Modern Production Values ....or lack of...

No I bet yer right on the mark and very nice of your wife to note that. You picked a good one.

My first thought is that it would be interesting to see how their respective recording budgets compare.

I'm not saying that budget is the only factor ... there's also aesthetic intent in that some artists prefer the slapdash sound. And on the other hand, to be sure, many quality productions these days are produced with slim budgets. But Petty can afford to use the very best studios with the very best engineers and gear, and stay in the studio without worrying that much (or at all) about the budget clock.

Best,
Fred

I generally find that the amount of time in the studio is inversely proportional to the quality of the record. Listen to any late 50's jazz and you'll see what I mean.

Nigel

Interesting guys in that I hadn't thought about it in terms of time or budget more that Petty with Jeff Lynne on board as producer simply wanted to turn out a first rate record.

You're right enough about Jazz Nigel - the Blue Note recordings I've got by Coltrane and co is pretty wonderful stuff.

Regards,

Lindsay

quote:

Originally posted by hungryhalibut:

I generally find that the amount of time in the studio is inversely proportional to the quality of the record. Listen to any late 50's jazz and you'll see what I mean.

It absolutely depends on the intent of the recording, the style of music, the artistic vision of its authors. Some one-day-in-the-studio albums are great, some are awful. Some months-long productions are great, some are awful. The amount of time spent doesn't really determine the quality of the resulting music.

All best,
Fred

quote:

Originally posted by hungryhalibut:
I generally find that the amount of time in the studio is inversely proportional to the quality of the record. Listen to any late 50's jazz and you'll see what I mean.

Nigel

I think the salient word is "generally"....Steely Dan come to mind as the exception that proves the rule!

I pretty sure Buddy Holly and the Crickets recorded whole albums in the time modern groups take to decide on a title.
A lot of those recordings are superb.

quote:

Originally posted by Jet Johnson:

quote:

Originally posted by hungryhalibut:

I generally find that the amount of time in the studio is inversely proportional to the quality of the record. Listen to any late 50's jazz and you'll see what I mean.

I think the salient word is "generally" .... Steely Dan come to mind as the exception that proves the rule!

Truly sorry to be obstinate about this, but I don't think it's even "generally" true ... sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

What I do think is true is that some folks embrace the romanticized myth that the quicker an album is recorded the better the music. The generalization simply doesn't hold up, in either direction, with enough consistency to become a dependable rule.

Often hand in hand with this myth is the myth that the first take is the best take ... sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't ... sometimes the magic doesn't show up until the eighth take, or the twenty-eighth take. Sometimes there is no "take" at all ... magic is constructed in non-sequential order, the way many films are made.

Steely Dan is certainly an exception as you rightly point out. And Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Electric Ladyland, Dark Side of the Moon, Deja Vu, Shawn Colvin's A Few Small Repairs, much of Peter Gabriel's work, many of Weather Report's great albums, some of Pat Metheny's best work ... and the list could go on and on.

Conversely, lord knows there are countless one or two day jazz and blues blowing sessions that are awful. To take the example of "any late 50's jazz" ... almost all jazz in the late 50s was recorded quickly, but not all of it is great, not by a long shot. And the albums that are great are so not necessarily because they were recorded quickly ... many musicians have complained about not having adequate time to do their best.

In my decades of recording experience and study I've learned that musical magic appears in myriad forms ... it all depends on everything.

All best,
Fred

I think it's down to the producer rather than time spent in the studio. I'm thinking of Mark Knopfler in particular. He's made a conscious decision to get the best quality sound he can, throwing a lot of money into his own studio. It means his recording sessions are quite fast and often 1st takes are all that's necessary with some additional tracking later. On the other hand I've heard much smaller scale albums recorded in houses that are equally stunning. The technology is there, so you can only assume a producer has chosen a certain path. I listened to the latest David Gray album and was shocked how dire the sound quality was. His early albums sounded much better to my ears.

Splendid argument Fred, I agree entirely with your view.

The other factor is that some bands want a deliberately lo-fi sound. Keith Richards was interviewed on BBC4s Blues Britannia and described the scene at Decca when the Rolling Stones turned up for their early recording sessions. The lab coat wearing technicians were appalled at the amount of distortion the artist wanted. Without a doubt they knew how to obtain a technically perfect recording but that wasn't what the Stones wanted; they wished the music to sound 'dirty' for want of a better term.

quote:

Originally posted by fred simon:

It absolutely depends on the intent of the recording, the style of music, the artistic vision of its authors. Some one-day-in-the-studio albums are great, some are awful. Some months-long productions are great, some are awful. The amount of time spent doesn't really determine the quality of the resulting music.

All best,
Fred

Have to agree with this.. Im sure somewhere in all those Oasis Albums I bought theres a good song hidden in there but the mush that comes out of the speakers simply makes me want to turn it off, Sometimes this artistic vision to sound like you put the album together in your dads garage can be taken a little to far...