Do Artists Care?

[Dave B]

This is a question I am throwing out for debate.
Do you think that most artists truly care about the sound quality of thier recordings? I know there are some bands who have consistantly tried to get the best possible sound onto Vinyl or CD (Steely Dan comes first to mind) but in general it seems that most are more interested in the musical content than the purity of the reproduction. Surely artists like The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and others have or had the clout to make sure thier material is presented properly. I know that the record companies more or less take control once they get the masters but it's hard to believe that Mick Jagger or Paul McCartney can't excerpt some pressure if they feel the product is not truly representative of thier work in the studio. I'm afraid that in the end the answer may be that while they do have some concerns about how the recordings sound, most artists are not really that interested in forcing the issue. After all, the Beatles and Stones CD's have sold millions and made millions without alot of remastering work (regardless of how they were hyped when released). I don't think this is a matter of greed but rather apathy on the part of the artists and thier management and as long as we buy inferior products what motivation do they have to improve? What's your opinion?

[PsychFan]

An interesting question. I could be wrong but I would guess that the majority of artists -- particularly newer ones -- are much more concerned with the writing and performing, and, while many take an interest in the mixing process, I wonder just how many really take as active an interest in the mastering.

There are exceptions. I remember in the late '80s reading that Lou Reed had demanded that his record company (Sire/Warner Bros.) step up the quality control of its cassette production, after he heard some particularly abysmal products. And there's an American Masters documentary on Reed in which Bob Ludwig is briefly interviewed, commenting on how hands-on Reed is during the entire process of mixing, mastering and presenting his albums. He says he's never worked with any other artist with as keen an interest in that end of the process as Reed (or something to that effect).

Is he the exception or the rule? Got me. There are the renowned control freaks like Springsteen and, yes, Steely Dan, but beyond that, it'd be fascinating to know ...

[Jeffrey]

Hi,

Probably safe to say that every artist is different, they are all human. I like the way members are listing artist that they know care. I will add one group to the list: The Grateful Dead. These guys may care more than anyone, or at least when Garcia was around. In the early 70's they were so concerned about the sound quality of their concerts that they built what was called the "Wall of Sound". This was a cutting edge wall of speakers that delivered amazingly clear sound even at concert level, please remember this was the early 70's. The only problem was it took multiple semi's to truck this from place to place. There were not enough hours between shows to get the wall broken down in the first town and set up in the second before show time. So, they built a second wall and were trucking both around the country at the same time. In 1973, the Dead became so pissed off w/ records companys (Warner, in particular) that they created their own record company. Now that is the ultimate in controlling your final product. The Dead became so obsessed w/ sound quality that they went bankrupt in the mid 70's spending so much money on the projects mentioned above and other things.

The Music Never Stops,
Jeffrey

[Richard Feirstein]

Neal Young has often stated that he did not like the CD sound and has helped push other approaches, including DVD-A.

[Ronflugelguy]

And Wynton Marsailis stated that he prefered LP soun d vs. CD at the beginning of cd and owns a Linn table!

[Matt]

In the liner notes of Citi Movement, they mention something about the way the bass was recorded or mixed or something...I forgot, but I'll take a look when I get back home. I just remember getting the impression that they wanted to get a real, wooden bass sound instead.

BTW, as for artists who care, didn't Steve Miller set the standard for that sort of thing? I remember reading how he was the first artist to demand a more professional level of engineering on his albums. That's not to say rock was never recorded well, but he was the first who really made a point to get his music to sound good.

[Beagle]

I believe that the TRUE artists (people with talent, people in love with the sound of their voice or their instrument) do care about sound quality. I believe they want their recording to portray as accurately as possible what they hear when they play or sing. I read an interview recently with Dan Wilson of Semisonic and he articulates on the process they go through to get a good sounding recording, using tubes and light compression.

Unfortunately, what the artist wants and the what the A&R people want is not always the same. In the 70's and early 80's, everyone was pretty much on a level playing field, as far as radio went. Records were pretty much all recorded at a moderate level with some dynamic contrast. Each artists subsequent album improved sonically from the last one. They learned to make their sound a bit better through experience and using state of the art studios, using engineers and producers who had the same goal. Then a certain producer discovered that, by overcompressing, they could get more apparent loudness on a record and it would sound louder on the radio. Then it was a fight to get the loudest possible recordings over the radio so they would stand out and hit the listener. So they compressed everything flat and shoved it to the last possible bit before distortion hit, no nasty transients or peaks to ruin everything. :rolleyes: The rest is history.

But back to the topic, yes, true artists care. Frauds and wannabes who are only in it for the money or because they are looking past the recording to the video collection, they probably couldn't care less about sound.

I do worry and wonder what will happen when the true professionals with taste, like Glyn Johns, Al Schmidt, Alan Parsons, Joe Ferla, Bob Ludwig etc. all retire and shudder to think what sound will be like with just the Lord-Alges and their ilk training deaf mutants how to mix, I mean, OVERCOMPRESSSSS!.

[Grant]

My brother-in-law was a member of a mid-90s band Tripmaster Monkey that recorded three albums and an EP for Sire Records.

I invited him to audition some demos I have been working on for a friend. I tried like hell to get a reaction from him about the recording and sound quality. He just couldn't hear it. All he cared about was the performance and the writing.

I find that he is more typical of an artist. They care more about the performance than the sound quality. Most artists can hear right through the medium and the system and get to the music. Perhaps we should be glad they can. Yes, there are musicians that hear the sound as well, like Neil Young, Wynton Marsalis, and Aerosmith, but they are the minority, I believe.

Artists in the 70s weren't the ones who cared much about sound quality, it was more the producers and engineers, especially the engineers!

I know it hurts but the tiny percentage of us all must remember that most of the world cannot hear, nor do they much care about sound quality. Audiophiles are really a small bunch. Out of that, vinyl and those who prefer stereo above all else are even smaller in numbers.

[Sckott]

I agree with Grant. Musicians and artists CAN be an audiophile, but most of the time, they're not; Meaning, they don't care 100% for the quality of the sound, unless a lot of people complain for them.

BUT, they really don't have any control over the product. It's more of a "NOW" thing, but unless its written in the contract, and the CD doesn't sound =absolutely= bad, the musician/artist has no control. Can you blame em? Their job is done, and many artists don't look at themselves as someone able to do what an engineer does. In fact, the best control is when a musician demads to work with a certain engineer, but that's a label's doing nowadays.

You'll find any-one-artist may not go crazy if their own CD sounds not-so-good sonically. Most artists don't listen to their own records. They listen to other people's music, and they feel compelled to be excited about what other people are doing. From an inspirational point of view, it should make total sense.....


The artist cares about what color the "walls are painted". The engineer cares that the wall is smooth, sturdy and straight.

[tomd]

Neil Young is far and away the most concerned artist regarding sound quality of his music I know.His holding out for remastering of his catalog for DVD-Audio has put him at odds with his record label and his fans.I mean that back catalog of his has made a lot of $$$ for Reprise/Warner but I'm sure his reluctance to have those albums remastered (for cd) + refusing to allow the "missing" six titles to be released is costing him too.I really would like to see all the albums from Neil Young (1st) thru Hawks and Doves remastered for DVD-A also but how many years wait are we talking here?
I mean think about it-if he hates cd sound so much(unremastered 80's cd sound in particular) why not have Warner Brothers remaster his entire catalog in HDCD-THIS COULD HAVE BEEN DONE 5 YEARS AGO ! In the mean time more crappy 80's unremastered versions keep selling every day.Once everything was in place for DVD-A he then could offer the albums in that format as well.Then again I'm sure if he settled on a lot of things his career wouldn't have been as strong and he wouldn't have been as respected as an artist as long as he has also.

[Andy]

I think they care. But I remember in an interview in TAS Steve says he spent 5 weeks on Blue. How many titles would a major label master in 5 weeks?

[Richard Feirstein]

What I find interesting is that Neal Young can often play live at some of the highest sound levels in the business. I have walked out when even my ear plugs were not enough to protect my hearing. I could hear him play just fine in my parked car about 1/4 mile from the stage. He has been sued over this issue by fans. If he is not hearing impared I would be shocked. Yet he is so sure that CD sound is very bad and DVD-A sound is great. My hearing is not bad, I love good sound, but merely find that on some recordings the DVD-A or SACD sounds a bit better unless the CD was derived from a fifth generation EQ'd copy tape. In my opinion a well done CD sounds very good indeed and perhaps SACD and DVD-A can sound a bit better and multi-channel can add to that improvement as well.:rolleyes: