So What's the Missing Element?

[Anderton]

I don't really expect that we'll arrive at an answer, nor am I sure I can even ask the question correctly, but I can try...

 

I was listening to the radio, and as part of a "nostalgia trailer" they played the "Theme from Perry Mason," a popular mid-20th century TV courtroom show. I was struck by how it almost jumped out the speakers, and dripped with drama.

 

As I listened, I realized that the entire orchestration was fairly conventional, and could easily be replicated with samplers, modeling, articulations, etc. But I'd be willing to bet that you could find the most talented soundtrack composer in the world, and while it would be possible to re-create all the sounds, even to the point where the sounds were seemingly identical, the sum of the parts would not be identical.

 

So, why is that? Obviously, a bunch of people playing together makes a huge difference, but what exactly is the missing element? Is it due to the sounds being generated in an acoustical space? Subtle changes in timbre at the instruments that end up having a major effect? Recording techniques? Some kind of "feel" that exists but we don't know how to measure it yet?

 

I don't know, but I'd like to know why a lot of that old music - and music from groups like the Ventures - had an electricity and "aliveness" to them that cannot be duplicated with electronic instruments, even if you can come so close to duplicating the sound the untrained ear wouldn't be able to tell the difference - except for the feel.

[UstadKhanAli]

Chemistry, interaction (both personalities and the interaction of the sound in the room), feel, dynamics, drama, personality, wider soundstage...

[Geoff Grace]

The nuances of electronic instruments are different from the nuances of acoustic instruments--even when using great recorded samples. But beyond that, even live acoustic players aren't going to be able to exactly duplicate the nuances of other acoustic players, as no two players have exactly the same skill set, nor in this case do they have the same embouchure. The person doing the perfect reconstruction of a performance would not only need broad and precise technical abilities, but (s)he would also need a perfect ear that could assess every nuance that should be recreated. Ideally, you'd want to be able to separate each and every part of the ensemble in your mind, capture each and every nuance, and then reassemble it again, one player at a time, and then finish by blending it all together again in exactly the same way. And as you mentioned, then there's all of the recording technique to be considered and reconstructed.

 

Even a virtuoso impressionist like Rich Little couldn't exactly duplicate the people he impersonated. It's a very difficult task. And beyond that, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, which is why ensemble playing is so special.

 

Why can we tell the difference when the only differences are nuances? Studies reveal that the mind is remarkably sophisticated--especially at the subconscious level. People under hypnosis can reveal details they were never consciously aware of. An inarticulate person may say, "I don't know, it just sounds different." But subconsciously at least, (s)he probably perceives lots of little differences, which then bleed into a conscious awareness that there is a difference.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[deanmass]

You saw the movie from NAMM called the Wrecking Crew that is coming? I think it was the whole gumbo...the players, the dynamics, tape saturation and heart.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Why can we tell the difference when the only differences are nuances? Studies reveal that the mind is remarkably sophisticated--especially at the subconscious level. People under hypnosis can reveal details they were never consciously aware of. An inarticulate person may say, "I don't know, it just sounds different." But subconsciously at least, (s)he probably perceives lots of little differences, which then bleed into a conscious awareness that there is a difference.

 

 

Psychologically as well, counter movements or differences, no matter how minute, attract the brain. For example, if we are perched up on a second story window, and we see teeming masses of people, hundreds or thousands of people, walking one way except for one person going the opposite way, our brain is automatically attracted to the person who is going the other way.

 

And so it is with differences, no matter how small they might be. This psychological tendency is one of the reasons why a brain will begin to ignore loops that are played over and over...there's no subtle shift. And it will tend not to pay as much attention to a note that is played the same way over and over, i.e., a synthesizer note if it is played the same way every time (i.e., the same looped MIDI notes keep triggering a synthesizer or virtual instrument).

 

This psychological tendency is largely, as you might expect, a survival mechanism.

 

This is in part what I was in part getting at by discussing the interaction of the sound in the room as well.

[Lawrence Farr]

If I had to vote for one thing I'd say real acoustic space... the thing most obviously missing from modern pop and sampled music and the one thing we've all kinda learned since birth, what real space sounds like.

 

"Old records" have it in abundance.

[Ernest Buckley]

 

Chemistry, interaction (both personalities and the interaction of the sound in the room), feel, dynamics, drama, personality, wider soundstage...

 

 

I`m on a Pink Floyd trip lately and the thing that strikes me most about their classic records, "the wall", "dark side" and especially "wish you were here" is this sense of space. There is a mood instantly set when you hear their records. One moment you`re sitting next to David Gilmour as he plays this beautiful acoustic. The performance is near perfect but there is still an element of humanness. Then suddenly another sound that opens up the soundscape and now you`re in some larger space and getting lost in the groove and going off to another space. I don`t hear that much on records anymore. I think it has to do with everything you mentioned.

[Lee Knight]

When a single player is going to perform a line, and that line, for instance, has a gothic, intense, dramatic sense to it, like... that Perry Mason theme, that means something personal to that player. Fears from childhood, awe of the heavy hand of the law, whatever it means to him. And his articulation, his tone, his dynamics, his heart and soul and all that means to what comes out of his horn, is evident. If he's good. If it's a good orchestration. If the writing is great.

 

The guy sitting next to him playing horn as well has his own set of emotional responses to the music. And... to the responses of player 1 as well. The unlimited nuance being driven be emotional response has just gone up exponentially. Just two players. Now let's get 20 guys on the floor with the ability to respond in kind. To emote through their instruments, and their ears are open to everyone elses responses... all firing a million synapses a second, adjusting and reacting without thought and only heart and soul and musicianship...

 

Now let's recreate that with a single heart and a sampler.

[Ernest Buckley]

When a single player is going to perform a line, and that line, for instance, has a gothic, intense, dramatic sense to it, like... that Perry Mason theme, that means something personal to that player. Fears from childhood, awe of the heavy hand of the law, whatever it means to him. And his articulation, his tone, his dynamics, his heart and soul and all that means to what comes out of his horn, is evident. If he's good. If it's a good orchestration. If the writing is great. The guy sitting next to him playing horn as well has his own set of emotional responses to the music. And... to the responses of player 1 as well. The unlimited nuance being driven be emotional response has just gone up exponentially. Just two players. Now let's get 20 guys on the floor with the ability to respond in kind. To emote through their instruments, and their ears are open to everyone elses responses... all firing a million synapses a second, adjusting and reacting without thought and only heart and soul and musicianship... Now let's recreate that with a single heart and a sampler.

 

Well, when you put it like that, its pretty obvious and unfair.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

When a single player is going to perform a line, and that line, for instance, has a gothic, intense, dramatic sense to it, like... that Perry Mason theme, that means something personal to that player. Fears from childhood, awe of the heavy hand of the law, whatever it means to him. And his articulation, his tone, his dynamics, his heart and soul and all that means to what comes out of his horn, is evident. If he's good. If it's a good orchestration. If the writing is great. The guy sitting next to him playing horn as well has his own set of emotional responses to the music. And... to the responses of player 1 as well. The unlimited nuance being driven be emotional response has just gone up exponentially. Just two players. Now let's get 20 guys on the floor with the ability to respond in kind. To emote through their instruments, and their ears are open to everyone elses responses... all firing a million synapses a second, adjusting and reacting without thought and only heart and soul and musicianship... Now let's recreate that with a single heart and a sampler.

 

 

Well said.

[MargeHowel]

I'm going to go with all of the above (my way of saying I don't have anything useful to add )

 

playing a line alone is different than playing in an ensemble

playing a sampler is playing a different instrument than the source instrument

playing in an acoustic space is different than playing in isolation and adding a virtual 'environment' later

 

it's not a whole answer, but think of "force feedback" in real time control systems. There's a feedback loop (just an example, not a perfect description here) ear -> player -> instrument ->environment -> sound -> ear -> player -> ....

 

 

ever try to light a fire under the band when playing to a music minus one tape?

[Lee Knight]

...ever try to light a fire under the band when playing to a music minus one tape?

 

Awesome synopsis of your idea.

[scarecrowbob]

I'll restate what everyone else has said, more or less.

 

It all comes down to John Henry: one motivated professional with the right tool can't be outdone by one amateur with the best tools (even if that amateur ends up killing the biz).

 

It should be quite obvious that there is a difference between the amount of nuanced work one talented arranger/programmer can do the amount of work that 20 talented musicians paired with a composer (and assistants) plus engineering staff and other support ranging from production staff to good facilities.

 

The reason one-man-band sounds like what it does is because even will all super cool tools, in the end the performance-- especially of string music, but with any ensemble-- is the result of the work put into it. You simply can't get the same results with one person.

