Bob Dylan: Modern recordings are 'atrocious'

[Regis Philbin]

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-08-22T173033Z_01_N22395766_RTRUKOC_0_US-LEISURE-DYLAN.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Dylan says modern recordings "atrocious"


Tue Aug 22, 2006 1:30pm ET


LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Bob Dylan says the quality of modern recordings is "atrocious," and even the songs on his new album sounded much better in the studio than on disc.

"I don't know anybody who's made a record that sounds decent in the past 20 years, really," the 65-year-old rocker said in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine.

Dylan, who released eight studio albums in the past two decades, returns with his first recording in five years, "Modern Times," next Tuesday.

Noting the music industry's complaints that illegal downloading means people are getting their music for free, he said, "Well, why not? It ain't worth nothing anyway."

"You listen to these modern records, they're atrocious, they have sound all over them," he added. "There's no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing, just like ... static."

Dylan said he does his best to fight technology, but it's a losing battle.

"Even these songs probably sounded ten times better in the studio when we recorded 'em. CDs are small. There's no stature to it."

[Richard Tafoya]

I'm guessing you don't realize that he's talking about current mixing and compression standards and lazy mastering technique rather than about the music of other artists.

From an email music industry newsletter on the topic recently:

If you want to see for yourself, rip a couple of CD tracks as AIFF files and open them in an audio editor. Grab a track from 25 years ago and a current one. One will look like an EKG and the other like a ribbon. Wired magazine ran a story on this a couple of years back.

Here's a link to that article online with an illustration of the waveforms:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.01/play.html?pg=2

What's even worse is that radio is using multiband compression to squish things even more -- just try listening to an alt rock or pop/punk track on FM. The cymbals pump and distort to the point that it is impossible to listen to. I'll take satellite's artifact-laden digital over distorted analog if forced to choose.

CDs were supposed to allow more dynamic range than vinyl. But with every last smidgen of dynamic range excised, music becomes one-dimensional and fatiguing. This trend has even impacted jazz, with a few horribly mastered releases lately sounding awful next to well-remastered classics.

Is it any wonder people don't listen? It's painful!

Ed Trefzger, Editor

JazzWeek
And John McBride, Martina McBride's husband:
HOLY F!!! Someone who actually knows what the f is going on! I could not agree more with Angelo, and have done the exact same thing. I tracked and mixed Martina McBride's latest album "Timeless" and sat in on the mastering (by Richard Dodd) the entire time. We used NO COMPRESSION in mastering - we simply turned it up as loud as we could without the compression and her record sounds HUGE. It is 1-2 db quieter than all the other records coming out of Nashville, but sounds twice as big. I took it a step further - I only used stereo buss compression on one song (in the mixing process) of the 22 that we recorded for Timeless.

There is so much compression on recordings now that the chorus doesn't get any louder than the verse. It is a horrible mistake - but Angelo is right - VOLUME always wins. No artist out there wants their record to sound quieter on the radio than the other artists, or even in the CD player at home, or these days on their ipod as a sh*tty AAC download. I say this is bullsh*t. Martina and I own Blackbird Studios in Nashville, and we have six rooms with the absolute finest equipment/microphones/consoles/record space available anywhere in the world. I see this compression thing happen every day, and it is WRONG. The engineers don't like it either, believe me. They are forced by the artists or record companies to make these records as loud as possible, quality/dynamics/art be damned. I have to hope that this trend will go away, and that the record companies will stop dumbing down the public when it comes to quality. If an MP3 is good enough, then something is horribly wrong. Great analogue recording is so far superior to digital recording (and yet so rare) that people have forgotten how good it can sound.

There are two or three generations of engineers that have little or no experience with analogue equipment, and that is killing this business. How can they strive for better quality, when they don't even realize it exists? Digital recording is far superior to what is was ten years ago, but it is still a long way from great.

We recently started recording Martina's next album, and we will not compress this one either. Her integrity is rare, Bob. She cares more about audio quality than any ten pop artists I've ever met. When we track, we never "Fix it in the mix". The players get the parts right, she sings it right (even if it takes days) and it shows in the finished product. Her records have space, depth, and dynamics. Compare her record to any of the pop out there and it buries them sonically. The funny thing is that everything we use was available 20 years ago - from the console to the mics to the outboard gear etc. We used Pro Tools at 96K as a tape machine for overdubs, but are recording our tracks on 2" 16 and 24 track machines. It is a wonderful experience. When the players we use (the double scale guys in Nashville) track with Martina, the joy in their performance shines through. Every one of them has talked about how wonderful the audio is on her records. I sound like a blithering idiot right now but I could not agree more with Angelo's post - it is the truth. Thanks for putting it out there.