70's sound and interpretation compared to today

Used to prefer the crisp clean sounds of modern production, but I've been warming up to the 70's "live" sound recently

BaldJean wrote: Snow Dog wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Snow Dog wrote: 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. Opinion. Not opinion; it is the truth.  These imperfections are what make music sound alive., else you might as well let a robot play. If programmed right he will make no mistakes at all. Modern recordings are usually as bloodless as a young woman that has been guest at a vampire banquet. Opinion. it certainly is opinion that you think it is opinion

BaldJean wrote: Snow Dog wrote: BaldJean wrote: Snow Dog wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Snow Dog wrote: 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. Opinion. Not opinion; it is the truth.  These imperfections are what make music sound alive., else you might as well let a robot play. If programmed right he will make no mistakes at all. Modern recordings are usually as bloodless as a young woman that has been guest at a vampire banquet. Opinion. it certainly is opinion that you think it is opinion OK You are wrong then. I guess you will be the first to buy the 20 CD box set "The Greatest Tracks Of Prog Rock, Replayed By Robots"

Edited by Snow Dog - August 10 2010 at 15:28

For me, its much more about the sound of the instruments rather than the production. Obviously, I like good production where you can hear everything clearly, but generally I figure thats a monetary problem (or if playing live thats a lack of microphone/recording devices problem...which I suppose could be monetary). But my point is...take an album like Can's Tago Mago...the drums have a very standout, crsip, no nonsense sound (I don't want to say unique, being its not...its very much like other 70s albums at least the good ones ). Then the 80s came and drums had a big thudy fake sound (especially snares). Then the 90s/00s where IMO the drums sound more natural or real (for lack of a better term). Not to say that the 70s sound is fake, it just seems like it's not replicatable in this time period (I don't know if this is because of type of drums available today are made of different stuff or if the recording method that just didn't emphasize the drums [or perhaps did?]). The point of all this rambling is to say that I love the sound drums had in the 70s...Tago Mago, GG's early albums, KC's early albums...I'm sure there are many more examples but these are the first three to come to my mind.  

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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