The Art of Music Recording and Production

A cross-disciplinary analysis that includes music making, technology, digital media, and the music industry should necessarily navigate between disciplines such as communication, musicology, history, and the development of techne and technology. Based on ^{Frith and Zagorski-Thomas’ (2012}) theories, this type of analysis is part of a new academic field they called the Art of Record Production (ARP), which is in the making in terms of academia and research.

This field started with the first ARP Conference, held in London in 2005 by the Association for the Study of the Art of Record Production (ASARP). Subsequent meetings in northern European countries and the United States have resulted in an increase in the number of college programs, thesis, research projects, and publications about record production or recording arts.

^{Frith and Zagorski-Thomas (2012}) published a compilation book entitled The Art of Record Production: An Introductory Reader for a New Academic Field. It recounts ASARP Conferences and their main presentations by professionals, researchers, and scholars in different fields: musicology, semiology, sociology, anthropology, historiography, and audio and sound engineering.

One of the main aspects that motivated the creation of the ASARP was higher education. Frith and Zagorski-Thomas have emphasized that ARP should be cross-disciplinary to cover different study fields: “a project-cross-disciplinary designed to foster a dialogue between academics and practitioners, open minded as to what ‘the study of record production’ might involve” (^{Frith & Zagorski-Thomas, 2012}).

In popular music studies, countless works about audio recording apply this type of analysis because they do not consider music production or the art of recording as individual disciplines, but as a series of cross-disciplinary projects.

There are obvious parallels here with the development of popular music studies [...] and a key point to make is that the study of record production [...] is not in itself a discipline, a field of study with its own clearly defined methodology, but is, rather, a cross-disciplinary project (^{Frith & Zagorski-Thomas, 2012}, Introduction, para. 2).

Moore (as cited in ^{Frith & Zagorski-Thomas, 2012}) claimed that, to study of this field, it is necessary to take into account aesthetic considerations related to the act of recording and the decisions that are made in a recording studio, which can be based on current technological limitations. In the same sense, ^{Schmidt Horning (2013}) highlighted the importance of audio technology in terms of the final product, especially for producers and engineers who use it in the recording studio as a physical and acoustic space where music is created. Similarly, British musician and producer ^{Burgess (2013}) argues that music production is “the technological extension of composition and orchestration” (p. 5).

In this paper, technology, acoustic space, and aesthetics come together to address the subject of this study: processes that changed the ways music has been created and produced at the recording studio. Importantly, musicians and producers in the analog era used tools that produced high-impact aesthetic and commercial results that are still enjoyed by current listeners.

This is not only about audio professionals: the target audience can also identify those sound aesthetics and the change of sound over time-which are determined by factors that are more related to consumption strategies, but also to technological implementation processes. This fact applies to creators and users of this aesthetic creation device-called recording studio-as well as final consumers. That is, this phenomenon occurs for two kinds of audiences: (1) those who lived, worked on, created, and consumed the final commercial records from the analog era and currently know the pros and cons of digital audio and (2) digital natives, whose natural point of reference is digital audio but who particularly revisit aesthetics and technologies to listen to old formats motivated by curiosity or the need to change contemporary sources of sound.

About this aspect, ^{Zagorski-Thomas (2014}) proposed a relationship between the recording studio and musicology and eight categories to understand the phenomena that take place during recording sessions and record productions. Among them, three are related to the subject of this paper: audio technology development; its utilization; and consumer aesthetics and influence. It is therefore convenient to identify the differentiating and change-producing elements that have mutated during the evolution of technology and how the latter could influence not only those who took part in the creative process but also those at the end of the chain: the general audience.

On Audio Technology

The history of music production includes milestones of technological development that have diversified and influenced not only production techniques and methods but also the aesthetics of the results. When digital audio was barely emerging as an alternative, full of potential, ^{Stockham (1977}) raised some questions: “What will the records themselves be like? What will be their size and shape? What and how much will they contain? What will be their quality? How long will they last? How will they be manufactured and packaged? How will they be distributed and sold?” (p. 892). Certainly, to be able to answer them today, we should describe the changes motivated by the introduction of digital audio technology.

Technological transformation also affects the final consumer, who has been a witness of the way music is consumed, stored, and shared. Thus, there is direct feedback to the industry, who should adapt to the pace of production and consumption in the market. In this regard, ^{Strawn (1997}) described seven technological axes that have defined changes in the art of music production:

Each one of these axes has brought about changes in the way the music market and industry plan their production and consumption strategies.

From Analog to Digital

Beyond the relevance of the axes above, using analog, digital, or hybrid technologies is a multi-field axis that can make differences in the workflows of music production and consumption. In the middle of the 1980s, digital technologies started to revolutionize the way music was produced at the studio. The workflows changed noticeably, and aspects such as practicality, economics, quality, and subjective considerations (such as nostalgia and familiarity with past technologies) sparked discussions about working in the analog or digital domain. Because analog equipment suffers less from obsolescence, nowadays it is common to find analog workflows-which makes it possible to compare these technologies and highlight their differences. The following subsection describes some advances of digital audio in the stages of music production, including consumption.

The Sound Aesthetics

Perhaps the most relevant artistic factor discussed in the interviews was the aesthetic-sound results of record productions. The participants agreed on the idea that analog sound includes an additional component that its digital counterpart does not necessarily achieve. Although current audio technology can come very close to analog sound, the digital-and analog-equipment that is necessary to achieve it is very expensive. In addition, they present evident differences in sound, even for the untrained ear, for instance, the noise floor of tapes or the hiss of the needle on the vinyl record. As they are mechanical friction processes, they have a unique noise that is harmoniously combined with music frequencies and add value to these formats. These aesthetic-sound variations have also been influenced by format and medium changes that have occurred throughout the history of sound recording. An example of this was the leap from mechanical to electrical recording-which sounded more like the source, more transparent, and would become the industry standard (^{Zak III, 2012}).

^{Schmidt Horning (2012}) described a factor of sound aesthetics that is related to the recording spaces. She claimed that, in the golden analog age, music “contained air, dynamics and an acoustic identity that imparted a sense of physical space” (Chapter 3, para. 1). The “sense” that Schmidt Horning refers to is an added value that current listeners can take or leave according to their likes and possibilities. Nevertheless, the mass consumption of digital music occurs on streaming platforms, where that air and three-dimensionality are not always clearly perceived. In the analog era, recordings were produced in big sound-conditioned studios; these days, that three-dimensionality is artificially applied using software. According to Peñarredonda, acoustic audio sounds better. In turn, Bohórquez claims that, even to his trained ear, perceiving the difference between digital emulations and their analog counterparts is not always easy.

The same could be said about the migration from analog to digital recording. The CDs from the middle of the 1980s and the early 1990s included a three-letter code composed of letters A (Analog) and D (Digital) to represent three processes: recording, mixing, and mastering. Using this code, discs were labeled AAD when recording and mixing were analog, ADD when only the recording was analog, and DDD when the entire process was digital.

According to ^{Zagorski-Thomas (2014}), this perception of quality is related to the influence that record productions have on consumers. It was not rare that some labels promoted their recording technology to attract more buyers. The opposite happened as well: some productions bragged about the low quality of their processes, as if they wanted to counter the powerful major labels. As a result, audio was impoverished for aesthetic and commercial purposes.

Using analog or digital technology enables artists to search for a particular sonority or sound aesthetics. However, to find it, it is necessary to possess an implicit knowledge of the workings of the machines that achieved those sonorities to be able to implement them in current record production.

Regarding the comparison between analog and digital audio in terms of sound qualities, Bohórquez claims that an important aspect of the analog world is that it can handle higher levels of saturation and distortion, where the recorded signals could present very interesting colors (personal communication, July 19, 2022). Thus, the quality of analog audio is still relevant because current processing capabilities have been used to produce-through plug-ins that simulate saturation, drive, and distortion-very close reconstructions.

In spite of its disadvantages, digital technology has given many enthusiasts and amateur producers access to music production processes. According to Bohórquez, in the past, musicians played, and engineers recorded. Nowadays, that is difficult to establish, which can be naturally good or bad (personal communication, July 19,2022). It can happen, then, that an untrained individual carries out a production with complete competence. It is not enough to have the best tools if there is no knowledge about or experience using them. However, serendipity can happen at the other end of the spectrum: new producers have entered the market with impressive works filled with new musical ideas. Finally, Bohórquez and Arango agree in that someone who is knowledgeable and experienced can work in a domain or the other regardless because-whether in the analog or the digital world-this person will know how to produce similar aesthetic-sound results.

