[klaatumail] Re: 1980s music [almost no kk]
- From: Mitch Bray <mitch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: klaatumail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:55:45 -0700
I have to agree with Dave's assessment of rock & pop music in the 80s
- it was almost scattershot in terms of so many new and different
sort of things going on, and I'm interested in Jaime's favorite flavor
(s). At the time, I really liked the "Who Me? I'm Not Gay" new wavers
like Depeche Mode, Siouxie & the Banshees, Dead or Alive, Thompson
Twins, Howard Jones, Pet Shop Boys, Talk Talk, Lydia Lunch and Thomas
Dolby.
And while all the new rock & pop genres and activity in the '80s
certainly showed fresh ideas and wonderful new creative talent,
despite this, I always got the feeling back at the time that there
was something 'cheaper' sounding about this pop music, which obtains
to this day. What do I mean? As one example, I'm envisioning the
crispy, clean new Yes album we got in 1983: "90125", with its mega
hits "Owner of a Lonely Heart" and "Leave It." This stuff is great,
make no mistake - but it somehow lacks the RICHNESS of feeling you
find on "Close to the Edge", "Relayer", or even "Going for the
One" (which shares some of the more polished aspects). It's precise,
polished, almost cold, brittle. Another more subtle example: compare
The Cars by The Cars to Heartbeat City, or Heart's Dreamboat Annie to
their '80s self-titled hit producer. Or what about Queen's 1982
offering, "Hot Space": take that for a spin after "A Day at the
Races", "News of the World", or even "Jazz" and see what I mean?
You might counter that these are all 70s acts trying to adapt to the
80s - what about the fresh talent? Well, the trouble is it's hard to
compare something to something that doesn't exist, but here goes: try
comparing the one hit wonders- how does "Magic" by Pilot stack up to
"Take on Me" by A-ha? How about "Hold Your Head Up" by Argent vs.
"Fantasy" by Aldo Nova? How about a crossover from country: "Here You
Come Again" performed by Dolly Parton vs. "Queen of Hearts" by Juice
Newton? Which one of each of these sounds "cheaper" to you?
Moving from the popular music of the 1960s and 70s to the 1980s, to
me, as illustrated by the examples above, feels like going from the
pastoral farm to the Singapore-like city of tomorrow - everything is
much more uptight and under firm managerial control in the 1980s.
It's as though someone marched into the studio with a white glove and
said "CRIPES! What a mess in here!!! Look at all this dust and
romantic crap - clean it UP, people, and let's get to work on a
SCHEDULE in this lardforesaken place!!!"
Each place does have its charm - I love the innovation of the 80's;
probably the last really really big steps in terms of technology
(digital revolution and all). But I think the more stark, clean, and,
well, "loveless" production values that kicked in then actually
cheapened the sound, not just the cost to the producers. Those values
have shaped the digital production age and still abide now in a lot
of pop music: I miss the string and woodwind fills. I miss the
slightly off-key backup vocals because they weren't being
electronically corrected. I miss the kludgy tape loop and analog
solutions - inventions of necessity and cunning!!
But most of all, I miss the dynamic range - and believe it or not,
that might be the naughty little secret here about the human
consensus on 60s and 70s pop being supreme: listener fatigue. It's
hard to get listener fatigue from dynamic analog sources, real
instruments, high quality stereo equipment, etc.
Take two records I love: How could a recording like "Islands" by King
Crimson in the mid 1970s be a creature of vinyl records, and a CD
like Oracular Spectacular by MGMT be a product of the supposedly so
far technically advanced 21st century digital age? One has so much
dynamic range, you'll be running to the volume control to catch every
lovely minute, the other one might as well be white noise in terms of
its volumetric dynamism. Moreover, I think that the distortions,
however subtle, introduced by digital recording processes are not yet
well understood, and they have crept in since the 1970s in ever
greater degrees, until now they fatigue our ears and minds without us
even realizing it is happening or the source of it. Many of us just
listen less without even realizing it. I can make it through both
sides of "Islands", but after about 20 minutes of "Oracular
Spectacular" I'm done in by the drone of it all: 1984's "Loveless" by
My Bloody Valentine seems to be the production goal of all new pop
music: a literal wall of sound like the end of The Beatles' "I Want
You (She's so Heavy)". How do you make it through 60 or 70 minutes of
that?
The 1980s also, not coincidentally, saw the end of the commercial
dominance of component based electronic audio equipment, which was
interested in accurate, natural, balanced pleasing sound. In its
place, the boom box and "shelf systems" were introduced, and they all
sound terrible, really terrible - like car audio. Using less acoustic
instrumentation hides just HOW terrible these newer systems actually
sound. I've seen and heard mid-price "shelf systems" with over 9%
(yes - NINE PERCENT) total harmonic distortion. This is so audible,
it hurts the ears and mind.
So in conclusion I agree actually that "most people" think or
acknowledge that there was something superior about rock & pop music
from the 1960s and 1970s, despite the innovations of the 1980s that
should make it a contender. Those innovations were sadly often
deployed as a way to cheapen things up in the COST of production
(keyboards INSTEAD of real horns), and it shows in the end results.
The production values were allowed to shift, I believe, to match the
degrading quality of the home audio systems being sold- to a cheaper,
less dynamic sound that causes greater listener fatigue. Those then-
emerging production values are now deployed in a fully digital realm
where subtle alien distortions that displease the human ear are piled
on. Add it all up: most people, confronted with good equipment, and
not at a loss themselves of auditory faculty, will agree: the pop
music of the 1960s and 1970s was somehow better; even if they can't
quite put their finger on why. It's not the songs or songwriters,
it's not the talent; ultimately- it's about the execution.
-Mitch
Santa Rosa, CA
Other related posts:
