Why is so much new music recorded so so badly?

[skizzerflake]

Yesterday it happened again. I was in the car listening to the Weasel Show (a long time Baltimore DJ with an encyclopedic knowledge of music) and he played a 1960's song by soul singer Solomon Burke (didn't hear the name of the song), but I realized that it sounded like Burke and his musicians (a finger picked guitar and an acoustic bass) were in the car with me. This was probably ripped from an old vinyl disk or perhaps put on a Cd from a master, but it was processed for FM broadcast, transmitted, received in my car and played through the so-so sound system, accompanied by traffic noise, and it sounded (the actual recording, aside from his fine singing) light years better than most contemporary music.

It's not a matter of cost, because this minimal recording could have been done with 3 mikes and a simple mix in one take. Considering the minor vocal flaws in Burke's fine singing and the finger squeaks of the guitarist, there obviously was not much of an attempt at editing but the end result was wonderful.

What gives? Any off-the-shelf Mac comes with Garage Band, which could make this recording, not to mention the big studio setups with massively expensive equipment. Why do we, the musical public, put up with the badly recorded, peak limited, auto tuned sonic crap that comes out every day? Why do the studios release it? Have they no pride at all? It's not about mobile devices and earbuds either, because the sound in this song was processed extensively before it came out in my car and it STILL sounded better than 95% of what I buy today, not to mention other music that came from the same radio show in the same sonic environment.

Yes, I know that the fact that I still buy music makes me part of the problem, but why are we and the rest of the music buying public not more up in arms? Is there anybody out there who still has ears? I'm not a radical equipment-geek audiophile in this case because I heard this song in the worst of sonic settings.

There....I got that off my chest!

 

[Pyrrho]

A lot of it has to do with maxing out the volume for radio playback. And if it is actually heard on the radio, it is more likely to sell. So it makes good business sense for them to do this.

As for why people put up with it, I basically don't. I don't buy the poorly made crap that comes out. But my choice has little impact on the matter, as there are plenty of people who do buy crap, and so there is plenty of crap made.

If people only bought things that were good, this would greatly decrease the amount of crap made, and would increase the amount of good things made. But this is a business, and making what sells is what makes the most sense for them to do. And so they make plenty of crap, because people buy crap.

As for being up in arms, the only thing that matters are sales. You can complain all you want, but if you still buy the crap, your complaint means nothing to them. They still got your money, and that was the point of making it in the first place. The only real leverage that people have is in their buying choices. If they do not use that leverage, then the companies will continue to do what achieves their goal of making money.


As for your anecdote, I remember listening to something in my car on the radio that was recorded in the 1950's. It was mono, but I was amazed at the sound quality. The DJ explained how it was recorded, and that explained why it was so good. The person in charge was interested in the best sound he could get. It was recorded with one very high quality microphone, and all the musicians simply gathered around it to play. So there was no mixing later on; it was just a single track that was recorded. That was copied for the CD, and so it sounded great. Of course, recording that way means that if a musician makes a mistake, they could not simply rerecord his individual track; they would all have to play it again.

So, yes, really good sound quality has been possible for a very long time. But they make what sells best, as it is a business. Businesses that ignore the bottom line don't tend to stay in business for very long.

 

[Nestor]

 

[skizzerflake]

A lot of it has to do with maxing out the volume for radio playback. And if it is actually heard on the radio, it is more likely to sell. So it makes good business sense for them to do this.

As for why people put up with it, I basically don't. I don't buy the poorly made crap that comes out. But my choice has little impact on the matter, as there are plenty of people who do buy crap, and so there is plenty of crap made......

Maxing out the loudness and compressing dynamics is only part of the problem. The other part is the general clarity and detail, which gets "smudged" in many recordings. While I do seek and find some well recorded music, I also want music that comes from specific performers and albums and you're pretty much stuck with what is in the market. It's unfortunate and it surprises me just how many people I have mentioned this to have rationalizations like "I'm interested in the music, not the recording". I appreciate that, but wouldn't it be nice if it sounded good to?

 

[Pyrrho]

Maxing out the loudness and compressing dynamics is only part of the problem. The other part is the general clarity and detail, which gets "smudged" in many recordings.

When they maximize loudness and compress dynamics, that involves massive distortion. That causes problems with clarity and detail. Watch the video provided by Nestor.

While I do seek and find some well recorded music, I also want music that comes from specific performers and albums and you're pretty much stuck with what is in the market. It's unfortunate and it surprises me just how many people I have mentioned this to have rationalizations like "I'm interested in the music, not the recording". I appreciate that, but wouldn't it be nice if it sounded good to?

What you are buying is a particular product. You do not get to pick and choose all of the details. You get it as is. You either accept the totality, or you reject it. Those have always been the only choices. It is not as if someone could buy a Beatles album in the 1960's and have a different lead guitar on a song. You either buy the total product or you don't buy it. Those have always been the only choices.

If you are willing to pay for a poorly made product from a particular musician, there is no incentive for them to do anything differently from what they are doing. You might want to reread the previous sentence a few times to get the message, as there are many people who complain online, but their actions encourage the thing about which they complain. It is useless to complain when you are going to give them your money anyway. They got your money, that is why they did what they did, and so they have absolutely no reason whatsoever to give you what you want.

First world problems are a *****.

 

[skizzerflake]

When they maximize loudness and compress dynamics, that involves massive distortion. That causes problems with clarity and detail. Watch the video provided by Nestor.
What you are buying is a particular product. You do not get to pick and choose all of the details. You get it as is. You either accept the totality, or you reject it. Those have always been the only choices. It is not as if someone could buy a Beatles album in the 1960's and have a different lead guitar on a song. You either buy the total product or you don't buy it. Those have always been the only choices.

If you are willing to pay for a poorly made product from a particular musician, there is no incentive for them to do anything differently from what they are doing. You might want to reread the previous sentence a few times to get the message, as there are many people who complain online, but their actions encourage the thing about which they complain. It is useless to complain when you are going to give them your money anyway. They got your money, that is why they did what they did, and so they have absolutely no reason whatsoever to give you what you want.

First world problems are a *****.

Having made recordings and played music myself, I know on a technical level how all that works. Mine is a general lament about people's expectations, and a cynical industry that claims to be art. It might be a lament about the state of Americans' souls. You're right that it's the privilege of first world malcontents who don't have to run from fundamentalists who want to burn their homes or worry about having their children eaten by jaguars.

 

[zhimbo]

I generally ignore most current pop music, but out of curiosity I checked out some of the Grammy nominees on Spotify. Some songs were decent enough, but I could barely stand listening to half of them, they were so unbelievably compressed and awful sounding (and don't get me started on friggin' auto-tune). I was pretty stunned. I thought I knew what bad, over-loud stuff sounded like (I do have some new music in rotation!) but they keep pushing it worse and worse it seems.

 

[Alex2507]

first world malcontents

That's what I'm going to name my motor cycle gang.

I'm so beyond spoiled with the vast selection of music available to me and yet I want more. I want it at my finger tips. I want it at high resolution. I want it where ever I go. Gimme, gimme, gimme. Oh yeah, I want it free and I want it with no commercials. I am a child.

 

[Ponzio]

If you are willing to pay for a poorly made product from a particular musician, there is no incentive for them to do anything differently from what they are doing. You might want to reread the previous sentence a few times to get the message, as there are many people who complain online, but their actions encourage the thing about which they complain. It is useless to complain when you are going to give them your money anyway. They got your money, that is why they did what they did, and so they have absolutely no reason whatsoever to give you what you want.

Personally I blame the artist/producers from the UK between the early 60's and in some instances, to this day. The British Invasion as it came to be called, by the Beatles, Stones, et all, set back recording standards a good 3 decades. The songs were so good that a lot of kids my age didn't realize our ears were being raped and hence became audiophile cripples. It wasn't until I was 16 and started listening to Chess artists like Little Walter, Sonny Boy Williamson, Muddy and Willie Dixon that the light bulb came on. Wait a minute, how is it possible that these recordings, recorded from the 50's & early 60's sound so pristine and the first 2 Led Zeppelin albums sound like shite? It was simple, we made a deal with the devil by buying all those albums from Britain and the producers had no incentive to upgrade their pre-historic studios and the associated equipment (microphones, mixing boards/etc.) and were still living with those consequences to this day. Making matters worse, US producers aped their standards at that time to get that UK sound.

 

[skizzerflake]

I generally ignore most current pop music, but out of curiosity I checked out some of the Grammy nominees on Spotify. Some songs were decent enough, but I could barely stand listening to half of them, they were so unbelievably compressed and awful sounding (and don't get me started on friggin' auto-tune). I was pretty stunned. I thought I knew what bad, over-loud stuff sounded like (I do have some new music in rotation!) but they keep pushing it worse and worse it seems.

The thing that aggravates me about this is that I do hear new music that I like, but often the recordings are so awful that it's nearly unlistenable. To be fair, listening on Spotify adds a layer of messiness to what's already there, but it doesn't take good recordings and make them bad. I get aggravated because, compared to a half century ago, recording technology is cheap and easy. Whatever reservations a purist might have about digital recordings, even at its low end, it can make a better recording than what I hear in so much music, so there's no technical excuse for the nasty recordings. I just don't understand what the upside of bad sound is.

 

[ski2xblack]

From Klipsch display at CES:

 

[Pyrrho]

... I just don't understand what the upside of bad sound is.

The upside has to do with radio broadcasts and playback in a car. There are other reasons, too. Here are some articles to get you started:

The Loudness Wars: Why Music Sounds Worse : NPR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

Compression is killing your music | Crave - CNET

The top 10 reasons why music is compressed | The Audiophiliac - CNET News

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpIcHGe27Cs



While I am at it, take a look at the reviews of this CD on Amazon:

Amazon.com: Carmina Burana: Music

It is a fantastic recording. Because it has a proper amount of dynamic range for the piece of music, people complain about it. Many rate it as 1 star because of the dynamic range. You should buy it and listen to it, if you are tired of having flattened sound. You will need to listen to it in an otherwise quiet room, and you will probably want to play it so that the soft portions are barely loud enough to hear tolerably. It is not suitable for background music.

Many people like crap. So they hate that CD.

 

[ImcLoud]

compressed is better less to hear, rite? easier on the ears?

 

[skizzerflake]

The upside has to do with radio broadcasts and playback in a car. There are other reasons, too. Here are some articles to get you started:


Many people like crap. So they hate that CD.

There's no upside to it. You can always take good recordings and make them bad...it's going the other way that doesn't work. It's kinda like how you can take good wine, toss in some catsup and make it awful, but there's no way to take out the catsup. A large percent of the music industry is putting catsup in their wine right at the factory and a large percent of the music listening population is too inattentive to even notice.

Cds are not the problem since a CD can make a decent (if not great) recording, or at least do better than 90% of what's being released. It's the expectations of the audience and the cynicism of the studios that are the problem.

 

[Pyrrho]

There's no upside to it. You can always take good recordings and make them bad...it's going the other way that doesn't work. It's kinda like how you can take good wine, toss in some catsup and make it awful, but there's no way to take out the catsup. A large percent of the music industry is putting catsup in their wine right at the factory and a large percent of the music listening population is too inattentive to even notice.

Cds are not the problem since a CD can make a decent (if not great) recording, or at least do better than 90% of what's being released. It's the expectations of the audience and the cynicism of the studios that are the problem.

Of course there is an upside. They sell them and make money. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a business is not about making money. However, money is the essential point of any business. Whether they make money putting out crap or something good is irrelevant to the business. As things are, it has been profitable for them to turn out crap, because people like crap. Since that makes them more money than putting out good stuff, they are smarter putting out crap.

To use your wine analogy, if more people will buy the wine with catsup in it, then the smart businessperson sells wine with catsup in it. And it makes no difference whatsoever to this if some of the people who buy it complain that it would be better without the catsup. That they buy it is what matters, nothing else.

_________________________________________________


Also, as a format, there is nothing wrong with CDs for 2 channel music, as it does not audibly degrade the sound at all:

BAS Experiment Explanation page - Oct 2007

Boston Audio Society - ABX Testing article

24/192 Music Downloads are Very Silly Indeed

 

[skizzerflake]

Of course there is an upside. They sell them and make money. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that a business is not about making money. However, money is the essential point of any business. Whether they make money putting out crap or something good is irrelevant to the business. As things are, it has been profitable for them to turn out crap, because people like crap. Since that makes them more money than putting out good stuff, they are smarter putting out crap.....

I have no glassy eyed illusions about the commercial nature of the music world, and yes, I know that my protest is a futile comment in a degraded popular culture. Sometimes I expect a little more out of humans but then reality sinks in.

 

[Ponzio]

Sometimes I expect a little more out of humans but then reality sinks in.

That's the first sign of recovery on the road back to sobriety.

 

[kzaudiovideo]

People now just listen to whatever music there is regardless of the recording quality of as long as it is popular.

 

[Hobbit]

People now just listen to whatever music there is regardless of the recording quality of as long as it is popular.

... and most these sae people are listening through their pods with cheap earplugs or in their car...

 

[skizzerflake]

Today, my favorite local FM DJ "Weasel" did a retrospective of Buddy Holly in honor of "The Day the Music Died". That inspired me to listen to some Holly and, even on Spotify, with earbuds, those 1950's mono recordings of Buddy Holly sound leagues better than most recordings that are made now. They are clean, lively, realistic, and engaging, as though I was in the room with him, in spite of stone age recording technology...a sad commentary on what's made today. In 1957, it was expected that teens would be listening to Buddy on a $10 record player, from a miserable 45 rpm single or on a crackly AM car radio, but the recording studio engineers then had enough pride in their craft to make him sound really good....sad for us now by comparison. A couple of the songs on Spotify are actually in Stereo and also sound great.

Last week's Weasel retrospective was the Everly Brothers (RIP Phil)...same observation and this stuff was also put down in the 1950's. If you think it's mobile devices and earbuds, just turn Spotify to either of these early rock icons and enjoy some really nice sound quality