Is Computer-Based Recording Ruining Music?
Earlier this summer, I chanced upon an oldies station playing “You’re the One That I Want,” the hideous Olivia Newton-John/John Travolta duet from the movie Grease. Yet I couldn’t shut it off. Why? Because I was mesmerized by the vocal performances.
When this single was recorded in 1978, there was no such thing as ProTools or Auto-Tune. Tarting up a vocal was limited to overdubs and punch-ins. The performance had to be spot on, which meant that a tremendous amout of raw talent was required. This once again got me thinking about how easy technology makes it to cheat when it comes to recording. Is computer-powered recording ruining music?
More and more I’m beginning to think it is. Before you go any further, just sample a little bit of “You’re the One That I Want.” Pay attention to ON-J’s breath control and the expression in Travolta’s voice.
See what I mean? It doesn’t make me like the song any better, although I now have an appreciation for the talent involved.
I’m not the only one thinking this way. I recently ran across this column from Steve Guttenberg in his The Audiophiliac column at CNET.com.
“I get a fair number of promo CDs in the mail, but don’t be jealous, most of them are instantly forgettable or just awful, and only a few are worth a second listen. Greg Garing’s self-titled CD was an immediate standout, and its rootsy, blues-infected grooves hit me hard. The music has a lot of soul, and sounds like it was made by a group of really talented players who were having a good time together. That happens so rarely nowadays I had to learn about how the record was created.
“The Garing CD was produced by Lower East Side Records, a brand-new label started by Todd Perlmutter in New York. We eventually got around to talking over the phone and Perlmutter told me Garing not only recorded all of his vocals “live” (they were not overdubbed) with the band, and that every song that made it to the CD was the first complete take (with no edits). Perlmutter’s working method stands in sharp contrast to the way most music is recorded nowadays.”
I suspect what you really mean is that broad, indiscriminate use of processing produces boring and uninspired results. But remember also that computer-powered recording tools have made recording more accessible and affordable to many talented artists, and allowed them to make music their own way, without (necessarily) having to pander to the lowest common denominator. It's just a tool – the talented will use it to make magic, the rest will be forgotten.
I totally agree Alan. Antares (creator of Auto Tuner) has done such a bad thing!! The technology itself is more famous for its offshoot ability of wobbling vocals (Cher's I Believe track) then for what it is actually supposed to do. It makes it so that anyone can sound like a real singer. However you can tell if you listen carefully. I hadn't actually sat an listened to any Justin Beiber yet (for obvious reasons) but yesterday there was something on and I paid attention. It's so Auto Tuned it's insane. You can absolutely tell there's no natural breathing and no natural phase or wavering in his voice. The breathing control you mention above is a key indicator of "real" singing. Engineers will also edit this out w/ Pro Tools even if it isn't Auto Tuned!!!
Having said everything I said above. John makes a couple of very good points. Lots of really neat artists that probably we would never have been able to hear before!!!!
First post got it right, Computer Based Recording isn't ruining music, people are ruining music.
You can record the band "live off the floor" and keep it just as loose as the old fashioned analogue way, it just happens that many don't and use it to sterilize their music.
I'll take it a step further and say that if you took a really tight band and recorded it sans tape, but recorded the session with the same spirit (live off the floor, limited overdubs, a good engineer etc.) very few would notice (fewer still would care) that it's a "computer based" recording.
It's the artist and the performance that creates the mood and feeling of the music, not analog tape etc. (I'm not saying digital "sounds" better than analog, but rather, it's not really what people love about a song)
It's really nothing to do with the computer at all, it has everything to do with artists and newer engineers not learning their craft as well as the generation(s) before.
I'll give you the fact that the computer helped us get to that point definately, but it's no question the people behind it that are the problem.
It's the lack of artists being real artists and the lack of craftmanship and understanding what gives performances character…that's missing.
Nothing more.
I recently had a discussion with a friend of mine with Children in High School. Her youngest came home and told her, "Guess what mum? I get to play the computer for Band next year!" This prompted a long discussion between myself and a family friend (on Facecrack, of course) about whether this was a good or bad thing for a 14-year-old.
My opinion (backed by the fact that my brother had learning difficulties that were helped hen he discovered the sax in band), was that the care, feeding and disciplined practice of an instrument in today's increasingly tech-heavy society are needed more than ever for youngsters just learning the world around them. Especially since the young man in question uses a computer for every other course (he has something called Disgraphia(sp?) ).
His (the ff) opinion was that young men and women should not be 'required' to do something they don't want, and that if this was a way to allow them to enjoy music without the "bother" (his words) of carrying in a heavy instrument they did not like to and from school, and without the negativity of never being a good player, which will (apparently) turn them off music for life. He then went on to list about 85 musicians who never learned an instrument, but 'made it' in the industry b/c of techology.
I still believe the friend's son is truly missing out on what is not only a mental exercise, but a tactlie and aural experience a computer will never replace. I was one of those who was told rather bluntly I would never be anything more than an average technical player, but 6 years of playing clarinet have taught me skils I've used in other areas – namely the care and feeding of highly specialised tools in the comuter industry.
