Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 70's sound and interpretation compared to today
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic Closed70's sound and interpretation compared to today

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 8>
Author
Message
BaldFriede View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10266
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 18 2010 at 03:58
[
Originally posted by Nathaniel607 Nathaniel607 wrote:

Originally posted by BaldFriede BaldFriede wrote:

The main difference is quite simple: and the real reason why 70s prog is so much better than today's: The bands had very limited studio time, so the albums are all imperfect; there are little flaws on them everywhere. Today every little flaw is removed by just recording another take. This makes the albums perfect but hopelessly sterile. Fortunately there are still a few bands around that know it is the little flaws that give spirit to an album, but it is mostly the bands that have been around for thirty or forty years already.


I would DEFINITELY DISAGREE WITH THIS.

So would Mr. Frank Zappa.

Frank Zappa, on the recording of Freak Out!!

"The recording schedules where ridiculous, making it impossible to perfect anything on the album. It was the typical kind of bullsh*t we had to put up with until I got my own studio.
When you record on 'a label,' you're always woking on their budget -- on their schedule. When the budget runs out, that's it. If the master doesn't sound right, what the f**k do they care? It goes out anyways -- it's only 'product' to them."

-- Quoted from The Real Frank Zappa Book. Italics and bold retained from the original text.

What you're saying (and, I'm sure, a lot of other people on this thread, but only read first page) is silly nostalgia. Sure, sound effects and certain mistakes can be sorta nice, but it's always better if this quirks are composed in, instead of just fluked. I'm sure most musicians would prefer infinite studio time. Just cause you have it, doesn't mean it has to sound "sterile". That's just silly.

I think studio albums should be as refined as possible. Note, sterile does not equal refined. If the composition is good, it won't sound sterile - unless it wants to. Basically, reppetitive, thin compositions sound sterile.

If the aeroplane sounded good, Led Zeppelin should't have to rely on dumb luck - they should have added it in.

If you want to hear a version of the song with small flaws - that's what live albums are for!

It has nothing to do with nostalgia. These little flaws are what make music alive. Perfection is not human. Human beings are not robots.
And I definitely prefer live albums to studio albums.
What makes an album sterile is if all those mistakes are removed by overdubs, letting the musician just do the little passage again where the flaw was. The music is not played as a whole this way, even the individual parts are not from a single take but fused together from little snippets. Sorry, but I like my music to flow,. And it does not flow that way. I know that my heart would not be in it if I had to play just these few notes to remove a mistake.
We recorded "The Goat And the Donkey" live in the studio with a few guest musicians. No overdubs, though there were several takes for each track; we chose those takes which we considered to be the best. We wanted it to sound alive, and we are satisfied with the result. That's not nostaliaigia but an artistic decision.


BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
Back to Top
Blacksword View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 22 2004
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 16130
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 18 2010 at 04:23
Originally posted by BaldJean BaldJean wrote:


Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:


Originally posted by BaldFriede BaldFriede wrote:


Originally posted by Snow Dog Snow Dog wrote:


Originally posted by BaldFriede BaldFriede wrote:



Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:

I guess maybe if you grew up with crackling vinyl you crave imperfection, but I've never thought to myself that an album sounded "sterile" because of the production. At the moment I'm primarily interested in music that is partially or wholly improvised, but there's nothing with with glittering perfection on composed rock albums.
I am not talking about imperfection of sound, I am talking about imperfection of performance. Even the best classical musicians make a lot of mistakes when playing live, but that's what gives the music its soul. If all the imperfections are edited out the result becomes sterile.

Opinion.
Not opinion; it is the truth.  These imperfections are what make music sound alive., else you might as well let a robot play. If programmed right he will make no mistakes at all. Modern recordings are usually as bloodless as a young woman that has been guest at a vampire banquet.

