Another thing that sways it towards the 70's is the structure: it is not a co-incidence that a classical or romantic symphony or a concerto often lasts between 30 and 45 minutes. The laws of drama force even music, and the typical duration of a 70's prog LP (usually between 35 and 50 minutes) simply works better than the mastodon CDs of today.

Opinion.

Opinion.

OK You are wrong then.

I'm starting to think you are quite mad.

And a little insulting.

But I have been in the past to you so maybe thats fair.  I see no use in continuing this....this......whatever it is.

Back to cold space.

So, I guess you can say I prefer the 70s sound, at least in the percussion department, but I like the sound of things today as well. As long as it doesn't sound like the 80s!

 

And I'll just add...I'm a fan of overdubbing/multitracking....I like alot of sound in my music, and preferrably different sounds. There are limitations on how much one person can do at once, so multitracking can add dimension and depth. Of course it can be used to cover up "mistakes", but I'll take the bad with the good here I suppose.

This was getting old ages ago.

Last, but not least, is the actual skill of the players. Too many bands lack the true talent to play their own music outside of a studio and just jamming is foreign to them. They have to relay on studio tricks to produce "their" sound. Live they can't do it and they sound poor. Many of the 70's era bands laid down the basic tracks live in the studio and just added solo's and extra's to enhance the material. They were also capable of just jamming-that's why they sounded so good live, they could play their material no matter where they were and have fun with it live.

 

Yeah, same here.

 

...walter you are so silly! constantly make me laugh! thanks!

Lady, you rock! I've said it many times in this forum - slight imperfections in music give it a human warmth. 

A friend who is (ironically, some might say) making some prog metal based music said exactly this.  He sent his song to an acquaintance, also a musician, who pointed out that the guitar riffs were not all perfect and consistent.  That's kinda the whole point, right, you can't play like a metronome live! Now, I don't know how prevalent this trend is worldwide, but he said once a single 'perfect' drum fill is recorded, it is then reproduced at every other place in the song where the same fill can be used.  A lot of bands in the 70s, even if they wanted to do that, probably couldn't afford it.

This is an opinion. There are many musicians who disagree with you.

Last, but not least, is the actual skill of the players. Too many bands lack the true talent to play their own music outside of a studio and just jamming is foreign to them. They have to relay on studio tricks to produce "their" sound. Live they can't do it and they sound poor. Many of the 70's era bands laid down the basic tracks live in the studio and just added solo's and extra's to enhance the material. They were also capable of just jamming-that's why they sounded so good live, they could play their material no matter where they were and have fun with it live.

-------------
if you own a sodastream i hate you

I have loads of albums recorded in the last 10 or 20 years and many are thoroughly enjoyable. I now realise I failed miserably to recognise they are played by total hacks incapable of recreating their music live.All smoke and mirrors obviously.

 

 

I agree with Friede. No-one writes music with voluntary mistakes (as Henry seemed to imply this was Friede's idea) or and the only "mistakes" possible from a composer might be in pefectible succession of chord choices. Friede was obviously speaking of mistakes in the execution of the music, beit in the studio or .

 

Back then studio time was so expensive (in regards to time)  that you couldn't afford to redo the whole take ten times. Nowadays with those homestudios, you can spend days on a succession of chords or getting right a break or softening the edges or glitches at just electrical consumption costs.

 

 

I'm also preferring some improvisation in the music, so I don't care if some note is not perfect and if one musician is a bit late.

 

-----------------

 

On the other hand, the sound itself of some intruments changed a lot - particularly at the end of that "iconic decade" or at least at the start of the following one; hence or  therefore altering at length the way to play the instruments, but this alteration will of course keep happening throughout the many decades to come. (hopefully I make sense here)

 

But the digitalization of synths really caused a major shock in the music, as did the way to play drums (the emphasis on snare drums, for ex). This is probably why most of us perceive the 70's as the ultimate decade for music , before the "big digital change" of the 80's and beyond.

 

This is why these retro-prog bands (ala Anglagard or Elephant 9) sounds so good to us at first listen, because they use those "vintage" instruments( or at least those 70's sounds sampled through their modern instruments), and they try to play them in the 70's manner. Unfortunately (at least for me); these retro-something groups are so busy emulating the 70's that they tend to overlook that the songwriting and inspiration must be coming from the soul, and not from the 70's group's tablatures.

 

Of course it's an opinion. I know many musicians who like digital effects.

As for musicians skills-I'm not suggesting that all musicians are less technically skilled, but there are clearly some who are. IMHO there are bands who can't even duplicate their studio work live and sound weak when they play live. For me that is a lack of ability.

 

Sorry wasn't intending to deride your original post just find it amusing that some can't seem to get past the seventies or even 1973 for that matter.

 

Some albums recorded in the late seventies sound very different to those recorded earlier in the decade. Obvious example- Going For The One v Close To The Edge. The production on Genesis albums took a massive leap (forward or backwards depending on your viewpoint) from Lamb Lies Down On Broadway to Trick Of The Tail.

 

The 90's had a bit of a revival in old style recording techniques with Par Lindh Projects 'Gothic Impressions' and Anglagard's 'Hybris' so its too general just to assume that all albums were recorded in the same way according to a specific time frame.

 

Hope thats a bit more helpful

 

 

 

I never thought that the "sound" was the defining moment in music.

 

The sound itself gave us something that was different, since a lot of the synthesizer stuff in the 70's was so new to our ears and they were used as sound effects and elements that added to the completeness of the work, as opposed to today when synthesizers are nothing but samplers and symphonic elements wannabees! Keyboards nowadays are just another piano, so to speak.

 

The real issue is that there is a fight that the analogue recordings are better than the digital. As time goes by this will be over and analogue all dead anyway ... and digital will keep getting better and better to the point where things can already be done right anyway.

 

In a way, the recording abilities of yesterday is exactly the same as today ... and I'll give you an example. The import version of Sgt Peppers and Dark Side of the Moon (years ago!) had a lot more background stuff in it. In the American releases, these were either muddled down or almost deleted --- the people who did this probably thought that the audience was too stupid to appreciate all that talk and jokes and everything else! ... and in the past 5 years, when the "digitally remastered" stuff came out ... guess what it sounded like? ... yeah ... almost exactly like the imports in those days ... so ... did anything change? NO ... you got ripped off by advertising and people that have the conscience and mentality of a pirana.

 

Today, there are multi trax and you can do it on Sonar, or Ableton Live ... or what not ... but many of these abilities are being wasted, and the tracking being used by singling out the drums that a drummer will never be able to play! Can you see half the rap stuff in 64 trax? ...

 

That is not to say that there is no good music today ... like yesterday, there is a lot of good music. I think the biggest problem is that there is so much of it and the span of quality and ability has gotten so wide that it is almost impossible to tell you if it is good or not ... but I can tell you one thing ... the majority of stuff being recorded out there is utter crap and does not have the attention to detail as a lot of things did, that helped create "progressive" and "prog" music. The majority of stuff today is put together so badly and so cheaply as to make the music ... poor by comparison! And that is because the majority of stuff out there is "hit" and "sound" and "style" oriented ... and when that happens the majority of the individuality that created the things that we love to talk about ... is nearly gone. And the majority of bands these days are mired in very poor habits and lousy production!

 

There is a good reason why Steven Wilson is so wanted out there!

Oh my Gawdddd .. The Tin Drum all over again! Is he hurt?

 

Very good entry I think!! I think you're right about bands like PT, need to sound and play perfectly to offer the best.

 

Metronome question is very interesting as well. I watched something about Jimmy Page talking about this regarding Stairway To Heaven, where tempo constantly change. Well, a metronome can be programmed but would it be the same?

I would love to record without metronome but as I play every instrument, metronome is quite necessary...

Of course people make mistakes, but I'm saying, how can a mistake make something better? 

...because they are played by machines......

Anyway all these mistakes that prog bands made in the seventies to make their records more 'real'. Please can I have a list?

