I'd like to bring up a subject that I've had rattling around in my head for a long time. I mean 40 years long time. I don't really know why I've never broached it, but I'm going to get into it now.
The main point is encapsulated in the thread title.
Bear with me if some of this seems a rehash of the obvious to you.
Much of modern music is made in a recording studio. It doesn't sound realistic. Realistic in the sense that it conjures up an audible recreation of a live performance. This is not a flaw. It's a positive advantage. It's a degree of artistic freedom that simply wasn't available to previous generations. Even 'live' albums seek to create an artificial 'ambience'. They're often patched together from multiple performances. As such they partake of different mileaux available in different venues. You can't necessarily expect one track to have the same 'sound' as the next.
'Live' recordings, however, are not my principal concern. Very many of the great recordings of the near past were made in the studio. The example that immediately springs to mind is the Beatles, but even decades before them 'multi-tracking', artificial modification of technique (changing speed), echo, reverb and doubtless other effects grew up with advances in electronics. Multiple copies of the same person singing or playing in harmony with themselves is just one of the things we get when we don't cling too rigidly to the idea that things should sound realistic.
"Sergeant Pepper's" is a studio album. It could never have been produced as a live performance. You can't expect it to sound 'real', whatever that is. What you have to do is appreciate the mix, an artform in it's own right, and the overall result.
Now, I know that many people listen almost exclusively to orchestral works, but I feel that that is a great loss, and it speaks to me of a mind mired in the past. One incapable of facing up to the challenges of living in the present. If Beethoven were alive today he would not be scratching spider tracks on ruled paper with a quill. He would be leading the charge, throwing TVs out of his hotel window. I appreciate that this particular example may seem dated to some.
Many classic modern albums employ sounds that never existed anywhere other than in the track of which they become characteristic, and by which the track becomes instantly recognizable.
There is much criticism of modern recording techniques, in particular the levels of compression employed, but my strong feeling is that this is a passing fad. It's unfortunate that it gives ammunition to the clique who would like to insist that the obvious numbers of people listening to MP3 on DAPs are devoid of musical appreciation. This is a bankrupt argument. When computer-generation of music first became possible, it looked for a time as though skilled musicians had forever gone out of fashion, but fashion it turned out to be, and if anything approaches the certainty of death and taxes, it is that fashion will change.
Anyway, disagree with me if you will, I hope that at least somebody reading this will be given cause to pause for thought.
The main point is encapsulated in the thread title.
Bear with me if some of this seems a rehash of the obvious to you.
Much of modern music is made in a recording studio. It doesn't sound realistic. Realistic in the sense that it conjures up an audible recreation of a live performance. This is not a flaw. It's a positive advantage. It's a degree of artistic freedom that simply wasn't available to previous generations. Even 'live' albums seek to create an artificial 'ambience'. They're often patched together from multiple performances. As such they partake of different mileaux available in different venues. You can't necessarily expect one track to have the same 'sound' as the next.
'Live' recordings, however, are not my principal concern. Very many of the great recordings of the near past were made in the studio. The example that immediately springs to mind is the Beatles, but even decades before them 'multi-tracking', artificial modification of technique (changing speed), echo, reverb and doubtless other effects grew up with advances in electronics. Multiple copies of the same person singing or playing in harmony with themselves is just one of the things we get when we don't cling too rigidly to the idea that things should sound realistic.
"Sergeant Pepper's" is a studio album. It could never have been produced as a live performance. You can't expect it to sound 'real', whatever that is. What you have to do is appreciate the mix, an artform in it's own right, and the overall result.
Now, I know that many people listen almost exclusively to orchestral works, but I feel that that is a great loss, and it speaks to me of a mind mired in the past. One incapable of facing up to the challenges of living in the present. If Beethoven were alive today he would not be scratching spider tracks on ruled paper with a quill. He would be leading the charge, throwing TVs out of his hotel window. I appreciate that this particular example may seem dated to some.
Many classic modern albums employ sounds that never existed anywhere other than in the track of which they become characteristic, and by which the track becomes instantly recognizable.
There is much criticism of modern recording techniques, in particular the levels of compression employed, but my strong feeling is that this is a passing fad. It's unfortunate that it gives ammunition to the clique who would like to insist that the obvious numbers of people listening to MP3 on DAPs are devoid of musical appreciation. This is a bankrupt argument. When computer-generation of music first became possible, it looked for a time as though skilled musicians had forever gone out of fashion, but fashion it turned out to be, and if anything approaches the certainty of death and taxes, it is that fashion will change.
Anyway, disagree with me if you will, I hope that at least somebody reading this will be given cause to pause for thought.
Last edited:
