Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 252

Thread: The Old Way vs The New Way

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Skullhead View Post
    Great musicians in the same room making an album together, relating directly to one another and tracking to analog tape

    vs

    The one man band making a recording using pre canned samples from a program or the web.

    What will history say about this over time?

    My prediction is that most here will say something minimal along the lines of "If it sounds good, who cares how it was done."


    Attachment 6306Attachment 6307

    A man alone in a room, using the raw materials of his imagination.

    vs.

    A man and his phone/tablet and access to every video ever made.

    The new way, please!

  2. #52
    I temporarily seem to have lost my resolve never to enter a discussion of this kind, but talking about Led Zeppelin, I have always admired the way Jimmy played all those guitar parts at the same time, like the electric 12 string and/or two rhythm guitars and an acoustic guitar while also doing a lead on a six string all at once with no overdubbing. Or even John Paul Jones playing the organ and bass guitar at the same time on Thank You. Beatles too: Paul playing the drums, bass, piano and singing harmonies all at once on Ballad of John and Yoko for example.

    Or have I missed the point and overdubbing is OK as long as it's on a tape machine?

    BD
    www.bdrak.com

  3. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Rarebird View Post
    I suppose without modern multitrack techniques Mike Oldfield wouldn't have recorded Tubular Bells.
    I would guess that Oldfield is by nature either a control freak or doesn't work well with other musicians.
    However, as much as I enjoy Tubular Bells, I think it could have been a much better album with the input from other great musicians and even composers. How about it Steve Howe took a couple guitar solos on the album or Ritchie Blackmore? What would Tony Banks have done with some of the sublime key parts?
    How about the drums being executed by Steve Gadd or Barymore Barlow?

    Often people simply don't get along. Blind Faith is a perfect example of a band I would have liked to have heard 3 albums from, not just the one. Ego's etc.

  4. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by NogbadTheBad View Post
    Because he's a one issue troll.
    That's not very nice. What's wrong with having a difference of opinion? I don't like your views, but I don't need to take the low road and start name calling. Take a deep breath.

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Drake View Post
    I temporarily seem to have lost my resolve never to enter a discussion of this kind, but talking about Led Zeppelin, I have always admired the way Jimmy played all those guitar parts at the same time, like the electric 12 string and/or two rhythm guitars and an acoustic guitar while also doing a lead on a six string all at once with no overdubbing. Or even John Paul Jones playing the organ and bass guitar at the same time on Thank You. Beatles too: Paul playing the drums, bass, piano and singing harmonies all at once on Ballad of John and Yoko for example.

    Or have I missed the point and overdubbing is OK as long as it's on a tape machine?

    BD
    www.bdrak.com
    If you use a tape machine, you still have to play the notes and the limitations of the machine forces the musician to a higher standard of execution... rather than saying.. "ok, I can fix the rest in protools."

    Page wasn't going in and quantizing Bonham's drum tracks I can assure you. That is why the rhythm section of Zep breathes and sounds natural. Now this way of doing things now with quantization etc... it either hides the flaws of the inferior musician, or it dumbs down the efforts of the great player because if he lays it down without assistance, most just assume he used the assistance. This is huge, and you are ignoring the reality of this.

    Your stock answer of "I don't care, if it sounds good.. who cares?"
    but this is a selfish way of looking at things. It certainly matters to the musicians. Either they get adulation that is not warranted, or they don't get adulation when it is genuinely deserved.

    I hear people on this site raving about this or that band or artist, and I listen to it, and I can tell it is just digital sound collage stuff. Most people here maybe can't? It's not impressive to me at all, nor is photoshop. Sometimes I hear a fine player taking a solo on keys or guitar or a trumpet, but I can tell that the drums have been seriously compromised with quantization or excessive manipulation... and this takes away from the beauty of what could have been.... had musicians of equal caliber been tracking or playing it live.

    It would be better if musicians would take the time to find players of equal or great ability rather than trying to do everything themselves just because they can.
    Last edited by Skullhead; 12-02-2015 at 02:08 AM.

