My take is that if bands like The Beatles had today's technology, they'd use it - back then they were using cutting edge technology, primitive by today's standards, but they used it to it's fullest potential.

We use the tools we have - though I'm not a fan of auto-tune, though melodyne is pretty cool when used properly (Arve is a master with melodyne) - I do tend to sing every part, mostly cuz I really like to sing.

When I record, I do think "can I pull this off live?" - for the most part, I think I accomplish that with my stuff.....

Of all the LIVE shows I've seen, where one might wonder "is it real or is it Memorex?", the 2 that will always stand out for me are The Scorpions and Def Leppard, both of which I saw early in their careers and I must say - they really could do it live!

But it's as you stated, "no amount of processing can make a lousy song a good song"

I'm often amazed when I play some of my old records of bands like the Beatles and others at just how great they sound, knowing what technology they had to work with!

what is an intruiging idea for me is that of a bluesman for instance sitting in a room and pressing record in the 1930's and then someone 80 years later pressing play on their tape machine and listening to that..a kind of link is made when the person presses play..its almost an analog of a time-machine..
i would have to say ideally the perfect recording maybe one where recrod is never pressed...i know that sounds perhaps idealistic or a bit out there, but i think as soon as you consciously frame or capture a perfomance..could it be said that you will never get it in the most natural way...is there red light anxiety that creeps in?
is existence itself the best tape recorder?...there must be a lot of great things never captured in the studio..
a step down from this..ironically i would say the best is where mistakes are captured too..maybe like some of the stones 60's stuff..this gives the human element IMO..the soul. and maybe where you are hearing the artist killing it...they are making a discovery live as you hear it.

Very true Ben... perfection can actually be a flaw. If music degenerates to file type, engineering, and endless retakes, then it quickly becomes lifeless. A perfect recording is one that impacts a listener

Great topic. It's easy to go on and on about what's good and bad about digital. Tape Ops would probably always appreciate the ease of editing now. Producers can't complain too much about the time saved by creating 'in the box'. I believe the quality of digital production and the amount of quality emulation (Fairchild 670s, Studer tape decks, API and SSL consoles, etc) is slowly leading back to the traditional sound and recording methods... all that was good with little of the inconvenience. That's a good thing. No one would want the cost and maintenance of actually owning a Studer, but you can with a few hundred bucks and a plug-in. Harsh critics agree, emulation has gotten insanely great. Now there is the ability to sound organic in the digital world. I'm all about that approach.

@Mike - "perfection can actually be a flaw". Well put, I think. I strive for that "perfection" whenever I comp a vocal track. Get 8-10 takes of every part of the song, and then use audio editor to compile the "perfect" vocal track...a performance that never actually happened. Is that a good thing? I wonder some times.

On the other hand, you want to present the song in the best possible light, too, so there is a tension here between those two objectives.

Good comments all around so far. Keep it going!

"what have we lost and what have we gained in applying all these technologies to produce recordings that are, in a sense, not reproductions of anything that ever took place live?"

Recordings and live performance are two different beasts. Watching a sunrise is not the same as taking a picture of a sunrise, which isn't the same as looking at a photo of the sunrise.

Music recordings serve different purposes. Some recordings attempt to document an event, like a live concert recording (an aside - how many of them dub in applause or overdub parts?). Some recordings attempt to document musicians performing at their peak ability as they create their art. Some recordings are merely documents of artistic expression that has less to do with the performance and more to do with the end result.

For example, if I create a recording wherein I use samples, create sequences, use arpeggiators, put everything on the grid, and process the hell out of everything into something that is practically the antithesis of a John Lomax field recording, does that make it any less of an artistic expression? You might not like it, but it would still be my personal artistic expression. I did the work and it reflects who/what I am and what I feel at that time. It really depends on what you are trying to achieve.

"Have we gone too far and created a standard that no one can live up to?"

That may also depend on what you are trying to achieve. If the recording is supposed to reflect the actual abilities of the musicians and what they can replicate in a live scenario, then it should have no edits, no auto-tune, no overdubs, and no other enhancements. Kompoz isn't a band...yet. Kompoz creates songs. Kompozers work together to make songs the best they can be. Kompozers have various methods, skill levels, and philosophies regarding how this should be achieved. It is all very subjective.

"What ought the standard of 'good' or 'great' be when it comes to the audio quality of a recording and who ought to set that standard?"

In regards to this in a Kompoz sense, it comes down to the project owner and what they want to achieve. If they expect everything on the grid, using 24-bit or higher resolution files, then so be it. A song is a personal thing, and we should serve the song, and above that, we should try to help the Kompozer achieve their desired results. If they cut us loose, then we may feel free to express ourselves however we see fit...whatever that may be. In the end, don't expect me to like auto-tune and I won't expect you to like my junky drum kit recorded with crappy gear. ;-)

Rick i'm not sure i would agree with what you are saying about emulation being the best digital has to offer.. i think its a dangerous route for a new technology to seek to emulate something older it can waste the impetus of the technology
...the two , analogue and digital can never meet imo..how about developing the technology along its line of least resistance..ie for it to stand up and revel in its own character?
The beatles Revolver album is hailed as being exceptional because not only were new techniques used, but there was little clue as to the fact they had been used..this synergy is key i think; ie for the artist's and engineer's intent to be woven totally within the song.. for the song Tomorrow Never Knows, they had tape loops all around the studio and running in different studios concurrently..the studio technology was considered "outdated" so they were pushing it to its limits..this is interesting...what would you have to do to push the limits with the technology we have now?...i think ingenuity also should come into a good recording.

I comp vocal tracks too, and love the ease, power, and accessability of todays digital recording... so my perfection rant is quite a bit hypocritical. Striving for quality is not a crime, but that quest for "perfection" seems at times to be sucking the soul right out of music

I should add that I consider drum sticks, synthesizers, compressors, and auto tune colors on the musical palette. I like some "colors" more than others. Music evolves just like everything else. While I see some value in studying tradition, I am not a traditionalist and consider it to be somewhat short-sighted when limiting yourself. I also agree with Mike in regards to the quest for "perfection." There is no such thing, but there is quality to be achieved. The "soul" (human element) of music is reflected in song when the song reveals the human behind it. That doesn't require anything beyond the touch of humanity. Even the most extreme forms of electronic music reflect the "soul" of the artist.

If you compare an old Al Green recording to a modern Skrillex dubstep tune and declare Al Green the winner, it reflects more about your personal taste than anything to do with the "soul" behind the music. In the old Al Green recordings, you may hear audio technology limitations of the time period, human performance errors, and possibly production errors...and if playing it on an old LP, you may hear clicks, ticks, pops, rumble, flutter, wow, and other audio anomalies. On the Skrillex recording, you may hear loops, samples, sequences, computer programming, high levels of compression, auto tune, and myriad other technological oddities of our current time period...and if you play this MP3 on your iPod piped through your car stereo, you may hear mp3 encoding anomalies, absurd levels of bass frequencies, and possibly the rattle of your rear quarter panels or trunk lid. :D

I like a few tunes by both artists and find something enjoyable about the art they create. Just because it is "the old way" does not mean it is the only way or always the right way, and just because it may deploy pioneering (new) technology or methods will not ensure that it is going to be something of quality. Both will be a reflection of the artistic expression of the musician and the times in which the person lives (or lived). What more should it be?

I hope as a Music consument there will never be a standard when it gets about sound ! What when this standard will not fit my individual taste or the individual taste of my neighbour( that i like ) ?
I like analog recordings and i like digital recordings ! It s not the gear -it s the ear of the individual listener and the individual taste of this person !

My half Euro Cent :-)

What is a "perfect" recording?
Same as what's a "perfect" meal... a "perfect" painting.. a "perfect".. whatever. You see my point. There is no "perfect", unless you can quantify what you mean by it. Even then it would only be "perfect" for you. Such is the world of subjective discrimination.
I'm not being cranky, it's just that perfection in the realm of aesthetics is like a greased piglet.... without the squealin'.

Am I the only one who heard "Dueling Banjos" after reading Billy's comment? :)

Billy, that sums it all up "perfectly".

