# Neil Young Angered By 'Sound Of Music Today'



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

*Neil Young Angered By 'Sound Of Music Today'
**'We're in the 21st century and we have the worst sound that we've ever had,' Young tells MTV News at Sundance Film Festival.*
*PARK CITY, Utah* — It's hard to argue about the digital age of music in terms of efficiency and portability. When it comes down to cycling through shelves upon shelves of old CDs versus taking one's entire library of music on the go in a single handheld device, the choice seems rather clear.


But convenience aside, there is something missing in the digital translation of tunes — at least there is according to legendary folk rocker Neil Young, who spoke with MTV News in Park City (where he's promoting the Slamdance release of his new Jonathan Demme-helmed documentary "Neil Young Journeys") and expressed his concerns over the current state of "the sound of music."

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1677694/sundance-film-festival-neil-young.jhtml


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

I'm inclined to agree that the generally accepted standard of playback sucks and that it's likely affecting the standard of recordings...a vicious circle. 

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I have caught some of todays popular performers on tv while clicking through the channels and all I hear is the pitch correction software working on their voices.....sad state of affairs indeed.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

neil young, of all people, complaining about how someone's music sounds. that's rich. 
the guy who's entire career was spent singing and playing off-pitch. 
he better pull them pants up and name his next album "get off my lawn, you darn kids"


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> neil young, of all people, complaining about how someone's music sounds. that's rich.
> the guy who's entire career was spent singing and playing off-pitch.
> he better pull them pants up and name his next album "get off my lawn, you darn kids"


I don't think he was complaining about how _someone's_ music sounds. He's pissed about the poor fidelity of digital music in general.


----------



## Bohdan (Jan 19, 2012)

Neil's correct.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

When I was an undergrad, there was an apartment in the "McGill Ghetto" that was legendary. It was the top floor of a modest-height walkup with 5 or so bedrooms. One of the rooms was tucked into the corner of the apartment and had some angled walls as a result of the roof and a gable or two. It was unusable as a bedroom, but it was carpeted, acoustically dead, and was the designated "music listening room" by any and all who happened to be splitting the place at any given time. Basically, it housed the best stereo available among the tenants, with big wooden speakers, maybe AR, or Bose, or Celestions or Advents, and nothing else. You went in there to drop everything else (well, some folks "dropped" something, but that's another story) and actively LISTEN to music.

If there is less attention to the quality of sound, in the manner Young describes, to my mind it is because music has become far more incidental than it once was. Music is what goes on in the background while you're doing something else, whether walking, talking, driving, working, doing the dishes, watching a movie, or whatever. Certainly those who create and produce music are paying attention to the quality of the sound when creating it, but ultimately the context in which it is listened to places much less premium on how it sounds.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

mhammer said:


> If there is less attention to the quality of sound, in the manner Young describes, to my mind it is because music has become far more incidental than it once was. Music is what goes on in the background while you're doing something else, whether walking, talking, driving, working, doing the dishes, watching a movie, or whatever. Certainly those who create and produce music are paying attention to the quality of the sound when creating it, but ultimately the context in which it is listened to places much less premium on how it sounds.


Very well put. I feel there is less and less music produced today that a person really wants to "listen" to. There's much more of the background type being produced than that of the premium kind.


----------



## cwittler (May 17, 2011)

Bingo! Most people prefer a good song over good fidelity. Just saying!



mhammer said:


> If there is less attention to the quality of sound, in the manner Young describes, to my mind it is because music has become far more incidental than it once was. Music is what goes on in the background while you're doing something else, whether walking, talking, driving, working, doing the dishes, watching a movie, or whatever. Certainly those who create and produce music are paying attention to the quality of the sound when creating it, but ultimately the context in which it is listened to places much less premium on how it sounds.


----------



## Andy (Sep 23, 2007)

He's about 5 years too late. I've already noticed fidelity coming back to some of the newest releases... the loudness war is over for the most part.


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

mhammer said:


> If there is less attention to the quality of sound, in the manner Young describes, to my mind it is because music has become far more incidental than it once was. Music is what goes on in the background while you're doing something else, whether walking, talking, driving, working, doing the dishes, watching a movie, or whatever.


