People tend to undervalue everything modern, which is pathetic. There are wonderful productions in 2000's rap, pop, rock, jazz, classical, etc and some things are very difficult to be done "on laptops".
It's interesting that some have multiple orgasms if Pink Floyd or some contemporary act put an organ ostinato for twenty minutes doing the same bloody note, yet they complain if a 90's pop record's based on a drum+bass loop.
Very few things on prog rock are actually "studio wizardry". Just because modern artists use keyboards it doesn't make them lazy or mediocre.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sebastian wrote: [/QUOTENAME]People tend to undervalue everything modern, which is pathetic. Just because modern artists use keyboards it doesn't make them lazy or mediocre.[/QUOTE]
Good point! Chemical Brothers for example are true artists. Just loops & programming you think? First, you need the right idea, second : get it all together! I messed around a while with Fruity loops, believe me, its harder than some of you may think!
Good point! Chemical Brothers for example are true artists. Just loops & programming you think? First, you need the right idea, second : get it all together! I messed around a while with Fruity loops, believe me, its harder than some of you may think!
I am from the generation that should be listening to the wank thats around now and Generally there is no creativity, bare stripped back, caveman shite! weve gon backwards and I feel it my generations job to start bringing music forward again, were living in the limits of the 60's now as far as bands are concerned, lets bring back harmonies! And kill Indie!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]DavidRFuller wrote: [/QUOTENAME]You've got it all wrong. Songs are being made on laptops these days, not instruments. And with that, down goes creativity. Modifying and sampling, yes sheer genius. Moron.[/QUOTE]
I would agree with this to some extent, e.g. the countless songs that sample snippets of old average songs which all the scallies then rave about, but some hip hop and sampling is really good.
Take DJ Shadow for example. He takes obscure samples and then masterfully combines them to produce a completely new song with its own personality and feeling. Check out Endtroducing, cracking album. And indeed, the Chemical Brothers are great.
Also, there are some albums that do use the studio to its capabilities. You should check out Six by Mansun, one of my favourite albums of all time and an overlooked masterpiece. It started life as a live guitar jam album but ended up being mixed completely out of control. Very few verse/chorus structures and lots of twists and changes.
The music is out there, its just few and far between and not the stuff that gets played mainstream. Finding it is more rewarding I think.
I would agree with this to some extent, e.g. the countless songs that sample snippets of old average songs which all the scallies then rave about, but some hip hop and sampling is really good.
Take DJ Shadow for example. He takes obscure samples and then masterfully combines them to produce a completely new song with its own personality and feeling. Check out Endtroducing, cracking album. And indeed, the Chemical Brothers are great.
Also, there are some albums that do use the studio to its capabilities. You should check out Six by Mansun, one of my favourite albums of all time and an overlooked masterpiece. It started life as a live guitar jam album but ended up being mixed completely out of control. Very few verse/chorus structures and lots of twists and changes.
The music is out there, its just few and far between and not the stuff that gets played mainstream. Finding it is more rewarding I think.
Since this is a Queen forum, let's look at News Of The World. There isn't much studio wizardry on that one, if any at all.
But I'll definitely say this: Analog equipment has a much warmer sound to it. In the 80s, the shift began. If anyone's into AC/DC, compare the Highway To Hell album to Back In Black. Huge difference in sound quality.
But I'll definitely say this: Analog equipment has a much warmer sound to it. In the 80s, the shift began. If anyone's into AC/DC, compare the Highway To Hell album to Back In Black. Huge difference in sound quality.
I think Queen, like the Beatles, used the studio like an instrument. And like any instrument,if you put it in the wrong hands, the results are going to be spotty. I think most bands are better off just sticking to guitars and drums. Not that there aren't good musicians any more, but I think to use the studio effectively it takes a visionary, and those are in short supply.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]olly1988 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I am from the generation that should be listening to the wank thats around now and Generally there is no creativity, bare stripped back, caveman shite! weve gon backwards and I feel it my generations job to start bringing music forward again, were living in the limits of the 60's now as far as bands are concerned, lets bring back harmonies! And kill Indie![/QUOTE]
What kind of today's music you mean? Pop charts?
