Musical longevity & making future classic albums

[jon]

I've been thinking about this topic a lot lately...it may well be a key to the future of this business.

Over the decades, I have always stayed on the edge of new musical trends with enjoyment and deep professional interest.

Yet, I have to admit that few modern records seem likely to remain relevant 30 years from now. And I still find myself listening to many albums that were recorded before, say, 1970. Quite a few albums from the 50s and 60s remain magical and relevant to this day.

Which recent records do you think could be classics 30 years from now?

What do you think could help in making a future classic record today, a record that could remain relevant for many years to future generations? If that were your goal, what would you do?

Jon

[alphajerk]

i have a bunch of records that i will listen to in 30 years made in the last 15. although im not sure if it qualifies them as "classic" but rather just great records that i really enjoy... but i dont expect many to have the same enjoyment.

but classic records in the traditional sense arent likely to happen in the current business model the labels operate in. they are out to make the quick buck instead of developing artists, rely on the entertainer and branding over substance... maybe things will change, but i have heard better artists that are unsigned consistantly over anything the majors have put out.

[BattleAngel]

I think the masterpieces from Bjork, Nirvana, NIN, Radiohead, Foo Fighters, Tool, and probably to a lesser extent, Coldplay (their first one really was a solid album song-to-song) will stand the test of time better than the rest of modern acts. I also think "Bleed American" from Jimmy Eat World has this quality, as does some of the Weezer stuff.

I think to really be an amazing, benchmark setting album that can survive through the years, you've got to have a few things:

1) The ability to invoke a rather specific emotion within a rather broad range of listeners
2) Every song has to be as exceptionally well written as the last, and probably with a significantly different hook from song to song while maintaining a common vibe- the different songs have to fit like a puzzle- we're presenting an album with lots of different moments, not necessarily one portrait of a band
3) The production needs to be consistant (even if recorded in a myriad of studios- one of Queen's albums was recorded in like 6 places yet it's the most smooth and consistant album I've heard)
4) The production can be simple and raw, but with supreme depth to the arrangements that will keep people listening for years and still recognizing new parts (Jimmy Eat World's record has that in spades, The Fragile by NIN, etc.)- to me, there is nothing more fun than discovering little hidden treasures in old tracks I've heard a million times
5) The artists and production team really have to sound like they know what they are doing, and love what they are doing. They need to sound like they were born to do this album- I know that's a little cheezey, but every great album I've heard has given me that impression.
6) There need to be at least 5 moments throughout that just make your jaw drop that you can keep talking about.

The above 6 really also factor in to what makes a classic movie (another something we seem to be in danger of not having these days) but I believe the 6th is what really can make or break an album.

I'll use "Batman" as an example of what I feel is a classic movie that was out only to entertain. Think of the performances in that film and the visual and lyrical "holy shits" that happen throughout and usually in tandem... Jack Nicholson's hand coming out of the vat of acid and subsequently having his face unwrapped, looking in the mirror, and smashing it while howling with psychotic laughter. The line "have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moon light?" Michael Keaton's hilarious moment in Vicky Vale's apartment saying "I'm Batman... *I'm* Batman" trying to practice how to tell her that he's, well, Batman. How about the scene where Joker shoots down the Batman's huge flying vehicle with a super long pistol? The scene where a huge inflatable joker is floating down a major NYC street shooting out money and then poisonous gas?

I could go on and on, but to anyone who has ever seen that movie, you should be going "oh yeah- that was pretty damn brilliant." I haven't seen that movie in probably 7 years, and it's not my favorite movie, but there is no denying the memorability, style, and sheer craft of that film. It was made in 1988 but is way more epic than any modern super hero flick I've ever seen.

I think that by really crafting an album, taking time to really get a seriously killer and unique vibe, making sure there are plenty of moments to keep talking about that still surprise the listener after he's heard the track 50 times, it's still possible to make a classic record. Hell, I'm trying to do one right now!

