When was the best music made ?

PaulBrewer

When was the best music made ? Before or after DAWs ?

old gregg

even spending much of the day in front of a DAW and listening mostly to DAW produced music these days, in my heart I look back on the music that set me on fire growing up and none of it could have been done on a DAW.

Exile on Main Street, Every Picture Tells A Story, Made In Japan .... can't imagine any of those personal life changing albums from my early teens working in a DAW


cool thread

Aridstarling

Thats way too limited man. No way I could make that choice. And plus, its entirely personal.

trackmixstudio

Hold on.
Are you asking which is better?
Music made in the last 10 years or music made since time began up to 10 years ago.
That's not really fair odds is it?
I was expecting the poll to read 50s,60s,70s,80s etc.
For what it's worth I don't think DAWs have much to do with the quality of music other than making everything artificially in time. It is just a tool.

ICN

This thread will decend into PC Vs. Mac by Post # 23.

tubedude

Macs are definetly better...

11811

There is amazing music being made every day, and then there's absolute crap being made at the same time, the accessibility of music production via the like of DAWs just means there is some much more stuff (and a hell of a lot more crap)out there to get through, it also seems a bit easier to bang out a hit record on pro-tools or the like then before, - could you see Lady Gaga or the likes managing with old analogue gear?

then again one can argue that some of the best music was made before the invention of the amplifier..

frobisher

Not really a balanced question.

studiorat

I think we may have discussed this over hamburgers. In terms of the technical side of things I think it may have been late 70's up till mid to late 80's just before the mass introduction of digital. The likes of Studer, Otari and Sony had reached a peak in terms of tape machine design. These companies had been developing this technology for nearly 40 years. The spec. and build of this gear, including consoles was fantastic. Top end equipment was designed to be the absolute best it could be and regard to price point of this equipment was secondary.

Music for the most part was recorded in purpose built studios by staff who were highly competent and usually trained to a high degree. Since the price of recording was so high, it was important that the level of staff was equally as high. That's not to say that people starting out didn't get a look in either. The studio where I trained used to have one band waiting to get in for the overnight session while the day session was packing to leave. So both unsigned bands and young engineers did get a look in.

Digital when it did begin to be seen in the studio was used for it's ease of use rather than it's sound, Adats and DA-88's often brought in just as slave machines to the analogue 24 track. While at this stage high end digital often does equal the sonic quality of the professional analogue machines of yore, the importance of price in the design and build of modern machines often leaves them lacking in quality when compared to the sound of professional equipment from the days towards the end of the analogue era.

In terms of actual working practices both tape and DAW's have their advantages and disadvantages. Working on tape there was much more of a responsibility for the musician to get their performance right. Even working with serious session musicians spending 2 or 3 hours getting a performance just right by listening acutely and dropping in along the way was a regular occurrence. As was the 14 hour day. Actually I believe the time constraints due to the studio availability and price did encourage musicians to make decisions and actually finish projects to specified time scales. I remember my first 27 hour session!!!

All in all I'd have to say that recording pre-Daw was a much more precise affair than it seems to be these days.

PaulBrewer

11811 wrote: »

There is amazing music being made every day, and then there's absolute crap being made at the same time, the accessibility of music production via the like of DAWs just means there is some much more stuff (and a hell of a lot more crap)out there to get through, it also seems a bit easier to bang out a hit record on pro-tools or the like then before, - could you see Lady Gaga or the likes managing with old analogue gear?

then again one can argue that some of the best music was made before the invention of the amplifier..

Good Post 11811

PaulBrewer

studiorat wrote: »

I think we may have discussed this over hamburgers. In terms of the technical side of things I think it may have been late 70's up till mid to late 80's just before the mass introduction of digital. The likes of Studer, Otari and Sony had reached a peak in terms of tape machine design. These companies had been developing this technology for nearly 40 years. The spec. and build of this gear, including consoles was fantastic. Top end equipment was designed to be the absolute best it could be and regard to price point of this equipment was secondary.

Music for the most part was recorded in purpose built studios by staff who were highly competent and usually trained to a high degree. Since the price of recording was so high, it was important that the level of staff was equally as high. That's not to say that people starting out didn't get a look in either. The studio where I trained used to have one band waiting to get in for the overnight session while the day session was packing to leave. So both unsigned bands and young engineers did get a look in.

Digital when it did begin to be seen in the studio was used for it's ease of use rather than it's sound, Adats and DA-88's often brought in just as slave machines to the analogue 24 track. While at this stage high end digital often does equal the sonic quality of the professional analogue machines of yore, the importance of price in the design and build of modern machines often leaves them lacking in quality when compared to the sound of professional equipment from the days towards the end of the analogue era.

In terms of actual working practices both tape and DAW's have their advantages and disadvantages. Working on tape there was much more of a responsibility for the musician to get their performance right. Even working with serious session musicians spending 2 or 3 hours getting a performance just right by listening acutely and dropping in along the way was a regular occurrence. As was the 14 hour day. Actually I believe the time constraints due to the studio availability and price did encourage musicians to make decisions and actually finish projects to specified time scales. I remember my first 27 hour session!!!

All in all I'd have to say that recording pre-Daw was a much more precise affair than it seems to be these days.

Very well put David.

PaulBrewer

The current consensus seems to be that music was 'better' before the era of the computer in the studio.

Has anyone any suggestions why that may be ?

Is the implication that DAWs , or more likely the work practices associated with DAWs , (Auto Tune Beat Detective etc) makes the music worse?

Or is it the music you prefer was pre Daw?

Aridstarling

For me anyway, great music is great music, regardless of how it was made. How can one objectively compare Bob Dylan's "The Times they are a-changing" with "The Downward Spiral" by Nine Inch Nails based solely on the presence of a DAW in their creation?

It comes down, as ever, to the talent of the people behind the music, not the technology.

One point though is that many of the records we hear today are made and recorded in compromised situations in comparison to the records of the 60s, 70s and 80s. As Studiorat put it, there was a pressure in the past to get everything right on the musicians behalf. Also there was the proliferation of talented and trained engineers. Nowadays, there is almost an expectation that the engineer will fix the musicians mistakes with timing and pitch correction. This takes the responsibility off the musicians and hence, the record suffers. Of course, this is rarely a problem with true professionals who know their songs and instruments well, but for the huge amount of amateurs out there its constant one.

So basically, the argument is too narrow for my liking. It leaves out the responsibility of the musicians, it doesn't recognize the importance of genre and it forgets about the different circumstances in which older records were made (top class facilities, high-end equipment, well-trained engineers).

PaulBrewer

Good Post Arid.

iamhunted

PaulBrewer wrote: »

The current consensus seems to be that music was 'better' before the era of the computer in the studio.

Has anyone any suggestions why that may be ?

Is the implication that DAWs , or more likely the work practices associated with DAWs , (Auto Tune Beat Detective etc) makes the music worse?

Or is it the music you prefer was pre Daw?

a good tune can be written on a tin can and its still a good tune. I dont think the introduction of computers improved or made worse music.

A DAW does make it easier to make **** sound reasonable, but a good studio was always capable of that.

PaulBrewer

iamhunted wrote: »

A DAW does make it easier to make **** sound reasonable, .

Is that the essence of it all I wonder ?

Is that the new benchmark, 'reasonable' ?

In ye olde days there were obstacles to get over .... Manager, Record Company, the unavoidable expense of studios at that time.

Were those 'obstacles' a filter? i.e in general, if you were shyt you didn't get a look in ?

Is that the downside of the DAW age? Every phucker can make a record ... and does - therefore the average quality drops?

PMI

PaulBrewer wrote: »

Is that the essence of it all I wonder ?

Is that the new benchmark, 'reasonable' ?

In ye olde days there were obstacles to get over .... Manager, Record Company, the unavoidable expense of studios at that time.

Were those 'obstacles' a filter? i.e in general, if you were shyt you didn't get a look in ?

Is that the downside of the DAW age? Every phucker can make a record ... and does - therefore the average quality drops?

Paul = Hammer = Hit = Nail = On = Head = The End

as said above if you were crap you didnt even get to enter the reception area of the studio let alone the live area....

PaulBrewer

PMI wrote: »

Paul = Hammer = Hit = Nail = On = Head = The End

as said above if you were crap you didnt even get to enter the reception area of the studio let alone the live area....