Sorry, but there are some great bands around right now, like Queens of the stone age, Interpol, Bloc Party - just to name a few. If you go a bit deeper in the underground you'll find even more interresting and creative artists.
And the limited 60's...i can't think of another decade where so much creativity and ways of finding new sounds took place. Rock, Psycedelic, Beat..even punkrock was born in the 60's.
Every decade had their ups and downs, and pop/mainstream music sucked in all of them!
And please...do not kill indie! (go for Metalcore instead!!!!)
What kind of today's music you mean? Pop charts?
Sorry, but there are some great bands around right now, like Queens of the stone age, Interpol, Bloc Party - just to name a few. If you go a bit deeper in the underground you'll find even more interresting and creative artists.
And the limited 60's...i can't think of another decade where so much creativity and ways of finding new sounds took place. Rock, Psycedelic, Beat..even punkrock was born in the 60's.
Every decade had their ups and downs, and pop/mainstream music sucked in all of them!
And please...do not kill indie! (go for Metalcore instead!!!!)
There are a number of factors contributing to this. More than ever, music is product. The record companies want to move product quickly, which is why we get Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton are getting record contracts. The A&R people have no interest in developing these people as artists, they want a melody and go from their.
Lack of originality is another reason. I'm old enough to have been around for the 70s, so for sake of an argument, let's say that The Who, Zep, Genesis, The Stones, Aerosmith, Queen, Bob Seger, Fleetwood Mac, Yes, Supertramp and Lynard Skynard were among the biggest artists of that decade, and they'd all fall under the "rock and roll" banner. They all sounded totally different, and though Queen may have been influenced by The Who, they didn't sound anything like them, same as Genesis and yes, both "prog" bands, but with a totally unique sound. Now when I listen to radio, you have Nickleback as arguably the most successful rock band, and the sound like everybody else on the radio. I'm not saying there aren't good artists or that people aren't playing original music, but there is more of a certain sameness to rock music today (chunky rhythm, soft/loud/soft dynamics) than ever before.
Finally, as Gary Cherone put it in Cynical Fuck when bemoaning the plight of modern musicians, "whatever you do, someone's done it first." When the Beatles and Queen and Floyd were doing their stuff, they were pushing the boundaries of technology and creating sounds that were virtually never heard before. Bohemian Rhapsody could not have been recorded in 1969. It could in 1974. so groups then did use the studio as an instrument, and we've heard so many amazing things, unless someone comes up with a new gimmick, there's not mcuh that artists today can top.
Lack of originality is another reason. I'm old enough to have been around for the 70s, so for sake of an argument, let's say that The Who, Zep, Genesis, The Stones, Aerosmith, Queen, Bob Seger, Fleetwood Mac, Yes, Supertramp and Lynard Skynard were among the biggest artists of that decade, and they'd all fall under the "rock and roll" banner. They all sounded totally different, and though Queen may have been influenced by The Who, they didn't sound anything like them, same as Genesis and yes, both "prog" bands, but with a totally unique sound. Now when I listen to radio, you have Nickleback as arguably the most successful rock band, and the sound like everybody else on the radio. I'm not saying there aren't good artists or that people aren't playing original music, but there is more of a certain sameness to rock music today (chunky rhythm, soft/loud/soft dynamics) than ever before.
Finally, as Gary Cherone put it in Cynical Fuck when bemoaning the plight of modern musicians, "whatever you do, someone's done it first." When the Beatles and Queen and Floyd were doing their stuff, they were pushing the boundaries of technology and creating sounds that were virtually never heard before. Bohemian Rhapsody could not have been recorded in 1969. It could in 1974. so groups then did use the studio as an instrument, and we've heard so many amazing things, unless someone comes up with a new gimmick, there's not mcuh that artists today can top.
I'm glad there are still some smart people here (you know who you are ;))
So what's next then....spoons? C'mon. This is the worst age of music creativity, like it or not.
I think you have a valid point about this being an all time bad period for music from a creativity POV, David, but isn't there tons of fantastically creative stuff being done that can't get on the radar now? I once read that in the late '70s, there were 300 albums released per year by major labels. As of 5 years ago, that number increased to 3,000, and that doesn't include indie's or DIY jobs on places like myspace. I think the music's out there, it's just harder than ever to find. Having said that, mainstream pop/rock is beyond abysmal.
Another factor to consider is retrospective.
You have to remember that alot of music which we now class as this studio wizardry stuff was not played alot on radio or TV alot of the time, more so in the 60's. OK, Bo Rhap is an obvious exception. Led Zep - never released a single. Alot of bands in the 60s, such as Hendrix, were deemed dangerous by the establishment, so they didn't get much attention.
With the current pop scene being ran by labels and moguls and those deaf idiots at Radio 1 (a certain Chris "I love the sound of my voice" Moyles comes to mind) its obvious to see why theres so much crap in the charts and on the airwaves.
Sad, but thats the way it is.
You have to remember that alot of music which we now class as this studio wizardry stuff was not played alot on radio or TV alot of the time, more so in the 60's. OK, Bo Rhap is an obvious exception. Led Zep - never released a single. Alot of bands in the 60s, such as Hendrix, were deemed dangerous by the establishment, so they didn't get much attention.
With the current pop scene being ran by labels and moguls and those deaf idiots at Radio 1 (a certain Chris "I love the sound of my voice" Moyles comes to mind) its obvious to see why theres so much crap in the charts and on the airwaves.
Sad, but thats the way it is.
I agree. Although prejudices work there as well: 'On An Island' probably has more "studio wizardry" than any Pink Floyd record, but it's much less recognised because, by one side, it's Dave's, not Floyd's, and by the other, it's 2006, not 1976.
Some people automatically say "wow" for anything done up until 31st December 1979 and "that's pants" for anything done since 1st January 1980.
Some people automatically say "wow" for anything done up until 31st December 1979 and "that's pants" for anything done since 1st January 1980.
"Some people automatically say "wow" for anything done up until 31st December 1979 and "that's pants" for anything done since 1st January 1980."
Unfortunate but true. Anyone with a view towards wizardry would have raised their eyebrows at Kate Bush's 'Aerial'!
Unfortunate but true. Anyone with a view towards wizardry would have raised their eyebrows at Kate Bush's 'Aerial'!
Anyone can do studio wizardry today on his computer. So I imagine that if you use a lot of it, you seem like a nerd to the average consumer - rather than a wizard.
But isn't there an analogy to the real "classical" music? People still listen to Mozart today and believe he was a genius, but someone who'd write similar music like Mozart in our time would probably not be taken seriously by the classical music scene, because such music is not thought to be progressive anymore.
I guess that there's something like a first mover advantage in the sense that Mozart, Beatles, Kraftwerk etc. will always be remembered (and listened to) for their innovations, whereas composers/bands who would be able to reproduce something similar 50 years later are neglected.
Perhaps there will be professional orchestras one day that interpret old rock and pop music? There is already Nokia Night of the Proms...
just my 2c
But isn't there an analogy to the real "classical" music? People still listen to Mozart today and believe he was a genius, but someone who'd write similar music like Mozart in our time would probably not be taken seriously by the classical music scene, because such music is not thought to be progressive anymore.
I guess that there's something like a first mover advantage in the sense that Mozart, Beatles, Kraftwerk etc. will always be remembered (and listened to) for their innovations, whereas composers/bands who would be able to reproduce something similar 50 years later are neglected.
Perhaps there will be professional orchestras one day that interpret old rock and pop music? There is already Nokia Night of the Proms...
just my 2c