|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
75.164.213.23
In Reply to: RE: The 50s: compression for radio play. Compression is what posted by b.l.zeebub on September 29, 2014 at 14:12:29
LOL, whatever. If I get my time machine working and go back and grab a few six-eye recording engineers from the 50's and 60's, yank them into today and show them the tech we have and the shit it's producing, who do you think they would blame? The Apple iPod has killed, dead, the part of the mass-market music industry that may have cared, just at little, about how the feces being recorded sounded to the end user who was not a half-deaf iPodder.You could blame digital in general if you wanted to, but I choose not to. Some of the Pablo CD jazz releases I bought in Japan in 1982 to compete in the Friday night barracks volume wars still sound better than the average shite being produced today. It's not the format or the technology, it's the "consumer" who has been conditioned to having shit pumped into their heads by Apple iPods, and in the name of money, they get what they want.
What do you do at Apple?
Edits: 09/29/14 09/29/14 09/29/14Follow Ups:
I do nothing at Apple.
On the other hand I remember that Steve Jobs tried for a very long time to get the record company execs to agree to let Apple sell uncompressed AIFFs instead of MP3 and not insist on DRM.
Unfortunately the executives did not agree and kept insisting on low quality, DRM-protected MP3s.
The earlier generations of ipods used Wolfson 24bit capable convertors, the same ones as were used by a number of highly-regarded manufacturers of full-sized cd players because of their inherent high sound quality.
I do have my doubts about it though, - at least how adamant Jobs could've been pushing it, - given that he was already pushing the 1 song, multiple player, (with players that don't even do AIFF), and the (sic) cloud where AIFF is not possible, given the level of shite Internet access in the USA.
In any case what Jobs argued for with the myopic & reactionary recording industry is different than what actually happened, and what the reality is. The REALITY is that the 1 song model is horrible for the artist and for the development and creation of new music & new artists. The ITUNES database & delivery mechanism is TOTAL SHITE, AND, MP3 music is the standard, and TOTAL SHITE. Apple had a major role in the above....
Lastly, I do not speak here as an audiophile as much as a songwriter & musician and producer. We have been on an Indie label, formed our own record company, done radio promo. Had 3 bits of work mastered by George Horn at Fantasy, and at KDISK, and have former band members on major labels, with very successful "groups." And, our former co-producer/engineer was also on to a very big career as an engineer before he decided to just play guitar.
What are your experiences?
As I spit in the wind......
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
"The REALITY is that the 1 song model is horrible for the artist and for the development and creation of new music & new artists."
The REALITY (ie mine) is that your preferred reality is a quirk, an artifact of technology. I am apparently a little older than thee and can tell you that "singles" have always been the norm and that "albums" are the oddities in "pop music".
I only go back to 78's but I THINK that they were the first widely successful music distribution medium. Prior to that there were player pianos and such but they were more sound producers than reproducers. The MIDI instruments of their day.
Push come to shove 78's and 45's were one tune ponies. The back was ALWAYS horrible dreck probably stamped to reduce warps when cooling. This scheme worked well for Pop music but sucked for classical and the attempted workarounds using changers were horrid.
As technology improved 33.3 LP's became usable for music and things got much brighter for classical listeners and for that matter pop fanciers who could potentially listen to a concert recording. But in general outside of one or two "hits" most of the content was misses...
And now we have the best thing going so far: WE get to decide whether we want an "album" or "singles" and can essentially assemble the former from the latter if we like by buying the tracks that WE like.
As far as new bands go it has never been as cheap and easy to produce and distribute performances as it is now. If they can't make it now that would be the hand of natural selection at work and they'd better keep the day job...
Rick
""The back was ALWAYS horrible dreck probably stamped to reduce warps when cooling. This scheme worked well for Pop music but sucked for classical and the attempted workarounds using changers were horrid.""
Great point.
""And now we have the best thing going so far: WE get to decide whether we want an "album" or "singles" and can essentially assemble the former from the latter if we like by buying the tracks that WE like.""
Really? You don't think that CDs are being phased out? My band is on TuneCore, - and you can still buy our CDs on Amazon, - but look out, - the new ones from tunecore are manufactured from MP3s. (The other CDs are leftover, used, and new ones from our label from 1993. Radiohead isn't making CDs anymore. Some "groups" are offering better than MP3s, - but the trend (as I see it) is a move to exclusive availability of MP3 level files.
""As far as new bands go it has never been as cheap and easy to produce and distribute performances as it is now.""
Totally, - but they're just not as good. The drum machines don't sound as good as real drums, the computer generated Gibson SG doesn't sound like a real SG, the Hammond B3 is not as good as a spinning leslie speaker in a real B3. There's no pro engineer and producer to catch eliminate noise from somewhere, no producer to help enhance and/or direct, change, the song. No mastering engineer to set and reset/change the EQ to make it sound better for different/each format.
Under the traditional model, there was a whole team of people involved in the project (besides the band) that had lots of opportunities to make the recording event much BETTER than otherwise could be made by the band alone.
And, from the songwriter's perspective: we naturally are ego involved and feel like we don't just have one good song, and have a lot to express. Just being known for "Gangnam Style" can be quite frustrating.
You make a very great point that much of the recording industry started with singles. But I don't think that it is when it was at its best. Singles, - (as you point out), - were also of lower quality. With AOR, products got a lot better. If we're positive, the industry might move beyond where it will be in the next 5 years or so. I do hope that people will get tired of the American Idolization of popular music.
We can still buy CDs and even SACDs. But as i see it, those will be reduced to labors of love and decidedly unavailable in the next few years by hold out artists on the margins of success.
"Asylums with doors open wide,
Where people had paid to see inside,
For entertainment they watch his body twist
Behind his eyes he says, 'I still exist.'"
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: