| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
moshkito 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17524
|
 Posted: January 16 2015 at 08:07 |
 SteveG wrote:
...
To be fair, Todd and I are discussing U.S. musicians in regard to composing and recording. Modern tech takes a lot of the ingenuity out of the creative process, IMHO. |
I think this is more related to the person's own inner ability, than it does the technician or the DAW. However, there are inherant limitations (time clock being the most overt one) in the software themselves, and I often joke that they screwed it up on purpose to prevent anyone/everyone from getting into the music field. Just like the technology around sound cards ... they easily could have 3 or 4 inputs, so you could mix things directly, and instead all sound cards can only handle one input. It prevents you from doing better and more direct mixing. So they force you to do so outside, and then come to the sound card, and this takes the freshness out of things, as it makes you play things more than once and second guess your choices until you kill them all!
We had a band here in Portland that had their engineer see if I could make any suggestions about the music and its recording paces. I can visualize composition, for example, and rock music is not the best example of "music" for a DAW, at all, however, in their case we made a couple of suggestions, which they used well, and made the music more lively, and well defined, but in the end, their "leader" and "guitar player" didn't like it because he wanted things to sound more like Nirvana. That band doesn't exist anymore ... and they were good!
The most visible of these is how many "dj's" are now composing themselves, however, they are completely dependent on the DAW and its abilities and its trickery, which, when it comes down to it, is not really composition, and neither is it a show of flexibility in music at all. But somethings sound fairly good, but we can not tell the difference. In fact, at least one or two of those, I would say are much more progressive than half the stuff that we're listening to here ... so I'm not sure that we can say that old is better than new, or vice versa! But for the most part, the technology of it all, has hidden a lot of talent behind the computers.
Might take 10 to 20 years to get off that!
I totally agree that the day someone says that these DAW's are stupid and are worse than the merde out there, then we might be getting somewhere ... but we are in an age where we're supposed to be sukkiaking and kissing the companies that make money and supposedly are better because they have this and that, and we don't. No one goes around trashing Cakewalk, or Abelton, for their stupidity and bad support and ability to rip off customers, which in the end, hurts people trying to create anything/something!
We're in a consumerist society ... I don't think that any of these tools, are capable of helping people learn something about themselves and "music".
Edited by moshkito - January 16 2015 at 08:23
|
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
|
 |
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20609
|
Posted: January 16 2015 at 08:30 |
jayem wrote:
Gerinski wrote:
But I don't think it's about Prog only. Frankly, I find the Pop songs from the late 60's and 70's better songs than current Pop songs, in general. |
It cannot be compared, can it, because back in 60 - 70's (and until the end of 80's) what was called "pop" included many kind of songs, from "social gathering" where music didn't really matter (the main purpose being to dynamise a social event and dictate a social trend) to personal songs made for a careful listen.
Now what's called pop has become a very precisely defined genre of "social gathering" kind.
|
Yes, but that's the point. In the sixties and seventies you could turn on a radio station and switch from the prog you were listening over to to Steppenwolf or Fleetwood Mac. In the eighties, you could switch over to Madonna and the like. In the nineties you could switch to Grunge. Now you can switch Miley Cyrus!
|
|
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
|
|
jayem
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 21 2006
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Points: 995
|
Posted: January 16 2015 at 13:04 |
moshkito wrote:
merde |
|
|
|
|
Skullhead
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 06 2014
Location: Vancouver BC
Status: Offline
Points: 160
|
Posted: January 17 2015 at 01:42 |
TODDLER wrote:
When you are in the studio and an idea enters your mind, but your fellow musician is using the cell phone, how will you express the idea during the actual event of the idea? Wait until they get off the cell phone? That's actually a moment in time that has just been missed and it's not practical for a good musician to wait for his band member to get off the phone. That's not how art works. A sound tech who misunderstands your demands of a mix or your desire for a final take..because they are texting, is not a sincere working process for art. People walking around the studio chatting on cell phones when they should be focusing on what's being created in that studio. When Wakeman, Anderson, Bruford, Squire, and Howe wrote the group effort pieces for Fragile..nothing was said, (according to Wakeman), it just all happened naturally and this modern age didn't exist and therefore ...no distractions to take away from a private rehearsal where true art is being formed.
|
Very well said
|
|
Skullhead
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 06 2014
Location: Vancouver BC
Status: Offline
Points: 160
|
Posted: January 17 2015 at 01:49 |
TODDLER wrote:
A majority of music fans and musicians have a more "step up and get it done quickly" kind of attitude and we all are aware that this develops strongly when exposed to the lifestyle of modern technology. Technology has caused our music to sound much finer and I appreciate that above and beyond, but the times we were living in during the 60's and 70's would draw musicians to different sources. Many great "ROCK" songs that contained the most beautiful 3 verses, bridge, instrumental break, chorus..were composed in strange but beautiful environmental surroundings. Today..we still have the artist who desires to compose a piece with those surroundings, runs back to the studio and records it...however there is something missing and very wrong with it and I am unsure what precisely it is. It feels as if the process has become infected with some sort of fungus that is dangerous to music composition.
When musicians of the 60's and 70's took small tape recorders outdoors to record the sounds of nature...they were later filtered through a mix of the studio recording. The hiss of the non-direct ocean recording was taken away so the Progressive Rock or Electronic album sounded realistic with nature's sounds blending in with the music. Even though this may remain to be a dated experimentation method, there was something educational about the experience itself that DOESN'T seem to exist as much in music today. Musicians are not as in touch with their feelings to compose by limiting their interest to do other things that now seem laughable to them because they have technology....but all along this journey I've noticed something missing in music...in general..and this aspect is a great part of it.
In Jurassic Park...a computer geek is telling Dr. Grant that in a few years we won't even have to dig anymore and Dr. Grant says: "Where's the fun in that?" As being the most pathetic example I can give, it is that way in reality. Music has taken on a entire different generation of people in recent years that focus on product created through the abilities and accomplishments of technology and that alone...has caused a majority of musicians to be dismissive of what they define as "old methods", dried up methods, old school methods. If you want to dismiss something LIKE a method based on it's immediate lack in face value because technology is better for your life, you are turning your back on creativity and having disrespect for the possibilities of creating true art and NEW art. Art that perhaps should have been created in 1989, but wasn't because society was beginning the push button concept and that ruled over everyone's choice on how to form art structure in music.
No method is dated. It must be investigated and experienced first..in order to make a harsh decision of completely dismissing it or going with the flow of most people being dismissive of it. That's not the noble process of education at any length. For example: In Japan there is more of a breakdown method for mathematics and in the American "middle school" students are introduced to various methods before they understand a basic form of math such as division or multiplication. Many of these breakdown methods were defined as "short cuts" that many of us used in class , (in my case), during the 60's and 70's. At the time they were forbidden as such that you might get an F on your test if the teacher caught you using them. It has been suggested by the American government and enforced by our president to induct these methods into the teachings of math in the American school system. By dismissing older methods of problem solving...a part of your brain is no longer working. You can find answers to math problems , but you are no longer having the same educational process which...breaks you away from something vital to a specific aspect to math. First you're doing it one way...and now you are doing it another. It's basic and simple to understand, but it has it's limitations in educating a child's overall understanding of a subject. This has occurred greatly with music in the last 10 years and that being the reason why older Prog is better for me...with the exceptions of certain new underground Prog bands...that is the way I feel.
|
Very well thought out and seems and feels accurate to my ears as well.
|
|
Skullhead
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 06 2014
Location: Vancouver BC
Status: Offline
Points: 160
|
Posted: January 17 2015 at 01:54 |
freyacat wrote:
That was a regrettable argument. It boils down to saying "I felt better when I was young." But there is a reason why many young people keep coming back to Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, and if they are really lucky, Yes, King Crimson, and Genesis. (I saw lots of people in their 20's at the last Yes show I was at.) The rock bands of the 60's and 70's had to invent it all. They learned how to play from listening to classical, jazz, blues, and folk recordings. Some of them at music school. They had no rock musicians of the past to emulate. Because it's 40-some years later now, it will never be possible to recapture the thrill of discovery in the rock medium. As a musical language, it is now mature. Today's artists grew up listening to the rock of the 60's, 70's and 80's, so now rock becomes a closed circle rather than a blank canvas. Also, the music of the 60's and 70's had that hippie gentleness to it, but now, there is pressure to make your music aggressive. I might also say that production ironically makes the older music more appealing as well. Today's insistence on robotic perfection and crystal-clear clarity in the studio makes the music seem antiseptic and soulless. Listen to "Yessongs," and you enter a delightfully confusing garden of sounds, where the sound of the mellotron blends with the voice, the bass and drums blend together, and you don't know where the guitar ends and the moog begins. It is a gorgeous mystery. |
Hippie gentleness, very true. I really felt that growing up back then. The blending of the music sonically was an art unto itself that seems to have been lost.
|
|
TradeMark0
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 26 2014
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 109
|
Posted: January 17 2015 at 02:19 |
I've been listening to a lot of classical music lately so 70's prog doesn't seem so old to me anymore.
Is the difference in quality between 70's and now that Big? I would agree that creative peak of prog rock was in the 70s but what about punk band of the "experimental" and "noise" variety in the 80's and 90's. And that's just with in the genre of rock music. Jazz and classical have been constantly progressing. I don't really have an opinion on much music of the 2000's because it's too recent and it will probably be easier to recognize the better musicians a decade from now.
