OK Computers....
OK Computers....
Did computers ruin Phil Collins?
Impera littera designata delenda est.
No, Phil Collins ruined Phil Collins.
You don't watch movies, do you?Originally Posted by Scott Bails
^^^
Maybe fodder for another thread but IMO Rick nailed on that one: quantizing and autotune = unmusical dogshit. There could be exceptions such as pure electronic music that was never meant to have conventional feel but that’s my 2 cents.
That is the very essence of the thread. Many of us were probably wondering how the OP would use his question to further his typical agenda. Now we know.
I agree with Beato on a technical level, but for ROCK music, I hardly think autotune and quantization are responsible for "ruining" the genre. To me, the biggest offender in modern rock music is the dreadful compositions that focus on the lowest common musical denominator - the big, hook laden, simplistic chorus. Compared to this, I could give a rats ass about quantizing and autotune. Taking those out of the equation won't save those songs. Heat of the Moment has wild tempo fluctuations (that often get criticized here), but eliminating them won't make that a great song. It's still pop-rock dog food, hardly better than the stuff we criticize for being quantized and autotuned.
By all means, get rid of quantization. Get rid of autotune. But if you think that alone will "save" rock and roll, or the songs that are heavily quantized and autotuned, you're nuts.
Bill
A huge YAY for me and a real nice guy.
Be a loyal plastic robot for a world that doesn't care... Frank Zappa
Well said!That is the very essence of the thread. Many of us were probably wondering how the OP would use his question to further his typical agenda. Now we know.
I agree with Beato on a technical level, but for ROCK music, I hardly think autotune and quantization are responsible for "ruining" the genre. To me, the biggest offender in modern rock music is the dreadful compositions that focus on the lowest common musical denominator - the big, hook laden, simplistic chorus. Compared to this, I could give a rats ass about quantizing and autotune. Taking those out of the equation won't save those songs. Heat of the Moment has wild tempo fluctuations (that often get criticized here), but eliminating them won't make that a great song. It's still pop-rock dog food, hardly better than the stuff we criticize for being quantized and autotuned.
By all means, get rid of quantization. Get rid of autotune. But if you think that alone will "save" rock and roll, or the songs that are heavily quantized and autotuned, you're nuts.
Bill
I do remember doing a lot of studio work in Toronto in the mid eighties to late nineties and there was a thing called The Russian Dragon. It was a device that showed you where the middle of a beat was and then showed if your playing was rushing, or dragging in comparison. In the early days of sequencers, the click track was king and SO much music was recorded sounding stiff and worried as a result of players, whose feels were never brought into question before, slavishly devoted to appeasing the Russian Dragon mindset. That sucked the life out of much recorded music.
What sucks the life out of a lot of music in my ears is the track by track layering way of recording. I hear so much music that sounds like half the players on it are totally unaware of what else is there (which of course is EXACTLY what is happening). My favorite music is the stuff that is done all at once where each part is complicit in the overall sound. Players adjust to their milieu when they are recording as an ensemble and that sound is timeless. I find is so odd that so many producers and composers still think that some sort of mechanical perfection is in fact perfect. On a strictly ideological sense it may be true, but as far as having any legs (or appeal to be heard a second time) let alone having a remote chance of creating a timeless sound, it is seldom true.
Try recording a string section one violin at a time and see how hard it is to get tuning done. Then, do it all in one pass and see how flawlessly the intonation is matched and adjusted in real time in a sub-conscious and consensual way. Choirs are the same. One hundred not so great vocalists become one massive in tune voice when they sing together.
That is the point I think. One sound. One orchestral sound, one band sound, one kit sound....not a lot of component sounds all unaware of each other.
Computers facilitated that for sure, but they only allowed the people who wanted to go that way the opportunity to do so.
Having said that I do admit to recording a LOT of my own music track by track. The Diagramma album V1 is me playing everything and I know Bob Drake does it a lot on his tunes too. I think why his sounds so organic (and I would flatter myself and say the same about mine) is that the composer is the performer and all of the parts are already in their heads, PLUS, each take alters slightly to accommodate rogue elements that develop along the way. The fact that the producer is recording the stuff also take a lot of pressure off each part unlike a lot of meticulous music that sounds like the performer is worried they will get the sack if they don't get the part mechanically perfect (think Steely Dan or Toto or, ESPECIALLY Uzeb).
