Top recording engineers explain why music sounds awful
The panelists discuss record production at the AES convention in New York City.
(Credit: Steve Guttenberg)I attended a fascinating panel discussion, "Behind The Glass: Audio Production in the 21st Century" at the Audio Engineering Society convention in New York City on Sunday.
The panelists were all prominent record producers and engineers: Tony Brown (Elvis Presley, Emmy Lou Harris); Jimmy Douglass (Jay-Z, the Rolling Stones); Dave Hewitt (Simon and Garfunkel, U2); Ryan Hewitt (Avett Brothers, Red Hot Chili Peppers); George Massenburg (Linda Ronstadt, Lyle Lovett); Ann Mincieli (Alicia Keys, Whitney Houston); and Russ Titelman (Stevie Winwood, Eric Clapton). These people know from where they speak!
Moderator Howard Massey led the panel through a discussion of the problems facing the record industry, with a primary focus on sound quality. Massey co-authored (with Geoff Emerick) my favorite Beatles book of all time, "Here, There and Everywhere: My Life Recording the Music of the Beatles." He also has a new book coming out, "Behind the Glass, Volume II: Top Producers Tell How They Craft the Hits" a collection of interviews with top record producers and audio engineers.
It seems like the main problem comes from record company pressure to make perfect recordings. Vocalists' off-pitch and out-of-time singing is tweaked with Auto-Tune; music-making is largely technology-based. That is, technology has replaced musical talent, and singers like Britney Spears were cited many times as to where it's all headed. Not so musically talented, her music has to be patched together in the studio. There's not a lot of there there.
Jimmy Douglass talked about the overuse of dynamic range compression, admitting that since most music is listened to over crappy computer speakers or cheap earbuds, compression is required to make it sound acceptable. Sad, but true.
For better musicians, technology can inhibit spontaneity. For George Massenburg, "It's all about authenticity," his goal in the studio is to simply capture a moment. And when recording engineers do that, the emotional power of the music has some chance of connecting with the listener.
There was a lot of talk about the analog vs. digital divide, but in the end the panelists just want to make records that move people and "break some hearts." They all agreed that great songs conquered all. But much of the time production has to be used to bolster weak material.
Looking ahead 10 years, engineer/producer Ryan Hewitt hoped he'd get to record bands that can sing and play, without studio trickery. And if they don't get the tune as they want it, just do another take. Hewitt wants musicians to make music, but too much of the time it's the engineers who have to create it out of bits and pieces of crap.
Steve Guttenberg is a frequent contributor to magazines and Web sites including Home Entertainment, Playback, and Ultimate AV. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. 
){kind=small}
I play guitar (not very well). But I'm sure I could play a few seconds perfectly here and there. If I patch all those seconds together and come up with a full length song, does that make me a musician? Apparently so.
Of course the change is being expedited by the commercialisation of music and it's ugly transformation into a commodity. Popular music that is, that's the important part - popular music - there are, and always will be, rich seams of sub-genres underneath that uphold the true craft.
Worry not about the record industry making shiny, crappy-sounding packaged product because there will always be music and sooner or later the fools that are hellbent on earning money from the talent and integrity of musicians, singers and songsmiths will have to move along to the next industry. I mean, there's no real way to apply DRM to somebody sat in front of you holding an instrument is there...?
As to the musicians themselves, I agree with the panel: Nowadays you don't need to be a musician to be a recording artist, and that's sad. Back in the day, you at least had to hit the notes (once) on your own.
Of course, engineers pasted together Glenn Gould recordings from a zillion takes. And Mick Jagger vocals were no cakewalk for Glyn Johns. But at least those artists had to have some musical competency, even if it was the engineers and producers who ultimately helped the brilliance come out.
I wonder what people who only know this kind of music (patched together by an engineer and heavily compressed for their iPods and hard drives where quantity rather than quality rules) actually care about?
You just may not find them "on the airwaves".
You have to be willing to do some searching on your own to find them.
And you can still find correctly engineered music from these less popular groups, recording in the small and independent studios.
Also, I think the genre of music can dictate how much engineering is going on.
Mainstream RAP, Hip-Hop, Dance, POP, a lot of Rock, and about 1/2 of Country(POP) is going to be over engineered and compressed.
Look at some Blues, true R&B, Jazz, and Classical and I think you will find less engineering going on.
Most of the top selling artists today are either victims or beneficiaries of the recording studio.
I hate over engineered music and think that it can hurt some talented artists.
On the other hand... some marginally talented artists get great benefit from studio magic.
I'm pretty sure that artists recording their own work with Pro Tools and inexpensive gear are not so obsessed about patching together dozens of bits of crap to make their songs, any more than they are compressing the hell out of their own work to please stupid record execs.
As for me, I listen to non-commercial college radio, which doesn't play Brittney or Justin. I know Moby, for example, is not worried about these trends. Neither should these esteemed engineers.
- by aiffwav October 30, 2009 2:39 PM PDT
- There's a lot of issues here... The panel are top of their game, and get to work with whomever they want. I'm an every day engineer, working with anyone that walks in the door. Most of them don't have the high-end chops to pull off perfect takes in an economically viable amount of time. Remember, the vast majority of musicians are people you have never heard of doing this out of compulsion and love. Not many of them can afford the $100p/hr + studio time in endless stretches that would allow for them to get it right naturally. So we tune. Melodyne and, to a much lesser extent these days, Auto Tune. Melodyne doesn't leave the artifacts that make it sound tunes, AT is more of an effect. And we time. Programs like Vocalign let us get backing vocals perfectly in time with leads. And we tweak and we smooth imperfect instruments and players into the best we can. Because that is what our customers want, and will pay for. If we don't, they go next door to the studio that will. If we don't make it slamming loud, they go to someone who will. Some musicians take a stand against the tech, but very few of the mediocre to terrible ones do.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(14 Comments)