70's sound and interpretation compared to today

[

Nathaniel607 wrote: 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.

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.

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  )

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.

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

As someone said, there's a website about all the Beatles "anomalies" : http://wgo.signal11.org.uk/wgo.htm

Anaon wrote: 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 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)

Edited by richardh - August 19 2010 at 01:55

richardh wrote: Anaon wrote: 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 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

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.

Ronnie Pilgrim wrote: 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.

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

Can you please explain that in more detail (mostly the second part)?

mono wrote: Rabid wrote:   Seconded.............but what if the performer does'nt make any imperfections? Is it a totally-brilliant, utterly-fantastic sterile piece of music?   Can you please explain that in more detail (mostly the second part)?

Edited by Rabid - August 19 2010 at 19:54

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?