Recording Technology: Digital, Rap/Hip-hop and the Decline of Music

[Whoopysnorp]

I don't know if I'd necessarily agree with your premise...first of all, I do think you're right that top-40 type music is in a particularly sorry state these days. You're probably right that digital systems have an effect on this--specifically the ease with which DAWs allow an engineer to artificially create a passable performance out of what in reality was an unlistenable performance. I also suspect that this phenomenon has something to do with the increasing bottom-line emphasis on the music industry (and indeed on every industry). Can you imagine a major label now taking a financial risk on somebody like Captain Beefheart? Obviously somebody at Warner/Reprise believed in his music back then, but from what I've read I get the impression that there's no room in the record industry for those sorts of visionaries these days.

However, I don't agree with the idea of the digital medium being inherently inferior to analog. I likes my analog, sure, but I also think Frank Zappa's digital recordings sound fantastic for the most part. He was an early adopter and champion of the technology, and yeah, his earliest efforts with it do sound pretty bad to my ears, but the digital 48-track recordings from his 1988 tour sound superb, and I think anybody who would find fault with them is nitpicking. Also, if digital is supposedly so inferior to analog, why has practically every classical album since the mid-'80s been recorded on digital systems? Even my late-'80s copy of the Bartok string quartets--back when digital systems were still young--sounds wonderful.

 

[FALKEN]

Music has an impact in societies where music is prevalent and important to the society, which it is in the West and America, including the black community. Being that this is a recording forum it's a likely place to discuss the impact of music in particular.

Beck,

Music can play a much larger role in everyday life in societies that are not the west and america. Western society makes a commodity of our music, it is bought and sold, we elevate musicians to celebrity status. This is unheard of in much of the rest of the world but that doesn't mean music does not impact those places. In much of the world Music is still a major part of religion, and religion would not exist without music, and culture would not exist without either. Just because it takes place in peoples homes, and the practicioners of music are not necessarily "musicians" but might be doctors, religious leaders, workers, mothers, hunters, this does not mean that music does not impact them.

Part of that process is selecting timbres that are pleasing to the ear.

I don't know where you made this up but its ridiculous. Maybe at best, part of the process is selecting timbres that are appropriate to the music. But this would not always be pleasing to the ear. See: wheeping songs, industrial music, and avante guarde/noise.

Hence my premise is that digital recording has changed popular music over the last couple decades, and IMO the change is for the worse. Popular music is less complex and less interesting than it used to be for my tastes. Intricate music is heavily dependant on upper-mid and high frequencies. When I say intricate and sophisticated I'm talking about everything from classical to Earth Wind & Fire, to Led Zeppelin.

There is intricate stuff out there. Check out At the Drive in or Cursive. In fact it seems like Rush is having a huge influence on music today, which I can't for my life understand!!

 

[Trumpspade]

Music has an impact in societies where music is prevalent and important to the society, which it is in the West and America, including the black community. Being that this is a recording forum it's a likely place to discuss the impact of music in particular.

Of course you cannot trace all woes to music… I never said that. This is one of those threads (well I guess every thread is) that you have to be careful not to be misled by another poster’s misunderstanding of what I or someone else has stated.

But as for the influence music has… as we say in the social sciences, “You are who you talk to.” People communicate through music and it is very powerful. Music alone can make a person feel happy, sad, hopeless, encouraged, etc. Add lyrics that degrade, scold, whine, scream, blame, threaten, boast about murder, rape, etc. What do think that will do to a person that listens to it all the time… nothing? Though it is not the only influence, it is not a drop in the bucket. The level of exposure to the music and its status in the lives of the group makes it a significant social influence.

The anger and despair in much of popular music can be both an expression of the way an “artist” feels and an influence on others. It gets passed along and is as much a part of a culture as hair styles, clothing, slang, and any other behaviors a person picks up from their environment… including values… a sense of right and wrong.

I don’t know about the never recovering from slavery idea. Some of the best… happiest and most encouraging music in history came from the fathers and grandfathers of these current artists with no soul.

I do agree with most of what you said. But Rap is so vast now, worldwide. Why would you only equate the behavior of the inner city's youth, to the violent and negative messages that surround Rap, when even Suburban whites indulge in buying and listening to this same music as well? Is there not Rap influence reactions in their community? I really didn't mean to get off subject with my post, I just wanted to bring some other issues to light. And when I spoke of not recovering from slavery, I'm not talking about musically. But much of the lyrics you hear, and I am not saying all, comes from an Angry black man who still feel oppressed! That's not recovery to me! I'm black, and I know the conversations that take place both in and outside the urban community. Trust me, many of the inner city's problems is due to lack of........(Plug in the blank, too much to write) And that started many years ago.....It sucks to settle for something, instead of getting what you think you deserve. But I won't bore you with more off topic issues, just wanted to vent a bit.

Thanks for the response! Your point was well taken. I had to read it twice! lol

 

[Beck]

Part of that process is selecting timbres that are pleasing to the ear.

Beck,
I don't know where you made this up but its ridiculous. Maybe at best, part of the process is selecting timbres that are appropriate to the music. But this would not always be pleasing to the ear. See: wheeping songs, industrial music, and avante guarde/noise.

Oi! I wish I could take credit for making that one up. That statement wasn't meant to be controversial... it's not at all. In fact, it's music 101. It is one of those statements you make in a conversation with one’s peers that you expect everyone to know. There’s no controversy there… it’s a relatively benign communication intended to facilitate understanding of the main point I was making.

Perhaps you don’t understand what we mean by “pleasing to the ear.” You can always find examples of noise as art, but that’s the exception. Humans normally don’t set out to inflict auditory pain with music. I don’t know where you’ve been but terms like honking, muddy, brittle, harsh, fatiguing, etc, have been part of the music industry’s vocabulary since I’ve been involved with it (going on 30 years). Everyone from mastering engineers to craftsmen that design and build acoustic instruments knows exactly what is meant when I or anyone else talks about timbre.

I don’t know quite what to say. It appears you have issues with me in general. Someone else might be able to bring you up to speed, but I don’t think I’m the guy.

 

[FALKEN]

Beck,

I don't have any issues with you personally! Its just that one man's smooth overdrive is another man's fuzz box! I guess you don't like the Big Muff!

 

[THX1136]

I thought this started out as an attempt to discuss how digital recording may or may not affect humans - how it affects the quality of what we are perceiving when we listen to music recorded through an all digital chain. It reminded me of a discussion I had with my son who is interested in film/video production. That area of entertainment has moved into the digital realm also and with less than great results IMO.

What started our discussion was the 2nd Star Wars movie and, in particular, the alien chase scene through the airways of Courissant. We both came to the conclusion that, at least with film, (and at least with this section of that particular film) the human eye cannot take everything in that it's trying to view - that's being presented to it. Whether it's the quality of the image, the density of the images, the speed of change of the images; I'm not sure. I know we both felt like closing our eyes or, at least just focusing on a very small portion of the image. It was unsettling and uncomfortable. We also felt that we had never experienced the same feeling when viewing a film done all (or mostly) analog.

Perhaps this is what you're noticing Beck in the musical realm. Perhaps there is something about an all digital recording that strikes our ear as taxing, uncomfortable or fatiguing. Yeah, there is some great sounding stuff out there, but who can listen to it for 4 hours straight without experiencing fatigue unrelated to the type of music you normally enjoy? An example, I put together a bunch of songs I like very much and loaded them all into an iPod Shuffle. They were all encoded at 128, fairly good quality for ear/head phone listening. After about an hour or so I have to shut it off and take a break. It's music I very much enjoy, but I can't listen to it in that particular form for very long.

Rewind to 1969, shooting baskets with a stack of lps on the cheap record player/changer for a couple of hours. No worries. Maybe it's the interface in this example, but I suspect that the medium - digitally recorded and reproduced - may have some effect. I know visually it does on myself and my son along with others I've talked to about this subject. My son felt there was too much defintion - images that are too sharp and not blurred - in the movie situation. Maybe we're noticing the aural equivillent. Maybe there is a rounding, blurring, soft focusing going on in analog recording that is absent from the same music done digitally.

I have no answers. I have a lot of ideas. Nothing conclusive, but worth thinking and considering. Thanks for bringing up the thought.

 

[SteveM]

What started our discussion was the 2nd Star Wars movie and, in particular, the alien chase scene through the airways of Courissant. We both came to the conclusion that, at least with film, (and at least with this section of that particular film) the human eye cannot take everything in that it's trying to view - that's being presented to it. Whether it's the quality of the image, the density of the images, the speed of change of the images; I'm not sure. I know we both felt like closing our eyes or, at least just focusing on a very small portion of the image. It was unsettling and uncomfortable. We also felt that we had never experienced the same feeling when viewing a film done all (or mostly) analog.

Thanks for mentioning that because I have the same problem but wasn't sure if it was my own eyes. I've noticed that alot with fast movement on DVDs and thought the same thing. That it was the digital format doing it. One example is in the latest Spiderman movie when he's swinging through the city. It's very annoying. You can't really focus on anything.

As far as sound that Beck mentioned. He's not the only one. Alot of people including myself have the same problem. That's why I listen to records again because I can put a record on and lay down and listen to them or hours. I never do that with CDs.

 

[THX1136]

Going back to the film analogy: could it be in music done digitally that it is too precise? Been thinking since I posted and the thought occured to me that maybe the on/off nature of digital makes the sound overly defined (not accurately defined - or maybe - I don't know).

I remember gettng a new cd of a favorite band and I had a difficult time just getting through the whole cd in one go. The music was great and I couldn't say there was an edgy, harsh sound in what I was listening to, but it was "difficult" to listen to the whole disc. I know there is something to all this. I just don't know the correct conclusion to draw from it all.

Thanks for your response Steve.

 

[SteveM]

Going back to the film analogy: could it be in music done digitally that it is too precise? Been thinking since I posted and the thought occured to me that maybe the on/off nature of digital makes the sound overly defined (not accurately defined - or maybe - I don't know).

I remember gettng a new cd of a favorite band and I had a difficult time just getting through the whole cd in one go. The music was great and I couldn't say there was an edgy, harsh sound in what I was listening to, but it was "difficult" to listen to the whole disc. I know there is something to all this. I just don't know the correct conclusion to draw from it all.

Thanks for your response Steve.

The reason I don't think it's too precise is because the annoyance like you get from the DVD doesn't occur with what you hear or see naturally so I think it's something else.

 

[Whoopysnorp]

If you guys find the sound of every CD you listen to objectionable, there's either something wrong with the recording/mastering of the CDs you happen to buy, you have a shitty CD player, or you have such a boner for analog that you nitpick perfectly fine sounding CDs to death. There are plenty of CDs that sound bad and even awful but there are at least as many that sound great.

 

[ausrock]

Don't be so bloody superficial, what is being refered to is something way more subtle than poor recording or mastering, it is a character or "quality" inherent in the actual digital media.

 

[Beck]

If you guys find the sound of every CD you listen to objectionable, there's either something wrong with the recording/mastering of the CDs you happen to buy, you have a shitty CD player, or you have such a boner for analog that you nitpick perfectly fine sounding CDs to death

A more reasonable conclusion is that there are people with above average hearing that can hear qualities of sound others can’t.

I’ve been recording since before the CD was invented. I’ve listened to more CDs on more systems than I can remember. I have always heard funkiness in the high end with CD and other digital formats… Always!

There are CDs that are better than others, but if the high end is there I hear something that bothers me. I tolerate it like I do flaws in all recording formats. Older songs with the high end rolled off fair the best on CD. I have many CDs that I can enjoy, but I know their limitations. There are songs that sound better on LP and even cassette.

I haven’t gotten to all of them yet, but many of my CDs have been transferred to open-reel and back to CD. This makes them more listenable to me.

The people that can hear it have the advantage, just like people with superior vision are the go-to people if you want to know what’s out there beyond your own limited vision.

Those who can’t hear it can only say they can’t hear it. They can’t say it’s not there. A mixing or mastering engineer that can’t hear is similar to having an inaccurate monitoring system. Defective equipment is the same whether its something you purchased or something you were born with (or without).

For some reason people will accept the fact that they don’t have the physical and mental prowess to be an Olympic runner, a star quarterback, or an ace fighter pilot, but everyone thinks they can achieve excellence in music recording if they can just afford the right equipment. Go figure!

I can admit I need contact lenses to see as far as Chuck Yeager can. Why can't people consider they may not be blessed with the best hearing in these discussions?

 

[THX1136]

Quite honestly I don't find every cd objectional. But as Beck pointed out there is something there that goes beyond the "specs"; something that happens to digital. Is it poorly designed anti-aliasing filters? I don't know. I haven't had the privilege to hear a source recorded at 24/96. Would I still get the wackiness I find on 16/44.1 cds? I don't know.

Are we, at some level, hearing the gaps between samples? Hard to imagine at even 44.1. To return to the visual side, when I see video shot on digital I can tell every time. It's not smooth. It looks "jerky" motion-wise. There is an uncomplimentary edginess to the images. Are we experiencing the aural equivillent? I don't know.

On the opinion of system quality, I am less fatigued listening to cds in my car (a 95 Ford Escort w/cheapo deck, changer and amp). This would seem to fall in line with the opinion of masking the upper frequencies helps/affects/improves the listening situation. On one level it is counter-intuitive. But it does exsist for me in a demonstrative way. I'm not anti or pro anything. I enjoy learning why things work the way they do. I find it interesting as I am a naturally curious person when it comes to the physics of things. No worries Whoopy. You make a good point also. Thanks for participating.

 

[SteveM]

If you guys find the sound of every CD you listen to objectionable, there's either something wrong with the recording/mastering of the CDs you happen to buy, you have a shitty CD player, or you have such a boner for analog that you nitpick perfectly fine sounding CDs to death. There are plenty of CDs that sound bad and even awful but there are at least as many that sound great.

I can't tell you how much of it is psychological, I'm sure some of it is at this point. But I didn't like CDs when they first came out, they always sounded sterile to me. And after alot of bad experiences with digital with it sounding pretty good one minute to crappy the next, you get to a point were you don't want to bother with it. I remember when I got my minidisc recorder I couldn't get the smell of the sound out of my nose for a week. It literally freaked me out. Some stuff is straight out bad like OKGO, others are subtley annoying like some classic rock AAD mixes or ADD mixes some stuff sounds good even though you know its all digital like Blink182 (as an example, I don't care for thier music) but it sounds like they have a d-esser on every instrument and everything has a dry and ripping sound. That sound grates on me after a while too.