How do you feel about authenticity in recorded music?

Asked by janbb (63196

) June 9th, 2010

Just heard an interesting discussion on NPR about Robert Johnson. There is some serious speculation that the recording sessions as mastered are much faster than intended, raising his voice and distorting the music. Another example given said that the early LPs of the Stones were mastered too quickly and that Keith Jones caught it when they were being converted to CDs. Would you rather hear the music the way you are used to hearing it or in the more authentic version? (With the Robert Johnson blues recordings there is no way to verify the truth.) Is there a place for both?

Observing members: 0

Composing members: 0

6 Answers

I would rather hear it as it was originally recorded,pops and all,but will listen to a tweaked version of a song if I like the artist enough.
Interesting about Robert Johnson..

lucillelucillelucille (34325

)“Great Answer” (0

) Flag as…

I would rather hear it as it was intended to be heard.

marinelife (62485

)“Great Answer” (0

) Flag as…

I prefer to hear the music as close to live as possible. That’s the way to find a good musician.

If the music isn’t good live, it’s not good music. Period.

Seek (34808

)“Great Answer” (1

) Flag as…

I prefer the opportunity to hear it both ways.

In general, however, I prefer to hear it “raw.” There are some bands that will record in one or two takes. Taraf De Haidouks records in the first or second take. The song I linked to has errors that most bands would have re-recorded to get rid of.

I cannot remember which famous American band from the 80’s did the same. I am thinking Bruce Springsteen but am probably wrong.

Arisztid (7130

)“Great Answer” (1

) Flag as…