 

You can maybe get "good enough" results cheaper.

 

But, IMO, that is what you're hearing: the collective effort of people who cumulatively can spend X times more labor on the piece (and apply a similar multiplier of professional experience and talent).

[nat whilk II]

Yes, the Perry Mason theme has that "grabs you" factor. Aside from it's tasteful melodrama - that mono compression, that mid-range bite and density, with just right amount of room/verb/ambience and saturation/distortion makes up a lot of it, but the composition has to be just so, also.

 

The Peter Gunn theme has also got this, combined with the Dick Dale-style electric guitar, really knocks it out of the park.

 

Other recordings that have a similar kind of "grabosity", at least to me, are:

 

mid-60s material such as:

 

Dave Clark Five singles like "Glad All Over" or "Do You Love Me"

 

Early Beatles singles like "Twist and Shout" or "A Hard Day's Night" (and many others)

 

one hit wonder The Music Machine tune "Talk Talk".

 

Hendrix's first album - pretty lo-fi all things considered, especially compared to Beatle recordings from the same years.

 

Of course, it all has a lot to do with which musical side you've been lying on too long, metaphorically speaking. Lying on the left side or right side is, in the long run, about the same, but there's such a point of bliss in rolling over to hit the unused side. We're used to a certain perfect balance in recordings these days...that hearing something totally skewed sonically like a wellmade 50s tv show theme can be a startling, moving experience just in contrast, even if your intellect tells you the sonically skewed bit is a "downgrade". Like seeing a Modrian painting for the first time after years of studying the classic realist masters like Rembrandt or Velasquez, etc.

 

 

nat whilk ii

[Lee Knight]

Other recordings that have a similar kind of "grabosity", at least to me, are: mid-60s material such as: Dave Clark Five singles like "Glad All Over" or "Do You Love Me"... ...one hit wonder The Music Machine tune "Talk Talk".

 

:thu:

[Anderton]

Agreed with all of the above, but what is the quantifiable aspect of the performance? I think Lee's theory about different people bringing their own emotional responses to the music hits the nail on the head, but how does that manifest itself - seems to me it's that each person will "push" the part in a different direction. Maybe one will play it louder, the other with more subtlety, etc. and that when, as Lee said, those are multiplied together, you end up with the final result. One person will likely not be able to push each part in differing directions.

 

I just realized something that really supports that point. My primary instrument is guitar, secondary is keyboard. But when I play keyboard, it's suffused with a "guitar player mentality." For example, I never use the mod wheel to add vibrato, I always use the pitch bend wheel. So technically, even though I may be applying vibrato at the same speed with either technique, the pitch wheel version will sound slightly different, and more "guitaristic." If layered with a keyboard player doing the exact same part but using the mod wheel, I think the end result would sound more interesting than if either one of us played both parts - even if the parts were identical except for the mod wheel difference.

[UstadKhanAli]

Added to that is possibly creating a little "physicality" in the room. In my Mercury Seven stuff, we always mic our keyboard cabinets. Moving some air is sometimes a beautiful thing. And especially when everyone's jamming in the room, there's again that interaction. I realize this isn't exactly what you're saying, but just to piggyback on it...

[Bookumdano2]

 

Agreed with all of the above, but what is the quantifiable aspect of the performance?

 

 

Probably brain to arm to wrist to fingers wow/flutter and latency. And whether your brain is operating on all 5 million cores.

 

I'm gonna guess the Celemony guy is figuring out how to measure brain waves to then tackle the subject over the next 15, 20 years as computers get more powerful.

[Philter]

I've used a lot of the best sample libraries and they're barely scratching the surface of the kind of expressiveness that you get from a real player. The problem is that with live performers on acoustic instruments there are infinite variables when it comes to any of those kind of criteria... attack, vibrato, dynamics, timbre, pitch. The reason you play a violin part on a violin is because a violin is designed to respond like a violin.

 

For me the best results come from the same kind of thinking that Craig talks about with using modelers... don't try to hard to match a real world sound- take the technology as it is and try to do something that sounds good with it.

 

The various mock-ups of orchestral stuff that I've heard done on samplers have all sounded fake, even the ones that the companies selling the stuff use to promote it. I've never heard one that left me thinking, "that sounds real."

