grn
Well-known member
http://www.airwindows.com/analysis/Dynamics.html
it discusses how compression affect whether or not your record will be a hit!
it discusses how compression affect whether or not your record will be a hit!
dgatwood
is out. Leave a message.
I didn't read all the way through it, but what I read seemed... well... obvious. Of course the one on the right was Fleetwood Mac, and of course the one on the left was Red Hot Chili Peppers. Why the big "WRONG"? I would have thought it was completely obvious that RHCP compresses their music to death....
That said, the reasoning is slightly flawed, IMHO. The more musically dense the sound is, the more compression and/or limiting is necessary to prevent ludicrous dynamic range. RHCP plays a really dense track, while Fleetwood Mac... doesn't. It's stylistically different.
Does a dense sound mean that your song is going to flop? No. Does overcompressing your song mean it will flop? Also no. Do thin, acoustic songs tend to last longer than dense, noisy ones? You bet. Does it have anything to do with the compression? No. Should songs have more dynamic contrast than most of them do? In general, probably. Does that have anything to do with whether a song will be a hit? Probably not.
Those thin acoustic songs have memorable melodies and lyrics, while the dense ones are just something to dance/head bang/use recreational drugs/drink to. They come and go, and are totally replaceable. As a general rule, if you hear a song and immediately walk away with the melody and words stuck in your head, it has the potential to be a long-term contender, assuming those words aren't idiotic and the melody isn't trite. Otherwise, it's a pop song.
Just my $0.02.
That said, the reasoning is slightly flawed, IMHO. The more musically dense the sound is, the more compression and/or limiting is necessary to prevent ludicrous dynamic range. RHCP plays a really dense track, while Fleetwood Mac... doesn't. It's stylistically different.
Does a dense sound mean that your song is going to flop? No. Does overcompressing your song mean it will flop? Also no. Do thin, acoustic songs tend to last longer than dense, noisy ones? You bet. Does it have anything to do with the compression? No. Should songs have more dynamic contrast than most of them do? In general, probably. Does that have anything to do with whether a song will be a hit? Probably not.
Those thin acoustic songs have memorable melodies and lyrics, while the dense ones are just something to dance/head bang/use recreational drugs/drink to. They come and go, and are totally replaceable. As a general rule, if you hear a song and immediately walk away with the melody and words stuck in your head, it has the potential to be a long-term contender, assuming those words aren't idiotic and the melody isn't trite. Otherwise, it's a pop song.
Just my $0.02.
grn
Well-known member
What made sense to me was the fact that a song with more dynamics lasted longer because the variation made it more appealing either conciously or subconciously... yeah they were great songs to begin with, but if they had been smashed to hell then would they have been AS successful? It's hard to say, I know, but I think hearing a song with all instruments peaking at the same level (far too high and clipping digitally) has something to do with long term listenability. Maybe that's just digital recording anyway...
I didn't word that exactly how I wanted, but I had four hours of sleep, forgive me. I hope you understand.
I didn't word that exactly how I wanted, but I had four hours of sleep, forgive me. I hope you understand.
MichaelM
New member
I think he has done a great job of illustrating a trend in mastering techniques. Yes it's true: Most modern popular recordings are mastered LOUD. He's failed to prove that the more dynamic hits are longer lasting than the crop of really loud ones. Simple reason: The old ones are old and have been around for a long time, the new ones havent, and as such have not had the chance to become 'rock classics'. He is speculating, but has no real evidence to back up his arguement. These oldies were popular when first released, then have been remastered to CD, put in boxed sets, released on special anniversary editions. The reason they are still selling isn't simply because they are more dynamic mixes to begin with.
Also look at this:
Look at what he's comparing these rock classics to: Kid Rock, Eminem, Cher, Suicidal Tendacies. I think it's fair to say that these songs will not be remebered, let alone praised in the future. They will dissapear into oblivion and it has nothing to do with how loud they were mastered.
That said, I'm not saying it's not true, I like dynamics but he didn't come close to what he set out to achieve.
Also look at this:
Look at what he's comparing these rock classics to: Kid Rock, Eminem, Cher, Suicidal Tendacies. I think it's fair to say that these songs will not be remebered, let alone praised in the future. They will dissapear into oblivion and it has nothing to do with how loud they were mastered.
That said, I'm not saying it's not true, I like dynamics but he didn't come close to what he set out to achieve.
scrubs
Not of sound mind
What the author here has discovered is a correlation: that heavily compressed/limited music does not sell as well, in the long run, as more dynamic music. He is concluding that limiting/compression leads to poor sales. That is a flawed conclusion that fails to account for all of the confounding factors that may relate to album sales.
Here's another example of a correlation: Old people consume more prune juice than younger people. Older people also die at a much higher rate compared to young people. Therefore, consumption of prune juice leads to death. Make sense? Of course not. The two factors are completely unrelated.
While I don't disagree with the author's preference for more dynamic music, there are far too many confounding factors. Namely:
1. Time bias -- Heavily compressed music is a relatively new phenomenon. The well-selling examples he uses of dynamic music (Rumors, Stairway, White Album) were recorded decades ago and have been available for a long time. The albums that have not sold as many copies were all (**shocker**) recorded in the past decade. Of course they haven't sold as many copies. Only time will tell if today's music has the staying power of these older hits.
