RE: Health benefits of metal music WAS: OT LOL! Mark Purdey FAQ

[Guest guest]

On 7/18/05, Robin Reese <robin.reese@...> wrote:

> Almost everything is synth to some degree now in producing and recording

> music. But it's not the synth your granddaddy drove (or however that

> ad/saying goes..) And it's not a bad thing.

I didn't mean to imply it was a bad thing-- it's just that NIN is all

synth, and most music in the rock and hardcore genres have little or

no synthesizing (whereas other modern genres also rely heavily on

synth, like hip hop, r & b, etc, much of the time). The crisp and clean

sound of NIN I believe is largely due to the synthesizing. I'm sure

Reznor might have fabulous production skills that exceed that of most

others producing synthesized work, but nevertheless all of the

synthesized music tends to have a cleaner and crisper sound than

non-synth work, best I can tell.

> As for the synthesizer keyboards systems that artists are using now -they

> are just so far advanced -- a much broader range of sound than those

> irritating " choir " sounds from past years -- you know the sound I mean --

> c'mon! I love that the synth has found its home as a multi-textured rhythm

> instrument. And as Ron was saying, its bass note is incredible.

I happen to enjoy synthesized music. I haven't listened to NIN in

years, but from what I remember, the drum beats are incredible. The

bass drum line from March of the Pigs just entered my mind as an

example. I like techno on occasion, and I tend to prefer modern dance

remixes of cheesy music from my parents generation when I hear them on

the radio ;-)

> I brought up the subject of this newer version of progressive rock because I

> feel it has had health benefits for my sluggish burned out self - it's a

> healthy high -- that was the thread I think..

Is that it? I thought maybe you were just worried about a backlash

from the posting conservatism crowd about an off-topic thread :-P

The complicated electronic

> sounds from the new synthesizers (and the artists!) can weave textures that

> I've not heard to that degree in music. I've mostly listened to jazz (

> Dolphy's my man) because I guess I'm what you call an active listener and

> so

> I like the music to be layered and interesting on a lot of levels - you

> know, talented players and creations that are well produced. I like to hear

> music that works on a human gut level whether it's country or classical.

I haven't done jazz for a long time. I played the clarinet in a jazz

band when I was homeschooling in my mid-teens.

> This new metal prog seems more about musicians and creative talent than

> about record companies and except for (maybe) NIN, you won't see any of the

> bands I'm talking about on MTV. They're not making a heck of a lot of money

> either..

There's a lot of creativity and new things that even make it on MTV,

best I can tell. There are new genres or foreign genres emerging into

US markets, innovations within genres, etc, that make it on MTV.

> So if you want a change, check it out. It'll cure what ails ya.

Oh yeah, what was it you were saying about positive health effects again? ;-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

" Almost everything is synth to some degree now in producing and recording

music. But it's not the synth your granddaddy drove (or however that

ad/saying goes..) And it's not a bad thing.

As for the synthesizer keyboards systems that artists are using now -they

are just so far advanced -- a much broader range of sound than those

irritating " choir " sounds from past years -- you know the sound I mean --

c'mon! I love that the synth has found its home as a multi-textured rhythm

instrument. And as Ron was saying, its bass note is incredible. "

I have to pipe in here, being extremely familiar with synthesizers, what is

available now, and what was available in the past. If you are actually

talking about synthesizers, and not other technology (recording, sampling,

etc), then I'm not sure I totally agree with what you're saying, or, at

least, the way you're saying it. Many people who are experts in synthesis,

and who love synthesizers, in fact, think that a lot has been lost in the

progression from analog synthesis to the mostly software digital synthesis

that you see nowadays.

And, if you think that the synthesizers of yesteryear were limited to 'choir

sounds', I'm pretty much baffled. That just ain't true.

I think perhaps you are simply confusing all of digital technology with

present day synthesis, and comparing this to analog recording of days past.

But, in my opinion, and that of many others, the best of both world's is

available today - vintage analog synths from years ago, new analog

synthesizers (some incredible analog synthesizers are being produced today),

and the purely digital synths (both hardware and software, though the

hardware ones are merely software with an interface).

9 inch nails, by the way, are well known for appreciating BOTH the new and

old synthesis methods.

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>The crisp and clean

>sound of NIN I believe is largely due to the synthesizing. I'm sure

>Reznor might have fabulous production skills that exceed that of most

>others producing synthesized work, but nevertheless all of the

>synthesized music tends to have a cleaner and crisper sound than

>non-synth work, best I can tell.

Actually, it's much more a matter of the recording and mixing and mastering

than you'd expect. Having worked with good engineers and bad, I've seen

the difference, and it's amazing.

That's not to say that starting in the digital realm doesn't give you a

cleanliness advantage, though, but it's very easy to squander it entirely.

-

[Guest guest]

>>[Gene] And, if you think that the synthesizers of yesteryear were limited

to 'choir

sounds', I'm pretty much baffled. That just ain't true.>>>

Just overused in mainstream music I should have said. My sloppy comment had

more to do with the user than the machine.. ~Robin

[Guest guest]

-------------- Original message --------------

> >>[Gene] And, if you think that the synthesizers of yesteryear were limited

> to 'choir

> sounds', I'm pretty much baffled. That just ain't true.>>>

>

>

>

> Just overused in mainstream music I should have said. My sloppy comment had

> more to do with the user than the machine.. ~Robin

>

Overused? Dunno - if something sounds out of place, it probably isn't used well.

In any case I thought that you were commenting on the quality of old

synthesizers, since I thought you had commented that synths were used much more

frequently now. But if the quality of the old synths wasn't bad, how could they

have been overused if they are used more commonly now? Ah, I'm just confused. I

love synthesizers.

[Guest guest]

Hi Robin,

> Almost everything is synth to some degree now in producing

> and recording

> music. But it's not the synth your granddaddy drove (or however that

> ad/saying goes..)

I agree with this.

> And it's not a bad thing.

>

And mostly disagree with this.

Synth allows for cool effects but it seriously degrades sound quality. I'm

probably old fashioned but my view of making a recording is reproducing

music as accurately as possible from the original source. So the ideal

sound system would involve a perfect mike in front of a musical instrument

with a wire running out the back to the perfect loudspeaker set up in your

house. There would be zero loss in the system so the loudspeaker would make

a noise that sounds exactly and perfectly like the original instrument.

Obviously that doesn't exist but if you use that as the ideal you realize

that the best systems generally have fewer pieces of equipment between the

mike and the speaker. The horrific amount of processing that happens to

music nowadays allows tremendous amounts of distortion to enter the system

at multiple points. The computerization of music IS HORRENDOUS in terms of

creating music that sounds like it's coming from a real instrument. Just

massively destructive.

So that's why I said that NIN's recordings are good despite the synth.

Somehow Reznor manages to make his music sound clean, distortion free,

powerful and beautiful all at the same time.

Ron

[Guest guest]

> Hi Robin,

>

> > Almost everything is synth to some degree now in producing

> > and recording

> > music. But it's not the synth your granddaddy drove (or however that

> > ad/saying goes..)

>

> I agree with this.

>

> > And it's not a bad thing.

> >

>

> And mostly disagree with this.

>

> Synth allows for cool effects but it seriously degrades sound quality. I'm

> probably old fashioned but my view of making a recording is reproducing

> music as accurately as possible from the original source. So the ideal

> sound system would involve a perfect mike in front of a musical instrument

> with a wire running out the back to the perfect loudspeaker set up in your

> house. There would be zero loss in the system so the loudspeaker would make

> a noise that sounds exactly and perfectly like the original instrument.

>

> Obviously that doesn't exist but if you use that as the ideal you realize

> that the best systems generally have fewer pieces of equipment between the

> mike and the speaker. The horrific amount of processing that happens to

> music nowadays allows tremendous amounts of distortion to enter the system

> at multiple points. The computerization of music IS HORRENDOUS in terms of

> creating music that sounds like it's coming from a real instrument. Just

> massively destructive.

this is just so awash in misconceptions that I don't know where to begin. If by

'synth' me mean the commonly accepted usage, which is synthesizers, most synth

music (at least synth music worth its salt) makes no attempt to sound like a

'real instrument' (LOL). It is a SYNTH. Synths ARE real instruments, and today's

digital synths (for the most part) can be recorded digitally on a computer, thus

being extremely accurate indeed.

Old fashioned - yes. Inaccurate - YES. Of course, emulations are, by definition,

inaccurate. If you take a synth that is either a sampled instrument, or a

generated emulation, it won't sound exactly like the original, and thus will be

deficient in some way, unless that inaccuracy is part of the desired effect. But

true synthesizers do not do that at all.

>

[Guest guest]

,

>

> That's not to say that starting in the digital realm doesn't

> give you a

> cleanliness advantage, though, but it's very easy to squander

> it entirely.

>

Oh my. This is causing me to have apoplexy.

In my experience digital is always more distorted than analog. That may no

longer be absolutely true given the new technologies that have come along

with DVDA and SACD, but the output that I hear from even the best

conventional CD players is not as clean as the best analog equipment.

What do I listen to? CD's of course. I don't have the money for the kind

of equipment that you need to properly reproduce analog and I no longer have

the patience to play one album side at a time. Digital does offer at least

one sonic advantage, also. You can get proper reproduction and balance in

the entire audio range which is nigh impossible with an analog playback

device. Come to think of it dynamic range can be greater with the low noise

threshold but most recordings don't use any of this capability.

But in terms of clarity and musicality digital loses out every time from

everything I have ever heard with my own ears.

Ron

[Guest guest]

> ,

>

> >

> > That's not to say that starting in the digital realm doesn't

> > give you a

> > cleanliness advantage, though, but it's very easy to squander

> > it entirely.

> >

>

> Oh my. This is causing me to have apoplexy.

>

> In my experience digital is always more distorted than analog. That may no

> longer be absolutely true given the new technologies that have come along

> with DVDA and SACD, but the output that I hear from even the best

> conventional CD players is not as clean as the best analog equipment.

I think that we are confusing a few issues here. The fact that a cd samples at

44.1 khz, and that the samples are 16 bits, definitely has an impact. However,

digital recording technologies are generally more accurate than analog recording

technologies. In fact, much of the reason that people prefer analog recording

and processing equipment is the 'warmth' imparted to the sound, which results,

to a great degree, from a kind of distortion. Many digital processing programs,

at this point in time, actually try to emulate this analog distortion.

>

> What do I listen to? CD's of course. I don't have the money for the kind

> of equipment that you need to properly reproduce analog and I no longer have

> the patience to play one album side at a time. Digital does offer at least

> one sonic advantage, also. You can get proper reproduction and balance in

> the entire audio range which is nigh impossible with an analog playback

> device. Come to think of it dynamic range can be greater with the low noise

> threshold but most recordings don't use any of this capability.

>

> But in terms of clarity and musicality digital loses out every time from

> everything I have ever heard with my own ears.

>

> Ron

>

Clarity? nah - I used to have a very high end turntable. It definitely sounded

better than any cd player I've heard. But not because the sound was clearer. It

was definitely more 'alive', though.

When cd players are replaced by devices that can handle higher sample rates, and

say, 24 bits, popular digital recordings will sound better. But there will still

be the fact that analog distortion applies a desirable warmth the sound which

people will try to emulate with 1's and 0's. there is quite a market these days

for 'virtual analog' synthesizers - those that emulate the old analog sound, but

with digital technology. They generally provide more clarity of sound,

especially in the upper registers, though whether that makes them sound better

or not is debated.

[Guest guest]

Ron-

> > That's not to say that starting in the digital realm doesn't

> > give you a

> > cleanliness advantage, though, but it's very easy to squander

> > it entirely.

>

>Oh my. This is causing me to have apoplexy.

>

>In my experience digital is always more distorted than analog. That may no

>longer be absolutely true given the new technologies that have come along

>with DVDA and SACD, but the output that I hear from even the best

>conventional CD players is not as clean as the best analog equipment.

You're confusing several things. Note that I said " starting in the digital

realm " can give you a cleanliness advantage. This is simply fact. What

you're complaining about with CD players is the analog sound that comes

out. Most CD players have crappy DACs, crappy power supplies, crappy

everything. Note also that I wasn't talking about all aspects of the

signal, just its " cleanliness " . Synthesizing a sound digitally, regardless

of its other merits and drawbacks, allows you to produce a completely clean

sound.

As to SACD and DVD-A, I've been quite disappointed with SACD and enraptured

by the sound from some DVD-As. But there are so many variables involved

that I don't see much point in going into it.

>What do I listen to? CD's of course. I don't have the money for the kind

>of equipment that you need to properly reproduce analog and I no longer have

>the patience to play one album side at a time.

You can save a lot by getting a good headphone amp and a good pair of

headphones. It's often said that it costs six times more to get the same

quality sound with speakers, but I don't know reliable that rule of thumb

actually is.

>But in terms of clarity and musicality digital loses out every time from

>everything I have ever heard with my own ears.

I don't know what you mean by " clarity " , but " musicality " certainly isn't

the same as " a clean signal " .

-

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>When cd players are replaced by devices that can handle higher sample

>rates, and say, 24 bits, popular digital recordings will sound better.

With the trend being towards lower quality distribution (mp3) rather than

higher (DVD-A at the high end of 24x192) I'm afraid that's not looking too

likely to happen, unfortunately.

-

[Guest guest]

> Gene-

>

> >When cd players are replaced by devices that can handle higher sample

> >rates, and say, 24 bits, popular digital recordings will sound better.

>

> With the trend being towards lower quality distribution (mp3) rather than

> higher (DVD-A at the high end of 24x192) I'm afraid that's not looking too

> likely to happen, unfortunately.

>

I wasn't implying that it will happen quickly. but the technology is there now

to record on most home systems in much higher than cd quality, so it will happen

eventually. The only reason for compressed formats like mp3 is speed of

downloads and storage space. Ultimately when a medium exists that will allow you

to store higher quality digital music in vast quantities, and the technology

exists to move it quickly, it will happen.

I can't imagine that in 25 years, people will still be buying cds.