I think Young is lamenting the general decline in music quality over the last 50 (and especially the last 10 or 20) years.
We've gone from professionally, carefully and meticulously arranged & produced music (that costs big bucks) to guys sitting in their livingrooms 'singing' along to the thump-thump of electronic rhythms.
The masters like Young are rightfully scornful of the amateurish stuff being generated today.
A former client of mine who sadly passed away a few years ago was a professional jazz musician (came to Europe with Benny Goodman and just stayed here).
As far as he was concerned, pop music went to shit in 1962 with the Beatles.
I think Young is lamenting the general decline in music quality over the last 50 (and especially the last 10 or 20) years.
We've gone from professionally, carefully and meticulously arranged & produced music (that costs big bucks) to guys sitting in their livingrooms 'singing' along to the thump-thump of electronic rhythms.
The masters like Young are rightfully scornful of the amateurish stuff being generated today.
A former client of mine who sadly passed away a few years ago was a professional jazz musician (came to Europe with Benny Goodman and just stayed here).
As far as he was concerned, pop music went to shit in 1962 with the Beatles.
If he played with Benny I can understand his reasoning.
But then the big orchestras thought that music went to hell with Benny. For Benny to invade their territory in Carnegie Hall in 1938 was a VERY big deal -- just as having Bernstein play the Beatles was 30 years later.
The truth is: music has been going downhill with each iteration -- from 108 piece orchestra to a 20 piece big band to a 4 member guitar group to a somebody in their living room with a MacBook.
It's not songs that have gone downhill but the making of the music.
I think Young is lamenting the general decline in music quality over the last 50 (and especially the last 10 or 20) years.
We've gone from professionally, carefully and meticulously arranged & produced music (that costs big bucks) to guys sitting in their livingrooms 'singing' along to the thump-thump of electronic rhythms.
The masters like Young are rightfully scornful of the amateurish stuff being generated today.
A former client of mine who sadly passed away a few years ago was a professional jazz musician (came to Europe with Benny Goodman and just stayed here).
As far as he was concerned, pop music went to shit in 1962 with the Beatles.
If he played with Benny I can understand his reasoning.
But then the big orchestras thought that music went to hell with Benny. For Benny to invade their territory in Carnegie Hall in 1938 was a VERY big deal -- just as having Bernstein play the Beatles was 30 years later.
The truth is: music has been going downhill with each iteration -- from 108 piece orchestra to a 20 piece big band to a 4 member guitar group to a somebody in their living room with a MacBook.
It's not songs that have gone downhill but the making of the music.
Honestly, I find Billie Eilish‘s home-produced album „when we all fall asleep where do we go“ as well done and as enjoyable as the Living Stereo vinyl I have of Mancini‘s „Peter Gunn“ soundtrack, or Jimmy Smith‘s „The Cat“, or a bunch of other legendary records. It’s damn near perfect.
I just recorded my own trio‘s album through tape, one-take, live, no overdubs, last weekend. But I also produce electronic stuff in the box or using external synths and processing.
Production method doesn’t make a song or musician great or shitty. “Mastery” is using whatever is appropriate for the job to get the message across.
The rest is just taste, and a matter of convenience or comfort.
As regards the dropping of the optical audio output, this is outright harassment to many of us who now have to daisy chain bunch of adapters to get a digital audio signal from our laptops to a high quality DAC / amplifier. Nothing more pleasing (NOT!!) than sitting on the couch in front of my exquisite speakers tweaking the mix of a song with a bunch of adapters dangling precariously off my lap where it used to be a simple glass fiber.
I think Young is lamenting the general decline in music quality over the last 50 (and especially the last 10 or 20) years.
We've gone from professionally, carefully and meticulously arranged & produced music (that costs big bucks) to guys sitting in their livingrooms 'singing' along to the thump-thump of electronic rhythms.
The masters like Young are rightfully scornful of the amateurish stuff being generated today.
I think Young is lamenting the general decline in music quality over the last 50 (and especially the last 10 or 20) years.
We've gone from professionally, carefully and meticulously arranged & produced music (that costs big bucks) to guys sitting in their livingrooms 'singing' along to the thump-thump of electronic rhythms.
The masters like Young are rightfully scornful of the amateurish stuff being generated today.
A former client of mine who sadly passed away a few years ago was a professional jazz musician (came to Europe with Benny Goodman and just stayed here).
As far as he was concerned, pop music went to shit in 1962 with the Beatles.
If he played with Benny I can understand his reasoning.
But then the big orchestras thought that music went to hell with Benny. For Benny to invade their territory in Carnegie Hall in 1938 was a VERY big deal -- just as having Bernstein play the Beatles was 30 years later.
The truth is: music has been going downhill with each iteration -- from 108 piece orchestra to a 20 piece big band to a 4 member guitar group to a somebody in their living room with a MacBook.
It's not songs that have gone downhill but the making of the music.
Honestly, I find Billie Eilish‘s home-produced album „when we all fall asleep where do we go“ as well done and as enjoyable as the Living Stereo vinyl I have of Mancini‘s „Peter Gunn“ soundtrack, or Jimmy Smith‘s „The Cat“, or a bunch of other legendary records. It’s damn near perfect.
I just recorded my own trio‘s album through tape, one-take, live, no overdubs, last weekend. But I also produce electronic stuff in the box or using external synths and processing.
Production method doesn’t make a song or musician great or shitty. “Mastery” is using whatever is appropriate for the job to get the message across.
The rest is just taste, and a matter of convenience or comfort.
It's not just production method -- although professionally produced music tends to sound better. But there's a difference between a 108 piece orchestra and somebody singing to thump-thump electronic background.
But thanks, you reminded me to dig out my vinyl copy of Mancini's Peter Gunn. I've been listening to the Apple Music version and there's a difference there too. Another is Benny in Brussels. One of my favorites.
I think Young is lamenting the general decline in music quality over the last 50 (and especially the last 10 or 20) years.
We've gone from professionally, carefully and meticulously arranged & produced music (that costs big bucks) to guys sitting in their livingrooms 'singing' along to the thump-thump of electronic rhythms.
The masters like Young are rightfully scornful of the amateurish stuff being generated today.
OK BOOMER
The children already wore than one out. Try to keep up.
I think Young is lamenting the general decline in music quality over the last 50 (and especially the last 10 or 20) years.
We've gone from professionally, carefully and meticulously arranged & produced music (that costs big bucks) to guys sitting in their livingrooms 'singing' along to the thump-thump of electronic rhythms.
The masters like Young are rightfully scornful of the amateurish stuff being generated today.
A former client of mine who sadly passed away a few years ago was a professional jazz musician (came to Europe with Benny Goodman and just stayed here).
As far as he was concerned, pop music went to shit in 1962 with the Beatles.
If he played with Benny I can understand his reasoning.
But then the big orchestras thought that music went to hell with Benny. For Benny to invade their territory in Carnegie Hall in 1938 was a VERY big deal -- just as having Bernstein play the Beatles was 30 years later.
The truth is: music has been going downhill with each iteration -- from 108 piece orchestra to a 20 piece big band to a 4 member guitar group to a somebody in their living room with a MacBook.
It's not songs that have gone downhill but the making of the music.
Honestly, I find Billie Eilish‘s home-produced album „when we all fall asleep where do we go“ as well done and as enjoyable as the Living Stereo vinyl I have of Mancini‘s „Peter Gunn“ soundtrack, or Jimmy Smith‘s „The Cat“, or a bunch of other legendary records. It’s damn near perfect.
I just recorded my own trio‘s album through tape, one-take, live, no overdubs, last weekend. But I also produce electronic stuff in the box or using external synths and processing.
Production method doesn’t make a song or musician great or shitty. “Mastery” is using whatever is appropriate for the job to get the message across.
The rest is just taste, and a matter of convenience or comfort.
It's not just production method -- although professionally produced music tends to sound better. But there's a difference between a 108 piece orchestra and somebody singing to thump-thump electronic background.
Of course there is. There is also a HUGE difference between a sixty-piece orchestra fronted by Frank Sinatra, and a recording of two voices of Simon and Garfunkel accompanied by two acoustic guitars. And a recording of the Rolling Stones playing Rock’n’Roll in the same studio as the other two recordings.
Comparing completely different musical styles and claiming that one has more merit than the other doesn’t make you sound smart; it just makes you sound old.
(Also, dismissing one of the best-produced albums of the last year with something like 18 months production time as “thump-thump electronic background” really makes you sound like — pardon me — a clueless twit.)
The funny thing is, that even if amateurs are using the internal DACs on their machines, that has nothing to do with the sound quality of the recording. That is determined by what goes INTO the machine via an ADC (which the MacBook Pro does not even HAVE, except behind the built-in mic array), or what is created by the internal virtual instruments.
To be fair, you need to listen to what you're working on. If your speakers/headphones aren't up to the task, you're going to create a mix that compensates for them, which will not sound good when played on good equipment.
I think Young is lamenting the general decline in music quality over the last 50 (and especially the last 10 or 20) years.
We've gone from professionally, carefully and meticulously arranged & produced music (that costs big bucks) to guys sitting in their livingrooms 'singing' along to the thump-thump of electronic rhythms.
The masters like Young are rightfully scornful of the amateurish stuff being generated today.
A former client of mine who sadly passed away a few years ago was a professional jazz musician (came to Europe with Benny Goodman and just stayed here).
As far as he was concerned, pop music went to shit in 1962 with the Beatles.
If he played with Benny I can understand his reasoning.
But then the big orchestras thought that music went to hell with Benny. For Benny to invade their territory in Carnegie Hall in 1938 was a VERY big deal -- just as having Bernstein play the Beatles was 30 years later.
The truth is: music has been going downhill with each iteration -- from 108 piece orchestra to a 20 piece big band to a 4 member guitar group to a somebody in their living room with a MacBook.
It's not songs that have gone downhill but the making of the music.
Honestly, I find Billie Eilish‘s home-produced album „when we all fall asleep where do we go“ as well done and as enjoyable as the Living Stereo vinyl I have of Mancini‘s „Peter Gunn“ soundtrack, or Jimmy Smith‘s „The Cat“, or a bunch of other legendary records. It’s damn near perfect.
I just recorded my own trio‘s album through tape, one-take, live, no overdubs, last weekend. But I also produce electronic stuff in the box or using external synths and processing.
Production method doesn’t make a song or musician great or shitty. “Mastery” is using whatever is appropriate for the job to get the message across.
The rest is just taste, and a matter of convenience or comfort.
It's not just production method -- although professionally produced music tends to sound better. But there's a difference between a 108 piece orchestra and somebody singing to thump-thump electronic background.
Of course there is. There is also a HUGE difference between a sixty-piece orchestra fronted by Frank Sinatra, and a recording of two voices of Simon and Garfunkel accompanied by two acoustic guitars. And a recording of the Rolling Stones playing Rock’n’Roll in the same studio as the other two recordings.
Comparing completely different musical styles and claiming that one has more merit than the other doesn’t make you sound smart; it just makes you sound old.
(Also, dismissing one of the best-produced albums of the last year with something like 18 months production time as “thump-thump electronic background” really makes you sound like — pardon me — a clueless twit.)
Simon and Garfunkle never used 2 guitars because Garfunkle didn't play. But they typically used back up bands and vocals and even without it they more than made up for sparse instrumentation with outstanding vocal harmonies. But the singer-songwriters are a poor example anyway because their emphasis tended to be on story and poetry more so than music. Ignoring or not knowing that doesn't make you sound old, just uninformed.
Professionals in the music business use external hardware with Mac's all the time. In fact, some professionals have started buying Mac Pro's despite the cost because they are filling those slots with studio quality DSP gear. Rack mounting the Mac Pro (it's freaking quiet). This eliminates all sorts of external work arounds with USB-C dongles and whatnot. Those PCIe cards connect to external equipment that is where all the DAC processing is done. No professional is using the MacBook Pro 16" built in DAC. Unless they are merely dabbling and messing about or they are consumer level users. They are going to plugin some external Thunderbolt DAC if anything if they need such a device.
Neil Young strikes me as some kind of old fuddy duddy audiophile complaining about things that don't really matter. He's stuck in analog land and complaining about the quality of a DAC which converts analog to digital and claiming the quality is terrible. He's talking a bunch of crap he doesn't fully understand.
I think Young is lamenting the general decline in music quality over the last 50 (and especially the last 10 or 20) years.
We've gone from professionally, carefully and meticulously arranged & produced music (that costs big bucks) to guys sitting in their livingrooms 'singing' along to the thump-thump of electronic rhythms.
The masters like Young are rightfully scornful of the amateurish stuff being generated today.
OK BOOMER
The children already wore than one out. Try to keep up.
It’s still apt.
Claiming that true art is only what you find to be pure is some ridiculous-level gatekeeping, but specifically the “music these days...” argument is like comic book level boomerspeak. Might as well tell those kids to get off your lawn, too.
I think Young is lamenting the general decline in music quality over the last 50 (and especially the last 10 or 20) years.
We've gone from professionally, carefully and meticulously arranged & produced music (that costs big bucks) to guys sitting in their livingrooms 'singing' along to the thump-thump of electronic rhythms.
The masters like Young are rightfully scornful of the amateurish stuff being generated today.
A former client of mine who sadly passed away a few years ago was a professional jazz musician (came to Europe with Benny Goodman and just stayed here).
As far as he was concerned, pop music went to shit in 1962 with the Beatles.
If he played with Benny I can understand his reasoning.
But then the big orchestras thought that music went to hell with Benny. For Benny to invade their territory in Carnegie Hall in 1938 was a VERY big deal -- just as having Bernstein play the Beatles was 30 years later.
The truth is: music has been going downhill with each iteration -- from 108 piece orchestra to a 20 piece big band to a 4 member guitar group to a somebody in their living room with a MacBook.
It's not songs that have gone downhill but the making of the music.
Honestly, I find Billie Eilish‘s home-produced album „when we all fall asleep where do we go“ as well done and as enjoyable as the Living Stereo vinyl I have of Mancini‘s „Peter Gunn“ soundtrack, or Jimmy Smith‘s „The Cat“, or a bunch of other legendary records. It’s damn near perfect.
I just recorded my own trio‘s album through tape, one-take, live, no overdubs, last weekend. But I also produce electronic stuff in the box or using external synths and processing.
Production method doesn’t make a song or musician great or shitty. “Mastery” is using whatever is appropriate for the job to get the message across.
The rest is just taste, and a matter of convenience or comfort.
It's not just production method -- although professionally produced music tends to sound better. But there's a difference between a 108 piece orchestra and somebody singing to thump-thump electronic background.
Of course there is. There is also a HUGE difference between a sixty-piece orchestra fronted by Frank Sinatra, and a recording of two voices of Simon and Garfunkel accompanied by two acoustic guitars. And a recording of the Rolling Stones playing Rock’n’Roll in the same studio as the other two recordings.
Comparing completely different musical styles and claiming that one has more merit than the other doesn’t make you sound smart; it just makes you sound old.
(Also, dismissing one of the best-produced albums of the last year with something like 18 months production time as “thump-thump electronic background” really makes you sound like — pardon me — a clueless twit.)
Simon and Garfunkle never used 2 guitars because Garfunkle didn't play. But they typically used back up bands and vocals and even without it they more than made up for sparse instrumentation with outstanding vocal harmonies. But the singer-songwriters are a poor example anyway because their emphasis tended to be on story and poetry more so than music. Ignoring or not knowing that doesn't make you sound old, just uninformed.
I think Young is lamenting the general decline in music quality over the last 50 (and especially the last 10 or 20) years.
We've gone from professionally, carefully and meticulously arranged & produced music (that costs big bucks) to guys sitting in their livingrooms 'singing' along to the thump-thump of electronic rhythms.
The masters like Young are rightfully scornful of the amateurish stuff being generated today.
OK BOOMER
The children already wore than one out. Try to keep up.
It’s still apt.
Claiming that true art is only what you find to be pure is some ridiculous-level gatekeeping, but specifically the “music these days...” argument is like comic book level boomerspeak. Might as well tell those kids to get off your lawn, too.
I think Young is lamenting the general decline in music quality over the last 50 (and especially the last 10 or 20) years.
We've gone from professionally, carefully and meticulously arranged & produced music (that costs big bucks) to guys sitting in their livingrooms 'singing' along to the thump-thump of electronic rhythms.
The masters like Young are rightfully scornful of the amateurish stuff being generated today.
OK BOOMER
The children already wore than one out. Try to keep up.
It’s still apt.
Claiming that true art is only what you find to be pure is some ridiculous-level gatekeeping, but specifically the “music these days...” argument is like comic book level boomerspeak. Might as well tell those kids to get off your lawn, too.
Overruled.
ROFL... Fantasy over fact..... Got it.
Your opinion about ART of all things is not "fact". That applies to everyone, not just you. Only a complete asshole would ever declare that they were the arbiter of what makes proper "art".
I think Young is lamenting the general decline in music quality over the last 50 (and especially the last 10 or 20) years.
We've gone from professionally, carefully and meticulously arranged & produced music (that costs big bucks) to guys sitting in their livingrooms 'singing' along to the thump-thump of electronic rhythms.
The masters like Young are rightfully scornful of the amateurish stuff being generated today.
A former client of mine who sadly passed away a few years ago was a professional jazz musician (came to Europe with Benny Goodman and just stayed here).
As far as he was concerned, pop music went to shit in 1962 with the Beatles.
If he played with Benny I can understand his reasoning.
But then the big orchestras thought that music went to hell with Benny. For Benny to invade their territory in Carnegie Hall in 1938 was a VERY big deal -- just as having Bernstein play the Beatles was 30 years later.
The truth is: music has been going downhill with each iteration -- from 108 piece orchestra to a 20 piece big band to a 4 member guitar group to a somebody in their living room with a MacBook.
It's not songs that have gone downhill but the making of the music.
Honestly, I find Billie Eilish‘s home-produced album „when we all fall asleep where do we go“ as well done and as enjoyable as the Living Stereo vinyl I have of Mancini‘s „Peter Gunn“ soundtrack, or Jimmy Smith‘s „The Cat“, or a bunch of other legendary records. It’s damn near perfect.
I just recorded my own trio‘s album through tape, one-take, live, no overdubs, last weekend. But I also produce electronic stuff in the box or using external synths and processing.
Production method doesn’t make a song or musician great or shitty. “Mastery” is using whatever is appropriate for the job to get the message across.
The rest is just taste, and a matter of convenience or comfort.
It's not just production method -- although professionally produced music tends to sound better. But there's a difference between a 108 piece orchestra and somebody singing to thump-thump electronic background.
Of course there is. There is also a HUGE difference between a sixty-piece orchestra fronted by Frank Sinatra, and a recording of two voices of Simon and Garfunkel accompanied by two acoustic guitars. And a recording of the Rolling Stones playing Rock’n’Roll in the same studio as the other two recordings.
Comparing completely different musical styles and claiming that one has more merit than the other doesn’t make you sound smart; it just makes you sound old.
(Also, dismissing one of the best-produced albums of the last year with something like 18 months production time as “thump-thump electronic background” really makes you sound like — pardon me — a clueless twit.)
Simon and Garfunkle never used 2 guitars because Garfunkle didn't play. But they typically used back up bands and vocals and even without it they more than made up for sparse instrumentation with outstanding vocal harmonies. But the singer-songwriters are a poor example anyway because their emphasis tended to be on story and poetry more so than music. Ignoring or not knowing that doesn't make you sound old, just uninformed.
Did you seriously just try to explain Simon and Garfunkel to me rather than responding to the point I made?
(I know that Art didn’t play guitar. I actually had “Bookends” pegged in my memory as two guitars, but it might just be a single twelve-string.)
So is Billie Eilish more similar to the Rolling Stones, a Sinatra, or is she a “singer-songwriter” like Paul Simon since she writes all her stuff herself and her brother produces it?
Or does it matter at all, since music is music and if it touches people, it’s Good, even if you are unable to grasp its merit or are put off by matters of taste?
I’ll also note that the “making of music” “going downhill” is a lovely trope that is, quite simply, bullshit. The Beatles DREAMED of having the options a simple MacBook offers, and they pushed the available technology as far as they could to get away from the “traditional” production values.
Production techniques are just options artists have. It used to be, you’d write a song and have to give it to an arranger to have it transcribed for a production. And if the take wasn’t balanced, or you wanted a different emphasis, it couldn’t be done without calling in the orchestra again. That changed in the 60s. “Sgt. Pepper” or “Pet Sounds” could NO WAY have been made using traditional recording techniques of the 40s and 50s.
They’re obviously crap compared to elvis’ traditionally produced “Blue Hawaii” *cough*
Not to mention The Wall or Hotel California, or Eye In the Sky, or Grace Jones’ 2008 “Hurricane”.
At the same time, I can go into my friend’s studio TODAY and record live to tape on a 16-track Ampex Machine through a vintage Polygram console.
I think Young is lamenting the general decline in music quality over the last 50 (and especially the last 10 or 20) years.
We've gone from professionally, carefully and meticulously arranged & produced music (that costs big bucks) to guys sitting in their livingrooms 'singing' along to the thump-thump of electronic rhythms.
The masters like Young are rightfully scornful of the amateurish stuff being generated today.
OK BOOMER
The children already wore than one out. Try to keep up.
It’s still apt.
Claiming that true art is only what you find to be pure is some ridiculous-level gatekeeping, but specifically the “music these days...” argument is like comic book level boomerspeak. Might as well tell those kids to get off your lawn, too.
Overruled.
ROFL... Fantasy over fact..... Got it.
Your opinion about ART of all things is not "fact". That applies to everyone, not just you. Only a complete asshole would ever declare that they were the arbiter of what makes proper "art".
LOL... So we are supposed to accept your definition of what makes art? What then does that make you?
I’ll also note that the “making of music” “going downhill” is a lovely trope that is, quite simply, bullshit. The Beatles DREAMED of having the options a simple MacBook offers, and they pushed the available technology as far as they could to get away from the “traditional” production values.
Production techniques are just options artists have. It used to be, you’d write a song and have to give it to an arranger to have it transcribed for a production. And if the take wasn’t balanced, or you wanted a different emphasis, it couldn’t be done without calling in the orchestra again. That changed in the 60s. “Sgt. Pepper” or “Pet Sounds” could NO WAY have been made using traditional recording techniques of the 40s and 50s.
They’re obviously crap compared to elvis’ traditionally produced “Blue Hawaii” *cough*
Not to mention The Wall or Hotel California, or Eye In the Sky, or Grace Jones’ 2008 “Hurricane”.
At the same time, I can go into my friend’s studio TODAY and record live to tape on a 16-track Ampex Machine through a vintage Polygram console.
The quality of music does not depend solely on recording technique.
Yes, it can downgrade the quality but it is far from the only factor. If the original music sucked, the recording technique won't be able to make it good.
To compare some girl sitting in her living room recording to the thump thump of an electronic rhythm to that of a fully arranged and produced 108 piece orchestra -- or even 4 guys with drums, percussion and guitars is just wishful thinking.
There's a reason why Bruce Springsteen almost always takes a full band with him instead of MacBook.
Comments
soundtrack, or Jimmy Smith‘s „The Cat“, or a bunch of other legendary records. It’s damn near perfect.
This is the same as someone complaining that the screen on a MacBook pro isn't as good as a studio-quality reference monitor.
https://www.amazon.com/Reiyin-Converter-Toslink-Optical-External/dp/B07VSFBT82/
OK BOOMER
The children already wore than one out. Try to keep up.
(Also, dismissing one of the best-produced albums of the last year with something like 18 months production time as “thump-thump electronic background” really makes you sound like — pardon me — a clueless twit.)
Simon and Garfunkle never used 2 guitars because Garfunkle didn't play. But they typically used back up bands and vocals and even without it they more than made up for sparse instrumentation with outstanding vocal harmonies. But the singer-songwriters are a poor example anyway because their emphasis tended to be on story and poetry more so than music. Ignoring or not knowing that doesn't make you sound old, just uninformed.
Neil Young strikes me as some kind of old fuddy duddy audiophile complaining about things that don't really matter. He's stuck in analog land and complaining about the quality of a DAC which converts analog to digital and claiming the quality is terrible. He's talking a bunch of crap he doesn't fully understand.
ROFL... Fantasy over fact..... Got it.
So is Billie Eilish more similar to the Rolling Stones, a Sinatra, or is she a “singer-songwriter” like Paul Simon since she writes all her stuff herself and her brother produces it?
LOL... So we are supposed to accept your definition of what makes art? What then does that make you?