Crackles, bumps and blips make it

[Spion Kop]

http://music.guardian.co.uk/rock/comment/story/0,,2211573,00.html

Crackles, bumps and blips make it

What really makes a recording is the crackles. The imperfections, the frailties - all these make the music seem human

Laura Barton
Friday November 16, 2007
The Guardian

A friend in Alaska sent me a 45 recently, a copy of Sam & Bill's For Your Love, released on the Joda label in the mid-1960s. "I figured this was something that you had to have because the song is great no matter what, but to play it on a vinyl 45 is damn near ethereal," he wrote in the accompanying letter. "I still get shivers when I hear that needle drop on to the record and hear the first notes ... Damn, it is an amazing song - blows me away every time."

The record has a maroon label and silver writing, a B-side named Beautiful Baby, and an arrangement credited to the singer Johnny Nash. As songs go, it is structurally pretty simple - a prime example of the soul duo recording of the period, opening with a collision of piano, drums and bass, and a clamour of voices, the basic refrain running: "For your love, oh, I would do anything/ I would do anything, for your love." For all the smooth harmonies, there's an unshaven quality to their voices. Sometimes they sound huffy, like the keys on an old upright piano; sometimes they sound ragged and desperate and floundering. But what really makes it is the crackles.

The crackles on a record always make me think of Carol Ann Duffy's poem Words Wide Night: "Somewhere on the other side of this wide night and the distance between us, I am thinking of you," it begins, and then a few lines later: "La la la la. See? I close my eyes and imagine the dark hills I would have to cross to reach you." The crackles seem to me to be the things you cannot articulate, neither lyrics nor music; they are the wide night and the distance, the dark hills to cross, the bits in between.

With recordings, these bits in between, the imperfections, the frailties, help make the music seem human. On the compilation tapes of old, it was the clunk as you pressed stop, the snippets of John Peel's or Bruno Brookes's voice rushing in at the end of a track you had filched off the radio. On a live recording of an Elvis Presley concert I have, it's the way he starts to laugh halfway through Suspicious Minds. It's the way you can hear the Moldy Peaches smiling at each other as they play. On Mark Ronson and Amy Winehouse's version of Valerie, it's her hoarse apology before she starts singing: "I'm sorry, Charlie Murphy, I was just having too much fun."

They are flaws that can easily be ironed out by production, of course, but sometimes I wish they'd leave the creases and the crumples and the stains. If it's broken, please don't fix it.

A friend of mine was recently bemoaning the over-polishing of the Babyshambles track Albion: "I have got the best version of Doherty singing it on his own," he wrote to me. "It's broken, fragile, hardly even there sometimes, with the best lyrics he's written - I don't think anyone's written about what it is to be English like that since, I don't know, Elvis Costello. Then the Babyshambles version is all bells and twinkles and fey pomp. It just wrecks it."

Similarly, I remember feeling enormous delight upon hearing that Lee Mavers of the La's once refused to use a mixing desk because it didn't have original 60s dust on it, and that the only track he was ever satisfied with was a B-side, Over, which was recorded in a stable. You can hear the same dusty feeling on Dylan's Nashville Skyline: the sound of someone drinking water amid the opening notes of Girl from the North Country, or Dylan asking the producer, Bob Johnston, "Is it rolling Bob?" at the start of To Be Alone With You.

More recently, on the Felice Brothers' Revolver, there is a sudden jolt to the song when lightning strikes the building where they are recording - the hiccup left in to make its own musical contribution, calling across the wide night, in a language of dust and slurps and crackles.

[Miss Tasty Princess]

I remember feeling enormous delight upon hearing that Lee Mavers of the La's once refused to use a mixing desk because it didn't have original 60s dust on it, and that the only track he was ever satisfied with was a B-side, Over, which was recorded in a stable.
Oh, please. What a load of pretentious horseshit.

I really can't stand the whole arguement that bad pressings and worn out vinyl make recordings seem more "human." I'd prefer to hear the music as the artist intended, thank you. Human mistakes and imperfections are one thing but fetishizing poorly cared for records and faulty equipment is absurd.

[Patrick]

I dunno. I'm no fan of anyone cooing over the La's and Babyshambles, but I think the writer is onto something. I don't think she's doing the old fetishizing about vinyl crackles and pops per se. The argument is more that a sense of imperfection in the recording, mastering, pressing, the medium, whatever - is part of what makes great music great.

[Miss Tasty Princess]

C'mon, Patrick, she was thrilled that The La's refused to record on a mixing board that didn't have 30 year old DUST on it? That's BS posturing. And pops and clicks from bad pressings just piss me off. I'm no purist when it comes to recording (as anyone who's heard my records can attest) but getting all excited about lousy pressing plant QA is kinda pathetic.

[Spion Kop]

If you listen to that recording of Over by The La's you'll know what she's getting at.

[Miss Tasty Princess]

I've heard plenty of non-traditional recordings and, in general, I like the feel of them. That doesn't mean that large portions of her article aren't a load of twaddle, however; "But what really makes it is the crackles." :rolleyes:

[vesper]

is it safe to say that you and laura barton just look for different things in the experience of listening? her, listening for moments that are about time, frailty, moments that pass; you, listening for what the artist ultimately wanted to produce as a very present moment. in the end both have a peculiar fetish quality about them but both also go beyond that initial step. nothing seems wrong, to me anyway, with either one. perhaps part of the problem is that her opinion is presented as an article in the guardian instead of as a blog post that otherwise wouldn't ruffle a feather.

[Dave]

I'm with HCI on this. That article was full of shit.

Dave

[Spion Kop]

As long as it is what the artist intended and not the record company. Here's a clip of Lee Mavers talking about being unhappy with the record.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sqVAN0JqbM

[tinobeat]

As long as it is what the artist intended and not the record company.

one can not live on platitudes alone

[Brushback]

Here's a quote that I found on a blog that is only somewhat related to this topic-- describing more the listening/recording aspect rather than than actual poppy vinyl pressings-- but I think it's interesting anyway:

"Appreciating the tape hiss - yes, that just about explains it," Times New Viking's Jared Phillips said. "An old wizard friend of ours (Editor's Note: I think he means Mike Rep) once said something to the extent of, 'Tape hiss is the sound of life,' or, 'Tape hiss is the sound of the comet's tail.' Something poetic like that. We just like to make records that evoke a unique atmosphere, putting our sound in a different place, perhaps one that's a little more intimate. Records, I think, are supposed to sound a little experimental - it's a completely separate art form than seeing a band play live. You know, people think distorted guitars on records are okay, but distorted drums or vocals are not. Who decided this? Hitler? The Shins? Who cares. Also with records you can listen to them over and over again and hear new things each time."

Critics of lo-fi aesthetics often bring up how you can’t hear the words, you can’t hear the details. If noise rock aesthetics are going to catch on, it's a point that needs to be addressed.

"We have nothing to say to these people," Phillips said. "You either like it or you don't."

He said that maybe someday those traditional ideas will change more toward appreciating noise aesthetics, but they want no part of carrying that torch.

"That's not why we make music, to change people. Most of the critics are people who think music is supposed to sound a certain way, or they are people who spent too much time and money at recording school - hence their panties getting all bunched up when groups like us just teach ourselves how to do it the way we want. I'm sure a lot of people who don't listen to anything remotely experimental are the same ones who believe that everyone owns Pro-tools, or SHOULD own Pro-tools. Really fucked up, in-the-red records are nothing new. 'White light/White heat' is forty fucking years old. Seriously," Phillips said.

Link to complete post (http://peoplewithanimalheads.blogspot.com/2007/11/noise-diy-and-rebirth-of-modern-lo-fi_20.html)

[Miss Tasty Princess]

I pretty much agree with everything he said. I'll pay $5 to see him slap the writer of the first piece.

[Elijah]

I remember reading an interview with Lou Barlow where he said something to the effect that if he'd been able to record the early Sebadoh cassettes on an iMac rather than on two tape recorders, he would have. To him, tape hiss was by no means an aesthetic choice. He was simply working with what he had at the time.

I don't get people who say that tape hiss makes early Sebadoh sound more authentic. It just seems like the most pretentious point of view imaginable.

[Moon Pix]

I just think in general its a very indie thing to say. The great lie of indie music to me is the idea that 17,000,000 sales mean nothing at all. This stuff about the rougher the better is just an extension of that hippie anti-success "thou shalt not sell" hipster approach to making and releasing music that should have died when punk rock came out.

[Kid B]

I don't get people who say that tape hiss makes early Sebadoh sound more authentic. It just seems like the most pretentious point of view imaginable.
word ......

[larry]

you'll admit the hiss on the sebadoh records sounds "good", though, right?

[tinobeat]

I just think in general its a very indie thing to say. The great lie of indie music to me is the idea that 17,000,000 sales mean nothing at all. This stuff about the rougher the better is just an extension of that hippie anti-success "thou shalt not sell" hipster approach to making and releasing music that should have died when punk rock came out.

really, you think of punk rock as the antidote to "thou shalt not sell" hipster attitude?

people spend too much time worrying about "hipsters."

[Moon Pix]

really, you think of punk rock as the antidote to "thou shalt not sell" hipster attitude?

Its funny really how punk became what it became because if you look at the original British punk bands none of them were exactly against making money. They were all into getting in their with the big major label boys, getting on the radio and having hits. That whole "thou shalt not sell" thing didnt really come into pnk untill a little bit later with bands like Crass who ironically did sell lots of records with the independent approach. I don't think of punk as being the antidote... but for a very short period of time it was.

people spend too much time worrying about "hipsters."


I realise that I moan about them a lot but they are one of my pet hates.

[tinobeat]

well, far be it from me to expound about the history of punk, as I'm far from a scholar on it, but I think the fact that the Sex Pistols or the Clash were on major labels isn't really indicative of any sea change in attitudes about selling. Remember, so were the Grateful Dead, the Jefferson Airplane, Jimi Hendrix, so many of the most popular beacons of the hippie culture you seem to associate with anti-commercialism. If anything punks were just the new hippies, reacting to the bloated 70's corporate rock landscape, I think many of them would laugh at the suggestion that they were the capitalist-friendly remedy to the ideology of the hippies. Either way, this whole conversation is happening with such massive brush strokes, like "hippies" and "punks" that it borders on meaning nothing whatsoever.

As far as your "pet hate," the funny thing is, there aren't really that many "hipsters" of the kind you're thinking. I find them to be something of a chimera for people who want to complain or are insecure, a mythical creature to rail against to make one feel better about their own tastes/decisions. I mean, do you really interact with people who say things like "bands that sell records suck" or anything? They exist, for sure, but their numbers and influence are certainly overinflated by people who seem to have a pathological interest in hating them, as you seem to. I don't get why worrying what a few jaded assholes might think is worth any time or energy whatsoever.

[Elijah]

I realise that I moan about them a lot but they are one of my pet hates.I'm willing to bet that you spend more time complaining about people like this than you do interacting with them. But that's neither here nor there. My point: pet hate? Seriously? Do you realize how incredibly lame that sounds? No offense. I'm just sayin'.

It could make a decent band name, I'll give you that.

[Elijah]

you'll admit the hiss on the sebadoh records sounds "good", though, right?It sounds fine to me, because the songs are good enough to shine through; but I'd be lying if I said I didn't think it would sound better without it.

[tinobeat]

though I must say, the beginning of "A Salty Salute" where they fade up the vocal track right before Bob Pollard starts singing and you hear the hiss come in, heralding the awesomeness of the vocal, well, that's some pretty crucial tape hiss...

[Elijah]

though I must say, the beginning of "A Salty Salute" where they fade up the vocal track right before Bob Pollard starts singing and you hear the hiss come in, heralding the awesomeness of the vocal, well, that's some pretty crucial tape hiss...Agreed; although one could argue that this is merely the exception that proves the rule.

[larry]

yeah. pollard is a waste.

[pizzagratis]

As far as your "pet hate," the funny thing is, there aren't really that many "hipsters" of the kind you're thinking. I find them to be something of a chimera for people who want to complain or are insecure, a mythical creature to rail against to make one feel better about their own tastes/decisions. I mean, do you really interact with people who say things like "bands that sell records suck" or anything? They exist, for sure, but their numbers and influence are certainly overinflated by people who seem to have a pathological interest in hating them, as you seem to. I don't get why worrying what a few jaded assholes might think is worth any time or energy whatsoever.

Can I just say 'right on' here? Well put.

I can't think of anything I've gotten more bored with lately than 'hipster' hating. These people only exist as cartoon characters.

And yeah, I still don't get what Moon Pix has up his craw. There's a lot of different kinds of music out there. It doesn't all have to sound like Starsailor. All kinds of different approaches have their own benefits. Sometimes shit just sounds better murky and distorted.

[tinobeat]

Agreed; although one could argue that this is merely the exception that proves the rule.