I think the key to know if you're on the right track is being able to listen to the same songs over and over again and not only still like them but still feel like "yeah- holy shit, we're doing something- god, I want to play this for my mom" lol.

I put together a CD of various artists that I think represents a classic album- this CD, whenever I listen to it, really "does it for me." I'll bring a few copies to the NYC meeting- I really feel like it represents, with the exception of a few songs, album and song "perfection."

[Jules]

"Which recent records do you think could be classics 30 years from now?"

Macey Gray - first album
Maralyn manson - mechanical Animals
Lou Reed - Extacy

What do you think could help in making a future classic record today, a record that could remain relevant for many years to future generations? If that were your goal, what would you do?

Find better artists to work with, bottom line. I belive thats all we can do & NEED to do.

Studio owners nowadays IMHO need to:

Give breaks to future talent (BTW that is - casting a wider net than their "own" album
)
Look farther than instant profit
Go out on a limb sometimes for potential stars of tomorrow
Be part of the solution not part of the problem
Harness the talents of studio staff to bring new music forward in the industry

[Jay Kahrs]

Good question, it's something I've thought about a lot recently. We won't really know what the classic albums and bands of today are for at least another 5-7 years. The bands that can stick around for that long stand a better chance of having at least one classic album that will stand with Sgt. Peppers and Dark Side as things that everyone owns.

A few years ago I was talking with a guy in his 40's who was ranting that all of the music in the last 10 years has sucked. He wanted to know where the Led Zep of today was. I think it's STP but that's not the point. How many other bands put out albums in the 60's and 70's and faded after one release? I wasn't alive then but I can't imagine it being that much different then today. The creame rose to the top and the best albums stuck around. While the game has changed, the rules haven't. What that said, here's a few off the top of my head;

Weezer - The Blue album
Soundgarden - Superunknown
G&R - Appetite
Stone Temple Pilots - the whole catalog
Pearl Jam - 10 and also Vs.
Nirvana - Nevermind

[jon]

Cool ideas so far.

How much do you feel the appeal of those old albums might come from the fact that many of them were performed relatively live and done quickly? Back then, spending three to four months on an album was a luxury that only people like George Martin or Brian Wilson could get away with at the peak of their careers. Most albums up to the mid-sixties, like the first ones by the Doors, the Stones or the Beatles, were done in a week or less. For a long time, cutting 3-4 songs in a 3-hour union shift was standard. Sinatra might do an album in a day or two. James Brown would write a song in the studio with session cats and have it done in three hours. Etc, etc.

On occasion, I propose the studio "at cost" to young bands I think are ready to make a good first album, though this is getting difficult to do as we're booked several months in advance at this time. Problem is, these guys invariably want to track basics first, then re-do every instrument separately in a quest for perfection...they think it's the 'pro' way to make a record...and they can't afford this long, drawn-out process in a real studio, even at cost. So they do it at home by themselves and it sounds like another demo...and the process starts over again until they get signed eventually, and then the home tracks are simply remixed in the studio rather than re-recorded well first...because the band can't play the songs well enough and no one, including the band, wants to spend the time and money to do it.

What it comes down to is that few bands have the preparedness, performance and material ready to play it down in a take or two all together in the studio, cut a great track and it's done.

This sound familiar to anyone else?

[BattleAngel]

Amen Jon. All of my stuff is written, and recorded from the ground up in a matter of hours. I think it's the right way to do it to get a vibe and keep things fresh. If I had the money to rent out a real studio, I'd do it there- but I don't. =/ Time/$ is the issue.

[littledog]

i'm not really disagreeing with anything said above, but part of the 'timelessness" factor is, after all, in the psychology of the listener. Association of key memories, romantic events, general reminiscenses of one's youth, concerts attended, etc. are associated with the music that was being played at the time.

