Production Values Today...Compared to Yesterday

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:13 am

Their are allot of borderline cases of cookie monster vocals in the 80's.
Pretty much the Florida death metal scene was full of it.

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:27 am

Wow. Never thought I'd hear Chuck Schuldiner's name here. I'm, a Gene Hoglan fan myself.

I like a lot of styles but I have to admit I have a soft spot for metal. Sorry, nothing of value to contribute here. :p

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:39 am

How can you not love Hoglan?
By far one of the most talented metal drummers ever.
I mean until I see another drummer play that fast wile preforming a number of widely varying polyrhythms, who can also throw a grove into a song where there is no foreseeable room for a groove, i will always hold him high above most drummers.
I mean his work on SYL's Alien is unreal. He tracked all his parts in an afternoon. Considering the mass complexity of that songs, that is an amazing feet, and a testament to his professionalism.

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:51 am

He's actually local to me these days since he's been with SYL. My bro actually had the priveledge of tracking a practice session with him at the most inopportune time. No gear just what happened to be there using a single omni. Needless to say it didn't sound awesome but it worked for it's purposes.

Yeah. Gene does more with half the drums that other time keepers use.

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:06 pm

His has always been pretty small. Compared to other metal drummers. It got even smaller with SYL where he uses a 5 piece it two crashes a ride and sometimes a china (he uses that more for his DTB work).
And I say good for him. way to show people that you dont need a living room full of drums to be a complex drummer.

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 12:54 pm

Earlier I mentioned some good KD interviews.
Here's one that's pretty in-depth.

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:03 pm

I know that it's hard for you to believe, but you will have the attitude of many of us "old timers" twenty years from now.

First, all of the music you like owes a great deal to the music of the past. You should check out bands like MC5 (Kick out the jams, mother f***ers!), Mountain, Iron Butterfly... I'm sure others could supply many more names. Led Zeppelin had a "huge" drum sound. If you want some raging, angry music try The Who's album "Quadrophenia".

Second, the technology has changed radically over the last 60 years. There was very little overdubbing even in the early 60's, usually just the vocals. There are many Beatles stories about them going into the BBC Studios to record their first albums and all of the engineers actually wore white lab coats - audio recording was science only, not art.

In the post WWII era the holy grail of audio engineers was to capture performances as exactly as possible; the idea was that what you heard coming out of your speakers was what it would sound like if you were in the same room as the performance.

Magnetic audio tape was introduced to the US after the technology was taken from the Germans in the aftermath of WWII. One of the primary investors in development of this "new" technology was Bing Crosby. He gave one of the first models to Les Paul, who brought forth the concept of multi-track recording. So whether you like it or not, you owe a lot to Bing. And Les gave us the Les Paul Guitar, one of the first viable solid body guitars, and the first tape echo machine.

I could go on about the history of multi-track recording and audio technology, but I will let you research that yourself.

You have to keep your perspective. Many of the toys you take for granted didn't even exist 40 years ago. My first multitrack recordings were made by bouncing between two cheap Radio Shack cassette recorders. An 8 or 16 track analog recorder cost tens of thousands - and you still needed a massive console - many more tens of thousands. EVERYTHING was expensive. I can remember how excited I was when the studio where I recorded went from 8 to 16 tracks. I remember the first Keypex (an early "affordable" gate) being put in the rack. I'll bet that you've never even used analog tape. Maybe one of the others will give you the lowdown on tape saturation.

Well, my client has finally arrived, so I'll sign off now.

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 1:35 pm

At 19 you have learned that there are different genres of musical styles and tastes. So there has to be numerous different ways to record these different varieties. If everything sounded the same, you wouldn't need to purchase but a single record. If people weren't all different, you wouldn't need to make love to anything but a toy vagina. Right now, your toy vagina probably includes five fingers? So maybe you should cut off your hands and purchase the real thing? That wouldn't be very good either, since you wouldn't be able to utilize your fingers. Then, your vaginal partner would think this is a bad recording. You wouldn't be a hit but a Miss especially if you cut off that 11th finger you have below your waist. See? Not wise.

10 fingers
Ms. Remy Ann David

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 2:17 pm

Wow... so much has been said, I don't even know where to begin.

Okay, I'll begin with Remy - just like in the world of audio production and recording, adult toys have come a long way in the past several years. Don't just dismiss the plastic counterparts until you try them.

Just as an interesting tidbit of trivia - in the 50s and 60s, dildos were marketed to women in magazines such as Good Housekeeping and similar but only as vibrating massagers. In most states, it was illegal to advertise sex toys as sex toys.

Okay...back to audio.

Here's my take on the HUGE up-front death metal sound. The reason it's so popular is the same reason I was so in to AC/DC in the early 80s. I had hormones raging and this was some of the hardest, most angst-filled music on the shelves (at least - the hardest my parents would let me listen to...)

In an ever-forward attempt to push the envelope, we've ended up with the scream/speed metal fascination which unfortunately, while engaging to the male adolescent hormone rage, is rewarding to no one. The drums are programmed in most cases or sample replaced or severely over-dubbed (seeing as how in one of your samples, I hear a run of 16ths on the snare, a cymbal hit and two tom hits at the same time...and unless this guy's got a deformity and a couple woodies, that ain't possible).

I've also found that this allows the entrance bar to be lowered for many "so-called musicians." I had the pleasure to work with (and I do mean pleasure as they were great guys!) a band which has recently been signed to a common major death/speed metal label and while these guys were great people, their musical abilities were hmmm....crap. The guitarist knew about 4 chords and 1 dynamic level. The bassist could do single notes only and only if they were part of the major chord structure (no walking bass, no melody). None of the guys could read a chart in any format whatsoever and the drummer literally broke a minimum of 1 Zildjian A every time they performed or recorded.

People love them though.

The "musicians" themselves didn't ever have to take a lesson on their instrument and never did. So many kids nowadays see this and realize - "Hey, I can be a filthy-rich rock star and I don't even have to work." This is what's giving rise to the popularity of the music. Well, this and hormones.

As many others have already commented, getting this over-compressed sound is not challenging (and to those to whom it is a challenge, quit now and sell your crap on craigs list. There are plenty of people looking to buy Shure PG 58s and Behring*** mixers.) and it's not only boring to listen to (in the absence of charged hormones), it's physically dangerous and damaging to ones' hearing.

I have a homework assignment for you (original poster...):
Find a recording of Ravel's Bolero. It should be cheap where ever you find it. Load it into your DAW and put a limiter on it with a threshold of -55dBFS and your output at -.1dBFS and adjust your volume to taste.

If, after this piece, you haven't put a gun in your mouth and ended it all, do the same with Pachelbel's Canon in D.

For the record, the latter of these is the best selling piece of music in all of history. It's boring as hell and annoying to the point that it's spawned over 1000 parodies. However, because of dynamic and (small) rhythmic contrasts, brides everywhere use this as a wedding-day favorite. As for Bolero, we all know what Bo Derek likes to do to it (and that's enough for me too!)

Why, after 100-200 years are these pieces still popular? Because of variation, dynamics, and simplicity. (Speaking of simplicity... Does anyone know the game which has sold more than any other game in history??)

This is why bands that incorporate simplicity, dynamics and reality into their music will have staying power and why Britney Spears and death metal groups will be remembered only by a few die hards and their memory will die with them.

What I'm saying is -

Why is over-compressed, over-limited, over produced shite popular? It's being force-fed to those who know no better (the youth).

Why is this considered music? It feeds the savage beast inside the angst-ridden teen-agers.

You will outgrow this and eventually be able to appreciate the Beatles (even if you don't like them).

So, for now, enjoy the stuff you listen to and understand that your tastes will change and that different people like different things for a reason.

If you don't believe me that tastes will change - here is a list of albums which I previously owned: (artists only in most cases since I thankfully do not remember any more than that):

Michael Bolton
John Secada
Sir Mix-a-Lot
Tiffany

I can't bring myself to type any more. I'm going to go cry in a closet now...

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:06 pm

I really didn't want to post until I got home and gave Abbey Road a new listen...it's been a while.

I don't think that there was a set manner of production back then. There are albums released in that same year that are loved equally as well for the production values but have a drastically different sound...one you may like compared to Abbey Road...Led Zeppelin II, Tommy, Ummagumma, etc.

I don't think the Today vs Yesterday comparison is valid. It seems to me it's more of a style vs style comparison. Recording styles today may be a bit less diverse (or possibly more diverse) than what they were yesterday but there are still many different ones out there. You can find music that sounds like Abbey Road today.

Dammit...i had to leave my desk and now I've lost my train of thought. Oh well...like Sheryl Crow says, "If it makes you happy, it can't be that bad"...unless it's murder or something like that. Wink

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:13 pm

pr0gr4m wrote:

I don't think the Today vs Yesterday comparison is valid. It seems to me it's more of a style vs style comparison. Recording styles today may be a bit less diverse (or possibly more diverse) than what they were yesterday but there are still many different ones out there.

I think that the comparison is very valid.

Back when I was first getting into rock there were no defined fan groups as there are today. I loved ELP, Yes, Genesis and many other prog bands, but I also dug Led Zep, the Who and Tull as well. I liked Joni Mitchell, James Taylor and Jim Croce. And dozens of other very diverse artists and styles. The genre of the music didn't matter, only if the music reached me or not. I didn't even get caught up in the rock vs. disco furor. Most of my friends were the same way.

The difference between then and now is the quality of the musicianship and the willingness to experiment. Most current "musicians" rely much to heavily on technology (it's been a LONG time since I've heard anything tracked all the way through) and follow the "formula" of their style/genre to the T. I haven't heard much that really excited me since Nirvana. I like Green Day - good solid pop writing - Tool is pretty good and Creed isn't bad at all.

Today, you are vilified if you like music outside of your chosen genre. My daughter lost a friend because she listened to music other than the current hard pop stuff (Green Day, etc.). I'm actually very proud of my daughter; her 16th B'day was last week, and she raided my collection heavily when compiling her mix CDs to play at the party.

pr0gr4m wrote:

You can find music that sounds like Abbey Road today.

Yeah, but on the same album?

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:04 pm

UncleBob58 wrote:

I think that the comparison is very valid.

On it's own it is valid but I don't think it's valid as it pertains to the original post. I think the thread got away from that a bit. Production values were different in the past but in relation to the question posed, I don't think the problem was the production...Instead I think it was more of a style thing. That's all I really meant.

BTW - ELP, Yes, Genesis...3 of my top five. Very Happy

Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 10:06 pm

OR....
I'm sort of with Clowd to the extent that Abbey Road is not powerful compared to what he's listening to at the moment.
Maybe powerful is not the right word.
Abbey Road IS powerful, Maybe it's not AGGRESSIVE.
BUT...
At the time that Abbey Road came out, that was the best The Beatles ever sounded. Pretty much everything before that pales by comparison. (audio wise) So we were all very excited to actually hear these guys play with such clarity.

NOW....
that was 40 years ago!! AND 8 TRACKS!! With all the progress in technology we can make more powerful/aggressive recordings for sure, But if you were to re-record any of those songs from the Abbey Road album, I don't think you'll get that much of a better sound.
Which either means that in 40 years we've not advanced as much as we think,- Or, 40 years ago they just got it right.

- Yet another analogy-
We can make some pretty awesome movies these days with Special fx etc. But it you go back and look at some old classic B&W movies, (Cassablanca etc) The clarity and lighting is absolutely stunning. Yes, it's somewhat bland compared to todays blockbusters, but compare that to something like Shindlers List and the quality isn't that much different.
What does that say for roughly 60 years of movie progress?

Now do you start to see?

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:01 pm

I don´t remember if Kurt Cobain said this or the Sex Pistols or whoever, but I always thought this was a great frase: "God lives in the TV".
I totally get what Clowd says, I was stuck in that shell for quite a while. The only way to break free is to listen to a whole lot of music, from every age, outdated back to the 50s if you can, and really LISTEN to what was recorded, thinking about how they did it and what were they trying to express in that moment. Then listen to the emo-screamo-metal-post harcore-post punk-whatever they call themselves- bands just for a bit, hear those drums, go to your closest guitar center and try out a gretsch catalina or a pdp drumkit (that´s what´s mostly sold) and compare. What new band´s drumkit sounds like the one you tried in Guitar center?, you´ll see that the answer is NONE.
Today´s trends is to trigger, replace and overeq-compress EVERYTHING, including guitars and vocals. So nothing sounds real anymore, those outdated recordings (specially in the 80s and early 90s) sound like great live performances, ´cause that´s what producers looked for those days.
Today where one step away from killing acoustic micing and analog synth in everything, maybe tomorrow´s bands will only play with ezdrummer, reason and guitar rig and that´ll be the trend.
I totally cured myself with Nirvana´s In Utero album. I hated it at first, then I started to imagine what they were looking for at the time and I realized that it was Kurt´s way of making HIS art, whatever went on in HIS mind and soul, and it was a masterpiece, one of the greatest albums ever made, just like the old Bob Marley recordings or The Cure´s or the Black Album.
Music and recording is a form of art. Today´s trends take the art out of music.
And that brings me back to the frase "God lives in the TV", as long as the media only shows overcompressed and unreal emoshit and hip hop, the trend will stay and many other folks will stay Clouded like Clowd. Save yourselves from today´s trends while you can, get away from Mesa Boogie sounds just for a bit and listen to a Marshall JC900 4100 model just for a bit, or a tube Soldano. Get away froms ezdrummer and listen to a DW Collectors Series for just a sec, Put away your Ibanez, LTD or Schecter crap and take a Gibson Les Paul Custom and listen to a great guitar sound. You´ll learn a bunch that way.

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 1:43 pm

Quote:

Today´s trends take the art out of music.

+1

This topic sponsored by: