70's sound and interpretation compared to today

JJLehto wrote: I have to ask only because I havn't really dealt with you much Walter, and I am honestly curious. Is 1989 a line? Like after that, it does not even matter? And do you like bands that exist pre 1989 but released stuff after? Are all those now junk? Also, how over the top you are I find it very difficult to believe you are 100% sincere, but it provides me with nonetheless.

I totally want to hear Walter's answer to this... I've often contemplated asking him this myself .
Walter...? Walter...!?

Anaon wrote: richardh wrote: What an hilarious thread. I sometimes wonder if people are capable of recognising whether something is good or not without having it labelled 'seventies' or whatever. You didn't really understand my thread if you think so... It's more than just a "seventies" label. If you can't hear the differences between 70's sound, interpretation, production and gear from the 70's compared to the ones of today, I'm sure some people could explain you ;)

richardh wrote: What an hilarious thread. I sometimes wonder if people are capable of recognising whether something is good or not without having it labelled 'seventies' or whatever.

You didn't really understand my thread if you think so... It's more than just a "seventies" label. If you can't hear the differences between 70's sound, interpretation, production and gear from the 70's compared to the ones of today, I'm sure some people could explain you ;)

Originally posted by Henry Plainview


You are totally missing the point, it appears. No, I am not saying anything like that. Human beings are not perfect; there are flaws every time a human being performs music. If you don't believe me ask Efgeny Kissin, one of the best classical pianists there are. He said in an interview that he makes a lot of mistakes during concerts. And why mot? It is only human. But today's bands try to eliminate these imperfections in their studio productions, and this makes the music sound very sterile.

WalterDigsTunes wrote: Proletariat wrote: WalterDigsTunes wrote: 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. not evry band does this... most all my favorite acts held up just fine live. however you are right about many many bands   ...walter you are so silly! constantly make me laugh! thanks! Delete all files and burn all discs made by post-89 hacks. Stick to the real thing, real music made by real musicians back in the Golden Age.

okydokeyhokeypokey ima go right ahead and do that

yanch wrote: Also, most bands are now playing and recording with digital effects and equipment, which are not as much fun or interesting sounding as analog equipment. As a guitar player, I can attest to the fact that analog effects are warmer and finicky, which makes them fun, while digital effects are flatter sounding. Same goes for amps-give me a tube amp over a solid state amp any day-warmer sound, more dynamics.

Ronnie Pilgrim wrote: BaldFriede wrote: The main difference is quite simple: and the real reason why 70s prog is so much better than today's: The bands had very limited studio time, so the albums are all imperfect; there are little flaws on them everywhere. Today every little flaw is removed by just recording another take. This makes the albums perfect but hopelessly sterile. Fortunately there are still a few bands around that know it is the little flaws that give spirit to an album, but it is mostly the bands that have been around for thirty or forty years already. Lady, you rock! I've said it many times in this forum - slight imperfections in music give it a human warmth.

I have to ask only because I havn't really dealt with you much Walter, and I am honestly curious.
Is 1989 a line? Like after that, it does not even matter?
And do you like bands that exist pre 1989 but released stuff after? Are all those now junk?
Also, how over the top you are I find it very difficult to believe you are 100% sincere, but it provides me with nonetheless.


OH and as for OP, I really don't care. If i had to choose, I'd pick the old production over today's super crisp. In fact in regards to some metal I like when it has an older feel to it.  But again as long as its good it doesn't matter to me.


Edited by JJLehto - August 10 2010 at 19:40

WalterDigsTunes wrote: 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.

not evry band does this... most all my favorite acts held up just fine live. however you are right about many many bands

A few additional observations: I do tend to appreciate the 70's sound a bit more. Modern recordings can be a bit stale, over-produced, sanitized, and dynamically flat, but there are exceptions. Also, most bands are now playing and recording with digital effects and equipment, which are not as much fun or interesting sounding as analog equipment. As a guitar player, I can attest to the fact that analog effects are warmer and finicky, which makes them fun, while digital effects are flatter sounding. Same goes for amps-give me a tube amp over a solid state amp any day-warmer sound, more dynamics.