| Author |
Topic: Bob Dylan says modern music is 'autrocius' |
Greg Cutshaw
From:
Corry, PA, USA
|
Posted 22 Aug 2006 10:14 am |
|
Gotta agree. Maybe this should be posted in the humor section.
click here
Greg |
|
|
 |
Dave White
From:
Fullerton, California USA
|
Posted 22 Aug 2006 11:59 am
|
|
Quote: “You listen to these modern records, they’re atrocious, they have sound all over them,” he added. “There’s no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing, just like ... static.”
Dylan said he does his best to fight technology, but it’s a losing battle.
“Even these songs probably sounded 10 times better in the studio when we recorded ’em. CDs are small. There’s no stature to it.”
End Quote
What Dylan is complaining about is absolutely true and has been discussed previously in other threads on this forum. Modern recorded music has lost its dynamics and its heart. Everything is compressed to the point of ridiculousness, both in the studio and in mastering. Everyone is trying to be louder than everyone else. Give me back the old analog days of 2-inch 16-track tape, tube amps and 12" vinyl--it all sounded better then.
[This message was edited by Dave White on 22 August 2006 at 01:01 PM.] |
|
|
|
Steinar Gregertsen
From:
Arendal, Norway, R.I.P.
|
Posted 22 Aug 2006 12:21 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| Give me back the old analog days of 2-inch 16-track tape, tube amps and 12" vinyl--it all sounded better then. |
I agree..........and disagree..
There's an old saying that goes "Just because you can doesn't mean you should", and that's the problem with much of modern music production,- it's not so much the equipment but the way people (ab)use it.
I know I've said this before,- we've never had such great tools for preserving the dynamics and 'breath' of a performance as we have today, yet most use it too achieve the exact opposite. It's absurd and tragic....
Steinar
------------------
"Play to express, not to impress"
www.gregertsen.com
Southern Moon Northern Lights
|
|
|
|
Tom Olson
From:
Spokane, WA
|
Posted 22 Aug 2006 1:38 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| Everyone is trying to be louder than everyone else. |
I agree, but I would add that they try to either be louder than everyone else (especially when playing live) and/or try to have the most vulgar lyrics (e.g., rap and some pop music) and/or try to have the most hokey-snivelling-to-the-point-of-being-downright-embarrassing lyrics (e.g. most new country).
I guess when there's no real musical content in your "music" you have to try to shore it up with something else.
|
|
|
|
Dave White
From:
Fullerton, California USA
|
Posted 22 Aug 2006 2:01 pm
|
|
Case in point:
"K-Fed"[This message was edited by Dave White on 22 August 2006 at 03:02 PM.] |
|
|
|
Donny Hinson
From:
Glen Burnie, Md. U.S.A.
|
Posted 22 Aug 2006 2:37 pm
|
|
What Steinar said!
"Compression sucks (the life out of the music)". |
|
|
|
Chris Forbes
From:
Beltsville, MD, USA
|
Posted 23 Aug 2006 2:43 am
|
|
| On a sorta related note, I read of review of Bob Dylan's recent show in this area that almost made me pee myself I laughed so hard. They said pretty much everybody knows he can't sing, but his already limited voice has deteriorated so much that he now sounds "like the cookie monster with a head cold!!" I love the man's music and have a HUGE amount of respect for his career, but that still cracked me up! |
|
|
|
Jim Cohen
From:
Philadelphia, PA
|
Posted 23 Aug 2006 3:55 am
|
|
| That's atrocious. |
|
|
|
Rick Johnson
From:
Wheelwright, Ky USA
|
|
|
|
Greg Cutshaw
From:
Corry, PA, USA
|
Posted 23 Aug 2006 4:22 am
|
|
Looks like my spelling of"autrocius" is atrocious.
Greg |
|
|
|
Jason Odd
From:
Stawell, Victoria, Australia
|
Posted 23 Aug 2006 7:44 am
|
|
modern music atrocious... wha?
I suppose I'd have to listen to a mainstream album to get the point, but why change my listening habits.
I dread to think where Bob gets his musical updates from, MTV?
|
|
|
|
Ron Page
From:
Penn Yan, NY USA
|
Posted 23 Aug 2006 8:03 am
|
|
Why doesn't Dylan lay down a few bucks of his own and produce a CD the right way-- whatever he thinks that is. I'm sure Justin Trevino could show him a thing or two about getting his own gear or getting together outside the major one-sound-fits-all studios.
