Hi Warren...I don't think all pop/rock engineers have "tin ears", but fidelity and resolution is not the main goal of most of them. They're after a "sound" and recording quality is not often a priority. Some really don't know and don't care...others are limited by budget, eqipment, artist's talent, etc. I think most audiophiles would be amazed if they knew what sort of systems many pop/rock albums are recorded and mixed on. When most studio monitors are discussed, I always hear "balanced" and "neutral" used to sell them..., but rarely "detailed" and never "resolving". Pop/rock albums are made using a whole different set of criteria which can, unfortunately, make them sound poor at times. In the end it's the music and what it communicates that matters most, and that's what most rock/pop engineers focus on.
It seems like most fidelity-focused engineers seem to go into classical, jazz, or some form of acoustic music that records well. I'm not saying that there aren't great rock recordings out there...there are...but the more electronic, mid-range heavy, distorted instruments used, the harder it is to record with audiophile-quality fidelity. Listen to any decently recorded rock album and you'll see what I mean. The spare, acoustic-based songs will sound amazing and the busier, more distorted, heavily multi-tracked songs will often sound congested, less transparent, and less hi-fi. Consider that and the fact that many modern pop/rock recordings are made in small pro studios (or home studios), and it makes sense that the sound quality is not the same as the Patricia Barber album.
All technical stuff aside, Patrica Barber and her band are amazing musicians. I'm not saying that pop/rock musicans are bad at all...it's just that pop/rock doesn't usually require (or necessarilly even want) the level of precise musicianship that her type of music does. I think that's one huge reason pop/rock albums don't often sound as good. I've heard more than one experienced engineer say something like "give me a good musician, playing a good instument, and I will give you a good recording".
Like Onhwy61 said, mastering techniques have also become more agressive and over compression is all too common these days. Oddly enough, most of the mastering suites are set up with fairly nice, audiophile quality systems, but they can only do so much if the recording is sub-par and the record label wants it highly compressed.
It seems like most fidelity-focused engineers seem to go into classical, jazz, or some form of acoustic music that records well. I'm not saying that there aren't great rock recordings out there...there are...but the more electronic, mid-range heavy, distorted instruments used, the harder it is to record with audiophile-quality fidelity. Listen to any decently recorded rock album and you'll see what I mean. The spare, acoustic-based songs will sound amazing and the busier, more distorted, heavily multi-tracked songs will often sound congested, less transparent, and less hi-fi. Consider that and the fact that many modern pop/rock recordings are made in small pro studios (or home studios), and it makes sense that the sound quality is not the same as the Patricia Barber album.
All technical stuff aside, Patrica Barber and her band are amazing musicians. I'm not saying that pop/rock musicans are bad at all...it's just that pop/rock doesn't usually require (or necessarilly even want) the level of precise musicianship that her type of music does. I think that's one huge reason pop/rock albums don't often sound as good. I've heard more than one experienced engineer say something like "give me a good musician, playing a good instument, and I will give you a good recording".
Like Onhwy61 said, mastering techniques have also become more agressive and over compression is all too common these days. Oddly enough, most of the mastering suites are set up with fairly nice, audiophile quality systems, but they can only do so much if the recording is sub-par and the record label wants it highly compressed.