2. Quality -- Much of today's popular music is throwaway garbage. There was probably a ton of garbage coming out in the 60s, too. However, most of it is long forgotten. The few great albums of that era (a coming of age era for both rock music and recording techniques) are what we are still talking about today. It is simply unfair to compare today's pop music with a few top-selling albums of yesteryear by great bands, with great songwriting and playing, made in great studios by great producers. What will be the gems of our generation? Again, it is too soon to tell.
3. Technology -- The record industry has been lamenting for years the decline in record sales and blaming it on mp3s and such. Also, recording technology is available to many more people now than it was 40 years ago, meaning lots of people are recording music (at home). The well produced studio album is becoming less common. People also have at their disposal (for better or worse) tools that they may not have the experience to use properly. Whatever the cause, the album format may be on the way out.
There are plenty more confounding factors. The point is, even if you find a relationship between two events, there is not necessarily a causality implied. You have to account for as many variables as possible to adequately test a hypothesis.
Oh, and avoid prune juice. That shit (pun intended) will kill ya!
Here's another example of a correlation: Old people consume more prune juice than younger people. Older people also die at a much higher rate compared to young people. Therefore, consumption of prune juice leads to death. Make sense? Of course not. The two factors are completely unrelated.
While I don't disagree with the author's preference for more dynamic music, there are far too many confounding factors. Namely:
1. Time bias -- Heavily compressed music is a relatively new phenomenon. The well-selling examples he uses of dynamic music (Rumors, Stairway, White Album) were recorded decades ago and have been available for a long time. The albums that have not sold as many copies were all (**shocker**) recorded in the past decade. Of course they haven't sold as many copies. Only time will tell if today's music has the staying power of these older hits.
2. Quality -- Much of today's popular music is throwaway garbage. There was probably a ton of garbage coming out in the 60s, too. However, most of it is long forgotten. The few great albums of that era (a coming of age era for both rock music and recording techniques) are what we are still talking about today. It is simply unfair to compare today's pop music with a few top-selling albums of yesteryear by great bands, with great songwriting and playing, made in great studios by great producers. What will be the gems of our generation? Again, it is too soon to tell.
3. Technology -- The record industry has been lamenting for years the decline in record sales and blaming it on mp3s and such. Also, recording technology is available to many more people now than it was 40 years ago, meaning lots of people are recording music (at home). The well produced studio album is becoming less common. People also have at their disposal (for better or worse) tools that they may not have the experience to use properly. Whatever the cause, the album format may be on the way out.
There are plenty more confounding factors. The point is, even if you find a relationship between two events, there is not necessarily a causality implied. You have to account for as many variables as possible to adequately test a hypothesis.
Oh, and avoid prune juice. That shit (pun intended) will kill ya!
C
Chibi Nappa
New member
I don't know anything about song longevity or sales or how compression effects any of that or whatever. All I know is current music grates on my ears and makes me turn off my CD player. When the most recent "Phish" album is too loud and over-compressed to be even listenable, somethign's wrong. Personally, I've thrown in the towel and decided to not buy anythign released in the "2000's" until this problem goes away.
grn
Well-known member
ok, I was wrong. you don't have to read it at all I guess.
K
kats
New member
This is a bit of a "no-brainer". Dynamics are an integral part of the artisits "color palatte" when writing a song. Reducing the palette choices obviously reduces the artists ability to express himself through his music.
It's like saying "write a song but without any notes above D" hmmm, well I'm sure you an write a killer and popular tune this way, just as there have been many killer popular tunes that have been over compressed, it does limit your possiblities.
But the passion of music, IMO, is firmly held by the dynamic...and time, but that's a whole other argument of why I'm not razy about click tracks
It's like saying "write a song but without any notes above D" hmmm, well I'm sure you an write a killer and popular tune this way, just as there have been many killer popular tunes that have been over compressed, it does limit your possiblities.
But the passion of music, IMO, is firmly held by the dynamic...and time, but that's a whole other argument of why I'm not razy about click tracks
MichaelM
New member
grn said:
Nah it was an interesting read, especially the depth to which he describes the sonic elements of each song. The problem was how he drew is conclusions regarding compression and album sales.
S
stash98
New member
once he started getting into the "hit kickdrum" he lost me. that whole formulaic way of thinking is void of creativity. He says stuff like, "the vocal should be dominant w/ the snare, and the bass and kick should drive the song..the cymbals should be more in the back.."
no shit. I mean that's pretty obvious to anyone. A great song and hook is foundation of a "hit", not the kick drum. Once you start mixing to formulas instead of using your ears, the art of it is gone and you most likely will have bad mixes.
no shit. I mean that's pretty obvious to anyone. A great song and hook is foundation of a "hit", not the kick drum. Once you start mixing to formulas instead of using your ears, the art of it is gone and you most likely will have bad mixes.
C
corban
New member
Hey everybody, what is my screenname? Go ahead, look up at my screenname and read it, now answer the question...
WRONG!
Jeez, I thought that was a trick question or something, but it turns out it was super obvious, he just decided to assume everybody would get it wrong and blast their face in with it. Good for a laugh, anyways.
WRONG!
Jeez, I thought that was a trick question or something, but it turns out it was super obvious, he just decided to assume everybody would get it wrong and blast their face in with it. Good for a laugh, anyways.