Some people on Twitter have been misinterpreting what I wrote. It's not if it's recorded digitally or through analogue means. It's if studio technology is used to make up for a lack of raw talent (cf. Rebecca Black and all those CHR songs that all sound like a derivation of Cher's "Believe.")
Adele's 21 was recorded digitally, but there's seriously good talent behind the performance. Digital isn't bad. Computers being used to polish turds is.
In that case, I would say computers may ruin "entertainment" music. Casual top 40 fans, who don't mind autotune and don't really pay much attention to craft and nuance. I'm not knocking that, they just appreciate music in a different way.
That's more "fast food" music, and yes computers and the age of "fix it in post" have allowed junk food music to get junkier.
But I still wouldn't say computer based recording is making music worse, but rather assisting crappy music in being crappier.
Real artists will always be around and avoiding those pitfalls.
I agree with Alan. I really don't care how my favourite artist records their music. What I want is that when I pay good money to see them live, they sound the same. What is happening far too often now is people who can't sing, or even play instruments for that matter, are being made into million-selling artists because a computer program makes them sound good. Which also results in all the lip-synching we've seen over the last decade, because people like the Backstreet Boys, Britney Spears, Sum 41 (need I go on?) can't really perform in a live environment. On the CD they sound like talented artists, but live, they suck. Now, as a HUGE fan of 54-40, and someone who has seen them live several times, in very small intimate settings, I can tell you they are an excellent example of a band that sounds exactly the same live as they do on CD, and I suspect Alan would agree. When they play live, they are flawless. Their timing is perfect, vocals are perfect, and it sounds like it should. If you see a performer live, and you wonder if it's really the same person/band, that's a problem.
Musicians in a room, a great sounding room playing together feeding off each other, a natural ebb and flow. Dynamics, gradual tempo increases and intense visceral impact. all missing from today's music.
An analog tape machine simply captured the music, it feels as though the computer has only pushed musicians in the wrong direction, it seems to dictate the process. I believe we should treat the computer as we treated the tape machine, capture well rehearsed musicians in a great sounding room.
I do feel the computer is a great device to help the songwriting process, but once the song is ready for the band, let er rip.
Spot on Darren.
Back in the day, I remember watching Skinny Puppy perform Smothered Hope live on stage, and thinking that synthesizers and bench grinders were going to take over the world. My brother, a blues guitarist, argued that what I was listening to wasn't music. Technology doesn't kill music. It's application is what can kill music. Though, for every new technology, or new use, it was followed by a revolution in the other direction. I look at Auto-tune like a distortion pedal. There are a lot of uses for it and can be applied in a wide array of styles of music, but isn't the appropriate tool for all occassions. the real danger is if the next generation will not accept any music that isn't auto-tuned. Someone will eventually decide some completely unheard musical instrument is the cool new thing like – the harmonica, accordion, chinese harp, autoharp, recorder, vibraphone, Broomstick/tub bass. After all, if someone like Eddie Vedder can record an entire album with a Ukulele, there's hope for the future of music.
The next generation already doesn't accept music that wasn't auto-tuned. Have you watched MuchMusic lately? Aside from the fact that it may as well be BET, I have yet to see a single "artist" played on there in months. Everything is fake. The misuse of technology has allowed greedy music producers to take morons off the street because of their look and make them super singing sensations. Take Shawn Desman for example. My brother-in-law went to school with him. Shawn was what we might call a "nerd". He got beat up a lot. He "wasn't cool". Now he's a superstar because a computer can make it seem like he can sing. That's not right. I'm from an older generation, when people like Sarah McLachlan and Tori Amos made pure unadulterated music, and we knew they could write, we knew they could sing, we knew they could play. That was real music. And aside from Eddie Vedders Ukelele Songs, I'm not sure there is any more real music out there.
I'm mostly upset you called "you're the one that I want" hideous.
Ok, I'll admit, that is one of my biggest guilty pleasures. I had such a crush on ONJ.
As far as using auto-tune goes, did anyone watch the MTV awards last night. They were pretty bad. Of special note, was Lil Wayne 'singing'. Even the obvious use of auto-tune couldnt fix that pile of crap.
In the right place, I dont mind the computer usage, but it can't be what is relied upon to make the performance even some what listenable.
I've been a fan of The Clash since I was 13 so I may be a little bias but when I recently heard this stripped down to vocals bit, I felt Joe's authenticity and the passion he had for every lyric like I did the first time I heard London Calling and it gave me chills http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGVe0Yh2UAs. That is what I feel is missing in overprocessed music (beyond the lyrics just being rubbish in a lot of cases).
I believe this clip was made for gaming purpose so I don't know how/if it's been doctored.
I read that Adele 21 was actually recorded with tape. There's a new device called the CLASP that connects the reel to reel tape machine into Pro Tools on a computer so you get the sound of tape combined with the ease of digital editing. They said that it was used on her album so that would mean that they actually did use tape to record it.
Analog adds much more quality to a recording than most people are aware of. People assume that 'it's all about the performance' but actually the sonic quality that the recording medium produces is a big part of whether that performance is captured successfully or not. And digital on it's own does a pretty lousy job. But on the other hand analog tape recordings converted to digital sound amazing so that's what people should use to get the best of both worlds.