Does it matter how music's sound is produced?

The other night I was reading in a website from a contributor a comment about how Phil Collins' voice is so awful that when he sang in Genesis, they always added reberverance (sorry if mispelled) effect in the recordings, and if you listen closely, you'll notice it....

I think the computerized music is often far more engaging than that with "real instruments." It depends on what style and what effects.

I used computer to bring my ideas to front of my eyes and ears but mix of two way is my better choice. The Organic references from guitars, basses and drums are fundamental to mix with electronic sounds, effects and synths and programming in search of good vibes and performances to compose songs that I imagine. Today both are essential for me.

It depends on the reason the tech is implemented. If its done in order to innovate thats one thing. If its done to cover up crappy musicianship then it does matter. In that case, its not serving the music, but rather the person.

Edited by Deathrabbit - December 01 2006 at 00:52

Vocals can sound very different from album to album.For instance on ELP's Trilogy Greg Lake's voice is 'dry' (ie natural) while on the following album (Brain Salad Surgery) it was distorted and even speeded up by using production tricks.I actually like both.There are no hard and fast rules about this.As someone said it depends on your artistic vision and the needs of the music.

I dislike OVERproduced and cheesy-sounding albums - today almost every Doom-metal album sounds as if it was recorded in Justin Timberlake's studio few seconds after he left it .Where's the feeling, emotions, etc?

I've noticed some flaws on LZ's debut - they go wrong in I can't quit you baby - but that what makes the music ALIVE and BREATHING!

As for using samples and computer drums - if they sound satisfying for me, than no problem. I'm a one-man-band myself, and know the problems with "live" instruments during home recording

I see little point in complaining about the use of reverb, double-tracking, overdubbing or other standard recording techniques. They have been an essential part of recording for decades. Without them, parts of SGT PEPPER or THE PIPER AT THE GATES OF DAWN would sound rather flat and uninteresting - and that was just the beginning!

But when it comes to live concerts, you can't hide every flaw. Tull fans will probably know that Ian Anderson doesn't have much of a voice left by now. When Ian wants to make a new album, he can probably record the vocals on a comparatively good day, and he could even WHISPER if he wanted to - the producer will put his words well forward in the mix. But when he needs to sing live, the audience will notice he just isn't up to it.

All the same, you can't imagine how refreshing it is to hear artists playing totally unplugged. Here in Oxford (U.K.) we've got several small auditoriums where I've experienced concerts that were almost 100% acoustic (only the bass players used amps), by contemporary jazz players such Tim Garland, the Tord Gustavsen Trio and Joyosa (with Markus Stockhausen and Arild Andersen). Such occasions are incredibly intimate. I've even heard Kenny Wheeler (the superb Canadian flugelhorn player) in one of the local college chapels, with only a guitarist and a saxophone accompanying him - it was JUST as if you were present at an ECM recording session!

The same with classical music. You go and listen to a lute or piano recital, a string quartet or a baroque orchestra with vocal soloists, and there's no room for fakery. It's all naked, direct, real!

Some weeks ago Sting gave a recital of Dowland songs in a London church. (I wasn't there but I read a review in a newspaper.) He was accompanied only by lute, and I'm fairly sure they didn't use microphones. Apparently Sting found the experience much scarier than singing at 'Live Eight'.

So modern recording techniques have their own charms, but as a listener you may feel a much more intimate connection with players who ignore such techniques altogether.
    

Edited by fuxi - December 01 2006 at 06:19

Misspelled???

"Phil Collins' voice is so awful that when he sang in Genesis, they always added reberverance (sorry if mispelled) effect in the recordings"

What about electronic percussion in king crimson albums? we have it since the 80s, and in the Eyes Wide Open dvd we can see pat mastelotto playing with his drumsticks a half of the sounds that I thought he played in the albums. And I love this, I think that the music itself has more relevance than how it is produced. If it sounds good, and this sound can´t be produced by another device, its OK.