Opinion.
it certainly is opinion that you think it is opinion LOL


I actually share your 'opinion' but Snowie is right. You are merely expressing an 'opinion' It's the tiny imperfections in music that make it come alive and sound good to YOU (and me) but you'll find millions of music lovers who are moved by perfection and 'flawless' performances. I think you'll also find very few virtuoso classical musicians who trumpet the virtues of making mistakes. They may expect to make tiny mistakes when performing live, but in most cases they would rather not, I'm sure.

But then of course you need to define what is a mistake. A classical musican may play the correct note in the wrong way, but if he/she actually plays the wrong note, the 'human imperfection' becomes a cataclysmic f**k up. In rock music the same error could pass without such a negative impact on the music.

I for one do hate sterile sounding recordings in rock music, and that means that the music is so perectly played it could have been produced by computer software. A trend for this started in heavy metal in the 80's. I'm not a classical music expert, but when I hear classical music I do expect any errors to be so slight, so as to elude my untrained ear. A badly played violin is not a pleasant sound to me. Thankfully not many substandard players make it into orchestras who actually record.

Edited by Blacksword - August 18 2010 at 04:26
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
Back to Top
Anaon View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 01 2005
Location: Kobaļa
Status: Offline
Points: 849
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 18 2010 at 04:26
I would say that it depends of the song and the vibe you need. Sometimes, you just play your part and it's flawless but it sounds alive. Sometimes, there's unfortunately some flaws BUT the take has the vibe and it sounds just great. I think the vibe and the spirit of the music is more important in this case.
Back to Top
mono View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 12 2005
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 652
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 18 2010 at 11:11
Flaws are far from being what distinguishes a '70's sound' from a modern one in my opinion.
There is a large quantity of musicians who can play flawlessly with their limited studio time. Would they sound sterile? I don't think so.
Also, where would the limit be between 'human' and 'flawed'? When do the flaws begin to have a negative influence on the music?
I think most of the difference is technological and cultural!!! composition has changed, along with the styles, genre mutations, and the equipment is totally different.
There are many bands today that achieve a 70's sound with 'unlimited' studio time....

Plus, in the end, the artist has the decision now! If he wants to have the album sound in some flawless or flawed manner, he will make it that way. In the 70's, the choice wasn't really given. And I think prog artists are aware that they can reproduce 70's "conditions" today. If they choose not to, it means they want something different, something more.

I think you can't really make a statement such as "70's music sounds more human, so it sounds better", because this "70's sound" is still reprodceable today, with no penalty for the artist! (it's not like the artist choses to only make vynils and no digital format for example...)

If you think that you know better, well... you're either subjective (nothing wrong with that) or pretentious (difficult to say there is something wrong with that either on a prog forum Confused )
https://soundcloud.com/why-music Prog trio, from ambiant to violence
https://soundcloud.com/m0n0-film Film music and production projects
https://soundcloud.com/fadisaliba (almost) everything else
Back to Top
BaldFriede View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10266
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 18 2010 at 12:45
Originally posted by mono mono wrote:

Flaws are far from being what distinguishes a '70's sound' from a modern one in my opinion.
There is a large quantity of musicians who can play flawlessly with their limited studio time. Would they sound sterile? I don't think so.
Also, where would the limit be between 'human' and 'flawed'? When do the flaws begin to have a negative influence on the music?
I think most of the difference is technological and cultural!!! composition has changed, along with the styles, genre mutations, and the equipment is totally different.
There are many bands today that achieve a 70's sound with 'unlimited' studio time....

Plus, in the end, the artist has the decision now! If he wants to have the album sound in some flawless or flawed manner, he will make it that way. In the 70's, the choice wasn't really given. And I think prog artists are aware that they can reproduce 70's "conditions" today. If they choose not to, it means they want something different, something more.

I think you can't really make a statement such as "70's music sounds more human, so it sounds better", because this "70's sound" is still reprodceable today, with no penalty for the artist! (it's not like the artist choses to only make vynils and no digital format for example...)