The Workflow

Unlike sound recording, where the conditions depend especially on the purpose, the other stages in record production were greatly affected by technological changes. As those changes enabled people to make recordings by overlaying tapes and previous takes, the last chord in a song was not the last step: it was the producer who made that decision a posteriori. The historiography of sound recording in the English-speaking world since the 1960s is filled with examples of this. At that time, major labels and artists’ communication teams were in charge of recording the entire production process, detailing even the positioning of the microphones and the characteristics of the equipment in the audio chain. This can be seen in Soundbreaking (2016), starring Sir George Martin, the legendary producer of The Beatles; This is pop (2020) and Get back (2021), directed by Peter Jackson; and, more recently, McCartney 3, 2, 1 (2022), starring himself and produced by Rick Rubin, who discuss and contextualize some historic recordings, emphasizing capture and mixing processes. The fact that digital audio was initially rejected by the most conservative professionals was something to be expected. Nevertheless, thanks to its advantages in editing, it gained ground. Bohórquez and Escobar agree on this point.

The workflows and methods have evidently changed. In the past, you needed to prepare the studio and set up the equipment. Now, you open an app on your cellphone to record any audio sample. It sounds simple, but it has a direct influence on the results of record production. An interesting example of this is the set of demos for Bad (1987), Michael Jackson’s seventh solo album, which was produced by Quincy Jones. The documentary entitled Bad 25, directed by ^{Lee (2012}), shows that the team that produced the artist’s demos worked in their own recording studios, creating samples with 24-channel mixing consoles, analog recorders, and all kinds of similar equipment and audio processors. As stated by Bruce Sweden, the engineer, these demos could be part of the final record (Lee, 2012).

Nowadays, demos are recorded using a simple audio interface with a couple of channels and a variety of virtual instruments that offer a wide range of timbric possibilities. This is a giant step in the recording process because many of the sounds in the demos are considered by the producer. Currently, record production teams are reduced to a couple of people or a single person, but they always use technology to mediate the work and refine musical ideas.

Regarding sound recording, today, many instruments in record production are replaced with their digital or virtual versions. To some, it is more convenient to have the sound bank of a Steinway piano recorded under the best acoustic and technical conditions than to record a lower-quality or mistuned piano. To some others, this sound precariousness will be precisely the aspect that will give character to their work.

In the analog era (or the transition toward digital audio)⁴, recording studios were configured with a series of complex connections (Figure 1) that were drawn in maps to guide novice engineers and producers. Currently, this step is completed automatically inside DAWs.

Figure 1. Analog patchbay

Source:   ^{Caballero Parra (2010}, p. 95). 

The difficulty of connecting this equipment required a high cognitive level and imagination regarding the signal flow. This way of “thinking about audio” was drastically changed by digital technology. Although some audio recording software has tried to keep that imaginary route in the virtualized signal flow-cables, patchbays, meters, etc. (see Figure 2)-this process may seem strange to digital natives.

Figure 2. Virtual connections in Reason+ software.

Source: Screenshot of ^{Reason Studios} software taken by the authors. 

The participants agreed on another point: the processes after audio capture and recording -editing, mixing, and mastering-are easier today in the digital world, where possibilities are almost endless. They also shared similar opinions regarding the difficulties of analog sound: it was hard to calibrate the mechanical systems and synchronize the recorders, and temperature and humidity affected the tapes, causing fungi to appear.

As a result, digital equivalents emulated many of those analog tasks: recording, mixing, and mastering, but also earlier stages such as composition and arrangement. Arango often works with sound libraries (or sound banks) that enable him to simulate not only an entire symphonic orchestra but also exotic instruments that are not easily available in Medellín.

These days, a single signal in a multitrack project can pass through a number of effects and processors. In the analog world, that number was limited. As explained by Peñarredonda, that was precisely where engineers’ skills came into play because they needed to manage the devices at their disposal in a smart way (personal communication, June 3, 2022).

Regarding mastering, Escobar recalled the advantages that disc cutting lathes brought to Codiscos. Thanks to them, operators did not need to pay attention to level changes in the phonogram so that the grooves in the disc (stamper) were not damaged-still, some methodical individuals memorized or wrote them down in advance.

The Musical Performance

In the early years of musical performance inside recording studios, musicians stood like in a circus around a horn attached to a disc cutting lathe. That was the time of the heavy and fragile 78 RPM discs, in which each side contained less than four minutes of audio. It was also the peak of big recording rooms where they could record just like they were performing live. The implementation of headphones by the middle of the 1960s was rejected by most musicians. However, this situation was solved with one-ear headphones, which enabled artists to listen to the real as well as the monitored sound-this is important because, through the latter, they received instructions from the engineer and the producer. Later, in the 1960s, multitrack recording started music production as we know it. Albums such as The Dark Side of the Moon (1973) or Boston (1976) by Pink Floyd-the latter recorded by MIT engineer Tom Scholz in his basement-laid the foundations for a paradigm change in the way music was recorded. After that, a single musician could play all the trumpets, guitars, or percussion in the same project: the “mechanistic” aspect of recording, which started to replace session sound, had came to stay.

As a result, session musicians became strict interpreters in terms of tuning, tempo, and intention, able to generate “perfect” productions where music seems to be performed by a single multi-instrumentalist. The role of music conductor was assumed by the digital metronome and sequences in the DAWs, which determine the performance of the musicians in the project and their aesthetic-sound result.

In-the-box recording environments for the genre currently known as “urban contemporary music” add another component to the performance. They place the artists in a kind of emotional staging-using the term proposed by ^{Lacasse (2005}) and ^{Zagorski-Thomas (2014})-that aims to transport them to the stage where they perform. For that purpose, they use intimate lighting and a relaxed environment in the studio.

All the interviewees agreed on another idea: in the times of analog audio, musicians showed good preparation and professionalism during recordings, where errors should be fixed in the performance instead of being delegated to post-production. Some even had in mind the premix that should be applied to the song they were recording. As described by Bohórquez, more than ideal performance, time became the most important factor because digital audio made it possible to copy and paste sections and fix errors in rhythmic pairing or tuning, especially when they were paid by the hour not by song. This advantage enabled musicians to be somewhat more relaxed during the sessions.

Besides the versatile editing functions of DAWs, Peñarredonda and Bohórquez highlighted the introduction of two plugins as milestones in this kind of software: autotune (1996) and Melodyne, respectively. In addition to these tuning tools, the spectral repair suite called Izotope RX offers immense potential in technical, artistic, and creative terms-something that is only possible with digital audio and the capacity of modern processors.

The Commercial Factor

Undoubtedly, the most significant factor that conditions the transformation of the record industry and its production methods is the commercial value of the work. This value includes the sum of the production activities mentioned above. The limit of what can be done with digital technology is determined by the processing capacity of the system being used. Although current digital recording and processing systems are very powerful in terms of processing (algorithmic calculations) and information storage (data storage capacity), during the analog-digital transition, digital equipment was precarious, and it was necessary to combine it with analog processing and equipment.

Importantly, only after the 1990s, the technological change was evident thanks to data storage in hard disks. At that time, Discos Fuentes started to reedit their catalog and offer new versions on CDs and DVDs, as indicated by Peñarredonda. This operation required the company to make substantial investments.

A current DAW can adequately carry out an entire record production, all inside a digital (in-the-box) environment, something that was impossible to achieve in the analog world. There are also hybrid workflows that combine expensive digital and analog equipment. Thanks to their status, they have become an advertisement, an attraction, and part of the “visual aesthetics” of studios that brag about having them to position themselves in the market. In fact, some studios and record labels have kept some analog equipment. Peñarredonda recalls that Discos Fuentes kept some mixing consoles, while Bohórquez indicates that Promix did the same with compressors. In the middle of the 1990s, local record labels in Medellín used to be secretive about and protect their knowledge, techniques, and workflows. This strategy was employed to differentiate them from their competitors. Pieces of equipment, echo chambers, techniques, or even an engineer’s ear were the secret weapons that kept them beyond the reach of their competitors.

Regarding music consumption and listening formats, Peñarredonda referred to another difference: cultural changes have transformed a dedicated and often collective experience using speakers in a room into a complementary individual activity using headphones. Beyond old-time rituals, the participants highlighted the electroacoustic difference between listening to music with good sound equipment in a relaxed environment and doing so in crowded public transportation where headphones are one or two centimeters away from the inner ears.

Despite its drawbacks, many current producers and engineers prefer the versatility of digital technology due to its processing capacity, which is much more economical than its analog counterpart. This trend has triggered an interesting race to find not the best process or processing device but that which looks better in the studio. As maintained by ^{Zagorski-Thomas (2014}), “the pressure from a market built on gadgets is to alter the technological frame-the problem-solving paradigm-from one based on finding the right process to one based on finding the right ‘thing’” (p. 138). He adds, “there is the social field with an equally extensive network of equipment and plug-in reviewers reinforcing the notion that all you need to do is find the right ‘thing’ to solve your sonic problems” (p. 139).