Does it matter how music's sound is produced?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Prog Music Lounge
Forum Description: General progressive music discussions
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=31731
Printed Date: June 09 2024 at 01:24
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Does it matter how music's sound is produced?
Posted By: The T
Subject: Does it matter how music's sound is produced?
Date Posted: November 30 2006 at 22:30
|
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....
.... then off course, next time I put A trick of the Tail (marvelous by the way), today that is, I paid special attention to this fact... and I realized it MAY be true.... we can't deny that Collins' voice's flaws were always carefully hidden underneath a thick layer of reverberance....BUT...
does that detract from the music? I mean, having or not this in mind, that album is great, and the music you hear is great, and THE SINGING SOUNDS GREAT... Yes, we can say is "helped" by a console and studio-work, but, what I want to ask is, do things like this damage the experience you get with music? Better said, DOES IT MATTER THE WAY THE SOUNDS YOU LISTEN TO IN A RECORDING WERE PRODUCED OR JUST, well, THE SOUNDS THEMSELVES, THE MUSIC?
Another example: I once found myself with a copy (a LOONG TIME AGO, please, I made mistakes, too
 ) of a Rage Against The machine album in my hand.... in the booklet it said: "no keyboards, samplers, pedals or any other effect in the recording, only sounds produced by guitars, drums and bass".... At that time I said "yeah, those synth-loving b*****ds!!!"  .... But now I say: WHAT??? Does it matter that a machine produces the sound? Does it matter whether the sound is produced by a string vibration or a hammer hitting metal strings or a wooden stick hitting drum heads, or if its produced by an electronic device? Does it take away from the musicians' vision and creation? Is it less worthy of recognition an album where the musician used a lot of pre-*made sounds BUT USED THEM SO WELL they actually produce music, or the true artist is the one that plucks ths strings, hit the heads and keeps away from stepping onto an effect pedal? It may sound stupid, but: does the end justify the means in art and music?
I, for one, think It does.
Opinions please....
------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: frippster
Date Posted: November 30 2006 at 23:01
|
production... I agree with you, The T, in that if the artistic vision is good, who cares what tecnology is used to achieve it. On the other hand, many pop acts rely on production tricks alone to sound "good" with little or no artistic talent. I guess it's necessary to discern between the two cases. Other way to put it is to say that electronic sounds- or any kind- are but part of a larger musical vocabulary. It's up to the artist to choose his/her form of expression. I read Trey Gunn stating that for him, Eno's biggest achievement was the use of the recording studio as a musical instrument. |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: November 30 2006 at 23:05
|
I think the computerized music is often far more engaging than that with "real instruments." It depends on what style and what effects. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: November 30 2006 at 23:29
No -- as long as it's not "produced" by the likes of Michael Jackson, Celine Dion, Shania Twain, Abba, Mr Loboto, Nickleskwak, irritable bowel syndrome/growling....
Never use yer nether cheeks to produce music, either!
 Got that, Herr Farten?
  Butt seriously, any musical sound, natural or electronic, can be "good." (Though I really like to hear some beautiful acoustic instruments in my prog, too, as in classic Genesis, PFM, Giant, Tull, etc.)------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: zFrogs
Date Posted: November 30 2006 at 23:36
|
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. ------------- https://www.instagram.com/erifrog/ |
Posted By: Trademark
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 00:16
|
Technology is fun and a judicious use of it has always been something I like. you can over do it (hell, you can over do anything), but for the most part I'm all in favor of it. Reverb, BTW, is used on virtually every vocal track ever recorded by any singer since the early 1950's. it's purpose is to make it sound like the singer is not standing in a totally sound deadend room (the vocal booth in a recording studio), without having all the problems associated with recording in a larger space. It's a bit funny; they record in a dead room to control the sound, then add reverb to make the dead room sound alive. Go figure. |
Posted By: Failcore
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 00:51
| 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. |
Posted By: superprog
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 02:03
|
great topic......i think yes, it IS impt how music is produced, esp when you look at the recorded album as a work of art in and of itself. How could Joy Division's Unknown Pleasures be the classic it is without Martin Hannet's revolutionary production and engineering? Pink Floyd's DSOTM w/o Alan Parsons? Or the ECM sound w/o Manfred Eicher's sense of aesthetics?
of course the relationship bet artists and producers must be symbiotic where they compliment and bounce off one another to produce great art. But production (and hey even mastering thereafter) is a critical input one cannot do wiithout for making records.
|
Posted By: richardh
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 02:22
| 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. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 05:32
|
'Reverberance'? is that the same as 'Reverb'? I guess so, but then there are many different types of reverb; Dry Plate, Wet Plate etc. Phil Collins is far from a perfect singer, but there are all manner of effects that can be applied to a voice in a studio, that could make literally any singer sound half decent. The verses of 'One for the Vine' are a good example of where Collins sings with very little or no 'reverb' at all. Jon Anderson often sings with a lot of reverb (Turn of the Century' being a good example) to marvellous effect, but we all know he is a great singer, and doesn't really need anything to embellish his voice. The effects are there to enhance the overal feel of the music. So, I dont really think it matters how the sounds were produced, as long as the effect is achieved. By the same token, a good song will always be a good song, even if the drums sound like old biscuit tins, and the singer is using execssive 'reverberance'  ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Prog-jester
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 05:54
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 |
Posted By: prog4evr
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 06:10
I think the point of these detractors is: "It may sound great as a studio-polish, but what about when I pay good hard cash to listen to it live - and the vocals suck!" I am not saying this is the case for Phil - or any other prog lead vocalist - but I can see where such detractors would want to get their money's worth when seeing a prog band live and expecting the vocals to sound as good as they do on the studio recording....
