Alan Wilder/Recoil: Lettera aperta

"Music for the masses - I think not." By Alan Wilder, 02.29.2008
We live in a world of technology - exponentially increasing breakthroughs in all things scientific. So fast that we can't even keep up with it. So why is it that the audio quality of music is degenerating? Music 'sounds' worse. We have stopped listening, we don't have time. We only have time to be smacked in the face by the loudest, most attention-grabbing blast of souped-up noise imaginable until ear fatigue sets in and the desire to 'change the record' takes over. Why are the adverts on TV twice the volume of the regular broadcasts? It's the only way to get our attention in the VOLUME WAR. In recent years, a revolution in processing technology has instigated a change in the way albums are mastered. In order to compete, A&R men, producers, even the artists are demanding that mastering engineers, via digital compression, crank up the level so high that all dynamic range is callously sacrificed. (Compression essentially increases the volume of the quieter elements within a mix while holding steady the peaks of the louder parts)The effect of excessive compression is to obscure sonic detail and rob music of its emotional power leaving listeners strangely unmoved. In fact, the ear naturally compresses high volume blasts to protect itself - this is why we associate compression with level. Our sophisticated human brains have evolved to pay particular attention to any loud noise, so initially, compressed sounds seem more exciting. It is short lived. After a few minutes, research shows, constant volume grows tiresome and fatiguing. True excitement comes from variation in rhythm, tone, pitch and a wide range of dynamics which in turn provides space and warmth - something you're unlikely to find in much of today's rock/pop music. If you want a good example, listen to The Arctic Monkeys 'I Bet You Look Good on the Dance Floor' for a bombardment of the most unsubtle, one-dimensional noise.

THE DOWNLOAD SPIRAL... At the moment, MP3 compression allows a smaller file to be created by excluding the musical information that the human ear is less likely to notice. Much of the information left out is at the very high and low end (MP3s don't reproduce reverb well for similar transience reasons). So when the already squashed CD master is then consumed via MP3, the flattening effect is enhanced further. The result - an unsatisfying, brittle, indistinct, hollow experience with no punch. Just as the CD replaced vinyl, we all know that MP3 and other digital formats are quickly replacing CDs as the most popular way to listen to music. This means more convenience but inferior sound (although that may improve over time). Even the audiophiles have moved on to multi-media - the iPod or iPhone being the 'must have' item of choice. Many have lost interest in high-end stereo systems while younger listeners have grown so used to dynamically compressed music that the battle has already been lost. But this is not the whole story. We are seeing the ramifications of this subtle but significant listening shift for the record industry. You see, it's not just about audio quality. It is about craft, toil. It's about art...

ART FOR ART'S SAKE. I am slightly out of the ordinary in that I am not a hugely 'successful' artist in terms of commercial sales and in that sense, I struggle to be heard just like millions of other musicians. However, because of my background in Depeche Mode, I am secure, which has meant (and continues to mean) that I don't have to tailor what I do to conform in any way. The market shift hasn't really affected me that much. It certainly doesn't change how I approach making music. It does reinforce my cynicism towards the injustice of so much good music lost in the mêlée of dross. But that is nothing new. The nature of mainstream radio hasn't improved in any way; magazines have minimal impact, television exposure is more limited than ever - notwithstanding MTV channels which have become more and more marginalised. In fact the best way to get your music heard is through a TV advertisement.Leaving viability aside for a moment, I would like to see a return to high quality art, embracing all the wonders of technology and science, delivered at a price that reflects the time and effort the artist has put in. Call me old fashioned. Just as one would expect to pay for a hand-crafted piece of furniture or a designer dress or a beautifully printed photograph. Rather than pandering to mass media, why not also produce higher resolution audio - maybe on DVD since that's a format most people can engage with without having to buy new equipment? Combine this with lovingly produced artwork which, if a printed option is too expensive, can at least be downloaded.Collectors items are becoming a way to escape the turmoil. It makes a lot of sense to subsidise the production of an expensive format for those who really appreciate quality and collectibility by allowing a wider audience to cough up a minimal amount for the fundamental elements. Some have tried. For instance, Magne Furuholmen (A-ha) released and sold 300 copies of a special 10" vinyl picture disc with hand-painted original sleeves, accompanied by a CD containing all the songs, a poster and a documentary charting the creation of the artwork. The package sold at 100 Euros a piece. Afterwards, all songs were made available on-line for free via MySpace. Hats off to a bold approach which effectively encouraged each serious fan to also become a kind of personal investor. The successful implementation of a DVD/art/film package such as this by a major company largely remains to be seen. No reason for it not to work as long as the label takes a pragmatic view about downloads - that they can only really act as a promotional tool rather than generating a sustainable source of income.But really, coming up with a format is the least of the challenges - the difficulty as always is how to sell it.Certainly trying to get any sort of coverage in the record stores ceased to be a viable option some time ago. The chains themselves are on their last legs (note the recent demise of the excellent 'Fopp' stores) or they are mutating into something different - focusing on games, merchandise, iPod accessories and so on. To ensure their own survival, with their 'no returns' policy, the record stores exert heavy pressure on the record companies by only agreeing to stock 'dead certs' - just the best selling artists, in order to avoid being left with excess stock.As for marketing and promotion, I want the first listening experience of one of my records to be exactly as I intend it to be heard. For that reason, no longer will I be offering up advance copies for charlatans posing as journalists to sell on E-bay or upload to The Pirate Bay 3 months ahead of release. Considering the amount of advance promotion I get these days, it won't make a blind bit of difference to the sales performance.Not that there aren't any positive sides to fan-shared files. Clearly, people in remote parts of the world - Siberia for example - can potentially be exposed to my music this way, albeit not, as yet, at optimum quality. It's not ideal but better than no opportunity to hear it at all. Even with CDs, in Russia, they are impossible to buy outside of the major cities which is why we get sharp, entrepreneurial fan sites buying up all the city's stock and selling it on to others outside for a small profit margin. [Tratto da www.side-line.com]