  6. #56
    Member Since: 3/27/2002 MYSTERIOUS TRAVELLER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    The Kingdom of YHVH
    Posts
    2,770
    you've beleaguered your viewpoint ad nauseam
    we now all know how much you hate modern recording techniques
    what do you want us to do as you continue to flog this dead horse?

    are you simply looking for one, just one person to agree with you that protools is the antichrist?

    will you stop flogging the dead horse if someone says they agree with you?

    what is your goal? WHAT DO YOU WANT?!?!
    Why is it whenever someone mentions an artist that was clearly progressive (yet not the Symph weenie definition of Prog) do certain people feel compelled to snort "thats not Prog" like a whiny 5th grader?

  7. #57
    Member at least 100 dead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Treetops High
    Posts
    274
    This is old , but it bears repeating...

    “I thought using loops was cheating, so I programmed my own using samples. I then thought using samples was cheating, so I recorded real drums. I then thought that programming it was cheating, so I learned to play drums for real. I then thought using bought drums was cheating, so I learned to make my own. I then thought using premade skins was cheating, so I killed a goat and skinned it. I then thought that that was cheating too, so I grew my own goat from a baby goat. I also think that is cheating, but I’m not sure where to go from here. I haven’t made any music lately, what with the goat farming and all.”
    "Dem Glücklichen legt auch der Hahn ein Ei."

  8. #58
    Member rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    7,765
    Music has sucked ever since people stopped using staff paper.

  9. #59
    Member Plasmatopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Plague Sanctuary, Vermont
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Skullhead View Post
    If you use a tape machine, you still have to play the notes and the limitations of the machine forces the musician to a higher standard of execution... rather than saying.. "ok, I can fix the rest in protools."
    But there is a logical fallacy right off the bat which goes back to your original post where you post the "damning" picture of some waveforms in a DAW. Just because recording in a DAW might (depending on the software) allow you to quantize drums or fix every note does not mean it was done. The DAW can be used just like a tape recorder. And by the same token, recordings done to analog tape by musicians all sitting around in the same room (and even if they were mind-melded together by several Vulcans at the time) could later be loaded into a DAW and manipulated like crazy. There's just no use painting with such a broad brush.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skullhead View Post
    Page wasn't going in and quantizing Bonham's drum tracks I can assure you. That is why the rhythm section of Zep breathes and sounds natural. Now this way of doing things now with quantization etc... it either hides the flaws of the inferior musician, or it dumbs down the efforts of the great player because if he lays it down without assistance, most just assume he used the assistance. This is huge, and you are ignoring the reality of this.
    I don't think anyone's ignoring the reality of the situation. But the broad brush does no one any good. This sort of thing is only helpful (IMO) if we're discussing a particular artist/album and why they/it may or may not resonate with us individually.


    Quote Originally Posted by Skullhead View Post
    Your stock answer of "I don't care, if it sounds good.. who cares?"
    but this is a selfish way of looking at things. It certainly matters to the musicians. Either they get adulation that is not warranted, or they don't get adulation when it is genuinely deserved.

    I hear people on this site raving about this or that band or artist, and I listen to it, and I can tell it is just digital sound collage stuff. Most people here maybe can't? It's not impressive to me at all, nor is photoshop. Sometimes I hear a fine player taking a solo on keys or guitar or a trumpet, but I can tell that the drums have been seriously compromised with quantization or excessive manipulation... and this takes away from the beauty of what could have been.... had musicians of equal caliber been tracking or playing it live.

    It would be better if musicians would take the time to find players of equal or great ability rather than trying to do everything themselves just because they can.
    This is why we see hoards of musicians jumping off bridges on a daily basis...the horror of misplaced adulation...
    <sig out of order>

  10. #60
    Member Plasmatopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Plague Sanctuary, Vermont
    Posts
    2,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Skullhead View Post
    I would guess that Oldfield is by nature either a control freak or doesn't work well with other musicians.
    However, as much as I enjoy Tubular Bells, I think it could have been a much better album with the input from other great musicians and even composers. How about it Steve Howe took a couple guitar solos on the album or Ritchie Blackmore? What would Tony Banks have done with some of the sublime key parts?
    How about the drums being executed by Steve Gadd or Barymore Barlow?
    Now here we go - a specific example! But here we see the problem. Lots of people like the album in question in its original form. It's a matter of personal taste. Some of the people who like the original might not like it with all those guest musicians. Others who don't like it now might like it with the guest musicians.

