I have noticed that it is often easier to distinguish the lyrics (words) of a song in a digitalized version. I will be the first to admit that digital audio processing has its uses. It may indeed be that in the grand scheme of things - with everything considered - it is better for music to be heard for the most part only in computerized versions. The famous movie line is "You can't handle the truth!" Well, maybe this society can't handle analog music. But I'm only acknowledging this possibility, not granting it as a fact.
I read in an interview of David Byrne in the 80's the statement that "the words are a trick to get you to listen to the music." The content of the lyrics in a great piece of pop, rock, or R&B are vastly less important than the contribution the sound of enunciating and intoning them makes to the sound of the song. The meaning of what Mick Jagger sings in 'Brown Sugar' is less important than the sound of his voice as he sings it.
I am not a fan of many kinds of jazz and classical music. I was hanging out in front of the New World Symphony in Miami Beach several years ago when a dozen or so members of the orchestra came out for a break. I said loudly above their small group conversations, "No! Our work's not pretentious and unmusical!"
The Rolling Stones are apparently well aware of how poorly their work is reproduced in digital versions. They have arranged for all of their recordings to be available as current releases on vinyl. (I don't know if they insisted the production be done without digital processing.) Jack White of The White Stripes is also known for espousing all-analog production and playback. Elvis Costello released a recent album on vinyl before any digital version was released.
No comments:
Post a Comment