Joe Walsh on Music in the Digital Age: "No Mojo"

[gibsonguitar1988]

Old Joe there, was certainly able to use the most developed technological production tools of the time period for most of The Eagles material. If that band was new and recording today, they'd use what's available now.

I listen to that old Eagles stuff, and don't hear much in the way of "raw performances"... They sound really slick to me.

It isn't so much the whole analog vs digital for him as much as the lack of human performance in popular music. Most music these days is processed, autotuned, techno, programmed, etc. The Eagles didn't do or need that. They actually could play and sing. So what if their records were glossy - nothing wrong with that. What Joe is talking about is getting humans together and actually playing real instruments and not autotuning the crap out of everything. It's not so much Pro Tools vs tape. It's more about real talent vs no talent that is programmed to sound good.

I'll take "slick" Eagles ANY DAY over the new stuff in popular music these days... I said in my other post there are a lot of good bands still around but in popular music rock n' roll is gone. It's all sugary pop stuff. But hiding in the background, I agree, are some great rock n' roll bands (Buckcherry, Blackberry Smoke, etc). But they will never get the spotlight like rock n' roll did in the 70s. The autotuned pop is what is all so popular and it's very perfected and unhuman like. As glossy as the Eagles were, they weren't anti-human. It was real people singing and playing and people with mucho talent. If you were to hear some of these people now sing without their auto tune it would be awful. I remember when Taylor Swift tried to sing Rhiannon with Stevie Nicks without her autotune. It was awful....

I like both raw rock n' roll ala AC/DC and slick recorded bands like Eagles, etc. I love the Eagles for the fact they can sound like the records I've come to know, and I love more raw bands too. But as slick as the Eagles may be, at least they can play and sing, very very well. Their way of perfection was rehearsing until it sounded that way and with great talent. And it still had a live feel and a human aspect to it. Now you just hit a few buttons and it sounds in tune but very computerized.

 

[Skintaster]

Radio shit music is radio shit music.
I have complained of its putrid nature for 20 years now.
Were I older, I would have complained longer.



Funny to hear people bemoan the digital 'revolution' as it were. I think it is amazing that for $100 (recording interface) and a piece of software that came free with my computer, I can make decent sounding multi-track recordings in my house.

Record, splice, edit, move around, manipulate, mix-down, etc, click, click, click. When I was younger, we had two tape deck boom box w/ built in microphone. Hissssssssy-noissssssssssy-crap!

No kidding. As a musician that records a lot, I'm sure happy that technology has made the recording process a lot easier and cheaper.

I've recorded on tape. I like the analog quality of recording that way... But we're talking about minute things that the average person wouldn't notice, and it's not easy to record that way, or cheap. And pretty soon, it won't be possible at all.

A good song is a good song regardless of what tech is used to create it.

Also, I wonder how many people critical of modern production use digitally created drums?

I think it's funny... Because I've read a bunch of threads like this over the last couple of years, and people pipe up with "modern production has no mojo", and then in another thread, the same person talks about recording with "Garage Band".

 

[LtDave32]

Were I older, I would have complained longer.

Sig-worthy, right there.

 

[poncho]

What's kinda funny is, I don't necessarily disagree with the gist of what Joe is getting at. Well, part of the gist, anyway. In fact, I'm currently scouring my city for a used 4 track(for cheap analogue goodness)


I guess what it boils down to is, just do what you like to hear.



When I think of legendary producers it would be fun to work with, they're almost always from the 50s-70s

 

[Kamen_Kaiju]

Funny how many mistakes were obviously present on Led Zep recordings, but Jimmy Page was the "go to" session player on countless British pop records.

Jimmy Page may not be one of the greatest guitarists (arguable,...his rhythms are pretty awesome.)

But his EARS man!

The guy could produce. He could layer a record really well.

I still don't hear recordings today that have all the organs, bass, drums, guitars, mandolins, vocals, acoustic guitars, etc.

...all blended together so nicely.

He may not be a monster guitarist, but he's one hell of a monster producer/recording engineer.

 

[The_Sentry]

Meh. Who needs musicians when you've got Pro Tools....

The problem is the technology is THERE. And it's so advance it can solve all of your problems in the recording studio...IF someone knows how to run it.

I dunno. At this point I can't bemoan an industry which has sucked a high hard one for years now. If I hear music I like...I pursue it. That's all I, or anyone else can do.

