# The (Sorry?) State of the Art



## Lester B. Flat (Feb 21, 2006)

Here's a great in-depth article you must read on the radio/recording industry. Shocking!

http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/content/why-records-do-all-sound-same


----------



## Geek (Jun 5, 2007)

For the last year, I've been replacing my CD collection with vinyl. It just sounds so much cleaner :smile:

Now there's proof!


----------



## NB-SK (Jul 28, 2007)

"It was a spectacular hit, number one in Panama, Croatia, Cyprus, South Korea and Hungary and many larger countries."

Not in Korea. The only songs that make it to number one here are Korean ones, the Korean pop idol industry makes sure that it stays that way (and it too often becomes painfully obvious that a Korean pop group has received the help of 'Auto Tune' in the studio when you hear them live on TV). Maybe it was a number one among the English song charts.


----------



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

interesting summation of the problem. thanks for the link.


----------



## RIFF WRATH (Jan 22, 2007)

huh, and I thought I was loosing my hearing, you know, an age thing.
certainly no riff's like there used to be. maybe we should put a ban on all mixing boards, and go back to huge stacks and raw amps......and lots of roadies....lol
interesting article, thanks
RIFF


----------



## Accept2 (Jan 1, 2006)

Im gonna have to disagree, you guys are just getting old...........


----------



## Edutainment (Jan 29, 2008)

Post has been deleted 'cause it was too awesome.


----------



## bobb (Jan 4, 2007)

A quote from the article says it all in my opinion:



> As hi-fi systems are abandoned for earbuds and mobile phones, there will be no reason to make nice-sounding records.


----------



## bscott (Mar 3, 2008)

Interesting thread. I have been playing Hendrix, Floyd and all the other great stereo users of the sixties. She is amazed at the stereo mix used by these artists. Nobody mixes stereo anymore. It all sounds the same coming out of the two, or more speakers.
I remeber listening to Hendrix on headphones and having the guitar start on one side and then slide completely to the other. It was the most amazing thing I had ever heard. I thought somebody had pulled my brain out through the ear holes. 
And then there was the qudarphonic failure. Too bad because true four channel mixing had some truly interesting mixing possibilities. Can you imagine dark Side of the Moon mixed on four separate channels??!!!!! Talk about an experience.
Listen to the newest Ben Harper CD. Done in a week wiht NO Pro Tools. What you hear on the record is what you get live. That guy I would pay to hear. I REALLY DISLIKE going to a show and having the show be a lame imitation of a CD. Shows some still need to work on their musicianship when they cannot translate what they do in the studio to live setting. Much to much electrickery.
Thanks for reading my rant!!

Brian


----------



## suttree (Aug 17, 2007)

bscott (and anyone else, of course), you should try playing with the stereo mixes on beatles albums, especially rubber soul on. they do flat our WEIRD things (like, drums and vocals hard left, everything else hard right). sounds great of course, sir george martin's one of the big geniuses of the industry. definitely not what's being done today. 

i think there is a lively market for quality music in this world. as quality recording gets cheaper and cheaper, there is reason to hope, in all this current mess. the trick is to make quality music.


----------



## bscott (Mar 3, 2008)

I had totally forgotten about Beatles mixes. You are right of course. Now that you reminded me, I remeber listening to some early stereo records, The Human Beinz, on a mono player and only being able to hear parts of the music. Quickly upgraded to a stereo player.

Brian


----------



## Lester B. Flat (Feb 21, 2006)

suttree said:


> bscott (and anyone else, of course), you should try playing with the stereo mixes on beatles albums, especially rubber soul on. they do flat our WEIRD things (like, drums and vocals hard left, everything else hard right). sounds great of course, sir george martin's one of the big geniuses of the industry. definitely not what's being done today.


I think they were pretty limited with the stereo mixes of the early Beatles records because they were originally mono releases and they only had 4 tracks to work with. The later stereo versions were afterthoughts. John Lennon hated the stereo version of Sgt. Pepper because it was originally produced to sound good in mono. I think the White Album was their first mixed for stereo release.

The first stereo album that made me sit up and take notice was Led Zepplin II. That was pretty advanced for 1969.


----------



## Spikezone (Feb 2, 2006)

My favourite quote of the article:
“There’s no big equipment any more,” says John Leckie. “No racks of gear with flashing lights and big knobs. The reason I got into studio engineering was that it was the closest thing I could find to getting into a space ship. Now, it isn’t. It’s like going to an accountant."
Great article, and a sad commentary.
-Mikey


----------



## Spikezone (Feb 2, 2006)

Paul said:


> Sure the old technolgy is cool, and there is a great deal of craftsmanship required, but who really want's to go back to the days of two 4 track machines sync'd with a 50 cycle tone, or razorblade window editing on 1" tape?
> 
> The tools have changed, the craft has evolved, but the _ART_ is what still matters. Sadly, art is often lost in the accountants office.


Yeah, but you don't have to go as far back as 2 sync'd up 4 tracks. That's not what the article is saying. A 16 track and some outboard fx should be sufficient for most groups to cut a decent album, but we need and have at our disposal (thanks to our PC's or Macs) the equipment for overkilling, triple-tracking, and processing to oblivion, which is all possible today, and is it really better? I record on a Boss BR900-CD (admittedly digital, but 8 tracks in a simpler form with the capability of burning a CD at the end of it all), and am happy enough with the results I get. I record in too much of a hurry to get the performance details perfect, but if I was serious about getting my music presentable, I would much rather fix it by rerecording it and paying more attention to getting my performance right than fixing it with ProTools.
-Mikey


----------



## Lester B. Flat (Feb 21, 2006)

Paul said:


> The analogy I see is between The Woodwrights Shop, http://www.pbs.org/wws/, and The New Yankee Workshop, http://www.newyankee.com/index.php
> 
> Sure the old technolgy is cool, and there is a great deal of craftsmanship required, but who really want's to go back to the days of two 4 track machines sync'd with a 50 cycle tone, or razorblade window editing on 1" tape?
> 
> The tools have changed, the craft has evolved, but the _ART_ is what still matters. Sadly, art is often lost in the accountants office.


I agree. ProTools is a great replacement for tape recording/editing but not a good replacement for miking techniques, creative ingenuity, competent performance, or actual musicians and instruments.

New technology always gets abused at first. Of course, televsion still continues to be used primarily for mindless entertainment and selling toothpaste!


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Spikezone said:


> ...if I was serious about getting my music presentable, I would much rather fix it by rerecording it and paying more attention to getting my performance right than fixing it with ProTools.
> -Mikey



...hear! hear!

-dh


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

suttree said:


> bscott (and anyone else, of course), you should try playing with the stereo mixes on beatles albums, especially rubber soul on. they do flat our WEIRD things (like, drums and vocals hard left, everything else hard right).



...you REALLY notice this kind of thing when you are in someone's home or shop where they only have one channel hooked up, for whatever reason........basic cluelessness, usually...ESPECIALLY in night clubs...hello???

-dh


----------



## faracaster (Mar 9, 2006)

Thanks for posting. 
Being in the middle of recording a CD, it strikes home for me. Of course I'm not playing "professionally". We are not trying to "make it" or "break out". We are not signed to any label and the only money behind us is our disposable income from our day jobs and our few gigs. So the pressure is off to produce for the industry. However I do want to make a really good CD that when played beside others, has no discernable sonic shortcomings. Starting with a judious song editing process and following through to as good and contemporary sounding a CD as possible. 
Given my age (52) there is nothing more than I'd love to do than to get in a great sounding room and have choice of mics, placement of them and a specific engineer's talent all contribute to the sonic signature of our CD. But we are in a converted 2-car garage using Pro Tools. I only see that as a opportunity. Not to make it sound like Studio A at Manta Sound, but to make it sound like a great double car garage. Part of the fabric of the tapestry of sound that will be our CD. 
What I am attemping to do with this CD is to merge two sensibilities. Use technology to assist in getting a sonic fingerprint. That sounds contemporary but sounds like "us".
There is nothing in that article that surprises me (although I didn't know about radio stations putting tunes under the knife) or scares me. It all comes down to.......the artist not having the vision or concern or time to guide their own path. Let someone else mix the album without you in the room. That seems absolutely absurd to me and a bit whoreish. 
I'm not afraid of all this technology and not against it at all. I embrace it's possibilities. I just don't want some one else's vision of what I should sound like.

Pete


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

I gave my vinyl collection away to my brother about eight years ago. I didn't have a functioning turntable and 20% of the vinyl had been either mold or flood damaged. I only listened to music in my car radio or tapes at that time. I wasn't playing at the time and had no interest.

Now, I still wouldn't touch vinyl because I am useless at storing and organizing that stuff. I listen to internet radio or iTunes on the computer (I have a Sony VAIO desktop with a good sound card and half decent speakers). When I load a CD, I put it away in a box. Yes I follow the path of least resistance or the most lazy.

Everything I play is at bedroom volume. If I want loud, and I haven't done this for a while, I'll use my $150 Sennheiser earphones. 

I'm not sure what I've said is directly to do with the original post, but hey,...


----------