|
frippster wrote:Posted By: fuxi
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 06:18
|
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. |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 07:45
^ Good post fuxi.  ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 08:38
Misspelled??? ------------- The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS. CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php Host by PA's Dick Heath. |
Posted By: AcostaFulano
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 08:41
|
I think it's OK to get a little help from machines. The problem is that when an album is overproduced it's hard to achieve the same quality on-stage. |
Posted By: chopper
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 08:53
|
"Phil Collins' voice is so awful that when he sang in Genesis, they always added reberverance (sorry if mispelled) effect in the recordings"
Regardless of what you think of Mr Collins, technically speaking he's not a bad singer. And if he was, I don't see that reverb would cover it up. As someone else said, most singers use reverb to some degree.
|
Posted By: sleeper
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 08:54
|
When it comes to production, I only worry if its poor production and dont bother about effects etc. For onstance I dont care about the production on Foxtrot as all the insrtruments and the overall sound is clear. But on Dream Theater's When Dream And Day Unite, the production is terrible and easily noticible as the album has a very muddy sound.
------------- Spending more than I should on Prog since 2005  |
Posted By: moebius
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 09:57
| 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. |
Posted By: TheLamb
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 10:09
|
I'll give an example from DT world... If James LaBrie sounded on studio albums the way he does live, I would have probably hated dream theater.
His vocals are simply annoying Live.
Why does he sound good in the studio?
Probably because of the assistance he gets from machines...
Does that make me think less of him as a vocalist?
Hell Yeah.
Does it sound good to my ear?
Yep.
Do I love DT?
Yep.
Bottom line... I would think less of an artist that uses machines but probably still enjoy the music... I mean why not?
P.S - Using reverb is hardly what I see as "Assistance from Machines". Reverb is an effect singers (and any instrument basically) use to make them sound less dry. Assistance from Machines in our modern time, for example (there are dozens of examples like this), means using the likes of "auto tune", (plug a microphone into the input of an auto tune system, and output to the main console... then you can set it up that if you don't reach a specific note, or you sing off tune in certain places, the auto tuner will actually tune the pitch of your voice in real time), and you can do things like that with every good recording program, if your in a studio... auto tune is for live gigs...
And btw, Phill Collins is a great vocalist. Trick of the Tale, Wind & Wuthering, Seconds Out - GREAT VOCALS. ------------- 
|
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 10:17
|
"Another example: I once found myself with a copy (a LOONG TIME AGO, please, I made mistakes, too) of a Rage Against The machine album in my hand.... in the booklet it said: "no keyboards, samplers, pedals or any other effect in the recording, only sounds produced by guitars, drums and bass".... At that time I said "yeah, those synth-loving b*****ds!!!" .... But now I say: WHAT??? Does it matter that a machine produces the sound?" Don't be ashamed for liking RaTM,they were an incredible band.While a little off-topic I picked this part of your initial post to comment on.One of the main reasons for that comment that was made on all of RaTM's albums was because of Tom Morello's incredibly innovative guitar playing.Because alot of stuff he does,to the unitiated listener,sounds like it is very affects laden,while in fact it is not. -------------  |
Posted By: frippster
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 11:36
|
A good example might be Eddie Offord's trickery in Yes's early albums. He used all effects available, spliced tape, overdubbed, stereo separation... but he (or they as a band) had an artistic reason to do it, and very importantly, the chops to reproduce it live on stage. Compare this to Rabin's production of Talk; he used all tecnology had to offer, digital effects, extended dynamic range, digital sampling... and 2/3 of the album are crap! (100% according to some). On a side note, Alan White should sue Rabin for the sound of the drums in Talk. Has anybody listened cds produced by a company called mapleshade? they're not prog or prog-related, I just thougt I'd mention this tiny recording company whose manifesto is "no mixing board, overdubs, noise reduction, compression, reverb, EQ, multiple drum microphone, or drum booths" they record live, single take performances in their studio and have a very good reputation for their sound quality. If anybody is interested, pppplease stick to their cds and don't buy the snakeoil audio "enhancements" they offer. |
Posted By: peter_gabriel
Date Posted: December 01 2006 at 14:29
| Music has no rules... If its sounds good, then nothing else matters... |
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: December 03 2006 at 16:33
|
When ever it can be made without using thouse sort of tricks, then better so. If not, no big deal
------------- "You want me to play what, Robert?" 
