70's sound and interpretation compared to today

Hi!

I'm thinking about this for a long time... I'm a 70's progressive rock fan because of the songs of course but also because of the sound and interpretation and even because of the way albums were recording in the 70's.

Many bands recorded live as you know and the most important was to record the best "vibe" for the song even if there was some flaws here and there (or just noises like a plane (Led Zeppelin), sticks noises (King Crimson) for example).

Today, recording techniques are quite differen and many artists/producer are searching for "perfection" in sound and interpretation.

I'm curious to know your opinion about modern sound compared to old one and how interpretation is important for you.

Thanks

I also like the sounds of 70's music, but i don't find that today's sound and interpretation is bad because producers are aiming for perfection. If the compostion level satisfied me, that's the main thing. 

Seventies music was often recorden ten times more likely and less head-ache-creating then modern music. The use of high tones and treble in general is very important for music.

chopper wrote: Actually I find "mistakes" such as the Led Zep plane quite interesting (ok, so I'm sad).  There is a whole web site dedicated to such things in Beatles songs - there are loads of them and it makes them seem more human.

I agree with you about the human feeling, it's what I like actually.

I was thinking about this regarding to bands who recreate the seventies sound. Most of the times, it's really well done, using real Mellotron, Minimoog or other vintage gear but it's hard to recreate the 70's vibe using modern recording techniques, I feel something is missing, don't you?

Oh by the way, I'm not saying 70's sound is better or anything, it's not a fight, it's just to talk about differences about sounds, production, interpretation.

But an interpretation with "the" vibe but with flaws is sometimes better than a perfect take, isn't it?

I don't think it really matters, I still get the same feel from both types of music flaws or no flaws.  Heck sometimes I can't even pinpoint what decade music came from.  Bowie's Space Oddity for example came out in the sixties but it seems very technologically advanced to me for its time.  I actually thought it was from the eighties when I first heard it.

I prefer the "hook up the mics and play" method with minimum overdubs.  I feel like a lot more bands today are multi tracking, which obviously is cleaner in the mix, but it looses a lot of feel, and gets rid of the possibility of improv's and spontaneity (I mean jamming, not improvised solos).  Thats another thing worth pointing out, the majority of bands today play their songs back the exact same way as they are on the album it seems, no unique versions of songs.  (jam bands and certain other bands contradict this, but there's always exceptions.)

Modern production encourages laziness, since lousy performances can be dropped onto ProTools and then strung together to create technically perfect Frankenstein's Monster that's not representative of how much the band actually sucks. Put them on stage and you'll see how terrible these new acts are. What's worse, modern recording, digital effects and other implements create a samey-stounding stew of sound that simply can't compare to the age where real musicians played real music and got it down on tape.

Say "NO!" to new music.

I like both, but if I had to choose one, I'd definitely take the 70's sound. I really love the modern sound universum of i.e. Radiohead, but when I'm thinking of "tunes" or "songs", the less direct handling of the overall sound that epitomizes my favourite bands like Gentle Giant, Yes or PFM gets my vote everytime. My great regret is that nowadays so many prog bands sound like heavy rock bands.

BaldFriede wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: I guess maybe if you grew up with crackling vinyl you crave imperfection, but I've never thought to myself that an album sounded "sterile" because of the production. At the moment I'm primarily interested in music that is partially or wholly improvised, but there's nothing with with glittering perfection on composed rock albums. I am not talking about imperfection of sound, I am talking about imperfection of performance. Even the best classical musicians make a lot of mistakes when playing live, but that's what gives the music its soul. If all the imperfections are edited out the result becomes sterile.

I tend to prefer a warm, rawer "organic" sound over a shiny, overproduced one, and that includes the performance itself.  I like bands that offer either one, sure, but my preference is the former.