For instance, I never thought all that much about Jethro Tull's "Thick as a Brick" until I saw them perform it live in Oakland, CA in the summer of 1972. After that, I loved it. Then there was the time i froze my ass hitch-hiking 1000 miles from Ann Arbor to Boulder one Thanksgiving vacation to visit a girl I was madly lusting after. It seemed that every car that picked me up that trip had "American Pie" playing on the radio. Not exactly my type of music, but can't help being overwhelmed by nostalgia when i hear it.

I think that will always be true: we hear and enjoy music partly because of it's musical/production qualities, and partly because of the associated memories it stimulates.

So I suppose the truely timeless music is the stuff that can be appreciated even without an associated historical context.

[jon]

Posterchild, you are completely describing what I've been thinking.

Hmm...

[Bob Olhsson]

I've had a few epiphanies about what Duke Ellington meant by good music vs. bad music, the ONLY two categories he considered as being valid.

The first was at a Gospel music festival I helped record in high school. It was something like two to three thousand people singing together with soloists who literally left every pop singer I had ever heard in the dust. Later on I would hear the same kind of energy from James Brown and Jackie Wilson. The closest any singer at Motown got was Levi Stubbs of the Four Tops.

The second was at a living room vocal concert given by a young woman (whose name I've never known) from India around 1978. I thought I was really sophisticated and had experienced Kahn, Shankar and the other big name Indian performers. In about 30 seconds I realized that every bit of Indian classical music I had heard up to that point was bullsh!t. Here was the very same charismatic energy I had experienced at that Gospel festival in as different a style as is imaginable.

A couple years ago I had a powerful experience hearing the western swing band Dave Martin's wife sings in. Here was that same energy that has been missing in action in most recent pop music.

What all of this had in common was that it was live performance and not a recording. The recordings are really exciting but there is something else going on we never capture, some kind of attunement to the space and the audience. Motown was the closest I've been to capturing it. The feeling on the records was exactly what it felt like to make them.

[Jules]

My two favorite albums Exile on main st by the Stones & The Sex pistols first album , were both done in pieces over many months, band members came & went.

The "well rehearsed all done quickly" maxim is fully NOT supported in the making of MY benchmark classics, in fact a GREAT deal of production played a part IMHO ...)probably something that lead me to production as a vocation.).....as well as a genuine spirit at the very core of the bands...

[Jules]

I wonder what part STUDIO OWNERS played in classic albums?

Bery Gordy
Sam Phillips

Both were studio owning visionaries that I admire and would love to, in some tiny way, follow in their footsteps...

[jon]

I was actually thinking about that album tonight and how difficult it must have been to get a decent sound out of that chateau basement...

As I understand it, the Stone's albums were mostly long, very drawn-out affairs. It took them forever to come up with the goods sometimes. One of their engineers commented on how difficult it was for him to watch the world's finest rock'n roll rhythm section fall apart, night after night, going around the song a hundred different times and ways.

I wonder, though, how much editing (tape splicing) was involved as opposed to just overdubbing or doing many takes until the feeling was there on the basic tracks.

[doug_hti]

Originally posted by jon
So they do it at home by themselves and it sounds like another demo...and the process starts over again until they get signed eventually, and then the home tracks are simply remixed in the studio rather than re-recorded well first...because the band can't play the songs well enough and no one, including the band, wants to spend the time and money to do it.

This sound familiar to anyone else?

YUP!

and being reasonably informed as to what's going on in the "majors" world right now, I think a lot of the problem is the current state of the labels. Sure there are very few good A&R people around anymore, but also some of these "good" A&R people (almost like mastering engineers) do not do what their gut tells them, but what their paycheck does. They are in a time that they can't afford to be fired, because they probably WONT be picked up within a week by the other labels. So everyone is scared to make a move for something different, yet they want to be the next hero. There are also VERY FEW development deals going on anymore within majors. So this doesn't stimulate "unique" and "timeless" records the same way some of the indie labels with horrible distribution and budgets do.