 

I will say that it's critical to automate the volume on every individual part when you're going for a tolerable sound with orchestral sounds (strings, brass, etc.) When I do string parts I usually start with 8 or 10 MIDI tracks (violin group, viola group, cello group, bass group, violin solo, viola solo, cello solo, bass solo, plus 2 more tracks for violin 2) and each track actually controls two instruments, a Kontakt sample and a generic string pad that I happen to love from Atmosphere. I write each voice individually, and then go back over each voice separately and ride the volume fader to get some dynamic expression going. Doing them all separate is important because you need all the individuality and detail you can get, because even with all this work you're still only getting a tiny fraction of that kind of information.

[Philter]

Also there's something to what people are saying about the lack of "space" in recordings, like feeling like you are in a space listening... I think that quality is one of the first casualties of the loudness wars. Squashing the hell out of something totally messes with the reverb tail behind sounds, so that even if you are doing a good job of capturing or simulating the sound of a space, it's unlikely to make it through to the final (extremely loud) product.

 

It's not only loud mastering that causes this- it's also the modern trend of having a lot of layers of sound. If you throw tracks all over the place, you obscure the ambient character of the sound between the notes. I doubt it was common practice to layer "synth pads" on every pop song prior to the 1980s. But it sure is the trend now, and if you have a synth pad filling out your sound, how you gonna hear the sound of the room?

 

By the way I speak from experience (as a masher of mixes and purveyor of maximalist arrangements). I'm really working on finding the sense of space in my own stuff right now. But it's hard to do through working in the studio for other people- people still want loud and shiny at the moment.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Also there's something to what people are saying about the lack of "space" in recordings, like feeling like you are in a space listening... I think that quality is one of the first casualties of the loudness wars. Squashing the hell out of something totally messes with the reverb tail behind sounds, so that even if you are doing a good job of capturing or simulating the sound of a space, it's unlikely to make it through to the final (extremely loud) product. It's not only loud mastering that causes this- it's also the modern trend of having a lot of layers of sound. If you throw tracks all over the place, you obscure the ambient character of the sound between the notes. I doubt it was common practice to layer "synth pads" on every pop song prior to the 1980s. But it sure is the trend now, and if you have a synth pad filling out your sound, how you gonna hear the sound of the room? By the way I speak from experience (as a masher of mixes and purveyor of maximalist arrangements). I'm really working on finding the sense of space in my own stuff right now. But it's hard to do through working in the studio for other people- people still want loud and shiny at the moment.

 

 

Agreed.

 

That sense of space is also what I touched upon (along with chemistry, or the interaction between the players and a bunch of other things).

 

Loudness wars contribute. But so does the fact that we tend to record in much smaller spaces, and not all at once. Along with tons of overdubs. Diminished soundstage in a lot of recordings. Poor converters. Using modelers instead of real amps contributes to a lack of space too. Virtual instruments. Going DI.

 

If you're going to have virtual instruments filling out your sound, not only is it going to fill otu the sound of your room, assuming that you have one to begin with, but how is it going to contribute in any way?

 

You can't fake everything.

 

And this isn't an indictment of digital recording or electronic recording. I record digitally. I do electronic recording. I'm simply answering the topic of the missing element and drama.

[blue2blue]

I love the "Perry Mason Theme" (aka "Park Avenue Beat") by the great Fred Steiner (who only passed away last year at the age of 88). Fred was the father of 70s era singer Wendy Waldman. He also wrote the Rocky & Bullwinkle theme. Interestingly, he took a doctorate from USC in 1981, rather late in life; even more interesting, his topic was the early career of film composer Alfred Newman -- speaking of other show biz music families. (I have no idea if Fred was related at all to Max Steiner, the movie music giant who, himself, was from an illustrious musical family.)

 

 

With regard to What's missing...

 

I think the first thing you have to do is finish the question -- missing from what?

 

Missing from mainstream pop? If that's it, my next question is, Where to start that answer?

 

That said, I do hear contemporary recordings -- maybe not on the radio, but then I don't really listen to the radio, not even in the car -- that are exciting and vibrant without being annoying or in your face. But I also hear stuff where people have clearly lost their way.

 

In fact, only yesterday my audiophile pal [who has a somewhat extraordinary stereo] forwarded me a photocopy of an article from the March Stereophile Magazine by Steve Guttenberg, called "The Deflavorizing Machine," lamenting the sound and vibe of the new Booker T & the MG's release, The Road from Memphis. He called it "totally lifeless," but suggested this wasn't "another analog v. digital diatribe" but rather about how the music was put together in the studio.

