what do people like so much about the Abbey Road kick sound? or the entire recording for that matter.

Maybe it's because I'm young (19) but I just don't get it. I listen to it and to me it just sounds so.... weak.

No, it sounds REAL.

Eventually you'll get it.

dhassay wrote: i vote for the D6 from audix.

yuck, i hate my d6. anyone want to buy it?

the d6 doesnt let you do anything with it. it's ok live because you dont have to do anything for a rock sound. but unusable in the studio.

beta52 is totally sculptable. if you know how they work it's easy to dial-in a good sound real fast ... live or studio

Clowd-

To elaborate on Ben's comments comment: The drum sounds on Abbey Road are more like an unamplified kit. You are used to drums that are individually miced, gated, compressed and then mixed. A very popular sound, but not my favorite. Not all drums have to sound like that. What's more they shouldn't. Note that the vocal performances in all of the songs you put up were very similar. They have to be in order to cut through the dense, uniform sound texture of the instruments. Yes, the instruments are "strong" but they don't leave any room for harmony vocals or any kind of delicacy. The Beatles had two of the best vocalists in rock and a strong third. All could sing harmony and they blended extremely well. The style of drums you hear on Abbey Road suits complex, natural vocals extremely well. While it has gone out of style in Pop music, it (or something like it) is still used by artists Diana Krall, Nora Jones, Allison Krause. It works in that situation.

Thanks Bob.

It's one thing to go for a new or different sound.
It's totally another to mix yet again more Hollywood Records drum sounds.

Bore ring!

What separates Lars from the pack?

How about Bonham?

Or Collins?

Check out the first album by The Cure, and "Marquee Moon" by Television.

Do those drum sounds suck?

If so............. I bite my tongue.......

Yes you are to young.
I am 21, and was rather recently like you. I also did not get it (in full). Not to say I did not like bands from that era, I just did not quite get what was so awful about the new music I was listening to.
Part of it was maturity, part of it was having knowledgeable people explain it to me, and part of it was getting into professional audio, and for the first time actually hearing what really sets them apart. Not just listening to every thing on shitty headphones, or a $200 sony shelf system.

Right now is a particularly bad time to be a new artist. If you get on a major label, chances are your album is going to be produced to sound as close to the best selling product out there. And right now the best selling product is over produced and compressed to all hell.

Unless your album sounds like it was done by Andy Sneap, very few labels will release it (coming from the hard rock/metal area of music). There are plenty of times where albums have been sent back to mix, with a library of what the label wants the drums to sound lie. And all the replacements are done.
Back in the 60's if something was not right, It was re recorded. But it was always a real recording.

TheFraz wrote: Yes you are to young.
I am 21, and was rather recently like you. I also did not get it (in full). Not to say I did not like bands from that era, I just did not quite get what was so awful about the new music I was listening to.
Part of it was maturity, part of it was having knowledgeable people explain it to me, and part of it was getting into professional audio, and for the first time actually hearing what really sets them apart. Not just listening to every thing on shitty headphones, or a $200 sony shelf system.

Right now is a particularly bad time to be a new artist. If you get on a major label, chances are your album is going to be produced to sound as close to the best selling product out there. And right now the best selling product is over produced and compressed to all hell.

Unless your album sounds like it was done by Andy Sneap, very few labels will release it (coming from the hard rock/metal area of music). There are plenty of times where albums have been sent back to mix, with a library of what the label wants the drums to sound lie. And all the replacements are done.
Back in the 60's if something was not right, It was re recorded. But it was always a real recording.

I see what you are saying, and I'm not trying to be ignorant, but I _LIKE_ overproduced and compressed to hell... and apparently a lot of other people do too or else it wouldn't have become the standard to the point where I have grown up with it so much that it has become what I compare myself and other bands to, right?

I don't know. I know I'm just showing my immaturity but I felt the need to get to the bottom of it.

I like when the snare and bass drum sound consistent throughout the song. I understand that it's not as expressive.. but to me, the drums aren't really an emotion-conveying instrument. They are there to keep the groove. I like consistency in general, in fact. Again, perhaps it's not as "expressive", but it has never prevented me from successfully interpreting the emotional impact of a song?

Is that so wrong?

It's not my fault - it's just what I have grown up with and become accustomed to!

Most engineers would much rather listen to a real kit then one that fabricated.
You can still make an acoustic kit sound huge. Just look at the black album. Plus that album sounds incredible large with out it being compressed to shit. In fact that extra bit of power is because its not compressed to shit. It allows the track to have varying degrees of volume. Now the tracks are compressed so that the loudness of the softer parts is just as loud as the harder parts. Which takes away from the true power of the harder parts since there is zero contrast.

The reason why every thing is so compressed is that all the labels want their song to be the loudest heard on the radio. They are under the impression that the louder the song, the more people will like it. Bat fucking crazy? I would say so. the same thin is being done to commercials. You may find your self turning down the volume during them lately.
It has nothing to do with the true preference of listening public, but rather the ignorance of the people trying to sell music.
You are just so god damn used to it since your ears did not have the time to get used to how it used to be.
I would be in the same boat, but a profound love for artist like David Bowie and Deep Purple, I got to the see the other side of it.

When you get your self some high end sound systems you will hear the difference. One sounds great at high volumes, and the other sounds like noise.

If you can't hear the grove in a song like I Want You (She's So Heavy), then there might be some problems.
Sure the sound may not be in your face, but that leaves room for every thing to sound its best. Crank the tune up and listen to the real power of it. Notice how the vocals sit so well on top of the mix and a great deal of dynamic and tonal contrasting is being used. Every instrument can effortlessly be listened to since they are not fighting for their space. They are given the proper amount of room to sit perfectly in the track.

Interesting. I will have to check all that stuff out.

Here's a thought though. What do you think these metal bands would sound like if they were produced in an oldschool way? Don't you think it is actually appropriate for the genre to be produced the way it is?

Perhaps a 4 track recording of a drum set may not suit metal all that great, but this does not mean every thing needs to be sampled and compressed to shit. Once again, listen to the black album. HUGE sounding kit. none of it which was not actually recorded.
You don't have to fallow the status quo to make things sound appropriately heavy. There are plenty of ways to achieve huge sounds. The real shame is that now, no one is given the chance to create something new. Every thing now is just far to cookie cutter. And most people begin to resent that. Well at least the people that value the music they listen to.

Hm. I would call the black album drums pretty average. They may be huge but they still sound "distant"

I guess I just really like dry sounds?

What do you think these metal bands would sound like if they were produced in an oldschool way?

Geez, I dunno...

Let's see.

Iron Maiden
Judas Priest
AC/DC
Metallica
Slayer
Anthrax
Black Sabbath
Dio
Quiet Riot
Megadeth
Twisted Sister
Death
Venom
King Diamond
Mercyful Fate
???

Who knows what the newbies might sound like....?

BTW Clowd, I think you're confusing 'Huge' (i.e. Bonham, Moon, Mason) with 'Brickwall Limited' (i.e. Band Du Jour).

A common misconception.

Just a thought...

bent wrote: BTW Clowd, I think you're confusing 'Huge' (i.e. Bonham, Moon, Mason) with 'Brickwall Limited' (i.e. Band Du Jour).

A common misconception.

Just a thought...

I think you are right, but, it's to the point where I wouldn't call any of those sounds huge. They sound outdated to me.

What would you call huge?

Here's another one of my favorites for production all across the board. I would call this huge.-

[youtube:ab34ece469]http://www.youtube…]

and oh my god, this has to be one of my favorite kick drum sounds ever. That one at the very beginning of the song. Pure hugeness. -

[youtube:ab34ece469]http://www.youtube…]

also, here's a metal-ish band that has a little different production than the norm, I really like this actually (Although again, it's not something I would use for my own band)

http://www.myspace.com/oddproject

this, too, is a little bit less clean/overproduced/whatever-

http://www.myspace.com/calicosystem (Gasoline or Rising Tide - "They Live" is another example of clean heavy hugeness, IMO.)

Clowd....You're only referring to a small amount of the musical industry and pretty much simply stating your case along preferential likes.

Its great that you embrace a certain kind of music. We all have preferences. But youre comparing apples to oranges.

While we could all continue to discuss our own preferences for style and type of music, its a dead-end street to say one is better or newer, or more this or more that than another.

Until you have spent the time listening to every aspect of every style of music, you cannot be any sort of expert on it. Its good that you are passionate about what you like, but its not all there is.

I like some metal. I've heard a LOT of it...(my son is a very good and fast drummer) but I gotta tell ya....theres such a small amount of difference between one band and another in this particular genre that it gets old fast.

The only really new and exciting stuff is the bands that play with a huge sweep of dynamics. Playing all out at 165 beats per minute as loud as you can while screamoing unintelligible lyrics can only be interesting for so long and then it gets repetitive.

At least with most of the old and dated music, One song was distinguishable from another within a few seconds of the beginning.

Its amazing to me to see the fear that comes with perhaps learning about something new. Most think its going to destroy what they already know and love instead of seeing it as a filling up of themselves with more experiences. You never lose what you already have, you just have more to think about and enjoy.

Davedog wrote: Clowd....You're only referring to a small amount of the musical industry and pretty much simply stating your case along preferential likes.

Its great that you embrace a certain kind of music. We all have preferences. But youre comparing apples to oranges.

While we could all continue to discuss our own preferences for style and type of music, its a dead-end street to say one is better or newer, or more this or more that than another.

Until you have spent the time listening to every aspect of every style of music, you cannot be any sort of expert on it. Its good that you are passionate about what you like, but its not all there is.

I like some metal. I've heard a LOT of it...(my son is a very good and fast drummer) but I gotta tell ya....theres such a small amount of difference between one band and another in this particular genre that it gets old fast.

The only really new and exciting stuff is the bands that play with a huge sweep of dynamics. Playing all out at 165 beats per minute as loud as you can while screamoing unintelligible lyrics can only be interesting for so long and then it gets repetitive.

At least with most of the old and dated music, One song was distinguishable from another within a few seconds of the beginning.

Its amazing to me to see the fear that comes with perhaps learning about something new. Most think its going to destroy what they already know and love instead of seeing it as a filling up of themselves with more experiences. You never lose what you already have, you just have more to think about and enjoy.

I like that last bit, totally true.

Anyway, you're right, it is comparing apples to oranges, but I see it here all the time the other way around, people are always shit talking modern production and stuff like its so terrible, and the entire time I have been trying to figure out why, you know? I feel like I'm missing out on something everybody else hears but I don't, haha.

As I was trying to indicate above, my objection is that this type of production is so confining. Once you are in this fast, heavily compressed mode, there are only a limited number of things that work. The vocals have to be screamed. The bass has to be eighth notes. The guitar has to be single notes or double stops. You have to drive - you can't swing. Let's face it, this wasn't ever a very musically complex genre. But bands and producers have converged on a single formula and basically locked themselves into it. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to have narrowed - maybe distilled is a better word - in the 35 years that I have been listening to it. (In recent years not so closely.) I've heard funk distilled to disco, and James Brown distilled to hip hop. And it's easy to track the track the progression of big band jazz to Lawrence Welk big band pop. (Does anyone under 25 know who that is?) Simplification is not always a good thing.

people are always shit talking modern production and stuff like its so terrible,

I'll say this about that.
Most (if not all) of us on this site consider ourselves artists - there is a certain art to mic placement and manipulation of the sounds they capture. Mixing is an art, as is mastering. But, I gotta tell you this - mixing in the style exemplified by the links you posted is EASY. Too easy. Easy to the point that it's just not fun to do. There is no artistic expression conveyed by the producers or engineers on this style of recording.
It's more like painting by numbers. The drums are all in your face, the guitars sound the same from one song to the next, there's almost always pitch correction on the vox, as well as some distorted screams and thin telephone FX in a break. Hell, for a while there nobody was playing solos - thankfully they seem to be coming back in vogue, hopefully dynamic range will follow on guitar solo's heels...

When every individual track is brickwalled in the box, or every drum sound is replaced with samples, mixing becomes simply a matter of panning and rendering. Not much point experimenting with mic placement if you're gonna replace the drums after the fact, kwim? This is not a bash on drum replacement, and I could be wrong about the links you posted - maybe they did not do drum replacement (but every track at some point was more than likely dumped into ProTools if not recorded into the box outright, and brickwalled), but honestly, if you replace or brickwall every drum track you record, what's the point? Where's the art? Where's the heart and soul?

That's what you're missing out on. The heart and soul of the music.

Dang, Bob. You beat me to the punch...

Ben you mentioned Death.
Hope you know your my new hero.

Just a quick point about 'hugeness'.

Back in the day.....when we wanted to make sure a sound was really really punching out, we'd actually measure the excursion of the woofers on the studio monitors at the mixdown. It meant that some air was being moved by the kick and bass........One place I spent time in had Westlakes in the soffitts and they could litterally blow your hair back....

Point. I listen to these kick drum sounds on this type of metal music and I doubt that the sounds you hear most of them using would so much as blow a candle flame around. In order to get ANY definition, there has to be most of the tone and realism scooped out. And rightly so. Without this EQ curve it would be a thick gooey mass of mud.

