How Pro Tools Is Destroying Music

[12 August 2008]

Computer programs are killing the old recording studios, and the engineering knowhow once harnessed there is disappearing.

By Scott Oranburg

At 54th Street and 9th Avenue in Midtown Manhattan are six duplex penthouses with thousands of feet of premium-grade oak hardwood floor, designer fireplaces, color video intercom systems, stainless-steel Sub-Zeros, and Halila limestone in five-fixture master bathrooms. But the sumptuous touches throughout these newborn penthouses may only be contrived attempts to overshadow the ghost of the space’s previous inhabitant. Where these condominiums are being polished, waxed, and re-waxed, one of the greatest recording studios in history once sat, the Hit Factory.

Over the years, the Hit Factory served as the studio for 41 Grammy nominees. There, Springsteen recorded parts for “Born in the U.S.A.” Whitney Houston recorded “I Will Always Love You,” and Stevie Wonder composed Songs in the Key of Life.  But now, the only voices heard are condo owners singing in the showers.

It’s nothing new for historic buildings to be cleared for a quick real estate buck. But the Hit Factory’s demise may be the first sign of a larger problem. Studios throughout the world have been struggling for business like never before—there are more closing studios than platinum albums these days. In the past few years, Manhattan’s Sorcerer Sounds, where Bob Dylan, Lou Reed, and Iggy Pop all recorded tracks; the Record Plant, where Jimi Hendrix, David Bowie, and Aerosmith recorded, and California’s Cello Studios, where Frank Sinatra and Ray Charles once crooned into the high quality mikes; have all closed recently.

So why has a blight suddenly struck the highest-caliber studios in America? Although music piracy has stricken labels and record stores, you’d think that there would be a greater need than ever for high recording quality as the Bob Dylans and Patti Smiths of the past are replaced with Miley Cyrus and the Jonas Brothers. Today’s artists need pitch correction, high quality sampling, and note-perfect backing musicians. But roles that recording studios used to fill are now being taken over by computers, whose digital-data-crunching power is sufficient to turn any of those Hit Factory condos into a studio that only a decade ago would have taken up the entire building.
Sonic space-design programs such as Digidesign’s ReVibe or Logic’s Space Designer have become commonplace in home recording studios, capable of making a guitar part recorded in your parents’ basement sound like it was laid down at the Hit Factory, an English church or even underwater. As these reverb programs grow commonplace, the need for a studio’s acoustically optimized rooms has waned. And more important, programs like Apple Logic, Digidesign’s ProTools, and Propellerhead’s Reason have become ubiquitous on musicians’ laptops, because they supply the resources once available only at professional studios just a few years ago. Now, with a few grand, a novice composer can create a studio with a mixing board, amp simulators, unbeatable EQs, an endless number of synthesizers, MIDI controllers and all the other bells and whistles any audiophile could possibly desire, and a virtually limitless number of tracks to work with.

According to Propellerheads founder Ernst Nathorst-Böös, “A recording studio historically has supplied a number of things: Instruments that weren’t available otherwise, the room to record in, the recording equipment to do it, and experts that help you use all these resources.” But, as Nathorst-Böös argues, the software supplies a bevy of instruments and sounds and acts as mixers and recorders cheaper and more flexible than the mammoth boards of old. And because the studios are being boarded up, there’s not a network in place for keeping the experts employed anymore.

As Nathorst-Böös concedes, professional recording studios are still one of the only places for musicians, engineers, and producers, but the expanding bandwidth and faster speeds for internet connections these days threatens even this modest function. The ability to quickly exchange music files over the Web has already yielded the Postal Service’s Give Up, made through collaborating by email, and …Miles From India, a recent tribute album to Miles Davis, which includes realtime jam sessions recorded with musicians in studios time zones away.

Moreover, collaborative internet networks such as eSessions.com let studio musicians record parts at home and send the files to engineers across the globe to have them mixed, tempo-corrected, and pitch-corrected. ESessions also allows composers to search for particular musicians in the network, circumventing the professional studio as meeting place.

The home-studio revolution may not be as benevolent as it seems. Even though engineering techniques have become vastly easier and cheaper to implement, it still takes study and training to know how. Regardless of how sophisticated recording technology becomes, engineering music will always depend on understanding the ways speakers change air pressure—not something many guitarists have studied. So as more records are made inexpertly by amateur producers in home studios, those who were responsible for the 41 Grammy winning albums recorded in the Hit Factory will be unemployed, and the quality of these home recordings will suffer in unexpected ways .

For example, in the post-studio era, producers commonly compress sound files in order to make albums sound bigger, squashing their dynamic contrast to make the track louder as a whole. As a result, snare drums have less crack than ever, and vocal ranges are more limited; both are less emotive and expressive. And because music-recording programs are designed to use uniform tempos, keys, and time signatures, almost all the songs put out these days don’t vary any of these. It’s nearly impossible to find a hit song now that has a modal or key change.

Without the recent technological innovations, artists like Daft Punk and Timbaland would never have existed. But as the ease and convenience of music-production software grows, the ways that computers inhibit composing overwhelm the ways they might enhance it for a few innovators. Since it’s cheaper to use pitch and tempo correction than find a singer who can sing or a drummer who can drum, the shoddiest musicians can go into a recording studio and spit out a perfectly adjusted loop. Nothing is to prevent producers from selecting musicians for qualities other than their musicianship. Marketable faces now move albums more than ever before, and the money garnered from music sales has been siphoned away from those with talent, songwriting ability, or chops.

But the worst consequence of computer-assisted composing is that it is dehumanizing music. With the human touch inherent in any performance autocorrected digitally, we lose much of the element that gives music its emotive contours. Sometimes, playing slightly behind the beat or slightly below the correct pitch is what makes a piece inspiring. And as we continue to formulaically fit compositions into the strict guidelines that computers give us, musicians will cease trying to innovate and taking risks. They become stymied in their exploration of an art whose beauty fundamentally stems from its limitlessness. Although computers must be given credit for a spectrum of art that would have otherwise been inexpressible, this trend could very well change an art form into Paint by Numbers.

 
Bookmark and Share
Share

Comments

Can’t agree with these statements at all.

Is the pleasure of making music only available to artists backed by a major label willing to fork out millions on studio fees?

Complaining about affordable digital recording technology sounds to me like sour grapes from a once wealthy studio owner. And to suggest that music recorded through Pro Tools sounds rigid and processed is simply incorrect. Pro Tools enables the user to record exactly what he or she wants. It’s just a recording device, like a tape that doesn’t has to be spliced or rewound manually. What it does is save time and money.

OK, tape does have a sound of its own, but unless you own top end hifi equipment, you’re not likely to be able to hear the difference.

Pro Tools is killing music the same way home taping, Napster and the invention of guitar amplification destroyed music. I.e. Not at all.

Comment by Robert Collins from London — August 12, 2008 @ 7:03 am

How can easier access to more powerful tools destroy music?  If anything, it gets people who normally wouldn’t be able to afford studio time the chance to create.  If the results sound too rigid and controlled, that’s the fault of the recordists and producers, not the technology itself.  No matter what the technology, good ears and technical know-how are always valued.

Comment by Grunston Dubberbuntz — August 12, 2008 @ 7:33 am

That’s sad to see all those studios closing.
A problem I find with this article is that it takes the position that technology (computer based recording software in this case) is responsible for killing music, instead of correctly blaming the people who irresponsibly use and exploit the technology. If music is in fact being killed, its by people. The people using the software and the people buying and liking the shitty music that’s made with the technology.
The same technology that has shut down those studios has given the Panda Bears, Elliott Smiths, Arcade Fires, and John Vanderslices the opportunity to make and distribute their music in a high quality format.
The article may have been more correctly titled “How Pro Tools Is Destroying Top 40 Radio”.
Sure, now companies can build an actually talentless pop artist from the ground up starting with a look, but people/consumers don’t have to make that market profitable by buying the spew.
Man likes to invent technologies and then use them to destroy himself, its nothing new. Its not technology’s fault.

Comment by James — August 12, 2008 @ 7:58 am

About the “powerful tools” known as ProTools. Really what’s happening is it’s increasing the pace of the process. Some may believe this is decreasing the artistry of the music.

If you think about it, “in the old days,” you could record and while the tape machine is rewinding for an overdub, the producer would be able to work with the artist while simply waiting for the engineer to get into position. During that time (which may not seem long) a LOT of magic could happen. The organics of the music could / would grow just because of this “down time” between the producer and the artist.

Today, “in modern times,” ProTools doesn’t give that sense of breathing between takes. It almost becomes forced by the fact the producer saying “hey engineer… give me a few minutes.” Now, this doesn’t mean that the same events could happen in the time, but now the producer almost has to pre-plan rather than maintain the organism of music to take it’s own flow… kind of off the cuff if you will.

It’s uncertain which is better. Personally, I agree with the idea of giving the tools to everyone… ESPECIALLY the one’s who couldn’t afford “the old time recording studio.” I especially like the idea of having a plethora of tools at my fingertips. However, I also like the organism of the interpersonal growth similar to the martial art ideal of the master / pupil relationship that would occur between producer and artist which does happen with both situations, but seemed to lend itself better in the old days…

Comment by EG — August 12, 2008 @ 9:18 am

no way to edit original post….
originally: “doesn’t mean that the same events could happen”
should be “doesn’t mean that the same events could not happen

Comment by EG — August 12, 2008 @ 9:20 am

This article seems to assume that everyone using protools employs pitch-correction, tempo fudging, roomsound effects, and other cheesy plug-ins. That’s simply not true. Sure, people with bad taste and little talent rely on these kinds of shortcuts, but there have been plenty of wonderfully natural sounding, performance oriented records made on computers. It’s all about the artist. I feel that there’s a bit of revisionism going on here as well; let’s not forget the hundreds of awful sounding records that came out of these legendary studios. Again, it’s all about the artist.

Comment by j — August 12, 2008 @ 9:38 am

This Op-Ed, while well-intentioned, is one of the most amateur Op-Eds I’ve read on PopMatters—chock full of recycled anti-technology sentiment, unsubstantiated alarmist language and, most importantly, inaccurate examples. I’m sort of shocked, because most of what I’ve read on PopMatters, whether I agree with it or not, is moderately supported with a few sound examples.

To start at the end, the author says, “...the worst consequence of computer-assisted composing is that it is dehumanizing music. With the human touch inherent in any performance autocorrected digitally, we lose much of the element that gives music its emotive contours.” For someone that presumably works in the music industry (PopMatters, afterall, depends on industry output for its review content), the author seems to have a very stark and narrow view of today’s producers, audio engineers and, for that matter, musicians. The author seems to assume the worst of these people—that they are manipulating the “humanity” out of music. That’s a serious claim. So, there’s no humanity in the music of The Fugees or Jason Moran or Le Tigre? All because they rely on sampling, software, and digital artistry to augment their artisitic vision. Wouldn’t it be more apt to suggest they are able to add to their music in new ways, as a result of new technology? Just a thought.

The author says, “...because music-recording programs are designed to use uniform tempos, keys, and time signatures, almost all the songs put out these days don’t vary any of these.” If the author did any research on current sequencing software, the author would know that these applications actually make it easier to adjust speed, key and time signature anywhere in a song at any time; this flexibility actually makes it easier to create more variation in music. The author goes on to say that, “It’s nearly impossible to find a hit song now that has a modal or key change.” I don’t know what research was done, but in the history of pop music, there are maybe a handful of songs that EVER changed keys and they were probably all written by Stevie Wonder. I’m pretty sure there were no key changes in the hits of Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, and The Temptations. I’d personally love to live in a world where mass-consumed music was more experimental, but it’s called “pop” for a reason.

Earlier in the Op-Ed, the author says, “Without the recent technological innovations, artists like Daft Punk and Timbaland would never have existed.” Is this dude for real? In one sentence, he just completely dismissed the talent, hard work, and artistry of two (three, if you count both dudes in Daft Punk) gifted artists. And, it’s not just me talking. The author has also discounted the opinions of everyone that has worked with Timbaland and Daft Punk, evidently. Seriously, is this dude for real?

The beginning of this Op-Ed, ironically, seems to support the idea that new music technology makes music more human, by allowing PEOPLE to collaborate in previously-inconceivable ways—see the author’s Postal Service example and the latest Nicolay & Kay joint.

The examples go on and on. I feel bad about criticizing this Op-Ed, because there’s a part of me that wants to agree with the author. I love those old Stax records and, for my money, nothing beats hearing the musicians banter at the beginning of Art Blakey’s “Moanin’.” But evidence is stacked against the idea that new music technology is “destroying music.” I’d actually opine that if anything could destroy the ART IN MUSIC, it’s alarmist and unsubstantiated claims by music critics. I’d recommend reading “Can’t Stop Won’t Stop” by Jeff Chang and “Sound Unbound” by DJ Spooky for a more well-researched view of the effects that new music technology is having on the culture and art of music.

Comment by Franz Kaftone from USA — August 12, 2008 @ 10:23 am

Scott’s absolutely correct: if studios shut down then the expertise needed to produce music in that way will be lost. How will relative amateurs know what they are trying to replicate? It’s too glib to say “Technology doesn’t kill music, people kill music.” Economically democratic technology will only guarantee more bad records to sort through to get at the gems. That, and artists who are not able to perform music in a live setting. I’d add Joe Boyd’s book “White Bicycles” to the list of useful references.

A metaphor: If you’ve only known clothes dried in a metal box you can’t appreciate lovely fragrent fresh clothes dried outside on a line.

Scott’s wrong: Laziness is killing music. Imagination and good ears are the magic ingredients. Why should we use a mangle when we have a tumble dryer? Now, I’ve got some poetic lyrics and some other ideas, who wants to make an album with me?

Comment by D.M. Edwards — August 12, 2008 @ 11:18 am

Darn kids with their newfangled ProToolies!  Don’t know why they bother making music at all… they’ll never do it better than The Boss.  End of the world, I tell ‘ya!

Comment by Death By Karaoke from Chicago — August 12, 2008 @ 11:47 am

I agree with the commenters all round.  THis article is not only misguided but also inconsistent in its message.  The title suggests a completely different premise from the contents and the premise shift within the piece too…

I lament the loss of recording studios and even more the loss of great recording spaces….it seems like a tide that cannot be stemmed so…..enough complaining.  There certainly is plenty of excitment and interest in music and even in parts of the recording business if you pay attention….

Comment by Jonathan Wyner from Boston, MA — August 12, 2008 @ 1:02 pm

A more mis-informed collection of half-understood facts and ill-formed opinions I have rarely read.

More universal access to the means of production does nothing to improve or deteriorate the quality of music produced.

It just changes the sound of music produced. 

There have always been big expensive studios (there still are plenty of them) and there have always been cheap and nasty studios (there is now one in anybody’s bedroom who cares to have one);

there have always been good musicians and there have always been hacks.

Complaining about the sound of music now and blaming the recording methods used to achieve it is as old as people saying that the player-piano will eliminate real piano players.

Waste of space; thank goodness it wasn’t printed on paper so at least we saved a tree.

Comment by Steptoe from New York — August 12, 2008 @ 1:44 pm

“As these reverb programs grow commonplace, the need for a studio’s acoustically optimized rooms has waned.”

Are you sure? No need for room treatment anymore?

” “It’s nearly impossible to find a hit song now that has a modal or key change.” I don’t know what research was done, but in the history of pop music, there are maybe a handful of songs that EVER changed keys and they were probably all written by Stevie Wonder. I’m pretty sure there were no key changes in the hits of Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, and The Temptations”

Doesn’t My girl take a step up key at the end? A common cheesey pop tool, still used very much to this day.

Comment by lebouche from London — August 12, 2008 @ 6:49 pm

This article is silly.  Pro Tools is not responsible for the demise of music quality.  Quite the opposite. I have heard many artists creating outstanding pieces of work.  The music industry itself is responsible for forcing semi-talented people in our face (American Idol for example) and that has lead to the demise of quality music.

I for one have ditched the label for the indie community, where I can listen to some real talent.

Comment by Flash — August 12, 2008 @ 6:53 pm

Good read Scott.

Comment by TC — August 12, 2008 @ 8:31 pm

the article starts off attempting to create sympathy for the hit factory

I have no sympathy for the hit factory.

~~~~~~~~~Sonic space-design programs such as Digidesign’s ReVibe or Logic’s Space Designer have become commonplace in home recording studios, capable of making a guitar part recorded in your parents’ basement sound like it was laid down at the Hit Factory, an English church or even underwater. As these reverb programs grow commonplace, the need for a studio’s acoustically optimized rooms has waned.

Is this a joke?

Adding reverb to shit recordings doesn’t make it sound like it was recorded in avatar’s A room.

it sounds like shit room sound, with reverb attached.

if you make your room “dead” by making a box with shitcock auralex foam, it will sound muffled, with reverb attached.

THERE IS NO EASY WAY AROUND ROOM TREATMENT!

~~~~~~~~~~~there’s not a network in place for keeping the experts employed anymore.

the real “experts” are out there doing what they do best, in the best time to do it. People are finding out that producing themselves sucks, and a lot more people everyday with a bunch of gear come to the conclusion that they want to be musicians, and fuck this whole DIY thing. if anything, “experts” are more in demand with so many musicians claiming to be engineers.

I met someone a year ago who is now 47, who has been recording since he was 16, and had his own commercial studio for 20 years. Even in terrible environments he shines and his work shows it. He always has work and I have never ever heard him bitch about digidesign or modern anything. You’d never tell he was a day over 28, and he is never bitter. modern tools helped him grow an amazing mobile recording business which he uses as another source of income.

it’s only the has-beens that spend time they could spend working, writing articles with “how protools destroys music” in the URL, because they have no work!

~~~~~~~~~~As Nathorst-Böös concedes, professional recording studios are still one of the only places for musicians, engineers, and producers, but the expanding bandwidth and faster speeds for internet connections these days threatens even this modest function. The ability to quickly exchange music files over the Web has already yielded the Postal Service’s Give Up, made through collaborating by email, and …Miles From India, a recent tribute album to Miles Davis, which includes realtime jam sessions recorded with musicians in studios time zones away.

is this supposed to be bad?

~~~~~~~~~~~Regardless of how sophisticated recording technology becomes, engineering music will always depend on understanding the ways speakers change air pressure—not something many guitarists have studied.

How many people here studied this?

Is he describing being a loudspeaker engineer or a recordist? This sounds like a requirement to be an engineer at Thiel…

again, the point attempting to be made here is how musicians don’t know as much about engineering as engineers do, but the wording reaks of “I have no idea what I’m talking about”

~~~~~~~~~~~~For example, in the post-studio era, producers commonly compress sound files in order to make albums sound bigger, squashing their dynamic contrast to make the track louder as a whole. As a result, snare drums have less crack than ever, and vocal ranges are more limited; both are less emotive and expressive.

Nonsense. Labels demand it of mastering engineers, not producers demanding it of themselves.

There are lots of great records that use compression everywhere but that don’t sound overcompressed. Lots of snare drums have crack _because_of_ compression. have you ever recorded or mixed a song before? ever use more than two compressors? IT’S A TOOL! use the tool when it’s appropriate, don’t blame the tool for idiot mooks who demand its misuse.

and… well, blaming less emotive music on protools is like blaming bad driving on ford!

~~~~~~~And because music-recording programs are designed to use uniform tempos, keys, and time signatures, almost all the songs put out these days don’t vary any of these. It’s nearly impossible to find a hit song now that has a modal or key change.

I work with a producer/vocal coach/artist, 100% ITB, with 50/50 fake and real instruments all the time who has tempo changes, time signature changes, and key changes in the song. no melodyne, he’s just a good singer.

I use the computer as a tool to produce music for someone who has high quality standards for his music, who prefers to get good takes, who does not digitally alter his voice with any of the pitch correction tools you didn’t even bother to mention the name of.

~~~~But the worst consequence of computer-assisted composing is that it is dehumanizing music.

oh the humanity

~~~~~~~With the human touch inherent in any performance autocorrected digitally, we lose much of the element that gives music its emotive contours. Sometimes, playing slightly behind the beat or slightly below the correct pitch is what makes a piece inspiring

I am not sure about how anyone else works.

but the only time I break out such tools is when the session is such a joke, that it has absolutely no chance of not being LAUGHED AT to begin with. this brings total trash into the realm of mediocre.

I, and most other competent people, aren’t going to snap to grid or melodyne an amazing fucking song just because the chorus is slightly faster than the verse.

~~~~~And as we continue to formulaically fit compositions into [B]the strict guidelines that computers give us[/B], musicians will cease trying to innovate and taking risks. They become stymied in their exploration of an art whose beauty fundamentally stems from its limitlessness. Although computers must be given credit for a spectrum of art that would have otherwise been inexpressible, this trend could very well change an art form into Paint by Numbers.

computers don’t “give” anybody anything. they merely present
you with tools that allow one a certain methodology and workflow. This implies that you can’t have time signature changes because the grid in pro tools will have a pop-up saying “WRONG!”

as joel hamilton has wisely said on tape-op numerous times, discipline is free.

the worst kind of rhetoric is from people who don’t know what they’re talking about.

Comment by RWC from NYC — August 12, 2008 @ 9:25 pm

— PopMatters sponsor —

Far too negative; sure, some good things may suffer, but change is inevitable, no use whining about it. Plenty of good things in return.
Although, watching a video about ‘pitch shift in a mix’ on Youtube the other day, I wonder were it will end. The answer is, it won’t.

Comment by Matt from SF — August 13, 2008 @ 11:09 am

If you like to record like back in the old days, this is still possible with DAWs like Pro Tools.
Just hit record and if it itches you to edit the heck out of your tracks just DON’T.
This kind of narrow-minded technology criticism reminds me of this quote of a good friend:

“I’m pretty sure the “genuine” Neanderthal still took pride in strangling mammoths by hand when his neighbor next cave (a slave to technology) already used a stone.”

The real issue here (shutting down major studios an record labels) is not the technology, but the de-centralization, diversification and democratization of media production/distribution, as it’s happening all over the place: audio (itunes), video (youtube) and even in written word (blogs like this one). As someone said before: “I wonder were it will end. The answer is, it won’t. “

Greetings to all home recorders, indie producers, web-broadcasters, bloggers - thanks for making this world more multifaceted.

Comment by The Wolf from Germany — August 14, 2008 @ 8:54 am

I know you probably crying in your cheerios over how unfair it is that you built up your career and now no one wants to pay you for all your hard work and expertise.  Well, maybe if it wernt for the fact that nearly every musician in history has had to hang up their craft and get a day job because they couldn’t afford to pay out the nose for services like yours, I might feel a twinge of sympathy.  I am not talking about the guys that “hit it big”, I am talking about everybody else that just wants to express themselves and share it with anyone that might enjoy it.  Throughout history anyone with some paint and an easel can make something beautiful for others to enjoy, but a musican has always needed some wanker with a studio and money to spread his art.  At the very least you need somewhere to play.  And now that any average joe can build his own studio and learn to run it by spending his extra cash and time on the internet you feel like it is killing MUSIC! 
Cheap recording is to music what cheap food is to an Ethiopian child.  I have been starving for years for some decent music and no major label has satiated my hunger since the early ‘90s.  The phat cats in the music industry have been rationing out “quality music” through their locked down avenues of distribution for so long I have never known anything else.  These days I look to musicians that do it themselves.  Mike Patton does not need a producer and neither does Trent Reznor.  The utter bilged that has been passed off as music lately is enough to make me want to take it out of the hands of the majors.  So please, spare me your sob story.  And if you want to hear what Protools is really doing to music why don’t you turn off the radio and MTV and get on the internet.  Maybe then you might be able to pull your head out off your ass long enough to hear some music that still breaths with the passion of an artist making music for the love of the music.

Comment by Slamgauge from USA — August 15, 2008 @ 12:34 am

I think there’s a point to be made here that any discerning music listener can validate:  they ain’t making recordings with the quality of ‘spacial audio whatever’ like ‘Q’ (pre car crash) did or Axelrod or even the early Joe Walsh solo albums anymore.  Nobody is.

If you go back and listen to those original recordings, on vinyl, it’s a completely different listening experience.  There is such minute and focused attention paid to the recording of the instrument, the space and mix, other things I’m sure I have no idea of.  You just don’t hear that anymore.  Never heard anyone duplicate it in the digital realm.  Engineers, stop fooling yourselves.  Many music fans, consumers, and musicians know the difference.

Personally, I just think we’re hitting the trough before the next wave.  People are going to realize the late 60’s / early 70’s were the high water mark of recording.  And they’re gonna to take steps to reproduce and re-learn all that genius stuff.  Maybe not on the broader market place, but there will always be a niche. Digital recording won’t disappear, but there will at least be a better balance of technology vs. human skill.

In the meantime, pop in the Godzilla DVD, or that RHCP Californication cd, and remind yourself how much you love digital ;-)

Comment by David Garland — August 15, 2008 @ 12:04 pm

I agree with most of the article…When I first started recording..um…40 years ago..I began listening to the artist taking a breath, or perhaps the inadvertant popping of the lips while singing a specific lyric…or, the “human” playing a specific chord just a tad louder at a specific part of a song…now we can just crush and compresss…I miss those recordings..of course, I still agree with the message of Leave it to Beaver…it could be me…lol…However, my most recent recording required me to open up my Cakewalk, and delete the recording of someone playing with change in their pockets JUST prior to the beginning of the song..yes, I have MUTE..however, it was just so much easier….pros and cons, I say…pros and cons…What is the happy middle-ground?

Comment by Johnny R. from Harrisburg PA — August 20, 2008 @ 6:08 am

Please gain an understanding of the modern recording process before you presume to write an article about it.
i mean, this article reminds me of some essay i’d throw together in the morning before high school, after forgetting that it was due that day.
it’s uninformed, and misconcieved.
many of the previous commenters have said it all.
this is just my vote.

Comment by Jose from Texas — September 3, 2008 @ 5:57 pm

You’ve never actually recorded anything, on any format have you? Because if you had, you’d know how misguided and formulaic this essay sounds. I’d like to add my name to the list of people who thought this looks like a high school project, pulled from a random sampling of audio magazine headlines from 1997.

Comment by Adam from ontario, canada — September 4, 2008 @ 2:16 am

pretty ill informed article. Maybe you should talk to professionals instead of just making up rubbish.

Comment by rich — September 4, 2008 @ 3:27 am

This essay is whiny bullshit and anyone who agrees with it is either very stupid and shortsighted or very old and sad (probably both). Every generation you get these types yelling and bitching about how everything new is turning music and art and society into a shitty, mediocre washout. Oddly, the high water mark of civilization always seems to have occurred in the author’s twenties.

Its OK though, nobody ever gives a shit anyhow

Comment by Reality — June 19, 2009 @ 8:04 am

Agree, protools sucks and all the digital stuff really sounds horrible compared to a real studio.

Comment by Paul from Netherlands — August 12, 2009 @ 2:31 am

Pro Tools is awesome and if something recorded with it sounds rigid and processed, that is merely the engineer’s/producer’s fault. Not the technology’s fault. Im not rich. But im a good musician with alot of ideas about recording and production, and without affordable, quality recording equipment/devices like pro tools, i wouldnt be able to share my music with the world.
SO i disagree completely with these statements.

Comment by Robby from Northern California — November 3, 2009 @ 4:27 am

I’m a professional musician.I have read things that Pro recording artists have said about studios.To name a few:The Beatles formed Apple Records.Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys became intensely involved with recording techniques.Les Paul did all of his own recording.The Ozman records in his own basement.Garth Brooks recorded a lot of his songs by himself and arranged his own sales deals.Now that I’m close to retirement age I have more time to do things and I too am delving into home recording.Things change.Times change.Peoples desires change.What worked in 1950 won’t work today.What works today won’t work tomorrow.Because of the computer many things have changed.The recording industry is just one.With the advent of computer generated people and effects, how long will it be before the days of the Actor and Actress are gone.Many things will continue to change.What the recording companies need to do is to look at where they have come from and then look at the trends of today and the future and see if they can find a way to fit in.A way to stay current.abreast of technology and if possible a leader.If they keep looking at how it use to be and then just crying.They are going to be extinct.Just like the dinosuars.

Comment by Karl Shultz from Terra Haute,Indiana — December 1, 2009 @ 9:52 am

Add a comment

Please enter your name and a valid email address. Your email address will not be displayed. It is required only to prevent comment spam.

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?