I have no hard and fast rules regarding fidelity. Alien Lanes' prevalent hiss is intrinsic to its charm, which in no way negates the songwriting mastery on that record. On the other hand, something like a Fiery Furnaces record is as crisp as it could possibly be, and its just as "authentic" as anything else. Would the Times New Viking records still rule they were cleanly recorded? most likely, but the recording aesthetic is part and parcel of their sound. So there's no rules and no exceptions, there's just successful recordings and unsuccessful recordings, and that's it.

I tend to like messy, lo-fi recordings because that energy pleases me, but I don't have requirements of bands. I just like when the recording does justice to the material, whether hi-, mid- or lo-fi and becomes an inextricable part of the greater album.

[Moon Pix]

I just like when the recording does justice to the material, whether hi-, mid- or lo-fi and becomes an inextricable part of the greater album.

Id pretty much agree with that but I think that rock music generally benefits from a better fidelity. Ive long felt that Mudhoney's records would hit harder if they had been recorded better as would the first Clash album. Its easier for Smog or Sebadoh to get away with a lower fidelity cause it just enhances the atmosphere in their music wereaes for me at least with rock music lower fidelity takes away a lot of the balls and attack.

Imagine "When the Levee Breaks" with a boxy drum sound.I think if you're getting into questions of authenticity, human mistakes make a record more "authentic." Just listen to Tonights the Night or some of the stuff on Stax Records, those records sound about as live as you can get and both were brilliantly recorded.

[vesper]

imagine if every band had the production values of led fucking zeppelin.

[Elijah]

I have no hard and fast rules regarding fidelity……and I honestly can't disagree with anything you just said.

[tinobeat]

Wow, I think those early Mudhoney records have waaay more balls than a lot of rock music out there. I think taming the feral atmosphere of those records for the sake of clarity would do a them a desperate disservice.

Remember also, when talking about "high fidelity" in the 60's and 70's its not the same thing as "high fidelity" now. Stax recordings and most of the Neil Young/David Briggs productions are downright primitive by modern standards, and are "mid-fi" at best, and people seem to miss the fact that the reason drums sound better on old Beatles records and Stones records is because they hadn't tamed the loud drum sound the way they have now. Modern pro drum recording is so precise, its like nothing you'd ever hear with your own ears standing next to a loud rock drummer.

ADDED:
I guess the energy of the players for me is SO SO much more important than "punchy bass" and sonic attack. I mean, the classic lo-fi monster, "I Heard Her Call My Name" is possibly one of the worst mixes ever to be released on a major label, from a technical standpoint, but are you really listening to that and saying "well jeez if only the bass were a bit tighter and you could hear the drums all the way through and if they just didn't mix that SAVAGE guitar solo so damn high"? I certainly hope not! It seems like you like to overanalyze every aspect of a band and a recording thats not actually the music and performance!

[tinobeat]

…and I honestly can't disagree with anything you just said.

well duh, because I'm absolutely never ever wrong ;)

[Elijah]

Ive long felt that Mudhoney's records would hit harder if they had been recorded better as would the first Clash album.You're talking about albums that were recorded in a proper studio, with a producer and recording budget (albeit a small one, but a handsome pile of money was involved, nonetheless). I'm puzzled by your mention of the first Clash album in particular, since the album they recorded after that employed the production techniques that I think you're talking about. It has ten great songs on it, and half of them are made unlistenable by Sandy Perlman's heavy-handed production.

[Elijah]

yeah. pollard is a waste.Well, I hope I haven't implied that I think that.

[Moon Pix]

I'm puzzled by your mention of the first Clash album in particular, since the album they recorded after that employed the production techniques that I think you're talking about. It has ten great songs on it, and half of them are made unlistenable by Sandy Perlman's heavy-handed production.

I prefer the first one in terms of songs but I prefer Give 'Em Enough Rope in terms of the production. Its always thought of the Clash's American album becauuse of the more polished production but theres not necessarily anything wrong with a bit of polish. Even "I Fought the Law" sounds better than the first album and that was inbetween those albums. They obviously started moving away from the recorded in garage in 2 days sound pretty quickly.

Id hazard the guess that if they could have afforded to record the first album better they would have done.

[Elijah]

"I Fought the Law" sounds better than the first album and that was inbetween those albums.No. "I Fought the Law" was recorded after Give 'Em Enough Rope.
They obviously started moving away from the recorded in garage in 2 days sound pretty quickly.Not really. The Clash never released anything that was recorded in a garage, literally or figuratively. Both their first album and "I Fought the Law" were recorded in expensive studios with a producer.
Id hazard the guess that if they could have afforded to record the first album better they would have done.And you would be terribly wrong. When the Clash recorded their first album, they had just been given £100,000 by CBS Records, an insane advance at the time. Money was far from being an issue.

[Moon Pix]

And you would be terribly wrong. When the Clash recorded their first album, they had just been given £100,000 by CBS Records, an insane advance at the time. Money was far from being an issue.

Why does it sound so rough then? Surely they didnt want it to sound like that? I remember Joe said in the Westway to the World doc that Give 'Em Enough Rope was released first in America because the American record company thought that their first album was "unfit for human consumption." I assume he was talking about the production.

I like the Clash but I think the fidelity of Enough Rope proved that Strummer had a garbled way of singing. Back when I was only familiar with their first album I assumed the fact I couldnt understand what he was saying was to do with the recording but a lot of their other stuff is brilliantly recorded and its still very hard to make out the words. Thats one of the things Ive never really liked about their records.

[tinobeat]

Why does it sound so rough then? Surely they didnt want it to sound like that? I remember Joe said in the Westway to the World doc that Give 'Em Enough Rope was released first in America because the American record company thought that their first album was "unfit for human consumption." I assume he was talking about the production.

I would hesitate using a major label exec's call on what is or isn't fit for human ears as any kind of barometer of anything.

[Moon Pix]

I would hesitate using a major label exec's call on what is or isn't fit for human ears as any kind of barometer of anything.

I wouldnt either but I can see his point, it isnt exactly the greatest sounding record you will ever hear.

[tinobeat]

Few records that I love are. I'm fine with that.

[tinobeat]

and by "greatest sounding" I assume you mean "professionally recorded with great skill," instead of what I think of as "greatest sounding" meaning "most successfully conveys the band's vibe"

[Moon Pix]

and by "greatest sounding" I assume you mean "professionally recorded with great skill," instead of what I think of as "greatest sounding" meaning "most successfully conveys the band's vibe"

That would be the one. Im all for the latter but I don't think a lo-fi sound does some albums justice. Theres a reason Rocket to Russia is my favourite Ramones studio album and part of thats because its doesnt have the thin guitar sound and bad vocal sound of the first two. I understand that a lot of people like the bad vocal sound and weedy guitar on those albums and furthermore wouldnt use those adjectives to describe either but I personally think the guitars and drums on a Ramones or Clash album should have tons of balls and you don't get balls by having the bass on your amp set to 3.

[Elijah]

Why does it sound so rough then? Surely they didnt want it to sound like that?That's what they sounded like. And yes, I think that's exactly what they were going for.
I remember Joe said in the Westway to the World doc that Give 'Em Enough Rope was released first in America because the American record company thought that their first album was "unfit for human consumption." I assume he was talking about the production.To be clear, he was talking about an American record executive's assessment of the production. An assessment that was way off mark. By the time that album was released to the US in modified form two years later, it had already sold over 100,000 copies on import.
I can see his point, it isnt exactly the greatest sounding record you will ever hear.Perhaps not, but I'm puzzled that you would compare it to "I Fought the Law," which was recorded under similar circumstances, and where fidelity is concerned, sounds more or less the same. The playing is tighter, because they'd been touring for two years straight, but there really aren't any differences in fidelity to speak of.

[Moon Pix]

Perhaps not, but I'm puzzled that you would compare it to "I Fought the Law," which was recorded under similar circumstances, and where fidelity is concerned, sounds more or less the same. The playing is tighter, because they'd been touring for two years straight, but there really aren't any differences in fidelity to speak of.

I don't know about that. To my ears "I Fought the Law" sounds like a far cleaner, clearer version of the sound they were attempting on the debut. The whole thing sounds sharper to me. Its certainly not like the night/day difference between The Clash and London Calling but it certainly sounds better.

What you also have to consider is that The Cost of Living EP from which "I Fought the Law" came was recorded by Bill Price a.k.a the guy who engineered Nevermind the Bollocks. This was a man who knew what a good sound sounded like and how to get it.

[pizzagratis]

I like the Clash but I think the fidelity of Enough Rope proved that Strummer had a garbled way of singing.

Damn you, Strummer, why oh why didn't you use a vocoder?

[Elijah]

This was a man who knew what a good sound sounded like and how to get it.:rolleyes: Just… never mind.