    Arguing about "the new way" being inferior is as useful as me coming on PE every day and railing against those who don't like my favorite bands. It's just not going to change anyone's ideas about what they like to hear.
    <sig out of order>

  11. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Skullhead View Post
    Take Led Zeppelin for example. Four guys who all were vital to the collective sound of the band. Certainly they were one of the greatest rock bands in history.
    [...]

    Will there be digital art museums in the future? "WOW! it's just incredible what they did in photoshop, just amazing! No different with music.
    What are you constantly trying to prove here? That rock music of the period 1960-1990 is better than what came later?

    Well the answer (and the proof in thousands of recorded works in existance) is brief:
    a. More original; probably. It has to do with who chronologically came first and traded new paths.
    b. Better; not necessarily. It has to do with skills, talent and structure. And if the computer in the hand of a talented individual enhances skills, then I'm welcoming it anytime.
    Macht das ohr auf!

    COSMIC EYE RECORDS

  12. #62
    Studmuffin Scott Bails's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Near Philly, PA
    Posts
    6,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Skullhead View Post
    That's not very nice. What's wrong with having a difference of opinion? I don't like your views, but I don't need to take the low road and start name calling. Take a deep breath.
    It's not about a difference of opinion. It's about the beating of a severely decomposing horse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skullhead View Post
    Your stock answer of "I don't care, if it sounds good.. who cares?"
    but this is a selfish way of looking at things. It certainly matters to the musicians. Either they get adulation that is not warranted, or they don't get adulation when it is genuinely deserved.
    Wait....isn't it the musicians who are using the technology? If it "mattered" to them, wouldn't they be banging on rocks instead of using the tools available to them? This doesn't make sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skullhead View Post
    It would be better if musicians would take the time to find players of equal or great ability rather than trying to do everything themselves just because they can.
    In your often-expressed opinion.
    Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally

  13. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Skullhead View Post
    as much as I enjoy Tubular Bells, I think it could have been a much better album with the input from other great musicians and even composers. How about it Steve Howe took a couple guitar solos on the album or Ritchie Blackmore? What would Tony Banks have done with some of the sublime key parts?
    How about the drums being executed by Steve Gadd or Barymore Barlow?
    To be fair to Mike, he was an unknown 19-year-old at the time. He had his own hands, a studio and instruments to use in the off-hours, and... that was about it.

  14. #64
    Studmuffin Scott Bails's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Near Philly, PA
    Posts
    6,583
    Quote Originally Posted by Skullhead View Post
    I would guess that Oldfield is by nature either a control freak or doesn't work well with other musicians.
    However, as much as I enjoy Tubular Bells, I think it could have been a much better album with the input from other great musicians and even composers. How about it Steve Howe took a couple guitar solos on the album or Ritchie Blackmore? What would Tony Banks have done with some of the sublime key parts?
    How about the drums being executed by Steve Gadd or Barymore Barlow?

    Often people simply don't get along. Blind Faith is a perfect example of a band I would have liked to have heard 3 albums from, not just the one. Ego's etc.
    What if just didn't want to use other musicians? What if that was his artistic decision?

    You could make your argument about any recording in the history of music - what if that artist had used other musicians? What's the point of even discussing it?
    Music isn't about chops, or even about talent - it's about sound and the way that sound communicates to people. Mike Keneally

  15. #65
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    32S 116E
    Posts
    0
    Gotta have those guitar solos... can't live without those guitar solos...

  16. #66
    Member Phlakaton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    713
    Skullhead - what happens if you stumble onto something you think is really awesome and sounds like what you want to hear... only to find it was made my some multi-instrumentalist in his basement without a band on a computer? Do you bin it? lol

  17. #67
    I'd be very interested to hear what great musicians from the 70's would say about it. Would they prefer going back to the old way of recording? They certainly have the money and there are certainly studios that could accommodate them (not many anymore, granted, but there are certainly some). My guess is they would laugh and wonder why anyone would want to spend all that time and money doing things that can be done in seconds, basically for free, nowadays. I'm not talking about creating music here, only about recording it.

    There are loads of bands that still work the way Skullhead is suggesting is "better". When they record, they take advantage of modern technology (mostly) to make the process more streamlined, cheaper, and easier to deal with. I won't argue that some modern bands could use a producer outside the band to help hone their ideas, but I don't believe producers work for free and the recording business is not what it used to be.

