Fellow RTHers:
I urge you to watch the following videos, then report back on your assessment of the number of tracks : quality of music ratio throughout the history of recorded pop music.
Part One
Part Two
I’d appreciate thinking that runs a bit deeper than “well, it really depends on the artist” and so forth. I mean, there are interesting questions to consider here, beyond just “was pop music better before folks had 64 tracks to mess around with?”, such as…
1. Did the advent of multi-track recording make the creation of music more or less “efficient”? Is pop music better on the whole when it’s made more efficiently? Define “efficiency” in this context however you please.
2. I understand how rushing the creative process in the studio can negatively affect the end product. But let’s stop to consider the converse: How does “artistic freedom” result in worse music — cite examples!
3. Which of the producers featured in the videos has the best Aging Producer Look?
I look forward to your responses.
yes
Townsman Hrrundi,
How can your questions NOT be answered with an unsatisfying “It depends”? How bad would Roger Waters-era Pink Floyd had been had they not spent so much time on perfecting their psych-sludge? More power to them!
On the other hand, what benefit was there to giving The Kinks or The Stones access to better studios and more time? No benefit!
Personally, I prefer the act of limiting choices. I like submixes, in which you commit to some sounds and relationships. I mostly like all this stuff because it’s less crap I have to hear from myself and bandmates down the road – jeez, how many times can something be remixed as it is without having 24 separate tracks hanging over our heads? On the other hand, I’m terrible, so what does that add to the credibility of my answer?
I encourage you, Townsman, to find a way to better set up this discussion so that we might offer more definitive answers. I know, I’m putting it back on you, but I know you can handle the burden. Thanks.
I don’t know if there’s any value to looking at efficiency in recording. I’m not sure where you’re going. But that usually doesn’t stop me. I’ll confidently await your dis on efficiency, or your dis on efficiency dissers, and will likely find it short on substance! : ) I only emoticon to stop any flare ups. But seriously, it seems clear to me that in efficiency, bigger studio set-ups are like bigger cars. Less efficient. The Beatles would go in and knock out an album in a day. On the other hand, Sinatra used to get up to take 74 or 112 or some such, doing all those takes with 40 musicians in the room? Though you must consider that it was still the shortest distance to get you that record live. I remember sitting in the studio with Ben Vaughn in, maybe 1985 or 86, and they had just gotten a sampling device. Not a keyboard, but part of the engineer’s console. He played some 2 note guitar figure, and then spent easily a half hour dropping it in to every bar of every chorus. It was a no-brain figure, and anyone could have played it in 3 minutes. But clearly, either beguiled by the new machine, or fixed on the freaky regularity of mass production, he wasn’t doing it because he thought it the most efficient way to get there. And here’s one for efficiency. That fricking first Boston record. That nutbar squeezed staggering sound out of an 8 track in his basement! Regardless of whether you enjoy the music. It is truly an engineering marvel. As for artistic excess, I was recently defending Yes’ Close to the Edge on here, and that album in particular represents a ghastly excess. AND inefficiency. A diametric opposite to the early Beatles. Apparently they went through those 20 minute songs inventing each little bit as they went. Writing each segment and then recording it. If you’ve ever seen Philadelphia’s city hall, that album sounds like that. Monstrous, but, I argue, lovely.
Townsmen Shawn and Mod:
I acknowledge that my questions were constructed in haste, before my own thoughts had gelled. As I watched this short feature, I couldn’t help thinking that the amount of human energy required to yield a choice cultural artifact was far smaller back in the early days of recorded music, and that *that* was an important thing to consider on its own.
I wish I could think of a parallel in the world of economics or business — some manufactured good that used to be produced more cheaply and, thus, satisfactorily, before it was “improved.” But the world seems to work in a backwards fashion compared to the music industry, doesn’t it? When we “improve” the widget manufacturing process in the real world, we eliminate ingredients and construction steps, and the widget gets cheaper — which is usually a good thing.
Before you say it, let me acknowledge the obvious: music ain’t widgets. But back when the production of pop music *was* very widget-like, its “manufacturing efficiency” yielded a simple, pure end product that later “improvements” — interestingly introduced for the artist’s benefit — destroyed.
For the record, Mr. Mod, let me add that the indulgent Stones and Kinks records to which you refer might very well have been improved with a stern clock-watcher at the helm. (I’d further note that I’ll bet *all* your preferred Kinks LPs were made on the clock.)
Yes, Townsman Hrrundi, my favorite Stones and Kinks albums were made in both haste and ignorance, and they’re much better for it. What I’d like to hear about is whether the albums of Pink Floyd, Yes, and even The Beatles from mid-period on would have been improved by this model of efficiency. I don’t think so, and there’s nothing wrong with that. The problem is when the wrong artist is put through the wrong model. You can’t polish the Stones. That’s cool. On the other hand, I’d venture to guess that a “raw” Jellyfish album, to pick a band that you like and that has major Prock tendencies, probably wouldn’t do the trick for you. That’s cool too. They are no less of a band because they can’t stick a mic in the middle of the room and just cut loose, man!
Also important: consider what your favorite artists might have done with their creative energy and time had they not been indulged with hundreds of tracks, months of remixing and such. I sincerely wonder if the pace of creative ferment in the mid-60s was at least partially attributable to the fact that creative types were forced to *work* at making music.
Oh, and honestly, if I ruled the world I would dictate that all band work with some degree of efficiency. Likewise, the song should get underway within 8-12 bars. I usually have little tolerance for long intros.
“that’s the look, that’s the look, the look of love…” ha ha
Typically, the more tracks in use the less there is to the song itself. Also, in the old school days, there was a greater emphasis on the strength of the performers. If you sang like Phil Spector, you’d have to be content as a producer/songwriter/svengali. Today, thanks to multi-tracking, pitch correction, and lowered expectations, Phil Spector could have sung his own hits and saved a lot of people grief.
Hrrundi nostalgically glosses:
I sincerely wonder if the pace of creative ferment in the mid-60s was at least partially attributable to the fact that creative types were forced to *work* at making music.
I caution:
Come now, let’s not repaint the British invasion lads as coming off their planes in coal-dust smeared coveralls, the look of grim determination on their labor-weighted brows. They were gonorrhea-riddled party boys, wasted on pot, speed, and not least, simple song structures that didn’t *take* more than a day to learn. They were good at that stuff, and they got that way by playing a lot, but they weren’t quite building the pyramids. And don’t only compare them to their later high-on-the-hog selves either. Did the first album of, say, Ven der Graff Generator not require work and work? What Yes was doing was self-indulgent, and arguably pointless, but it was work for sure.
Mr. Mod shocks and dismays:
They are no less of a band because they can’t stick a mic in the middle of the room and just cut loose, man!
I splutter:
Who is writing this?! Not *you*, old friend! Fucking *A* they’re less of a band! You can still like them and enjoy them, as I might, but that’s one skill that still garners you some respect, isn’t it?
Also, are you guys meaning to knock the Mick Taylor albums as lazy? Surely the Stones were then as lazy as wealth, deficient character, and the finest drugs in Christendom could make them; but those albums kick the ass of their I Wanna Be Bo Diddley records, for sure!
To clarify, General: If a band makes a great album and they’re not some kick-ass live band, I’m cool with that. I’d hate to hear Revolver or Led Zeppelin with just a mic stuck in the middle of the room. Gimme overdubs, if they serve their purpose. Now, if I have petty beef with a and need to find a “credible” way to attack them, I’m not above using that charge.
I’m not kicking any Mick Taylor-era stuff. I’m saying that later Stones albums than that proved that you can’t polish their sound. The “better” they sound the worse they usually are – it’s not just a matter of content. I think if you took their greatest Brian Jones- or Mick Taylor-era album of your choice and ran it through a “real” producer, it would have sounded half as bad as Steel Wheels or Dirty Work.
i mean…no.
You can’t throw out a neologism like “efficiently” and then leave it to us to decide what it means.
I’ve starred at the above paragraph for about 10 minutes, trying to come up with something to add to the conversation, but without something on this point I just can’t do it.
General Slocum sez: I remember sitting in the studio with Ben Vaughn in, maybe 1985 or 86…
Because I am what I believe the biggest BV fan on the planet, this certainly got my attention.
😉