Sonic-Core & Kickstarter

[tlaskows]

I love the Beatles. I have some vinyl of them that has stuff you will not find anywhere on the web. Bought it brand new about 15 years ago. 3 LPs. Printed by Apple or someone like that. I thought MJ had all the rights to The Beatles music.

I also paid for some Beatles music on iTunes. But I only buy/pay for stuff I like.

I had the plans to get the white album in white, but i'm not sure where those plans have gone. Won't be cheap. Probably not their best work, but pretty good still.

I have heard people say that The Beatles use the same chords in every song. I tell them to go away

-Tom

[w_ellis]

Beatles geek bible: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0099526794

[tlaskows]

Very nice very nice, but that's almost 600 pages worth of reading! What do I need to know about The Beatles that I already don't know??



-Tom

[Sounddesigner]

I believe autotune came out in 1997. So yeah, it ruined the music around 2000

-Tom

The start of the horrible sound quality of music we hear today did start at the end of the 90's but when rounded-off it's 2000's. The problem started at the end of the 90's but was more widespread in the 2000's. The soundquality problem is from ITB itself wich not only includes Autotune but also plugin compressors, eq's, reverbs, etc. Cher started the abusing of Autotune with her song 'Believe (in life after love)' in 1998 (wich was a pretty good sounding song, but all the copy-cats afterwards tend to sound tiring and horrible).

Protools is what really launched ITB music and it had many Native developers creating plugins for its dsp platform such as Waves, Antares, etc. Actually Autotune was one of the big selling points for Protools dsp platform. In late 1997 around September Protools became 24bit and allowed for 48 tracks, at that point the industry migrated to it and made it the Standard. The first number 1 hit from Protools didn't come until 1999 and I don't think the decline in sound-quality of music fully took place until when the 2000's came. As computers got more powerfull in the 2000's you had even more people turning to working ITB, especially since some didn't need the expensive Protools dsp cause Native computers were finally somewhat sufficient and getting more powerfull and you had UAD, etc emerging (the first uad plugins were better than Native BUT still sounded horrible). Cheap sounding ITB plugins have lead to the degradation of Music's sound-quality and those plugins were Native, Protools, UAD, etc. But IMO today's music's degradation goes beyond sonic quality, meaning lyrics and melodies, etc written are just not as potent as they use to be due to money, culture, and other changes in society. Also the Native platform made it possible for thousands of amateur developers to create and sell their own plugins, and thousands of Musicians and Singers who didn't have a trained ear and who knew nothing about Audio Engineering decided to have their own Studio since that was cheaper than going to the Pro's, well, amateur developers and amateur Engineers have their contributions to horrible sounding music and computers made the world of amateurs possible . Below is a quote from Wikipedia regarding Protools.

" In 1997 Pro Tools reached 24 bit, 48 tracks. It was at this point that the migration from more conventional studio technology to the Pro Tools platform took place within the industry.[7]
Ricky Martin’s "Livin la Vida Loca" (1999) was the first No. 1 single to be recorded, edited, and mixed fully within the Pro Tools environment, achieved by Charles Dye and Desmond Child.[8]". This quote is from Wikipedia here at the History section of the article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_Tools#History

PS. Computer-music-production is a beautifull thing and truly revolutionary and it only gets better as time passes, BUT it has been one of the main reasons Modern music just don't generally sound as good as music from 70's/80's/90's/etc. Even today after all the improvements ITB has gotten over the years one still needs to be very carefull wich plugins they choose. IMV the problem became widespread once the 2000's came and continues today.


EDITED

[garyb]

the worst aspect of this is the idea that if something doesn't sound the way you would like, just add another plugin. it's not just "be careful of what plugins you use", it's also "do you really need to use another(or any) plugin?".

i was just joking with a friend who is also an engineer the other day about how until the early 80s, almost no mixing desk had more than 2 auxs and a foldback bus...

[Sounddesigner]

I agree 100%. When it comes to plugins many modern Engineers tend to think more is better. They use more plugins in their projects for every inadequacy noticed and are constantly buying more plugins for their arsenals/collections. Often the plugins are the root of the problems that some are trying to solve with more plugins . And as computers got more powerfull even more plugins are used.

[braincell]

I strive to make the sound perfect to begin with, then I do not need EQ and compression. I usually use no more than 2 reverbs.

[tlaskows]

Yes, I listened to Gary's advice and downsized

I don't need no 20 different EQs, just 1 good one

-Tom

[braincell]

Yes, I listened to Gary's advice and downsized

I don't need no 20 different EQs, just 1 good one

-Tom

True, I have the Waves RS56 I use on occasion. It's the best one I have used in terms of the tone of it.

[Bud Weiser]

Yes, I listened to Gary's advice and downsized

I don't need no 20 different EQs, just 1 good one

-Tom

Back in the days when we worked w/ analog consoles and tape and there was no post editing existing, there was the rule "the best EQ is a bypassed one".
Everyone tried to get the source signal to be as perfect as possible and before it arrived on the console to be printed on tape.
Most mics, channels, EQs, compressors, gates and TRACKS were for the drums.
Assortment of mics for everything was good in pro studios always.
When a singer came, they started finding the right mic for his voice 1st before thinking about EQ, same ruled for acc. guitars, guitar amps, brass and reed instruments and so on.
Bass went DI and amp miced, w/ the right mic by nature.
Keyboards DI and/ or amped/miced ...
In most cases only minimal corrections had to be done w/ help of EQ.
For some stuff even compressors were avoided to keep the original dynamics.

Today in DAW times, most engineers cannot mic and record real drums anymore or mic and record a leslie.

I remember we recorded an albums´s basic tracks in one day and had 1 or 2 days for some overdubs and vocals, then all was mixed the next 2 or 3 days.
A complete album was ready in about a week.

Bud

[zerocrossing]

I believe autotune came out in 1997. So yeah, it ruined the music around 2000

-Tom

The start of the horrible sound quality of music we hear today did start at the end of the 90's but when rounded-off it's 2000's. The problem started at the end of the 90's but was more widespread in the 2000's. The soundquality problem is from ITB itself wich not only includes Autotune but also plugin compressors, eq's, reverbs, etc. Cher started the abusing of Autotune with her song 'Believe (in life after love)' in 1998 (wich was a pretty good sounding song, but all the copy-cats afterwards tend to sound tiring and horrible).

Protools is what really launched ITB music and it had many Native developers creating plugins for its dsp platform such as Waves, Antares, etc. Actually Autotune was one of the big selling points for Protools dsp platform. In late 1997 around September Protools became 24bit and allowed for 48 tracks, at that point the industry migrated to it and made it the Standard. The first number 1 hit from Protools didn't come until 1999 and I don't think the decline in sound-quality of music fully took place until when the 2000's came. As computers got more powerfull in the 2000's you had even more people turning to working ITB, especially since some didn't need the expensive Protools dsp cause Native computers were finally somewhat sufficient and getting more powerfull and you had UAD, etc emerging (the first uad plugins were better than Native BUT still sounded horrible). Cheap sounding ITB plugins have lead to the degradation of Music's sound-quality and those plugins were Native, Protools, UAD, etc. But IMO today's music's degradation goes beyond sonic quality, meaning lyrics and melodies, etc written are just not as potent as they use to be due to money, culture, and other changes in society. Also the Native platform made it possible for thousands of amateur developers to create and sell their own plugins, and thousands of Musicians and Singers who didn't have a trained ear and who knew nothing about Audio Engineering decided to have their own Studio since that was cheaper than going to the Pro's, well, amateur developers and amateur Engineers have their contributions to horrible sounding music and computers made the world of amateurs possible . Below is a quote from Wikipedia regarding Protools.

" In 1997 Pro Tools reached 24 bit, 48 tracks. It was at this point that the migration from more conventional studio technology to the Pro Tools platform took place within the industry.[7]
Ricky Martin’s "Livin la Vida Loca" (1999) was the first No. 1 single to be recorded, edited, and mixed fully within the Pro Tools environment, achieved by Charles Dye and Desmond Child.[8]". This quote is from Wikipedia here at the History section of the article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_Tools#History

PS. Computer-music-production is a beautifull thing and truly revolutionary and it only gets better as time passes, BUT it has been one of the main reasons Modern music just don't generally sound as good as music from 70's/80's/90's/etc. Even today after all the improvements ITB has gotten over the years one still needs to be very carefull wich plugins they choose. IMV the problem became widespread once the 2000's came and continues today.


EDITED

I hate to say it, but you sound like an old man sitting on the porch yelling at kids when their ball goes on his lawn. Don't worry, I'm that guy too, but well I don't have a lawn... er, at least a front lawn... but I digress. Let's just say I'm old enough to have been around the block a few times and I can assure you that bad sounding music has been around for a very long time. So has bad music. I remember being a kid and finding a radio program called "Twenty Years Ago Today" where they just played the top 20 from twenty years ago. I was all excited to hear all the cool rock and roll... and the number one tune was "How Much Is That Doggy In The Window." Junk music has been around for... well a lot longer than computer music production.

And audio quality, that's been a mixed bag as well, especially for pop music. I've heard a lot of crap sounding recordings done on tape. One of those was done by my band. It was the 80s and our lead guitar player lived next to a guy who was an engineer at Vanguard Studios in NYC. Somehow he owed our guitarist a favor so that favor was an overnight recording session. I'd never been in a studio before but I remember listening to the scratch track and thinking, "Oh yeah, it's done." To me it sounded great. The engineer then had us do the popular 80s trick of replacing each instrument with a separate isolated track. The end result had none of the vibrancy of the scratch track. In another session that I couldn't attend he further screwed it up by adding all sorts of gated reverb and other 80s style production elements to it. We wanted a raw early Who style sound and we got that horrible dead 80s pop sound instead. That event actually led me to later attend IAR in NYC to learn studio production and I even did a stint working for Laurie Anderson at some point.

