Question for Bob Olhsson

BTW - anyone feel free to contribute...

I don't disagree at all...but sometimes I wonder whether the rounding of transients, the punch of tape, etc. allowed the music to be more "musical"...totally just a thought.

Bob's talked about this elsewhere.

Bands not cutting live.
Less venues to PLAY live prior to recording.
Less bleed from bands being live in the studio (sonically speaking).

Obviously, he should feel free to correct and add to his #1 fan in town.

...my thing...is not gonna be a popular one. I think limitations are ALL too important in the studio. It's overlooked. Be it track limitations....not having 900 mics to fiddle around with...having tape (or just working linearly)...and one that I rail about ALL day every day--the evil of click tracks. Thing is, music is fundamentally time, timbre, and pitch in combination. Everything that makes you YOU, is your take on those three things in the given moment. Between digital tuning...and click tracks (and subsequent eyeball/grid based editing)...and the obvious timbre changes inherent in the recording process--what's left?

Also, from an engineering standpoint....I maintain that one of the major factors in analog mixes still being better has a lot to do with NOT using one's eyes. I don't mean just making decisions based on what something looks like on the screen--I mean a bright LCD beaming into our eyes constantly engages part of the brain that would otherwise be LISTENING.

What I WILL say--is that done right, there are no better recordings than ones made today (albiet not all with today's gear). The NUMBER ONE reason todays music doesn't sound as good sonically speaking is simply a combination of mastering levels and budgets being cut--thus, in compromised rooms, with less than stellar engineers, takes manipulated digitally, not because the player couldn't get it, but because they didn't get it on take 2...and it's cheaper to chop it up offsite than dare take 3 or 4. But, even there...home studios leveraged for overdubs and mixing are still solid budget cutters. It's the mastering levels that are Public Enemy #1, IMO.

As to the business side. The labels were bought in the 90s. They've never been the same. I've gone into this elsewhere...but, there was a HUGE business shift into stockholding multinational quarterly profit based business. They killed record retail. Clear Channel killed radio. DJs and Starbucks killed live venues. Internet killed taste making magazines. Napster/file sharing had very little to do with their downfall...though their response to it certainly sped it up.

Funny, I was thinking about this earlier today. I think it's mainly that so few records are made now with musicians who play together regularly, and then do the basic tracks live in a good sounding studio. The economics of being able to produce facsimiles cheaply has rotted the core of what people loved about music. I can get a great string section sound out of my DAW, but it's not the same as being in a room with four or five top musicians when they hit it together.

I think gear has a ton to do with it, but not in the way that you think. It has nothing to do with sound, but with the attitude towards writing and playing music.

I think the advent of cheap consumer based gear has given artists the freedom to do more on their own. The side effect of this is that people are less and less inclined to find other people and play with them.

I think this is caused by two distinct issues.

1: Artists feel that they should do it themselves to reap all of the rewards themselves. The music industry is as cheap as they've ever been and the work is hard for almost no reward. Self recording, self promotion and self production is the only way artists feel like they are going to get any kind of return on their investment.

2: Artists feel that they can't find anybody who feels *exactly* the way they do about their music. Because they now have the gear to do it themselves, they don't feel inclined to make any concessions and collaborate anymore. This goes for writing, playing and recording all the same.

I get these stories all the time while talking to bands and artists. Honestly, more and more of my recording is now single artists who do multiple instruments and only come to record with me when they can't do something specific on their own, like play drums because they live in an apartment, etc.

I also think it's the fault of the music industry.

Take the MOVIE industry as an example of what the music industry will be like in a few years.

Movies were a social structure. People went to the movies, not only to see the film but to be with friends. Movies were made by production teams who had interesting stories and released by production companies who signed directors to multi-movie deals. Great deals of time and effort went into good stories because of the lack of technology needed to dazzle the viewer.

Production companies started seeing more and more revenue from increased technology and the blockbuster movie started to take hold. More and more money was thrown at the blockbuster type movie due to the increased revenue they made. Smaller movies started taking a hit in marketing, production and viewership. Instead of the production company realizing that the smaller movies were suffering due to the lack of attention by the production company, they saw this as a sign that they should invest MORE money into the blockbuster in order to recoup the losses incurred by the smaller movies.

Eventually almost all financial bets were placed on blockbuster movies instead of being diversified through other smaller movies. Movie production companies started going out of business due to betting "all the chips" on blockbuster movies and failing. Other companies see this and mistakenly believe that they need to start becoming even MORE formulaic in their movie greenlighting decisions.

Movie A = 200million$ revenue.
Movie B = 20 million$ revenue.
=
Make more Movie A type movies.

