www.billnelson.com

Ive really enjoyed some of the threads here in Dreamsville on this subject particularly the input from the redoubtable John Spence and our Bill and some other people here who obviously know a thing or two so in the spirit of fostering a bit of back and forth I offer these provocative observations from Bob Ludwig and Sandy Pearlman - a couple recording heavyweights.....flame on!

Bob Ludwig has remastered the Rolling Stones catalog twice. In 1994 for the post '71 releases and in 2002 for the 60's releases.
source : [www.soundandvisionmag.com]
ON WHETHER TODAY'S MUSIC REALLY DOES SOUND LIKE SHIT
Sandy Pearlman: I have big issues with digital. I think every decision made for the 44.1-kHz, 16-bit Red Book Standard was a disastrous decision followed by an unending series of disastrous decisions, which have culminated in the distribution of most of the music that's heard in the world today on the ubiquitous platform known as MP3 - which is really good at promiscuity but not good at fidelity.

For most of the 20th century, there was a continuous succession of improvements in sound, which actually made music more engaging. But by the end of the century, we'd taken a real radical turn away from all that - beginning a process, which is now pretty much universal, of merely distributing music as artifacts. And these artifacts are sonically impoverished. I know that we are stuck with the digital-distribution matrix. So, assuming that, we at McGill are thinking outside of the speaker cabinet for new ways to transport music that preserves a lot more of its inner qualities. Music is so much about ineffabilities - things that are very hard to nail down - and ineffabilities are the things that digital preserves least well.

Bob Ludwig: For me, the answer is - this seems very equivocal, but it's both yes and no. I've been doing mastering for a very long time, and I can honestly say that, in my whole career, the average recording that comes into me now sounds worse than any master tape before. And the reasons for that? Lack of budget. And the fact that, instead of musicians recording with professionals in controlled acoustic environments, very often they're now recording with amateurs in basements and garages. So the average record absolutely sounds worse than ever - which means that the mastering process is doing more than ever to shape the record's final sound.

Which is not to say that there aren't some great-sounding records today, because there are still some professionals who can get work in this industry. There are still the Bob Clearmountains, the Mick Guzauskis, the Tom Lord-Alges out there who know what they're doing.

But without question, the average record sounds worse than ever. And a lot of it is due to the fact that we've made a switch from analog tape - which is very forgiving, and something that the human ear really loves - to the digital domain, where, up until the invention of high resolution, the sound was very brittle in comparison to analog. Digital is just a very different animal - and much more difficult to control, I think.

I think even before 16 bit, the engineers thought about a red book standard of 8 bit!

This was eventually abandoned, so we got the high fidelity 16 bit (Irony)

Sadly it goes further than the technology used to record music.....

most of the music produced today actually is Shit!

and even the best production wouldn't save it......

The rise of digital recording has allowed almost anyone to record and release music, the process of analog recording was costly and kept most people from releasing their music onto the market. It was a kind of crude filter...... without record company backing most people did not release music. I say crude filter as some very talented people never got heard, but dreadfully untalented ones did....... The sheer volume of music being put out these days, either commercially or just by people who record and put out music just because they can, (even i have) means that overall standards are going to be lower...... The major problem with this that as more music is recorded often with no professional input in it's production...... it becomes harder and harder to find the good and the interesting...... The interesting new things you often only find by chance (or by visiting Dreamsville ) The technical issue is quite another thing as discussed above....... Still it is still possible... Bill with mastering by John Spence does pretty well... I suspect a lot of others just don't bother which has led to the blandness of most popular music today..........

I agree with Sandy Pearlman particularly about MP3. I don't think people have the technical back ground to understand how much is lost through MP3 encoding/decoding.

Bill, with respect, most people don't have the musical or technical background, or the trained ear, to hear the difference. (I suppose I could go biblical at this point and paraphrase "those with eyes to see").

I'm sure they love their choices of music just as much despite this.

I personally don't see them as the problem; I see and industry that has mass marketed immediacy and bulk delivery over style and substance as the problem.

The internet, as a function of the digital revolution, has given everyone access to everything all the time and, as with the rise of pay tv, those who supply are running out of content.

I'm sure people genuinely want to engage with the music of their choice but all of us can't be great artists, great musicians or seriously competent audio engineers who get all the finer details and know how much is lost through encoding/decoding (particularly MP3).

Whatever it is you do, it works Bill! I feel I have to listen to your songs many many times before I can really "hear it" if that makes any sense. I'm constantly having these moments where my mind is trying to keep up with the music. Your songs take training. I think that I listen and my brain puts together a broad facsimile of the track and over time and repeated listens gaps are filled in, and the whole picture gets clearer until finally I feel I can start to hear all the layers and sounds melding together.

From where I am sitting (and listening) it appears to me that you are an expert in the creation, playing and recording of music so I would, by that definition, defer to your opinion on these matters. (I could go on about the artist/audience interface at this point..... blah, blah, blah blah; but I won't. )

As for what people choose to listen to taste is purely subjective by definition. Perhaps some people like to listen to mice droppings.... I suppose beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The whole digital "divide" issue is one of the reasons I still prefer physical CD's over downloadable content.

Steven Wilson (of Porcupine Tree et.al.) has expressed some angst as to how music has become "content" to fill up hard disk drives over even being "product" to be pushed by executives and marketing people.

Perhaps there is some caveat emptor type thing too.... also if your hard drive crashes you lose your whole music collection. That can't be a good thing....

For my taste I find the 'sonic sounds' of today are sterile and 'lack the Human element. Used to love the lps that were recorded live, meaning all the musicians played at the same time. If there's a so called mistakes that added so much but nowadays Pro Tools will clean everything up. The great lps of yesteryear could never be produced today.

As nothing more than a serious music fanatic, I have been through 3 different formats of music recording. Tape, vinyl, and now cd's. What I've come to realize is that each medium has it's own distinct sound and qualities.

I never liked tape, the sound was great, but it was too fragile. I loved the sound of lp's, but never liked the scratches, pops and clicks, and the general wear and tear factor. Along came cd's, and I thought they were a great improvement over tape and lp's because of the no wear/noise factor.

I myself find many of the cd's that I have sound great to my ears. Both volumes of the Rosewood discs exhibit warmth, clarity, and great detail. The Beatles remasters are another example of what you can do in a digital format when done properly. I also recently got an import copy of Futurama, that to my ears, sounds better than the lp ever did.

I guess it all boils down to the ears of the beholder. To my ears, most of the cd's I own have anwhere from acceptalbe to excellent sound. I've had to replace a lot of vinyl I lost due to a hurricane with cd's, and to tell you the truth, Most of the time, I don't hear a huge difference, if any at all.

We could go round and round about it, but digital is here to stay, and when they find a NEW format to record with, I'm sure that there will be a percentage of the population that will bitch about it.

Me, I'm just gonna enjoy the music and not worry about the rest.

"In this darkened room, full of sparks and wires, my mind is a box of broken toys"