DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: Ħ on January 08, 2011, 03:42:15 PM
-
There are so many wonderful talented musicians that have shaped modern music into what it is today. The birth of rock and roll. The birth of hard rock. The birth of heavy metal. I have heard so many great things about artists from The Beatles to Led Zeppelin to Rush.
Naturally, I let my piqued curiousity get the better of me, and I broke down and started listening to all these different bands that have influenced my favorite modern bands.
But one thing bores me to death and kills my interest: sound quality.
Before the 90s, I notice that the sound quality is really quite muddy. I believe it's the same reason WDADU doesn't get many fans. I do not understand the engineering behind it at all, so forgive my pedestrian observations. All the sounds are really not crisp when compared to modern music. The vocals always sound like someone is speaking through a telephone. The guitar just sounds dirty.
The balance between the left and right channel is all wrong for me--clearly the engineers did not have headphones in mind. Sure, the mixes sound just fine when blasted through a car stereo, but once I pop headphones in, the balance is just awkward--loud electric guitar isolated in the left channel, and vocals in the right.
Now, I went to the Roger Waters concert this year. It was really special. For those who were there, you will remember that Run Like Hell is extremely loud. But the simple crispness of live quality made the song sound so smooth, defined, and....metal, for lack of a better word. We listened to the album on the way home from the concert, and when Run Like Hell came on, I noticed a kind of fuzz or "radio quality" that really diminished the song for me.
I really would like to get into these monumental bands like Zeppelin and the Beatles...it is just so hard because of the quality. I am sure they are/were quite skilled live but for some reason I can't dig the shoddy radio sound quality...
It's gotten to the point where I consider cover versions even better than the original. For example, compare DT's Queen medley on the second disk of BCASL, timestamp 1:10-3:10. The sound is just so much more full than the original.
I really wish I was born in the 50s or 60s so I would be able to appreciate this without being spoiled by the quality of modern music. Anyone else got this problem?
-
Can't say I do at all. Admittedly, most of my top 10 bands are from the last 20 or so years, but a lot of my favourite individual songs date back to the 1800s, so I dunno if that's just me. And sound quality doesn't really bother me in most genres, as I got into music through Green Day and crappy pop songs it feels more like a treat when something sounds really good than a standard.
-
The warmth of music from the 70s is much better than the cold digital production today, imo.
-
The warmth of music from the 70s is much better than the cold digital production today, imo.
Also this. I'm not even a huge Fleetwood Mac fan and Rumours is easily the best produced album I've ever heard.
-
I'm just going to say this without reading your post, based on the thread title:
Are you Sonata?
-
I feel a bit the same to be honest.
Not entirely, because i do love some older stuff, The Beatles and Neil Young for example, but i do feel like i can't get into bands like Pink Floyd, King Crimson and Rush (i like Rush, but not as much as i would) because of the sound/production/whatever.
Even though i'm missing out, i still feel like the last 20 years or so has brought the best music. (obviously this is MY opinion)
-
Really. Sound quality?
I personally don't hear much of a difference in sound quality from the like 70s-80s to now. Earlier there was more of a problem, like listening to old Count Basie & old Ellington stuff you notice that the sound quality isn't comparable to the modern sound. It still doesn't bother me though, I just really like the music.
I was just listening to some Supertramp tracks and I really can't see how you can complain about the sound quality.
Give me a few examples of what you mean. I'll help investigate this massive problem. :P
EDIT:
The warmth of music from the 70s is much better than the cold digital production today, imo.
Actually. This.
-
The warmth of music from the 70s is much better than the cold digital production today, imo.
Also this. I'm not even a huge Fleetwood Mac fan and Rumours is easily the best produced album I've ever heard.
:tup Agreed. The vinyl of Rumours is perhaps one of the greatest things I have ever heard.
Also, WDADU is just a poorly produced/mixed album. It sounds like that because thats all the band could afford at the time.
-
The warmth of music from the 70s is much better than the cold digital production today, imo.
Also this. I'm not even a huge Fleetwood Mac fan and Rumours is easily the best produced album I've ever heard.
:tup Agreed. The vinyl of Rumours is perhaps one of the greatest things I have ever heard.
Also, WDADU is just a poorly produced/mixed album. It sounds like that because thats all the band could afford at the time.
Same problem with all the early Fates Warning albums. Terrible producing/mixing, but the songs are good so you don't wanna turn it off even though it's drowned in reverb.
-
jsem, try to listen to Led Zeppelin IV through headphones. It's skillful yes, and it sounds marvelous when blasted through speaker or a car radio, but through headphones it loses a lot of fullness.
-
Anyone else got this problem?
No. All the bands and songs you describe as sounding 'shoddy' sound fine to me. Maybe some Led Zeppelin has that 70's-60's production style to it, but it's not noticeably bad.
jsem, try to listen to Led Zeppelin IV through headphones. It's skillful yes, and it sounds marvelous when blasted through speaker or a car radio, but through headphones it loses a lot of fullness.
Then listen to it through your stereo.
-
I agree completely with the original post.
It's probably just what you're used to. If you were around back then or have always listened to old music, it probably won't matter for you.
But I feel the same way about a lot of things from before around 1990. Particularly with the vocals.
-
jsem, try to listen to Led Zeppelin IV through headphones. It's skillful yes, and it sounds marvelous when blasted through speaker or a car radio, but through headphones it loses a lot of fullness.
Then listen to it through your stereo.
Hmmm I suppose that might be necessary. But it still doesn't solve the problem of how well they captured the sound of the instrumental instruments. For example, Robert Plant's voice has a great timbre to it, but its sound of the recording sound like he is speaking through a telephone. (whereas with JLB for example, it sounds like he is in the same room as you)
-
jsem, try to listen to Led Zeppelin IV through headphones. It's skillful yes, and it sounds marvelous when blasted through speaker or a car radio, but through headphones it loses a lot of fullness.
I can see what you mean, and I'm not digging JP's (:neverusethis:) guitar tone on some of the tunes. I can also agree with it being very raw and yeah now that I think of it I see the huge differences from this to modern production. And as said Led Zep does have the raw "60's-70's" production to it.
Still it doesn't take away from the musical efforts. And certainly doesn't make the MUSIC bad. Either you like the music or you don't. I can freaking listen to a Robert Johnson tune and even though the recording methods are from the stone age the emotion shines through and I no longer care about the producing/mixing crap.
-
Still it doesn't take away from the musical efforts. And certainly doesn't make the MUSIC bad. Either you like the music or you don't. I can freaking listen to a Robert Johnson tune and even though the recording methods are from the stone age the emotion shines through and I no longer care about the producing/mixing crap.
Oh I absolutely agree. I am not bashing the musicians in either their skill level or creativity. I am just saying it is like eating a really stale slice of chocolate cake that used to be great. You still get the flavor, but unfortunately it feels very dirty and gross. You have great respect for the baker, but not too much for the people that forgot to put it in the fridge.
-
Is this true for pretty much ALL music pre-1990ish? Or just in general for you.
-
Still it doesn't take away from the musical efforts. And certainly doesn't make the MUSIC bad. Either you like the music or you don't. I can freaking listen to a Robert Johnson tune and even though the recording methods are from the stone age the emotion shines through and I no longer care about the producing/mixing crap.
Oh I absolutely agree. I am not bashing the musicians in either their skill level or creativity. I am just saying it is like eating a really stale slice of chocolate cake that used to be great. You still get the flavor, but unfortunately it feels very dirty and gross. You have great respect for the baker, but not too much for the people that forgot to put it in the fridge.
I do agree with you there, specifically on Led Zeppelin, who's production I absolutely hate, but still, I don't see how this could actually stop you from getting into the music; if it's good enough, I'll happily listen on a crappy Youtube pull.
-
Is this true for pretty much ALL music pre-1990ish? Or just in general for you.
Just in general. I like the production quality on most PF albums starting with DSOTM. Queensryche is also an exception.
-
For me it's the opposite. Led Zeppelin is an exception that I do think the production takes away from the sound a bit - but not much. I usually NEVER think about the production/mixing unless I really listen carefully or it's so bad that it disturbs the listening. There are few albums that do that with me from 70-89 period. I don't like Stones either when it comes to the production - though they've written some killer music.
-
I actually understand where all your complaints are coming from, but I don't find most of them a problem myself. There is a minority of older music where the production quality can get in the way of me enjoying it (this is the case with some King Crimson and the live swing/early jazz I've heard), but most of the time, that "vintage" sound is better to me than how I imagine the music might sound were it rerecorded. If you took a Sabbath song and got people to play every instrument tomorrow exactly as it was played on the album, I would still prefer the originals.
A lot of modern music with completely up-to-date production, despite all the clarity in the world, sounds terribly flat, plastic and glossy, like you're listening to one polished layer of sound that only covers the surface of a great possible depth. Older production was about recording natural sounds; modern production often seems to be about recording sounds, running them through software, and ridding them of their natural qualities, because for some reason, those natural qualities are now undesirable. For example, compare the drum sound on Led Zeppelin IV to Systematic Chaos, and tell me which one sounds more like a drumkit.
This probably doesn't help you at all, but listen to some jazz studio albums from even as early as the mid '50s. Crystal clear production. Having said that, we're talking about acoustic music there, which makes a huge difference, unless I'm mistaken.
-
I agree with OP, maybe 100%, the soundquality can sometimes really kill the music
-
It's never been a problem for me, though I can definitely understand the headphones complaint with some albums.
-
BH, any examples for the headphone imbalance thing? I know that's the case on Jimi Hendrix's 'Angel', for sure. I think that's just cos he loved the acid though and was being trippy.
I think at the end of the day, if a song is really has any emotion, it would cut through regardless of the audio quality. Thinking back to delta blues musicians and guys like Son House, their songs are timeless because of the emotion behind them; even if they do sound like they were recorded through an ass trumpet.
-
Is it just me or is it when I blast Black Dog, Rock And Roll, Stairway, Four Sticks, and Levee on my headphones, they sound brutally awesome?
-
Is it just me or is it when I blast Black Dog, Rock And Roll, Stairway, Four Sticks, and Levee on my headphones, they sound brutally awesome?
It might be because you're blasting it. It's the same concept as playing in an outdoor theater--they blast the music to take care of acoustic problems.
-
just my opinion, but music today I feel is overproduced, take after take until they get it perfect, perfect balance, perfect timing, I much more prefer the older, rawer sounding records
-
I think a clear, clean production has it's place, and a raw and dirty production has it's place. Can't say if I prefer one, because my liking of either depends on the context of the song/artist.
-
BrotherH, you are the reason Steven Wilson is so mad about iPods. :P
I will admit, there are some earlier rock artists have trouble when listened to through headphones (Eleanor Rigby, I'm looking at you), but that wasn't what they were intended for. There wasn't a lot of portable listening in those days. You had your turntable, the amp, the speakers...just comparing the vinyl of Houses of the Holy to my CD version is night and day. Its a much fuller sound. Not how most listen to music now, but now they have remastered versions that are a bit more suited to the modern listener, which don't really have the sound quality old records have. BUT, because not being able to get into old music like that is such a crime, I'm going to recommend you try the remastered versions. Or get a turntable and build up an old vinyl collection (more expensive). Honestly I have no idea what about 60s/70s/80s sound quality bothers you, or how it sounds "muddy," because I've never had a problem with it. Hell, rock music really started to sound "muddy" in the 90s, IMO.
But really you should ignore all my rambling and listen to Fluffy Lothario.
-
I can understand your POV OP. I find it kind of hard too, but moreso with rock music.
Any other types of music besides rock sound just fine, no matter the era. Probably just because of the differing productions
-
Is it just me or is it when I blast Black Dog, Rock And Roll, Stairway, Four Sticks, and Levee on my headphones, they sound brutally awesome?
It might be because you're blasting it. It's the same concept as playing in an outdoor theater--they blast the music to take care of acoustic problems.
No, it was a figure of speech.
-
Honestly I have no idea what about 60s/70s/80s sound quality bothers you, or how it sounds "muddy," because I've never had a problem with it. Hell, rock music really started to sound "muddy" in the 90s, IMO.
Funny, cause I actually agree with this. I think mostly because thats the direction the musicians wanted to take their music in, but the production on a lot of 90s albums is much more "muddy" sounding than anything from the 70s or 80s.
-
Before the 90s, I notice that the sound quality is really quite muddy. I believe it's the same reason WDADU doesn't get many fans. I do not understand the engineering behind it at all, so forgive my pedestrian observations. All the sounds are really not crisp when compared to modern music. The vocals always sound like someone is speaking through a telephone. The guitar just sounds dirty.
That type of production has way more character than any new styles of production.
-
I'm just going to say this without reading your post, based on the thread title:
Are you Sonata?
First thing I thought of as well.
-
Well, production's great and all, but what matters is the heart that people put into their music. There are very few things that are better than 70's Yes and Rush.
I'm just going to say this without reading your post, based on the thread title:
Are you Sonata?
First thing I thought of as well.
Me too.
Sonata, you have an Indie Rep. (oxymoron?)
-
Are you Sonata?
Nope. I have no trouble with the sound quality of those days, really.
I just have a big thing for more modern underground music as it turns out. It's not that I can't or won't get into music from before the 90's, it's just that I'm 2 indie 4 u
-
Are you Sonata?
Nope. I have no trouble with the sound quality of those days, really.
I just have a big thing for more modern underground music as it turns out. It's not that I can't or won't get into music from before the 90's, it's just that I'm 2 indie 4 u
All the cool indie kids listen to Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours".
JUST SAYIN
-
Ironically.
-
People are bashing modern production, but I think the crispness and technical accuracy of the mixing really amplified the skill level of the players, and makes the songs sound more composed and less of a jam
-
But, while it amplifies the skill level, it can sometimes detract from the mood of the song, with every instrument having it's own niche instead of blending together like they sometimes should.
-
Can you provide an example?
-
There is no way that I believe that production values of today are better than those of yesteryear. Many of the records from the 70s and 80s are among the best sounding records ever. Sure, there are bands nowadays that do a great job in that area, but there are way many more who do not. Far too many CDs nowadays are compressed to death and don't have much in the way of dynamics.
-
People are bashing modern production, but I think the crispness and technical accuracy of the mixing really amplified the skill level of the players, and makes the songs sound more composed and less of a jam
How does the MIXING job increase the players' skill? I'm confused at that point. Actually, I'm just confused by this post in general. Explain, please?
-
I also find it odd how you knock old school production yet praise those songs live presence when at that time bands were recording live in the studio or the albums were mixed almost like live recordings.
It's not often that I compliment The Wall but there are moments on that album where you can feel how empty the songs are there is so much space. On a lot of modern albums even the silence sounds compressed.
-
People are bashing modern production, but I think the crispness and technical accuracy of the mixing really amplified the skill level of the players, and makes the songs sound more composed and less of a jam
Music ain't all about skill.
-
People are bashing modern production, but I think the crispness and technical accuracy of the mixing really amplified the skill level of the players, and makes the songs sound more composed and less of a jam
How does the MIXING job increase the players' skill? I'm confused at that point. Actually, I'm just confused by this post in general. Explain, please?
It doesn't affect the skill level. Good production just makes the skill level more apparent.
Don't think I am blaming the producers of the day. I'm sure they did the best with what they had. Technology has just improved, is all.
-
One of the biggest problems is the number of tracks you can have at once. When it was just 4 or 8 tracks you had to get creative and work with what you had get that sound out of those number of tracks. Nowadays with an infinite number of tracks on any given song it's much easier for a band to not think twice about adding another layer of guitar or something and completely oversaturate the sound.
-
Wow. This thread. Don't know what else to say ???
Massive fail, perhaps? Music from all eras WILL sound good, yes that includes the 30s, 40s and 50s. Shit.
-
I agree with OP, maybe 100%, the soundquality can sometimes really kill the music
Same here, there's a lot of good things from the 70's and 80's I can't get into because of the weak sound quality compared to the more recent music in my collection, it has to super impress me to be something I listen to regularly, Pink Floyd is the only example I can think of, keeping in my mind that I'm only listening to their remastered box set since it was released a few years back, I haven't listened to the original issues of PF albums in a long long time.
-
Steely Dan is a band with amazing production and sound quality IMO, with many of their albums released in the 70s.
-
The whole "older albums sound better than modern production" thing is a total myth. There are examples of bad modern production bringing down even great albums (Death Magnetic :( ), but a good modern production can't be touched by anything, sorry. I understand older albums have their magic, but there's no way they sound better. Take anything mixed by Jens Bogren and you'll know what I'm talking about.
-
The Wall sounds great no matter how you slice it, but definitely for you try to find a remastered version.
As the Beatles go, ironically, they sound much much better in mono than in stereo. It may sound crisper, but it loses the spirit of the track.
-
Steely Dan is a band with amazing production and sound quality IMO, with many of their albums released in the 70s.
Yup. No one can complain about the production on Aja. FREAKING AMAZING ALBUM
-
Frankly, if I may say so, the OP poster is a direct product of the 90s and 00s, where music was more a technology war than anything else. Compression, digital effects etc., those things taught some listeners that music has to be a surgically constructed entity, sort of a Joan Rivers of audio.