It just takes so much discipline, time, and money for a new artist to break through the cracks in a unique way and develop themselves, not being swayed in the process. They have to fund themselves and hold out for the right deal, coming to the table with their completely own sound, style and songs that the label can't argue with. And all this with enough of a "F*** you" attitude and enough "F*** you" money to hold out.
And even though recording is more accessible to many more acts now days, I don't think most of those acts understand what it really takes to make it, such as the discipline, practice, time, patience, energy and persistence. Too many people want to be rockstars and not enough people want to be artists/musicians.

I don't completely agree that the problem is people having too much time. I think the wrong people have too much time. I don't think most songs should be written and recorded in three hours. I think that should be a fluke, not a normality. However, IME, the more seasoned musicians, arrangers, songwriters, and engineers I'm around, get it the FIRST time or the 2nd. Not because there intentions are to get it done in 20 minutes, but because there intentions are to play what the song needs, and they do it and it happens naturally.

But I think music is coming around after the growing pains. I don't think the world is "buying" into all the gimmicks nearly as much.

I know most of you hate the "majors", but I think the people with the money (majors) still make the largest and fastest impacts on the industry and need to get some balls and restructure their departments and take calculated risks and not get involved in so many bidding wars or signing someone AFTER they are hot.
EMI has/is made some serious changes to get more creative people in the drivers seat. And there are other shake ups to possibly come. Apple might buy Universal, BMG might buy Warner-Chappell.

But you can't depend on labels to change this, I think things will fix themselves within a couple years, but it still won't happen overnight.

[Jules]

The producer (Jimmy Miller, praise be upon him) himself described to me how on a few tracks after the band had, gone, he sat at the drum kit played along and nodded to the engineer when to punch him and the "new drums" in.... all just to fix a ragged drum outro to a song..

Technical perfection was not a maxim for that record, but soul WAS.

[jon]

Originally posted by Bob Olhsson
What all of this had in common was that it was live performance and not a recording. The recordings are really exciting but there is something else going on we never capture, some kind of attunement to the space and the audience.

You've put your finger on what is buggin' me right now.

Jon

[jon]

Originally posted by Jules
The producer (Jimmy Miller, praise be upon him) himself described to me how on a few tracks after the band had, gone, he sat at the drum kit played along and nodded to the engineer when to punch him and the "new drums" in.... all just to fix a ragged drum outro to a song..

Technical perfection was not a maxim for that record, but soul WAS.

Let me check with my sources...I've heard some things about Jimmy from engineers who worked under him...not all good, I believe. Hmmm...lemme check.

Soul wins over technical perfection every time!

[Jules]

Jon - "For every 100 well-programmed, well-produced pop/R&B/rap/house music productions that I see here that will get on the airwaves, I'd love to see even one stellar live performance artist or band. That is the breed of artist we just don't see around here much anymore."

Why dont you do something about it, and try and find acts yourself rather than growing a beard waiting for one of the A&R mooks you schmooze to bring one in?

[Bob Olhsson]

One thing Berry Gordy and Sam Phillips had in common is that they were both trying to make the very best records they could as opposed to "good for the money." Both used the very best musicians they could find as opposed to friends of theirs or of the artists.

Andrew Oldham told me in 1971 that the Stones worked pretty fast but billed Decca for a great deal of extra studio time as a means of obtaining more advance money. It's hard to say what they did later on.

Everybody cut plenty of tape back then. It led to a lot of unintended accidental miracles. Chet Atkins's engineer was telling me the other night that he thought it all went to hell when console automation came in for the very same reason. The power to accurately realize your concepts LIMITS you to never exceeding them. I understand this is why Steven Spielberg won't go near computerized film editing.

[jon]

Originally posted by doug_hti
YUP!

and being reasonably informed as to what's going on in the "majors" world right now, I think a lot of the problem is the current state of the labels. Sure there are very few good A&R people around anymore, but also some of these "good" A&R people (almost like mastering engineers) do not do what their gut tells them, but what their paycheck does. They are in a time that they can't afford to be fired, because they probably WONT be picked up within a week by the other labels. So everyone is scared to make a move for something different, yet they want to be the next hero. There are also VERY FEW development deals going on anymore within majors. So this doesn't stimulate "unique" and "timeless" records the same way some of the indie labels with horrible distribution and budgets do.

It just takes so much discipline, time, and money for a new artist to break through the cracks in a unique way and develop themselves, not being swayed in the process. They have to fund themselves and hold out for the right deal, coming to the table with their completely own sound, style and songs that the label can't argue with. And all this with enough of a "F*** you" attitude and enough "F*** you" money to hold out.
And even though recording is more accessible to many more acts now days, I don't think most of those acts understand what it really takes to make it, such as the discipline, practice, time, patience, energy and persistence. Too many people want to be rockstars and not enough people want to be artists/musicians.

So true...

The major label A&Rs I know have pitifully-small budgets for new-artist signings in any category except the most blatantly-commercial, short-term ones (i.e. someone from a reality-TV show or the Star Search winner, etc.). They beg us to lower our rates for their new artist productions in exchange for their booking here when they have a bigger budget on some commercial fodder to mix.

I'm going to print out your second paragraph and put it on the wall right now.

[Bob Olhsson]

I think recording is not nearly as accessible as it was in the 1950s and '60s. We couldn't think about OWNING a studio but it was easy to get recorded virtually for free if you were any good at all. Even if you weren't, you could record very reasonably at most radio stations.

One thing that concerns me a lot is that most of the musical icons of the 1920s through the '70s could not have afforded to start a music career today. I'm not saying only poor people are good but I will say that we have a lots smaller talent pool to choose from today because of economics and the pitiful treatment of young musicians by promoters and clubs.

[jon]

Originally posted by Jules
Why dont you do something about it, and try and find acts yourself rather than growing a beard waiting for one of the A&R mooks you schmooze to bring one in?

I do! I hang out, go to concerts and festivals, and meet other bands because I'm in one myself. We're playing at the Elysee Montmartre (cap. 1500) in Paris next Sunday and have stickers all over the city.

However, I am not a label. Pitching BS and signing artists to typical label & publishing deals is not my calling in life. Being a studio owner, producer/engineer, and artist is more than enough to fill my plate and I'd be very happy to be able to fulfill those roles well already.

So I try to introduce good bands to people who ARE good A&Rs...but there are very few of both!

[alphajerk]

there arent that many good bands... and the few i have seen always have trouble staying together.

and im curious what jon's band sounds like.

[mwagener]

Originally posted by Jules
..."For every 100 well-programmed, well-produced pop/R&B/rap/house music productions that I see here that will get on the airwaves, I'd love to see even one stellar live performance artist or band. That is the breed of artist we just don't see around here much anymore."

...and there is the problem. Anything we can do to give the artist an incentive to be a great musician brings us a step closer to great music again. Things like editing drum tracks, autotune and flying lead vocals into choruses just don't help the issue. We can produce and engineer our asses off, if the source (artist/song) is not great the final product will not be great either. We are looking at a long education process for new artists: no, I can't fix your vocal track after singing it once; yes, 8 hours a day of band practice for at least six month will make for a better record. We are selling emotions, and as far as I know, ther is no plug-in for that yet. As mentioned above, the (big) labels don't care about artist development anymore, so it might be up to us in the trenches to deal with that. I'm a firm believer that a great artist with great songs WILL be successful in the long run. That said, all of us have to pay mortgage and want to buy a nice piece of gear once in a while, so, we have to keep working with maybe "not-so-perfect" artist until we run across the next Beatles.

[jon]

We're filming the gig next Sunday...I promised a copy of the video to Michael Wagener (well, actually of our last gig at the New Morning on May 31 but this gig is bigger, sooo) as well as serious feedback on his new CD, which I want to give a few more spins this week.