    I guess I'm wondering now if Skullhead wants to put the genii back in the bottle somehow? If so, how is discussing the issue on progressivears going to help this goal? Or is he just a fan of beating dead horses?

    Personally, I'm fine with musicians using whatever tools are available to make great music. It's funny he mentions DSOTM, an album with samples galore on it (yes, they had to go out and record most of them to use them, but still). Not to mention overdubs, drop ins, effects added, etc., etc.

  18. #68
    Member No Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL, USA
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by Phlakaton View Post
    Skullhead - what happens if you stumble onto something you think is really awesome and sounds like what you want to hear... only to find it was made my some multi-instrumentalist in his basement without a band on a computer? Do you bin it? lol
    That's not going to happen; you can't fool the Analog Police!

    It's kind of a shame, huh? I'd hate to have such a limited criteria for appreciating music. Before Skullhead came around, I didn't realize how lucky I am to be able to enjoy Imogen Heap (who writes, plays, sings, arranges, produces and records everything by herself using ProTools) as much as a live-in-the-studio jazz quartet engineered by Rudy Van Gelder.

  19. #69
    Member No Pride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Chicago, IL, USA
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by infandous View Post
    I'd be very interested to hear what great musicians from the 70's would say about it. Would they prefer going back to the old way of recording? They certainly have the money and there are certainly studios that could accommodate them (not many anymore, granted, but there are certainly some). My guess is they would laugh and wonder why anyone would want to spend all that time and money doing things that can be done in seconds, basically for free, nowadays. I'm not talking about creating music here, only about recording it.

    There are loads of bands that still work the way Skullhead is suggesting is "better". When they record, they take advantage of modern technology (mostly) to make the process more streamlined, cheaper, and easier to deal with.
    Yep. I remember recording and mixing on an analog board in the '80s. You'd have seven guys huddled around the board like sardines in a can, each assigned to their own faders and having their own tasks to perform simultaneously. If one guy screwed up one move, you'd have to start over. Yeah, those were the days... not.

    Horse carriages were the shit too! Frickin' cars and trains ruined transportation.

  20. #70
    In all seriousness, I do think that current technology is responsible for some music I hear where I'm thinking to myself that it would definitely have been better if it had grown out of a band context and been recorded that way. However, this is not true for all of it - at least IMO.

    Also, I think one must consider all of what never would get made if these modern tools weren't available. In other words, it's not that album X principally laid down by one guy would have been better "the old way," but that the album might not have been made at all under any other conditions.

  21. #71
    Member Phlakaton's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    713
    Quote Originally Posted by No Pride View Post
    That's not going to happen; you can't fool the Analog Police!

    It's kind of a shame, huh? I'd hate to have such a limited criteria for appreciating music. Before Skullhead came around, I didn't realize how lucky I am to be able to enjoy Imogen Heap (who writes, plays, sings, arranges, produces and records everything by herself using ProTools) as much as a live-in-the-studio jazz quartet engineered by Rudy Van Gelder.
    Same with Mike Judge (The Nerve Institute) He does some really badass music on his own. Not sure how he is recording it but unless he's rich in a studio - must be tools he has at home and a computer.

  22. #72
    All Things Must Pass spellbound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Eastern Sierra
    Posts
    3,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Skullhead View Post
    Great musicians in the same room making an album together, relating directly to one another and tracking to analog tape
    "Several Species of Small Furry Animals Gathered Together in a Cave and Grooving with a Pict" - P. Floyd

    The one man band making a recording using pre canned samples from a program or the web.
    "The Loner" - N. Young
    We're trying to build a monument to show that we were here
    It won't be visible through the air
    And there won't be any shade to cool the monument to prove that we were here. - Gene Parsons, 1973

  23. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by infandous View Post
    I'd be very interested to hear what great musicians from the 70's would say about it. Would they prefer going back to the old way of recording? They certainly have the money and there are certainly studios that could accommodate them (not many anymore, granted, but there are certainly some). My guess is they would laugh and wonder why anyone would want to spend all that time and money doing things that can be done in seconds, basically for free, nowadays. I'm not talking about creating music here, only about recording it.