If you think that you know better, well... you're either subjective (nothing wrong with that) or pretentious (difficult to say there is something wrong with that either on a prog forum Confused )

It is the questton what you define as "flaw". The real problem is that music is a communication. If every musician records his track or tracks separately this communication is gone. Hence I definitely prefer it when all musicians play at the same time instead of recording each track separately. The more "live" a studio recording is the better.
Of course the 70s sound can be reprocessed; you just have to record the same way. And I don't even necessarily mean use analog equipment. Spontaneity is an important part of music. But spontaneity is risky, and hardly anyone takes risks anymore.


BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
Back to Top
richardh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 30502
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 18 2010 at 15:48
Originally posted by BaldFriede BaldFriede wrote:

Originally posted by mono mono wrote:

Flaws are far from being what distinguishes a '70's sound' from a modern one in my opinion.
There is a large quantity of musicians who can play flawlessly with their limited studio time. Would they sound sterile? I don't think so.
Also, where would the limit be between 'human' and 'flawed'? When do the flaws begin to have a negative influence on the music?
I think most of the difference is technological and cultural!!! composition has changed, along with the styles, genre mutations, and the equipment is totally different.
There are many bands today that achieve a 70's sound with 'unlimited' studio time....

Plus, in the end, the artist has the decision now! If he wants to have the album sound in some flawless or flawed manner, he will make it that way. In the 70's, the choice wasn't really given. And I think prog artists are aware that they can reproduce 70's "conditions" today. If they choose not to, it means they want something different, something more.

I think you can't really make a statement such as "70's music sounds more human, so it sounds better", because this "70's sound" is still reprodceable today, with no penalty for the artist! (it's not like the artist choses to only make vynils and no digital format for example...)

If you think that you know better, well... you're either subjective (nothing wrong with that) or pretentious (difficult to say there is something wrong with that either on a prog forum Confused )

It is the questton what you define as "flaw". The real problem is that music is a communication. If every musician records his track or tracks separately this communication is gone. Hence I definitely prefer it when all musicians play at the same time instead of recording each track separately. The more "live" a studio recording is the better.
Of course the 70s sound can be reprocessed; you just have to record the same way. And I don't even necessarily mean use analog equipment. Spontaneity is an important part of music. But spontaneity is risky, and hardly anyone takes risks anymore.
Pink Floyd used to record their instruments separately which is why I asked the quesion earlier in the thread about which albums contains these flaws which make them better. Dark Side Of The Moon? Its really irrititating me this idea that good music is recorded in a particluar way and in a particular time frame yet hardly anyone is quoting specific examples to back this up.
Back to Top
Anaon View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 01 2005
Location: Kobaļa
Status: Offline
Points: 849
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 18 2010 at 16:09
Quote yet hardly anyone is quoting specific examples to back this up


Do you want examples of flaws or mistakes in some songs?
Because there's a lot of examples maybe on every 70's albums actually. But we're talking about very small flaws of course, like very small rythm mistakes or noises Wink

As someone said, there's a website about all the Beatles "anomalies" : http://wgo.signal11.org.uk/wgo.htm
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 18884
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 18 2010 at 19:11
Originally posted by BaldFriede BaldFriede wrote:

Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

As an ELP fan I've noticed one or two comments about Keith Emerson being 'sloppy' when he plays. I actually agree with that but to be honest I prefer listening to him play when he doesn't make mistakes!

Anyway all these mistakes that prog bands made in the seventies to make their records more 'real'. Please can I have a list?

I am not talking of actual bun notes or the likes. it is the slight imperfections that make it sound organic.
 
I'm not sure that this is on the same wave length.
 
When it comes to the "creation" of music, there are no mistakes. And this is the case in the history of music, and one similar and fun example to check out is kind of thing is in the film "Amadeus" .... "too many notes" ... and everyone agrees.
 
So, for the sake of an argument, we have done the same thing with music ... this is right and this is wrong, and dissonance was not acceptable before, and is a major part of music in the 20th century. 
 
Guess what ... some of the perfections of today were the "imperfections" of yesterday.
 
Having a human touch and interaction with the music makes sense, and is, what the history of music is all about ... there is not a single doubt of that in anyone's mind I don't think!
 