@Kevin - "I should add that I consider drum sticks, synthesizers, compressors, and auto tune colors on the musical palette. I like some "colors" more than others."

Well said, and I agree. I look at all the technological tools at my fingertips as instruments with which I can create music, along with all the acoustic instruments I have, and my synths and so forth. In a sense, I think, creating a song in the digital world is learning how to "play" the various apps, programs and plugins one uses to create the song. At least, that's how I see it.

@Billy - yeah, I know, using the word "perfect" comes with its own problems, but I chose it to tie it back to Edison's idea of capturing the "perfect" performance. That was his ideal, anyway. So I use it in that sense here. Still, there are some things to consider in tying a performance in the real world with the recording of it in the digital world, and that's kinda what I'm driving at in this discussion.

We all know there are some recording artists out there you wouldn't pay $2.00 to hear sing in your own living room acapella, but who still have millions of adoring fans buying up their recordings, which, thanks to magic of digital audio processing, makes them sound good. And then there are those who could sing the phone book and you'd pay to listen to it! Hence my question, what have lost and what have gained through all this digital technology.

I like the analogy of looking at a picture of a sunset not being the same as looking at the sunset for real. And in that "real" sense, live music is arguably the acid test when it comes to listening to "crafted" music made by talented musicians and vocalists. As great as the technology we have at our disposal is, it's far easier than it's ever been to create a lot of great sounding mediocre music. In the current saturated music business, it's so difficult to be different - but separating the real talent from the bubblegum music isn't so hard if we're being honest and that's simply because so many act's can't do it live - and they dissapear into obscurity. It's a weird marketplace too where music is being sold on the back of image. The music doesn't have to be all that good - but if the wrapper is good looking, it will be exploited. Technology makes this all possible - and for everyone with a DAW, the possibilities are huge. Emulating the best analog gear has become so good that the best ears in the business admit they can't tell the difference now. Admittedly, this tends to be more the case with the high-end plugins, but that being said, we have the luxury of so many analog emulations to choose from that we'd be fools not to use our virtual Studer A800's. If you have the real thing, great - but we in distance collaboration just can't afford to have racks and racks of high-end analog gear - so we've lost nothing and gained everything.

I like to think of those earlier recording periods as a great age of innocense and discovery and that's what seems to draw me in. Those earlier periods were enjoyed and created by a few however modern technology is spreading that joy and discovery to many more so we haven't lost just changed and spanned out with more options. Whether it be raw sounding blues recorded in a hotel room 77 years ago or some modern production or youtube video if it speaks to me then that's all that matters, how it's achieved is irrelavant. The past is captured for us to enjoy in the future so for me I just do that but as one who often looks back I understand lamenting a time you hold dear.

@Rab I think you said it well, it's never been easier to make great sounding mediocre music. I also agree we should have no qualms about using the analog emulations that are abundantly available. And it IS a weird marketplace, where image seemingly trumps talent.

@Andrew - your point is well taken. In the end the music does have to connect with the audience..regardless of how it was produced. Perhaps that is the standard for what is good...does it connect?

It seems there are two discussions going on here? I see two distinct types of "processing" done in music. One is what I would call "sound quality processing", which I believe is what Rick is talking about, i.e. take a recording and massage what's recorded without changing it to get the preferred sonic output. The other I would call "manipulation", which is to use a plugin/hardware device to create vocal harmonies, to auto-tune, to snap to grid etc. Overdubs fall somewhere in between maybe.

Having tried to sort that out in my head, my absolute preference for a "perfect recording" is something that captures a moment of emotion and I couldn't care less about fluctuating tempo, slightly (only slightly and not all the time) out-of-tune stuff etc. My belief is that if you want to touch your listener, you have to have an emotion to start with, and the trick is to capture that.

With the ease of editing in the modern DAWs and the low cost of stuff, I am as guilty as anyone else of copying parts of a song to another section etc, so I should of course not cast any plectrums :).

