| reeddr 07.06.2007 18:53 |
Back in the 70's you had bands like Queen, Boston, Rush, etc that put out some very elaborate studio work which I have enjoyed very much. Now here we are in the 21st century and the studio technology has advanced by leaps and bounds, yet the recordings of today are very simple and basic. Why is no one putting together and creating any "Bo-Raps" of today? |
| DavidRFuller 07.06.2007 20:26 |
Most bands these days are a bunch of lazy slags who are uncreative. Music is going in a sad direction..... |
| mhoman00 07.06.2007 20:39 |
I'll say 1 band...THE KILLERS! |
| FriedChicken 07.06.2007 21:05 |
DavidRFuller wrote: Most bands these days are a bunch of lazy slags who are uncreative. Music is going in a sad direction.....Thats just bullshit. There's a lot of great musical production out there, but the studio is used in a different way now. It's not worse or something, it's just different. For example a lot of (good) rap music (like, for example Dr Dre's stuff) is produced really great. Don't forget it's not just a bunch of loops put together to make a song. It's actually choosing a sample, modifying, making new sounds et cetera. It's not fair to say this is uninspired just because you don't like it. |
| DavidRFuller 07.06.2007 22:40 |
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. |
| deleted user 08.06.2007 01:03 |
reeddr wrote: Back in the 70's you had bands like Queen, Boston, Rush, etc that put out some very elaborate studio work which I have enjoyed very much. Now here we are in the 21st century and the studio technology has advanced by leaps and bounds, yet the recordings of today are very simple and basic. Why is no one putting together and creating any "Bo-Raps" of today?Wow, you took the words right out of my mouth! I really wish a current band/artist would realease an album that was made with much effort. |
| LadySonnet 08.06.2007 02:49 |
My personal point of view is that to produce (write music, put text, perform music, edit, record) something valuable, which does not have value only to you but also for other people requires intelligence. Oasis were just a school grades, so is Robbie Williams. I will not comment on rappers because most of them are practically illiterate. Freddie is brilliant because God kissed him on the brow with tallent but it was his sole responsibility to take care of this talent and he undertook it, moreso he undertook it in an intelligent way. That's the bitter truth - mediocrity rules the world nowadays, even within music! |
| Winter Land Man 08.06.2007 04:50 |
reeddr wrote: Back in the 70's you had bands like Queen, Boston, Rush, etc that put out some very elaborate studio work which I have enjoyed very much. Now here we are in the 21st century and the studio technology has advanced by leaps and bounds, yet the recordings of today are very simple and basic. Why is no one putting together and creating any "Bo-Raps" of today?I used to hate My Chemical Romance but their song 'Welcome To The Black Parade' is like a newer Bohemian Rhapsody. Gerard Way even said his influences are Queen. Next thing we know, he'll have a mustache! Really though, I think of Welcome To The Black Parade as The Show Must Go On, Bohemian Rhapsody, and Innuendo all in one |
| coops 08.06.2007 08:23 |
I think a lot of Queens music would have been better without the overproduction. I know it was their trademark, but often it was over done. |
| Cygnus X-1 08.06.2007 08:31 |
Do we really need Studio wizardy? In my opinion, sometimes less is more! Can you imagine QOTSA's "Songs for the Deaf" with a Roy-Thomas Baker like production? Believe it or not, even as a Queen Fan, the producers i like most are people like Kevin Shirley and Chris Goss. Especially Kevin Shirley, who let Led Zeppelin's "How the west was won" sound like it was recorded yesterday. Bonzo's Drums sound like REAL drums, not over-the-top effect loaded like Metallica's black album. To give a band a big sound, tons of effects and so on, is not a big deal. To let them sound like they are playin' in your living room, as natural as possible, that's real wizardy for me :-) |
| FriedChicken 08.06.2007 08:53 |
DavidRFuller wrote: 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.You're ignorant |
| FriedChicken 08.06.2007 08:53 |
I don't see whats so hard about overdubbing 'thunderbold and lighting' 30 times, either. I don't see whats so genius about reversing the tape or using varispeed. |
| reeddr 08.06.2007 11:05 |
I agree that rap, hip-hop and the like takes much less effort in the studio. Most of those genre is loops, samples and other auto-repetitive functions. I know a few in the recording business and they have told me that the ones who run the company love rap and hip hop because it's the least expensive style to produce which gives them the biggest profits. I also know a few older black studio musicians who lament that very few of black artists use real instruments anymore and the only time they get to play is on other genres. One stated "Look at the average hip-hop or R&B cd. You just see credits to 'programming' and like, almost never to folks playing real instruments. We don't have any new bands the likes of Earth Wind & Fire, Prince, etc making any serious dent in the music industry today" |