 

So would Tubular Bells come in this category or Dark Side Of The Moon?

i think the pursuit of perfection in recording sounds better to me, i also like 70s prog but when i hear a modern prog rock band, i feel much better. in my sense, perfection does not kill naturality..

In the end, the problem is that some musicians think that if you remove the flaws, that they are better musicians ... and the result is, in the end ... that they are not.

 

Eventually it will show in the next album or song, or whatever ... it becomes more repetitive.

 

One more thing from the other post ... a musician thinking that he/she has to live by the metronome, is not listening to the music in the heart and inside ... is simply listening to the "beat" and the notes, or chords and making sure he/she can get them all in.

 

Therein, lies the problem, and you have to make a decision ... you either play what your heart and fingers and feel want to go to, regardless of the notes and beats and metronome, and when you have something ... then you can maybe clean it up some ... in the end, when you come up with something so different and so exciting to you because it will be, I guarantee you, you will know the real meaning of "music" ... and what it is to be a creative force!

 

The rest is just songs, and if all you can do is look or listen for the metronome, I doubt the song or the piece of music can get better ... and guess what helped "progressive" come alive? ... you have to let go of the conventional structures and designs to create something new ... stop trying to reinvent the wheel!

 

1. when you record a fingered part on an acoustic or classical guitar (even sometimes on a clean electric guitar) it's normal to hear the sound of the hand sliding across the fretboard. This is just natural and unavoidable, but in some modern recordings this "unwanted noise" is removed or highly mitigated, so that you hear an impossibly clean guitar sound which intuitively you know is not realistic.

 

2. the hi-hat or ride cymbal consistency: when you play drums live, when you play a fill which requires both hands, you have to stop hitting the hi-hat or ride, there's no escape, you only have 2 hands. And even a very good drummer has trouble keeping a totally consistent pattern with the hi-hat or ride, there is always some unavoidable fluctuation in the rythmic pattern, intensity and tone (in which precise part of the cymbal bell or disk is your drumstick hitting). And yet in some recordings the hi-hat or ride are perfectly even, and do not stop sounding when a fill comes in.

 

3. guitar bends: when you do a bend, the precise rate of the pitch shift and the precise pitch point which you reach before releasing the bend are controlled by your hand, very skilled guitarists (actually this applies to keyboard bends as well) have great control on the bending technique, but there is always a human element of imperfection. Many modern recordings adjust with the computer the bend so that it is a totally perfect bend, reaching the precise desired pitch with absolute perfection.

 

These kind of things sometimes you notice, sometimes maybe you don't notice consciously but unconsciously your brain identifies that something unnatural is going on, and the music sounds sterile. 

 

I swear, this guy is like a broken record... 

Who let the troll out of his cage?

 

Yes very interesting observations

 

Carl Palmer was interviewed on the BBC about 1980 and talked about ELP recording Fanfare For The Common Man (massive worldwide hit commercially). When they went into the studio there was no intention to record it and inititiallythey  just played it as a warm up jam for the recording sessions. The engineer at the time decided to record it anyway (I guess to make sure the studio equipment was working ok). After playing it back they realised they had something so went about trying to make it even better. But surprise suprise they couldn't capture the excitement of the original recording. In the end they settled on the first take and just added some overdubs.

 

This is very interesting to me and probably proves what you and others are saying.

 

I think I have to pretend I never heard this stated by one of our very own!

I'm not sure that this is on the same wave length.

 

When it comes to the "creation" of music, there are no mistakes. And this is the case in the history of music, and one similar and fun example to check out is kind of thing is in the film "Amadeus" .... "too many notes" ... and everyone agrees.

 

So, for the sake of an argument, we have done the same thing with music ... this is right and this is wrong, and dissonance was not acceptable before, and is a major part of music in the 20th century. 

 

Guess what ... some of the perfections of today were the "imperfections" of yesterday.

 

Having a human touch and interaction with the music makes sense, and is, what the history of music is all about ... there is not a single doubt of that in anyone's mind I don't think!