|
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: December 03 2006 at 16:36
A question...is Morello a fan of Fripp? Cause yes, what he did with the guitar and the sounds he got out of it were great and groundbreaking...but the first one who really made that happen was Fripp. So I ask, was Morello a fan of Fripp or was influenced by him, or did he go another way? ------------- "You want me to play what, Robert?"
|
Posted By: SolariS
Date Posted: December 04 2006 at 00:07
|
i think albums can be over-perfected to the point where they lose a certain character. i dont think it's necessary for each instrumental and vocal sound to be entirely smooth and clear. take van der graaf for example. how many people have come to adore the imperfections in peter hammill's voice? -------------  
|
Posted By: darkshade
Date Posted: December 04 2006 at 02:37
|
^ think about what over-perfect means... ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/MysticBoogy" rel="nofollow - My Last.fm 
|
Posted By: SlipperFink
Date Posted: December 04 2006 at 11:35
Tom uses his fair share of stompbox trickery. His 'whammy pedal' is, in fact, a synthesizer by definition, as it uses a frequency counter in conjunction with a user modulated VCO to produce the the interval(s). Something that was pointed out to him during the production of the first RATM record. Which was mixed in the same room I'm typing this little missive from, BTW. Onto the original question: Here's the irony of record production. The BETTER the bands are, the LESS you matter. Many of the younger or less experienced bands can, and often do, benefit enormously from a fortuitous intersection with great producer/engineer types. On the other hand... the truly GREAT bands will steamroll anything in their path, can survive a marginal recording relatively unscathed, and will do very well indeed with any moderately competent professional behind the desk. Much of what you hear on records as far as obvious production additions are the sonic creations of various 'production types' attempting the ENHANCE, EMBELLISH UPON and, most importantly, FOCUS the sound of the recording, as much, or hopefully, MORE than it would be to OBFUSCATE any blunders or shortcomings from a performance standpoint. Phil didn't have a lousy voice. He just had the in-enviable task of replacing one the the greatest 'native tone' singers in the history of rock music. In the end, Phillip had the last laugh. In his 50's... Phil still has much of his singing voice left today. Peter had, for all intents and purposes, DESTROYED his instrument by the time he was 25 years old. Case in point... By the last leg of the LLDOB tour, He'd lost the high c, had intermittent use of the b, and on some nights even the b-flat.... and much more tellingly, he had a fraction of the 'tonal center' and projection he had enjoyed/abused from NC to SEBTP tours. I have often suspected that, consciously, or unconsciously... this was the REAL reason he split the band in 1975. He could no longer perform the 'money edge' of the material consistently and the problem was in a downward spiral. SM. PS. Phil NEVER COULD hit the "high-c" in Supper's Ready. This is why they drop the ending a half step for him in concert. The 'money note' is then b natural. ------------- Modesty is an ornament, but one goes further without it. Old German Proverb |
Posted By: Chus
Date Posted: December 04 2006 at 12:36
There was a point in live performances of "Supper's Ready" where Peter just shouted exhausingly the verses without much tonality, or aproximately reaching the note, but he mostly missed it, and that's why on later gigs the had to drop a half-tone (I think, I haven't heard the live version in a long time so I can't recall how many half-tones) at the end of the song for Peter to be more comfortable; he just couldn't archieve the vocal range he had on the studio because in the studio you could rest the vocal cords between verses; live he just was getting short on breath and you could notice him straining. It was just beyont his natural vocal ability. But I think Peter always had the same range despite aging and abusing of his vocal power. ------------- Jesus Gabriel |
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: December 04 2006 at 14:31
|
production is fundamental. even discreet procedures like mixing can be decisive in defining the recorded music's style. effects addition i won't discuss. think of led zeppelin, whose sound brought rock into a new era. still, without jimmy page's production concepts hard rock would have been born in a different way... the albums, especially the second one, had this raw, compact, hard sound, with "directness", freshness and power as attributes. still, the first two years the band's live act was very different to sound of the studio albums. the drums were sounding somehow "weak", clogged, they had no echo and little resonance; the guitar had way too much echo, very psychedelic but less affective in "hard"ness; the bass didn't come together with the other instruments; all three went quite independently. these features made them, whilst live, not to sound further then "heavy blues". it was only in mid1970 that the band acquired the sound that was already produced by page on their studio albums. it is his vision of mixing the instruments in studio that actually brought the typical zeppelin sound to life; i'm talking especially about the volume effect of the instruments (or, to put it different, the position of the players in a virtual concert room related to a virtual listener's year; this can be manipulated in production, but very little when live). so, in order to achieve the hard rock sound page wanted for the band, they all had to re-think their approach to their playing (even plant had to). what i'm describing here is very easy to spot on the BBC Sessions live album; just compare their sound from 1969 to that from 1971, it speakes for itself. a transition moment could be found on the Blueberry Hill bootleg. ------------- "PA's own GI Joe!" 
|
Posted By: Shakespeare
Date Posted: December 04 2006 at 16:07
| It's a question of ethics, really. Personally, I think it was acceptable back in the day, because they were experimenting and trying out new things, but nowadays, singers completely rely on techonology and production tricks. |