I was in band in Ottawa that absolutely slayed live but the recorded albums were stiff and stressy. The composer was happy, but the songs, although probably closer to his vision originally, sounded so much better when they were performed as an ensemble with each player having autonomy over their performance and all the performers melding into a cohesive whole. I actually quit the band as a result and am happily working with them again as they slowly realized I may have a point. The perfect studio albums are interesting to listen to once, but have no legs, whereas videos of the live performances do incredibly well on youtube.
I have records from the the past that were recorded in the studio in one pass. I enjoy then FAR more than the heavily edited, heavily auto-tuned, heavily quantized stuff of today. Going to a session these days is a terrible gig. You play the verse once, the chorus once and then loop it over. I seldom ever hear the song in an entire form, so that particular magic you get when you hit the last chorus after having played the whole tune is absolutely missing.
Yeah... big bravo for Rick Beato!
Please mind that Beato does not claim that the only valid method/format for recording is analogue/vinyl and all worthwhile music ended in the 70s. He focuses on what actually went wrong with (commercial) music production, which hopefully will help you rethink your position.
I mean, I understand your calls for a return to organic unprocessed sound, even if I do not have any problem with finding modern (live) recordings that follow your guidelines. Generally I have rarely cared for studio-(over)doctored music, with or without computers, prog or otherwise, contemporary or archival, and I have never experienced any shortage of organic (live) recordings of all eras and styles.
I know that you would like to have musicians locked again in expensive analogue studios, recording a gazillion of takes and then spending days on cutting&splicing the tapes, to produce a Frankenstein masterpiece like Close to the Edge, but it's highly unlikely to happen again. They'll keep using modern tools instead and all you can count on is that they just don't misuse them.
Last edited by Jay.Dee; 04-16-2019 at 06:00 PM.
Truth be told, agreeing with one small part of an argument doesn't mean you buy the whole argument, which I made perfectly clear. If all you care about is people agreeing with you, or making it appear that way at any cost, then there's no point in discussing it further.
Bill
I think that's fair and I didn't mean to come off as an absolutist which is why I did qualify it. IMO these things are tools that can be used for good or I'll. I also think you're quite right that it is only part of the picture and that pop-rock dog food is just that with or without the technology "fixes". Still, if you have a great studio performance executed by human musicians one way to surely diminish it is by apply heavy-handed quantization and autotune and it is a shame when that practice becomes de rigueur.That is the very essence of the thread. Many of us were probably wondering how the OP would use his question to further his typical agenda. Now we know.
I agree with Beato on a technical level, but for ROCK music, I hardly think autotune and quantization are responsible for "ruining" the genre. To me, the biggest offender in modern rock music is the dreadful compositions that focus on the lowest common musical denominator - the big, hook laden, simplistic chorus. Compared to this, I could give a rats ass about quantizing and autotune. Taking those out of the equation won't save those songs. Heat of the Moment has wild tempo fluctuations (that often get criticized here), but eliminating them won't make that a great song. It's still pop-rock dog food, hardly better than the stuff we criticize for being quantized and autotuned.
By all means, get rid of quantization. Get rid of autotune. But if you think that alone will "save" rock and roll, or the songs that are heavily quantized and autotuned, you're nuts.
Bill
fictionmusic made a great point about click tracks and track by track recording. I've had a difficult time following that with my limited experience (I have tempo issues in general) and I can see how slavishly following the click or being "nervously regulated" by such cues can suck the life out of a performance. Of course many great professionals use it to great effect. Again, a tool that can be used for good or ill. YMMV.
Last edited by Buddhabreath; 04-16-2019 at 10:36 AM.
I agree with Beato generally, although like Bill, I doubt very much the computer killed rock. Quiet frankly I don't even agree that rock is dead, it just isn't the average voice of the new generation and that is perfectly fine by me. My daughter LOVES 21 Pilots and BTS. We saw BTS live and there was no band in sight, just a bunch of guys dancing around and lip synching (?) to backing tracks. It was still fun. (LOUD fun, but fun)
I do agree however the computer changed the face of recording and often times, not for the better. My own experiences tend to blame producers (especially keyboard players as producers) as being the big problem!
