Right On Bob!

  • Thread starter Thread starter SteveMac
  • Start date Start date
I totally agree! Ol Bob still knows his POOP. I wonder....has there been any good music lately? I mean besides Rush, Pink Floyd,....
 
I think in that article they are being too literal about the "20 yrs" I think it was just a generalization. In my opinion, probably the last ten years.
 
Nice find Steve! Here's the poll so far:

Do you agree with Bob?
Yes 81%
No 19%
Total Votes: 40,366
 
Btw, I think it's very fitting, what Dylan said and there, on the right, is a photo of Kevin Federline or "K-Fed" as he's called, kickin' it at the Teen Choice Awards! :eek: That's the future of music ladies and gentlemen! :eek: :D
 
SteveMac said:
I think in that article they are being too literal about the "20 yrs" I think it was just a generalization. In my opinion, probably the last ten years.
Click to expand...

Lets leave talent of the musician aside but personally I feel the recording, mixing and mastering went completely downhill after the 70's. Perhaps that's what Dylan is talking about when he says: "I don't know anybody who's made a record that sounds decent in the past 20 years, really.." and that "You listen to these modern records, they're atrocious, they have sound all over them," he added. "There's no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing, just like ... static."
 
Oh yeah, and this: "Dylan says part of the problem is new technology in the recording studio. He says his latest LP, 'Modern Times,' sounded "ten times better" in the studio than on CD."
 
Yeah I think he was talking about the sound quality of todays recorded music, not talent.

I agree with a lot of what he says, but there have been some great rock records in the past 10 years, both sound and talent wise.
 
I suspect that two concerns were on his mind:

1) abuse of DAW technology, where people don't know what they're doing either before they start recording or even when they're done, can't play a song straight through and pile too many processed tracks on, assuming more is better, and

2) the atrocious level practices in vogue the last 10 years, where the new digital mastering tools are misused by ignorant folk who feel the need to compete to have the instantaneous sense of track to track loudness compared with other people's tracks while not realizing that the end result is garbage, sounds wimpy and tiring and gets totally trashed by broadcast gear designed back when mastered tracks still had a littlle dynamic range.

ofajen
 
cjacek said:
Btw, I think it's very fitting, what Dylan said and there, on the right, is a photo of Kevin Federline or "K-Fed" as he's called, kickin' it at the Teen Choice Awards! :eek: That's the future of music ladies and gentlemen! :eek: :D
Click to expand...


OOoh, wowy. How exciting. :D
 
cjacek said:
Btw, I think it's very fitting, what Dylan said and there, on the right, is a photo of Kevin Federline or "K-Fed" as he's called, kickin' it at the Teen Choice Awards! :eek: That's the future of music ladies and gentlemen! :eek: :D
Click to expand...
K-Fed? Ughhhhhh. Does the K stand for korn?
 
ofajen said:
I suspect that two concerns were on his mind:

1) abuse of DAW technology, where people don't know what they're doing either before they start recording or even when they're done, can't play a song straight through and pile too many processed tracks on, assuming more is better, and

2) the atrocious level practices in vogue the last 10 years, where the new digital mastering tools are misused by ignorant folk who feel the need to compete to have the instantaneous sense of track to track loudness compared with other people's tracks while not realizing that the end result is garbage, sounds wimpy and tiring and gets totally trashed by broadcast gear designed back when mastered tracks still had a littlle dynamic range.

ofajen
Click to expand...


Yeah and if this wasn't enough, many of the albums recorded pre-digital, were / are digitally remastered to CD. :eek: Why can't they just transfer the original master tapes without fucking it all up like that ? :confused: :rolleyes:
 
cjacek said:
Yeah and if this wasn't enough, many of the albums recorded pre-digital, were / are digitally remastered to CD. :eek: Why can't they just transfer the original master tapes without fucking it all up like that ? :confused: :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Digitally remastered… like the originals that went platinum on vinyl were lacking somehow. :D
 
Not to be argumentative, but let's be fair and recognize that digital mastering technology is not necessarily inferior... the main problem is that it is so prone to overuse and misuse.

Let's also not forget that in the mastering process to produce a vinyl album, there is generally some processing applied to accomodate the limitations of the vinyl medium relative to the studio mix tapes (limited frequency response, limited dynamic range in general and limited, monaural response in the low end). There's no reason to bring that baggage along when going to a digital distribution, but it's also unrealistic to simply copy an original, unmastered mix tape, so it makes sense to digitally remaster. The problem is, most producers then decide to do more, rather than less, to the original mix tape than was done in mastering to vinyl.

ofajen
 
ofajen said:
...concerns were on his mind:

...people don't know what they're doing ...
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure that Bob is talking about albums that were produced by people who know exactly what they were/are doing. ...
...the people who instead of doing it good - do it the way it "should be done" - the "right way" (they've studied and mastered every step of the way, and while on it, it seems like they've missed a "little nuance" - listening, (which is applicable to only those who were capable to listen to begin with :p )) ... and imho this was/IS a problem ;)
I'd sum it up this way: ("since the last real great record") - Music production has gone long way from music to production. :D
********
nevertheless...
any generalization limps on all four legs. And I'd say, there were a lot of pretty damn good records/albums/singles produced between 70/80s or what have you and today... sometimes I get the feeling that those albums could be done better , though ...heh heh ... but it depends on the mood :D

/respects
 
ofajen said:
Not to be argumentative, but let's be fair and recognize that digital mastering technology is not necessarily inferior... the main problem is that it is so prone to overuse and misuse.

Let's also not forget that in the mastering process to produce a vinyl album, there is generally some processing applied to accomodate the limitations of the vinyl medium relative to the studio mix tapes (limited frequency response, limited dynamic range in general and limited, monaural response in the low end). There's no reason to bring that baggage along when going to a digital distribution, but it's also unrealistic to simply copy an original, unmastered mix tape, so it makes sense to digitally remaster. The problem is, most producers then decide to do more, rather than less, to the original mix tape than was done in mastering to vinyl.

ofajen
Click to expand...

We're not talking about glass masters though (at least I’m not), but the original finished and archived half-track masters. When those are available they are the best source for authentic re-releases. Digital remastering can be a marketing tool or truly involve a significant corruption of the original work.

Every end-user medium has limitations and benefits. The danger is that original works will be lost, just as if we ended up with only colorized versions of classic black & white movies.

IMO, my vinyl and open-reel tape releases are far superior to any CD version I have… digitally remastered or not. The convenience and near zero noise floor of CD are not enough to make these ears happy. However, the best CDs I own are older… made long before people thought they had to “fix” everything with some digital wizardry.

People have always had a love/hate relationship with the medium, whatever it is at the time. Looking back, the pops and hiss were nothing compared to the butchery I’ve seen in recent years of perfectly good albums through “remastering.” And if that weren’t bad enough we take that mess and dumb it down to MP3, now the medium of choice. Cassette is starting to look pretty good again. :eek:

~Tim
:)
 
Good points, Tim. I personally feel that there's really nothing wrong with the CD format, per se but how it is used. Correct me if I'm wrong but, unlike pressing to vinyl, if the original tape masters were just pressed to CD "as is", without any doctoring, then you'd have a pretty nice reproduction of the original. :)
 
Right, the Redbook CD standard is not the worst thing that ever happened to music. After all, even AM radio had its place back in the day for casual listening.

For deep listening as a focused activity I still prefer vinyl or tape. In the car or for background music CD serves a purpose... and it can sound pretty good or really bad, depending on how it's done.

So, you can compare formats and products within formats – vinyl to CD, old CD to newer CD, etc.

For example, my old vinyl copy of the Boston’s debut album beats the hell out of the CD. And I have two CDs of that album, one I bought 20 years ago and another I bought since 2000 to replace the old one, which I thought I had lost. The new “digitally remastered” copy sounds weak and thin compared to the older one. And I hear this complaint a lot. I really don’t think we’re getting a quality product these days.

~Tim
:)
 
CD's = S**T

heh

That is EXACTLY why i ran all my cd's onto reel to reel tape and got rid of ALL of my cd's.

Yep i sold off the LOT

i only use records and tape reels now, because it is the only recording medium i have found to give good quality sound.

Keith
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top