I'm in agreement that MANY recordings esp. newer (but definitely those from 70's thru 90's) are what I'd call over-engineered and often poorly recorded. Technology hasn’t necessarily been a good thing. …While it provided opportunity for creativity it is also what has lead us to some of the poor recording practices that are now readily accepted.
For years recording companies and engineers have engineered music to sound good on the radio - esp. car stereos and moderate hi-fi systems. We in the higher res. world haven't been considered for the most part. There ARE those established artists who have been both interested and able to have significant or ‘complete’ creative control of their work e.g. the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Harry Connick Jr., Peter Gabriel, Paul Simon, Sting, U-2… While there are others too these are a few that came to mind (popular music) from the 60's to now.
Just by listening to most modern recordings one can discern that ZERO consideration has been taken into recording the acoustic interaction of the performer/instruments with the recording environment and in the case of multiple musicians – each other. …On occasion a RAW recording turns out to be good i.e. Eric Clapton’s ‘Unplugged’ (which wasn’t ever supposed to see daylight). But for the most part it’s as though acoustic environment and proximity are complete non-issues or afterthoughts. I attribute this to the reality that most bands are recorded with each member in their own iso-booth on a dedicated voice track, and each instrument/sound effect on it’s own track.
By isolating each instrument and member the individual tracks can be tailored to FIT the sound the engineer wants, and to remove any errors. I’m certain many of us are all too aware the end result of this type of recording. Its a sound that could most correctly be described as a mélange – with overlapping images fighting to occupy the same space, or a space that is disproportionate – whether too small or too large. The lack of believable aural cues completely kills the illusion. …And while the music is still enjoyable one doesn't get the holographic experience one does when the recording is RIGHT.
IMO that the lack of concern for recording quality is most likely due to economic & political issues within the recording industry. Bands are paid to sell CD’s, and to produce them on time and on budget. If they want to be successful then they’ve got to play ball, and not sweat the details (until they’re important enough to get away with it). I suspect that this is why so many new artists first recordings are often less than great quality.
I'd love to see more artists and studios pursue realistic sound. …This isn't to say that I don't enjoy music that is heavily engineered or with many effects/multi-tracks. I merely prefer recordings that sound as though the performers are in front of me as opposed to those recordings, which sound as though everything is floating in space. Its almost as thought these recordings were made for headphones - so that the band is positioned between ones ears. …This is not a snub to those folks who like/desire and seek out this effect esp. when indulging in various ‘listening experience enhancing substances’.
I'd love to hear anyone’s comments/opinions re: companies such as Sheffield Labs who use only one set of stereo microphones and a single track to record. Sheffield recordings imbue an unmistakably organic quality. Few other recordings/companies come as close to recording the realism of the event. All the spatial cues etc. are just RIGHT.
While I know that the Sheffield approach is impractical or downright impossible for some artists/bands (for various reasons), I believe that we’d be much better off if other recording companies (that go the multi-track route) would aspire to the Sheffield sound.
Cheers,
Mike
For years recording companies and engineers have engineered music to sound good on the radio - esp. car stereos and moderate hi-fi systems. We in the higher res. world haven't been considered for the most part. There ARE those established artists who have been both interested and able to have significant or ‘complete’ creative control of their work e.g. the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Harry Connick Jr., Peter Gabriel, Paul Simon, Sting, U-2… While there are others too these are a few that came to mind (popular music) from the 60's to now.
Just by listening to most modern recordings one can discern that ZERO consideration has been taken into recording the acoustic interaction of the performer/instruments with the recording environment and in the case of multiple musicians – each other. …On occasion a RAW recording turns out to be good i.e. Eric Clapton’s ‘Unplugged’ (which wasn’t ever supposed to see daylight). But for the most part it’s as though acoustic environment and proximity are complete non-issues or afterthoughts. I attribute this to the reality that most bands are recorded with each member in their own iso-booth on a dedicated voice track, and each instrument/sound effect on it’s own track.
By isolating each instrument and member the individual tracks can be tailored to FIT the sound the engineer wants, and to remove any errors. I’m certain many of us are all too aware the end result of this type of recording. Its a sound that could most correctly be described as a mélange – with overlapping images fighting to occupy the same space, or a space that is disproportionate – whether too small or too large. The lack of believable aural cues completely kills the illusion. …And while the music is still enjoyable one doesn't get the holographic experience one does when the recording is RIGHT.
IMO that the lack of concern for recording quality is most likely due to economic & political issues within the recording industry. Bands are paid to sell CD’s, and to produce them on time and on budget. If they want to be successful then they’ve got to play ball, and not sweat the details (until they’re important enough to get away with it). I suspect that this is why so many new artists first recordings are often less than great quality.
I'd love to see more artists and studios pursue realistic sound. …This isn't to say that I don't enjoy music that is heavily engineered or with many effects/multi-tracks. I merely prefer recordings that sound as though the performers are in front of me as opposed to those recordings, which sound as though everything is floating in space. Its almost as thought these recordings were made for headphones - so that the band is positioned between ones ears. …This is not a snub to those folks who like/desire and seek out this effect esp. when indulging in various ‘listening experience enhancing substances’.
I'd love to hear anyone’s comments/opinions re: companies such as Sheffield Labs who use only one set of stereo microphones and a single track to record. Sheffield recordings imbue an unmistakably organic quality. Few other recordings/companies come as close to recording the realism of the event. All the spatial cues etc. are just RIGHT.
While I know that the Sheffield approach is impractical or downright impossible for some artists/bands (for various reasons), I believe that we’d be much better off if other recording companies (that go the multi-track route) would aspire to the Sheffield sound.
Cheers,
Mike