So that worked for a few years until people started getting tired of the "same old thing" and the same tired stories. The economy and boring, formulaic movies don't bring in viewers, so the movie theaters raise rates. Increased rates work for a short time but less and less people come to the theater. The theater raises rates again. Fewer people come. The theater raises rates again. Fewer people come.

Etc. Etc.


Many years ago, music was nurtured. Bands were signed to multi-record deals, producers and labels actually cared about the bands making it.

The era of the "big hit" came about. The labels started focusing on "singles" and "#1 hits". The smaller bands no longer got nurtured and loved. The labels started coming to *expect* huge returns on their investments and almost all money went to "megastars" of the moment and almost none went to small bands.

The label contract went from being "this is what we'll do together" to "this is what you'll do for us" overnight.

The Formula(TM) was applied to music.

Band/Artist A = 200 million$ revenue.
Band/Artist B = 20 million$ revenue.
=
Find/create more Band/Artist A

The music suffered and listeners started finding other places to get music, like the internet. The labels dumped even more money into popstars and megabands instead of going back to their roots. Fewer people listened. CD prices went up. Fewer people bought them. CD prices went up. Fewer people bought them. etc..


It's a downwards spiral and Big Music can't deal with it. They made it about money and then attempted to "follow the money". Following the money is the death gasp of any company.

Its not the gear at all .

Its the people of today .

I know this because EVERYTHING entertainment wise has become uncreative , soulless , shallow and empty . This uncreative , soulless , shallow and empty people of today can only make music thats a reflection of themselves .

Look at what entertains them today ?? Look at the Movies , TV , Music ........is ANY of it any good ??

Its not Digital , its not the gear .

Is there even a band or artist left making $20million, let alone $200million, in the music business these days?
(Yes, I mean gross revenues)

Excellent...

Tape recorded music is more alive.  I've proven it to myself time and time again when in a tape studio.  Give you an example.  I'm at a buddies studio up north.  We are listening to tracks he'd been working on.  His studio is good.  His gear is good.  His methods are good and so the tracks are good.  Then he fires up the old 1/4 inch and plays a buss mix he recorded on his 2 inch machine years ago (which now sits in storage covered up) and my Gawd the sound that filled that control room.  Same speakers.  Same console and amps and the difference was night and day.  His gear as a whole now is probably better than it was then but the medium made a huge difference.  

All that said, there aren't too many musicians these days that could play to tape, honestly.  Me being one of them.  Why?  We don't practice like musicians used to.  We don't feel we have to because, hell, "we can just punch that in" right?  Music was REAL in the days of tape and so where musicians.  No midi, nothing fake.  You want a synth??? Here let me patch you into a channel, now play.  You want an organ??? hold on while I mic up the Leslie cabinet.  Now play.  

I wouldn't go back to tape because I can't.  Not good enough here.

But our music suffers for it I think.

I don't use any compression in tracking. Only EQ is on amps, because I find Royer+EQ on the way in beats a bunch of mics and trying to blend at mix time. Call it lazy. The Royer sounds like the amp...if I need a little less low end or a little mid bump like a dynamic might bring--I just dial it in. I actually print the first take with no EQ....do a quick digital EQ to find what I need...dial that into the analog EQ--and I"m golden for "the take" on tk2. THat, I've found is more important to me than the "ultimate tone" of finding multiple mics to blend, etc.

Cowboy's examples made me laugh, because that's actually how I work--even in digital. Mic the Leslie...patch the synth....as needed...takes all the way through.

But, maybe I'll post my writing demos....they're sloppy one takes...nothing on the mixer but VCC, HPFs and a compressor (digital) on the vocal. And my outboard reverbs/tape delay (used or not--they're in the template). But, that's because I write to drum loops...so...the drums are what they are. But, the bass? Egtrs? Acoustics? EPs? Hammond? Not much of anything. I just ran them down to CD....except the drum loops (versus the kit)--they sound like my last album.

But, that's me and "source first"--you saw me asking about NOS tubes? You should see my amp collection (plus Hammond and Leslie). Every time I'm practicing guitar, I'm ALSO tweaking around with the set up. So that when I want X sound...I know my rig inside and out and how to get it. At that point, the recording gear is sorta...well, it's relevant....but, not as relevant as people seem to believe. In fact, if you're looking to recording gear to make something sound BETTER than it does, I sorta think you're barking up the wrong tree.

That's damn right.  Nothing sounds better than an instrument in it's purity.  I try so hard print what I'm hearing in the room but that in itself is a hard task sometimes.