Would sound quality matter as much if the music didn't suck so bad?

[ryst]

There are a lot of people who think that today's music and the future of music is declining because the quality of the actual song writing, arranging, and producing has decreased over the years. Let's say for a moment that this is 100% true. What if everyone in the top 40 as well as the underground/independent scene were all writing really good quality and creative songs. Would the argument between analog vs digital recordings still exist? And if so, to what degree? Still as strong or a little less?

[Lee Flier]

Actually, I think it would be even stronger, because nobody would be blaming the music anymore and the focus would be on the actual differences in sound quality.

 

Great musicians still prefer fine instruments to crappy ones, great engineers still prefer great consoles and mics and outboard to crappy ones. The best prefer the best. So even though I agree that the quality of songwriting, musicianship, arranging and producing has gone way downhill, I think that actually masks a lot of very real problems with audio quality because there are so many other things that can (quite legitimately) be blamed.

[ryst]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Actually, I think it would be even stronger, because nobody would be blaming the music anymore and the focus would be on the actual differences in sound quality.

 

Great musicians still prefer fine instruments to crappy ones, great engineers still prefer great consoles and mics and outboard to crappy ones. The best prefer the best. So even though I agree that the quality of songwriting, musicianship, arranging and producing has gone way downhill, I think that actually masks a lot of very real problems with audio quality because there are so many other things that can (quite legitimately) be blamed.

Ahh...great perspective, Lee!

[Lee Flier]

And of course the flip side of this equation is that a sucky song/performance/arrangement is never going to be anything but that, no matter how great the sound quality is. Therefore nobody would care about great gear or fidelity at all if they were only recording sucky music. It's actually only when the music is good that it really makes a difference.

[Lee Flier]

AND ANOTHER THING ... I think a lot of the "it's all about the music" argument stems from the fact that unfortunately, there aren't enough talented people to keep the world's studios busy. So, if you're a full time engineer, even a really good one, you end up having to record a LOT of stuff that is mediocre at best. VERY few people get to a level where they can pick and choose their projects. So a LOT of the money an engineer makes is from turd polishing - people who can't sing on key, play in time, get through a whole take intact, people who don't change their guitar strings or put new heads on their drums and they sound like crap... people who give no thought to arranging songs and leaving space for stuff to breathe... and it drives you nuts after awhile.

 

So therefore, when you get some actual talent in the room, everything suddenly seems easy. It takes you no time at all to get things sounding great, even if you don't have the greatest gear. So from that perspective it's easy to see how you can develop the attitude of "It's all about the MUSIC! If the music is great the gear doesn't matter!"

 

But if you mostly work with people who ARE very talented, that's when you start noticing whatever sonic deficiencies may exist. In fact even Brucie seems to have gone through this recently... he mentioned that he was recording an exceptionally talented band and that's what REALLY made him miss his Studer. I feel the same way... when I record somebody really great is when I get pissed off if I don't have the best gear at my disposal. If the music ain't that great, I don't care as much... the differences won't matter much.

[KenElevenShadows]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

So therefore, when you get some actual talent in the room, everything suddenly seems easy.

Yup.

 

I keep saying over and over that the worst sounding stuff to come from my studio was the stuff that I worked the hardest on.

 

Great musicians playing great instruments makes it so easy to make a great recording.

[John Sayers]

I think a lot of the "it's all about the music" argument stems from the fact that unfortunately, there aren't enough talented people to keep the world's studios busy.

Lee - the world is full of talented musicians. I can't see why you guys are so down on the music biz - I hear great songs and recordings all the time on my local radio - you guys must be living in the past or under a rock.

 

cheers

john

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by John Sayers:

Lee - the world is full of talented musicians.

I didn't say it wasn't. I personally work with lots of 'em all the time. I only said there aren't enough talented musicians to keep all the studios in the world busy full time, which is a fact!

[theblue1]

I strongly suspect that -- overall -- the quality of playing and writing is still about the same...

 

But I think the quality of A&R, creative dev, etc, have been reduced to lowest common denominator standard practices that mean less and less of the good stuff gets into wide release.

 

 

And, with regard to sonic spit and polish... a POS is always gonna be a POS, no matter how it's polished.

[phaeton]

And, with regard to sonic spit and polish... a POS is always gonna be a POS, no matter how it's polished.

 

But isn't it also true that a truly great song will shineola its way out of the shit?

 

I think someone here said "you can record an awesome song on a $12 tape deck, and it will still be an awesome song"....

 

I'm still reeling about the Standing In The Shadows Of Motown documentary.... 3 tracks, one take, dirt floor, and a bunch of guys that really had their sh*t together....

[2_dup13]

The sound quality would matter more if the music was good.

Today's music crap deserves the sonic crap coming out of Alsihad.

Once in the future the MUSIC will come back, sound engineers, Hit factory and great sound will be there too.

[Billster]

Interesting thought. I'm going to end up a little contrarian here I guess.

 

From a consumer standpoint, I don't think it matters as much. Look at the early Beatles, sonic problems an all caused by the limitations of 1963,4,5 (+ screaming girls you couldn't hear the music over anyway ) NO ONE REALLY CARED. Hey, it was the Beatles, and even if you don't go nuts for it, you recognize the craft of the songs and the talent of the performance.

 

Now, from a technical and musicians standpoint, I want the best quality we can have. When I hear those horrible Hendrix bootlegs of when he was playing the Chitlin' circuit in 1964 before he went to England and made it big, I want to hear the quality so I can decipher the roots of his style. Of course, it's impossible.

 

But in the end, it is about the music. Otherwise bootlegs and Deadheads wouldn't exist. And sometimes the music happens and there is no capture, no tape rolling, nothing. And those are the times you remember most. Kinda like fish stories Remember that one solo at that jam in Joe's basement?...

[2_dup13]

IMO the Beatles featured a great sound, never matched.

Good sound doesn't mean always punch, huge bass and cutting highs

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by phaeton:

But isn't it also true that a truly great song will shineola its way out of the shit?

Sure, up to a point. That doesn't make it OK to make excuses about the recording or pretend that gear is irrelevent or cheap gear is as good as the good stuff... etc.

 

I think someone here said "you can record an awesome song on a $12 tape deck, and it will still be an awesome song"....

I could record my drummer with a $10 Radio Shack mic and he'd sound great, but that doesn't mean he deserves to be stuck getting recorded with a $10 Radio Shack mic. In fact he makes me really motivated to get him into a great analog room so he can sound the way he really ought to.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by theblue1:

I strongly suspect that -- overall -- the quality of playing and writing is still about the same...

 

But I think the quality of A&R, creative dev, etc, have been reduced to lowest common denominator standard practices that mean less and less of the good stuff gets into wide release.

Well this is certainly true.

 

I dunno if the quality is the same or not. There are still a lot of talented folks - maybe as many as there always have been. But it seems there are also a LOT more people than there used to be who don't have basic musical competence and yet seem to be deluded into thinking they can be stars because "the technology can make them sound like stars." In other words there are people going into studios now who wouldn't have even thought to try 20 years ago. And there are also a lot of people who open "studios" now and call themselves "engineers" because they have a computer and Pro Tools. So the talent pool has become somewhat diluted.

 

I mean, when I was engineering full time in L.A., the bread and butter music in those days was hair metal. So I had to engineer a TON of hair metal bands to pay the bills, and most of them were mediocre at best as far as the songs and all that. But I gotta say in retrospect, although I hated all that at the time and in fact that was what made me decide engineering was not going to be my full time gig, pretty much all of those guys could PLAY. The singers could hit notes, sing dead on harmonies, the musicians could really play. The basic competence was there. Most engineers I talk to now who still do it full time, say it isn't.

[TheSoundman]

I think we've all heard examples of good musicianship combined with good recording techniques (Pink Floyd comes to mind) and examples of poor musicianship combined with good production and good recording, and access to a wide variety of expensive equipment. (insert the name of your least favorite pop artist here) I think there are good songwriters and good musicians that are just not heard on mainstream outlets. You have to find them, and sometimes you have to listen to them with an ear that can see past the budget recording equipment, crummy production and "who the hell are these guys" attitude that most people have about bands that don't get airplay on your local corporate owned radio station.

[Lee Flier]

Oh definitely. There are a ton of great indie people out there. It just sucks that they are all so short of resources that they have to make mostly crappy recordings.

[John Sayers]

You don't have to be a great musician to play pop music. I've known lots of average musicians who were in major pop bands - just the other day I was watching the making of Dark Side of the Moon and the keyboard player is still just an average keyboard player technically - but he did write some neat songs and chord sequences!! That's what pop is about - innovation and songs, musicianship really doesn't matter. George Harrison wasn't a great guitar player technically but his solos have survived decades.

 

Lee - I owned a studio through the mid 70s - I've never owned one since because, like you, I found myself recording people I didn't want to record just to pay the bills - unfortunately that's what owning a studio is all about IMO.

 

There are just too many studios. Most of the major studios I've known were set up by rich kids wanting to get a foot in the door to the music industry and hang with pop stars. Others are as you say - some kid with a Mackie 8 buss and a puter. The other group of studios are those built by a successful artist who wants access to their own studio but are prepared to hire it out occasionally to deserving friends and acquaintances. Please understand - I'm talking about "music" studios only, not those that do commercials and TV/film post etc.

 

The home studio is the current trend - the top three country producers in Sydney all have their own home studios and these are not for hire without them producing. The majority of the studios I design are for personal home studios - its affordable today.

 

 

Cheers

john

[TheSoundman]

I doan thin so loosey... but then I tend to enjoy listening to crappy recordings. I enjoy listening to good recordings as well but like the man said, a well polished turd is still a turd.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by John Sayers:

You don't have to be a great musician to play pop music.

Actually you do - you have to be a great pop musician.

 

I couldn't agree more that you don't have to be technically great, and in fact sometimes technical ability even gets in the way. But you do have to be able to play a simple part well, know what fits the song, what sounds good tonally, and be able to execute the part when you have to, with passion and conviction! That IMO is great musicianship, and there are a lot of people around now who can't do that.

 

Lee - I owned a studio through the mid 70s - I've never owned one since because, like you, I found myself recording people I didn't want to record just to pay the bills - unfortunately that's what owning a studio is all about IMO.

 

There are just too many studios.

Yep. That was my point, and I think that's why there are so many cynical engineers, as well as many who can't really appreciate great gear because they don't get many great clients to record.

 

I was a lot happier once I decided to quit doing the full time gig and do something else for a living. That way I could ONLY take on projects I really wanted to work on, and not have to worry about the bills being paid. I just don't work with anybody that I think sucks - it's a waste of everybody's time. I go out of my way to seek out bands I really want to work with. And if it's somebody really talented like that, well then I don't want to be stuck recording them with crappy gear!

[theblue1]

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

Originally posted by theblue1:

I strongly suspect that -- overall -- the quality of playing and writing is still about the same...

 

But I think the quality of A&R, creative dev, etc, have been reduced to lowest common denominator standard practices that mean less and less of the good stuff gets into wide release.

Well this is certainly true.

 

I dunno if the quality is the same or not. There are still a lot of talented folks - maybe as many as there always have been. But it seems there are also a LOT more people than there used to be who don't have basic musical competence and yet seem to be deluded into thinking they can be stars because "the technology can make them sound like stars." In other words there are people going into studios now who wouldn't have even thought to try 20 years ago. And there are also a lot of people who open "studios" now and call themselves "engineers" because they have a computer and Pro Tools. So the talent pool has become somewhat diluted.

 

I mean, when I was engineering full time in L.A., the bread and butter music in those days was hair metal. So I had to engineer a TON of hair metal bands to pay the bills, and most of them were mediocre at best as far as the songs and all that. But I gotta say in retrospect, although I hated all that at the time and in fact that was what made me decide engineering was not going to be my full time gig, pretty much all of those guys could PLAY. The singers could hit notes, sing dead on harmonies, the musicians could really play. The basic competence was there. Most engineers I talk to now who still do it full time, say it isn't.

I should know better than to try to out argue you, here or anywhere, but I can't help but think you're making my case for me, talking about those metal guys who could really play.

 

In a way, I think it's far drearier seeing people who could be putting their skills and talents to use making interesting and/or passionate music instead putting on skin-tight clown suits and parading around like sideshow freaks, making banal, regurgitive formula pop. (Not to, you know, put to fine a point on it.)

 

Instead, give me a crummy garage studio with some radio shack mics and a bunch of kids who can barely play five chords but who love music and have something to say. Anyday.

 

[Lee Flier]

Well, me too, blue1! I'm with you all the way, believe me. You could've heard me bitch all day long in those days about how those metal guys were all a bunch of wankers who didn't care about anything but money and ego, and it was true! But, what if what mostly comes through the door is a bunch of kids who can barely play five chords AND they have nothing to say and don't seem to give a damn about music? Basically with the same attitude of "I'm gonna be a star because I want the chicks and drugs" that the metal guys had, except they can't even play. And they don't care that they can't play because "the engineer will fix it in Pro Tools." That's what a lot of engineers are having to deal with these days.

[theblue1]

So... all the charming attitude of spandex metal dudes and all the prowess and discipline of the spoiled kids down the block...? You do have a way of painting a picture.

 

 

[Dennyf]

Originally posted by ryst:

There are a lot of people who think that today's music and the future of music is declining because the quality of the actual song writing, arranging, and producing has decreased over the years. Let's say for a moment that this is 100% true. What if everyone in the top 40 as well as the underground/independent scene were all writing really good quality and creative songs. Would the argument between analog vs digital recordings still exist? And if so, to what degree? Still as strong or a little less?

Although I find it annoying when people totally ignore intervening posts, that's just what I'm gonna do, 'cuz I don't have a gig and I'm having a Foster's night.

 

Anyhoo, re: digital v. analog, if your song is worth a shit, the recording method is totally a NON-ISSUE! Comprende? Good.

 

Now, as to the earlier stipulations of your query, well, it's always been my opinion that all nostalgia is the result of our perception that what survives as "good" is representative of everything that was around in its historical context, and that is patently not the case. There was just as much garbage in the pop culture then as now, and only time will tell us what might not stink now. The only concession I might make with regard to things being a little different now is that businessmen are possibly more cognizant of popular music as a revenue generator, as opposed to impressarios of the past, and are therefore now engaged in the capitalist passtime of cutting the quality as much as is consistent with achieving maximum market penetration, and thereby possibly, and I emphasize POSSIBLY rendering contemporary offerings slightly inferior overall, but in a broader view, I doubt it.

 

Frankly (and I admit, somewhat radically), I think what is happening is that the brass-ring, one-hit, lotto-jackpot paradigm of success as a musician is finally passing into a much-deserved oblivion, and we, as pop-culture commodity suppliers are gonna have to look to PERFORMING as our primary outlet. I'd rather go out, gig, and make 75% on my venue CD sales than make 1/2 of one percent on my "label" sales (after recoupables). Wouldn't you?

 

The Idea (cap intentional) that all you need is ONE HIT is kinda repulsive to me. I mean, c'mon, are you an artist if you only have ONE GOOD SONG in ya? This is kinda why I'm not entirely in favor of current intellectual-property laws. Seems like they were all written by people who wanna cash in on a happy accident rather than on an innate ability.

 

Oh well, I'm probably wandering too far afield with regard to the thread, so I'll shuddup now. . . .

[John Sayers]

You nailed it Dennyf

 

You know - I think we have a nostagia for a revolution - which the 60s and 70s were. Our pop artists sang songs of revolution against the war in vietnam and we've grown up expecting it to continue, especially today - unfortunately today pop is pure entertainment - the circus.

 

cheers

john

[Lee Flier]

Personally John, I really don't mind pop that is pure entertainment. It's what people find entertaining that often disturbs me.

[John Sayers]

I suppose that's my point

 

cheers

john

[Brittanylips]

There's something off about the premise of the question. And I'm not talking about whether music sucks or not (some always does, some is always great). The question is forcing a link between audio production and music creation that doesn't really exist.

 

I'm not sure how to articulate what I'm trying to say but I'll try.

 

It's sort of like asking "would album covers matter as much if the music didn't suck?"

 

The question presupposes a stronger link than actually exists.

 

The same is true about audio. Audio engineering, as much as everything Lee says is true about it (great musicians prefer great instruments and great audio production), is so subserviant to the underlying music, that the question raises the importance of audio production to levels that it doesn't actually warrant.

 

But that's OK! That doesn't take anything away from the accomplishment of engineering and production.

 

In reality, music is good or bad on its own, and seeks the best audio production it can find, just like it seeks the best album covers it can find.

 

This constant drive to link audio production to musical values reminds me of King Lear: "Methinks the lady doth protest too much."

 

You know what? Music is about music! And all the things that service it, from album covers to audio production are but its servants, and the constant drive to defend the relationship, as if the servants embody the qualities of the king that they serve is almost a defensive pathology of the field, like professional penis envy.

 

Just stick the damn microphone in front of them and let 'em play without having to defend a perception of lesser status.

 

Maybe I'll think of some better way to express this later.

