Which was better recorded: old prog on analog tape or newer prog on digital mediums?
Which was better recorded: old prog on analog tape or newer prog on digital mediums?
Well, this will be fun.
Old prog is better in every way. So much better I never listen to post 1983 prog
The stuff in the '80s that was recorded analog but mixed and mastered digitally. Otherwise, 'depends...'
The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off
There is too much diversity among old prog for me to answer this question. In any case, these days I'm usually listening to old prog on a remastered CD.
I have said this before on other threads, but I think it was more a way of doing things. In the tape era, if you wanted your album to sound tight.. you had to really play well, even if tracking separately. This really raised the bar, and the prog musicians were generally better musicians.. often formally trained, practiced more, had better "time" and were often more creative because they spent a lot of time practicing. Bands worked together in the same room, so ideas could come together quickly while fresh, and not having to wait around for your band mates sound file to come back the next day or so.
The old way of the vintage "A and R" guy had validity. There was more competition the play the clubs were they would be hanging out. Live bands were valued more than youtube vids put together with Final Cut Pro and a Pro Tools soundtrack.
Progressive Rock was really just complex rock music. Complex was explored more because the culture in general was much more intellectual. People were much more broad in their life scope of experiences... not just great at typing on their iphone and texting quickly with two fingers. There were less distractions for artists and musicians. Rather than texting, they were practicing. Rather than youtubing, they were gigging for audiences that couldn't give a rats ass about facebook followers or youtube views.
The musicians of that era also had real motivation and role models. There were many fine bands that were actually ALSO financially successful. How many Rolls Royce's did Rick Wakeman purchase after an instrumental prog album "Six Wives" went to #1 on the UK pop charts (can we imagine such a thing?)
Many genres had very healthy scenes. Today, it's just techno and rap, some watered down country. All of today's popular music is created in the sterile digital environment. The ears of the listeners have been dumbed down by decades of MP3 sound with earbuds. Ignorance is bliss.
I prefer how it's done now. The difference is in the "clearness" of the sound and there is more detail in the music. I'm speaking mainly about the so called prog rock.
Aren't there more possibilities to make a good sounding album than there were, for example, in the early 90's when prog bands spoke of limited budgets which in turn made an influence on the final sound? This is purely my speculation.
I don't think that it's cheap to make a good sounding album now either, but most albums which I listen to are acceptable. The difference is in production, mixing, engineering etc.
There are advantages to both eras. There is a clearness that wasn't around back in the day, but on the other hand, those old vintage consoles and microphones plus analog tape gave the recordings that "warmth" that everyone seems to love so much. However, I would not want to have to whip out the razor and splicing block to edit analog tape. The digital environment makes that task much more manageable.
Bill
She'll be standing on the bar soon
With a fish head and a harpoon
and a fake beard plastered on her brow.
My Greenslade albums were obviously low-budget affairs in their production but the music gloriously overcomes it....
There's a lot of stuff in the 70s that was badly recorded, simply because the budget wasn't there or the producer/engineer wasn't so good. Even the might Crimson generally sounded like ass on their albums- the music and performances overcome it of course. Of course in the digital 80s and 90s Crimson then sounded... like ass... hmmm, sensing a pattern here. Anyway it's not about technology and never has been. It's about ears. Eddie Offord and Ken Scott did great recordings in the analog age. Trevor Horn and Tears For Fears did amazing recordings in the digital age. Don Was, afaik, uses 2" tape to this day. Butch Vig doesn't but he gets the same sounds. It's about ears, and people, and music. Let the rest go.
None of these statements is in any way true. While the opportunity exists today for artists to indulge in poorly considered Internet collaborations mixed together in ProTools and mastered hot for low bandwidth playback, there is still plenty of music created from actual interactive performance (warts and all) recorded onto all forms of media and carefully mastered for the appropriate output format to preserve the maximum dynamic range and fidelity. You may think it's all techno, rap and watered down country but that's only because you've stopped listening. You're the one at fault here.Originally Posted by Skullhead
This can be compared to the film vs digital debate where Tarantino, Nolan, Anderson and to some extent Scorsese speak about the preservance of celluloid while there are those directors/cinematographers who claim that digital is the way forward and is perfectly fine.
I think both you and skullhead have some interesting points. I have worked on and off for a small town country music radio station for 30 years. What I think skullhead is talking about is what passes for top 40 today and that is techno, rap and watered down country. I have seen it firsthand with country. Country radio is trying to appeal to a younger demo and real country music, not the Luke Bryans and Jason Aldeans of the world, is not going to get any airplay. Randy Travis and Ricky Skaggs, not to mention George Jones and Merle Haggard, would never make it today.
I have run my own record store for 10 years now and what you are talking about doesn't sell here. It's, as Skullhead says, techno, Rap and R & B that pays the bills around here. Now, you are correct that there is still much being made that is created from actual interactive performances, but the question is how do these artists get noticed? It's sad to say, but it seems the masses couldn't care less about real music. It is out there and there is a lot of talented musicians making real music but they aren't connecting with large audiences like they used to.
Bill
She'll be standing on the bar soon
With a fish head and a harpoon
and a fake beard plastered on her brow.
Its funny... all the stuff I like the most currently - and what could be done digitally - isnt... or at least as far as I know. Inner Ear Brigade records everything analog and on tape. Love their sound. But then there is Regal Worm --- LOVE all the albums Jarrod Gosling makes - but I suspect he is using digital for the recording? I'm not sure but if he is - all the grotty old keyboards he uses still sound great that way. All in the ear as far as I'm concerned... doesnt matter to me how its done if I like the end result.
Wow. A lot of interesting points to consider. Thanks to all for your posts.
I'll just say two things:
1- I think debating "analog vs. digital" is about as subjective as debating "rock vs. jazz." The only difference is that most people have realized that the "rock vs. jazz" debate is essentially all about personal taste, whereas there are still lots of people who think they can prove analog is better than digital or vice versa.
2- For years, I thought the Swedish retro/stoner/prog band Dungen had some of the warmest analog sounds I had ever heard. Then I read in an interview that, although they use vintage instruments, the recordings are all basically digital.
I started listening to Progressive Music in 1974 when I was 12
I love Progressive Music and I love sound
Looking through the top Progressive albums I find just a few albums that I can say I adore for their sound
Pink Floyd
Zappa
Faust
Giles Giles & Fripp
I love King CrimsonGenesis ,Yes ,Gong, etc. but don't concider them to be a refrence for sound like I do great sounding pop music -Beatles Paul Simon , The Carpenters , Serge Gainsburg,
oh and I adore the ECM sound of the 70's Terje Rypdal etc.
But that is just my taste
As for great Modern sounding albums
Univers Zero-Live , Nik Bartch -Holon , Sonar-Black Light , Brandt Bauer Frick Mr. Machine , Lutz Gladien - The 5th Elephant , The Necks-Hanging Grdens , David Sylvian -Manafon ,Secret Chiefs 3
That would be my gold standard too.With dubbed-in surface noise? Nein danke!
Yes- thank you
I couldn't disagree more. This is not as subjective as you make it out to be, unless people deliberately prefer washed out sound, tape hiss, signal loss and other anomalies associated with older magnetic tape recordings.
The problem with "analog vs digital" is that most people get confused between what is objective and what is subjective. Subjectively speaking, you can prefer whatever you like, it's all about that particular sound which resonates the most with you. If you happen to like the particular sound of tape hiss and flutter comming out from cheap cassette tapes, that will be the best sound in the world for you, and nobody will be able to convince you otherwise.
Now, objectively speaking, if you want to compare measurable quantities (frequency range, noise floor, THD, etc), then there should be no discussion on which one is better. Anyone can measure it and come to the same objective conclusions. But, we also have to understand that what is technically better will not necessarily sound better for everyone. Each person will have different tastes and may like a different "colour" to their sound which is specific to a certain medium (vinyl records, magnectic tapes, wax cylinders, whatever...).
I think the main problem with digital, and the reason why it gets such a bad reputation amongst audiophiles, is due to the poor mastering choices, which until very recently were the rule rather than the exception (and maybe they still are). The rule of mastering your CD as loud as it can possibly be has made almost every CD release in the last 25 years sound like crap. But, as you mention in you point #2, digital can sound really great when done right. It's not the fault of the technology itself (which is technically superior by all accounts), but it's really how you use it.
I like them both. For me the most important is the music. As for the sound itself, it is much more important how you record it, mix it, and master it, than whether you use digital or analog.
Perspective Vortex - my new solo project available now at http://perspectivevortex.bandcamp.com
Mahtrak Progressive Jazz Rock - www.mahtrak.com
Someone said its like the difference between kodachrome 35mm and digital photography... The beauty of kodachrome cannot be denied... A warm and off color red tent or lipstick and deep forest greens and browns... Bright blue eyes, skies, and water. Those pictures were beautiful but were not exact representations as is digital photography... i feel the same way about analog LPs vs CDs and prefer still the old stuff... Digital is as close to true as can be in a clinical and short sort of way... So what.
Still alive and well...
I think the answer is pretty obvious...technology is better now of course. It wasn't just a matter of how is was recorded but how it was pressed. I remember hearing Suppers Ready the first time on cd and was amazed... because regardless of recording, the end product in the 1970's was horrid in retrospect. Same thing with Gentle Giant, Crimson, and the even the Beatles...
Why do the 70s Weather Report albums sound so much better than the 80s ones?
I don't have 'em all yet, but it's true for the ones I have.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks