computer made sound music production sounds the same??
Aug 5, 2017 at 7:30 PM Thread Starter Post #1 of 21

Soundsgoodtome

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 19, 2013
Posts
6,883
Likes
1,273
Location
SEATTLE
https://qz.com/1044781/this-music-p...l-new-music-sounds-the-same/?utm_source=atlfb

Ran across this article online and thought it was interesting. Directly goes towards what we strive to pay for in listening on the tiny details that compound into fantastic recordings (concert or studio with live instruments).

This isn't a thread for flaming or bashing, this isn't about artists who use them, but the idea and philosophy of creating music from audio files... Thoughts?
 
Aug 5, 2017 at 7:56 PM Post #3 of 21

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
22,699
Likes
4,532
Location
Hollywood USA
A click track isn't responsible for music that sounds bad or good. It's just a framework. That article is writing about music like dancing about architecture.
 
Aug 6, 2017 at 11:01 AM Post #5 of 21

ev13wt

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Posts
1,030
Likes
139
I can sit here and completely relax or party to completely electronic music.

So no. He just doesn't want to be replaced by a computer, which is understandable.

But all electronic creativity is so endless and diverse, there aren't enough drum kits in the world to match it.
 
Aug 6, 2017 at 2:29 PM Post #7 of 21

Strangelove424

500+ Head-Fier
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Posts
805
Likes
219
Interesting article. I've come around to enjoying european EDM finally, but for the most part I still prefer acoustic music, especially when it is performed live. Each instrument has its own voice, acoustic signature, and that instrument plays differently depending on environment. Some instruments become famous, such as B.B. King's Lucille or Perlman's Strad. With music performed live, they cannot independently sample and mix performances, and all the imperfections and flaws (including the cheers of the audience) become a part of the overall experience. I like that. When you have a talented group of musicians who deliver live performances that can deviate from the recorded album with impromptu jams and solos, including whatever timing imperfections that come with that, it feels more soulful and genuine to me than the perfected string of samples a mixer can compile. Certain genres like jazz are intimately tied to that deviation and imperfection. Regarding the article's last point about social experiences of music, that is one of the reasons I find live music CDs enjoyable too. Some people may get annoyed when they hear the crowd light up or scream things out, but I think it has a way of making the experience more lifelike and less solitary.

I imagine you'll get different responses to this in different subforums. Computer audio or music sub forums would probably express varied opinions on this.
 
Aug 6, 2017 at 4:01 PM Post #8 of 21

pinnahertz

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 11, 2016
Posts
2,072
Likes
737
The article has several rather odd spins to it. The whining drummer whose services don't appear to be "needed", and producers making sweeping all-includive claims that "all music is" this or that, which can't possibly be true. It's sensationalized, and far less than accurate. I'll be the first want to recognize the processing can't be overused to the detriment of quality, but this article goes beyond reality.

Then we have Bob Margouleff, the legendary producer, who doesn't agree the things are that bad. And a "neuroscientist" who talks about the healing quality dead-on beats in music. What a mess.

It's odd that overly precise electronic drum tracks still an issue. There has been "humanizer" software for over 3 decades, and I would assume it's better now than ever.
 
Aug 6, 2017 at 4:24 PM Post #9 of 21

Soundsgoodtome

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Apr 19, 2013
Posts
6,883
Likes
1,273
Location
SEATTLE
@Strangelove424 You've hit the nail on the head, the part about using samples and computer correction leading to adding a sound signature to the tracks vs live recordings is what I wanted to touch base on.

@pinnahertz Unfortunately the article was written by a sensationalist, almost bait click type media, but what can you do about these poorly written sites. The topic of discussion however isn't terrible, it's just all over the place in terms of coverage.

I should also add that I don't know much of music production so the whole humanizer, samples, etc etc are somewhat foreign to me on how it all comes together.
 
Aug 6, 2017 at 4:30 PM Post #10 of 21

pinnahertz

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Mar 11, 2016
Posts
2,072
Likes
737
The "Humanizer " concept originated in the 1980s when it was recognized that drum "machines" and generated or rigidly quantized midi drum tracks were a bit too precise, and human drummers are artistically sloppy with timing, just a tad late or early, depending on needs of expression, and not 100% consistent. The "humanizer " let someone working with a computer based sequencer add a human feel to the drum track.
 
Aug 6, 2017 at 6:38 PM Post #12 of 21

bigshot

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Nov 16, 2004
Posts
22,699
Likes
4,532
Location
Hollywood USA
The thing is, a click track never ends up in the actual music. It's just a guide. In my field (animation) it's used to sync music and action on the screen. Disney used a click track on Steamboat Willie in 1928 and all the timing directors had metronomes on their desks. Choreographers used click tracks in the big musicals of the 30s and 40s to rehearse. They used clicks in the analogue era as a guide for musicians to build their tracks one by one as they recorded all the parts. It isn't a recent thing at all.
 
Aug 7, 2017 at 6:29 AM Post #13 of 21

gregorio

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Posts
4,058
Likes
2,172
Yep, confused, inaccurate and a view with an agenda. Nothing in music is intrinsically good or bad, just subjectively right or wrong in a particular context. EDM and various other genres are not supposed to sound like a live drummer, in many cases no drummer on the planet could physically play the "drum" part of many electronic genres, and that's largely how/why the new electronic genres evolved, they were not limited to what is physically possible for a drummer. It really is nonsense to state that modern technology stifles creativity, the opposite is true. However, that doesn't mean that modern tools cannot be abused, used in poor taste and/or ignorance. But, even that statement is not necessarily clear cut, what constitutes abuse and poor taste for one generation might be the exact opposite for the next generation. In fact, most of music history and evolution (and not just in popular music genres), is based on playing with, bending or changing the boundaries of taste. In classical music it doesn't get more establishment than Beethoven but at the time he was cutting edge and beyond the taste limits of most of the establishment.

The real problem isn't technology, it's the marketplace!

G
 
Aug 7, 2017 at 7:34 AM Post #14 of 21

ev13wt

1000+ Head-Fier
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Posts
1,030
Likes
139
If people "hate" the new sounds kids are playing, everything is working like it should!


I like the Beethoven description. Guy was a cutting edge rebel rock and roller, yea!!!! Who would he be in the other "times"?

Zappa?
Jay-Z?
 
Aug 7, 2017 at 7:59 AM Post #15 of 21

gregorio

Headphoneus Supremus
Joined
Feb 14, 2008
Posts
4,058
Likes
2,172
I like the Beethoven description. Guy was a cutting edge rebel rock and roller, yea!!!! Who would he be in the other "times"?

The list is almost endless, as all music evolution is mostly based on playing with the boundaries of taste. In later times he could have been Debussy, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, John Cage, Stockhausen or numerous others. In popular music it gets more interesting because he could have been say the Beetles or George Martin. From the time of Phil Spectre, the producer becomes usually as important, if not more important than the other artists. Maybe he'd have been a DJ?

G
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top