Overall though, you're right about the fact that computers have led to the hobbiest being able to engineer and produce their own music, and that's led to a lot of crappy sounding amateur recordings. While "cheap plug ins" could be called out in the early 00s, it would be unfair to site them as a problem today. Badly used plug ins... yes, but there are a lot of great sounding native plug ins these days. There are artists like Imogen Heap that record totally ITB that have great sounding records. I've sold heaps of hardware synthesizers that plain and simply did not sound as good as their hardware counterparts including a Virus C and Snow, Wavestation, Ion, XV-5050, etc. Now, you can site "character" as a reason for having any of those instruments, but in terms of pure sound quality all those instruments have been solidly trounced by "cheap plug in instruments." I spent a lot of time a/b'n Minimax to Diva and Monark last week and let me tell you, Minimax still sounds fantastic, but Diva and Monark are right up there in terms of quality.

Anyway, are there bad sounding plug ins? Yeah, but I think attributing the decline of music quality to them is unfair. It's like saying the cheap Fender Stratocaster is responsible for the inferior rock music that came after it became popular. What we really just here now days is that there are no longer "gate keepers" holding all the cool recording gear hostage. I think that although it's letting amateurs flood the world with crap, it's also letting talented musicans do great recordings that might not be commercially viable.

[braincell]

There are no longer "gate keepers" holding all the cool recording gear hostage. I think that although it's letting amateurs flood the world with crap, it's also letting talented musicans do great recordings that might not be commercially viable.

True, and this is horrible for any musician trying to earn a living. On the other hand, it is great for listeners and ultimately they are more important.

Musicians love to blame labels and streaming services for a low income but it is the musicians who are at fault for creating too much music.

[garyb]

sorry, but that argument about the democratization of music production is easy to make, it's a popular story on the internet, but for the most part, it's just not true. independents have always been able to put a system together, even before computers, i have been one of them. great music is only made by those who know what they are doing and why.

it's like the million monkeys typing madly will eventually produce War and Peace, monkeys still will produce gibberish no matter how many of them you put on the job.

also, if it's not commercially viable, it's crap. music is only valuable when people want it, and that's because it does something for those who want it. there is an audience for everything. there is an audience for every style. every possible form of music is commercially viable if it does something for the listener.

as to audio quality, there isn't anything of practical use in a computer that sounds better than it's discreet relative. nothing. that doesn't mean that you can't make insanely good sounding music ITB and it doesn't mean that you can't make horrible sounding audio with hardware. as i said above, superlative quality is made by those who know what they are doing.

don't think that this means that i am saying that hobbyists are dooky and should be eliminated either. everyone begins as a hobbyist or enthusiast. life is for living. there's nothing wrong with hobbyists doing things strictly for their own pleasure. it's just the stupidest thing in the world for the music business to cater to hobbyists first and foremost. hobbyists should be inspired by pros, not vice-versa. imagine if the medical business or home building business or plumbing business or airline business catered to hobbyists FIRST. naturally, if a hobbyist comes up with something great, the pros should learn from that, too.

also, with so many computer-oriented people on this forum, this statement can be misinterpreted, but the idea is to use computers to make the job easier and cheaper, but audio is NOT about computers or hardware. it gets pretty old watching every be pulled around by their pubic hairs just to please the computer industry's need to sell something new every few months. computers are for us, as a tool, not vice-versa.

[zerocrossing]

sorry, but that argument about the democratization of music production is easy to make, it's a popular story on the internet, but for the most part, it's just not true. independents have always been able to put a system together, even before computers, i have been one of them. great music is only made by those who know what they are doing and why.

it's like the million monkeys typing madly will eventually produce War and Peace, monkeys still will produce gibberish no matter how many of them you put on the job.

also, if it's not commercially viable, it's crap.

Hm, I've known some bands that were amazing that could never quite make it. One of my friends was in a band called Jaws. They were heavy prof rock, King Crimson like and every bit as talented. They did well in our little college town but when they ventured out to San Francisco they failed hard. I often wonder how they would have done if there was an internet in there day. I've also heard that modern artists like Imogen Heap are having really hard times making ends meet. Also, if we follow the logic of your statement out it starts to equate earned income with artistic quality. Finally, as someone who lived it for a bit though on a small scale, the life if a touring musician is not for everyone. I hated it after a short time.

[garyb]

"making it" has nothing to do with quality, it's about who is willing to put up the cash so the consumers know that it's available for purchase. that's production, packaging and promotional costs...

"commercially viable" means that the quality is high enough that the folks who would spend money on it wouldn't feel cheated with the product that they receive. it means that the artist will meet his responsibilities and "take care of business". it means that it's something that at least SOME people want. since there are more than 7 billion people on the earth, anyone who completes the job of making a product and getting it to market probably has something "commercially viable" if he does a good job and manages to get product to where the audience is. i'm sure your friends' music was commercially viable if it was presented properly. merely going to a gig somewhere where people don't know of you is not a good way to make money.

good musicians have always had a hard time making ends meet, but 40 years ago, almost everyone did make at least enough to make rent, even off local weekend gigs. people knew that they had to pay in those days, and didn't resent the idea. also, there were no computers or MTV. if you liked music, you had to buy records and go to shows. there weren't any products that let people with no ideas of their own use other people's work to look creative. bands had to be able to play the music they made, mostly, anyway...

that's all fine, though.
i'm not saying anything bad about anybody.