 

[poncho]

If Jimmy Page isn't a monster guitarist, I suck a lot more than I thought I did!

 

[Skintaster]

It isn't so much the whole analog vs digital for him as much as the lack of human performance in popular music. Most music these days is processed, autotuned, techno, programmed, etc. The Eagles didn't do or need that. They actually could play and sing. So what if their records were glossy - nothing wrong with that. What Joe is talking about is getting humans together and actually playing real instruments and not autotuning the crap out of everything. It's not so much Pro Tools vs tape. It's more about real talent vs no talent that is programmed to sound good.

I'll take "slick" Eagles ANY DAY over the new stuff in popular music these days... I said in my other post there are a lot of good bands still around but in popular music rock n' roll is gone. It's all sugary pop stuff. But hiding in the background, I agree, are some great rock n' roll bands (Buckcherry, Blackberry Smoke, etc). But they will never get the spotlight like rock n' roll did in the 70s. The autotuned pop is what is all so popular and it's very perfected and unhuman like. As glossy as the Eagles were, they weren't anti-human. It was real people singing and playing and people with mucho talent. If you were to hear some of these people now sing without their auto tune it would be awful. I remember when Taylor Swift tried to sing Rhiannon with Stevie Nicks without her autotune. It was awful....

I like both raw rock n' roll ala AC/DC and slick recorded bands like Eagles, etc. I love the Eagles for the fact they can sound like the records I've come to know, and I love more raw bands too. But as slick as the Eagles may be, at least they can play and sing, very very well.

But you're talking about a preference of musical style... A subjective thing. Nothing wrong with that.

BUT! Sugary, overly produced music has been around for decades, and it's not accurate to say that "most music" is programmed and produced that way.

Besides, as a person that's spent time in bands that used "programmed" parts... I've got to say that that actually takes skill and talent. It's a hell of a lot easier for me to bang out an idea on guitar.

And look, nothing against The Eagles, but I've heard enough of their live stuff to know that they have good nights and bad, and it's not the bad performances that were kept on the albums. I've heard them sing and play badly out of tune on occasion... How is it that we judge them as being talented players, where another artist... Say Lady Gaga, who is also a great, talented singer and virtuoso on piano is regularly derided as being talentless or fake?

It's because some people have a preference for one type of music or another.

The 70s is long gone, but I bet if some band used "computers" to produce authentic sounding classic rock, they wouldn't come under fire by anyone but the uber purists.

People are mostly more interested in the final product... Whether it's a style they like, than they are with how it's produced.

 

[Kamen_Kaiju]

Meh. Who needs musicians when you've got Pro Tools....

The problem is the technology is THERE. And it's so advance it can solve all of your problems in the recording studio...IF someone knows how to run it.

I dunno. At this point I can't bemoan an industry which has sucked a high hard one for years now. If I hear music I like...I pursue it. That's all I, or anyone else can do.

you intentionally go lo-fi and wait for the backlash that will elevate your position.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMyCa35_mOg]Tom Petty And The Heartbreakers - The Waiting - YouTube[/ame]

If Jimmy Page isn't a monster guitarist, I suck a lot more than I thought I did!

Some people only focus on leads, which he's not amazing at.

However his songs and recording techniques are amazing.

People still talk about Led Zep and they get new fans every year. (which shows you how important 'elite guitar skills' actually are.)

It's all about songs.

 

[geochem1st]

I know you're musically open minded, I'm not criticizing that.

But I fail to see how The Beatles "creating in the studio" is much different than modern artists doing the same thing? And that's been criticized here. Maybe not by you, but it has.

It is different and you can draw clear lines in the Beatles musical changes when the changeover happened. Some bands can manage studio creation and be great, some can't. The Beatles stopped playing live, except for that rooftop session at Abbey Roads. How would they recreate what they were creating in the studio?

Using Zep again as an example... they were two different bands past '73. Their studio creations became very complex and layered, and very difficult, if not impossible to reproduce live. Often they failed quite bad when trying to carry over over produced songs to the stage.

I stand by my assertion that the main reason a lot of early rock albums were recorded "live" is because it saved money. Lots of artists still do that - Maybe not the easy targets like Britney Spears or Justin Beiber, but lots of smaller bands do.

And I agree with this.

I'm talking more about looking back now from today and comparing the vitality of the music.... studio creation vs live.

