MovieChat Forums > Sound City (2013) Discussion > Not the Computer's fault

Not the Computer's fault

posted 11 years ago by WhiskeyGold
8 replies | jump to latest

Some have blamed the computer or Pro Tools but you can it's not really the software are the computers its the person using it. You can record with Pro Tools just like you could on tape. Then people use the software to enhance or fix problems. thats the issues, not the software are computer. I see nothing wrong with using Pro Tools or a computer, it saves space, time and money. Don't that doesn't mean you have to do everything you can with the software. Like anything, it can be over used.

[–] cberbes 11 years ago

Correct, in the grand scheme of things recording digitally and editing on a computer is simply a faster, easier way to edit than cutting and taping physical tape. In the end you are still editing tracks of music to create on song.

The complaint that I can see comes in the recording and micro-editing. With an analog board you do the sound editing during the recording stage, by altering the sounds recorded on each microphone. Go back to bands like Def Leppard, they edited Joe Elliot's voice to sound good during the recording process on tape. Pro tools just makes it easier for a less talented producer to create perfect sounds.

However Dave can not sit back and completely slander digital recording as the majority of the Foo Fighters albums were recorded using pro tools, even Taylor made a huge deal about recording on analog when recording their last album. And almost NO band records live any more. So while it may be nostalgic to record live, on tape.....it simply isn't viable when recording modern music.

[–] CCRider01 11 years ago

Pro Tools makes it easier, faster and cheaper to record / edit music. The purpose of using digital tools should not be all about technical ease of production though, but also capturing for posterity a quality recording, both technically and musically.

The best thing about the digital revolution? It makes it easier for just about anyone to join the game. The worst thing about the digital revolution? It makes it easier for just about anyone to join the game. Scores of marginally talented musicians without an ounce of originality, putting out scores of marginal unoriginal songs, a mountain of "blahness" so to speak. This was highlighted in the film, and while blah has existed in every decade, IMO recent years has seen an exponential increase.

Over the past 10-15 years, more music has been recorded and released by more people than any similar period of time in history. All this great easy to use digital equipment creating more music than ever before, shouldn't this have resulted in an increase in quality songs? If not on a percentage basis, at least on an absolute one, ie total number of great songs released each year. How many music lovers with sufficient historical perspective would answer affirmative to that question? I would wager not many.

So whats missing? Is the music world merely a reflection of the world at large, and the more superficial times we live in? A shortage of soul, the common denominator found in pretty much every stand the test of time great song ever recorded? Could it be merely a lack of great songs or people at the height of their creativity who can produce them? Passionate talented people in a recording studio (on both sides of the console window) creating magic, where the sum is greater than the parts.

[–] HornyDonkey 10 years ago

Tonnes of marginally untalented and unimaginative musicians have joined the game in a long time. Dave Grohl is one of them. IMHO, he's created more blahs than anyone else. But it's just my taste.
And sure, the mainstream is getting crapier each day. But it's more of the industry's fault than the technology's. And who listens to only mainstream music anymore? There are a lot of interesting bands and artists out there right now, you just have to look.

[–] CCRider01 10 years ago

Technology just makes it easier and cheaper to make a proficient sounding recording, the songs themselves might suck but at least the recording will be to fairly high standards. As stated, more music is produced and made available than ever before, the problem is that anything good tends to get buried under a mountain of outright crap or blahness, and for me, the "looking" is too often not worth the effort. The juice is not worth the squeeze so to speak.

Who listens to mainstream music anymore?

This is not a mainstream vs "non-mainstream" issue. Obviously popular music of the 60's through 90's, was typically superior to mainstream popular music of the past 5-10 years, but non mainstream music has always been around, and IMO the non mainstream scene has also taken a comparative turn for the worse over the past 5-10 years.

[–] HornyDonkey 10 years ago

I don't think that the development of technology in music production is fully responsible for the (perceived) reduced quantity of quality music. In fact, it creates more genres, styles, and the possibility of merging them in pleasant and interesting ways, which means the possibility of the emerging of new masterpieces.

As stated, more music is produced and made available than ever before, the problem is that anything good tends to get buried under a mountain of outright crap or blahness, and for me, the "looking" is too often not worth the effort. The juice is not worth the squeeze so to speak.

Beauty is a rare thing indeed.
Sadly for me, the kind of beauty I seek is even rarer. I like progressive and experimental music. So, I must dig deeper to find anything good (or anything at all). But, I'm extremely happy that I have dug through mountains of mediocrity and crap and finally found some truly amazing music (contemporary or past).

non mainstream music has always been around, and IMO the non mainstream scene has also taken a comparative turn for the worse over the past 5-10 years.

That's quite an assumption. I don't know what kind of music you love but I've discovered some pretty amazing non-mainstream/semi-mainstream music created/produced in the past 5-10 years. Some of them could make past's masterpieces (in similar genres/sub-genres) pale in comparison. However, if you're comparing the quantity of today's and past's great non-mainstream music, I can't really deny or support your claim.
But, I'll tell you this: almost a half of my favorite tracks and albums were created/produced in the past 5-10 years.

[–] CCRider01 9 years ago

That's quite an assumption. I don't know what kind of music you love but I've discovered some pretty amazing non-mainstream/semi-mainstream music created/produced in the past 5-10 years

Not really, it is merely an opinion. Being non-mainstream is no guarantee of improved quality, in fact I would wager that the vast majority of "underground" music is little known outside of a tiny niche, because it is either unoriginal or lacking in quality.

Music is subjective, so if you have found an "abundance" of high quality non-mainstream songs produced over the past 5-10 years, then good for you. Personally I have not, most of the non mainstream music I have heard is merely decent at best, and too often it is blah and/or lacking originality (both sonically and composition wise).

[–] Satantangoandcash 8 years ago

It's just retro-snobbery to say that recording live to analog tape is the only good way to record music. The hatred of digital recording expressed by the movie did not make sense since it concentrated more on the authenticity of the performance than on the quality of the sound. As you said, musicians can still play together in the studio and record to the computer with the same minimal overdubbing and processing during the mix as they do with tape, as long as they can avoid the temptation to use options just because they are available. Analog recording also created too many options and became over-produced when they started synchronising two 24 track machines and using giant automated consoles and overdubbing everything too much.

What bothered me most about the criticism of computer-based recording and editing is that we only see musicians playing guitar-based rock music in the movie. Computers and samplers and drum machines not only made music production more accessible and affordable than tape-based recording (just like desktop publishing software did) but they also helped to expand the creativity of hip-hop, turntable music, electronic dance music and other genres that aren't made by a group of musicians playing instruments in a room together but which can be equally compelling and now are some of the most inventive, commercially-successful and popular styles of music. To condemn computer production is also to malign these genres which is a shame because they include some great music.

[–] FourFiveEight 8 years ago

A lot of the sentiments expressed in the movie I suspect were not just retro-snobbery. I think it went deeper then that, remember that the interviews were likely done not that long after Sound City went out of business. Also when you watch the video it seems like the staff there developed a real culture around analogue recording and really started to resent digital which they saw as competition to their way of life more than anything. One person says in it "It would've been so easy to fix up the place but no one took the initiative to do it" until Shivaun shows up and decides to buy some paint and at least make an effort.
It also extends into just the idea of studio recording, a band going into a studio and making an album and digital is sort of putting an end to that or at least making it a smaller and smaller market something which is echoed in the Sonic Highways documentary series.
I think it makes sense it's just not for the right reasons.