But there are some funny stories about all this today ... so I got some people to hear some things by Emily Howell. And since those people did not know anything about Emily, they said ... far out ... very nice ... good ... quite well developed ... all kinds of nice compliments ... and then ... they were told the bottom line ... Emily Howell is a computer! And the people that knew that before hand thought it was bad, insensitive and what not ... and they would not even consider the music itself.
 
So, the point would be ... that it doesn't matter if the perfections or imperfections are in or out ... what matters for most of us, is ... how did it affect you? What maybe perfect for you and I could be completely the opposite.
 
It's the same with literature, poetry, music and art ... when it hits you, it hits you good and there is no perfection or imperfection ... it just is -- is how I like to express it.


Edited by moshkito - August 18 2010 at 19:27
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
richardh View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 18 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 30502
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2010 at 01:54
Originally posted by Anaon Anaon wrote:

Quote yet hardly anyone is quoting specific examples to back this up


Do you want examples of flaws or mistakes in some songs?
Because there's a lot of examples maybe on every 70's albums actually. But we're talking about very small flaws of course, like very small rythm mistakes or noises Wink

As someone said, there's a website about all the Beatles "anomalies" : http://wgo.signal11.org.uk/wgo.htm
Yes I do want specific examples that make the music better to people instead of this over romanticed notion that things were better then because the bands were allowed to make mistakes thanks to the lack of sophisticated recording techniques (which I simply don't agree with)
This whole thread has the smell of 'things were better back then' anyway. Thats just an old farty kind of attitude.
I would rather take everything at face value. Its not important how you get from A to B just that the end result is worth listening to. Some seem to have decided that nothing recorded after a certain time can be anygood. Walter's cut off 1989 is actually quite hilarious given that the eighties was such a poor time for prog rock. I would have a lot more respect for this view if the cut off was 1969 tbh. For many who are not prog or heavy rock fans the seventies was a very cynical time when recording techniques overtook natural creativity.Pink Floyd spent a whole year recording DSOTM ffs!


Edited by richardh - August 19 2010 at 01:55
Back to Top
Sean Trane View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Prog Folk

Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20683
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2010 at 02:29
A copy/paste from un-reacted-to post in the third page....
 
 
Over the decades, the sound itself of some intruments changed a lot - particularly at the end of that "iconic decade" or at least at the start of the following one; hence or  therefore altering at length the way to play the instruments, but this alteration will of course keep happening throughout the many decades to come. (hopefully I make sense here)
 
But the digitalization of synths really caused a major shock in the music, as did the way to play drums (the emphasis on snare drums, for ex). This is probably why most of us perceive the 70's as the ultimate decade for music , before the "big digital change" of the 80's and beyond.
 
This is why these retro-prog bands (ala Anglagard or Elephant 9) sounds so good to us at first listen, because they use those "vintage" instruments( or at least those 70's sounds sampled through their modern instruments), and they try to play them in the 70's manner. Unfortunately (at least for me); these retro-something groups are so busy emulating the 70's that they tend to overlook that the songwriting and inspiration must be coming from the soul, and not from the 70's group's tablatures.
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Sean Trane - August 19 2010 at 02:30
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
Back to Top
Anaon View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 01 2005
Location: Kobaļa
Status: Offline
Points: 849
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2010 at 03:12
Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

Originally posted by Anaon Anaon wrote:

Quote yet hardly anyone is quoting specific examples to back this up


Do you want examples of flaws or mistakes in some songs?
Because there's a lot of examples maybe on every 70's albums actually. But we're talking about very small flaws of course, like very small rythm mistakes or noises Wink

As someone said, there's a website about all the Beatles "anomalies" : http://wgo.signal11.org.uk/wgo.htm
Yes I do want specific examples that make the music better to people instead of this over romanticed notion that things were better then because the bands were allowed to make mistakes thanks to the lack of sophisticated recording techniques (which I simply don't agree with)
This whole thread has the smell of 'things were better back then' anyway. Thats just an old farty kind of attitude.
I would rather take everything at face value. Its not important how you get from A to B just that the end result is worth listening to. Some seem to have decided that nothing recorded after a certain time can be anygood. Walter's cut off 1989 is actually quite hilarious given that the eighties was such a poor time for prog rock. I would have a lot more respect for this view if the cut off was 1969 tbh. For many who are not prog or heavy rock fans the seventies was a very cynical time when recording techniques overtook natural creativity.Pink Floyd spent a whole year recording DSOTM ffs!


Once again, there's a misunderstanding of my thread if you think that it's just a nostalgia thing. I don't speak for other people but I can tell you that I don't have any date limit to judge if music is good or bad. If you check my cds (well, you can here : http://rateyourmusic.com/collection/Hydromantic/oo,fmt.CD), you can see that I listen to music from different decades BUT I prefer the 70's vibe because of SOUND, INTERPRETATION, PRODUCTION AND SPIRIT.

I guess it's also because if I LOVE music, I also LOVE sounds. As an example, there's a lot of modern bands that I can't listen to just because the guitar sound. It's bad because I know I miss a lot of stuffs but in the other hands, when bands have the music AND the sound, it's pure heaven for me Tongue

So you can see this as "a farty attitude", in french, we'd say a "snob attitude" but I think it's just a matter of taste. In 70's music, I can't help feeling something is happening coming from the song, the playing, the sound, it's alive but I feel the same way with some modern bands, there are exception, I'm thinking about Oceansize (who record live I believe) or bands of Post Rock for example.

And I don't think it's a matter of time in the studio actually. I'm thinking about Mike Oldfield first albums. Even for Tubular Bells, he thought he had all the time he wanted (actually, he had to pay but didn't know it and had to work at night if I remember well) but for the other albums, he had all the time he wanted. Take Ommadawn, one of my favourite album of all the time, it's just PERFECT (to me of course). There are so many production, sound and interpretation flaws but it's perfection to me because of the melodies (the most important) and then because something is happening, instruments are breathing, it's like being in the studio surrounding by all those sounds, percussions, etc

It's not easy to explain in english, sorry for the awkard language but I hope you understand that it's not just an attitude but just my taste in music and sound.

To ask the initial question differently, I wondered if people care about mistakes in music if the music itself is good.
Back to Top
mono View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 12 2005
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 652
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2010 at 04:20
Originally posted by BaldFriede BaldFriede wrote:


It is the questton what you define as "flaw". The real problem is that music is a communication. If every musician records his track or tracks separately this communication is gone.

....euuuh, no. not necessarly. Plus, it's not like noone recorded track-by-track in the 70's! Most groups actually did.

Originally posted by BaldFriede BaldFriede wrote:


Hence I definitely prefer it when all musicians play at the same time instead of recording each track separately. The more "live" a studio recording is the better.


In other words, you like live recordings... lots of people do, this is why live recordings are (sometimes) released as CDs!
I also believe the ratio of bands that KNOW how to perform live hasn't changed much since the '70's...

Originally posted by BaldFriede BaldFriede wrote:


Of course the 70s sound can be reprocessed; you just have to record the same way. And I don't even necessarily mean use analog equipment. Spontaneity is an important part of music. But spontaneity is risky, and hardly anyone takes risks anymore.


This is more interesting, but I still disagree. Improvisation is still as practiced as ever. So spontaneity is there. When you get to the recording phase, you generally know EXACTLY what you are going to play, so not much left for spontaneity anyways.
And this didn't just disappear!!! We now can take MUCH MORE "RISK" as you say during recording, because time is almost unlimited (for the bigger record houses) and we can store much more data than before.
I have to agree with richardh on this one, there is a smell of naive nostalgia in this thread.
https://soundcloud.com/why-music Prog trio, from ambiant to violence
https://soundcloud.com/m0n0-film Film music and production projects
https://soundcloud.com/fadisaliba (almost) everything else
Back to Top
Rabid View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 20 2008
Location: Bridge of Knows
Status: Offline
Points: 512
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2010 at 09:18
Originally posted by Ronnie Pilgrim Ronnie Pilgrim wrote:

Originally posted by BaldFriede BaldFriede wrote:

The main difference is quite simple: and the real reason why 70s prog is so much better than today's: The bands had very limited studio time, so the albums are all imperfect; there are little flaws on them everywhere. Today every little flaw is removed by just recording another take. This makes the albums perfect but hopelessly sterile. Fortunately there are still a few bands around that know it is the little flaws that give spirit to an album, but it is mostly the bands that have been around for thirty or forty years already.

Lady, you rock! I've said it many times in this forum - slight imperfections in music give it a human warmth. Heart
 
Seconded.............but what if the performer does'nt make any imperfections? Is it a totally-brilliant, utterly-fantastic sterile piece of music?
 
Question
"...the thing IS, to put a motor in yourself..."
Back to Top
Rabid View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 20 2008
Location: Bridge of Knows
Status: Offline
Points: 512
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2010 at 09:40
Originally posted by ptkc123 ptkc123 wrote:

Originally posted by WalterDigsTunes WalterDigsTunes wrote:

Originally posted by ptkc123 ptkc123 wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

I have to ask only because I havn't really dealt with you much Walter, and I am honestly curious.
Is 1989 a line? Like after that, it does not even matter?
And do you like bands that exist pre 1989 but released stuff after? Are all those now junk?
Also, how over the top you are I find it very difficult to believe you are 100% sincere, but it provides me withLOL nonetheless.


I totally want to hear Walter's answer to this... I've often contemplated asking him this myself LOL.
Walter...? Walter...!?


All post-1989 artists should just pack it up, get their stuff off the market and move on to something that's actually productive. Leave the music the pros, those Golden Age heroes who knew how to actually make music rather than the slop that gets lobbed at us by the kids.

So you're OK with, say, King Crimson making music today? I don't think there's a difference with KC making new music versus a new artist making new music that is of high quality.

So the youth (or "kids" as you put it) aren't capable of making quality music nowadays?

You know, Zappa and Fripp were young once... they made pretty damn good music.
 
And Walters grand-dad  probably ranted about them, too !  LOL
 
 
 
"...the thing IS, to put a motor in yourself..."
Back to Top
mono View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 12 2005
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 652
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2010 at 10:11
Originally posted by Rabid Rabid wrote:

 
Seconded.............but what if the performer does'nt make any imperfections? Is it a totally-brilliant, utterly-fantastic sterile piece of music?
 
Question


Can you please explain that in more detail (mostly the second part)?
https://soundcloud.com/why-music Prog trio, from ambiant to violence
https://soundcloud.com/m0n0-film Film music and production projects
https://soundcloud.com/fadisaliba (almost) everything else
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2010 at 12:50
Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

This whole thread has the smell of 'things were better back then' anyway. Thats just an old farty kind of attitude.
I would rather take everything at face value. Its not important how you get from A to B just that the end result is worth listening to. Some seem to have decided that nothing recorded after a certain time can be anygood.

It is wrong to attribute any and every comparison of past and present to nostalgia.  Things move in cycles and in between there are secular trends, they are NOT exactly the same way then and now.  There were utterly boring but extremely popular artists then and now like Diana Ross and Celine Dion, so to that extent everything with the 70s stamp is not by default glorious.  But, there was also a pronounced shift in favour of precision and technicality in rock around the late 70s.  The Van Halen debut probably kickstarted it.  Eddie Van Halen in his own right was a very expressive guitarist, but the shredders who erupted (pun intended) in his wake were not necessarily so.  And greater emphasis on precision and technicality than expression and warmth does lead to music sounding less emotional than before.  It seemed like grunge was reversing the tide, but rock sub genres have become too niche to influence the whole scene and in the meantime, metal seems to have returned with a vengeance with more precision and more sterility than ever before.   You can simply say, "B**s this is just you, I find shred way more emotional than Steve Hackett" but even if you do (and I would have to respect a different opinion while still disagreeing), it simply means it's about perception and not nostalgia.  

Originally posted by richardh richardh wrote:

For many who are not prog or heavy rock fans the seventies was a very cynical time when recording techniques overtook natural creativity.Pink Floyd spent a whole year recording DSOTM ffs!

They were then sadly too cynical for their own good.  Even outside prog and heavy rock, you had artists like Stevie Wonder, Herbie Hancock, Return to Forever and if people couldn't enjoy them, they probably wouldn't enjoy music in any decade.  

Originally posted by mono mono wrote:

 When you get to the recording phase, you generally know EXACTLY what you are going to play, so not much left for spontaneity anyways.


But what if music emerges, or at least feels like it emerged, from improvisations?  Cert1fied has written a lot about this in different threads on the forum, read them for in depth explanations.  And John Wetton says prog rock back in the day emerged from improvisations, so it's certainly not a theory without basis.   Anyway, the point is when music seems to have emerged from improvisations, the dots 'connect' better and the whole becomes greater than the sum of the parts.  When it is too perfect and too calculated, it sounds put together and deliberate.  These things are all very hard to establish factually, but music is art, not science and the listener has to 'feel' the crux of these observations, nobody can help him 'get it'.  

Originally posted by Rabid Rabid wrote:

but what if the performer does'nt make any imperfections? Is it a totally-brilliant, utterly-fantastic sterile piece of music?

A truly great and perfect performance would be both expressive and flawless at the same time.  What is called perfect these days is simply what is technically flawless.  That is of course not enough in music, but if you say so, you are a hopeless nostalgic. Wink

 
Quote But the digitalization of synths really caused a major shock in the music, as did the way to play drums (the emphasis on snare drums, for ex). This is probably why most of us perceive the 70's as the ultimate decade for music , before the "big digital change" of the 80's and beyond.

I agree with this, but production has vastly improved since the 80s and some 90s albums like OK Computer sound great.  The way rock musicians also changed fundamentally getting into the 80s and that is yet to be reversed.  
Back to Top
Rabid View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 20 2008
Location: Bridge of Knows
Status: Offline
Points: 512
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2010 at 19:13
Originally posted by mono mono wrote:

Originally posted by Rabid Rabid wrote:

 
Seconded.............but what if the performer does'nt make any imperfections? Is it a totally-brilliant, utterly-fantastic sterile piece of music?
 
Question


Can you please explain that in more detail (mostly the second part)?
 
Does the lack of imperfection make for a sterile performance, as there's no imperfections to highlight the human touch?
 
ie: if a drummer played with comparable precision to a drum machine and made no human error, would it not just sound like a drum-machine?
 
Question
 


Edited by Rabid - August 19 2010 at 19:54
"...the thing IS, to put a motor in yourself..."
Back to Top
Rabid View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 20 2008
Location: Bridge of Knows
Status: Offline
Points: 512
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2010 at 19:44
 I wonder how many classic  solos were actually recorded in one take?
 
The usual method was to 'comp' a solo from an assortment of takes.
 
Ermm
 
"...the thing IS, to put a motor in yourself..."
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 19 2010 at 20:42
Originally posted by Rabid Rabid wrote:


 
ie: if a drummer played with comparable precision to a drum machine and made no human error, would it not just sound like a drum-machine?
 
Question
 

But a drum machine would sound robotic. A drummer playing precisely MAY sound robotic but he need not.  Compare the drums on Aja and Gaucho (where drum machines were used).  It is important to stress here that the problem is not with not making any mistakes at all but with ensuring that there are no mistakes at all at the expense of expression.  
Back to Top
Geizao View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 23 2008
Location: Key Largo
Status: Offline
Points: 393
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 20 2010 at 03:51

(I think) the bass sound of the 70's progrock is louder. Abbey Road (Beatles) is a good example. High music in this final album but the bass sound (by Paul McCartney) still old in its voice. But it works pretty fine, as anything by The Beatles or Sir Paul did.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 8>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.290 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.