No 'le wrong generation' bullshit here, but... Do

I wouldn't say vintage, because some of the vocal tracks on some of the pre-60's stuff are just terrible, but the frequency response is just bad enough to be good and I've never ran into a digital tape saturator that worked as well as actually recording onto tape.

>>53047496
I agree. I think the evolution to a more "perfect" sounding recording began to rob music of it's humanity. Humans aren't perfect; should music be perfect even if art is supposed to imitate life? This is something I really noticed during the 2000s when everything became so slick, it was unreal (not in a good way) unless it was a lo-fi artist or a live recording.

I'll spend my life trying to understand how Hitsville U.S.A produced so many amazingly written, recorded and mixed songs. The fact that so many hit singles were all performed by the same band and written by a handful of songwriters is even more staggering.

>>53047794
This is why pop music and folk music isn't art, it approaches mediocrity, and reaches it, rather than approaching perfection.

>>53047857
>perfection is a qualifier for art
[citation needed]

Yep, for sure. Slightly annoying when you love synths, but there's some analogue maniacs in that scene too. I'm not really opposed to clean sounds out of principle or anything, though. Just not my taste.

I think the aesthetic of older recordings is pretty appealing, but I don't think it makes out breaks a piece of music to me.

The extreme opposite is pretty unsettling to me, though. Some music reaches a sort of uncanny valley with how perfect the production and mixing sounds. The only example I can think of now is radio stuff like Phillip Phillips, but I could probably find more if I had some time.

We're at a point where it's possible to apply both a "clean" aesthetic and a "raw" aesthetic to a recording, and have them both be accepted. This is a good thing, it's one more tool in the producer's toolbox, and can really augment the final product if used correctly. They're both perfectly valid approaches, and I don't prefer one over the over, you just have to do it right.

>>53047954
>Some music reaches a sort of uncanny valley with how perfect the production and mixing sounds.
This is pretty much the entire point of PC Music. I'm glad for it, I never thought that the production itself could be used as an artistic statement. We're living in great times, people.

>>53047889
aww, he's in denial

>>53048062
Not a citation. Try again.

>>53048136
Don't need to cite facts.

>>53048395
You haven't posted any facts yet.

>>53048439
My initial statement was a fact, you just don't like this fact.

>>53048521
No I'm indifferent. I just want you to know that's not the definition of constitutes art, and there's no way you can prove otherwise.

>>53048594
>pop definition
>relevant
Go die in a hole.

>>53048439
he just notes something you and that other anon dont agree on and he replies with "aww he's in denial" to get you to react to him. No facts are needed there m8.

>>53047857
Perfection / precision defines science, not art in my book

>>53049435
Science isn't perfect you dumb manchild.

Art approaches perfection, your mindless pop trash is content in appealing to dumb children like you.

>>53049265
>no facts are needed in a debate
>>53049496
That's not what art is you dolt.

>>53049700
>WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH ART ISNT THIS WAY WHY ISNT MY VAGINA SPLATTER ART TAKEN SERIOUSLY???

>>53049770
Ooops you meant to quote >>53049496 >>53048706 >>53048521 >>53048395 >>53048062 >>53047857
Haha sorry bout that!

>>53049872
That damage control.

>>53049496
If mindless pop trash appeals absolutely as best as possible to its audience how is that not perfection in art?

>>53049959
Because that's not perfection in craft?
Are you genuinely retarded?

>>53050004
dude you're coming off really cool. I bet your taste in music and art is really great