Dumb Digital Rant

[brendandwyer]

And here i thought that "modern music" is the stuff WE'RE writing and recording every day.

I never thought that "modern music" was confined to that which is sold at Sam Goody or Best Buy.

If you're a purist, stop shopping for music and start writing it for the sake of writing it. Record it for the sake of recording it, and stop wasting time being jaded by "the man".

I think analog sounds better too.

But...when magnetic coated plastic tape debuted and laquer cutting ceased, i'll be there was a "dumb tape rant" on the morse code ticker forum too.

 

[noisewreck]

Don't play the Logan's Run game there. It's not the old men who are on the sad side of that equation.

Uh... You sound so old

 

[VomitHatSteve]

Don't play the Logan's Run game there. It's not the old men who are on the sad side of that equation.

Uh... You sound so old

But he also sounds awesome! I can't wait until I'm old enough to yell at kids. Although, I'm not looking forward to that in-between time where I'm too old to stick it to the man and too young to yell at those damn kids.

 

[dzara 4]

I agree that most label major bands aren't very talented due to many factors already listed but mostly talent. But there are still many, many "modern" recording artists who use minimal digital equipment and make fantastic records. One that comes to mind is Sufjan Stevens "illinoise" (type
in his name on gearslutz and you will find a thread mentioning how he recorded)

IMHO here are some other great"modern" recording done by fantastic artists
and I dont care what they were recorded on.

godspeedyoublackemperor, "lift you skinny fists to heaven"
Sigur Ros all of their albums
Notwist "neon golden"
Animal Collective "feels"
Andrew Bird "Mysterious production of eggs"

 

[Micter]

Realistically, since the early 90's by in large musicianship has been pushed aside by the record industry. It became unnecessary to have talent to sell records. To me it is a shame. Part of the problem is the editting functions in digital recording but a lot of it has to do with a swing from musicianship back to what I call song writing. What I mean is, simplistic songs that have no real substance to them became what the record companies were pushing. Cookie cutter production and a lack of raw talent have made a lot of money but not a lot of music that will stand the test of time. It just so happened to be that everything changed at the time digital recording came along. I have editted bass lines from notes played. Gimme a "C"...OK, now an "A", good...now an "F#".... umm second fret on the "E" string.. ya that's an F#. OK come back after lunch and I'll have this line put together. That is absolutely sad but true.

I did some of my best work as a recording artist on a Fostex 16 track and a Mackie 32 channel board in the 90's. As a recording engineer I have done my best work on a high end system built around some Apogee converters and mixing through a 32 channel Trident 80B. I feel there is a balance between digital and analog that can yeild great results with minimal time spent.

 

[ahuimanu]

Realistically, since the early 90's by in large musicianship has been pushed aside by the record industry....

Sorry guys, but most of these assertions are a bit much.

The record industry this... no good bands any more that...

I just can't buy that.

At no time in history has there been more access to music, music-making tools and music delivery tools. We've got everything we need, tool-wise, to make good stuff. Furthermore, many people are taking these tools into their hands (esp. the home recording guys) and making good music.

More people than ever before have access to some means to express themselves in music.

Furthermore, people are still mastering their instruments (or striving to) and trying to hit new heights. Musicians are still rapt in a cycle of inspiration that borrows from the past and develops the present.

If you can't find merit beyond 1% of the vast amount of music and sound available to you now then you aren't looking hard enough in my opinion.

Tape, digital, whatever - get some inspired sounds down and pass them around, that's what it has been about for as long as I can remember. Sure the cut-and-paste crowd has diluted some things, but they have enhanced others. The landscape changes but the muse still floats around.

The music industry is just that - a mechanism and apparatus to produce a profitable product. There's WAY too much good stuff and opportunities out there to be worried about the Top of the pops.

If you value musicianship, you can still find that. You can also still find integrity and art - its all out there and likely out there in greater quantities.