Cool story, but probably overly selective. Music lovers have always_ actively_ listened to music and still spend huge amounts of cash on hi-fi equipment (take a look at the audiophile forums). 

While portable devices now allow us to take music everywhere, I don't think this is the real culprit in terms of sound degradation. Yes, some old stereo gear is fantastic, but people also used to listen to AM radio (for music), play tapes in portable "Realistic" tape decks (you could record on them too!), or use cheap suitcase turntables (not the cool floor models). Not everyone had an upscale Marantz system . . .

The am/fm radio you once found in many kitchens probably doesn’t sound “actively worse” than the ipod dock that now graces kitchen top counters. High end stuff still sounds amazing, just like the old high end stuff still sounds great. The middle ground, well that is harder to say . . . I would, however, venture a guess that most people who owned “decent” mid- level gear (back in the day) were not any more concerned with sound quality than the average listener is today.

TG


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

One need only look at the history of "popular" audio gear to agree with you that pop music ears have not always been treated to the very best of sound, nor sought it out. As much as I kvetch, I have my collection of some 200 8-tracks that I enjoyed listening to, and my current listening consists largely of fan-recorded concert bootlegs that are often not much different from AM-radio quality, heard through headphones at work.

Still, I think you'll find far fewer typical college-age music afficionados treating the sorts of sound we considered to be benchmarks 30 years ago as _their_ benchmarks to be aspired to.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

"Me thinks that Mr Young doth protest too much" . . . Could it be the money he is losing in CD / DVD sales by people downloading the digital formats?


----------



## traynor_garnet (Feb 22, 2006)

Guitar101 said:


> "Me thinks that Mr Young doth protest too much" . . . Could it be the money he is losing in CD / DVD sales buy people downloading the digital formats?


No, he has been against cds since their inception (and many early cds did sound terrible), long before downloading was a reality.

He is also a big proponent of Blu Ray's higher resolution audio and thinks it will at least equal, if not surpass, older technologies. His archives Blue Ray allowed for downloaded counted to be added as he found more stuff. He is not a Luddite or a salesman, be simply thinking cds and most digital formats suck.

TG


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

traynor_garnet said:


> No, he has been against cds since their inception (and many early cds did sound terrible), long before downloading was a reality.


I did not know that but since CD's were basically the only option to buy his music in the 10 years before digital downloads, I would imagine he sold many CD's and made a lot of money on them that he may be missing. If it were me, I wouldn't like the digital format either. Like it or not, it's here to stay. For the time being anyway.


----------



## cwittler (May 17, 2011)

All playback formats to date suck in a way. They are all limited as to how much data they can hold. If an artist gets over-indulgent in the studio, they sometimes find they have to strip down their arrangements because what they record won't print. Also, the dynamic range of the masters has to be compressed as well for printing and playback. This was a big problem back in the days of vinyl for example. So I can understand Mr Young's point of view in wanting to go somewhere sonically and not being able to. Nigel Tufnel, for example, is after Marshall to make an amp that goes louder than 20 and can be capo'd so that he can make the kind of music he wants to make........or is that off topic?!?



traynor_garnet said:


> He is not a Luddite or a salesman, be simply thinking cds and most digital formats suck.TG


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

cwittler said:


> All playback formats to date suck in a way. They are all limited as to how much data they can hold. If an artist gets over-indulgent in the studio, they sometimes find they have to strip down their arrangements because what they record won't print. Also, the dynamic range of the masters has to be compressed as well for printing and playback. This was a big problem back in the days of vinyl for example. So I can understand Mr Young's point of view in wanting to go somewhere sonically and not being able to. Nigel Tufnel, for example, is after Marshall to make an amp that goes louder than 20 and can be capo'd so that he can make the kind of music he wants to make........or is that off topic?!?


No, definitely not off topic. I like your point.


----------



## fudb (Dec 8, 2010)

Guitar101 said:


> "Me thinks that Mr Young doth protest too much" . . . Could it be the money he is losing in CD / DVD sales by people downloading the digital formats?


Seriously man, there's a world full of sell outs and poseurs to choose from. Neil young is absolutely not that person. Never has been, never will be. He's personally torpedoed his own career on purpose a few times. You really can't question that guy's integrity.

The man calls it as he hears it. I hear it too. It's always shouty, most modern popular music. What Disney is to happiness, modern studio techniques are to fidelity. It's a hard thing to describe but everything has this overpolished, overprocessed thing no mistakes, no one ever reaches for something they can't quite reach. It's like watching rally racing, but without ever any crashes. OK, beautiful driving but were you really _pushing hard_? 

Were you rocking, or were you worried about your hair?


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

Steadfastly said:


> _When it comes down to cycling through shelves upon shelves of old CDs versus taking one's entire library of music on the go in a single handheld device, the choice seems rather clear.
> But convenience aside, there is something missing in the digital translation of tunes — at least there is according to legendary folk rocker Neil Young._


Whether someone believes this to be true or not. The only thing we have control of is the production of our own music. We can record it and produce it any way we want. I personally don't want to go back to the days of 4 track cassette recording.



fudb said:


> _Seriously man, there's a world full of sell outs and poseurs to choose from. Neil young is absolutely not that person. Never has been, never will be. He's personally torpedoed his own career on purpose a few times. You really can't question that guy's integrity._


My original post was not meant to question Neil's integrity. I have to agree that Neil is a stand up guy. Yes, I'm sure he has lost money to digital downloads but so has everyone else.


----------



## Merlin (Feb 23, 2009)

It's insane that we can record at home in 24/96...but the average listener probably uses 128k Mp3 files...so why bother?


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

fudb said:


> Were you rocking, or were you worried about your hair?


This is what has troubled me about music forever. Well stated.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I've done a bit of studying and a bit less time in the control room. Between overcompression and brick wall limiting, todays music has lost a lot of its dynamics.....that and the aforementioned pitch correction software being so obvious. You can actually hear the vocals being "stretched" into tune. No one can sing off key like Neil....keep on rockin in the free world!!


----------



## blam (Feb 18, 2011)

i agree 100%... no one (well...most of the population) cares about how music sounds any more. I for one still listen to vinyl and absolutely love it.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

Adele's sophomore effort "21" has dynamics, great production, no audible auto tuning and well written songs. The biggest selling album of 2011.

Go figure.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

Merlin said:


> It's insane that we can record at home in 24/96...but the average listener probably uses 128k Mp3 files...so why bother?


I don't think this is true anymore. Maybe 5 years ago and certainly 10 years ago, but these days storage space is cheap (home and mobile) and internet speeds are up. I don't know a single person who would choose to download a 128kbps track/album or encode at 128kpbs. 

Especially since lossless formats like AIFF and FLAC are more prevalent, I think there is already a movement in tech-conscious music fans to return to fidelity. 

I'm a member of a private music-trading website (legality of which isn't germane here) but there are very strict rules enforced on the quality of the material available. No one there is willing to accept a lower quality version if there is lossless format available.

Also, the ongoing trend to return to vinyl over the last 10-15 years has really opened up a desire in many to LISTEN to music. Playing a record is a very much a tactile experience. You can't just hit play and then random and walk away for a few hours. Though the movement is still fairly small, comparatively, those interested want high fidelity sound pressed on quality weight vinyl (not that flimsy crap).

The biggest problem is that the people who are A) interested in high fidelity and B) express this interest or do something about it, tend to be people who listen to indie music, classical, off-kilter bands, art-rock and other, more esoteric music. Not necessarily Adele or Rihanna. The majority of the people who are buying the stuff that sells in HUGE quantity are, as mentioned before, people who listen to music in the background.

It's not so much that the music SOUNDS bad, because those people will scoop their favourite artist's album whether it's compressed like hell or if it's a bathroom-demo. It's that people have allowed music to become something passive rather than active and are content to listen to a song that has a four-on-the-floor beat with a catchy hook that they can easily ignore while they cook, work, drive or do homework.

Though this isn't necessarily new, there was a lot of schmaltzy stuff released in the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's as well. However, back then there was no alternative. Now that people can download to their heart's content, they're not willing to pay for music that they DO NOT actively listen to. The issue was always there, it's just that the internet and digital compression techniques gave the public the means to manifest the backlash, intentional or not, against sub-par music.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I realize he's referring to the fidelity of the sound, but in my opinion the bigger problem is the quality of the music being released in terms of songwriting.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

Milkman said:


> I realize he's referring to the fidelity of the sound, but in my opinion the bigger problem is the quality of the music being released in terms of songwriting.


Weird. What have you been listening to? I have about ten amazing records in rotation at the moment.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

hardasmum said:


> Weird. What have you been listening to? I have about ten amazing records in rotation at the moment.


Well, yeah, so do I. But I also download and delete dozens for every decent one I find. It's attrition these days.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

hollowbody said:


> I don't think this is true anymore. Maybe 5 years ago and certainly 10 years ago, but these days storage space is cheap (home and mobile) and internet speeds are up. I don't know a single person who would choose to download a 128kbps track/album or encode at 128kpbs.
> 
> Especially since lossless formats like AIFF and FLAC are more prevalent, I think there is already a movement in tech-conscious music fans to return to fidelity.
> 
> ...


I agree. The most popular digital music store on the planet is using 256 kbps AAC as their primary codec now. That is pretty high quality. 

Someone mentioned in an earlier post ' the dynamics getting removed' from music, and I agree that is the heart of the problem. Almost every form of music from heavy rock rock to hip hop is recorded so 'hot' now. And a ton of bands are using the exact same recordings techniques and gear trying to exactly mimic a sound they heard from another artist. The issues lie in the production in my opinion, not the format of the music.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

torndownunit said:


> I agree. The most popular digital music store on the planet is using 256 kbps AAC as their primary codec now. That is pretty high quality.
> 
> Someone mentioned in an earlier post ' the dynamics getting removed' from music, and I agree that is the heart of the problem. Almost every form of music from heavy rock rock to hip hop is recorded so 'hot' now. And a ton of bands are using the exact same recordings techniques and gear trying to exactly mimic a sound they heard from another artist. The issues lie in the production in my opinion, not the format of the music.


It's a little too simplistic to say it's this or that one thing. It's always going to be a mixture of it, but that is a huge factor as well.

Take any current track and drop it into a DAW. The spectrum is going to look like a rectangle. Loud as hell to start, loud in the middle, loud at the end.

Older tracks build in terms of dynamics and volume, so when you're listening to Stairway and it's so quiet and pretty at the beginning, it's a shock by the time you get to "And as we wind on down the road" and it's loud as hell. It's like musical thunder raining down all over you and the outro solo kicks you right in the bag. Songs don't really do that these days. They don't have those majestic crescendos that really make you sit up and listen, so people don't listen, they just ignore.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

Guitar101 said:


> Whether someone believes this to be true or not. The only thing we have control of is the production of our own music. We can record it and produce it any way we want. I personally don't want to go back to the days of 4 track cassette recording.


Well, realistically, would anyone, considering the poor quality of cassette taping? 

Likely what this all comes down to like most everything else is money. We have the ability to produce much better recordings but will people pay for it? A few will but the market looks at the overall picture, not what a small percentage want. They are out to make as large a profit share as possible and if quality suffers, so what?


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I miss the noise of a needle being placed on the lead in of a vinyl disc. The anticipation was great!


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

hardasmum said:


> Weird. What have you been listening to? I have about ten amazing records in rotation at the moment.


Well if I don't want to hear auto tune, cookie monster vocals, or shudder, rap, I listen to stuff from the 60s~80s.

I can't think of ten amazing records made in the last ten years, but that comes down to taste.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Steadfastly said:


> Well, realistically, would anyone, considering the poor quality of cassette taping?
> 
> Likely what this all comes down to like most everything else is money. We have the ability to produce much better recordings but will people pay for it? A few will but the market looks at the overall picture, not what a small percentage want. They are out to make as large a profit share as possible and if quality suffers, so what?


Except that people are paying big money to get this sound. A lot of people WANT it. I especially notice it in a lot of metal. A lot of bands want that hot, sterile sound.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Well if I don't want to hear auto tune, cookie monster vocals, or shudder, rap, I listen to stuff from the 60s~80s.
> 
> I can't think of ten amazing records made in the last ten years, but that comes down to taste.


Rap wasn't always bad. The production on some of the Public Enemy records from the 90's was amazing. Same with a lot of Rap stuff from the 90's. The current mainstream stuff though, I couldn't tell it apart if someone paid me.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

Milkman said:


> hardasmum said:
> 
> 
> > Weird. What have you been listening to? I have about ten amazing records in rotation at the moment.
> ...


Perhaps you're hearing of new artists from radio. That may be the problem, radio died a decade ago.

There are loads of current artists that draw inspiration from the decades you mentioned that don't use auto tune as an effect or scream satanically into a microphone. Who do you like from that period?

As an aside, I am tired of pitch correction software getting criticized. People hate it when used as an effect, but that's not it's intended use. I've been given tracks to mix only to discover the bass player's guitar is intonated poorly. No option to re-record, Melodyne (far superior to Autotune) saved my ass. Also a great writing tool, creating new harmonies or my favourite new use, sing a melody into Pro Tools, then use Melodyne to export my vocal as a MIDI file. Now I can use the MIDI information to play a virtual instrument.

Yep. Cool tool. When used correctly you won't even hear it.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

hardasmum said:


> *Perhaps you're hearing of new artists from radio. That may be the problem, radio died a decade ago.*
> 
> There are loads of current artists that draw inspiration from the decades you mentioned that don't use auto tune as an effect or scream satanically into a microphone. Who do you like from that period?
> 
> ...


The thing is radio is not dead. It's still a popular medium for a lot of people, especially those that drive a lot. If it wasn't, these artists were are referring to wouldn't be as massively successful as they are. And the trend of producing everyone to sound the same wouldn't exist either. There are a ton of places I go form the gym to the stores that play top 40 radio all day, all night. So when people say they are overwhelmed by bad sounding music... they literally are in a lot of cases lol.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

torndownunit said:


> hardasmum said:
> 
> 
> > *Perhaps you're hearing of new artists from radio. That may be the problem, radio died a decade ago.*
> ...


Sorry, I was suggesting that there are some incredible artists producing excellent albums that you won't (with a few exceptions) hear on terrestrial radio. 

I remember a time (not long ago) where DJ's would spin new records that weren't even available in stores.

Those days of breaking new ground are over, commercial radio is now mostly a homogenized combination of current and classic Top 40. A non-stop advertisement for ringtones.

IMO


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

hardasmum said:


> Sorry, I was suggesting that there are some incredible artists producing excellent albums that you won't (with a few exceptions) hear on terrestrial radio.
> 
> I remember a time (not long ago) where DJ's would spin new records that weren't even available in stores.
> 
> ...


Ya it's pretty dead as an artistic format for sure. Unfortunately it's alive enough to still dicate some music trends.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

torndownunit said:


> Except that people are paying big money to get this sound. A lot of people WANT it. I especially notice it in a lot of metal. A lot of bands want that hot, sterile sound.


Yes, a lot of people do. However, what is the ratio of people who want it to those who are buying music? Who buys the most music? The kids and they are usually not into metal but pop and that's what sells and that's the target of the music industry.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Steadfastly said:


> Yes, a lot of people do. However, what is the ratio of people who want it to those who are buying music? Who buys the most music? The kids and they are usually not into metal but pop and that's what sells and that's the target of the music industry.


Not to be rude, but what is your point in relation to the thread topic? All genres have these production issues. I was just giving metal as one example, but sub in Hip Hop, mainstream rock, whatever. Pop music production is just as generic, hot, and sterile right now.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

torndownunit said:


> Not to be rude, but what is your point in relation to the thread topic? All genres have these production issues. I was just giving metal as one example, but sub in Hip Hop, mainstream rock, whatever. Pop music production is just as generic, hot, and sterile right now.


I don't think you're being rude at all. All I'm saying is that while there are lots of people that would like better sound, most really don't care and wouldn't pay the extra for it. If they would, the industry would be producing it and making the extra money on the higher cost of the music. It's simple economics. 

Neil Young has already mentioned as have others that one way to make the music better is to use less compression or put the music on blue-ray discs. That costs more to produce so it won't happen. The big producers aren't even putting out CD's anymore in another 10 months because it is not feasible, monetarily speaking.


----------

