Where did all the space go?

[BevvyB]

While thinking about the fact that downloads are now going to be merged with the singles charts, I thought I'd have a look through the iTunes top 100 to see what the difference was.

Kate Bush appeared a few times in the top 100, starting at 24 with 'Wuthering Heights' and then a few more dottted around below 30.

Listening to these songs made me realise just how much SPACE there was in the mixing and arrangements. Nothing too harsh, nothing maxxed out to the hilt, not everything compressed to high heaven, not everything squished and poked and prodded to make it 'radio friendly' ie Harsh In fact everything done to make it REPEATEDLY LISTENABLE.

25 years later it is still as intriguing as ever. Her voice is allowed to flow in and out of the arrangements. Mixing sessions DIDN'T start with 'lets squash this vocal and stick it up front and mix around it'. This is an entirely more organic way of working.

Listening back to some 'modern' stuff made me feel a little sad. With maxximiser and ultra-whatevers squashing this that and the other, the new technology is capable of turning every individual nuance of performance into the same-as-everyone-else. All vocals loud and harsh, all guitars 'as loud as we can get them' and all drums 'just as loud as possible behind everything else because of this compression technique that EVERYONE ELSE is using'

Are we all sheep, following each other round in circles, the zenith being the loudest harshest brashest recording and mix of all time? Because if it is, we're all doomed, and we are actually contributing to the everything-sounds-the-same problem.

We're creative aren't we? So why are we all following the same twisted goal? And where is it leading?

We all sit on these forums moaning about the state of music. I think we actually have contributed to the problem and have to find new ways of doing things and treat the bands and people we record and mix with the same creative furvor as we did when we first walked into a studio, instead of chasing those plug ins and treating each element of our recordings as separate items whose duty is to remain loud and present at all times.

We are helping crush music, yet we blame the music.

[Jules]

Well put..

[the dice]

so much truth to that.

but who dares to say no thes days?!

the problem is.

i work a lot for people who already know something about protools and stuff.

well.


the thing is.

when i master something or mix something that doesn't sound as loud as their plug in.

it is really difficult to convince them that my mix/mastering sounds better.

they can hear that it sounds better but louder is more important and means better these days.

sad but true.

it would be awesome if we could say NO to that.
but for me (as a young engineer) it is not workable.

they just go to someone else then...

it just kills me when i see all those great mastering houses buying an "hardware" L2.

shit.

that's so ****ed up.

"let's do the job as it should be done with a cranesong, 6000, manley, whatever... AND THEN COMPRESS IT TO DEATH."

and we are surprised that the kid next door has the same sound (ok, here i am maybe going to far).


but. can you blame them?!

no.

[midiman123]

Well, I don`t know if there is such a huge difference as you state!

There are more "styles" of music today than maybe 25 years ago, but people was moaning about the disco, punk etc.etc, and that it sounded awful, and "in your face" even back then!!
"Disco is killing the music, rock will vanish" etc.
(Not to mention the jazz musicians attitude over rock & roll when it entered the market in the 50`s!!)

I remember a time when new styles of music was for the small masses only.
Think about the 80`s.
Even groups like Kraftwerk is considered mainstream today!!!
We are just in a dire need for something new.

But you can`t compare a Max Martin production to a Coldplay production for instance!!
2 different things.
It`s "IN YOUR FACE" against a more "classic" production.

We always follow different trends in production, and now it`s dry, and punchy, In your face limiting!

(I`m sure some folks even reacted to Kate Bush`s sound when it hit the market....)

I think it`s all about having good songs, with a matching production, and you can find that in "she loves you" from 1962, to anything up to this year 2005.

My feeling is that music was more "new & mystical" before, and now it`s totally overexposed, and the way the labels is just looking to make a fast profit, they sustain the "in your face" approach!

But there is still released some damn good songs & productions from time to time, but not as much as in the "god old days"!!


KK

[massimo]

Bevvy
you are right. Kate Bush is a genious. But even today there is a lot of (well, some) great music being produced which has the qualities you like best. Only, this does not belong to mainstream/radio-friendly type of music. Think ECM records, Egberto Gismonti, Oregon, Penguin Cafe Orchestra or most Pat Metheny to name some.
What you are saying has more to do, in my view, with the sheer sense of adventure that free, creative music can transmit to the listener. This doesn't belong any more to rock music. I've posted this before, sorry, but this was simply lost in the seventies (with very few exceptions including Kate). You don't have any Gentle Giants, or Todd Rundgrens, or Van der Graaf Generators today. Their records are still total killers today by any standard. It is not only the loudness issue: Frank Zappa always wanted his records to be the loudest of their time. It's the statement that was strong.

massimo