Back in 1985 or thereabouts the computer-based midi sequencer started to become more and more popular. Concurrent to that drummers became more and more replaceable with the advent of the drum machine. The midi spec meant that the sequencer and the drum machine could now talk to each other. Although there were midi guitars and basses and drums, the most common way to interact with a sequencer was through a midi keyboard. Keyboard players were fine, but often other non-keyboard playing musicians needed to edit their performances to sound usable. Quantizing and editing became common. In the electronic field (as mentioned earlier in this thread) that stiffness worked, but as sequencers became more and more ubiquitous, that heavily quantized midi performance paradigm became more and more mainstream and started to bleed into player's and studio's mindsets.
Studios lost a ton of work to "project studios" which usually were just a keyboard player and a sequencer with some rack gear and analog tape decks (Tascams and Fostex abounded). Then Alesis came out with the adat and digital tape decks became affordable. Soon the average studio was being run by keyboard player guys who came up via the sequencer route used to quantized performances, rigid tempos and having very little facility to record a whole band playing at once. Track by track recording with a bevy of watchers became the standard. Keyboards were the easiest way to capture any non-vocal performance (guitars got a pass, but I have seen so many keyboard players doing bass-lines and idiot drum performances I still shudder). Want a banjo? I have a GREAT secret banjo sample library. Soon producers were these keyboard players with samplers, controllers and boutique sample libraries.
Pro-tools was the industry answer to that whole project studio problem and producers who were used to having ears-only production skills dealing with analog gear (Studers and SSLs etc), soon became dinosaurs as the keyboard players and their sequencer paradigm infiltrated the industry and quickly became the standard. I worked with engineer-producer John Punter (UK, Nazareth etc) for a long time and watched his golden ears and immaculate time sense get pushed aside by kids who could run computer sequencers and Pro-Tools. I saw first hand how eyes displaced ears. John decided to quit the industry entirely as these keyboard kids became the standard.
Eventually analog faded out and digital was in and the guys who ran it were keyboard players who rose to ascendancy via the sequencer and the midi spec.
Of course the old paradigm of recording didn't essentially change; there are still lots of producers like Rudy Van Gelder who just recorded live bands (or sub-sets thereof) and treated the gear like a glorified tape deck with FAR more editing options, but there was also the other side where status was fused with youth and familiarity with midi sequencing and the keyboard ability of the operator.
That mindset still prevails, especially since most of the purveyors have grown up listening to auto-tuned, sequenced, quantized and otherwise heavily fucked over music since day one.
Last edited by fictionmusic; 04-16-2019 at 02:31 PM.
Well, despite my last post I hardly agree with THAT. Computers are simply tools and are fundamentally no different then tape decks. I have recorded orchestras for several TV series and the whole issue is to capture the spirit of one orchestra live. I used a computer with a ton of mics, pre-amps and DA devices strapped to it. The computer was just a glorified tape deck for all intents and purposes.
Being TV, the visual component played heavily in edit decision lists and quite often the video editors would edit among various takes. Instead of having to splice tape among 2 track masters (as was the case since day one) it was so much easier using software. The same editing paradigm was in place though, as live to 2 track recordings have always been edited. Look at ANY classical recording from ANY era and you'll see an music editor's name on there somewhere. Recording has always been about putting one's best performance foot forward. I don't have issues with the gear or the need to have it perfect, I just disagree on what makes it perfect. Quantising, auto-tuning, stress and heavy handed production are what ruins any recording to my ears.
Pop music (especially country music) is rife with that sound but the process of altering a performance in post has always been there and has been done across the board since day one.
Last edited by fictionmusic; 04-16-2019 at 02:38 PM.
That will never happen.
Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally
Yep.That is the very essence of the thread. Many of us were probably wondering how the OP would use his question to further his typical agenda. Now we know.
Yep.
It's distressingly one-note, and tiresome on top of that. Oh well!
Skullhead would convince you guys if he'd post a bunch of YouTube videos and Bandcamp links.
A fellow musician I know, whose partner plays in a philharmonic orchestra, told me how they record the repertory nowadays. Section by section, never playing a segment longer than half a minute, usually less than 10 seconds. I wonder if they did that before the digital age.
Another folk (world music) singer I befriended has confessed that whenever she records a new material they auto-tune her (strong) voice, not because there are any issues with her vocal performances, but just to make it palpable to modern audience.
Another friend of mine knows a producer whose principal daily job is quantising and auto-tuning the material recorded by metal bands, big and small. He claims that there is no such thing as unprocessed metal album these days. At least he does not know any band that would decline/not ask to "improve" their sound on the console.
The music doctoring is rife indeed and the technology keeps giving producers more and more powerful tools, but nobody really forces anyone into listening to any over-engineered studio productions. I largely stick to unprocessed or lightly processed live recordings (when it comes to mainstream rock/jazz-related music at least) and I very rarely find any issues with the production. Pick what you like and ignore what you don't; isn't it simple?
Last edited by Jay.Dee; 04-17-2019 at 05:22 AM.
Now, I wonder, whether the thread starter would also stand behind the statement in this Beato video, where the claim is that one can not distinguish reliably between 320 kb/s mp3s and 24bit 44.1 KHz WAV files, therefore he (Beato) only offers his music in the compressed format.
Therein is also a blind-fold (ish) test where a young musician lady with perfect pitch is asked to pick musical examples that are in various mp3 qualities and uncompressed. Apparently she can't pick them out all the time, only 4 out of 6, so a 66% success ratio. This for him proves the point that the differences are too small in reality.
I have to add the snippets were really short, which is rarely helpful in focusing.
He also mentions the advanced age of most world class(as in successful) sound and mixing engineers and their therefore strongly reduced hearing range as a factor, in how lossless audio is not a relevant issue anymore.
<Now I have to say that while youth is certainly a big factor in the capability to hear a large frequency range, especially toward the treble end of the spectrum, perfect pitch doesn't come into play very much. Several people in my family had absolute pitch and were professional musicians and conservatory teachers in classical and jazz, and their ability to distinguish timbral quality were not particularly impressive. It wasn't very important to them, either. I could trick them with all kinds of test, e.g. whether this or that performance was done with a real instrument or a sample library>
But in my experience, there are certainly genres and production styles of music, where mp3s are definitely not good enough, especially in the case of viciously loudness-compressed stuff, the final mp3 processing makes everything somehow collapse and smear and it's no longer enjoyable or even bearable to listen to. Which is a pity when you actually like the musical fundament...
I'm pretty confident that one would get a better than 66% ratio in discerning FLAC/WAV from MP3 in these cases.
Sorry for this lengthy excourse, I just wanted to point out, that while a lot of Rick Beato's videos are very informative and inspiring – therefore a 'yay' from me, too – there are indeed examples (and maybe there's more, as he makes so many of them), where his self-assurance is maybe blocking him from a more balanced and informed viewpoint...
τί ἐστιν ὃ μίαν ἔχον φωνὴν τετράπουν καὶ δίπουν καὶ τρίπουν γίνεται;
εἰσί κασίγνηται δισσαὶ, ὠν ἡ μία τίκτει
τὴν ἑτέραν αὐτὴ δέ τεκοῦσ` ὑπό τὴσδη τεκνούται
τίς δὲ κασίγνηται δύο;
Computers can't destroy Prog. But computers already destroyed mainstream imo.
If I were him, I'd deny that vociferously.
"Dear Penthouse Forum..."
Hurtleturtled Out of Heaven - an electronic music composition, on CD and vinyl
https://michaelpdawson.bandcamp.com
http://www.waysidemusic.com/Music-Pr...MCD-spc-7.aspx
His restraining order against you confirms that.
Brian Dennehy: "I'm now 80 and I'm just another actor and that's fine with me. I've had a hell of a ride," ... "I have a nice house. I haven't got a palace, a mansion, but a pretty nice, comfortable home. I've raised a bunch of kids and sent them all to school, and they're all doing well. All the people that are close to me are reasonably healthy and happy. Listen, that's as much as anybody can hope for in life."
You're Jon Anderson, aren't you?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks