The first "modern" sounding recording by today's standards?

[darkandrew]

A few days ago I ordered Pink Floyd's "The Dark Side Of the Moon" (2011 James Guthrie remaster - for the sake of technical completeness) from Amazon and so tonight having listened to it properly and in its entirety for the first time (I've previously listened to tracks from it on compilations, etc) I'm left with a high regard for the song writing, musicianship, etc but a slight feeling of being underwhelmed by the recording itself. Yes, I know it was recorded 40 years ago but to me it wasn't the epiphany that I expected, for example compare it to Roxy Music's "Manifesto" from the same decade and sonically the two are poles apart, allow yourself to move ever so slightly into the 80's and you have Roxy's "Flesh And Blood" and Ultravox's "Vienna" of 1980, or a little further still, and you have ABC's "Lexicon of Love" from '83, all a million miles away from DSotM in terms of sound and production. Obviously a lot changed in terms of recording technology in the ten years that span these albums, from 1973 to 1983, and somewhere in that ten year span was probably born the first "modern" sounding recording by today's standards but what would you say that recording was?

Edited December 18, 2013 by darkandrew

[pete.young]

Bop till you drop by Ry Cooder was the first mainstream digitally recorded album.

[EssentialTension]

and Bop Till You Drop was a very common demo disc in hi-fi shops in 1979/80.

[wateroftyne]

David Crosby's 1971 solo album 'If I Coild Only Remember My Name' is beautifully recorded.

Also, a lot of Buddy Holly's stuff sounds like it could have been recorded yesterday.

[Wil]

A lot of Zappa's back catalogue sounds very ahead of it's time sonically.

[MoonBassAlpha]

I doubt it happened in one quantum jump, but incrementally over the decade.
I remember a trainee engineer friend raving about the production sound of UKs first album in 1978
I think it had one of the first recordings using Yamaha's big poly synth (could be wrong here, it was a long time ago!)

[darkandrew]

[quote name='noelk27' timestamp='1387407267' post='2311753']
What's your definition of " 'modern' sounding"?
[/quote]
That's hard to say - listen to say Bowie's "Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust" and sonically it's very much of its time, it just lacks the clarity and richness of sound that you find in recordings of a decade later. But compare Duran Duran's "Rio", for example, to a recording of ten years later and sonically there's not much to choose between them. It's hard to put your finger on it - it's like describing a Fender Precision as "vintage" sounding and a Spector NS4 as "modern" sounding, you kind of know what the difference is but its hard to put into words.

[Wil]

To me, most 80s music sounds terribly dated because of the production tricks, drums sounds and synths of the time. I find many 70s records sound fresher to my ears tbh. The early 90s was just as bad. Too much bloody digital reverb.

[pnefc42]

Queen's 'A Night At The Opera' maybe? Recorded during 1975, still sounds pretty fresh to my ears

Edited December 19, 2013 by pnefc42

[lowdown]

I also remember Donald Fagen's 'The Nightfly' being used as a demo-disc in hi-fi shops,
and it was also good for using as reference for studio monitoring systems.

[LukeFRC]

I'm not sure modern is the right word to use. The examples you meant ion are bands that sound horribly 80's to my ears - but I was born before they all came out. DSoTM I like listening too (un remastered) and have never found the production to me lacking- just different goals with how it sounds? Is in utero less "modern" than nevermind?
In my mind the 'tricks' used in production all have their own eras, and sound different - I'm not sure one is better than the other though.

[lowlandtrees]

I think that over the years there has been a slow drive to compress everything to the max and remove headroom. Current pop is not only compressed to death in the recording but the use of dynamics. space and silence in the mix has all but disappeared. Don't get me wrong I love that up front compressed vocal in its place but it is only part of a whole canvass. I can also appreciate a good pop song but I think the mistake that is being made is that they all use the same (probably) digital tools and ......all sound very similar......do I sound like ma da?

[4 Strings]

I'm not an analogue freak or anything (my cd sounds better than my record deck!), but I find I enjoy the sound quality of older recordings more often than recent recordings.

In the 'old days' it seemed to be the aim to get that recording sounding as near the source as possible. We then went through the 80s etc when it was considered necessary to 'enhance' the natural sound and we have those over-compressed, scooped sounding recordings typified by 'Celebrate Good Times'.

It appears we're coming through that with more enthusiasm for returning to a producing a natural sound from recordings. I'm hearing more bass drums that sound like a bass drum and less like a depth charge with click.

I am therefore also not sure what a 'modern' sounding recording is. Certainly with classical recordings my favourites (in terms of recording quality) are Deccas from the 60s and 70s, some are extraordinary, particularly many of those of Britten.

I suppose, with music types likely to feature bass guitars, older recordings are more likely to have actual musical instruments recorded rather than digital samples which, I'm sure, adds to their quality.

[EliasMooseblaster]

[quote name='lowlandtrees' timestamp='1387446385' post='2311947']
I think that over the years there has been a slow drive to compress everything to the max and remove headroom. Current pop is not only compressed to death in the recording but the use of dynamics. space and silence in the mix has all but disappeared. Don't get me wrong I love that up front compressed vocal in its place but it is only part of a whole canvass. I can also appreciate a good pop song but I think the mistake that is being made is that they all use the same (probably) digital tools and ......all sound very similar......do I sound like ma da?
[/quote]

This is a potential issue - you say it was a remaster from 2011? I'm no expert, but you have to remember that it will have been rehashed by a more modern ear, with more modern media in mind.

I recently had the pleasure of listening to an original 1970s copy, and comparing this with a recently remastered version. Being unable to get a hot enough signal out of the turntable, my friend decided to switch to the new CD version so that we could at least crank the volume and have our hair blown back by Gilmour's guitar solos. In doing so, we found the remaster really quite unsatisfying - the whole bottom end of it seemed to be too booming, even woolly, and EQing his stereo did little to help. We went back to the turntable and decided that the clarity of the mix/master would outweigh the modest volume we were limited to.

So I've gone off on one a bit there, but my point is: does the recording sound dated, or does this attempt to remaster it make it sound dated?


I'll freely admit, it does sound "very '70s," as do many other LPs of that era ([i]Who's Next, Paranoid, [/i][i]Zeppelin I-IV[/i])...but then I rather like that sound!

[cytania]

The modern sound begins with drums coming to the fore of the mix. I think XTC's English Settlement was one of the first productions to get this treatment. Hugh Padham was behind that so it may be his work with Peter Gabriel was earlier (at work so no time to check this!).

[cytania]

Yes Peter Gabriel 3 came out in 1980 with Phil Collins, Padham and Steve Lillywhite creating the 'gated' drum sound. Dominant drums force the bass up in the mix and 80s bass is more percussive/melodic as a result. Poor old guitars get shunted right back or even replaced by synths.

[Wil]

Bowie/Eno's work on Low was probably fairly significant in that regard also, a few years prior.

[Roger2611]

I think one song that was a massive sonic step forward for me was Donna Summer's I Feel Love from 1976, I have to admit I had been smoking something naughty first time I heard it but boy the stereo mix was like a sonic headf**k I still think it sounds huge today

[darkandrew]

[quote name='cytania' timestamp='1387459411' post='2312180']
The modern sound begins with drums coming to the fore of the mix. I think XTC's English Settlement was one of the first productions to get this treatment. Hugh Padham was behind that so it may be his work with Peter Gabriel was earlier (at work so no time to check this!).
[/quote]

Yes, I think that it probably is the recording of the drums that makes it. Listening to recordings from the 60s and early 70s, the drums are often fairly low in the mix and have about as much resonance as a telephone directory being hit with slipper.

Edited December 19, 2013 by darkandrew

[darkandrew]

[quote name='4 Strings' timestamp='1387457705' post='2312151']
I'm not an analogue freak or anything (my cd sounds better than my record deck!), but I find I enjoy the sound quality of older recordings more often than recent recordings.

In the 'old days' it seemed to be the aim to get that recording sounding as near the source as possible. We then went through the 80s etc when it was considered necessary to 'enhance' the natural sound and we have those over-compressed, scooped sounding recordings typified by 'Celebrate Good Times'.

It appears we're coming through that with more enthusiasm for returning to a producing a natural sound from recordings. I'm hearing more bass drums that sound like a bass drum and less like a depth charge with click.

I am therefore also not sure what a 'modern' sounding recording is. Certainly with classical recordings my favourites (in terms of recording quality) are Deccas from the 60s and 70s, some are extraordinary, particularly many of those of Britten.

I suppose, with music types likely to feature bass guitars, older recordings are more likely to have actual musical instruments recorded rather than digital samples which, I'm sure, adds to their quality.
[/quote]

I think there was a point in the mid to late 80's and through into the 90's when recordings became too sterile - every snare hit in a song sounded identical (probably because it was the same sample being played over and over again) but thankfully with the general music audience's newly found taste for all things retro we've found a happier medium between technical excellence and a musical performance.

[RAY AGAINST THE MACHINE]

Good thread this, which will probably run for ages. A friend of mine recently purchased a turntable, and he has started buying vinyl that has been reissued the expensive way.i think his aim is to buy 'classic' albums like Floyd , nirvana etc. I'm not sure I would do this. I have turntable with some old vinyl already.
I've bought music in every version possible (except 8 track/gramophone ). So, I'll stick to the various versions which I already have.when buying vinyl years ago, it was imperative to buy the original pressings. (Ie united artists and not the emi fame repress)
albums that stood out years ago (and sill do); tubular bells/sabbath vol4/UFO obsessions/ Floyd / hawkwind levitation/do re mi/queensryche rage for order.
The 80s were full of over produced drums . Not all bad, but you can tell the stuff that didn't bode well. Now I wanna reclaim my overkill on green vinyl.

Edited December 19, 2013 by RAY AGAINST THE MACHINE

[iconic]

The first time i remember thinking about the amazing quality and clarity of a recording was with FGTH Welcome to the pleasure dome. i always thought the early level 42 lps were very well recorded/engineered too.

[Dad3353]

I've not known wax cylinders (I'm told they were fragile...), but have kept preciously a set of 78s of Schubert's 9th. There is a particular resonance to the brass which pleases me; very 'bell-like'. Schubert did not compose to this medium, and 78s have a maximum 'play' time dictated by their physics. This meant having the music interrupted in order to drop the next disk, or turn the pile over.
Modern technology to the rescue. I carefully recorded the set on my Akai cassette deck, using an expensive chrome tape. This ensured the most faithful reproduction, and would store well. I listened often to this tape.
I was offered the opportunity to assist at the Royal Albert Hall at a rendering of this work, and sat enthralled (a young apprentice at the time...) as the whole opus unfolded. Come the third movement there is a fine crescendo which wanes, only to unfurl again in great crashes. Shock..! Horror..! I very nearly screamed out loud..! There was the crescendo, but not its repeat..! Good gracious; what is the conductor doing, massacring Schubert in this way..?
The explanation only came to me later. In recording the disks, this crescendo came at the very end of one side of the disk. The producer had thought it pertinent to start the next face with this crescendo, so as to recover its emotion. Not knowing this, I'd recorded both on my cassette. Having listened so many times to [i]this [/i]version, I took it naturally to be part of the composition. To this day, I still prefer [i]my[/i] version, with the double crescendo. I had inadvertently improved upon Schubert.
Happy days.
Back to the topic..? Oh yes. Well, in ageing, my hearing has far more deteriorated than I would like, and I couldn't judge the absolute merits or otherwise of production from the '60s etc. I consider myself lucky to be able to hear it at all. It may not last. Enjoy it for what it is, at the time, is what I would say. Who knows what the future holds..?

Edited December 20, 2013 by Dad3353

[51m0n]

What is the definition of modern sounding?

Because anything in that sounds classic 80's (Rio for example) sounds immensely dated to me.

In comparison Autobahn by Kraftwerk (1974) sounds infinitely more modern and hasn't aged in the same way at all to my ear.....

[muttley]

I'd say the first modern recording was the one that had a convincing stereo soundstage. In other words, you can play it back over a decent quality system and have the impression of the musicians/instruments in the room with you*. That was probably some time in the 1960s.

* Better still, an impression of being transported to the venue where the performance took place. However, as we all know such a performance rarely actually exists so I'm really not sure about that part...