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.
You are confusing production with performance.
If your idea of record production is to capture a live performance as clearly as possible, then I can understand your argument, but you're still wrong, because a) that is still quite possible, and still done, and b) many, if not most, of the greatest albums in history weren't recorded as live performances, or even COULD be performed entirely as recorded (viz: "Sgt. Pepper", "Pet Sounds", "The Wall").
Also, OF COURSE comparing "some girl" sitting in her living room recording something to a fully arranged and produced 108 piece orchestra, or even 4 guys with drums, percussion and guitars is ridiculous. That girl might be Joan Baez, or Björk, or Michelle Shocked, or Billie Eilish, and not some clueless hack who hasn't absolutely the slightest idea of how music is produced, and how much work is put into electronic music.
You're trying to have it both ways: You're saying that the way music is MADE has gone downhill, not the quality of the songs, and that it doesn't depend upon the recording technique.
At the same time, this recording technique (individually recorded tracks and elements, honed and processed to the limits of available technology) has in itself made possible many of the best albums of the past six decades. Including, BTW, "Quadrophenia" by the Who, material from which could only be presented live with backing tracks flown in from tape — the equivalent of that laptop.
People have a live band on stage because a) it's WAY more fun for the band, and b) it tends to be a better show for the audience. Notable exception: Kraftwerk. Who, incidentally, spent over fifteen years creating, tearing apart, re-doing, and re-arranging fully electronic music before finally releasing another album after "Electric Café".
As a vocalist, aspiring pianist/keyboardist and bassist for a solo artist I can tell people don't really grasp how recording music is done.
An example of how it is done and was way back in the early '70s is watching Queen record.
On the track, Bohemian Rhapsody they cut 30 separate vocal tracks, saturated them and created that signature chorus sound that is Queen. Freddy and piano always cut a minimum of 3-6 tracks on any song he ever composed [ 3 lead vocals, 3 piano mixes]. Roger and Brian followed in with 3 [2 dups] and often pitch shifted to fill in the gaps, just as back up vocalists. They bounced several of these joint mixes and added them to the total number of tracks for vocals.
Even live each mic has a reroute [one-to-many] output that is side-chained with various different F/X [Tape Delay Slap back -> Reverb], etc., while the original lead mono has the most dry mix to cut through the entire mix [it creates that diffuse spread] while the lead vocal comes in crystal clear.
Properly treated recording room with a mix of traps and diffuse boards to a overhead cloud like GIKAcoustics offers [what I use] puts you 80% of the way into properly capturing one's vocal spread. My primary is a Blue Stage One Rocket and I'm soon going to the Neumann U87i. I specifically mentioned the Apogee Ensemble for their on-board DACs and with a quality XLR set up the Mic pres will produce a rich true spread of my vocal range. Adding proper Studio Monitors still requires an extra step for a flat field and that is Sonarworks Reference 4 software.
My KRK Rokit 6 paired with the KRK 10s is a great 2.1 combination. I'm adding the Neumann KH 810 sub for up to 7.1 mixing experience along with the KH 120/310 for skill building within cinematic genres.
Who will get the best experience of my recordings? Me.
It reveals how close or far from proper treatment your layout is from optimal. It's been a great purchase and changed my mixes the moment it was set up.
That TrueFi I'm testing on the iPhone 8 PLUS with both they Beyerdynamic DT 990 Pro and the Apple Earbuds. I've gotta say the Earbuds sound a lot better once their profile is activated. Not comparable to the DT 990 Pro and I suspect the Tesla DT 1990 Pro.
What I enjoy is choosing the profile and output in CarPlay that profile while driving. Sure as hell improves the audio in-car experience considerably.
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?
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.
Nobody is making that comparison except for you.
And "some girl" who literally recorded an album in a bedroom won four Grammys.
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.
Nobody is making that comparison except for you.
And "some girl" who literally recorded an album in a bedroom won four Grammys.
I'm pretty sure the equipment that Billie and Finneas have is considerably more advanced, powerful, and capable than what The Beatles used in a studio. Following George's odd logic, if Billie and Finneas aren't capable of producing "real" or "good" music because they started in a bedroom then Apple isn't capable of producing "real" or "good" computers because they started in a garage.
It’s just a regular bedroom, with a bed against one wall, where Eilish sat to record her vocals, facing a desk and bookshelves and O’Connell’s modest production setup: Apple Logic Pro X, a Universal Audio Apollo 8 interface and a pair of Yamaha HS5 nearfields with an H8S subwoofer. O’Connell, who turns 22 in July, has since moved out, setting up a duplicate, slightly upgraded collection of gear at his new home, including a pair of Yamaha HS8 monitors and an Apollo X.
If I were him I'b be impressed that siblings so young are able to take so many Grammys and top so many charts even without his claims that it's shit because it's not a "108 piece orchestra."
PS: It's funny, Howard Stern has interviewed countless musicians and it almost always seems that their most popular and best songs were written in just a handful of minutes. Are those not good songs because they didn't slave away at it for weeks, months, or years?
Comments
If your idea of record production is to capture a live performance as clearly as possible, then I can understand your argument, but you're still wrong, because a) that is still quite possible, and still done, and b) many, if not most, of the greatest albums in history weren't recorded as live performances, or even COULD be performed entirely as recorded (viz: "Sgt. Pepper", "Pet Sounds", "The Wall").
Also, OF COURSE comparing "some girl" sitting in her living room recording something to a fully arranged and produced 108 piece orchestra, or even 4 guys with drums, percussion and guitars is ridiculous. That girl might be Joan Baez, or Björk, or Michelle Shocked, or Billie Eilish, and not some clueless hack who hasn't absolutely the slightest idea of how music is produced, and how much work is put into electronic music.
You're trying to have it both ways: You're saying that the way music is MADE has gone downhill, not the quality of the songs, and that it doesn't depend upon the recording technique.
My KRK Rokit 6 paired with the KRK 10s is a great 2.1 combination. I'm adding the Neumann KH 810 sub for up to 7.1 mixing experience along with the KH 120/310 for skill building within cinematic genres.
Who will get the best experience of my recordings? Me.
Sonarworks: TrueFi shows a lot of work in progress for the listener: https://www.sonarworks.com/truefi/headphones
Nobody is making that comparison except for you.
And "some girl" who literally recorded an album in a bedroom won four Grammys.
If I were him I'b be impressed that siblings so young are able to take so many Grammys and top so many charts even without his claims that it's shit because it's not a "108 piece orchestra."
PS: It's funny, Howard Stern has interviewed countless musicians and it almost always seems that their most popular and best songs were written in just a handful of minutes. Are those not good songs because they didn't slave away at it for weeks, months, or years?