Best Recordings

I'm in agreement that MANY recordings esp. newer (but definitely those from 70's thru 90's) are what I'd call over-engineered and often poorly recorded. Technology hasn’t necessarily been a good thing. …While it provided opportunity for creativity it is also what has lead us to some of the poor recording practices that are now readily accepted.

For years recording companies and engineers have engineered music to sound good on the radio - esp. car stereos and moderate hi-fi systems. We in the higher res. world haven't been considered for the most part. There ARE those established artists who have been both interested and able to have significant or ‘complete’ creative control of their work e.g. the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Harry Connick Jr., Peter Gabriel, Paul Simon, Sting, U-2… While there are others too these are a few that came to mind (popular music) from the 60's to now.

Just by listening to most modern recordings one can discern that ZERO consideration has been taken into recording the acoustic interaction of the performer/instruments with the recording environment and in the case of multiple musicians – each other. …On occasion a RAW recording turns out to be good i.e. Eric Clapton’s ‘Unplugged’ (which wasn’t ever supposed to see daylight). But for the most part it’s as though acoustic environment and proximity are complete non-issues or afterthoughts. I attribute this to the reality that most bands are recorded with each member in their own iso-booth on a dedicated voice track, and each instrument/sound effect on it’s own track.

By isolating each instrument and member the individual tracks can be tailored to FIT the sound the engineer wants, and to remove any errors. I’m certain many of us are all too aware the end result of this type of recording. Its a sound that could most correctly be described as a mélange – with overlapping images fighting to occupy the same space, or a space that is disproportionate – whether too small or too large. The lack of believable aural cues completely kills the illusion. …And while the music is still enjoyable one doesn't get the holographic experience one does when the recording is RIGHT.

IMO that the lack of concern for recording quality is most likely due to economic & political issues within the recording industry. Bands are paid to sell CD’s, and to produce them on time and on budget. If they want to be successful then they’ve got to play ball, and not sweat the details (until they’re important enough to get away with it). I suspect that this is why so many new artists first recordings are often less than great quality.

I'd love to see more artists and studios pursue realistic sound. …This isn't to say that I don't enjoy music that is heavily engineered or with many effects/multi-tracks. I merely prefer recordings that sound as though the performers are in front of me as opposed to those recordings, which sound as though everything is floating in space. Its almost as thought these recordings were made for headphones - so that the band is positioned between ones ears. …This is not a snub to those folks who like/desire and seek out this effect esp. when indulging in various ‘listening experience enhancing substances’.

I'd love to hear anyone’s comments/opinions re: companies such as Sheffield Labs who use only one set of stereo microphones and a single track to record. Sheffield recordings imbue an unmistakably organic quality. Few other recordings/companies come as close to recording the realism of the event. All the spatial cues etc. are just RIGHT.

While I know that the Sheffield approach is impractical or downright impossible for some artists/bands (for various reasons), I believe that we’d be much better off if other recording companies (that go the multi-track route) would aspire to the Sheffield sound.

Cheers,
Mike

Good points all above,I'd like to add the Dire Straights and anything that Knopfler recorded later!

Many interesting points have been brought to light about how we interpret the best recordings. As audiophiles sometimes we miss the forest, the forest being the music, while looking at the trees, the trees being the sound that is produced. I am as guilty of this as the next person involved in this hobby.

I have found that many of the reissues, the Grateful Dead box set being the best by far, are my favorite recordings of the year. One of the reasons why is because I have loved the music and hated the production. Technology has made it possible to hear what these recordings would sound like if they were introduced today as new. I believe this to be a great step forward. Some purists would disagree with me. My father believes that it all went downhill when stereo recordings were introduced and 78's were replaced by 331/3's.

Many of the best sounding recordings are being put out by Alt/Country, No Depression, artists. Many of these have been mentioned in previous posts. I would add Uncle Tupelo Anadyne, Wilco Summer Teeth, any Son Volt, and the new Jay Farrar album to the list of the best of that genre. In addition, Ben Harper puts out great albums that are hard to categorize but are great to listen to. Start with, "Fight For Your Mind". The best new album of last year, IMHO, is Ryan Adams "Gold".

Happy Listening.

Travis I wasn't being snotty merely trying to coax Jxl.
He really gives no indication of what type of music he likes and of course I did recommended no less than 5 releases from 2001(The Strokes,The White Stripes,Bob Dylan,Rufus Wainwright and Radiohead).
As you point out (as I did) what constitutes a good recording is a very contentious issue,on the subject of Miles Davis in my opinion despite the obvious tape splices I consider Bitches Brew not only an amazing collection of music but fantastically well recorded-you may be more of a purist or more technically atuned to what makes a good recording but neither of us would be wrong in our conclusion.
I also love the recording of Kind Of Blue.
Likewise what's the point of me recommending some electronica,hip-hop,jazz or heavy metal if he doesn't like these types of music?
A simple indication of his tastes would have made his query easier.
Although if you reread my original posting I do give a wide range of music to consider,more than any other reply.
If somebody had posted they had $50000 to spend on a system but they considered most lifestyle systems rubbish then he might have been accused of trolling and you could be sure the replies would ask "valves,vinyl,digital,size of room"?
I love well recorded music and I did agree he had a point about some modern recordings.
In fact even the term "modern recording" is pretty vague-last year,95,91?
Also the recommendation of music itself is very contentious-if you like Pink Floyd,I could recommend OK Computer by Radiohead but you might not like the singers voice...some people will find Eva Cassidy banal but I don't..
I did try to help but was merely pointing out at the end of the day Jxl will need to do some work on his own,listening or researching.
Oh another recommendation Motherland by Natalie Merchant that came out this year......
Ben

I find many of the Jazz labels are conscienceous about recording and mastering. Verve, Blue Note, Concord all have produced excellent product. In folk, Rounder and Flying Fish do very well. Ryko has taken on many lesser known artists and produced phenomenal albums such as Mickey Hart's Planet Drum.

Commercial FM radio is mostly such a poor place to start looking for quality music and production. Public radio can be a great source of discovery.