Has technology improved music?

[brandondrury]

I've read endless threads at other forums arguing if 44.1Khz is better than 48Khz is better than 96Khz is better than 192Khz. New systems are coming out all the time. Pro Tools has launched HD3 is up to version 7 of their software. New preamps are coming out all the time. Basically, there is a lot happening in terms of recording / music gear.

....but....

I didn't buy a cd in 2005 because I wasn't aware of a cd worth buying. (Obvious marketing hasn't improved a damn bit with all this new technology).

So....Has technology improved music?

Brandon

[tyger373]

My vote is that music is the same. I think it is obvious that the quality in which the music is delivered has improved greatly. But if recorded well and I don't like the song, then it does nothing for me. I can listen to new music that I like and old music that I like and as long as I get that good vibe because of what's there.

[TAlderson]

No. Go listen to old Bob Dylan stuff, or old Beatles stuff, or anything really from when everything was recorded live with no overdubbing on old tapes. The quality of the recording compared to what we have today is shit. But the music is still good, and that's why many people still listen to it. Now, everything is crystal clear, and you can put 1,000,000,000,000,000 different overdubs and effects and voices and instruments, and yet, who's the biggest name in music? Britney Fucking Spears. I don't care how bad something sounds, if I like the music, I'll listen to it, even over something with the best quality ever.

-Tyler

[tyger373]

who's the biggest name in music? Britney Fucking Spears.

are you serious??

[Geisler]

Originally Posted by TAlderson

who's the biggest name in music? Britney Fucking Spears.

I thought it was $0.50.

[CorporateMustache]

The music is the same, just the time it takes to record and produce it is what has really changed because of technology.........
I also don't really like how technology has allowed what I call "fakers"( artists and bands who sound totally different live) to make albums, get super rich, and in the end really only had an excellent producer who "made" them.... when in reality they are not even good enough as musicians and singers to reproduce what they made in the studio .....it's almost as bad as milli vanilli sometimes
My band is going in to the studio in a few weeks and I am also tempted to try and add a little something extra here and there in our recordings to give them a little more juice, but I feel like I am cheating even just throwing down an organ in the background that I know I cannot do on stage.........I can understand why the artists do it,somewhat, but I think pressure from producers fuels it

[tyger373]

I see your point CorporateMustache and feel let down by many bands myself once I see them live. However, I do not think that it is cheating to juice up the tracks a little bit. Music is an art and when you are producing it in a studio I believe you should be able to utilize what you want to make the best of your songs. It's not like someone else is doing it for you. As long as it is your creation then I don't believe anyone should fault you.

[Geisler]

Originally Posted by CorporateMustache

My band is going in to the studio in a few weeks and I am also tempted to try and add a little something extra here and there in our recordings to give them a little more juice, but I feel like I am cheating even just throwing down an organ in the background that I know I cannot do on stage.........I can understand why the artists do it,somewhat, but I think pressure from producers fuels it

I think it depends on the purpose of your recordings. If you're making a demo to help book some shows, I'd at least keep the instrumentation the same as you would have it on stage. If you're shopping yourself to labels or whatever, I'd keep it pretty close to the live show too. Ultimately these people will come see your band live if they're interested enough--you want to surprise them with the size of the crowd and your energy on stage, not with the fact that keyboard player they liked on the recording doesn't exist. Further, they're not going to be fooled with a little extra studio juice. In fact, it's probably better to keep it simple and let them use their own imagination to think how awesome you'd be with a little extra juice.

However, if you're creating a recording to simply be enjoyed by a listener, I'm with tyger373. Go ahead and flex your artistic/creative muscles.

[brandondrury]

A Defense For Producer'sI'm not sure what pressure from producers is. I've hung around for a number of session with some big boys. I've hung around some big boys on forums too. I've never seen or read about anyone getting pressured into anything by a producer. Everyone must mutually agree on an issue. 99% of the time it's obvious that method A or method B is the most effective way. I think there is a lot of bullshit out there about "producers" forcing their way on a band. The producer is hired by the band and can just as easily be fired from a band.

You also have to remember that producers work with all kinds of bands all the time. They have no interest into shaping a band into being something they are not unless what the band "is" really sucks, and why would they work with a band that sucks?

Producer's do want to get more out the bands they work with. Everyone needs a motivator. I was big into running last summer. My fastest time in the mile was when my girlfriend rode a bike right behind me. It kicked me in the ass to win. The same occurs in the studio, hopefully, depending on the recording situation.

I'll write another article about this very very soon because it's came up a lot recently.

Live vs Studio
If you plan to limit yourself in the studio to what you are cabable of live, you should make a live recording. If you need 10 vocal takes to make an amazing vocal track (that's actually very very good depending on how picky you are) then you've cheated. If you've overdubbed, you've cheated. If you've utlizied multitrack mixing, you cheated. I'm not sure what "cheated" even means. Some guys believe that adding reverb from a box as opposed to using a room mic is cheating. Some guys believe that you should be able to record a band with a stereo microphone or it's cheating.

My opinion is to do your best with what you have. In the studio, make the best record you can. In the clubs, play the best live show you can. That's it. Don't limit yourself to anything unless it takes away from the music or goes in the wrong direction for the band.


Technology
I've been out of touch with modern music since 1998. Since then, there really hasn't been too much music that has done much for me. I've bought some records, but not nearly as many as I did before 98. So to me, all these new tools aren't doing a damn thing for me as the listener.

I don't see how tieing a hand behind your back when recording your record is going to help with the labels. Of course, I dont' believe in demos. I think they died about 5 years ago. I believe in making records or EPs. I say put your best foot forward at all times. The big boys will see you how they see you. Be yourself. I'd put 100% more effort into pleasing my fans than pleasing some label.

Brandon

[Geisler]

Originally Posted by brandondrury

I don't see how tieing a hand behind your back when recording your record is going to help with the labels. Of course, I dont' believe in demos. I think they died about 5 years ago. I believe in making records or EPs. I say put your best foot forward at all times. The big boys will see you how they see you. Be yourself. I'd put 100% more effort into pleasing my fans than pleasing some label.

I agree. I don't believe in labels either.