independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Dylan: modern music is "worthless" . . . is it content or the recording?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 3 of 3 <123
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #60 posted 08/24/06 6:45am

carlcranshaw

avatar

For sonic details Bob should check out Paul Simon's new CD "Surprise".
‎"The first time I saw the cover of Dirty Mind in the early 80s I thought, 'Is this some drag queen ripping on Freddie Prinze?'" - Some guy on The Gear Page
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #61 posted 08/26/06 4:39pm

lilgish

avatar

carlcranshaw said:

For sonic details Bob should check out Paul Simon's new CD "Surprise".


nod Outrageous is the best song of the year!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #62 posted 08/26/06 7:03pm

Lammastide

avatar

NDRU said:

CinisterCee said:



That's what I'm thinkin... hmmm



I think it's less about digital & more about production--reverb, compression, chorus, distortion, pitch correction, auto-harmonizing, and other processing that covers up the actual sound made by the musicians.

Ahhhh... That I can understand, then. Many of today's artists do rely too much on studio tweaking and not enough on natural poignance. Some talents -- like, say, Radiohead, Massive Attack, Nine Inch Nails or some of the better hip hop or dance producers -- have actually made technological mastery an art unto itself. I respect that approach. Other artists, however, would have NO career if it weren't for layer upon layer of audio "airbrushing" to turn them from some average kid singing in his/her bedroom to mega star. Listen to them live, and it's a nightmare! shake I have heard other artists complain about this, too, and I agree.

But if Bob isn't satisfied with his own latest recorded output, I just don't see the depth of that point. Some people have just always preferred the live sound to the recorded one, and surely he has enough sway by now to reign in some overzealous studio tech. If he wants raw, certainly he can get raw.
Ὅσον ζῇς φαίνου
μηδὲν ὅλως σὺ λυποῦ
πρὸς ὀλίγον ἐστὶ τὸ ζῆν
τὸ τέλος ὁ χρόνος ἀπαιτεῖ.”
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #63 posted 08/26/06 9:29pm

TonyVanDam

avatar

theghostoftonym said:

dylan, remember, is the guy who put out "street legal" and "empire burlesque", two of the nastiest sounding albums i've ever heard. dylan is the guy who was willing to release a song which had the fucking cuff buttons on his shirt very audibly banging against his guitar throughout the whole thing. dylan is the guy who let daniel lanois make his harmonica sound like it was being recorded from inside a washer-dryer. dylan is the guy who put out a song (queen jane approximately) in which his guitar was completely out of tune for its entirety (that it being out of tune ultimately sounds really cool isnt the point). dylan is the guy most of whose favorite musicians (charlie patton, robert johnson, et al)'s recordings all come from behind a thick wall of pre-war crackliness. he cares about pristine recording values now?

dylan has talked contradictory shit all his life...he once said his albums meant nothing to him ("just a document of that particular time, nothing more") and that his live shows were where he was at. which i suppose is why he didn't tour at all between 1966 and 1975? rolleyes

vainandy said:

Bob Dylan's music bores the living hell out of me but I agree with him about the 20 year part. His timing is absolutely correct because 1985 is when I first started bitching about music going downhill.

The only difference is, he said he couldn't think of anyone (meaning not one person) who has made anything decent in the last 20 years. Good music was getting much thinner and thinner during the late 1980s but at least there were still a lot of artists I liked.....just not near as many as before. By the time the 1990s came around, with the exception of house music and Prince, I could list on one hand the artists I liked. Now I can list on two fingers.....Prince and Jamiroquai. The rest of them can go to hell.
.
.
[Edited 8/22/06 15:30pm]


yeah....

boards of canada
neutral milk hotel
flaming lips
joe lovano
yo la tengo
wilco
radiohead
don byron
built to spill
pavement
aphex twin
autechre
the orb
wu-tang clan
company flow
bjork
dj shadow
future sound of london
sebadoh
mary j blige
smog
jeff buckley
nas
chemical brothers
will oldham
fugazi
beck
pulp
smashing pumpkins
outkast
guided by voices
blur
underworld
lauryn hill
redman
michael brecker
the prodigy
nirvana
nils petter molvaer
global communication
meshell ndegeocello
orbital
dave douglas
elliott smith
jurassic 5
rage against the machine
belle & sebastian
manic street preachers
stereolab
tricky
erykah badu
portishead
pearl jam
my bloody valentine
primal scream
massive attack
de la soul
leftfield
mogwai
slint
the roots
olivia tremor control
pj harvey
dismemberment plan
sleater-kinney
gangstarr
modest mouse

DAMN, DID THE NINETIES SUCK OR WHAT
[Edited 8/23/06 9:13am]



IMHO, the only good things musically about the 1990's are 90-93 (which BTW is the tail-end of my favorite eras of music, 1970-93).

Other than that, the 1990's (as a whole decade) was a f***ing embrassment!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #64 posted 08/28/06 11:40am

namepeace

TonyVanDam said:


IMHO, the only good things musically about the 1990's are 90-93 (which BTW is the tail-end of my favorite eras of music, 1970-93).

Other than that, the 1990's (as a whole decade) was a f***ing embrassment!


1994 was one of the best years in hip-hop history. So I disagree.
[Edited 8/28/06 11:40am]
Good night, sweet Prince | 7 June 1958 - 21 April 2016

Props will be withheld until the showing and proving has commenced. -- Aaron McGruder
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #65 posted 08/28/06 11:53am

NDRU

avatar

Lammastide said:

NDRU said:




I think it's less about digital & more about production--reverb, compression, chorus, distortion, pitch correction, auto-harmonizing, and other processing that covers up the actual sound made by the musicians.

Ahhhh... That

But if Bob isn't satisfied with his own latest recorded output, I just don't see the depth of that point. Some people have just always preferred the live sound to the recorded one, and surely he has enough sway by now to reign in some overzealous studio tech. If he wants raw, certainly he can get raw.


I think he said it sounded better in the studio. Maybe he heard it raw, before processing, and mastering into 16 bit digital for cd.

But I agree with you that technical prowess is an art unto itself, and nothing inherantly wrong with it.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 3 of 3 <123
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Music: Non-Prince > Dylan: modern music is "worthless" . . . is it content or the recording?