However, my absolutely best stuff is done when I play something very emotional and just by accident happened to record it. I always make sure that my stuff is playable live, and I love recordings of a real live performance. I love when a singer sings the whole song through instead of singing one verse at a time. Drummers, of course, are my favorites, since they (I think) always play the whole thing through and that is a real performance. I am a great fan of first takes and I do not like retakes that strive for perfection since they usually suck the life out of my performance.

So, the perfect recording - to me - is the one that can convey the original feelings behind the performance. Not an easy task, I tell ya :)

Great discussion!

Rock On

B

To follow up Bjorn's line of thinking, this is exactly why some (not all) of the "best" music (and best lyrics) are born from the personal experience of the musician.

This is a good discussion Donnie. An interesting question.

For me a perfect recording is something that can stand the test of time. I've heard 80's songs that I can't believe sound so good with dated instrument sounds. 90's songs that hit right on the mark with bad guitar tones. And current stuff comes in all different shapes. Over compressed vocal, auto-tuned to sh%t. I sometimes like stuff that does all the things I would never do in my studio because it just works somehow.

If you put a song on and it appeals to your ear after hearing it many times its a good recording and more then likely a really good song no matter how it was recorded.

and the grand prize goes to Bjorn for his use of the word 'plectrum' in a sentence...

I had to say that, Alan - the bastard - has copyrighted "pick"

Watch the Bruce Springsteen doc on the making of DOTEOT - one of the greatest albums of all time (in my humble opinion) Here is a great live band and fantastic lyricist using take after take after take after take to perfect the sound for the album. Perfection can be attained in may different ways, live, raw, processed, simple, in-tune, auto-tune etc... I agree with Derek "If you put a song on and it appeals to your ear after hearing it many times its a good recording and more then likely a really good song no matter how it was recorded".

Lots of good thoughts and good discussion. I still think the old adage "if it sounds good it is good" still applies.

Mid last century, what was classed as the ideal shape for a women's body was to have an hourglass figure. I think it was a trend and looking back today I think women of this time looked beautiful. If a women with this figure tried to break into the modelling biz today, I think its fair to say she might not make it. Well certainly not at the top of the game. The fashion industry would have us believe beauty verges on anorexia. This is what is sold/portrayed by the industry/movies/magazines/shops/gyms etc. but this doesn't sit right with me. Im not trying to define what the ideal shape for a women is ( how dare I ), it was the only analogy that came to mind when thinking of what has come to be the ideal recording.

Im no pro but I can say I have alot of experience 'listening' to music. Cd's, LP's and 78's. I think mixing and production moves in trends. I think this is not purely based on technology of the day either. My KEF Cadenza's that where made in the early 70's reproduce bass just as good as most mid priced speakers of today. If I listen to say Madonna's Frozen, you feel it. I was listening to Harvest yesterday and was thinking how different the kick would sound if that album was made today, probably with alot more punch and bass presence in the kick.

I instinctively go to my vinyl collection whenever I want to listen to The Wall, Dire Straights or The Beatles. Its not nostalgic, these recordings just sound better to me compared to the cd recordings of these albums. Its just my opinion. We all have different ears, I wonder if we hear differently. Im not debating cd verse LP, Im talking about sound to my ears which I think is on topic. Where albums mixed/mastered differently back then to compensate for the transients of vinyl? I don't know and its something I need to explore further.

Something happened to some of the metal recordings in the early nineties. Metallica went for a million dollar sound and sucked the life out of And Justice For All. The album had great songs on it, just didnt like the sound. Reign in Blood was awesome production wise but the music was great too. Something was definitely changing with the 'sound' of metal albums, just my opinion.

Then there is the magic. This I find most desirable in a recording. Jimi Hendrix - Voodoo Chile as found on Electric Ladyland blows my mind but Buddy Rich - Jumpin at the Woodside (live 1956) is probably my favorite recording, you cant wipe the smile off my face. These wouldn't be deemed perfectly engineered/mixed and mastered recordings by today standards. I think I can hear an obvious cut and paste in the master mix for Voodoo Chille but I don't know for certain. I know nothing about the actual recording. This doesn't hinder or impact negatively on my listening experience whenever I hear the song, its just an intriguing observation.

So there is alot to consider in your original post, I hope ive stayed on topic.