted January 19, 2005 Author Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 Wow maybe I am qualified. I think OK Computer is a great album. I was listening to it while I was writing the thread, even though I thought I should have been listening to one of the classics I mentioned. I will check out those others too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members cheptronics Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 Originally posted by urbanscallywag what if 20, 30, or 40 year old music was recorded today using the latest and greatest in mics, mixing, DAW, effects, and mastering? I think it is unfortunately what happens most of the time Just have a look at Stanley Crouch (the godfather of many pseudo-genuine revivalisms), Bill Laswell (who made "hype" versions of Miles Davis' music, for making it audible by the Justin Timberlake fans and the commercials at CBS) or Arturia (a software company that makes you believe that a computer is less evoluted than a Moog), among many others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nightsynth Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 Originally posted by flukewurm i kind of think the artists limitations was their inspiration in a way. abbey road would NOT be the same album if it werent recorded on a four track. I agree with flukewurm here. I have experienced much inspiration in limitation when I was younger and had very little. There is a great deal of creativity that comes from having to make the most of what pathetic means you have. I used to record from a mixer to a boom box and then play that tape through another boombox, route it through my mixer, and play along with it, and record that to the 'master' boombox. Talk about poor man's four track. But it never stopped me from recording many many songs. I think another point to be made is a comparison with movies. Many classic films might not have been so classic if they were of total digital quality. Look at the films of today in comparison to yesteryear. These days, they just seem to come and go. I don't think that is nesessarily because the movie sucks, but because it lacks the 'soul' of the graininess of the film and the artistic integrity of pre CGI movie effects. That's not a digital/analog war, that's a film-maker creating a film/technology creating the film war. Also in video games.... To me the original Nintendo NES system is very classic. Castelvania, Mega-Man, Zelda, Etc. Atari 2600XL or Activisions were great too. Perhaps a contributor to the 'classic' status of these games was that you had to use your imagination to see what the game programmer intended you to see. It's hard to make subtle shapes with 8-bit graphics. Compare that to games of today that look pretty much like the real thing. As cool as that is, perhaps it stalls the creativity and therefor is more disposable. I guess my point is that when you don't have to work so hard to get a desired product, your creativity can go into idle mode somewhat. Albums like "Dark Side of the Moon" or whatever may very well have not even been fathomed the same way, had the technology of today been available at that time. I'm trying to not be down on the art of today, but I do feel that technology of all sorts is taking our artistic sense and numbing it with too many possibilities. How unthinkable it would have been to me in 1983 or whatever to be sitting here, having a conversation with anyone, anywhere in the world that happens to be here reading this. Or to type in a word in an internet search and have all of this information come up. Or see a synthesizer on the internet, buy it on the internet, and sudddenly have it show up on the door-step. Interwhat? Technology offers sooooo many great things, but there is an inherent danger of losing appreciation for things because of too much being available at the click of a mouse, figuratively speaking. Damn, is this too deep? I think about this alot. I feel the world is a much more cold, lifeless place compared to how things were even 15 years ago. I know many people that feel the same and it's apparent in the art that the masses consume and also, even more so possibly, apparent in the way the art is created and shared. It's aslo apparent in the type of mass marketed, plastic, soon to be outdated by the next biggest, best thing synths of today (with exception of course). They sound more realistic then ever and have Gigsbytes instead of Kilobytes of sonic capacity, but maybe I liked trying to make a believable piano on my Casio CZ-1. Even more importantly, maybe THAT led to the creation of something else, which is the point I'm trying to get at here! So the answer IMO is that I think these classsic albums, possibly, would have never been created in the first place if they were done on the equipment of today. This is subject, of course, to much debate, but it's hard to argue how technology has transformed our lives and changed our perceptions of how we appraoch things. Sorry to be so lengthy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nightsynth Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 BTW, I thought the thread title "What if classics were recorded TODAY?" was a sarcastic question. A question I ask myself from time to time. WHAT IF classics were recorded today? What if you could turn on MTV and see the latest -insert your favorite classic artist here- video. And it didn't suck or seem contrived as a result of everything becoming a cliche of itself? What if...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members urbanscallywag Posted January 19, 2005 Author Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 I didn't intend the topic to be sarcastic at all. I don't really understand that it could be interpreted that way still. I wanted to stress TODAY from the standpoint of technology. I suppose "what if" questions can sound rather childish. I hope the body clarified what I am getting at. Your answer was serious, so I think you figured it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nightsynth Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 I understood after reading your first post what you meant. I meant to say that I *initially* interpereted it that way. You don't know what I mean by sarcastic question? I don't know how to explain it better then my previous post. I guess I read it like "what if music today didn't suck?". Get it? It's a funny question if you think of it that way. Maybe I'm just a sarcastic person and only I think it's funny. Well, I was glad to see though, that it was a deeper, more pondering thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Purity_Control Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 Britney Spears and Pink Floyd in the same paragraph, oh god! Now you've got me imagining her covering Comfortably Numb:eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members urbanscallywag Posted January 19, 2005 Author Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 Originally posted by Purity_Control Britney Spears and Pink Floyd in the same paragraph, oh god! Now you've got me imagining her covering Comfortably Numb:eek: Hahaha. Seriously though. What if Dark Side of the Moon was a "perfect" recording or at least a lot closer than the one recorded 30 years ago is. I do appologize for being sacrilegious, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members urbanscallywag Posted January 19, 2005 Author Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 Originally posted by Nightsynth I understood after reading your first post what you meant. I meant to say that I *initially* interpereted it that way. You don't know what I mean by sarcastic question? I don't know how to explain it better then my previous post. I guess I read it like "what if music today didn't suck?". Get it? It's a funny question if you think of it that way. Maybe I'm just a sarcastic person and only I think it's funny. Well, I was glad to see though, that it was a deeper, more pondering thought. I guess when you first mentioned that you thought it was sarcastic I figured you were somewhat offended by it. I guess I should lay off and get some sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members aeon Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 Originally posted by urbanscallywag I always thought the fatiguing was due to the crystal clear DACs capturing all the high end to the point that its harsh. I didn't know that its also the compressors. It is true that digital recording will capture more high-end than 2" analog tape running at 15 or 30ips. For that matter, tape offers a sonically-pleasing* alteration of a sound's harmonic structure based on the degree to which it saturates...a product of formulation and flux. * to most people in most music-related situations That said, the fatigue caused by many modern recordings is caused by basically three things: First, excessive limiting to the point that less than ~10dB of dynamic range is being used...pathetic given the range offered by 16-bit playback! I mean, most current pop records wouldn't sound much different if they were converted to 3-bit format (excepting any fades). As a result, the mean amplitude of the audio signal is constantly *loud*...and this tires the ear. Second, that excessive limiting causes so many peaks to be sheared off that you end up with an aggregate number of zero-rise-time transients (basically pulse waves!) that number in the thousands. Physics tells us that a pulse wave will contain many high harmonics, and this becomes harsh and fatiguing sound to the ear. Third, the delta and slope of those peak-limited waveforms, as processed by a digital limiter set to a just-shy-of-0dB threshold, cause the D/A converter to try to reconstruct a signal that exceeds 0dB...and this is something virtually no D/A converter is designed to do...certainly not the D/A converters most mortals can afford. As a result, every time the reconstruction filter tries to resolve the data, you get a pop or click...which is yet more harshness for the ear. Overall, it is really sad...we have the capability to sound as good or better than ever before, but the quality of many modern recordings is below what was capable in the 1950s. cheers,aeon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nightsynth Posted January 19, 2005 Members Share Posted January 19, 2005 Originally posted by urbanscallywag I guess when you first mentioned that you thought it was sarcastic I figured you were somewhat offended by it. I guess I should lay off and get some sleep. Well said. I need to do the same. P.S. I didn't even think about the sacrelige in Britney Spears and Pink Floyd being in the same paragraph. Shame on you! Britney Spears covering comfortably numb is a bone chilling, death to humanity inspiring thought. However, very possible in today's pop culture absurdity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.