    There are loads of bands that still work the way Skullhead is suggesting is "better". When they record, they take advantage of modern technology (mostly) to make the process more streamlined, cheaper, and easier to deal with. I won't argue that some modern bands could use a producer outside the band to help hone their ideas, but I don't believe producers work for free and the recording business is not what it used to be.

    I guess I'm wondering now if Skullhead wants to put the genii back in the bottle somehow? If so, how is discussing the issue on progressivears going to help this goal? Or is he just a fan of beating dead horses?

    Personally, I'm fine with musicians using whatever tools are available to make great music. It's funny he mentions DSOTM, an album with samples galore on it (yes, they had to go out and record most of them to use them, but still). Not to mention overdubs, drop ins, effects added, etc., etc.
    Is this the first post that lacks cynism and actually brings something to the table?

    Didn't Steve Howe say "Bravo the 70's?" Didn't Stevie Nicks say she wished she could turn back the clock and go back to the old way? She did.

    I would think not many of the great artist of the 70's would go back because they are not filled with the youthful passion they once had in abundance. It seems a natural phenomenon to take the elevator rather than the staircase as one ages.

    I have heard more than once that the golden age of progressive rock was the 1970's. I don't necessarily believe it was just because of the era, there is always something to write about, wars, current state of affairs and culture etc. I do think that a huge part of the Golden Age of progressive rock had to do with the way things were done. As mentioned, those great bands had teams of professionals working with them. Talented producers, engineers, better financial backing for touring and shows. Now it's amateurs in their bedrooms filling up youtube hoping to be noticed and thinking they have really made it if they get 10,000 likes or views. There are also too many distractions, cell phones, 900 TV stations, events that didn't distract the youth of the 70's.

    Higher quality analog recording pressed on vinyl and an audience that was much more in tune with the idea of bigger speakers, tube amps, more audiophiles etc. There was more motivation for bands to get good and get noticed. You had big well attended festivals filled with live bands… not fused with digital sound collagers. YES performed "Tales From Topgraphic Oceans" to 20 thousand people at a concert venue. That's a nice reality for a creative kid to witness.

    So if the 70's were the golden age, why not look at the nuts and bolts of how things were done then? What instruments were used? How were things put together? It certainly wasn't cool to sound too much like another band. Having an original sound was certainly more embraced by the listening public.

    This whole idea that tape machines were inconvenient seems the popular opinion, but maybe there is more to look at. A simple thing like having to wait for the tape to rewind before attempting another take might give the musician extra time to think about what they are doing rather than auto looping on a computer. Also the fact that theoretically tape can wear out, so the sooner you get a great take the better it will sound. Maybe I should really practice this and get it right when I am actually ready rather than "that's good enough, and I'll just fix the rest on the computer."

    The fact is, most of the great prog artists of the 70's DID NOT make their best records in the 80's or beyond. Maybe they burned out on having to work so hard. In the Rush radio interview posted here, they said Hemispheres was their most ambitious album to record and perform and it was physically draining to do so. But it shines above anything they have done in the digital age. Sometimes hard work brings out the best.. really the best.

    Why would someone use the old way compared to the easy way? To ask more of themselves and make a better record.

    Why do I post such things? To inspire a couple of young artists or bands to rise to the challenge, think about why the 70's stuff is ultimately going to be the historic era, learn, study and consider doing things that way so that ultimately they might actually make a difference and truly get the best out of themselves.
    Learn, teach, ask questions of the former generation, make better quality music. Spend more time on their instruments and less time on the computer.

  24. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by No Pride View Post
    Yep. I remember recording and mixing on an analog board in the '80s. You'd have seven guys huddled around the board like sardines in a can, each assigned to their own faders and having their own tasks to perform simultaneously. If one guy screwed up one move, you'd have to start over. Yeah, those were the days... not.

    Horse carriages were the shit too! Frickin' cars and trains ruined transportation.
    But the fact is, a lot of great records were made that way. Just because you didn't make one of them, doesn't mean you shouldn't consider the quality of the output of others that did. Nothing wrong with the band all being there and discussing the mix…. eventually finding compromise.

  25. #75
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Silver Spring, MD
    Posts
    44
    A lot of great records have been made using computers, too. Modern bands can all "be there" and "discuss the mix" when recording and mixing on a computer, as well.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •