This is kind of an interesting read about the state of big time record making and radio.
"Why Records DO All Sound The Same"
by Tom Whitwell from The Word magazine Feb 2008
There's a link to a revealing video of Maroon 5 in the studio constructing a hit.
Also worth watching is the "Pt 2" continuation you can find once you get to the listings in Youtube.
Interesting stuff.
"Well, I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused..."
Elvis Costello
Interesting.
I guess I'd say I don't think they're following an across-the-board formula for making a hit. However there's no question they're following a Maroon5 formula for creating new songs that sound exactly like what their previous hits were.
||: i / / / | V7aug / / / | VII / / / | IV / / / :|| (Note, bassline must descend in half-steps)
You can only build so many repeating riffs that outline that structure.
Same deal as Nickelback I think. They get one big hit, then write every song on their next albums to sound just like it.
Imitation (of yourself) is the sincerest form of flattery (of yourself)?
Yeah, I haven't noticed much variety in M5's stuff.
I do like some of it though. But at least it's not like they're just the pretty faces, and studio aces and team of writers do the behind the scenes work.
I wonder if they'd have different results getting the songs written before they go into the studio.
The video makes a different version of the point the article's making.
My limited time hearing commercial radio (like when I go to the Y and it's just on always) makes the audio homogeneity really jump out at me.
"Well, I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused..."
Elvis Costello
AMEN. I hate that about new recordings. "Heart of Gold" by NY or "Gimme Danger" by the Stooges to me is how an acoustic guitar should sound. You'd think that someone, somewhere at a record co. would listen to some modern records and say, "This one doesn't need all that extra polish". But they blow it every time.Compare an acoustic track from Neil Young’s Harvest (1972) with one from Johnny Cash’s American IV (2002). Rick Rubin’s recordings of Cash are extraordinarily intimate and affecting. But they don’t sound anything like Johnny Cash sitting in your living room playing some songs. They sound like you’re perched on Johnny Cash’s lap with one ear in his mouth and a stethoscope on his guitar.
I"ve mentioned this one here before, but for those who can stomach classic 70's/80s punk rock, check out the Descendents' "Milo goes to College". Ironically, though it is an aggressive form of music, and an aggressive sounding recording, it is actually very pleasing to the ear (to my taste).
This is actually a great example of the extreme isolation and control the author of the article is describing, but it's not over polished. One bass track (my ears tell me) two guitar tracks (from one guitarist) one drum track, and mostly one vocal track except for some harmonies. Very simple, straightforward. But not in a harsh way, OR a super polished, over-compressed way. Just a great sounding record. Not to mention great songwriting and musicianship (for punk rock)
Today's albums, however loud or in your face sounding, pale in comparison. They can never sound as aggressive, yet pleasing to the ear as "Milo". This is one of the reasons I can't stand to listen to the radio or watch TV. That high-frequency whizz-bang sound, trying to get your attention. Ugh, it makes my head hurt.
Not entirely relevant to this thread, but tangential to the perception of music thing....
I'm reading this book at the moment:
This is your brain on music
and it's interesting how the brain and mind work together to influence how music is perceived as pleasing or jarring.
Just goes to support my theory that my brain is nothing like that of a 26 year old suburban housewife.
DD
I'm about halfway through that book too.
"Well, I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused..."
Elvis Costello
Really good article -- thanks. A good synthesis (with real world accessible examples) of the "loudness wars" stuff I run into on recording forums that is mostly over my head.
Oh... and that is an EXCELLENT book!
Google 'nickelback tracks same' and click the second link.
Tommy.
LOL! Hilarious! That track of the two songs spliced together sounds better than the originals on their own! Like singing in a round.Originally Posted by ziess
so now they have THREE songs!
OTOH, how many blues greats could you do that same exercise with a good portion of their recorded output?
"Well, I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused..."
Elvis Costello
Elmore James, I think would be the prime contender.
Several guitars in different colors
Things to make them fuzzy
Things to make them louder
orange picks
I thought we were talking about a sonically similar production strategy. All the modern CD's my son has gotten lately have basically pegged my meters on my stereo - every frequency band into the red...all the time.
Sure, it sounds good...but it's hard on the ears and the sanity.
Give me an old vinyl pressing of a Charlie Parker album...the meters are all over the place and the music actually seems to breathe...
"I'm gonna find myself a girl
that can show me what laughter means
And we'll fill in the missing colors
In each other's paint-by-number dreams..."
They actually did a follow up piece on NPR where the guys who did that spliced track finally had to admit (under threat of lawsuit) that they had to extensively use ProTools to get them to sync like that in tempo and form. In their defense they said it was "the spirit of the argument" that remanined true for their story.
The point is well made: they all sound the same, but the spliced track is inaccurate.
You're right.
The article focused on that, but the video (linked in the article) of Maroon 5 in the studio crossed over from the audio/tech aspect into compositional sameness, and the point veered some.
In their case, being that they appear to be writing a song (or assembling one from various parts), in the studio, and by committee, the audio sameness and the compositional sameness sort of become one.
I think this phenomenon is way more prevalent in the upper reache$ of commercial, modern rockpophiphopcountry- where there'$ $o much more at $take.
I really notice it when I hear that kind of radio.
And it really is distracting when you're accustomed to dynamics, that "breathe" factor- even if you don't realize how accustomed to it you are.
I recently picked up the latest Chuck Prophet CD (Soap and Water), and it's pure ear candy, beginning to end. The dynamics and variety of funky little details, sounds and samples he uses. Everything is in a great place and it's a really cool thing to behold with headphones.
"Well, I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused..."
Elvis Costello
Yes, I saw that NPR piece; it's just good fun anyway. It certainly would not be the first time a band had two songs that sounded alike.
But back on subject now...
Your right; the vinyl and classic recording style is very organic sounding and pleasing to the ear.
It's amazing how many effects will be added into modern music so it will sound as if it was recorded in a room the old way. seems a bit backwards. But every one has different tastes.
FWIW some of the old Speedy West and Jimmy Bryant recordings from the 50's sound as crystal clear and lively as anything, and without an ungodly amount of compression.
Just imagine how they would have sounded if they'd had 16 tracks to play with...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote