A question about recording techniques and their effect on the music you listen to.

[Ilash]

I just finished listening to a program on BBC Radio 2 about Sgt Peppers where they basically got a bunch of new bands to try their hands at recording Peppers' tracks using the recording technology that was around at the time. Also, a few days ago, I read an entry in Pete Townshend's blog where he talks about the difference between modern recording methods and technologies verses the stuff he was using during The Who's hey day. This got me thinking about the differences between contemporary digitized recording techniques and the older analog methods and their affect on the final recording in terms of sound, creativity, spontaneity and emotionalism. Did those very limitations force the Beatles and their contemporaries to be more creative to get the sounds that they wanted? Would they have been able to take their ideas to even greater levels with the possibilities offered by today's technologies? Did the fact that they were forced to play live to a greater degree than they need to today, give the music a more organic, human component and if so how does that relate to today's technology allowing artists to perfect the sound they're going for on every level. Is "perfection" really something that we're looking for in music?

I'm not an expert about the way music is recorded but even from my limited knowledge, it's hard not to see at least some of the effects that the way music is recorded on the final product. What are your thoughts on the contrast between recording techniques, old and new and their effect on the music you ultimately listen to? Do you prefer one over the other?

[leonaozaki]

Interesting question. I'm sure I'll have more to contribute after I've let it roll around in my brain for a while, but off the top of my head I can just say: it depends on the band/artist.

Let's take two examples. First: Joy Division. I've heard a lot of their music now, from many different phases of their career, and I think I can say with some certainty that they were a band that really thrived because of modern recording practices/techniques. Any account of Unknown Pleasures will tell you that the studio really shaped that album, and the producer, Martin Hannet, was essential in creating what we know now as the Joy Division 'sound.' So they were very much a band that built an album in the studio, rather than simply getting it all on tape in one take at once.

Second: Neil Young. Young is the opposite of the above process. His best albums are organic, done-in-one affairs. His worst albums, such as Landing on Water, were those where he tried to use the studio as a recording instrument.

So, it depends. But, as I'm thinking about it, surely Sgt. Pepper's is every inch a creation of the studio? I mean, there are plenty of accounts of the making of that record detailing how it had to be built piece by piece. Sure, it was harder for the Beatles and George Martin because of the limitations of the technology but I'm not sure that makes Sgt. Pepper's any more or less "organic" than, say, Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots.

rob

[Patriot07]

I prefer analogue and the older method. I think it sounds less polished like the music was supposed to sound.

[Jonathan Bogart]

I prefer analogue and the older method. I think it sounds less polished like the music was supposed to sound.
"Supposed to sound" is an awful tricky thing to say. What music is supposed to sound unpolished? Punk? Reggae? Country? Jazz? Classical? Many musicians prefer the most up-to-date recording technology because it more precisely replicates the sounds their instruments are actually making. To them, saying you prefer analogue is like saying you prefer to listen music over a telephone -- the fidelity is that much lower.

Now, I personally prefer lower fidelity sounds. I like it when the sounds of the instruments bleed together, when amps are maxed out and when the dynamic range is minimized. I like the hiss of old 78rpm records -- hell, I like the hollow, crunchy sound of records that were made before electricity was involved in the recording process. And music played over a telephone, if was composed and played to fit the medium, could sound awesome.

But there are good, solid arguments for the bright, shiny sound you normally get out of modern studio equipment -- that sound is closer to what the music actually is. The highest-quality recording equipment was developed to more perfectly capture classical performances, which are notoriously difficult to reproduce. (Lower fidelity means that much less difference between a $40,000 Stradivarius and a $30 violin from Sears.)

This is, of course, talking about recording music which is played live in the studio with actual resonant instruments -- synthesized and sampled sounds are of course an entirely different thing, since there's not necessarily any "perfect" live sound to capture in the first place. Which is, I take it, another part of Ilash's problem with modern music. I'm not going to go into a long defense of electronic and electronically-shaped music, but I will say that the techniques the Beatles used to create Sgt. Pepper's are the same techniques Danger Mouse used to create St. Elsewhere -- just with different technology.

[Sanagi]

I just want to hear all the instruments distinctly.

[Ilash]

This is, of course, talking about recording music which is played live in the studio with actual resonant instruments -- synthesized and sampled sounds are of course an entirely different thing, since there's not necessarily any "perfect" live sound to capture in the first place. Which is, I take it, another part of Ilash's problem with modern music. I'm not going to go into a long defense of electronic and electronically-shaped music, but I will say that the techniques the Beatles used to create Sgt. Pepper's are the same techniques Danger Mouse used to create St. Elsewhere -- just with different technology.


So, it depends. But, as I'm thinking about it, surely Sgt. Pepper's is every inch a creation of the studio? I mean, there are plenty of accounts of the making of that record detailing how it had to be built piece by piece. Sure, it was harder for the Beatles and George Martin because of the limitations of the technology but I'm not sure that makes Sgt. Pepper's any more or less "organic" than, say, Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots.

rob.

Okay, as far as Sgt Peppers goes, I don't actually disagree with what you guys are saying. It was an album that made full use of the studio and was pieced together in a way that is probably pretty similar to those albums you mentioned. Don't forget that the Beatles themselves wanted a return to a more live recording with The White Album and especially their Get Back project. I would however argue that the more primitive technology did make a difference in the end result. This is probably something that is hard to prove but I am inclined to think that because George Martin and the Beatles couldn't simply get the results they wanted by pushing a button on a computer, they were forced to be more creative and to put more effort into the recording and that effort and that creativity gave the music a soul that it may well not have had. This may sound like a bit of a stretch but what it basically comes down to is music still being made very much by human hands verses music that is made - to a degree at least - by a computer. Added to this, that BBC documentary did mention that they were still recording on an eight track so it did limit their abilities to piece together the music, thereby necessitating a fair amount of live recording.

As for this being one of my problems with modern music, well yeah, it certainly is. One of the biggest barriers that I encounter when trying to appreciate a modern rock/pop record lies very much in its sound. Between the tendency to record everything too loud (as was brought up in this forum a while back) and the loss of an organic sound, I find myself being turned off by music that I would probably be quite attracted to had it been recorded differently. I'm not even really talking about electronica because it is sort of "inorganic" by definition and I can, at least somewhat, appreciate some music with electronic elements. In fact, it's actually not even quite so huge a problem with the poppier music because again, while a live organic feel is desirable to me, some pop music can actually get by without it. The music that is most affected by this is good ol' rock and roll.

Take the Drive By Truckers for instance. They do seem to be a good little Southern Rock band very much in the tradition of Lynyrd Skynyrd and I should by all rights get a fair amount of enjoyment from their music. And yes, I think I've only played the one album of theirs that I own three times in all the time that I've had it because I simply cannot stand the way the thing sounds. A large part of the charm of the kind of music that a band like Skynyrd played was very much the sound of it with every instrument being allowed to breathe while interacting entirely organically with each other. There is simply none of that to be found of a Trucker's album and it completely ruins it for me.

It's not even like this is restricted to modern bands. The Rolling Stones have been plagued with these albums for years - and this problem has never been more pronounced than their recent A Bigger Bang. The songwriting on the album was certainly below par for the band (which is kind of inevitable considering how long they've been doing it) but had it been recorded in the same way as, say, Let It Bleed, I would enjoy it a hundred times more than I do with this lifeless, overly-glossy production.

At the same time, I do agree that when used properly modern recording technology can create a live, organic sound at least as well as the old analog equipment. See Dylan's Modern Times for undeniable proof of this.

[Fish Sauce]

It does affect it for me, but it really depends on the album. I'm struggling to come up with an example at the moment, but when I have one for each side I'll try and explain myself.

[Jonathan Bogart]

Take the Drive By Truckers for instance. They do seem to be a good little Southern Rock band very much in the tradition of Lynyrd Skynyrd and I should by all rights get a fair amount of enjoyment from their music. And yes, I think I've only played the one album of theirs that I own three times in all the time that I've had it because I simply cannot stand the way the thing sounds. A large part of the charm of the kind of music that a band like Skynyrd played was very much the sound of it with every instrument being allowed to breathe while interacting entirely organically with each other. There is simply none of that to be found of a Trucker's album and it completely ruins it for me.
Wait a second. I would've said that Skynyrd (except for the second album) was glossier than the Truckers, so I'm not sure where you're coming from any more. No classic rock song this side of Boston screams "studio polish" to me more than "Freebird," while the Drive-By Truckers albums I've heard sound underproduced, if anything.

And I think you have an incorrect impression of the degree of difficulty involved in making music with computers. Any decently creative music is still going to involve as much human effort as ever; no producer worth his salt is going to use all the presets in ProTools. (Of course, maybe this means I feel that most rock music these days isn't decently creative.)

Also, I'm not sure Dylan uses modern recording technology. Seems to me the last two albums have made rather a point of using older techniques, if not older equipment. Anyway, it's not necessarily the equipment, but the use you put it to; on Elephant, Jack White was able to coax thrash-metal sounds out of 1967-vintage equipment. Yes, everything's mixed too loud these days, but the loudest mix known to man is on a Stooges album from 1973.

[Ilash]

Wait a second. I would've said that Skynyrd (except for the second album) was glossier than the Truckers, so I'm not sure where you're coming from any more. No classic rock song this side of Boston screams "studio polish" to me more than "Freebird," while the Drive-By Truckers albums I've heard sound underproduced, if anything.

Well no, Skynyrd do have a very polished sound but they still have a warmer, livelier sound than the Truckers - at least to my ears. That's more what I was trying to say. It's entirely possible that the Drive By Truckers record live in the studio but that's not really what they sound like to me. Of course, it may just be that we've heard different Truckers albums.


And I think you have an incorrect impression of the degree of difficulty involved in making music with computers. Any decently creative music is still going to involve as much human effort as ever; no producer worth his salt is going to use all the presets in ProTools. (Of course, maybe this means I feel that most rock music these days isn't decently creative.)

Like I said, I'm not really sure about the recording of music so it is entirely possible that my impression is way off base. It just seemed that way to me. Though honestly, from what modern mainstream music I've heard, I think more bands use the ProTools presets than you or I might hope.

Also, I'm not sure Dylan uses modern recording technology. Seems to me the last two albums have made rather a point of using older techniques, if not older equipment. Anyway, it's not necessarily the equipment, but the use you put it to; on Elephant, Jack White was able to coax thrash-metal sounds out of 1967-vintage equipment. Yes, everything's mixed too loud these days, but the loudest mix known to man is on a Stooges album from 1973.

I was under the impression that Dylan did use modern technology for his last few albums but indeed recorded them using older techniques. As for Jack White, I actually own that album and while he did do some interesting stuff with that technology, I still think it sounds quite a bit different from most modern recordings. I wasn't surprised at all when I heard he used such antiquated technology because it did sound quite out of its time. And I still say that mixing a Stooges album really loud makes perfect sense but most bands don't really demand that kind of sonic assault.

[Matthew E]

Where did I read about some musician who was trying to create a particular kind of echo effect for the drums, so he tried putting the microphone in a plastic bag, shoving it up his chuff, and drumming on his stomach?