| DavidRFuller 08.06.2007 11:39 |
Everything takes less effort these days, and it winds up sounding shitty and computerized. Did they have these types of things in the 70's? No. |
| FriedChicken 08.06.2007 11:55 |
I'm sure people in the 70's were also complaining that there wasn't enough brass in popular music. It's the time, everything changes. Move along or stop complaining. |
| Sebastian 08.06.2007 12:14 |
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. |
| Cygnus X-1 08.06.2007 12:42 |
Sebastian wrote: People tend to undervalue everything modern, which is pathetic. Just because modern artists use keyboards it doesn't make them lazy or mediocre.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! |
| olly1988 08.06.2007 13:06 |
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! |
| David Jones 08.06.2007 13:14 |
DavidRFuller wrote: 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.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. |
| The Real Wizard 08.06.2007 13:34 |
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. |
| drwinston 08.06.2007 13:52 |
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. |
| Cygnus X-1 08.06.2007 13:59 |
olly1988 wrote: 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!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!!!!) |
| Boy Thomas Raker 08.06.2007 14:34 |
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. |
| FriedChicken 08.06.2007 16:36 |
I'm glad there are still some smart people here (you know who you are ;)) |
| DavidRFuller 08.06.2007 17:33 |
So what's next then....spoons? C'mon. This is the worst age of music creativity, like it or not. |
| Boy Thomas Raker 08.06.2007 17:59 |
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. |
| David Jones 09.06.2007 07:08 |
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. |
| Sebastian 09.06.2007 08:35 |
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. |
| john bodega 09.06.2007 09:38 |
"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'! |
| teleport8 10.06.2007 05:12 |
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 |
| Sebastian 10.06.2007 07:52 |
> 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 agree. > 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. Actually loads of things they did had proto-ideas. It's so hard to draw "innovations" in any field. Remember John Lennon's original line "there's nothing you can do that can't be done" (and even that could have been said before by somebody else!). |
| kdj2hot 10.06.2007 14:16 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote:You just mentioned Dr. Dre cause he's gone on record as saying he was heavily influenced by Queen. The Chronic was the best album of the 90's period...did I just diss Innuendo? Because I think that's very good as well. I hope Innuendo doesnt do a drive by on me for that diss but the Chronic is really good.DavidRFuller wrote: Most bands these days are a bunch of lazy slags who are uncreative. Music is going in a sad direction.....Thats just bullshit. There's a lot of great musical production out there, but the studio is used in a different way now. It's not worse or something, it's just different. For example a lot of (good) rap music (like, for example Dr Dre's stuff) is produced really great. Don't forget it's not just a bunch of loops put together to make a song. It's actually choosing a sample, modifying, making new sounds et cetera. It's not fair to say this is uninspired just because you don't like it. |
| kdj2hot 10.06.2007 14:21 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote:He's not ignorant, he's right. The thing is a lot of musicians just dont get it. It takes a lot less talent and a lot more luck in breaking through now days. Back then in the late 60's - 70's you almost had to be a virtuoso at something to get over but thats not the case today. A band like Grand Funk Railroad today wouldnt be known as overrated pop rock for the masses, they actually would be the most talented band out there. Anyway to give a bumper sticker, now - less talent more luck - then it was reversed more talent and a little bit of luck was required to get over but you had to be talented and know your instrument and have a vision. I think it comes with everything being fairly new then and no one (record execs) really knew anything so they listened to their ers more, now they go on whats worked in the pass and whats working now and that has hurt the industry. Music is not as good as it was in the past, thats a fact.DavidRFuller wrote: 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.You're ignorant |
| FriedChicken 10.06.2007 19:53 |
I didn't know Dre was influenced by Queen |
| FriedChicken 10.06.2007 19:55 |
Cygnus X-1 wrote:Indeed!Sebastian wrote: People tend to undervalue everything modern, which is pathetic. Just because modern artists use keyboards it doesn't make them lazy or mediocre.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! And people also did looping, cutting and pasting in the 60's Brian Wilson did a lot of stuff with cutting and pasting, especially stuff like Good Vibrations (you can still hear the cuts!) and The Beatles used looping. Queen also used cut/paste (although it wasn't a key command back in the day, but still..) and looping. |
| Dan C. 10.06.2007 21:03 |
DavidRFuller wrote: So what's next then....spoons? C'mon. This is the worst age of music creativity, like it or not.At the forefront of the most mainstream of mainstream pop, probably so. However, there are lots of great and creative musicians/bands under the radar. You may have to dig a little deeper these days, but great music is still out there. :) Also, I saw a video of a guy playing slide guitar with a spoon. It was impressive. ;) |
| john bodega 11.06.2007 10:23 |
"Back then in the late 60's - 70's you almost had to be a virtuoso at something to get over but thats not the case today." Nonsense. Mediocrity has always been marketable. Sex Pistols, Rolling Stones, U2. No virtuosos in there. |
| Sebastian 11.06.2007 10:48 |
Even Beatles were far from being virtuosos in their early days. I love their first-period tracks, but it doesn't change the fact they were quite rudimentary ... Paul even made some bad mistakes on such easy recordings, mind you! They improved loads in their ability as instrumentalists, still they were (and are, in the case of Paul and Rich) far from being "almost virtuosos". About U2, Stones and Pistols - couldn't agree more! |
| g2000 11.06.2007 11:34 |
i dont thinks its about wizardry, or being a virtuoso, its about having the smarts to connect with the audience. we will rock you, another one bites the dust, yesterday or imagine for example are some of the biggest hits of our time. memorable and fantastic tunes that will be played 100yrs from now, but yet quite simple. as an aside i also consider bb king, john lee hooker just as virtuoso as anybody. whats the criteria?? |
| Sebastian 12.06.2007 08:23 |
'Yesterday' isn't THAT simple, even though it's quite easy to play. But on compositional levels it's got some unusual details: prime-numebered phrasing in the verse, bridge starting off on the "vii" function, plus George Martin's string arrangement goes far beyond what 99% of rock musicians can enable. |
| FriedChicken 12.06.2007 08:50 |
Also how do you define good music. It's in the eye of the beholder.. Or in the ear, for that matter. Someone may find a song good when it connects to the audience (like someone said a couple of posts above me). Another person may find a song good when it has difficult shredding guitar. Another person may find a song good when the artist is able to immitate the Queen sound. :P There's no such thing as a "good" song. Is a complex song without any feel better then a simple song with 3 or 4 chords which puts the feeling across just perfectly (like Nirvana's Polly for example). I have more respect for someone who can make a 3 or 4 chord song which augments the lyrics and puts the feeling across then for someone who makes a song that modulates 6 times and uses strange chords just for the sake of being complex |
| Boy Thomas Raker 12.06.2007 09:00 |
FriedChicken<br><font size=1>The Almighty</font> wrote: I have more respect for someone who can make a 3 or 4 chord song which augments the lyrics and puts the feeling across then for someone who makes a song that modulates 6 times and uses strange chords just for the sake of being complexThat's why I think Freddie was one of the great writers of rock music. While he could do complex a la Bohemian Rhapsody, he could do a four chord, major key song like CLTCL and have it accepted just as easily as his complex pieces. I've always thought Freddie in particular got short shrift from critics re: his compositional skills. Whereas guys like Elvis Costello get tagged as geniuses, and try to prove it, Freddie wrote what he wanted and didn't try to prove his brilliance. |
| Sebastian 12.06.2007 09:04 |
And then again, prejudices affect a large part of the public: a song like Backstreet Boys' 'Incomplete' would be worshipped here if it'd been a Queen one; otoh if a post-79 act did 'Somebody To Love', that'd simply be regarded as mediocre. Not everybody's *that* narrow-minded, but sadly most of listeners fall into that category. |
| FriedChicken 12.06.2007 10:57 |
I also don't understand why it is so hard to admit that most people in the music industry today are talented people. |
| Sebastian 12.06.2007 11:19 |
And why they don't understand that even the most beloved artists did mediocre things as well. |
| reeddr 12.06.2007 18:58 |
When I started this thread, I was not suggesting that the music of today is bad or inferior. I like a lot of the music of today. And I don't know wnyone who thinks 1979 was the end of good music. In fact a lot of crap was made in the 70's. It just seems an overwhelming amount of the current stuff is very basic, which is not necessarily bad. Franz Ferdinand and the like have some very interesting tunes. |