Inspired by Gorrilaz, Barbie realizes you don't have to be a real human to be successful in the music biz.
I have a small recording studio in my house; granted modern technology puts the ability to record caterwauling at arms length for everyone, and YouTube has proven that. My studio is admittedly modest on the recording side and enviable on the post-production side; which is ironic because I tend to enjoy simpler, more acoustic or “unplugged” tracks. That is not to say, however, that I don’t still enjoy some fantastically over-produced studio material.
The music industry certainly isn’t a new one, and there was definitely money to be made selling albums in the pre-digital era, as demonstrated by the Beatles. In more recent times, you can’t deny that acts like the Spice Girls and T-Pain have been successful, but they could never have existed in the 60′s. Partly because their particular style and sound would have offended even more people, but mainly because they can’t actually sing. These, and many other, acts can only exist through the use of modern digital tools. And yet, these kinds of acts make millions, even billions, so somebody must be listening.
Which do you prefer? Tinker with it less, and present it warts and all; or produce it to perceived perfection?
["User Input" is the AtomicToasters Question of the Day™ asking you, the teeming millions, to answer our pressing questions.]
For me, record production peaked with Mutt Lange. He didn't over-produce with technology but fostered perfection in the artists themselves. Wanting a rough sound is not an excuse for going with the first take. He showed you could polish heavy metal but still keep it metal. Or hard rock, whatever you want to call it.
Highway to Hell is a great example of his work. Not that Let There Be Rock isn't one of my all time faves, it is. I just wonder what it would have been like if Mutt got his hands on those crazy Aussies a few years sooner.
Counterpoint: Shania Twain.
As Rock Band has taught me, I can not sing worth a damn, but then again I am only doing it for fun with friends, most likely with a number of alcoholic beverages in my belly.
I am not a purist by any means, but I think it is a bit of an insult to the musicians, who are actually good at what they do, to have some no talent hottie picked off the street and made famous for a talent they don't poses without technology.
I can happily go to either extreme. I love accoustic music, right down to me plunking out a couple of crappy chords on my McNally strumstick. On the other hand, Hybrid's 1999 album Wide Angle is perhaps the very best example of fantastic music that "lives" because of phenomenal post-production.
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5a/Hybrid_wide_angle.jpg">
I think that the charting success of 60's-70's "groups" like The Monkees, The Archies, The Partridge Family, and Josie and the Pussycats is a good indication that Spice Girls could have succeeded then, as well.
<img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2f/Josielp.jpg">
I lumped The Monkees into that same category until I saw the movie "Head." Now I'm a believer.
Head. Proof that LSD is bad.
I'd say I don't care, as long as the music sounds good, but I'm classically trained*, and it shows in my taste. I love the dynamics and layer upon layer, track over track sounds of Pink Floyd, the Smashing Pumpkins, Radiohead, Porcupine Tree and the Silversun Pickups, and I don't tend to like live cuts outside of Simon & Garfunkel.
*Practice and more practice until dozens of elements come together perfectly.
I'm with you. Production doesn't necessarily mean bad (eg. MBV's Loveless), rawness doesn't automatically mean good. But the same as with everything else, it boils down to taste and opinion.
As the son of a music teacher, I was raised with an appreciation of music. Whether it be instrumentals or vocals, it is an art and, when done well, is there to be appreciated. That's my problem with the over-produced, auto-tuned "musicians". They don't have the talent. They have a look that sells and technology takes care of the rest.
I'd much rather listen to a track that's a bit rough around the edges, but showcases a singer's or musician's talent.
I cannot let this subject pass without giving a plug to Ari Scott, the most deserving artist in decades to be repeatedly denied a decent record deal. Go to her Tumblr page [ http://arimusic.tumblr.com/ ] and listen to her surprising (brand new) version of "I Want Your Sex" at the top of the page — just her voice and her piano with no post-production.
Then scroll down and listen to her spot-on-perfect use of auto-tune on "Brite Side" not to hide the human qualities of her voice, but enhance the feel of the song.
Then keep scrolling down to "The Metro" and listen to the way and her voice sounds so stark and frail and unadorned in front of the slick, totally electronic music. Wow.
You have to have a decent voice to be a decent singer. But being a truly great, evocative artist has nothing to do with having perfect pitch.
Oh yea, http://www.cdbaby.com/Artist/AriScott …
I'm solidly in the underproduced camp. Most of my favourite bands have gotten worse as their post-production has increased, and when they've returned to a simpler recording, it's resulted in a better record. Wide Mouth Mason, one of my personal all-time favourites, produced two phenomenal albums, then started cranking up the post-production levels, and it lost so much of its magic in the process. The same can be said of Dave Matthews Band. Everyday had way more commercial success, but was a less musically interesting album.
Maybe it's because I'm a singer myself. Not a good one, as Techie and Cardboard can attest, but at the least I appreciate the art of it far more than just the banal musical aspect so prevalent nowadays.
I've always liked DMB live stuff more than the studio stuff, just because there is the constant improv going on.
Similarly, there was a band called The Smalls that had really crappy production – no, really, it sounded like there were pillows over the microphones – but it gave you enough of a taste to make you want to see a show, and they absolutely killed live.
Layering and other post-production has its place, but I tend to like a 'dirty' live sound to a recording. Best examples of that? Tom Waits' "swordfishtrombones" and "Bone Machine". I know there wasn't one big room and a vat of whisky and a recording desk, but dammit, that's how it feels, and that's what's important.
I love synthesizers. I have several of them, and I know very well how to sample and sequence. But I'm also a fairly skilled keyboard and sax player with several years of pro experience in many genres including Las Vegas and large venues. As for "produced" or complex music, I'm a big fan of what used to be known as prog rock, so I have no problem with inherent complexity if it's done well.
We must clear off the rosy nostalgic haze. There has been plenty of crap in every single era of music. For instance, 1966 is considered a very vintage year in rock with many of the most famous acts being at or near their peak, yet the #1 song for the year was "Ballad of the Green Berets". [youtube LH4-tOqLH94 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH4-tOqLH94 youtube]
Hat tip to Theodore Sturgeon.
The death of an ideal is often the realization that it never existed.
Bleh. That was a hit? You make an excellent counterpoint, in that case.
My favorite Austin band has an exceptionally well produced EP, but they are fairly independent. Doing birthday shows and whatnot. I dislike overproduced albums, but I do like thoughtfully produced ones.
A good friend of mine is in the local band Expassionates, and though it's an indie effort, two of their members are sound engineers, so they spent months in post-production getting the mixes just right. It's heartland roots rock, and not "over-produced" by any means…it's just very, very carefully produced.
Listen to it here:
https://www.cdbaby.com/cd/expassionates
I'm tone deaf, officially. I was tested twice, once as a kid and a second time as a young adult. To me the music in a lot of current songs is indistinguishable to the bleeps and bloops in old video games. People tell me it really sounds nothing the same though. I don't believe them though, maybe just a smidgen less buzzy. I do like some of the new songs, the ones with a quick beat at least. like "Hot and Cold." I have always liked Cheap Trick though, I have no idea if they are over produced or not. You should see me play karaoke video games where I try to get that little glowy orb on the line.[youtube ViggIBZmedA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViggIBZmedA youtube]
Congratulations. You demonstrated a useful purpose for some of the most painful videos YouTube has to offer.
Ha! You realize that is yours truly up in that video? I am flattered to have starred in one of the most painful videos YouTube has to offer, but man am I tempted now to link to the video of my father-in-law singing "I love Rock-n-Roll." You don't know pain, like in your sides, as you laugh and cant breathe.
I think Techie was referring to the karaoke videos themselves, not yours specifically, although I do have to admit… you're tone-deaf. I stumbled across some of these just the other day, and there are literally tens of thousands of little girls with NO SINGING ABILITY WHATSOEVER doing horrendously bad renditions of pop songs, and calling them "American Idol auditions". Seriously, these girls could not carry a tune if it was written on sheet music and stuffed in their lunch-pail. And every one of them thinks she's the next Kelly Clarkson.
Also, don't feel bad about your tone-deaf nature. I was running a musical theatre program years ago, and discovered that one of the girls who had been hired as an understudy (for reasons that I can only assume were related to her rather fantastic boobs) was probably just as tone deaf as you are. She could hear the relationships between notes, which meant that when she sang by herself, she could make all the appropriate jumps between one note and another, so she sounded fine when unaccompanied. She could not, however, match one note with another, which meant she was completely incapable of following along with a group of people singing a song. In your case, you're just doing karaoke. This girl had applied for a job singing on stage. It was frightening for myself as the writer/director, let me tell you.
Oh man, I was all proud of myself for having one of the worst. I'll just go and think about fantastic cookies now to cheer myself up again.[youtube 1q6wTZs3aII http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q6wTZs3aII youtube]