I think Bono's addendum to "All along the watchtower" might hold some widsom in this circumstance:

"All I got is a red guitar
Three chords and the truth
All I got is a red guitar
The rest is up to you"

What else do you need?

P.S. I'm a mere home-recordist, what do I know?

 

[ez_willis]

A lot of great music was produced with little editing!

Not with today's "talent".

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

At no time in history has there been more access to music, music-making tools and music delivery tools. We've got everything we need, tool-wise, to make good stuff.
...
More people than ever before have access to some means to express themselves in music.

Problem is, while the percentage of population with access to these tools has increased exponentially, the percentage of population with actual musical talent has not.

Used to be that someone actually had to be worthy to step in front of the glass. Go back far enough, to the days when "band" meant 25 people, each of which could play their instrument better than your average 10 musicians can today, and things HAD to be done in an entire take with no editing, because the cutting machines were right in the control room.

Now that any hack with a three thousand dollar credit limit - which thanks to the predatory credit companies these days is anybody and anything larger, even if not smarter, than my Amazon parrot - can go out and get the tools necessary to make a technically listenable recording and photoshop the begeezus out of it to the point where it's not even recognizable as reality any longer, the hacks are doing exactly that. There's no perceived need for talent, so talent isn't strived for.

40 years ago the average 13 yr old had maybe a handful of albums, 30 singles, and one radio station to listen to, and they were happy. Nowdays the average 13 yr old has a mePod with gigabytes of music on it that goes way beyond the Top40 and ClearChannel programming, countless broadband streaming sites carrying indie music, 24-hour cable and DT music and music video channels, and a few hundred channels of speciaty programming on satellite radio, and all they can do is complain that music sucks.

There's two possible explanations for it. There's so much bad music out there being made by too many hacks who think that talent is only a VST plug away that the real talent gets buried in the noise, or, the public is just too damn spoiled and doesn't realize just how good they actually have it. I leave it to you to decide which it is.

G.

 

[boingoman]

Problem is, while the percentage of population with access to these tools has increased exponentially, the percentage of population with actual musical talent has not.
.

.....................

 

[ez_willis]

It's no longer necessary to make a good, solid, 12 song record, every 14 months(in between touring).

One halfway decent song, a tight ass, a controversy, and an I-Tunes listing is all you need for a career in music, "career" lasting an average of 6 weeks.

 

[Dubwise]

Yo Guys, Its Me Again...

I AGAIN want to make it clear...

That I believe everybody should record BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!!!

Art needs to be heard, no matter what the medium.

I started the thread to ask one simple question. Why do album projects with a budget (lets say 10,000$ or more) use a far inferior medium such as digital. Why has it become accepted in the pro world?

I am not refering to 17yr old little Johnny who goes to Sam Ash and gets a digital 8trk over an analog one. The answer is obvious, the learning curve is almost non-existent, no tape costs, and no extra gear to calibrate the machine (oscillator, MRL tape, osciliscope) and little Johnny can begin recording right away. Thats great...I applaud the dude.

But what about seasoned engineers who have (supposedly) trained ears? I am sorry there is no excuse. Admit it...they pick an inferior medium because they need the ability to manipulate the preformance of someone who should not be in the studio, but home practicing.

 

[Dubwise]

Rewind Time Myth...

OH!!! And to address this B.S. about REWIND TIME... c'mon man, a song of about 3.5 minues takes between 30-45 second to rewind top to bottom. And 99% of analog remotes have autolocators so you can store 10-12 locate points...just like digital.

Here is what the rewind argument really translates too........"The "Artist" I am recording is not very good, so I have to pitch shift his vocals, and time align his drummer, and get him to complete one chorus so I can fly in the rest because God knows he can't do 4 choruses that sound the same. BUT BUT BUT...he is such a musical genius that if he has to wait for 30 seconds while I rewind the song, then he will absolutley loose his divine inspiration and we will never get to hear the genius art and beauty that was inside of him come out...it will be lost forever."



