Bob Dylan says Recording Technology Sucks

[thewayne]

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,71636-0.html

Bob Dylan says the quality of modern recordings is "atrocious," and even the songs on his new album sounded much better in the studio than on disc.

"I don't know anybody who's made a record that sounds decent in the past 20 years, really," the 65-year-old rocker said in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine.

Dylan, who released eight studio albums in the past two decades, returns with his first recording in five years, Modern Times, next Tuesday.

Noting the music industry's complaints that illegal downloading means people are getting their music for free, he said, "Well, why not? It ain't worth nothing anyway."

"You listen to these modern records, they're atrocious, they have sound all over them," he added. "There's no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing, just like ... static."

Dylan said he does his best to fight technology, but it's a losing battle.

"Even these songs probably sounded 10 times better in the studio when we recorded 'em. CDs are small. There's no stature to it."

He's one artist that will probably never find a place in my collection, but I do respect his views (to a degree). I like being able to understand my lyrics, and I don't care much for atonal harmonica: which is why Blues Traveler and a couple of other bands also don't really work for me.

Comments

[greyweirdo.livejournal.com]

Yeah, in other news Tony Bennet was heard to be telling some kids to "Git off mah lawn!"

You can't understand Dylan's lyrics even if you hear him in person, he mumbles so much. His latest album sounds like crap, so it must be technology's fault. Yeah, that's it.

Can't be a bad producer, an inexperianced recording engiener, or an artist whose music isn't worth listening to anymore. Nope! Must be that naughty technology.

Never mind Dylan was a tech pioner in his day, being one of the first to mix electric instruments into folk music, now techology is part of E.V.I.L.

I've noticed people who bitch about technology like this have no idea how it works, don't want to learn, turn out a shitty product because of their ignorace and then yell "See! I told you it was worthless!"

[thewayne.livejournal.com]

I came across an article a few months ago that recording engineers are being forced to crank up the signal to maximize the bandwidth, the basic concept is that it makes a louder signal, so people will listen. The problem is that it also distorts the signal: by maximizing _average_ bandwidth, you clip the highes.

The article in question was written by a guy who really knew audio engineering. He was speaking specifically how Rush albums had become progressively louder and more distorted over the years.

There was a fantastic Saturday Night Live skit a number of years ago when Dylan won a music award (or some sort of award) and (IIRC) his acceptance speech ran long and was cut. So they brought "Bob Dylan" on the Weekend Update segment to complete his speech. Kevin Neelan eventually couldn't understand him, so they brought in "Tom Petty" to translate.

I've never had much of a problem understanding Petty. The dichotomy that I find the most amusing is Joe Walsh: you can't understand a word he's saying when he's speaking, but he's an excellent singer.

[spaceoperadiva.livejournal.com]

Most people don't consciously notice the clipped highs so for a lot of people it's not an issue like it is for Dylan. I notice, but I've been a musician all my life. A trend that I really *like* in modern music though is the trend to really use those lower bands. Some of the caribe-dancehall stuff shakes our truck from the low bass resonance. It's probably very juvenile of me but I like it.

The other problem with maxed-average bandwidth is that the variations in tone quality and internal volume mix become lost or distorted. For old bands like Rush, Boston or Blue Oyster Cult, this is fatal.

[(Anonymous)]

I've seen that article (I think) and at least one other. One of them even included analysis graphs of songs from various points over the last 30 years. It's not just the highs that get clipped, it's all peaks. Basically, where you used to have peaks and valleys, and separation between instruments, it's just a wall of noise now.

When I listen to many newer albums, such as Rush's "Vapor Trails", I actually experience hearing fatigue by the end. Of course, since record companies and radio stations are more concerned with selling things one track at a time, they don't care.

However, there have been albums (most notably by Iron Maiden and Paul McCartney[!!!]) that I have gotten to listen to in the store and refused to buy because of how they were recorded. My desperate hope is that in a few years things will swing back towards audio quality and some of these recent recordings will be remastered so they actually sound good (but I'm not going to hold my breath).

--Llarry

[theresa-wolf.livejournal.com]

Yes, the Match was fun.
I'm looking forward to going to more of them.
---
I really like a few of Bob's songs, and I did own a casette of his, once.

I agree that modern recordings sound like crap.
Digital sux.

I miss vacuum tubes in my music.
---
Thanks for still reading my Xanga.
I'm much more active at MySpace: http://blog.myspace.com/valkyrie_angel


All the best to you & Russet,
-Kyrinn

[thewayne.livejournal.com]

AHH! MySpace! Sorry, I really can't abide that place. It's just not for me. I wish it was a lot easier cross-linking feeds via RSS.

I'll have to check in to that...

[ateji.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Good to know he's anti-technology. I feel better about downloading an album. XD (I can't listen to very much of him myself, but sometimes I have to listen to something I heard as a kid or I get twitchy. I blame my mother.)