 

[Skintaster]

I think I should add that as musicians, if we're unhappy with the music that's popular at any given time, then we should just go out and create the band we'd like to hear and see.

Doesn't mean anyone else will necessarily want to hear it, but the art of creation is a powerful thing.

 

[poncho]

Skin, I'm getting rather tired of having to like all of yer posts. Think you could dial it back a bit, maybe?

 

[GuitarToneFreak]

I listen to that old Eagles stuff, and don't hear much in the way of "raw performances"... They sound really slick to me.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCrSoM5o-fg]Eagles - One Of These Nights -HD - YouTube[/ame]

Definitely agree with you - cool song, but slick as a used car salesman. Definitely no different than somebody piecing together a recording in modern times, and, as you said, I'm sure The Eagles would fall into that category if they were brand new today.

It all goes back to using the best recording equipment of your time - and that certainly sounds like what The Eagles did. As I said, cool song, but raw production it does not feature.

A quick search tells me that this album was before Walsh's time with The Eagles - but the point still stands.

 

[The_Sentry]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1pi7Dn87mY]Opeth - The Devil's Orchard - YouTube[/ame]

A retort to Malikon.

I don't know how this was produced...but I like it. That's enough.

Same with this:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnmJprsI5uc]Joe Bonamassa - High Water Everywhere - YouTube[/ame]

(Just for you, man! )

I am beyond second guessing what is what. I don't listen to Top 40, and I don't know too many people who do as far as musicians I jam with.

 

[AleisterCrowley]

So who makes the decision to utilize all whiz-bang tech and digitize the life out of recordings?

The musicians?
The engineers?
The producers?
The MAN?



Consumers?

 

[Skintaster]

Skin, I'm getting rather tired of having to like all of yer posts. Think you could dial it back a bit, maybe?

 

[geochem1st]

So who makes the decision to utilize all whiz-bang tech and digitize the life out of recordings?

The musicians?
The engineers?
The producers?
The MAN?



Consumers?

Depends on the contract you signed

 

[gibsonguitar1988]

But you're talking about a preference of musical style... A subjective thing. Nothing wrong with that.

BUT! Sugary, overly produced music has been around for decades, and it's not accurate to say that "most music" is programmed and produced that way.

Besides, as a person that's spent time in bands that used "programmed" parts... I've got to say that that actually takes skill and talent. It's a hell of a lot easier for me to bang out an idea on guitar.

And look, nothing against The Eagles, but I've heard enough of their live stuff to know that they have good nights and bad, and it's not the bad performances that were kept on the albums. I've heard them sing and play badly out of tune on occasion... How is it that we judge them as being talented players, where another artist... Say Lady Gaga, who is also a great, talented singer and virtuoso on piano is regularly derided as being talentless or fake?

It's because some people have a preference for one type of music or another.

The 70s is long gone, but I bet if some band used "computers" to produce authentic sounding classic rock, they wouldn't come under fire by anyone but the uber purists.

People are mostly more interested in the final product... Whether it's a style they like, than they are with how it's produced.

Every band has good nights and bad, Skin. Although I have to say I've never seen the Eagles extremely out of tune and I own every bootleg CD or DVD imaginable, although I won't say it never happened. I think you are missing my point. What I'm trying to say is that the music that IS fake (autotuned, non human) is the problem. There are good bands/artists with talent today. But it seems like they are getting harder to find. The fact is, slick or not, the Eagles had massive talent as musicians.

To each his own.

 

[LtDave32]

What's kinda funny is, I don't necessarily disagree with the gist of what Joe is getting at. Well, part of the gist, anyway. In fact, I'm currently scouring my city for a used 4 track(for cheap analogue goodness)


I guess what it boils down to is, just do what you like to hear.



When I think of legendary producers it would be fun to work with, they're almost always from the 50s-70s

Dude.. You can often find old Teac 3440 machines on the 'bay or craig's list. You can get them for a song and dance. They used to cost over a grand, easy. Couple of hundred, or maybe even cheaper today.

I used to have 3 of them.. Wish I still did.

 

[Skintaster]

Dude.. You can often find old Teac 3440 machines on the 'bay or craig's list. You can get them for a song and dance. They used to cost over a grand, easy. Couple of hundred, or maybe even cheaper today.

I used to have 3 of them.. Wish I still did.

Sad thing is that within a few short years, there won't be any more tapes available.