Blog #21: Why recording quality does AND doesn’t matter

We’ve been living in the age of digital perfection for a while now.. Every note can be perfectly tuned and every beat quantised to robot precision. And, with so much (incredible) technology at our fingertips, it's easier than ever to get lost in the pursuit of flawless recording quality.

But let's take a step back and dive into this argument. Why does recording quality matter, and why does it sometimes not? Because, there are times when using the best gear is awesome, and there are times when using that same gear absolutely kills the song. Why? How??

Acknowledging Objectivity but moving towards Subjectivity

Before we start, let’s quickly set this straight. There is objectively good and bad - like if you completely blow out a mic pre (in a bad or inappropriate way). But some of these “foundational” ideas aside, to be honest, nowadays, anything goes.?

We often try to look for a standard of "good" and "bad" in recording quality, and also tend to obsess about making sure things are done right, but what if we embraced the subjective nature of artistry? In almost all cases, imperfections add character, depth and realness to a song.?

Those little quirks, whether they're technical limitations or spontaneous creative decisions or even a flaw in a performance, can elevate a piece from just good to truly great.?

Performance Over Perfection

At the end of the day, the performance is the only thing that truly matters. The listener doesn't care about the brand of microphone used or the mixing process. In fact, there's a certain charm in discovering that a hit song was recorded on a budget or with “homemade” methods like a phone mic. It shows the creativity and resourcefulness of the artist, which I think we all appreciate, and it adds an extra layer of intrigue to the music.?

Think of Billy Eillish and how her first few singles were recorded on an AT2020 - which retails for something like $100 US. NOBODY cares that it wasn’t done on a $3000 microphone. Infact, I think they like the fact that it was done cheaply.

There’s a Christina Agiulera song which even famously has click track bleed in the lead vocal because the take was just SO good, and the producers thought it better to live with the bleed in the master recording than to re-record and lose that magic. ?

Even in my own work, there’ve been times where the singer has KILLED it with a particular take, but maybe peaked out the mic pre a little, and we end up living with that little moment of distortion in the song because that take was the best by a mile. Sure, I try clean it up a tiny bit with iZotope RX, but even then you can only edit it so much without ruining the audio.?

Performance > sonic ‘perfection’?

When “High Quality” Actually Fails Us

While there's definitely value in getting high-quality recordings, it's important not to fall into the trap of prioritizing technical perfection at the expense of artistic expression. Not to forget or dismiss the technical craft of being able to capture incredible sounding audio. (I love this craft after all).

The idea of clean, polished recordings might be really appealing because of the fact that it’s “expensive”, but in reality they (can) potentially lack energy, character and suck the life out of a song that might be one which actually benefits from a more grass-roots recording style. That being said, we all love this idea of recording through the fabled, expensive gear which just has a magic to it. I get it… Believe me. ?

Using singing as (what I believe) the best example… People can try and overproduce the performance of a vocal to the point of oblivion where the energy and life is completely sucked out of it. No imperfections, no performative qualities, no character.?

Sometimes you just want that cheap and nasty mic or pre for the end product. And, sometimes you want to try and recreate (with expensive gear) the performance you got when you demoed the song despite it being recorded cheaply - which brings me to my next point.

The Blurring line between Demo and Final Product

Something I’ve been finding out more and more in recent years is; the line between a demo and a final recording is becoming increasingly blurred. Sometimes we get to the studio to do the “final product” and find that the raw energy and excitement captured in the demo session just can't be replicated again. Especially considering that it’s a different day, different energy, time, room, people, gear, etc. And, while audio quality may improve with re-recording, the essence of the song can be completely lost.

There's something special about that first time capturing a song and the idea, flaws and all. I’m honestly starting to believe that the “first time” is “the only time” - and that’s not to say that this is correct for all projects, but it definitely applies to a lot of music where the songwriter is also the performing artist. That spark that’s there the first time can be incredibly hard to recreate.?

Wrapping Up

At the end of the day, it all comes down to “it depends” when trying to answer any of these questions about what is best for when, etc. What are you trying to create, and how??

Recording quality has its place in music production (of course), but it's not the be-all and end-all.?

I guess what I’m trying to say is, all of this is just a reminder that perfection isn't always the goal – I mean, what is perfection anyway?