I also noticed people blaming technology for a lack of quality in music but that just seems like a scapegoat. And is there an actual lack in quality to begin with?
I also think the problems with pop music have more to do with cultural problems than anything. as with all pop music, it is heavily rooted in culture.
|
|
jayem
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 21 2006
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Points: 995
|
Posted: January 17 2015 at 06:37 |
Those comments above suggest special logos could appear on future albums.
"All cell phones shut during rehearsals" "Sonic blending warrant"
Among other logos against which existence I'd grumble...
Edited by jayem - January 17 2015 at 06:44
|
|
|
|
Skullhead
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 06 2014
Location: Vancouver BC
Status: Offline
Points: 160
|
Posted: January 17 2015 at 07:38 |
|
I think one problem today is the reality that prog is not going to give you a sustainable career. In the 70's every garage prog band had serious role models of success to keep the dream alive. There were many more prog bands being signed to major labels. Today, it's pretty much a given that your best effort might garnish you are few nice reviews on some respectable prog websites, and you might sell a couple hundred downloads if things go really well. Therefore, it's just plain difficult to really secure the top quality musicians to commit and dedicate to a long term prog ensemble. A proper band all working together should output a higher quality product than the vision of just one person. That is what exploring a prog band should really be about. Putting a real expert at every position. There is just no way that a one man band is going to match the quality and musicianship of true pioneering experts at each throne in the band. Very hard to put together a real prog super group together in the modern era and keep it active.
Didn't K2 try to do that a few years back? Lasted one album and no tour.
Edited by Skullhead - January 17 2015 at 07:42
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
Posted: January 17 2015 at 07:53 |
jayem wrote:
Those comments above suggest special logos could appear on future albums.
"All cell phones shut during rehearsals" "Sonic blending warrant"
Among other logos against which existence I'd grumble...
|
Yeah, similar to Queen's famous 'No Synthesizers!' quote, we might start seeing: 'No cell phone interruptions No DAWs used No quantizing No autotune No audio compression Guaranteed no more than 5 takes used in each track'
|
|
jayem
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 21 2006
Location: Switzerland
Status: Offline
Points: 995
|
Posted: January 17 2015 at 09:05 |
Skullhead wrote:
I think one problem today is the reality that prog is not going to give you a sustainable career. In the 70's every garage prog band had serious role models of success to keep the dream alive. There were many more prog bands being signed to major labels. Today, it's pretty much a given that your best effort might garnish you are few nice reviews on some respectable prog websites, and you might sell a couple hundred downloads if things go really well. Therefore, it's just plain difficult to really secure the top quality musicians to commit and dedicate to a long term prog ensemble. A proper band all working together should output a higher quality product than the vision of just one person. That is what exploring a prog band should really be about. Putting a real expert at every position. There is just no way that a one man band is going to match the quality and musicianship of true pioneering experts at each throne in the band. Very hard to put together a real prog super group together in the modern era and keep it active.
Didn't K2 try to do that a few years back? Lasted one album and no tour.
|
At least you're advertizing for K2, a band I didn't know, thanks for that. For the remaining part I wonder what anyone would build on the reading of that comment, that they'd consider of any value.
|
|
|
|
Walton Street
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 24 2014
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 872
|
Posted: January 17 2015 at 09:15 |
Gerinski wrote:
Yeah, similar to Queen's famous 'No Synthesizers!' quote, .....
|
until Flash Gordon :)
|
|
"I know one thing: that I know nothing"
- SpongeBob Socrates
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: January 17 2015 at 09:27 |
|
It's probably true that I have listened to many old prog albums at my age than I will ever listen to new prog albums before I die. I still keep and like listening to the old prog in circulation. But there is so much good new stuff going on that I give it a try when I am in the mood.
If you limit yourself to '70's prog, more power to you, it makes things a bit simpler because the era is over. You might get a few things that were created but not released from that era. My most recent is the Lark's Lounges stuff, but to be totally honest, though I can now listen to it, it's no surprise why it wasn't released backe then. It's OK but it's not great, not like the stuff that was picked on for release.
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
Raff
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: July 29 2005
Location: None
Status: Offline
Points: 24429
|
Posted: January 17 2015 at 09:49 |
Heaven save us from supergroups  ! They very rarely work because of the egos involved, and the musical outcome of such partnerships is very often subpar - technically impeccable, but contrived and ultimately soulless. Most modern prog artists have top-notch skills, even if they cannot make a living out of their music because times have changed, and are often forced to turn to studio-only projects because of the challenges posed by touring when one must keep a day job - and also of the lack of support of their intended audience.
|
|
Davesax1965
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 23 2013
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 2839
|
Posted: January 17 2015 at 11:09 |
|
If left long enough, someone replying to this thread may realise that "music" is not just about notes, who's better than who, who's faster, if a band are boringly better musicians than others..... in fact, "music" is not about music at all. ;-)
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: January 17 2015 at 16:21 |
|
Sticking to old prog is a cop out. there us plenty of good stuff out there that isn't appreciated, and you are depriving yourself of all the great stuff that came after. There is so much. You will never appreciate it because you have chosen not to check it out,,,,
Edited by Slartibartfast - January 17 2015 at 16:24
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|
Davesax1965
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 23 2013
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 2839
|
Posted: January 18 2015 at 03:23 |
Perhaps I should wave the big flag again which says HELLO, I DO LISTEN TO NEW PROG. I'm not saying "new is better than old" or vice versa.... or "band A is better than band B"..... if we go back to the original thread, I'm saying that some music comes with associative memories which makes old prog - for me - more enjoyable to listen to.
Slarti, you are aware that I write new prog, are you ? Just because I say "old prog" in one post doesn't mean that I exclusively listen to just old prog ??? - logical fallacy, there.
Edited by Davesax1965 - January 18 2015 at 11:07
|
|
|
|
King Crimson776
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 12 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2779
|
Posted: January 18 2015 at 06:53 |
|
Old prog is better because there was far more ground to break back then and thus there were more inspired artists. That said, there is plenty of good recent prog. Perhaps too much of it lacks the organic feel and even humanity of old prog, but it's still the best music around.
|
|
Davesax1965
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 23 2013
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 2839
|
Posted: January 18 2015 at 10:56 |
Mmm, not sure I can agree with that. I'm a "new prog" musician, ie. I started writing music a few years ago. 40 minute single track, anyone ? But what I'm doing references old prog rock. So it's a form of crossover style. By the same token, look at a 60's prog band who adopt a symphonic approach to an album. At the time, this was seen to be radical and new, but it's really just a harkening back to classical music.
Thanks to everyone who's assumed I don't listen to new prog rock, BONG, wrong. I actually PLAY new prog rock, fact fans and conclusion jumpers.
What I am saying is that a lot of old prog rock (I'll say this yet again) has associative memories for me which new prog rock doesn't have.
Music is not just about notes, melody, ability.... newness or oldness... it is also about evocative memory.
Edited by Davesax1965 - January 18 2015 at 10:57
|
|
|
|
Davesax1965
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 23 2013
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 2839
|
Posted: January 18 2015 at 11:02 |
As for the "DAW's remove creative ability" post above, so, uh huh, I use a DAW. Thirty years ago I was using tape. Before that, musicians used carbon microphones and cut music directly to master 78's.
The technology has NO effect on the creative process at all. When Robert Johnson was sitting, facing a wall in a hotel recording blues in the 30's, did he stop becoming creative when the technician hit the record switch ? If you'd moved him on to 1969, and he played the same stuff onto an 8 track recorder, would it be somehow creatively different ?
If you sat him down in my back bedroom, got out one of my condenser mikes, a valve preamp, connected them to Cubase, said, OK, Mr Johnson, take it away....... and hit the RECORD button..... would he stop becoming creative ?
No.
And any decent recording technician would have 1000 times more control over the finished recording than was had in 1930-whatever.
The thing is, you can't win. If you record using valve technology and there's a background hum, most "audiophiles" either don't notice it and say, wow, that sounds authentic. People who actually can listen with a critical ear say whoa, turn the gain level on the mic down. I can hear a hum. People THINK that the old stuff somehow sounds better or more authentic.... it actually sounds dreadful. I could quote you God knows how many recordings from the late 60's which sound amateurish, badly mixed, balanced...... but people - God knows why - think that they can actually tell a good recording from a bad one with no training and just "instinct". Incorrect. This is why recording technicians get paid a lot of money.
The fact is that DAW's do not produce bad recordings. Bad technicians and bad musicians produce bad recordings. The technology, if properly used, is a great help.
I don't live exclusively in the past. But I'm very glad I'm not recording in 1967, when 4 track tape recorders were high tech. Or in 1970, when a Moog modular cost more than a house. So much now can be done which would be utterly physically impossible and financially ruinous than even a few years ago.
But the point, when I started this post, was that a lot of old prog contains associative memories. I'm not saying that new prog is better than old prog, I'm saying that I prefer a lot of old stuff due to those associative memories.
This isn't about should I listen to this or that or this is better than that or how very dare he or I'm in this camp he's in that.
Edited by Davesax1965 - January 18 2015 at 11:12
|
|
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Why old prog - for me - is better than new prog