[sparkzilla]

So many problems with this article. I recently started recording music after a long break and I love that everything is in the computer now. I had one of the very first Pro tools systems and it cost $12,000 (25MB hard drive). Gear that used to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars is now available with a click. I had always wanted to use great compressors and they are almost all available now as plug-ins. I also took some old tracks and ran them through the Waves maximizers - what a difference. What this means is that anyone with some musical and recording skills can compete against record companies.

It seems to me that the writer of the article just doesn't like pop music, and doesn't understand the business of pop music. Pop music, and especially pop music on the radio, has its own rules. It's no use getting upset about them. There's a lot of skill in engineering recordings that work on the radio. And Autotune is great. It's like getting upset that a movie director uses special effects. Good music always transcends the technology. Do you care that Gravity wasn't actually filmed in space?

If you want your music to sound like it was recorded in the sixties you can do so either by getting the vintage equipment or using vintage-style plug ins. But if the Beatles were around today they would be using all of the latest techniques, just like they were at the forefront of recording technology back then.

Meanwhile, my ten-year-old daughter just bought a record player and Taylor Swift on vinyl.

[TomWhitwell]

Hi, Thanks for reading! I think we agree more than you think. What I wanted to do with the article was explain why music sounds like it does, explaining why the 'rules' are the way they are. I hate it when people imply producers are stupid or lazy or unskilled or uncreative because they're making pop - if it was easy to craft a radio hit that will cut through in 7 seconds in a listening session, we'd all be doing it and living in mansions. What I thought was interesting about the Maroon 5 stuff at the start wasn't that it was lazy, but that it was really hard, boring work that they didn't seem to enjoy very much. That wasn't how I perceived the process of making pop hits. Re: the Beatles today; of course they'd use the latest technology, but they might still have a hard time cutting through in a seven second listening session. Now, as then, there are other ways to be successful beyond pop radio. When I'm talking about Neil Young & Rick Rubin/Johnny Cash, I'm looking at the way studio recording has changed. It's certainly not better or worse, but it is interestingly different.

[sparkzilla]

Thanks for writing the article. I'm in the middle of rediscovering the tools of recording so it made me think about many things.

[normloman]

But auto tune isn't always used as a "special effect" ala "Love After Loss" robo-voice. Most autotune is subtle enhancement to vocal tracks that really don't need it. It will give any singer laser like accuracy, at the expense of removing all character from their voice. How does that not contribute to homogeneity?

Granted, every decade has had its recording trends. I agree that the article misunderstands the pop business.

[sparkzilla]

In the past few years the robo-voice was overused so there was some homogeneity to the vocal sound, although the actual music was still different. Now, that robo-voice is not as popular. As you mention, Autotune's main use is not so much as a creative tool, but as a way to fix problems. Most of the time this is simply to fix otherwise good takes without having to redo them over and over again. The idea is to make edits that are not noticable or as they say "the best edit you can't hear". Simple intro to the plugin here: http://vimeo.com/91670669

[normloman]

My point is, even as a fix-it tool, when over used, it removes natural fluctuations in a persons voice, and creates sameness.

[joe_the_user]

So many problems with this article. ... Pop music, and especially pop music on the radio, has its own rules. It's no use getting upset about them. ...

So many problem with post... And if I was following your style, I'd not make any of them clear but just pop a bit of authority, a bit of folksy wisdom and get some factual points.

But I'll just mention - do any of your arguments imply that modern pop hits don't sound the same? Perhaps if everyone possessing the technology to create a song that satisfies the formula perhaps makes even more music satisfying the formula appear? That naturally creating the absolute winning track involves a lot of skill even if it all sounds the same (except to the connoisseur, perhaps?).

[sparkzilla]

I didn't write the post to get points, but to share my insight as a person who could not get access to the tools mentioned in the article in the past, and is currently using them as part of a process of learning to create some modern pop. I disagree with the writer's argument, which is based on a misunderstanding of the pop music market, and the role of technology in that market. The fact that most pop songs played on the radio have their volume maximized is not an issue related to their musicality. All compression does is help you hear the song better, which is especially important for radio play. Some of the other tools that are used in pop music, notably Autotune, are specifically used for that market because the audience wants them. The author lauds bands like The White Stripes for using vintage equipment and for "real" performances, but they are not part of the pop music market. You use the tools that fit the market. That said, even if you find the perfect formula for a pop song, including using a particular technology, people will get tired of the formula very quickly.

BTW, here are some videos that give insight into how a pop vocal is built and some mastering techniques...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R0q6QKAPmo [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V9d6zQzcrg