Love,
-dubwise

 

[boingoman]

I

But what about seasoned engineers who have (supposedly) trained ears? I am sorry there is no excuse. Admit it...they pick an inferior medium because they need the ability to manipulate the preformance of someone who should not be in the studio, but home practicing.

Did you read any of the answers that said MONEY is the reason?

 

[mshilarious]

I started the thread to ask one simple question. Why do album projects with a budget (lets say 10,000$ or more) use a far inferior medium such as digital. Why has it become accepted in the pro world?

Why the hell should we care? Go ask your question at PSW.

 

[Good Friend]

a few points

By the way i didnt mean to insult older people. I just think that most older record execs probably have bigger things (to them) on their mind than preserving art. They care about money, no one can argue that, they put themselves in the position they are in for a reason.

Another thing, i think that many people out there tend to get carried away in their opinions who are unaware of the nature of their opinion. Sometimes a person can get very opinionated over something that "should" be right, rather than "is" right. Like you SHOULD be able to leave your door unlocked at night. But its just not safe. Thats the reality. And all art and music that is made SHOULD be equal, but it is not. Much of it is a scam in disguise. You know how many guys ive known who played guitar for years and years who supposedly "loved music" and music was their life but mysteriously theyd never like any music that might make them look less than cool. Youd think that someone who put music first in their life would at least have a branching interest. But nope. They dont go hand in hand. It took me awhile of being around those people to realize that for them, as strongly as they felt a "spiritual" connection with music, it was ultimately just a vehicle for them to feel good about themselves and impress chicks. And you want to know what? They were never any good at writing or coming up with things that werent useless and blatant ripoffs of the kind of music they were interested in. Dedication does not equal talent or creativity. And thats my point here, it SHOULD, and many will argue that point, but really it just isnt the same thing and the sooner people realize the difference the better they will personally be.

 

[mshilarious]

Just for funsies, here's a quote, I'll leave it to you to find the source and the topic--should take you less than 1 second on Google, somewhat slower if you don't use a digital method of data retrieval:

"I much prefer [working digitally]," he exclaims. "We can go slower and keep all the subtleties of the music hearable. It's all more clear now, more descriptive."

 

[cusebassman]

Sure, digital recording at the professional level has given us the ability to polish turds to a much higher glossy finish than ever before. The ability to go back to the same nanosecond marker over and over to fix something 1/1000th of a second long may very well mean that a lot of artists who can't perform all that well are getting attention when a lot of great artists are going unheard.

However, the accurate reproduction of sound hasn't changed, be it analog or digital. Plenty of great artists are going into the studio and, regardless of the recording medium, are laying down interesting, well-played music, and they don't need to tweak every other word because they can't sing/play/etc.

Has digital given those who cannot play (well) the ability to put something decent together? Sure, to an extent. But for those of us snobs who think that pop music is bullshit, we all recognize it, so we aren't being fooled. And the public at large? They've been listening to "pop" since Edison pumped out the first music-based wax cylinders.

So, as far as "digital is ruining music" is concerned, blame the record companies for using this technology to its fullest extent, allowing them to find the performer who fits the music, rather than finding the performer who creates their own new, fresh material from a distinct style.

And sound quality-wise? Can most people (recording hobbyists included), really pass a blind listening test, where they are being played at random, tracks recorded to tape vs. tracks recorded to a digital medium? With the right mics, preamps, and mixing/mastering process, I sure as Hell couldn't. Sure, maybe engineers who have worked with both mediums for a long time could identify the difference, but I doubt most really could. Set aside your hatred for one medium or the other, and all of a sudden, there isn't that much of a difference.

Sure, at the home-recording level, we have a fuckload more music getting produced, and most of it is garbage (my stuff included - people seem to like my stuff, but who knows - maybe the world at large would laugh right in my face). But, the OP is saying that's not what he is talking about. So, I guess that's a discussion for another thread

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

That I believe everybody should record BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY!!!

And here exactly is where the fundamental difference in philosophy lies. I couldn't possibly disagree with this statement more.

If one has the desire to be heard, or the belief that they have something to say, that's great. But with that comes a responsibility, IMHO. The artist has the responsibility to actually try their best to be good at what they are doing. Unless or until they can acheive some level of quality or talent, racing for the record button is a disservice that is nothing more than an exercise in vanity.

I started the thread to ask one simple question. Why do album projects with a budget (lets say 10,000$ or more) use a far inferior medium such as digital. Why has it become accepted in the pro world?

For the very reason you imply; it's cheaper.

I am not refering to 17yr old little Johnny who goes to Sam Ash and gets a digital 8trk over an analog one. The answer is obvious, the learning curve is almost non-existent...and little Johnny can begin recording right away. Thats great...I applaud the dude.

This is the big myth and big fallacy that is wrongly inferred by the "availability" of the technology to the masses. Just because you can now get gear for three grand instead of three hundred grand doesn't mean the learning curve has disappeared. In fact, the opposite has happened; with the advent of digital software giving us things like multi-band compression, multi-level compression, unlimited band paragraphic EQ, impulse modeling, etc., not to mention non-linear editing itself, the scope of audio engineering has gotten more sophisticated and more technical than it ever was; the learning curve is even steeper.

The cheap gear has made recording more accessable, but it most certainly has not made recording easier. On the contrary, it's made it harder. Little Johnny should slow down and not assume that the record button should be pushed just because it's right in front of him.

Especially since he can't even play an instrument yet.

But what about seasoned engineers who have (supposedly) trained ears? I am sorry there is no excuse. Admit it...they pick an inferior medium because they need the ability to manipulate the preformance of someone who should not be in the studio, but home practicing.

What makes you think it's the engineers that get to choose? If that were the case, if the engineers actually got to choose, there'd be no RMS wars, ProTools would be "a nice idea, but no thank you", and Britney would have hung up her mouse ears and gotten a real life.

The engineers don't make those decisions any more than the record company owners do. Those decisions are made mostly by the producers, the label managers, the A&R folk, etc., all the (often younger) folk who actually run the day-to-day operations and who tell the engineers who to record and how to record them.

G.

 

[cusebassman]

What makes you think it's the engineers that get to choose? If that were the case, if the engineers actually got to choose, there'd be no RMS wars, ProTools would be "a nice idea, but no thank you", and Britney would have hung up her mouse ears and gotten a real life.

The engineers don't make those decisions any more than the record company owners do. Those decisions are made mostly by the producers, the label managers, the A&R folk, etc., all the (often younger) folk who actually run the day-to-day operations and who tell the engineers who to record and how to record them.

G.

This is the group I refer to when I make mention of the record companies - whoever is actually running the show, deciding what the masses "want" to hear.

Spot on as usual, Glen (odd referring to someone else by my name... rare to meet a guy named Glen, I've found)

 

[Reggie]

OK, suppose we all go back to using 2" tape for all recording purposes. We feel fulfilled that we are utilizing the best, warmest, clearest, cleanest, prettiest recording method possible. So at least we have pleased our own ears. But...what about those lowly schmucks who dare to buy a copy of the recording for their own personal listening enjoyment. They obviously won't be able to listen to the pure purity of the warm analogness of the original 2" master, so why bother with them? Or maybe they should be restricted to buying 2" reel2reel copies of the master at the record store. mp3s. Pfft.

So what I am getting at is, digital is a pretty decent format for distributing music to the buying mass public (OK maybe a little too good, as can be seen from all the pirating...), so why not cater to this large market by making digital recordings? Otherwise you are just doing things the hard way, for IMO little gain.

And while I am at it, why not polish turds, anyway? If there were people who would buy my turds for some reason, but all I had to do to get them to buy was apply a little TLC and polish, you can be sure I will be putting the rubber gloves on and getting to work. I think there will always be a market for polished gems too, but those are quite rare.