Kudos to the bands who get this correct in this genre, but theres still no dynamics and the sound is flat and cardboardy at best. I like the musicianship for the most part...it takes some talent to play that fast and accurately for 3 or 4 minutes at a time, and the guitarists have their scales down for the riffing.

I'm like Ben on this. Aint no soul there .....at all.

And 'huge' is John Bonham sitting at the bottom of the stairwell doing 'When The Levee Breaks' with four mics on the kit.

That one always moved the woofers right out to their limit.

TheFraz wrote: Ben you mentioned Death.
Hope you know your my new hero.

And frickin King Diamond/Merciful Fate!!

YES!

8-)

bent wrote: ....But, I gotta tell you this - mixing in the style exemplified by the links you posted is EASY. Too easy...

Well, considering all of the posts around here by people who can't figure out how to do it, I wouldn't call it "easy." Maybe "routine" is the better word. It's the same thing with the musicianship (as Dave said below). I'm a pretty fair bassist, but it would take me weeks in the woodshed to play with the speed and precision required for this stuff. You need some technical chops, but no imagination. No room for it. It can hold your interest while you are getting the chops, but for most of us the interest doesn't stay. (Unless well compensated.)

As everyone has been saying - have fun while it lasts. Just keep your ears open.

sshack wrote: [quote=TheFraz]Ben you mentioned Death.
Hope you know your my new hero.

And frickin King Diamond/Merciful Fate!!

YES!

8-)
I hear both of them dropped much more then Death.
Add to that, Chuck is like a god to me. Has been since I was in high school.
Right now I am blasting some Symbolic right now. Such a great merge between death metal and thrash.

Perhaps this is what Clowd needs to do. get his hands on some old school metal and blare it until he is used to what a real "huge" kit in metal sounds like.
Growing up I was big into the 80's metal. Mainly thrash, and as soon as the metal core genera came to be popular I have had a vendetta against it. Mainly the fact that each new band sounds exactly like the new bands of 5 years ago. Nothing changes. Its just by the numbers. Metal bands used to have a dramatic new sound for each album. listen to Metallica or Megadeth. No two albums sound alike.
Its like we stepped into the 21 first century and went "all metal bands must sound this way or they wont sell". And to met they all sound like they Pantera rip offs (and we all know, regardless of how hard you try to be Pantera, you will never be Pantera).
What really chaps my ass is the great old school metal bands like Sadus or Exodus come out with new albums that sound exactly like the rest of the flock. I mean you listen to the first 2 Sadus albums it it literally sounds like 3 phenomenal musicians set up some mics and pressed record and just played their hearts out. Sure it never sold much, but god damn was it 100% unique and highly inviting

Bob,
Yes, routine. That's a better word.

Slightly OT:
Fraz, sshack,
Glad I can be "a hero" to you guys.

I remember when Death's Scream Bloody Gore album came out - local Central Florida boy hit the big time.
I was right there buying it.
Same with KD's Fatal Portrait album. I wore that one out!
Andy and King did an awesome job on the recent "Puppet Master," and the new one "Give Me Your Soul.. Please" - The Puppet Master was mixed in Kings living room in Texas. There's a few good interviews with him where he talks about that and his reasons for recording the album the way he did.
In my opinion, those albums are shining examples of how good metal can sound today, versus the Hollywood Records style of rehashed brickwalled gunk that seems to be so prevalent on the radio.

Davedog said:

In order to get ANY definition, there has to be most of the tone and realism scooped out. And rightly so. Without this EQ curve it would be a thick gooey mass of mud.

Which is what I was thinking as I read this great thread. Much of this sound (production) is created out of necessity in order to pull off the song. But also, the sound and production is aimed squarely at a target in order to sell the artist to the consumers of such.

Question for those in the know: who was the first band to release music with "cookie monster" vocals?

Clowd, I'm sure at some point a switch will go on and you will begin to make the connection between the sound of a performance and the conveyance of the musical message. This is often, in hindsight, simply called a "formula". (think Mowtown, boy bands, big hair ballads, rap, death metal) If and when you arrive at this point you will begin to appreciate much more different types of music. That will most likely be a watershed event on your engineering/producing career.

Question for those in the know: who was the first band to release music with "cookie monster" vocals?

Duh, the Sesame Street band... :lol:
(sorry, my oldest son is 3)

No, it was Possessed, I think.
Though Venom's Cronos was pretty growly back in '80...

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[="http://www.metaleat…"]Earlier I mentioned some good KD interviews.
Here's one that's pretty in-depth.[/]

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.

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

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...

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. ;)

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?