[jon]

Originally posted by mwagener
...and there is the problem. Anything we can do to give the artist an incentive to be a great musician brings us a step closer to great music again. Things like editing drum tracks, autotune and flying lead vocals into choruses just don't help the issue. We can produce and engineer our asses off, if the source (artist/song) is not great the final product will not be great either. We are looking at a long education process for new artists: no, I can't fix your vocal track after singing it once; yes, 8 hours a day of band practice for at least six month will make for a better record. We are selling emotions, and as far as I know, ther is no plug-in for that yet. As mentioned above, the (big) labels don't care about artist development anymore, so it might be up to us in the trenches to deal with that. I'm a firm believer that a great artist with great songs WILL be successful in the long run. That said, all of us have to pay mortgage and want to buy a nice piece of gear once in a while, so, we have to keep working with maybe "not-so-perfect" artist until we run across the next Beatles.

...speaking of which, there you are!

Great post, Michael. Couldn't have said it any better.

[mwagener]

Originally posted by Jules
..."For every 100 well-programmed, well-produced pop/R&B/rap/house music productions that I see here that will get on the airwaves, I'd love to see even one stellar live performance artist or band. That is the breed of artist we just don't see around here much anymore."

...and there is the problem. Anything we can do to give the artist an incentive to be a great musician brings us a step closer to great music again. Things like editing drum tracks, autotune and flying lead vocals into choruses just don't help the issue. We can produce and engineer our asses off, if the source (artist/song) is not great the final product will not be great either. We are looking at a long education process for new artists: no, I can't fix your vocal track after singing it once; yes, 8 hours a day of band practice for at least six month will make for a better record. As mentioned above, the (big) labels won't do artist development anymore, so it might be up to us in the trenches to deal with that. I'm a firm believer that a great artist with great songs WILL be successful in the long run.

[Jules]

"There are also VERY FEW development deals going on anymore within majors. So this doesn't stimulate "unique" and "timeless" records the same way some of the indie labels with horrible distribution and budgets do. "

&

"As mentioned above, the (big) labels don't care about artist development anymore, so it might be up to us in the trenches to deal with that. I'm a firm believer that a great artist with great songs WILL be successful in the long run. That said, all of us have to pay mortgage and want to buy a nice piece of gear once in a while, so, we have to keep working with maybe "not-so-perfect" artist until we run across the next Beatles. "

I just developed an act in my studio up to the stage where a major label gave them a DEVELOPMENT DEAL (last week)



It took some hard work and some free studio time. I think anyone of you guys could do it if you put your mind to it.

Jon, you wonder where the next classics will come from but on the other hand below you detail your lack of inclination to get involved in turning things around, IMHO the sentiment "I'm too busy" doesn't jive with artistic creation or asistance... I am kicking acts up the ladder with a TINY studio, you could do a lot with your place IMHO.

"However, I am not a label. Pitching BS and signing artists to typical label & publishing deals is not my calling in life. Being a studio owner, producer/engineer, and artist is more than enough to fill my plate and I'd be very happy to be able to fulfill those roles well already."

Anyhow if you haven't felt it already, I feel passionately about folks with recording equipment helping the new talent come through..

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally posted by mwagener
... Anything we can do to give the artist an incentive to be a great musician brings us a step closer to great music again. ...
... it might be up to us in the trenches to deal with that...

I think it really IS up to us.

The good news is that in the 1940s people exactly like us created an entirely new music industry from scratch and others pretty much repeated the process during the early '70s. Common sense goes a long way. Just as in performance, there are also no short-cuts to creating real eyeball to eyeball relationships between artists and their audiences.

[Jules]

"I think it really IS up to us. "

Three cheers to that!

"The good news is that in the 1940s people exactly like us created an entirely new music industry from scratch and others pretty much repeated the process during the early '70s."

Do tell us more uncle Bob... we've had our milk and cookies and now we want a STORY!