Is it dishonest to concoct a musical recording that would be virtually impossible to replicate in a live performance?
Ever since tape was invented, people have been using it to create new sonic textures, and many times these recordings represent sounds that cannot be heard in real life. The ability to record musical performances is, of course, one of the greatest breakthroughs in all of history. A similarly important but often overlooked breakthrough, however, is the ability to "record" sounds that never existed in the first place. Take this early example of tape music, a piece called "Etude aux chemins de fer" composed in 1948 by Pierre Schaeffer. I have linked to Youtube:
Pieces like this are forgotten milestones. How would one describe these sounds? The fact of the matter is that I can't describe, but this recording is unquestionably musical all the same.
Of course, experimentation of this sort is not without its detractors. Miles Davis made innovative use of studio technology on his 1970 album "Bitches Brew." The album contains multiple edits and uses sound effects such as tape loops and delay, previously unheard of in the jazz world. Some critics found these effects to run contrary to the spirit of jazz because they did not represent the spontaneity of the group, but rather resembled something constructed in a laboratory. Which side do you fall on?
Now with digital technology, there is no limit to the number of distinct sounds that can be created. We are no longer confined to the standard instruments we have become so accustomed to. Technology is a way for music to be advanced, and it is not something that needs to be resisted.
So all of this makes one wonder if our understanding of the word "recording" is starting to blow up in our faces. Certainly making a CD of a live performance is a recording in the conventional sense. But what if the recording itself is the performance, like "Etude aux chemins de fer"? Better yet, what if you meet somewhere in the middle, like "Bitches Brew" does? Indeed one of the biggest issues artists have to grapple with in the 21st century is the blurring of these lines. With innovations such as auto-tune we can no longer be sure if what we're hearing is the "real thing," and this is frustrating for many people. While I certainly don't advocate for the use of auto-tune to correct one's poor singing, generally speaking it does not offend me if we mix the "real" sounds with the "fake" ones. What is music except the sounds the we order? Does is matter how we choose to order them?
This leads to my initial question. Is it dishonest to concoct a musical recording that would be virtually impossible to replicate in a live performance? This is, of course, a contradiction. Any recording can be replicated in a live performance. All you have to do is press play, and listen.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Monday, January 2, 2012
Why the Red Hot Chili Peppers Need a New Mastering Engineer
This has been written about many times before, but I have decided I want to add my own sarcastic remarks (if only because this issue is so damn irritating!).
Mastering is the final stage in the production process. The mastering engineer is charged with several things, including adjusting the overal equalization of the mix, determining fades and spaces between tracks, and adjusting the sound levels of the mixes so that playback over the entire disc is relatively consistent. Since the 1990s, it has become the trend in the music industry to master albums in such a way that they play back as loudly as possible. This is often paired with compression, which is the process of making quiet parts relatively louder, so that there is less of a dynamic range. These are technically separate issues, but both are starting to have a deleterious effect on the quality of recorded popular music (classical and jazz do not yet seeme to have this problem, thankfully). Have you ever turned up a speaker so loud that it starts to crackle from being maxed out? Some rather treacherous mastering engineers have been applying this same principle to a significant number of commercial recordings. The difference is that instead of the playback equipment being maxed out (as in the cranked speaker example), the audio files themselves are maxed out. So no amount of turning the volume down can restore the sound to its proper fidelity.
The poster child for this phenomenom is the Red Hot Chili Peppers album "Californication." The album's high volume no doubt helped it stand out when it was heard over the radio, where sound quality was poor to begin with. Indeed, this is the only reason I can think of to make an album this loud.
Look at the waveform for "Parallel Univserse" from "Californication." It's generally not a good sign when your waveform looks like a solid blue bar. This recording lacks what is called "headroom," which is the space that exists between the top of the waves, and the threshold for maximum loudness.
If you zoom in, you can see that the sound waves are clipped at the top. Important sound information is lost because of this. The waves are not able to form in the natural way, and playback distorted.
Compare that with "Time" from the 30th Anniversary Edition of Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" where there is plenty of headroom, and there are no problems with sound waves being cut off at the top.
Clearly Pink Floyd wins the battle for taste (well honestly, what else do you expect?). The Chili Peppers are clearly off the charts, and not in a good way. Ironically enough, I've seem some reviews of the the remastered "Dark Side of the Moon" complain that it is too compressed when compared to the original. I guess back then they actually cared how things sounded. What a novel idea...
There seems to be a perception from many producers and fans that louder recordings are more professional or crisp. Really, the opposite is true. Many recordings sound professional in spite of their excessive loudness, not because of it. Independent musicians may not have access to the same sorts of resources as a band like the Red Hot Chili Peppers, but at least we don't go around saying that our music is awesome because it plays back louder than yours (which, by the way, it usually doesn't).
Maybe this year we can convince Warner Bros. Records to release a new unmastered Thirteenth Anniversary Edition and get the current piece of crap off the market. I was at a party with some of my sister's friends, and one of them talked about how he got "Californication" on vinyl, fulling acknowledging that it was a rather self-defeating exercise. "It's really not a very high-quality recording," is what I remember him saying. I enjoy his sense of humor. Of course, the recording itself is fine as far as I can tell. It's what they did after the fact that's the problem. "Californication" is not the only album that suffers from the Loudness War, but it is one of the earliest and most egregious casualties. Others examples that come to mind include Metallica's "Death Magnetic," Oasis's "What's the Story Morning Glory?," the Mars Volta's "De-Loused in the Comatorium" and pretty much every album by System of a Down. The "Death Magnetic" situation is rather funny, in an unfortunate sort of way. From Wikipedia:
Given that it is Metallica, after all, this reaction doesn't surprise me. But I would have liked the issue to have been addressed at least on some level. In any case, you know you have a problem when the Wikipedia entry about your album has a separate section for "Sound Quality Issues."
Of course, by singling out the aforementioned albums for their poor mastering jobs, I do not mean to imply in any way that they are musically deficient. Quite the opposite, in fact, and that is the real tragedy.
Mastering is the final stage in the production process. The mastering engineer is charged with several things, including adjusting the overal equalization of the mix, determining fades and spaces between tracks, and adjusting the sound levels of the mixes so that playback over the entire disc is relatively consistent. Since the 1990s, it has become the trend in the music industry to master albums in such a way that they play back as loudly as possible. This is often paired with compression, which is the process of making quiet parts relatively louder, so that there is less of a dynamic range. These are technically separate issues, but both are starting to have a deleterious effect on the quality of recorded popular music (classical and jazz do not yet seeme to have this problem, thankfully). Have you ever turned up a speaker so loud that it starts to crackle from being maxed out? Some rather treacherous mastering engineers have been applying this same principle to a significant number of commercial recordings. The difference is that instead of the playback equipment being maxed out (as in the cranked speaker example), the audio files themselves are maxed out. So no amount of turning the volume down can restore the sound to its proper fidelity.
The poster child for this phenomenom is the Red Hot Chili Peppers album "Californication." The album's high volume no doubt helped it stand out when it was heard over the radio, where sound quality was poor to begin with. Indeed, this is the only reason I can think of to make an album this loud.
Look at the waveform for "Parallel Univserse" from "Californication." It's generally not a good sign when your waveform looks like a solid blue bar. This recording lacks what is called "headroom," which is the space that exists between the top of the waves, and the threshold for maximum loudness.
If you zoom in, you can see that the sound waves are clipped at the top. Important sound information is lost because of this. The waves are not able to form in the natural way, and playback distorted.
Compare that with "Time" from the 30th Anniversary Edition of Pink Floyd's "Dark Side of the Moon" where there is plenty of headroom, and there are no problems with sound waves being cut off at the top.
Clearly Pink Floyd wins the battle for taste (well honestly, what else do you expect?). The Chili Peppers are clearly off the charts, and not in a good way. Ironically enough, I've seem some reviews of the the remastered "Dark Side of the Moon" complain that it is too compressed when compared to the original. I guess back then they actually cared how things sounded. What a novel idea...
There seems to be a perception from many producers and fans that louder recordings are more professional or crisp. Really, the opposite is true. Many recordings sound professional in spite of their excessive loudness, not because of it. Independent musicians may not have access to the same sorts of resources as a band like the Red Hot Chili Peppers, but at least we don't go around saying that our music is awesome because it plays back louder than yours (which, by the way, it usually doesn't).
Maybe this year we can convince Warner Bros. Records to release a new unmastered Thirteenth Anniversary Edition and get the current piece of crap off the market. I was at a party with some of my sister's friends, and one of them talked about how he got "Californication" on vinyl, fulling acknowledging that it was a rather self-defeating exercise. "It's really not a very high-quality recording," is what I remember him saying. I enjoy his sense of humor. Of course, the recording itself is fine as far as I can tell. It's what they did after the fact that's the problem. "Californication" is not the only album that suffers from the Loudness War, but it is one of the earliest and most egregious casualties. Others examples that come to mind include Metallica's "Death Magnetic," Oasis's "What's the Story Morning Glory?," the Mars Volta's "De-Loused in the Comatorium" and pretty much every album by System of a Down. The "Death Magnetic" situation is rather funny, in an unfortunate sort of way. From Wikipedia:
Fans have noted that these sonic problems are not present in the Guitar Hero version of the album, where the tracks are present separately because of the game mechanics and the tracks were sent to the game publishers before the process was made...
...On September 15, 2008, after a reviewer for Swedish daily Sydsvenskan admitted that he preferred the Guitar Hero mixes of Death Magnetic to the official release, a scheduled interview was duly cancelled by Universal Music Sweden. Its president, Per Sundin said:
"The reviewer is referring to a BitTorrent where someone has altered the original songs. The reviewer explains exactly where one should go in order to download the file that totally infringes on a copyright. It's not only an illegal file, but an altered file. The reviewer also writes that this is how the album should have sounded. File-sharing of music is illegal. Period. There's nothing to discuss. That fact – that Sydsvenskan has a writer that has downloaded this music illegally and then makes mention of an illegal site in his review – is totally unacceptable to us."
Given that it is Metallica, after all, this reaction doesn't surprise me. But I would have liked the issue to have been addressed at least on some level. In any case, you know you have a problem when the Wikipedia entry about your album has a separate section for "Sound Quality Issues."
Of course, by singling out the aforementioned albums for their poor mastering jobs, I do not mean to imply in any way that they are musically deficient. Quite the opposite, in fact, and that is the real tragedy.
Friday, December 30, 2011
The Soundcheck With Unexpected Results
I did a brief soundcheck to make sure all of my recording equipment was working with the new computer. It was, thankfully, and so I recorded this little snippet. I plugged the guitar direct in without an amp, so don't expect a fantastic-sounding recording. The precision on my guitar playing is not the greatest either:
Now this is pretty boring, I must say. I would have no desire to listen to this. So then I decided I would apply some strange effects using a program called Ardour. Ardour is what I use for recording and mixing. It has the same functionality of commercial programs such as Cubase, but it is free and open-source. There are a number of effects plugins that are created for Linux that can be used with Ardour, and they are collectively known as Linux Audio Developers Simple Plugin API, or "LADSPA." Both Ardour and the LADSPA plugins can be installed simply in Linux by searching for them in the software list.
Ardour is a more powerful program than other free recording programs, such as Audacity, because effects can be applied non-destructively. This means that the underlying file is always there as it was, not matter what is layered on top. If you apply, say, a reverb effect, and you decide you don't like it, you can remove it or adjust the settings without having to undo all the moves you made since you applied the reverb in the first place.
There are many LADSPA plugins, and they can do a wide range of things, including the standard effects of distortion, reverb, chorus, etc., but also more unconventional effects. For this example I decided to apply some weird ones to the sample you just heard. The "rhythm guitar" sound has an effect called Pointer Cast Distortion (using extreme parameters for maximum weirdness). The "lead guitar" sound has several effects, including Standard Reverb, Barry's Satan Maximizer (awesome name), Calf Rotary Speaker, and the Dyson Compressor.
The result is a file called "This Makes No Sense. (I got this title from an error message that Ardour gave me, saying that what I was trying to apply a plugin in a way that made no sense) Take a listen:
A little quirky, for sure. I then wondered what would happen if I edited the file using an obscure free program called Mammut (many thanks to Baljinder Sekhon for telling me about this one). Mammut describes itself as "Non-intuitive Sound Transformation." It can be downloaded here:
http://www.studiotoolz.net/mammut
I was having trouble installing Mammut on Ubuntu, so I actually downloaded the Windows version and ran it through Linux's Windows Emulator, known more commonly as WINE.
Mammut has a very cool effect called the Stretch Effect. I took the file "This Makes No Sense," and using a stretch value of 1.3, made a new file that sounds quite severe. For lack of a better title, it is called "This Still Makes No Sense.":
For all you audio geeks out there, I hope you try out Mammut. You will be able to make sounds you didn't know existed. With all this technology , just remember to use your powers to make your music sound evil...
Now this is pretty boring, I must say. I would have no desire to listen to this. So then I decided I would apply some strange effects using a program called Ardour. Ardour is what I use for recording and mixing. It has the same functionality of commercial programs such as Cubase, but it is free and open-source. There are a number of effects plugins that are created for Linux that can be used with Ardour, and they are collectively known as Linux Audio Developers Simple Plugin API, or "LADSPA." Both Ardour and the LADSPA plugins can be installed simply in Linux by searching for them in the software list.
Ardour is a more powerful program than other free recording programs, such as Audacity, because effects can be applied non-destructively. This means that the underlying file is always there as it was, not matter what is layered on top. If you apply, say, a reverb effect, and you decide you don't like it, you can remove it or adjust the settings without having to undo all the moves you made since you applied the reverb in the first place.
There are many LADSPA plugins, and they can do a wide range of things, including the standard effects of distortion, reverb, chorus, etc., but also more unconventional effects. For this example I decided to apply some weird ones to the sample you just heard. The "rhythm guitar" sound has an effect called Pointer Cast Distortion (using extreme parameters for maximum weirdness). The "lead guitar" sound has several effects, including Standard Reverb, Barry's Satan Maximizer (awesome name), Calf Rotary Speaker, and the Dyson Compressor.
The result is a file called "This Makes No Sense. (I got this title from an error message that Ardour gave me, saying that what I was trying to apply a plugin in a way that made no sense) Take a listen:
A little quirky, for sure. I then wondered what would happen if I edited the file using an obscure free program called Mammut (many thanks to Baljinder Sekhon for telling me about this one). Mammut describes itself as "Non-intuitive Sound Transformation." It can be downloaded here:
http://www.studiotoolz.net/mammut
I was having trouble installing Mammut on Ubuntu, so I actually downloaded the Windows version and ran it through Linux's Windows Emulator, known more commonly as WINE.
Mammut has a very cool effect called the Stretch Effect. I took the file "This Makes No Sense," and using a stretch value of 1.3, made a new file that sounds quite severe. For lack of a better title, it is called "This Still Makes No Sense.":
For all you audio geeks out there, I hope you try out Mammut. You will be able to make sounds you didn't know existed. With all this technology , just remember to use your powers to make your music sound evil...
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Elements to Reject
I remember after music theory class one day Prof. John Covach said to me "Your musical tastes are defined not by what you accept, but by what you reject."
This quote struck as odd back then, but recently it I have come to agree with it quite a bit. I still reluctantly enjoy my two most recent albums "Speak Away" and "Nine Questions," but they clearly suffer from a lack of focus. I was trying to cram too many styles into one disc. But if you try to do everything, you will do nothing well. The style of "Hydrogen" must be focused an consistent, and out of necessity, something has to be sidelined.
So after some consideration, I have made a list.
"Elements to Reject":
-Folk songs with only guitar and voice
-Very heavy rock
-Instruments drowned in digital reverb
-Political music (for now)
That's not to say that I don't like these things, but focusing on too many elements will cause things to get sidetracked. The removal of political music is a strange choice for me, since so much of my previous music is political, but after doing two albums about the world and all of its problems, it's about time I did an album that was about me, and all the dissonant harmonies going on (or not going on) in my head. I actually find this change of focus a tad selfish, especially since I believe we need political music now more than ever. But don't worry, I will be back.
Elements to include:
-Jazz chords
-Authentic instruments: acoustic piano, organ, and guitar (recorded clearly)
-Contagious and "non-cheesy" electronic beats
-Unusual sound effects
This quote struck as odd back then, but recently it I have come to agree with it quite a bit. I still reluctantly enjoy my two most recent albums "Speak Away" and "Nine Questions," but they clearly suffer from a lack of focus. I was trying to cram too many styles into one disc. But if you try to do everything, you will do nothing well. The style of "Hydrogen" must be focused an consistent, and out of necessity, something has to be sidelined.
So after some consideration, I have made a list.
"Elements to Reject":
-Folk songs with only guitar and voice
-Very heavy rock
-Instruments drowned in digital reverb
-Political music (for now)
That's not to say that I don't like these things, but focusing on too many elements will cause things to get sidetracked. The removal of political music is a strange choice for me, since so much of my previous music is political, but after doing two albums about the world and all of its problems, it's about time I did an album that was about me, and all the dissonant harmonies going on (or not going on) in my head. I actually find this change of focus a tad selfish, especially since I believe we need political music now more than ever. But don't worry, I will be back.
Elements to include:
-Jazz chords
-Authentic instruments: acoustic piano, organ, and guitar (recorded clearly)
-Contagious and "non-cheesy" electronic beats
-Unusual sound effects
Welcome to Hydrogen
One of my favorite things to do is write and record music, and right now I am in the process of writing for a new studio album called "Hydrogen." This blog is meant to capture that album as it is in progress, as well as provide an outlet for me to offer comments on a wide range of musical topics.
There is a piece of drum machine software for Linux called Hydrogen. This is where the word first entered into my artistic landscape. Hydrogen seemed to fit as a potential title, especially since I use Linux exclusively for my recording and mixing. One of my goals is to show that it is possible for a person to create really high-quality recordings using entirely open-source software and a minimal amount of equipment. "Hydrogen" is a metaphor for the kind of rugged do-it-yourself approach to audio production. The open-source movement seeks to be as inclusive as possible, and to freely and legally provide to the masses the kind of software that was previously only available to those with money.
My second use of the word Hydrogen came when I wrote a poem one day, and the first line was "Imagine all the Hydrogen of the universe, and this is the abundance I seek within." For me, Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe, is a metaphor for spirituality, and the incomprehensible enormity of the universe. This is a theme I have touched on in earlier recordings, and will no doubt return to.
Finally, Hydrogen being as tiny as it is, is inside all of us, and "the abundance I seek within" is about trying to live life as a confident and fulfilled person, while at the same time acknowledging and accepting one's own sense of powerlessness.
So welcome aboard. Streaming mp3 samples will be on the way soon!
(special thanks to Edie Hanson for giving me her old laptop and helping me set it up, as well as to Andrew Riker for helping me become familiar with the Linux platform and installing additional software)
There is a piece of drum machine software for Linux called Hydrogen. This is where the word first entered into my artistic landscape. Hydrogen seemed to fit as a potential title, especially since I use Linux exclusively for my recording and mixing. One of my goals is to show that it is possible for a person to create really high-quality recordings using entirely open-source software and a minimal amount of equipment. "Hydrogen" is a metaphor for the kind of rugged do-it-yourself approach to audio production. The open-source movement seeks to be as inclusive as possible, and to freely and legally provide to the masses the kind of software that was previously only available to those with money.
My second use of the word Hydrogen came when I wrote a poem one day, and the first line was "Imagine all the Hydrogen of the universe, and this is the abundance I seek within." For me, Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe, is a metaphor for spirituality, and the incomprehensible enormity of the universe. This is a theme I have touched on in earlier recordings, and will no doubt return to.
Finally, Hydrogen being as tiny as it is, is inside all of us, and "the abundance I seek within" is about trying to live life as a confident and fulfilled person, while at the same time acknowledging and accepting one's own sense of powerlessness.
So welcome aboard. Streaming mp3 samples will be on the way soon!
(special thanks to Edie Hanson for giving me her old laptop and helping me set it up, as well as to Andrew Riker for helping me become familiar with the Linux platform and installing additional software)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)