My suggestion would be to try to break out of that notion. The 70s were hands-down the best era for music, where there was a confluence of tradition, experimentation and maturity happening that producing a stunning array of good music.
rumborak
-
I've always found that most of today's music does not lend for a song to breath. That my also do to production and the "wall of sound" style of today but an instrument doesn't have to fill every beat or ever nook and cranny of a song.
-
For me the cut-off point is somewhere in the late 60s actually. Once you hit the "moptop" barrier the music gets uninteresting to me.
rumborak
-
For me the cut-off point is somewhere in the late 60s actually. Once you hit the "moptop" barrier the music gets uninteresting to me.
rumborak
You're missing out on good music. Just saying.
-
People are bashing modern production, but I think the crispness and technical accuracy of the mixing really amplified the skill level of the players, and makes the songs sound more composed and less of a jam
But, while it amplifies the skill level, it can sometimes detract from the mood of the song, with every instrument having it's own niche instead of blending together like they sometimes should.
I think dtismajesty is spot on, and BrotherH somewhat answers his own question with the word "jam". Back in the 70's when the recording of instruments and sections wasn't as "compartmentalized" as it is today, bands like Black Sabbath, UFO, Hendrix and Cream would go into the studio and record a song as if they were jamming during a live show. 2 takes, maybe 3 at the most, and they would lay the track down and move on to the next. It gave the music a much more spontaneous and organic feel.
-
You mean you don't like the old blues before the 50's. I like the way those sound it sounds like they're singing out of a can yes but you can feel the emotion. I could give a rats ass about sound quality, as long as they play live.
-
You mean you don't like the old blues before the 50's. I like the way those sound it sounds like they're singing out of a can yes but you can feel the emotion. I could give a rats ass about sound quality, as long as they play live.
Yeah pretty much. I mentioned that a few posts back but no-one cares about what I have to say :sadpanda:
-
Join the club.
-
I was the first to mention that in this thread. Lol.
-
People are bashing modern production, but I think the crispness and technical accuracy of the mixing really amplified the skill level of the players, and makes the songs sound more composed and less of a jam
But, while it amplifies the skill level, it can sometimes detract from the mood of the song, with every instrument having it's own niche instead of blending together like they sometimes should.
I think dtismajesty is spot on, and BrotherH somewhat answers his own question with the word "jam". Back in the 70's when the recording of instruments and sections wasn't as "compartmentalized" as it is today, bands like Black Sabbath, UFO, Hendrix and Cream would go into the studio and record a song as if they were jamming during a live show. 2 takes, maybe 3 at the most, and they would lay the track down and move on to the next. It gave the music a much more spontaneous and organic feel.
This is the most thought provoking post for me. But I guess that's it. Early rock/metal was very jamlike, and recent stuff, especially prog, is very composed and organized like classical music. So guess I just don't like jams.
-
Dream Theater songs are formed from jams.
-
Join the club.
No you join MY club. Sign-in is on my boobies.
-
Dream Theater songs are formed from jams.
Yes, but more than one or two like Ludwig Van was saying.
-
I don't think he was saying that the songs are composed/written from the results of a few jams, but that the studio versions you hear on the album were recorded from only several plays through of the song, several jams, in the studio.
So rather than the guitarist sitting down and playing the intro on his own thirty times and choosing the best track, and the drummer and bass player and so on doing the same, the whole band got together, played the songs together a few times, and they chose their tracks from those.
-
^what he said
-
^what he said
-
Oh ok...perhaps that's why it sounds muddy? But it does have that live, raw sound. I guess you pick your poison
-
If you want muddy listen to Master Of Reality or Sabbath Vol 4, now THAT'S muddy, they sound like total shit.
On this note I don't think much else was muddy.
-
Your problem is your idea that music should sound its best on your headphones. This is simply not true.
Modern music is made to sound decent on headphones, because of digital music, itunes, mp3s, etc. But none of that existed back then. It was designed to be played through speakers. There is no comparison between good music from the 70s played through a stereo system and modern music played as an mp3 through headphones.
-
Most of the time I never consciously take note of what decade the music I'm listening to is from. Not meaning to sound hippy but it's all just notes on a page to me. I admit I do love the 70s warm and dynamic production. If anything, back then is when you couldn't fake or fudge your skill level, because there was no hiding behind any sort of sophisticated production or electronic effects (auto-tune et al). But I love the 00s just as much as the 70s; good music is harder to find, but there is more of it I'd generalize. I'm sure there is 60s, 70s, 80s music that will appeal to anyone, somewhere out there, but it does take some effort to locate (as it's not always the most popular stuff).