------------------
HagFan
[This message was edited by Ron Page on 23 August 2006 at 09:03 AM.] |
|
|
|
Al Moss
From:
Kent,OH,USA
|
Posted 23 Aug 2006 5:46 pm
|
|
| Anybody read the Dylan chronicles? His recording with Dan Lanois takes up a pretty healthy chunk of the book and goes into detail about the "live" in the studio performances that they went after. I've read a bunch of accounts as to how the tape keeps running much of the time in the studio to insure that none of the magic of the moment escpaes. (that's a lot of tape) We all know how the subtle nunaces of dynamics feel and sound like onstage and to document that on tape is pretty darn cool. The dynamic range of pop music can get fairly compressed and kinda sucks some of the real life moment out of a recorded performance. The drag is that folks forget what dynamic shifts are all about and the beauty with which they can inform a hunk of music. |
|
|
|
Leslie Ehrlich
From:
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
|
Posted 23 Aug 2006 9:14 pm
|
|
2-inch 16-track tape, and 12" vinyl--it all sounded better then? Are you serious? Do you really think that tape hiss and record crackle sounds better than a nice clean digital recording?
Not me. Digital sound files are way better than analog recordings. The problem today is the use of effects and mixing. This was brought about by a change in styles of playing, not a change in technology.
Examples of 'bad' modern music are today's 'dance' music with a heavy pulsating bass drum (I call it contemporary disco), the so called 'nu-metal' with bassy heavily distorted 'chug chug' guitars and Cookie Monster vocals, and of course contemporary 'punk' rock with thrashy rhythm guitar and the screaming and shouting of angst-ridden lyrics.
|
|
|
|
Alvin Blaine
From:
Picture Rocks, Arizona, USA
|
Posted 23 Aug 2006 10:18 pm
|
|
| Quote: |
| Why doesn't Dylan lay down a few bucks of his own and produce a CD the right way-- whatever he thinks that is. |
He's not complaining about the production of the album, he's talking about the post-production. He said the songs sounded 10 times better in the studio than on the radio.
Dylan doesn't like the way that Cd's are mastered where the music is so compressed that it doesn't have any dynamic range left to it.[This message was edited by Alvin Blaine on 23 August 2006 at 11:29 PM.] |
|
|
|
Jim Cohen
From:
Philadelphia, PA
|
Posted 24 Aug 2006 6:16 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| “Even these songs probably sounded 10 times better in the studio when we recorded ’em." |
... and despite being "Bob Dylan" he cannot control the post-production?? Somehow, I find that hard to believe...[This message was edited by Jim Cohen on 25 August 2006 at 05:52 AM.] |
|
|
|
Michael Johnstone
From:
Sylmar,Ca. USA
|
Posted 24 Aug 2006 7:30 am
|
|
| When people bitch about "bring back the good old days of analog" etc,what they're really bitching about is the new crop of "engineers" raised on ProTools who think they can run out and buy a computer and start making records.Kinda like a guy who buys a pedal steel and tries to play a gig the next night.There are old school recording techniques that take decades to master that apply to any recording medium. The sound quality of a record is determined by the engineers chops,the musicians chops,the mics & preamps,the vocalist and(hello)the song.In short,the sound and vibe of the record exists way before tape(or hard drive)rolls and if that first part is done correctly,the recording medium matters little or not at all.In fact with the advent of 24/192,the resolution of analog tape has finally been surpassed by digital.If a digital recording sounds bad you can bet it's not the fault of the medium but the chump running the box. |
|
|
|
David L. Donald
From:
Koh Samui Island, Thailand
|
Posted 24 Aug 2006 8:58 am
|
|
Protools is just a tool...
You can misues a screwdriver from stupidity.
or use it to chisel swans from ice...
It's the lack if experience of the "tool" behind the wheel,
and the avarice of the "suit" behind the checkbook
who are most to blame.
What Michael said. |
|
|
|
Chris LeDrew
From:
Canada
|
Posted 24 Aug 2006 10:51 am
|
|
| Bob seems to be referring to the mastering process, which is sometimes to blame for the over-compression of stuff on the radio. By the time the listener hears it, the music has been compressed three times: recording, mastering, and broadcast. By then, there's nothing left but a vortex. Unless, of course, the mastering job is done properly and all the compression stages are taken into consideration. To me, stuff always sounds better before it gets chewed up in mastering. It's a fine art, mastering. It can easily kill a good-sounding mix. |
|
|
|
Kevin Ruddell
From:
Toledo Ohio USA
|
Posted 24 Aug 2006 1:53 pm
|
|
| The odd occasion when I go to a movie theater I'm reminded of this audio situation by the movie previews where the sound effects are totally over the top . Just because they can , doesn't mean they should. Now that there are so many things available there is a lot of overkill . A case in point for me , The Brian Setzers Orchestras Dirty Boogie CD , the music in it is fine but it sounds blaringly loud even at low volume; rendering it unlistenable ; or Carlos Santanas hit record Smooth with Rob Thomas several years ago, good song but packed with too much sound into a bit of a crapcake for the ears. |
|
|
|
Greg Cutshaw
From:
Corry, PA, USA
|
Posted 24 Aug 2006 3:31 pm
|
|
Where is Owen Bradley when you need him? Look at how many artists he recorded to perfection. Great dynamics, perfect mix, timeless sounds. I have heard many other records of the same era and the same artist produced by others and they don't sound so good. I agree that modern media and tools are better but the end result is not worth listening too, it has gotten much worse that the vinyl days. It's not that we need to go back to vinyl. My inexpensive CD's made from my vinyl LP's sound just as good as the vinyl LP's.
Greg |
|
|
|
Steinar Gregertsen
From:
Arendal, Norway, R.I.P.
|
Posted 25 Aug 2006 2:58 am
|
|
The thing is that vinyl put a natural limit to how "loud" and compressed you could produce a master,- if it was too loud the needle would simply jump out of then vinyl grooves.
With the digital media there are no such limitations anymore, and true to human nature we tend to abuse that "freedom from limitations".
We only have ourselves to blame, not the CD or ProTools or any other tools. We can produce the most dynamic and 'warm' music anytime we want to, or we can keep pushing that "everything to the max" treshold......
Steinar
------------------
"Play to express, not to impress"
www.gregertsen.com
Southern Moon Northern Lights
|
|
|
|
David Doggett
From:
Bawl'mer, MD (formerly of MS, Nawluns, Gnashville, Knocksville, Lost Angeles, Bahsten. and Philly)
|
Posted 25 Aug 2006 8:13 am
|
|
| As evidence of what Steiner just said, at recent parties my children have twice blown the fuses in my stereo systems 100 watt speakers (3-way 12") by turning up my 50 watt receiver too high. I had never before blown those fuses, even though in years past I had cranked the volume all the way up. I was confused about how that happened until I recently had my turntable repaired and hooked it up to my stereo after several years of no vinyl. It was immediately obvious that I had to turn the volume up much higher with vinyl than with CDs. It turns out that I had only cranked the volume all the way up with vinyl, never with a CD. CDs are so much louder than vinyl that my 50 watt receiver is able to blow the fuses on my 100 watt speakers. |
|
|
|
Steinar Gregertsen
From:
Arendal, Norway, R.I.P.
|
Posted 25 Aug 2006 8:32 am
|
|
A vinyl LP usually had an average loudness (RMS) of -17 to -20db, while a 'commercial' CD average around -10db RMS (give or take a few).
There's a lot of volume in that 10db difference.
Steinar
------------------
"Play to express, not to impress"
www.gregertsen.com
Southern Moon Northern Lights
|
|
|
|
Dave White
From:
Fullerton, California USA
|
Posted 25 Aug 2006 8:51 am
|
|
| Steinar and Michael Johnstone have both put into words what I was trying to say. Certainly, analog had its faults and limitations, but the really good engineers worked around those and produced a really warm, dynamic sound that is missing in most of today's music. I cut my teeth in recording(many many years ago) on an Ampex MM1000 16 track, and it was a beautiful machine. Run it at 30 IPS, keep the heads properly aligned and deguassed, and tape hiss was never a problem. And what a sound it got! There are studios that still use those machines today even though replacement parts are getting harder to find. |
|
|
|
