It does not sound OLD.
John Wrate
got to do with it" is on. And I am wondering why this song, which is
now about 17 years old, still does not sound old. Or does it?
I mean, if back in 1984 I had listened to a 17 year old song, I am
sure I would have thought of it as old just because of how different
things sounded in 1967 compared to 1984.
This happens with almost every song from 1982 and on. Some stuff, like
Flock of Seagulls/Duran/Propaganda and any New Wave for that matter,
even sounds beyond today, like futuristic. Easily much more advanced
in terms of originality and artistic complexity than whatever I have
heard since 1994.
Is it me or did music really not move much with regards to style or
technology since then? Anyone else has felt this?
Cheers,
Wrate
Angeline
almost futuristic, with all the computer generated sounds - it was designed
to sound that way. Then there was a "return to musical roots" kinda thing
that happened in the '90s that hasn't faded. A back to the basics backlash
to the digital sound. To me the music being played on popular radio right
now is drab and unimaginative, the "Boy bands" are the worst.
Angeline
"John Wrate" <lolo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:930b0115.01083...@posting.google.com...
Brent A. Busby
: Ok, I am sitting at the office listening to the radio and "What's love
Yeah, I have. This might be the result of something whose name has now
become a cute buzzword with no meaning -- "post-modernism."
Of course, I'm meaning it by its actual definition, and not as a
buzzword. Basically, new wave was the opposite, new wave was *modernism*.
Everything about it was about the future. When the '90s came in and
decided, "We're not going to have that anymore," they needed to replace
that with something. Replace the future. With something more modern.
There's nothing more modern than the future. So we're now in this
Where-Do-We-Go-From-Here dilemma. You can't go back to new wave they
say. That's the '80s, that's the past. Except the past is the future.
They need something modern now that the future is ruled out as an option.
Hard to do.
So now, in 2001, years after the '90s were chronologically supposed to
end, they're still scratching their butts trying to figure out what they
could use that would be more modern than modern. It's post-modernism,
that dilemma you end up in when the future is in the past and you don't
really know what modern means anymore. There's nothing more pathetic
than watching an ant with damaged legs trying to go forward by going
around and around in circles. Which is really what "retro" is.
So you're right. For the last ten years or so, not much has changed,
because they've already ruled out the idea of moving forward toward
the future. That would be far too '80s an idea to even consider.
Apparently, instead we're going to just sit here and watch music and
rock culture on indefinite Pause Mode while they scratch their butts
some more and try to synthesize the future from the past with "retro."
--
| { Brent A. Busby } | "When you hear the price they paid, |
| { br...@catmind.org } | I'm sure you'll come and |
+--* Debian Linux 2.2r3 *---+ join the masquerade..." |
| { Rockford, IL (USA) } | --Berlin, _Pleasure_Victim_, 1982 |
Boot13
banged out on the keyboard:
>Yes, I've noticed that, too! You are right about the '80s music sounding
>almost futuristic, with all the computer generated sounds - it was designed
>to sound that way. Then there was a "return to musical roots" kinda thing
>that happened in the '90s that hasn't faded. A back to the basics backlash
>to the digital sound. To me the music being played on popular radio right
>now is drab and unimaginative, the "Boy bands" are the worst.
"Boy Bands"...hahahah don't you have to at least "pretend"[1] to play
instruments to be a band? I guess it's too hard for todays teens to
say " male R&B vocal group".
[1] ie the Monkeys, Partridge Family, etc
--=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=--
"As much as clothes dryer lint can look a lot like cotton candy,
the two are NOT interchangeable" -Af
--=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=----=*=--
Steve2000indeja
>: technology since then? Anyone else has felt this?
Technology took a Giant leap in the 80s. Digital microchips were evolved to
provide the processing power to give us drum machines, useable programmable
polyphonic synthesizers (more than the 'one note at once' 70s synths which were
little more than a gimmick).
Additionally the 80s saw the emergence of 'midi' and sequencers, which allowed
a single person to program digital instruments (and drum machines) which would
play back all the parts of a song (as long as they were generated digitally.
Digital technology gave us samplers and digital reverbs. Many people don't
realize how a seemingly simple thing like digital reverb could very much affect
the sound of so many recordings. But prior to digital reverbs, a studio had one
or 2 good plate reverbs (big foil plates floating in oil), also various spring
and other analog reverb type devices..usually very limited coz the good plate
reverbs were $20,000 each.
Reverbs, echo etc are used to create 'space' and ambiance in a recording. In
the 80s relatively inexpensive digital reverbs hit the scene and changed the
sound of music ... even if everything else on a particular record might be
analog.
A studio could now afford to have several digital reverb/echo/doubling units -
each of which could be programmed to sound like a different sized room, plate,
hall or whatever. Sonic options opened up bigtime. You may have noticed how
the 80s rock groups had massive sounding drums...digital reverb at work. Or
Phil Collins 80s gated drums. Digital reverbs and noise gates chopping off the
decay- just a couple of the many things this technology could do.
There was a quantum leap-like never before - in technology in the 80s. The
groundwork for what we use to record - and hear on many records today- was laid
in the digital breakthrough of the 80s.
There was a 'technical backlash' a bit in the 90s-against the all digital,
obvious drum machine driven sound, but the newer bands and producers have
embraced the improved technology....they just don't build a whole record around
it, usually.
In the case of much of today's kid pop groups and artists, the Do use all
digital stuff and the only thing analog on the record is Britney's or the
BSBoys voices, which are pitch corrected and heavily processed. Swedish
producer Max Martin has written and programmed/produced many hits for Britney
Spears, the Backstreet Boys and N'Sync. One guy in a studio in Sweden,
programming all the parts for a slick, mechanical pop sound that's been red hot
for several of the biggest selling teen acts a few years.
Since he is using the latest generation of all digital technology, his job is
easier than it would have been in the 80s. But he could have gotten close to
the same sound back then-with the exception of pitch correction...Britney would
actually have had to keep doing take after take to get an in-tune vocal-or they
may have semi Milli Vannilli-ed her, as producers did by reinforcing the weak
voiced Paula Abdul with pro session singers in the late 80s.
Max definitely would not have been able to create his slick, punchy and very
digital pop sound in the analog 70s. The span of just a few year resulted in
sounds light years apart from the old (but sometimes great) real
instruments/analog recording techniques which had sorta evolved as far as they
could have by the late 70s.
The digital revolution of the 80s changed the way music is created, performed
and recorded at the most base level. It changed everything.
It's easy to draw a straight line showing the evolution of revolutionary
digital instruments and recording tools invented/developed in the 80s to what
they are today. The DSP technology of the 80s changed music forever.
imo
Steve
Brent A. Busby
: Technology took a Giant leap in the 80s. Digital microchips were evolved to
: provide the processing power to give us drum machines, useable programmable
: polyphonic synthesizers (more than the 'one note at once' 70s synths which were
: little more than a gimmick).
I don't disagree with most of what you've said, except for this part.
The one-voice ("monosynth") synthesizers of the '70s were much more than
a gimmick, and continued to play a big part in new wave during the '80s
(and in my music as well -- I have a Multimoog). While it's true that
the main reason the '70s didn't have many polyphonic synths was because
the technology for it hadn't really arrived yet, the side-effect of that
was that the one-voice synths they did have had to make sounds with their
one voice that were as harmonically rich as could be imagined. That one
voice on many of those units was quite a voice. I'll never complain
about the sounds of ARP's and Moogs, and I still use them in a new wave
context today alongside polysynths from the '80s. In the '80s, it was
very common to see '70s monosynths being put to modern uses.
: Digital technology gave us samplers and digital reverbs. Many people don't
: realize how a seemingly simple thing like digital reverb could very much affect
: the sound of so many recordings. But prior to digital reverbs, a studio had one
: or 2 good plate reverbs (big foil plates floating in oil), also various spring
: and other analog reverb type devices..usually very limited coz the good plate
: reverbs were $20,000 each.
Remember though that analog spring and plate reverbs have a sound of
their own, just as good digital units from Lexicon and Eventide do.
It's not just a matter of convenience. Sometimes in my music, which
is what I suppose you would call newwave/synthpop, I will use analog
spring reverbs for certain things because the coloration -- sometimes
even outright distortion -- this adds to a sound is exactly what I
want. Digital gave us new sounds, and convenience, but as inconvenient
as many of the old analog devices it tried to replace were, musicians
(even '80s-oriented ones) still find themselves using them because the
digital stuff never really replaced the sound. So the '80s created a
sort of mixed recording environment where you saw analog and digital
being used together.
: Reverbs, echo etc are used to create 'space' and ambiance in a recording. In
: the 80s relatively inexpensive digital reverbs hit the scene and changed the
: sound of music ... even if everything else on a particular record might be
: analog.
Something else to note here is that in the '80s -- possibly just due to
the fact that the digital equipment was still so expensive that one
couldn't afford to buy too much of it -- things like digital reverb were
used with some restraint. In the '90s, one of the things that sickened
me about the sound of the music was that it seemed almost all '90s pop
music had a different kind of reverb on every single instrument. The
'90s producers reasoned that it was okay because the equipment was cheap
enough that they could afford to do it. They said that since each
reverb was adjusted for a different sound, that alone would be enough
to preserve the separation between the sounds of different instruments.
Wrong. What you end up with is a mix that sounds like it was recorded
in a cave. Okay, a weird cave where every sound source gets its own
unique acoustics and reverberation, but a cave nonetheless. Having
each reverb set differently doesn't separate the instruments, it just
makes the "cave" sound weirder.
In the '80s, when reverb was used, it was used with some
restraint, sometimes just to add sustain to a single note -- then gone
as soon as the next note started playing. That's a trick that almost
has no effect if the entire mix is already drenched in it. But that's
the type of thing you can do with reverb when you use it sparingly.
: A studio could now afford to have several digital reverb/echo/doubling units -
: each of which could be programmed to sound like a different sized room, plate,
: hall or whatever. Sonic options opened up bigtime. You may have noticed how
: the 80s rock groups had massive sounding drums...digital reverb at work. Or
: Phil Collins 80s gated drums. Digital reverbs and noise gates chopping off the
: decay- just a couple of the many things this technology could do.
Yep. Gated reverb is another way reverb was kept under control. In the
'80s, it seems people had the common sense to realize that if you're going
to use a lot of reverbs, something has got to be in place to control those
sustain times -- to cut those reverbs off. These days you don't hear
gated reverb much. I guess producers now like to have people sound like
they're singing in a cave.
: There was a 'technical backlash' a bit in the 90s-against the all digital,
: obvious drum machine driven sound, but the newer bands and producers have
: embraced the improved technology....they just don't build a whole record around
: it, usually.
Actually, like I said above, I find that they overuse it. They've got a
rack full of processing gear, and goshdarnit they're going to use every
single piece of hardware on every single song! Heaven forbid that a '90s
pop producer would actually leave some of his toys turned off or bypassed
out of the audio path during a studio session. Gotta have all those toys
in the game! This makes for oversaturated mixes. Drenched in awful
never-ending reverb, with cold-sounding digital EQ making everything
sound thin and metallic, and not a spot of silence anywhere in the song
to make the instruments sound punchy (things sound punchier if they're
played against a backdrop of silence inbetween the notes) -- no silence
because even if everybody stopped playing it'd be a second or two before
the reverb ambience faded -- they kid themselves when they say they're
making the kind of professional mixes that only a N.Y. or L.A. studio
could afford. They're making the kind of mixes that only a fool would
listen to. I'm a gearhead myself, but even I know when a song has had
enough hardware thrown at it, and I learned that from the '80s.
: In the case of much of today's kid pop groups and artists, the Do use all
: digital stuff and the only thing analog on the record is Britney's or the
: BSBoys voices, which are pitch corrected and heavily processed. Swedish
: producer Max Martin has written and programmed/produced many hits for Britney
: Spears, the Backstreet Boys and N'Sync. One guy in a studio in Sweden,
: programming all the parts for a slick, mechanical pop sound that's been red hot
: for several of the biggest selling teen acts a few years.
The really awful thing is that it's not even considered uncool now. Milli
Vanilli were the first to break ground for the '90s in the no-talent arena,
and they were shamed for it. But after they had their turn, it seems that
nobody flinched when other bands came along like the ones you mention, and
now it's to the point where audiences don't really expect musical talent
from pop bands, and they'll buy their stuff nomatter what. You can't
impress people by doing work that requires talent anymore because it's
optional now, and people weren't really looking for talent anyway.
: It's easy to draw a straight line showing the evolution of revolutionary
: digital instruments and recording tools invented/developed in the 80s to what
: they are today. The DSP technology of the 80s changed music forever.
The '80s didn't become almost purely digital though until the late part
of the '80s, around 1987 or so. Until then, it was still a hybrid
recording environment of digital and analog equipment mixed together,
each being used for things they're respectively good at. Fortunately,
even in the late part of the '80s, common sense was used about how much
digital gear it took to make a good mix. When '90s pop came in, it all
had become cheap enough that you could buy enough of it to fill a room
and still have cash left over, so that's when restraint was thrown out
the window. Enter the "Mix From Hell." :-)
steve.chase
particularly true with a lot of 80's music.
Maybe it's also due to the fact that the 80's finally incorporated the
modern sound of the synthesiser into music, whereas previously 60's and 50's
music did not possess the technology?
I don't think that in terms of musical sound the arrival of the synthesiser
was perhaps the biggest change. We've not really had anything as big since.
Just my two' penniesworth!
Cheers!
"John Wrate" <lolo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:930b0115.01083...@posting.google.com...
spirit
Erasure,
Human League, Eurythmics, Depeche Mode, Kraftwerk etc) and is still used to
this day (think Les Rhythm Digitales, Orbital etc) - but let's not discount
the impact
of the electronic drum machine, ie Roland TR707, 808, (think EVERYONE),
the BOSS drums, Kurzweil etc.
It should be noted, though, that today's current trend in Dance Music has
popularised
the 'synth'. And by 'synth', I mean Analogue Modeling - electronic
reproduction of
the Moog and Oberheim, to name a few. Think filter sweeped synth pads, and
more recently, filtered drums (when a section of a drum pattern sounds
'muffled' and
slowly becomes clearer - think about this technique, you've definetly heard
it.)
As a side note/comment, most people attribute the rise of Dance Music due to
the
fact of the Disco boom in the late Seventies/Eighties. I, however, attribute
the talents
of Gary Numan, Kraftwerk, and Sparks to that - the European scene has been
horrendously overlooked - Jean Michelle Jarre gave birth to House Music, not
Donna Summer.
--
This, like most people's signatures,
gives everyone the false impression
I am articulate, intelligent, witty, very
'current', fun at parties, rich and well hung.
Guess what ? Like most sig's, it's a pile of crap.
steve.chase <steve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:3Pbm7.16853$592.2...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Boot13
<captai...@madasafish.com> banged out on the keyboard:
>I agree, the DX7 for instance, was a monumental synth
Oh man, I still have that yamaha in my closet...that and a crap load
of 3.5" diskettes of sound libraries. I always wanted a St. Calvier
like Vince Clarke used.
>(used in the day by
>Erasure,
>Human League, Eurythmics, Depeche Mode, Kraftwerk etc) and is still used to
>this day (think Les Rhythm Digitales, Orbital etc) - but let's not discount
>the impact
>of the electronic drum machine, ie Roland TR707, 808, (think EVERYONE),
>the BOSS drums, Kurzweil etc.
>It should be noted, though, that today's current trend in Dance Music has
>popularised
>the 'synth'. And by 'synth', I mean Analogue Modeling - electronic
>reproduction of
>the Moog and Oberheim, to name a few. Think filter sweeped synth pads, and
>more recently, filtered drums (when a section of a drum pattern sounds
>'muffled' and
>slowly becomes clearer - think about this technique, you've definetly heard
>it.)
>As a side note/comment, most people attribute the rise of Dance Music due to
>the
>fact of the Disco boom in the late Seventies/Eighties. I, however, attribute
>the talents
>of Gary Numan, Kraftwerk, and Sparks to that - the European scene has been
>horrendously overlooked - Jean Michelle Jarre gave birth to House Music, not
>Donna Summer.
What about Joy Division?
LizzieZ
>
>Oh man, I still have that yamaha in my closet...that and a crap load
>of 3.5" diskettes of sound libraries.
Yep, I still have mine, too, set up here in my office. I just can't get rid of
it! These days it doesn't leave the house, and I only use it if I need to pick
something out or rehearse something. Dying to get a real piano though, since
I'm really a pianist and not a keyboardist. The DX7 is totally the wrong
equipment for that!!
>I always wanted a St. Calvier
>like Vince Clarke used.
Are you talking about the Synclavier? Now that was one cool machine. I had
the pleasure of doing some work on one of those back in the mid-80s, and at the
time it was amazing what you could create out of that one piece of equipment.
Liz
LizzieZ
>t rid of
>> it!
>
>Shall I give you my address then? ;-)
LOL, Andreas -- actually, I meant that I haven't been able to part with it, as
opposed to not being able to give it away. ;-)
Liz
Rich Bunnell
"steve.chase" wrote:
>
> I think that it is true to say that great songs never age, and this is
> particularly true with a lot of 80's music.
>
> Maybe it's also due to the fact that the 80's finally incorporated the
> modern sound of the synthesiser into music, whereas previously 60's and 50's
> music did not possess the technology?
>
> I don't think that in terms of musical sound the arrival of the synthesiser
> was perhaps the biggest change. We've not really had anything as big since.
Personally I think a lot of songs from the early '80s sound really old
and dated. Compare the meticulous production on some '70s albums
(especially prog-rock ones) to the muddy production on stuff like "Don't
You Want Me." I'm not sure why there seemed to be such a relapse in
recording quality when the '80s ushered in better recording technology.
Chasey
Yup, I thoroughly agree with your observations here - well pointed out.
Indeed a lot of early 80's stuff does now sound a little dated - and 'Don't
you want me' is an excellent example of what we are talking about.
Cheers!
Chasey (Steve Chase)
"Rich Bunnell" <richb...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B9B9A3B...@home.com...
Chasey
"Andreas Kohlbach" <ank...@email.com> wrote in message
news:slrn9pn1r7...@ankman.de...
I thought you'd say this. ;-)
np: Chris Hülsbeck - Theme From R-type (Amiga tune)
--
Andreas
Please don't use "!" in subject (will be filtered away)
German OE FAQ at http://oe-faq.de/
Phone/Fax: +49 (0)40 7 51 10 03 114 ICQ-UIN: 11983646=
PuffPuffin
the recording technology. Most notably - digital recording.
In the early 80s and before, pretty much all the music was recorded on big
analog multi-track tape recorders with big reels of tape.
By the mid 80s, digital recording technology was coming down in price (from the
high 6 to the low 6 dollar figures :) ) and many started using it. With better
recording, vocals, samples in synthesizers and other acoustic instruments
sounded cleaner. (ProTools, Synclavier, ADAP Soundrack were examples of
direct-to-disk digital audio recorders)
So I think basically the switch from analog to digital recording technology
helped make the late 80s sound much cleaner than the early 80s music. Anyone
have thoughts on this?
Brent A. Busby
: I believe the early 80s music sounds muddier than late 80s stuff is because of
: the recording technology. Most notably - digital recording.
: In the early 80s and before, pretty much all the music was recorded on big
: analog multi-track tape recorders with big reels of tape.
: By the mid 80s, digital recording technology was coming down in price (from the
: high 6 to the low 6 dollar figures :) ) and many started using it. With better
: recording, vocals, samples in synthesizers and other acoustic instruments
: sounded cleaner. (ProTools, Synclavier, ADAP Soundrack were examples of
: direct-to-disk digital audio recorders)
: So I think basically the switch from analog to digital recording technology
: helped make the late 80s sound much cleaner than the early 80s music. Anyone
: have thoughts on this?
Well, for starters, I'm not sure I'd describe the sound as muddy. Some
people would prefer "warm." Tape adds a lot of saturation in the midrange
frequencies. Obviously, everybody likes different things, but myself and
a lot of other people prefer the warm, full, saturated sound of analog
recording, and don't look at that sound as being bad at all.
In fact, although I do use direct-to-disk computer recording technology
today, the last reason I ever would have chosen for doing it would be the
sound of it. I think rather than "clean," the adjective I'd use would be
something more along the lines of "sterile." It all depends on what
you're used to, but in the old school of recording, the tape machine was
like the guitarists' amp -- it wasn't just a mute scribe jotting it all
down without changing anything -- it was an active part of the sound.
A nice multitrack deck made everything brighter, warmer, and fuller.
These days I use digital recording because nobody wants their music in
analog format anymore -- everybody wants either a compact disc or an MP3.
I'm using a Lynx Studio Technology recording card for hardware, and for
the software side of things, I'm using Samplitude 2496. I have no
complaints with this combination -- it does about as well as any digital
recording setup ever could -- but it's still not as nice and saturated
sounding as tape, and no such setup probably ever could be.
In fact, it's for reasons such as this that the pro gear market has now
exploded with all kinds of things like vacuum tube preamps, tube driven
compressors, and tube whatever-you-can-come-up-with-to-sell-next, all in
the name of giving folks a magic black box they can pass their signals
through that will saturate the signal with warm analog harmonic content
right before it gets most of the life sucked out of it by the last step
in the signal chain, the actual digital recording facilities, in the
hopes that there will still be some left to hear on the recording. In
fact, in an ultimate measure of just how ineffective digital has been
for some of us trying to get the sound we want, a common measure that
has emerged has been the practice of actually recording to TAPE first,
and then bouncing the tape over to digital after it's already been
saturated and fulled out by the warm sound, in effect, using the
sound of analog tape as a pre-processor for the signal. This doesn't
exactly sound like folks are just dying to get analog out of their
lives to me, and I know I sure wasn't when I went digital either.
Another problem you get with digital recording is dithering noise.
Oh, sure, 44.1kHz at 16-bits (the resolution of a compact disc) is
a pretty high resolution, but that, like anything in the computer
world, is only pristine if you leave it alone. Thing is, you didn't
record all this stuff into your computer to leave it alone. You
wanted to do professional production on it -- to tweak the sound
and add effects and whatever else you can think of. Well, just
like scanning a picture in Photoshop on a PC, you can tweak the
picture, and tweak the picture, and if you're really good at it
you can do a lot to the picture before anybody notices, but if
you just keep tweaking and tweaking, eventually, artifacts creep
in -- places where the weaknesses of the digital medium start to
reveal themselves, in the form of noise. If you keep playing
with a picture in Photoshop long enough, nomatter how good your
intentions, you're liable to make your picture look like some
kind of really bad abstract art. :-)
Audio is the same way. You can kid yourself about how you have
44.1kHz at 16-bits, but that's really no different from saying
you have over 16 million colors in Photoshop. It's great until
you start to play with it. And since the whole reason for doing
post-production on your recordings in the first place is to tweak
and tweak and tweak some more, that's exactly what you were really
wanting to do with it anyway. So you get dithering errors, which
manifest themselves in the music as a metallic-sounding sheen
covering everything (the "CD sound," as it's called ironically
enough, considering that when CD's came out they promised us that
everything would sound perfect), a lack of transparency, almost
as if everything was being listened to from behind a pane of
glass, and in really bad cases, audible crunchy metallic noise!
This is the reason why it's possible to listen to a CD, and hear
superlow bass clear down to the theoretical 20Hz bottom end, and
crystal clear highs way up to 20kHz that you can barely hear,
and all the midrange in the middle, and despite all this, still
not be able to pin down what it is that's making you feel that
something is obstructing your aural view of the music. And
that's because while all the frequencies in the spectrum might
very well be there, it's still like a picture in Photoshop that
has all 16 million colors, but it's been contorted this way and
that by a maniac with a mouse until it's lost all its vibrancy.
Over-processing can kill the life out of a recording, and it's
so easy to do when the medium is digital. In fact, the user-
friendliness of computers actually encourages the recordist to
do as much digital manipulation as possible. A good digital
recordist should aim for the unreachable goal of not touching
the audio once it's been made digital for any reason. It's
never possible to actually do, but it should be in one's mind
the next time one gets the urge to start fiddling.
So no, I'd definitely say digital recording has not necessarily
been all good for us, and I'll take the "muddy" analog sound any
day. Computers make a lot of power affordable and expedient, but
it sure isn't the sound that makes me use 'em...
--Brent,
still analog in the '80s...
Sunshine State
ever thinks their songs are "old" no matter how many years have passed.
As I recall, Rich is one of the youngest members of our group and most
people his age probably would agree with him.