 

And, listening to it, I couldn't really argue. I'd even go on to say that if felt oddly sterile -- a Booker T record, mind you -- and while there was sometimes a pleasant-enough vibe, it just did not groove.

 

A big part of the problem was the drums, which were heavily compressed (and possibly even gridded)... the snare was highly uniform, defined but thin. In fact, the whole drum kit sounded thin. And while the bass was musically there -- the bottom was not. It felt like the bass guitar had been HPF'd hard below 50 Hz or so. It wasn't Death Magnetic, but they seemed clearly to have carved off the bottom octave in order to be able to maximize loudness.

 

After I heard the whole thing, I decided to put on some classic Booker T. Same signature organ and guitar moves, but a big, fat, undulating, grooving bottom and subtle, but just-right syncopations from the drums that moved song after song -- where the new album felt oddly static.

 

The new album's combination of the highly regularized drumming (heavily compressed if not gridded) and the lack of the big, enveloping bass sound that helped establish BT&tMGs made it seem like the idea of a groove -- without the groove.

 

__________

 

 

After that, I put on a new album that came my way. It's a side project sort of thing from a guy in a very well known modern metal band.

 

It's very contemporary sounding -- in that, aside from the obligatory 'misdirect' intros (when will that cliche finally go away?), there's barely ever a chance to catch a breath through the whole record. It is almost all wall-to-wall, floor-to-ceiling sturm und drang. It's an extremely fatiguing record. Without doubt, there are many elements of merit in it, but when you get done listening, you just want to soak your ears in a hot tub.

[js1]

Playing together for sure is a huge part of it. Proved it to myself a few years ago. My pub band recorded a demo for bookings a few years ago. Did 14 songs in 3 hours playing together. Count down "1-2-3-4", and play it, one or two takes.

 

Had to overdub the lead vox later, and in some places, added a second guitar. Quick mix, sounded more "like a record" than 2 weeks of one man band and editing. And it had vibe.

 

My favorite minimum mix record is the Chad Allen and the Expressions (a.k.a. The Guess Who) version of "Shakin' All Over". THAT was ONE mic, guitar/bass/keys plugged into the same Fender Concert amp, the only mixing was distance from that one mic. Effects were ambience, and (accidental) tape slapback. Give it a listen.

 

js

[MargeHowel]

 

Agreed with all of the above, but what is the quantifiable aspect of the performance?

 

 

I'm not sure I get the question

 

 

Are you sure you don't just mean "identifiable" instead of "quantifiable"?

 

What I mean is, let's say we are talking about what we identify as phrasing-- well, the quantifiable elements might be stuff like timing (and under that we could quantify all kinds of envelopes and events) and timbre (we could quantify it as a fourier analysis across time) and intensity (volume....which you could probably roll into the fourier analysis)

 

That's reams and reams of data ( and then maybe we look at various trends and inflection points and distributions all kinds of stuff ) to quantify what we think of as "phrasing" - when maybe we are more interested in the "strategy" the performer is applying to the phrasing.

 

So in a way, something like "phrasing" could be thought of as an overarching control or modulation of a BUNCH of interrelated elements.

 

Maybe "what is the missing element?" isn't the best way to approach it, maybe it's not so much a "discrete parametric analysis" problem.

Maybe it's not a single element issue, maybe it's more about something like "control abstraction"

[js1]

Ever hear of the "Uncanny Valley"? That's where (quoting Wikipedia here) when "human replicas look and act almost, but not perfectly, like actual human beings, it causes a response of revulsion among human observers."

 

It's why some people, like myself, had problems with the movie "The Polar Express". Incredible animation, almost lifelike. Why it seemed wrong - I can't tell you why - but it was on the wrong side of the uncanny valley.

 

Just an off the wall theory here, but we as humans have millions of years of evolution that says what is real, and how we react to other humans. And what human created music sounds like, both when it's created as an individual and a group.

 

When somebody plays a part poorly, or with mistakes, it sound like a person playing badly. But, it sounds like a person. When we start to edit it to make it sound better, I think it's easy to make it sound almost like a good player, but with enough of a difference that can slip the performance into that uncanny valley.

 

The missing element - humanity. What makes that up? I don't know except that it's made up of a zillion things that we do naturally on our own, and (this is important) when interacting with other people.

 

js