the importance of analog sound in prog

Oh, I though you were replying to Roxbrough.

 

Wow ... gotta love religious logic, hey?

 

For that you need lots of these:

 

which, we all know is an ancient technology:

 

but as anyone will tell you, they can contain a lot more detail than you'd imagine:

 

and can even be used for the ultimate playback media, compact cassette:

 

However, you need to watch out for distortion:

 

 

which can look a bit ugly:

 

but can sound as true as a bell:

 

and can be made in stereo:

 

as long as you use the right interconnects:

 

and can also be used to make a top-notch radio receiver:

 

 

 

 

(I have cronies??? !!!  bring them forth at once I must see these beings for myself!)

 

I don't know where or even what the problem is but it is nothing to do with the site, me or any other Admin. You have posted this post from the same address as your previous posts and your account is active with all the rights and accesses you are entitled to have - that indicates that all avenues that can be opened are open because all we can do is suspend your account or block your IP address, and it is plain to see that neither of those have happened

 

If you cannot post anywhere (?) on the site or send PMs then it is possibly something your end that is causing the problem, such as cookies or browser security.

 

In future I would suggest checking at least one or maybe two facts before throwing around casual accusations.

 

 

I love how 70's albums and classic prog rock albums are mixed and produced, so much that it influences me on how I like the music today. 

The way it's played (not copy/paste), mixed, mastered is the most important in my opinion. Modern bands could record only on analog gear and release a vinyl, I'm not sure it would sound "analog" the way it was in the 70's. Some bands achieve this though but it's quite rare.

 

What modern production technology allows a musician to do is "get it right" because multiple takes and retakes are far easier now - they don't have to use any studio skill and trickery in recording a punch-in/out overdub section with modern equipment like in the days of analogue recording. When you've only got 16 or 24 tracks to play with there is a limit to how many takes you can pick and chose the best of a particular instrument when producing the final mix, modern digital studios do not have that limitation.

 

Studio time is another factor that was a luxury back in the day that is less important today, musicians have more time to "get it right" now, the pressure of wasting studio time on retakes is reduced (and with that, fewer mistakes are both made and allowed to remain).

 

Note for note perfection can actually be the result of a musician playing well and producing the goods by his own skill and technique, the modern studio allows that ideal to be a reality without recourse to "cheating" and without sacrificing the human element of the musician playing his instrument to the best of his ability. To me there seems something disingenuous in a genre renowned for elitism, pretentiousness, skillful musicianship and the search for perfection that when someone actually produces something that fits that description we assume it is the result of some studio trickery and not attributable to the musician's ability

 

I think we are prone to compare the worst of what we don't like with the best of what we do like and I don't think that is fair or reasonable. So if there are good modern productions (which I firmly believe there are), then they should be the yard-stick by which we make any comparative judgement, not only against the best and worse of past recordings, but with the best and worse of modern recordings.

 

I do not hear a lot of cold and clinical sounding albums: I'm currently listening to Francis Lickerish's new album and it is a deep and warm sumptuous mix of subtlety and bombastic drama that has characterised his music since he produced Fand on The Enid's Aerie Faerie Nonsense back in 1977; similarly Rick Wakeman's 2012 re-recording of Journey To The Centre Of The Earth is far from cold and clinical, the same can be said of Steve Hackett's Genesis Revisited II. All of those give us an insight to what the musician wanted to achieve in the 70s with what they can achieve today, that they are consummate musicians of skill and ability is beyond reproach, it would be a brave man to accuse Lickerish, Wakeman or Hackett of not being able to actually play the notes they record, of using tweaking and editing to achieve that perfect studio performance. When we then compare those to the works of younger musicians who do not have that "then and now" provenance can we not then afford them the same honour and courtesy?