I found this link interesting when searching for a more detailed history of the loudness war and theories as to why it happened. Worth the read, as are many of the supporting documents the author references.
https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/59847/Devine-LoudnessWars.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y
Thanks for that article, I'd not seen it before. While I had some knowledge of the early history of recording, this filled in a few details I didn't know. To be honest though, I'm not sure he really addresses the loudness war of the current era and he makes some oversimplifications/inaccuracies. As I implied in a couple of earlier posts, the current loudness war (mid 1990's onwards) isn't so much of a loudness "war" but is as much or even more about being just a consequence of the style of music creation and production which defines some/many of the more recent genres. If you want to see a real loudness "war", rather than just a bit of a squabble behind closed doors, you have to go back to the '70's and '80's. Started arguably by The Who, that was a real war, bands openly bragging purely about loudness, of being louder than other other bands. Motorhead's T-Shirt read; "Everything louder than Everything else" and I remember Lemmy saying something like "We're so fu*king loud that if we moved in next door, your lawn would die." and that was in the mid-70's! Throughout the late '70's and 80's bands like Iron Maiden, Metallica, Megadeath and many others were constantly battling to be the loudest, now that was a proper loudness "war"
@gregorio you're not forced to push on this dialog if you realize it's a waste of your time. but answering to say that it's not worth answering is getting us nowhere.
It was done in the forlorn hope he gains some realisation that mis-quoting or simply making-up false quotes will not be allowed to "just slide" here and therefore, there is no advantage in employing that tactic, only disadvantages: Firstly, it just makes you look foolish when you're "called out" on it and Secondly, if you do actually have a serious question/s, then those who could answer it will be disinclined, as it's probably just going to be mis-quoted or lied about again. As you say though, pointing this out is probably going to get us nowhere as apparently he's gone through this same dance at least a couple of times previously and still doesn't get it:
Once again, as I did on GearSlutz and Steve Hoffman's, I find myself in the minority on the subject of loudness, and the butt of jokes.
That raises two obvious points:
1. What does not only being in the minority but being the "butt of jokes" tell you? And not only in just one forum but now three different forums? Does it tell you that you've got something fundamentally wrong and are so intransigent about your erroneous understanding that you actually become the "butt of jokes"? Or, does it tell you that as you are unquestionably right, then everyone else must be wrong/insane? Clearly, you believe the latter!
2. You've both consistently implied and explicitly stated that you're in the majority, in one thread you stated you represent a 99% majority. You've used that erroneous assertion to insult the industry and those who work in it, for not catering to it's customers' wishes. How did you arrive at that erroneous assertion and how do you continue to maintain it if you "find myself in the minority"?
You know what it is, it's easier to buy a bunch of gear and blather all the time about dither and **** than it is to make a good sounding record, and you don't actually have to have any talent for it.
Clearly you misunderstand much of the basic ethos of popular music. What has making "a good sounding record" got to do with it? In fact, many popular genres came into existence for precisely and deliberately the exact opposite of "sounding good". Probably the most obvious example is Punk Rock, which was SPECIFICALLY a rebellion against the high production value "good sounding" mainstream bands. There were countless thousands of punk rock bands but only a few "made it". How did those few among the thousands "make it", did it not require some sort of talent, even if it wasn't "talent" in the traditional sense? Even before punk rock there was "garage rock", rock which was supposed to sound like a bunch of amateurs in a "garage" instead of professional in a high quality studio and indeed, many later genres also evolved the same way, especially in the 1990's as the cost of buying "a bunch of gear" fell through the floor and an explosion of genres and sub-genres evolved to take advantage of the cheap technology and again, with little or no regard for traditional notions of "good sounding".
So, what exactly are you fighting against? Most/All popular music genres? Just those genres/pieces which do not fulfil your personal/arbitrary notion of "good sounding"? Most music period, going all the way back to Beethoven? Whatever your personal definition is of "good sounding", you're entitled to it but then everyone else is also entitled to their own definition and you do NOT get to dictate to everyone else what is "good sounding"!!
G