 

But there are some funny stories about all this today ... so I got some people to hear some things by Emily Howell. And since those people did not know anything about Emily, they said ... far out ... very nice ... good ... quite well developed ... all kinds of nice compliments ... and then ... they were told the bottom line ... Emily Howell is a computer! And the people that knew that before hand thought it was bad, insensitive and what not ... and they would not even consider the music itself.

 

So, the point would be ... that it doesn't matter if the perfections or imperfections are in or out ... what matters for most of us, is ... how did it affect you? What maybe perfect for you and I could be completely the opposite.

 

It's the same with literature, poetry, music and art ... when it hits you, it hits you good and there is no perfection or imperfection ... it just is -- is how I like to express it.

This whole thread has the smell of 'things were better back then' anyway. Thats just an old farty kind of attitude.

I would rather take everything at face value. Its not important how you get from A to B just that the end result is worth listening to. Some seem to have decided that nothing recorded after a certain time can be anygood. Walter's cut off 1989 is actually quite hilarious given that the eighties was such a poor time for prog rock. I would have a lot more respect for this view if the cut off was 1969 tbh. For many who are not prog or heavy rock fans the seventies was a very cynical time when recording techniques overtook natural creativity.Pink Floyd spent a whole year recording DSOTM ffs!

 

 

Over the decades, the sound itself of some intruments changed a lot - particularly at the end of that "iconic decade" or at least at the start of the following one; hence or  therefore altering at length the way to play the instruments, but this alteration will of course keep happening throughout the many decades to come. (hopefully I make sense here)

 

But the digitalization of synths really caused a major shock in the music, as did the way to play drums (the emphasis on snare drums, for ex). This is probably why most of us perceive the 70's as the ultimate decade for music , before the "big digital change" of the 80's and beyond.

 

This is why these retro-prog bands (ala Anglagard or Elephant 9) sounds so good to us at first listen, because they use those "vintage" instruments( or at least those 70's sounds sampled through their modern instruments), and they try to play them in the 70's manner. Unfortunately (at least for me); these retro-something groups are so busy emulating the 70's that they tend to overlook that the songwriting and inspiration must be coming from the soul, and not from the 70's group's tablatures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seconded.............but what if the performer does'nt make any imperfections? Is it a totally-brilliant, utterly-fantastic sterile piece of music?

 

 

And Walters grand-dad  probably ranted about them, too ! 

 

 

 

It is wrong to attribute any and every comparison of past and present to nostalgia.  Things move in cycles and in between there are secular trends, they are NOT exactly the same way then and now.  There were utterly boring but extremely popular artists then and now like Diana Ross and Celine Dion, so to that extent everything with the 70s stamp is not by default glorious.  But, there was also a pronounced shift in favour of precision and technicality in rock around the late 70s.  The Van Halen debut probably kickstarted it.  Eddie Van Halen in his own right was a very expressive guitarist, but the shredders who erupted (pun intended) in his wake were not necessarily so.  And greater emphasis on precision and technicality than expression and warmth does lead to music sounding less emotional than before.  It seemed like grunge was reversing the tide, but rock sub genres have become too niche to influence the whole scene and in the meantime, metal seems to have returned with a vengeance with more precision and more sterility than ever before.   You can simply say, "B**s this is just you, I find shred way more emotional than Steve Hackett" but even if you do (and I would have to respect a different opinion while still disagreeing), it simply means it's about perception and not nostalgia.  

richardh wrote: For many who are not prog or heavy rock fans the seventies was a very cynical time when recording techniques overtook natural creativity.Pink Floyd spent a whole year recording DSOTM ffs!

 

Does the lack of imperfection make for a sterile performance, as there's no imperfections to highlight the human touch?

 

ie: if a drummer played with comparable precision to a drum machine and made no human error, would it not just sound like a drum-machine?

 

 

 I wonder how many classic  solos were actually recorded in one take?

 

The usual method was to 'comp' a solo from an assortment of takes.

 

 

But a drum machine would sound robotic. A drummer playing precisely MAY sound robotic but he need not.  Compare the drums on Aja and Gaucho (where drum machines were used).  It is important to stress here that the problem is not with not making any mistakes at all but with ensuring that there are no mistakes at all at the expense of expression.