70's sound and interpretation compared to today

richardh wrote: Alan Parson's production was ground breaking and a reference point. I just don't like it!   The point I was desperately trying to get across was that the seventies saw a fast evolving scene in terms of production with more and more emhasis on mixing and less 'organic' warmth in the sound perhaps occurring even as early as 1971 with ELP- Pictures at an Exihibition.The idea that it all changed sometime around the 80/90's is way off the mark. But we are all progressive rock fans that love the seventies and the whole scene. However this blind nostalgia should not be getting in the way of understanding how music techniques have evolved or perhaps gone backwards in some peoples eyes. Nothing suddenly fell of the end of a cliff though!

ELP's Pictures at an Exhibition is a live album - it cannot represent evolution in production - it is more a reflection of the skill of Greg Lake in the post production and of Eddie Offord in the live mix and sound engineering.

Dean wrote: richardh wrote: Alan Parson's production was ground breaking and a reference point. I just don't like it!   The point I was desperately trying to get across was that the seventies saw a fast evolving scene in terms of production with more and more emhasis on mixing and less 'organic' warmth in the sound perhaps occurring even as early as 1971 with ELP- Pictures at an Exihibition.The idea that it all changed sometime around the 80/90's is way off the mark. But we are all progressive rock fans that love the seventies and the whole scene. However this blind nostalgia should not be getting in the way of understanding how music techniques have evolved or perhaps gone backwards in some peoples eyes. Nothing suddenly fell of the end of a cliff though! ELP's Pictures at an Exhibition is a live album - it cannot represent evolution in production - it is more a reflection of the skill of Greg Lake in the post production and of Eddie Offord in the live mix and sound engineering.

But the way its produced makes it sound not very 'live' to my ears. I've never really liked the sound on that album although many swear by it and regard it as great live album. I said earlier in the thread that I prefer the 1970 Lyeceum version that was recorded in mono about 3 months earlier.The difference betwen the two is very marked. That is the comparison I am making. I love the rough and ready version but the 1971 Newcastle city hall in general represents the future. Nice clean sound but a bit too clinical in my opinion. btw Eddie Offord used the manor mobile didn't he? It was virtually mixed like a studio album although you probably no more about this than me.

mono wrote: Rabid wrote: BaldJean wrote: mono wrote: BaldJean wrote: ahem. I don't quite follow you. time reduces risks Maybe "risk" wasn't adapted here, but your statement is still quite simplistic. If you have more time, you can take more chances (maybe that word is better). Example: if you have 3 months for your recording instead of 1, you can afford to spend 2 weeks experimenting let's say a new recording technique for the drums... you can do the same if you only have one day. it just becomes more risky. that's why I say "time reduces risks". try something new without knowing if it will work. if you have enough time to make it work there is no risk   Seconded.......you lose that spontaneous element, through having time to 'perfect' everything.    But then, you are critisizing the artist himself who doesn't know "how to use" his time in the studio... Plus, I think that most of what you consider as 'spontaneous' is closer to an 'accident'... You cannot strive for spontaneity by simply reducing studio time to minimum, that's just irresponsable. See what I mean?

I'm not  talking about 'striving for sponteneity'......I'm talking about only having enough time to do one take, as opposed to having enough time to perfect everything.