What Happened To Good Vocals & Mixing?

[den]

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

Or maybe it could also be caused by the singers having thin, flat voices?

Now who in the Smashing Pumpins or NIN would have a thin, flat voice? Hmmm...

[Future Proof]

Never has the music industry been so completely liberated from the analog medium and as earlier pointed out, I feel that this may be having a negative impact on sound quality these days. Then again though, and borrowing a cue from the FSOL movie I posted a couple of weeks ago... if all you feel right in doing after making a recording is compressing, EQ'ing and limiting your track into oblivion, completely squeezing the life out of your microdynamics and small intangibles that make a track shimmer and sparkle, then how can you expect to have an end mix that is representative of anything as clear or beautiful that can be found in the real world?

I'll let Trent slide a bit because he did most of the work for Year Zero while on tour and has mentioned in interviews that he started recording while he was on the road and didn't do much to change his modus operandi when the tour commenced, partly because he was really in the zone at that point and partly because it would destroy the album's sonic symmetry. Translation -- I was doing some of my best work in an environment that restricts you from a lot of luxuries. And for that, I let Trent slide a little bit and paid attention to the songwriting and the message and as a whole I really like the album and admire the DIY feel of it.

The Pumpkins however, and let me be forthright in saying that I've heard nothing of the new stuff, have been holed up in a studio for the whole process and if their mix is deficient, they have no one to blame but themselves and their producer. And although I think that regular music listeners will pick up on the difference in sound quality, industry peeps and enthusiasts will probably be the most offended, the whole idea of "You spent how long in a very nice studio and this is the best you could do?"

I don't know. Part of me doesn't even understand the big deal. Take a listen to older recordings, like Robert Johnson's work, or Billie Holiday's work from the first years of her career, or Elvis's recording from the 50's and 60's -- they sound like utter shit today, just like they did back when they were recorded. Most of the stuff was recorded in mono, listened to on archaic soundsystems or 1 speaker AM radios... hell, I even sincerely doubt that for Robert Johnson or Billie Holiday's works that there was even an AKG or Neumann in the studio. And especially for Robert Johnson, a night at a bar in the south that he was playing at sounded infinitely better than the recordings he yielded. But the difference, aside from the final result being more indicative of the status quo of those years, was that I think the listener from those time periods listened based off of the strength of the music, and not how shimmery and wide the mix was.

And then after that, take into consideration the fact that there are bands out there that try to record a shitty lo-fi album. Listen to works from Cat Power, Grandaddy, MBV's Loveless, pretty much all of Sonic Youth's catalog -- those mixes can't hold a candle to the digital bombast of a pop recording or the ethereal, transcendental soundscape of a Nigel Godrich recording. But the music speaks for itself. Loveless will always retain its current status as masterpiece. Dirty and Daydream Nation will always encapsulate everything about the alternative rock scene that Nirvana's Nevermind was never able to tap into. The reality then of the situation is that good music has always and will always reign supreme over everything, and qualities such as crystal-clear recording and flawless mixing will always just continue to be a luxury.

Why did I just rant? I don't know... I guess I've just been considering the arguements over Year Zero and how most of the negative appriasals of the album have been over what has been perceived as a slip in sonic quality from a guy who normally delivers decent recordings. And if that's truely what it is, then that isn't arguement enough for me to competely throw a record out. So even though music taste is subjective, if it's acceptable to view a good record as being one that challenges the listener instead of filling a space with noise, then it should be no surprise that people feel the way they do about Year Zero. I never got into the Beatles and never cared for Sgt. Pepper's... but I respect it as a body of work that contains music that will carry on for a long time, whether I like it or not. My taste is my own but conversely, my opinion isn't the only opinion to consider.