If the receptionist knew your name then that was about equal to having a Top Ten now!

frobisher

studiorat wrote: »

I think we may have discussed this over hamburgers. In terms of the technical side of things I think it may have been late 70's up till mid to late 80's just before the mass introduction of digital. The likes of Studer, Otari and Sony had reached a peak in terms of tape machine design. These companies had been developing this technology for nearly 40 years. The spec. and build of this gear, including consoles was fantastic. Top end equipment was designed to be the absolute best it could be and regard to price point of this equipment was secondary.

Music for the most part was recorded in purpose built studios by staff who were highly competent and usually trained to a high degree. Since the price of recording was so high, it was important that the level of staff was equally as high. That's not to say that people starting out didn't get a look in either. The studio where I trained used to have one band waiting to get in for the overnight session while the day session was packing to leave. So both unsigned bands and young engineers did get a look in.

Digital when it did begin to be seen in the studio was used for it's ease of use rather than it's sound, Adats and DA-88's often brought in just as slave machines to the analogue 24 track. While at this stage high end digital often does equal the sonic quality of the professional analogue machines of yore, the importance of price in the design and build of modern machines often leaves them lacking in quality when compared to the sound of professional equipment from the days towards the end of the analogue era.

In terms of actual working practices both tape and DAW's have their advantages and disadvantages. Working on tape there was much more of a responsibility for the musician to get their performance right. Even working with serious session musicians spending 2 or 3 hours getting a performance just right by listening acutely and dropping in along the way was a regular occurrence. As was the 14 hour day. Actually I believe the time constraints due to the studio availability and price did encourage musicians to make decisions and actually finish projects to specified time scales. I remember my first 27 hour session!!!

All in all I'd have to say that recording pre-Daw was a much more precise affair than it seems to be these days.

Post of the month.

RealEstateKing

Yes the music being made was in general better before DAWS, but the reasons for this are mainly cultural, not technical.

(1) There used to be a cultural expectation that musicans and singers were people that had a talent that other people did not have, and that as a result their looks were irrelevant. Thus, it was nice if a star was good-looking (like Elvis) but not necesssary. Now, in order to be a Pop Star you must be better looking than 99% of the population, and your musical ability is irrelevant.

In todays world Van Morrison, Nina Simone, and Lennon and McCartney would not be pop stars, they would be in wedding bands, or working as backroom songwriters while the latest blonde Pop-Tart sang the songs out front.

(2) To some extent the culture that began with punk, hip-hop and on into rave, techno and drum and bass, there has been a progressive marginalising of musical ability: It became, even in alternative music, far less important to be able to play music well, than to be in some way culturally aware, or hip, or media-savvy. From this culture somebody as unmusical as say, Goldie, could actually become a famous music star simply by having interesting teeth.

This lack of real musical ability, resulted in the Tryanny of Genre that began in the late 1990's - the massive profusion of genres being a clever way of masking the fact that there was little musical innovation going on: Whole warehouses full of records being made with an unimaginative 4 on the floor beat - "Right we'll call this one 'Progressive House', change the Hi-Hat pattern on this one and call it 'Tech House' , change that bass sound and call it "Speed Garage." All to mask the fact that the three records are basically different versions of the same song.

(3) Culturally, as we entered the Post-Modern era, it began to be less possible to make music that sang about larger, deeper themes, that seemed connected to a global movement of some sort. The 1960s (Counterculture) and to a certain extent the 1970's (punk)was the last time that this was culturally possible, and the main reason why so many are stilll musically nostalgic for that period.

In the current cultural context, if one attempted to make a record like Marvyn Gaye's "What's going On" for example, it would seem incredibly cheesy and self-absorbed. A "Never Mind The Bollocks" would not be particularly shocking and Bowie dressing up like a woman would seem tedious in the extreme. Those cultural contexts simply aren't there anymore.

Nowadays, most artists widely avoid trying to interact with deeper themes, and the result is facile music like The Ting-Tings, which is largely in-jokes, cultural namechecking and catchy songs about nothing much.

(4) DAWS and studio trickery making it easier for people who should not be making records to make records is certainly a factor here too though.

(5) The massive profusion of other entertainments making it less likely that a musician will ever really master an instument: In 1970s Dublin, if you were lucky enough to have an electric guitar, you learned the **** out of it, cause the only other thing to do was play football. Now there is the internet, games, iPods, downloadable movies and so on. This eats into the time of a lot of potential musicans.

