Clarity and depth of the 70's vs DAW and hard drive: Is it possible...

[DJamesGoody]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

I can assure you that this is exactly what many believed back in the 1960s and '70s.

They were proven wrong.

I don't doubt that for a second. But it is undeniable that in 2009, a lot more has been done and heard than in 1968. There was simply access to less music then, therefore the chances of the cynics being wrong in 2009 are a lot less.

But I could be completely wrong, and honestly, I would never be happier if I was proven wrong.

[N88]

Originally Posted by steelyfan

Seduction is a wonderful thing. Watching a Beyonce video the other night, I realized she was seducing me, I forgot where I was, and after the video ended, I wondered how much of the world she REALLY controls......LOL.Steelyfan

But did you want to marry her? We've lost the Doris Day factor.

[N88]

Originally Posted by DJGoody

I don't doubt that for a second. But it is undeniable that in 2009, a lot more has been done and heard than in 1968. There was simply access to less music then, therefore the chances of the cynics being wrong in 2009 are a lot less.

The dissemination of information is so rapid now a spark is exploited and burns out before it has a chance to catch hold.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by DJGoody

But it is undeniable that in 2009, a lot more has been done and heard than in 1968. .

Not nearly as much as many assume. My experience was that a lot more great live music was available in 1968 and the average person regularly encountered a lot more different styles and genres.

[u b k]

Originally Posted by Outlaw Hans

Being ORIGINAL is what's it's all about.

I would argue that originality isn't terribly important either, although it can be an asset.

I think what matters most in any endeavor is being *effective*, or in the case of art, being compelling.

You just have to grab people and make it stick, if only for a moment. Whether you do that thru originality, or freshness, or raw talent, or sex appeal or whatever, none of that matters. All that matters is that you hook the attention and create a positive response, one that bonds the observer to the observed via the emotional core.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.

[DJamesGoody]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Not nearly as much as many assume. My experience was that a lot more great live music was available in 1968 and the average person regularly encountered a lot more different styles and genres.

hmm. good point. I can agree with that.

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by u b k

I would argue that originality isn't terribly important either, although it can be an asset.

I think what matters most in any endeavor is being *effective*, or in the case of art, being compelling.

You just have to grab people and make it stick, if only for a moment. Whether you do that thru originality, or freshness, or raw talent, or sex appeal or whatever, none of that matters. All that matters is that you hook the attention and create a positive response, one that bonds the observer to the observed via the emotional core.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.

As ever, spot on Greg!

Still, not too many are too great at grabbing that core with both hands.......

[Outlaw Hans]

Originally Posted by u b k

I would argue that originality isn't terribly important either, although it can be an asset.

I think what matters most in any endeavor is being *effective*, or in the case of art, being compelling.

You just have to grab people and make it stick, if only for a moment. Whether you do that thru originality, or freshness, or raw talent, or sex appeal or whatever, none of that matters. All that matters is that you hook the attention and create a positive response, one that bonds the observer to the observed via the emotional core.


Gregory Scott - ubk
.

I don't know. Being "original" is something different than being new or groundbreaking or whatever as I said. With "original" and/or "unique" I mean that there's a certain personality in the music that is different from others. So well maybe "Originality" should be "personality". To me they're more or less the same thing and very important in music.

[Karloff70]

Originally Posted by Outlaw Hans

I don't know. Being "original" is something different than being new or groundbreaking or whatever as I said. With "original" and/or "unique" I mean that there's a certain personality in the music that is different from others. So well maybe "Originality" should be "personality". To me they're more or less the same thing and very important in music.

Totally agree, and it is what makes music more interesting than if it was hard to tell who is singing a generic thing.......however I still think Greg nailed it, as whether original or not, if the thing is effective and gets your hair up or your foot tapping and smiles occuring it does have a place and there will be people who enjoy hearing it. Just probably easier to get it effective if it has some personality to use as ammunition too......

[steelyfan]

Originally Posted by N88

But did you want to marry her? We've lost the Doris Day factor.

Oh no. I watched her video with the music off while Joy Division from my music library provided a most chilling soundtrack to her hip/thigh work. Quite a spectacle I can assure you.

I couldn't marry someone who didn't know classic Pink Panther dialog by heart, more or less be offered a role in the movie and had NEVER heard of Peter Sellers OR the PINK Panther. argghh... some people. Generation gap or not, wake up people!

[steelyfan]

If someone told me that, I'd tell them that there's a new sheriff in town.........and his name is "I ONLY WORK WITH THE INSPIRED OR POSSESSED". The hair raise sensation is ALWAYS the main goal. I call it the Chill Factor and it must make an appearance in everything.
It's awesome to be inspired or live through old world folklore, hell that's where my taste reside for the most part, but some of the most potent, mysteriously uplifting, and unexplainably beautiful art has YET to be created, and anyone who thinks the best has already been done......... IS DONE.

Muhhaaha MUHAAhAhhA.. MUHAAhA..... .. .. ..

steelyfan

[Bob Olhsson]

It's all about COMMUNICATION.

Every single technical aspect can contribute to, distract from or not distract from communication. My personal definition of overproduction is when striving for technical perfection contributes nothing or, even worse, distracts from communication.

[centurymantra]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

Thankfully I've had enough experiences with real when it comes to music that I know it would be unmistakable to anybody. Pop records are rarely all that real but the James Brown Band, the Count Basie Orchestra, several black Gospel singers I've known, a few older country singers, some actors and an 18 year old girl singing classical Indian music were real enough to stand my hair on end in a manner that no recording I've ever encountered could. These folks changed the atmosphere of the room. They take over your breathing and change your whole outlook on life.

Someone alluded to this, but I have come to the conclusion that a vast majority of people don't WANT this experience - the outlook shaping, hair-on-end experience - from their music, art, film, etc. I think this is MUCH more the case in our present day than it was in past decades. In fact, if you look around, one can see a trend towards the "interactive" experience, allowing the viewer/experienc-er to shape the experience, pick their own ending, democratically vote on the fate of the art, etc. This is an entirely valid and engaging experience but, for the most part, is the antithesis of the experience you are describing.

[steelyfan]

But that's been the reason for the decline in music quality, giving clueless "consumers" what they want. How long do we continue letting THEM tell US what to do? (Why I say us?? , I'm not in the bizz...)

I mean, who's jumping to put out a panflute rock band when the panflute becomes the new guitar? Not me, and only people who do music to make money. "NO, the panflute is a silly instrument, and we WILL NOT be accepting it as a ROCK instrument , SORRY people" .

Consumers: "Oh.... you're right, how silly..... LET'S ROCK!"

That's really all it takes. Who's got the BALLS to say NO?

And then wi'll have somone on here actually say:

" But Producer XX did a fantastic production with the PANFLUTE FROM UTOPIA video, I mean come on, It sold MILLIONS......and those costumes to assist the panflute back drop........it was SEXY!... open your mind , times are changing"..... LOL! YEA RIGHT! It sold millions so I'm crazy.

Now every hot engineer in the world is putting autotune on the panflute!!
LOL!!!

"Check, ok Bobby, sounds good, I'll run the panflute through the Leslie speaker, really get it jive'n, and wi'll hit it with the new $3000 panflute compressor..........wi'll just kiss it a bit."

People who have been in a "cave" for the last few years:

"W T F are ya'll doing".......

"Trackin the panflute! .....where the hell ya'll been, ...." A CAVE?"

"Is that a Leslie? .. What's THAT sound!? .....good grief.".

"That's the panflute crusher compressor boy ..... "More attack!"

"W T F ? " ........"WHY?" "isn't that.......dumb ?"

"LOL....muhhaaa .. SON, you'll never make it in this business. "

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by centurymantra

...I have come to the conclusion that a vast majority of people don't WANT this experience - the outlook shaping, hair-on-end experience - from their music, art, film, etc. ...

I never met anybody who ever expected to have this kind of an experience or who had it and wasn't eager to have it again.

[Sounds Great]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

I never met anybody who ever expected to have this kind of an experience or who had it and wasn't eager to have it again.

I had that experience once at an Eagles concert on one particular Henley song.

[N88]

Art always reflects the environment it comes out of. We are the reason everything is the way it is, all of us. We can break it down into categories, but none of that really matters.

Does our current world allow for the kind of depth, devotion, single-mindedness, obsession, indulgence, escapism, what-have-you, that went along with the music considered better?

There were more opportunities to find a wide variety of good live acts a few decades back, but is it realistic to expect that now? We're shifting to a different model. It's a transition, and hopefully we'll wind up better off. Personally, I don't find the traveling show tradition an effective lifestyle for creativity.

Things will change if and when we as a people change, from the inside out. This usually only happens when we're forced into it. As people making art, we can be part of a movement. I think the big challenge now is to develop a means that allows artists to sustain themselves solely by the making of their art.

[skybluerental]

"you can't buy feel."

-bob dylan

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by skybluerental

"you can't buy feel."

-bob dylan

swhy Bob never spent a penny..... I'll get me coat .....

[feck]

To answer the OP, there were less layers/tracks then, and all of them were turned down compared to today's levels. Of course there is depth and clarity because all of the transients weren't stepping all over each other to get to zero. And there were less tracks used, so there was less sonic overlapping. If you do a simple arrangement, stripped down and recorded with proper leveling, you are most certainly able to get the clarity and depth of the older recordings. And of course even with mathematically more clarity, given the technological advancements.

[Dean Roddey]

Originally Posted by N88

There were more opportunities to find a wide variety of good live acts a few decades back, but is it realistic to expect that now? We're shifting to a different model. It's a transition, and hopefully we'll wind up better off. Personally, I don't find the traveling show tradition an effective lifestyle for creativity.

I agree and have argued the same many times. If you are solely dependent on live shows for your living, how likely is that to encourage you to do challenging, different, personal music?

And, if you do choose to indulge in something less formulaic, in a world where people actually had to buy music, 25,000 fans spread out around the world could support an artist. But that might be only 20 fans in a given town, hardly enough to support a touring life.

[feck]

And the talk about better arrangers "back in the day" is untrue from my perspective. Not to say that there weren't great arrangers then, but there certainly are plenty of them today as well. Without getting into the tired argument of the "good old days" vs. "the lousy days we have today", good results were possible then, and good results are possible now. Rose colored glasses are too easy to warp our perception of history.

[JP11]

Originally Posted by Outlaw Hans

I don't know. Being "original" is something different than being new or groundbreaking or whatever as I said. With "original" and/or "unique" I mean that there's a certain personality in the music that is different from others. So well maybe "Originality" should be "personality". To me they're more or less the same thing and very important in music.

I agree.

Grabbing someone, hooking attention...I think that's kind of turned into a problem...good for ads and tabloids and shitty pop stars maybe...

But seems like a good idea to me to have a unique vision, style, tone, voice, feel, melody, lyric, and whatever else...

how many instrumentalists are there that stand out in the 00s compared to the 60s/70s...?

[boody]

Originally Posted by centurymantra

Someone alluded to this, but I have come to the conclusion that a vast majority of people don't WANT this experience - the outlook shaping, hair-on-end experience - from their music, art, film, etc.

I dunno about the second have of your post, but this part is actually somewhat true in my experience. Most people I know instantly like music when it gives them energy and/or makes them feel lighthearted, no matter the 'quality' of the music (as long as it isn't insultingly bad or simple). When music gets emotional or thrilling they have to be in the mood for that or otherwise they'll skip it. Very often they skip it. Sign of the times maybe? Sure t will pass though, if it hasn't already

[JP11]

Originally Posted by boody

I dunno about the second have of your post, but this part is actually somewhat true in my experience. Most people I know instantly like music when it gives them energy and/or makes them feel lighthearted, no matter the 'quality' of the music (as long as it isn't insultingly bad or simple). When music gets emotional or thrilling they have to be in the mood for that or otherwise they'll skip it. Very often they skip it. Sign of the times maybe? Sure t will pass though, if it hasn't already

I love simple and thrilling...

[Bob Olhsson]

A lot of emotional music inspires a strong love or a strong hate response depending on the individual. Instead of accepting that this kind of polarization is the normal human response to any profound emotional experience, a lot of folks will "sanitize" what they do into something that nobody loves or hates.

The beauty of "personality" DJs was that they could be entertaining enough that people would listen to something they hated in order to find out what the jock was going to do next and then be rewarded with a song they absolutely loved. Today, here in the U.S., we have few jocks and what I call genre-flavored elevator music.

[Dean Roddey]

We are in a time of quite reduced social and political disruption these days, and tastes in music probably reflects that heavily. Yeh we have our periodic scandals and financial crises, and even a war. But it's nothing like what it used to be. Without those fears looming near, people seem to gravitate towards non-challenging, party time type fare more and more.

There are always exceptions obviously. There'll always be the kid in the goth gear listening to death metal with the suspicious cuts on his arm and all that. And there's always a certain amount of homornal doom and gloom among young people. But no kids are looking at being drafted and dying in a jungle, and (cynicism aside) the government is actually probably not nearly as big a danger to us these days as in the 70s, and the world is substantially a fairer, more stable place (though of course still a long way to go.)

In a time like this, it just gets more and more about fashion, partying, consumerism, and non-challenging entertainment, etc... I think it's inevitable. If the cost of that is people get shallow and whatnot, that's a hard call, but I think I'd rather have shallow than having kids learning duck and cover drills at school. Hopefully, in time, they'll change without looming death to inspire them. Though, it's always possible we'll do it old school and spiral into decadence and decay, who knows.

[boody]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

A lot of emotional music inspires a strong love or a strong hate response depending on the individual. Instead of accepting that this kind of polarization is the normal human response to any profound emotional experience, a lot of folks will "sanitize" what they do into something that nobody loves or hates.

and may I add, this sanitation process was often demanded by the record companies.

[MikeyMike]

Originally Posted by Bob Olhsson

It's all about COMMUNICATION.

Every single technical aspect can contribute to, distract from or not distract from communication. My personal definition of overproduction is when striving for technical perfection contributes nothing or, even worse, distracts from communication.

Hey Bob, could you further elaborate on this post Thanx

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally Posted by boody

...this sanitation process was often demanded by the record companies.

It's actually demanded by corporate advertisers and labels know they aren't likely to get anything too raw broadcast on commercial stations. The decline of other means of exposure has created a lot of this problem. Record labels are often messengers carrying an ugly message.