 

-Peace, Love, and Brittanylips

[Lee Flier]

Interesting thoughts b-Lips. I think you're right insofar as great music doesn't have to have great production/audio quality to be great on its own, and vice versa. But I think the context of the original question was a response to the oft-repeated maxim that "it's all about the music, and the gear/quality doesn't matter if the music is great." This is a statement you just made yourself in fact. So Nathan's question was a logical extension of that - if this is true, then if all music was great would anybody still care about audio quality? And the answer is, yeah, of course we would.

 

I actually think that the statement "It's all about the music," while true so far as it goes, is these days an attempt to be an apologist for the downhill slide in audio quality. And I think that's really disingenous on an audio forum. After all we're supposed to be engineers, it is specifically supposed to be our job to care about the fidelity of the audio, so for someone to say "I don't like the sound of this compressor vs. that one" and the response to be "Who cares? It's all about the music, man! The public doesn't care, it's all going to end up on their iPod anyway!"... well someone who says that is not someone I would want to hire to be my engineer. Know what I mean?

 

So yes, I think the attempt to link the two (music and audio) is disingenuous to the extent that it allows an engineer to shift all the responsibility to the musicians, and/or the buying public. As both a musician and an engineer, not to mention a lifelong fan of music, I believe that a musician should ALWAYS strive for the best performance, and an engineer should ALWAYS strive for the best audio quality and production. Period. It doesn't even matter if you think only 10 people in the world are going to notice or appreciate the effort you put in. Whatever your role is in the music making process, you should not be the weakest link in the chain. So although I can appreciate the sentiment that the engineer is not important relative to the musician or composer, it's not an excuse for the engineer to slack off and pretend their equipment or techniques are unimportant. And I think this sentiment is being abused that way.

 

On another note, and this is just my personal feeling... one of the reasons I decided to become an engineer in the first place is because I DID see audio as being an important part of the music that I personally wanted to make and hear. Even though they CAN be separated as you say, I see music and audio as a seamless continuum that runs all the way from the writing of a song through the arrangement and performance through the way the recording sounds. It's all part of a "sonic landscape" that I want to create. When I hear a song in my head that I set out to write, I hear that whole landscape, not just the words and/or melody. Therefore it became important for me to learn about audio.

 

Led Zeppelin, for example, wrote some good songs and were all great musicians, but there is no way their records would have been what they are or they would have gotten across artistically to the degree that they did, if it were not for Jimmy Page's production ideas and the actual sounds of the records. I could go on all day with other examples (Radiohead, U2, etc.) but I think Page is a great example of the kind of songwriter/guitarist/producer that I aspired to be when I set out to learn engineering. So I would say that although there doesn't HAVE to be a strong link between music and audio quality, I prefer there to be. There is music I love where the audio quality sucks, and there are some extremely well produced, great sounding recordings of crappy songs, but obviously the goal should be everybody firing on all cylinders! So all this discussion about what matters more, the music or the audio, or whether there's a link between the two, always seems a bit academic to me. I guess it's because of my own perspective that I just described.

[the stranger]

Just as a little side note, I think sometimes audio quality would have the possibility of ruining some albums.

 

The Dead Kennedys come to mind. I just can't picture

any DK release that would have benefited from better

audio quality. The lo-fi quality is part of the appeal.

 

And another example would be Twisted Sister's Under The Blade. The original release of this album is pretty much audio garbage. And at some point they decided to remix and improve the quality of this album. They tracked more guitars, vocals, and did manage to make a major improvement

to the overall quality of the album. And guess what? It sucks. In the process of trying to make it sound better, they killed it.

 

I could list a thousand examples of albums that sound like shit, but rock your ass off. I could list a thousand examples of albums that sound great and rock your ass off. It goes both ways.

 

I agree with Lee that if we aren't striving for excellence in what we do, than why are we doing it?

 

I just think the whole punk/hc movement of the late 70's/early 80's answers the original question. Audio quality didn't matter because the music kicked ass.

But I would also assume that even though most of these bands were working on a DIY basis, I would still assume they were trying to get the best sound they could with what they had to work with.

I think the punk movement cared about quality, the were just willing to accept a lower standard due to their circumstances.

 

Another interesting example is Agent Orange's Living In Darkness. These guys made it a point to say that they were not happy with the results of this album. They wanted a pro-quality sounding album, but weren't allowed any real say (due to a producer with a gun). But my opinion is that if they had been given access to the type of production they wanted, I think the album wouldn't have been the same.

They eventually got he type of production values they wanted, but the later recording just don't have the fire and raw power of that first album.

 

I think a lot of times the quest for quality is directly related to lack of vibe.