All this said, if you avoid the mainstream like the plague, there is a fantastic selection of great music being made now, just none of it is in the charts it can be hard to stay on top of it and find out about it. You have to cultivate good friends and recommend stuff to each other and go to lots of gigs.

So in summation, as Charles Dickens said : "Twas the best of times, twas the worst of times."

Seziertisch

The idea of a record company developing an artist has also sadly been neglected. The first few Neil Young solo albums tanked big time when they first came out, and only recouped their cost a couple of years later. Nowadays, a lot of the time, if the artist fails to deliver the goods immediately (i.e. commercial success) they get shown the door.

PaulBrewer

RealEstateKing wrote: »

Yes the music being made was in general better before DAWS, but the reasons for this are mainly cultural, not technical.

(1) There used to be a cultural expectation that musicans and singers were people that had a talent that other people did not have, and that as a result their looks were irrelevant. Thus, it was nice if a star was good-looking (like Elvis) but not necesssary. Now, in order to be a Pop Star you must be better looking than 99% of the population, and your musical ability is irrelevant.

In todays world Van Morrison, Nina Simone, and Lennon and McCartney would not be pop stars, they would be in wedding bands, or working as backroom songwriters while the latest blonde Pop-Tart sang the songs out front.

(2) To some extent the culture that began with punk, hip-hop and on into rave, techno and drum and bass, there has been a progressive marginalising of musical ability: It became, even in alternative music, far less important to be able to play music well, than to be in some way culturally aware, or hip, or media-savvy. From this culture somebody as unmusical as say, Goldie, could actually become a famous music star simply by having interesting teeth.

This lack of real musical ability, resulted in the Tryanny of Genre that began in the late 1990's - the massive profusion of genres being a clever way of masking the fact that there was little musical innovation going on: Whole warehouses full of records being made with an unimaginative 4 on the floor beat - "Right we'll call this one 'Progressive House', change the Hi-Hat pattern on this one and call it 'Tech House' , change that bass sound and call it "Speed Garage." All to mask the fact that the three records are basically different versions of the same song.

(3) Culturally, as we entered the Post-Modern era, it began to be less possible to make music that sang about larger, deeper themes, that seemed connected to a global movement of some sort. The 1960s (Counterculture) and to a certain extent the 1970's (punk)was the last time that this was culturally possible, and the main reason why so many are stilll musically nostalgic for that period.

In the current cultural context, if one attempted to make a record like Marvyn Gaye's "What's going On" for example, it would seem incredibly cheesy and self-absorbed. A "Never Mind The Bollocks" would not be particularly shocking and Bowie dressing up like a woman would seem tedious in the extreme. Those cultural contexts simply aren't there anymore.

Nowadays, most artists widely avoid trying to interact with deeper themes, and the result is facile music like The Ting-Tings, which is largely in-jokes, cultural namechecking and catchy songs about nothing much.

(4) DAWS and studio trickery making it easier for people who should not be making records to make records is certainly a factor here too though.

(5) The massive profusion of other entertainments making it less likely that a musician will ever really master an instument: In 1970s Dublin, if you were lucky enough to have an electric guitar, you learned the **** out of it, cause the only other thing to do was play football. Now there is the internet, games, iPods, downloadable movies and so on. This eats into the time of a lot of potential musicans.

All this said, if you avoid the mainstream like the plague, there is a fantastic selection of great music being made now, just none of it is in the charts it can be hard to stay on top of it and find out about it. You have to cultivate good friends and recommend stuff to each other and go to lots of gigs.

So in summation, as Charles Dickens said : "Twas the best of times, twas the worst of times."

It's bringing out the best of you guys this thread innit? Another interesting post - well done.

PaulBrewer

Seziertisch wrote: »

The idea of a record company developing an artist has also sadly been neglected. The first few Neil Young solo albums tanked big time when they first came out, and only recouped their cost a couple of years later. Nowadays, a lot of the time, if the artist fails to deliver the goods immediately (i.e. commercial success) they get shown the door.

... and do you think the DAW Generation are part of the reason for that?

Rockshamrover

When I was a lad, back in the 1920s:D There was no such thing as DAWS and only a handful of musicians had ever even seen the inside of a recording studio. If you were one of the handful, it was mostly down to your ability and very little else.

If you were into music you were a musician and all your efforts were put into learning your instrument.

I would say that generally the standard of musicianship (is that a word?) has probably dropped with the advent of the DAW. This is because the guys who would have been musicians in the past now want to be producers, so the amount of time they can give to developing as a musician is greatly reduced.

The DAW has done away with the need to be a musician at all. It doesn't take a lot of effort nowadays to churn out a tune if you have the ability to loop a few basic chords and stick them onto a drum beat. You can get by with very little musical knowledge or understanding. That can work to some extent but will it stand the test of time? How many of you still have Paul Hardcastle in your record collections?

So in my opinion the drop in quality of music is down to the drop in standards of musicianship brought about by the dreaded DAW.

But then again I'd never give my one back.

Seziertisch

PaulBrewer wrote: »

... and do you think the DAW Generation are part of the reason for that?

Not part of the reason, more a coinciding factor affecting the quality of music being produced.

dav nagle

The best music was made before Daw's because it was all about the songs or the lyrics, nowadays most of the music I hear is crap like that Eurovision meaningless rot 'etcetera' like how dare they write and release that rot. The most troubling factor is that in a recent radio poll 84% of people voted in saying it was a good song and that the band deserved to progress further in the euro rot competition. The fact is that people’s brains have become so accustomed to sugarcoatedpoprot that they the majority wouldn't know a good lyric even if it jumped out of the hi fi system and blew their eyeballs out. What I am trying to get at here is that the majority of people even if they don't realize it prefer daw based digital recordings.

I believe that in time when record companies revert to good song writing and fascinating artistic individualistic credible people that the digital world will be ready to make records better than ever before. Daw's are still a medium in their infancy after all, in the grand scale of things. The music industry should also be called the majority entertainment music industry.

Does it really have to come down to the medium that we use to record music where maybe it comes down to the lack of UNDISCOVERED truly creative artistic genius?

So many factors to consider, I voted that music was better before daw's but it won't always be the case..

11811

Having thought about a bit more, take DAWs out of the equation altogether,
the best music was made before MTV.

PMI

ha... Kind of.... MTV moved it from you sound pretty good to hey you look good too (or you dont and your record sales drop)....

Great posts guys....

Rockshamrover

Everything has been dumbed down.

When I was a lad (cue Hovis music) if you wanted to be like/sound like your musical heroes, you had to go off and practice your instrument "till your fingers bled" and buy the actual equipment they used.

Now all you have to do is buy the right plug in.
If you can't sing, that's not a problem.
I you don't know your music theory don't let that hold you back.
Can't play the drums? Not a problem.

As time goes by technology will enable us to do stuff musically that we can't even imagine today. Waves quality will be available at a fraction of the cost. They'll have stuff that will make the saying "you can't polish a turd" obselete.

Is that good? Yes it's bloody brilliant:D

studiorat

I think getting the right plug-in will only go so far as to make you sound a bit like whatever hero you are trying to sound like. But this begs the question, surely you should be striving to find an original sound? Be yourself as it were. Zappa had a great phrase for making a record which went anlon the lines of "Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed and something blue" Which I think is very useful when approaching a production.

As for the future? Well there's some very "interesting" work going on at the moment. Attempts being made to both measure music in terms of what you like about it. For example a computer program will extract certain elements of a song and allow you to search for other music that has these elements in common. You can say you like REM and this program I suppose will eventually search for songs with similar characteristics. Finding out what makes music tick as it were. Personally I think liking music is very much a personal time and place thing, some days you like it some days you don't.

Other work involves measuring emotional response to various musical stimuli and using this stimuli to affect the musical performance. For example an auditorium with galvanic sensors in the seats which measure the resistance of the occupiers skin as their emotional state changes.

Rockshamrover

studiorat wrote: »

I think getting the right plug-in will only go so far as to make you sound a bit like whatever hero you are trying to sound like. But this begs the question, surely you should be striving to find an original sound? Be yourself as it were. Zappa had a great phrase for making a record which went anlon the lines of "Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed and something blue" Which I think is very useful when approaching a production.

As for the future? Well there's some very "interesting" work going on at the moment. Attempts being made to both measure music in terms of what you like about it. For example a computer program will extract certain elements of a song and allow you to search for other music that has these elements in common. You can say you like REM and this program I suppose will eventually search for songs with similar characteristics. Finding out what makes music tick as it were. Personally I think liking music is very much a personal time and place thing, some days you like it some days you don't.

Other work involves measuring emotional response to various musical stimuli and using this stimuli to affect the musical performance. For example an auditorium with galvanic sensors in the seats which measure the resistance of the occupiers skin as their emotional state changes.

Hi SR,

The point I was making badly with regard to emulating your hero's was that that you had to go off and learn stuff so that you could get the same sound.

In doing this you educated yourself, learning by doing. This knowledge could then be used as a basis to express your own sound etc. Now you can to some extent buy a sound so you learn nothing.

ITUNES are using Genius to market music similar to the type you already have in your library. I suppose it's only a matter of time before you can buy a program that will let you make a certain style of music.

At the end of the day everything is a commodity. If there's a market feed it.

bedbugs

What you all SHOULD be asking is which was better -shellac or vinyl?

Because it's about as relevant.

Rockshamrover

I think Paul's question is interesting in that it's to do with how music gets made rather than the medium that it's delivered to you on.

I vote for shellac.

bedbugs

Fair enough. But imho, music is about the performance and compositions. The way it's recorded doesn't make it better or worse music, just (maybe) clearer (or not) or more fancy (or not).

I'd say I like an equal amount of acts from before digital technology as after. It wouldn't have made a difference if these acts recorded on tape, hard disk or wax cylinder. A good performance of a good song is good no matter what.

studiorat

bedbugs wrote: »

Fair enough. But imho, music is about the performance and compositions. The way it's recorded doesn't make it better or worse music, just (maybe) clearer (or not) or more fancy (or not).

I'd say I like an equal amount of acts from before digital technology as after. It wouldn't have made a difference if these acts recorded on tape, hard disk or wax cylinder. A good performance of a good song is good no matter what.

It's more about the working practices involved in capturing that performance. Quite a big difference between the two. Nothing to do with clearer or more fancy. Working with tape and working on a DAW has quite a different work flow. Not to mention the types of recording venues of then and now and design philosophy of the equipment related to both methods.

I don't think anybody is discussing the sonic characteristics they are pretty much equal at a certain level at this stage.

Personally I'd rather concentrate on the artistic work than have to worry about the market forces involved. But I suppose a budget is a budget and at the end of the day that's what you cut your cloth for.

JohnnyIrvine666

Late 60's and the early 70's, bands in and around at that time really pushed boundaries of music eg: Hendrix, The Doors, Black Sabbath.... if it weren't for bands like these we're all be listening to Cliff Richard hehe

PaulBrewer

JohnnyIrvine666 wrote: »

Late 60's and the early 70's, bands in and around at that time really pushed boundaries of music eg: Hendrix, The Doors, Black Sabbath.... if it weren't for bands like these we're all be listening to Cliff Richard hehe

Johnny, were you in your late teens then?

Aridstarling

JohnnyIrvine666 wrote: »

Late 60's and the early 70's, bands in and around at that time really pushed boundaries of music eg: Hendrix, The Doors, Black Sabbath.... if it weren't for bands like these we're all be listening to Cliff Richard hehe

And bands (the likes of Animal Collective, Liars, Arcade Fire, Sigur Ros and Wilco) aren't doing that these days?

dav nagle

Aridstarling wrote: »

And bands (the likes of Animal Collective, Liars, Arcade Fire, Sigur Ros and Wilco) aren't doing that these days?

I seen the Arcade fire in the Phoenix park they were cool but I wanted to slit my wrists, not the same as bands from the 70's.

SeanHurley

I think there will always be great music being made, as there will always be naturally creative and talented people to make it.

I think the easy access to recording that DAWs provide has increased the amount of material being produced which has lead to reduced quality control. The increased volume makes it harder for the cream to rise to the top. It isn't necessarily the most talented or creative that make it anymore, moreover it is those who have greater business acumen. Those concerned solely with making great music to a high quality are left behind by those who can throw music together but market it correctly. Hence the quality drop in mainstream music.

I don't think you can soley blame DAWs on this tho, it is after all only a tool, albiet one that makes life a little easier. The internet, multimedia etc. have all had their part to play.

PaulBrewer

bedbugs wrote: »

The way it's recorded doesn't make it better or worse music

I think your mistaken there Bedbugs - it is one of the elements that does make it better or worse.

We've had instances here where lads are posting tracks that are virtually unlistenable, KO Round 1 - if they were well recorded well then they might make it to at least Round 2 ...

Aridstarling

I think the reason people say that music these days isn't as good as the 60s or 70s is because people are too lazy to look. It has always been difficult to find anything outside of mainstream music, now all you got to do is google a name you've heard and you'll almost surely find some songs and all the information you could want. It is harder for the cream to rise to the top, but you can easily find some truly great music anytime you want really.

One thing I've noticed is the pressure bands are under nowadays to have music recorded, pretty much straight away, for myspace, demo, etc. This wasn't the case in the past and this, in my eyes, has affected the quality of band's first recordings as they are rushed into things.

PaulBrewer

Aridstarling wrote: »

One thing I've noticed is the pressure bands are under nowadays to have music recorded, pretty much straight away, for myspace, demo, etc. This wasn't the case in the past and this, in my eyes, has affected the quality of band's first recordings as they are rushed into things.

Good Point Arid.

That doesn't explain the need to put that shyt out though, does it ?

Who's rushing them?

Aridstarling

No it doesn't, but some (if not all) bands take time to find their feet with songs, to work out their own sound. These days you're expected to have demos up before your first gig pretty much, people want and expect to be able to hear you straight away. Its more of an attitude problem on behalf of the listeners than anything in my opinion. People no longer listen for potential, they just expect a finished product every time. It kills off bands that need the extra time to craft their work.

PaulBrewer

Aridstarling wrote: »

It kills off bands that need the extra time to craft their work.

Only if they, the bands, allow it ...

Aridstarling

Indeed. In my own case I'd rather spend my time writing songs and working on songs than promoting my band (http://www.myspace.com/aridstar ) but in a scene as crowded as the current music scene is, if you ever intend to get anywhere you have to act quick. Everybody out there seems obsessed with the idea of whats new and you have to play that card as much as you can.

PaulBrewer

Aridstarling wrote: »

but in a scene as crowded as the current music scene is, if you ever intend to get anywhere you have to act quick. Everybody out there seems obsessed with the idea of whats new and you have to play that card as much as you can.

Arid, with all due respect that's bollicks -

No one is waiting for your band and whilst you do have a point with the value of 'New' there's no point in wasting that Newness being shyte ....

I think it was Bono who said something along the lines of -

" A song is your manager, it gets you on the radio , it gets you gigs, it gets you paid "

No wonder the scene here is so inward looking with attitudes like that around.

Concentrate on being Good .... not being First.

jtsuited

with all due respect, the whole idea of this thread is bollocks.

Common sense would tell you, that in the old pre-DAW days, most of the time someone had to think you were pretty good so that your music could be 'made' (recorded). Not only did they have to think you were good, they had to be willing to part with their cash.

Nowadays only you have to think you are good and the music is 'made'.

The problem is the question.

Aridstarling

I'm not saying I agree with it and I'm not saying I conform to it. I personally am far more concerned with being good than racing through stuff that needs time.

I believe quality control is key but I know there are bands out there with little or no concept of the idea. I see bands with mobile phone recordings of live gigs on myspace or bebo, just so they have something to show. Everytime they have anything at all thats new, they bang it up, let people hear it in the hope that it keeps them interested for another minute. Obviously if 2 great songs would be far better for this rather than 10 shyte ones but even with that it has become so difficult to attract and maintain peoples attention.

PaulBrewer

Aridstarling wrote: »

I'm not saying I agree with it and I'm not saying I conform to it. I personally am far more concerned with being good than racing through stuff that needs time.

I believe quality control is key but I know there are bands out there with little or no concept of the idea. I see bands with mobile phone recordings of live gigs on myspace or bebo, just so they have something to show. Everytime they have anything at all thats new, they bang it up, let people hear it in the hope that it keeps them interested for another minute. Obviously if 2 great songs would be far better for this rather than 10 shyte ones but even with that it has become so difficult to attract and maintain peoples attention.

Fair Enough ...

Seziertisch

jtsuited wrote: »

with all due respect, the whole idea of this thread is bollocks.

Common sense would tell you, that in the old pre-DAW days, most of the time someone had to think you were pretty good so that your music could be 'made' (recorded). Not only did they have to think you were good, they had to be willing to part with their cash.

Nowadays only you have to think you are good and the music is 'made'.

The problem is the question.

Not only that but before you were let near a studio (unless you were already an established act) you were expected to rehearse your arse off, with the band going in as a well-oiled machine.