Off topic: Compositional excellence versus Brightness of Recording Quality

<When I said "timbre" I was referring to brightness of recording quality, not
actually changing the instrument(s) used!>

If you were limiting yourself only to brightness of recording quality, then I
suggest that "timbre" was not the ideal choice of words.  It certainly put my
thoughts on a different track than yours...  In music conversations, it has been
my experience that the word "timbre" typically includes the unique qualities of
sound contirbuted by arrangements (particular instruments, voices or
combinations of instruments and voices).
 
<Now the type of comparison I was hinting at...was a good cover band using the
exact same instruments as The Beatles being recorded by a single crappy
condenser microphone vs. that same band being recorded in a modern studio, EQ'd,
compressed, etc.  The only differences would be clarity and loudness/brightness
of timbre...and my point (AGAIN!) is while most bands who showed people the
low-quality recording would get dismissed as "amateurs" by modern audiences (who
are generally very weary of "less than modern studio quality" music), the
Beatles have strong enough compositional content they would still be highly
respected.>
 
But the Beatles production was superior to a single crappy condenser microphone
on a live band, was it not?  And there is a nostalgia factor to take into
consideration - with large groups of people associating very positive memories
with these recordings.  There are also historical and sociological factors to
take into consideration with many people interested in the music because of
how popular and even sometimes "important" it was to so many people in the
60's.  Of course, there is the factor that many of the songs were effectively -
even cleverly - constructed and artistically rendered.  But we have so
many apples and oranges here I think we might do better to let the Beatles rest
in peace for a moment and "Get Back!" to where we once belonged... the actual
point you were trying to make.  ;-)
 
The best I can tell, you originally were saying that - from what appeared to me
to be a popular rock music perspective (since you referred to The Doors, The
Ramones, and The Beatles), that if you simply must "fall short" on one of two
items... 1) compositional quality or 2) timbre/production, you believe it would
be better to "fall short" on timbre/production.  When stated like that, I think
many on this list would probably agree that superior compositions can
overcome mediocre production more easily than superior production can overcome
mediocre compositions.  Especially now that we understand what you meant by
"timbre/production". 

 
I'm still a little puzzled however.  Were you suggesting that the compositions
of The Ramones are uniquely well constructed?  You seemed to use them as an
example of terrible "timbre/production" that is still beloved due to excellent
compositions?
 
I still believe that - in the time in which they recorded and released their
recordings - that the style (and what I would call timbre) they used while
presenting their simple melodies, harmonies, and rhythms was much more important
to their success than any particularly advanced compositional techniques
employed during the creation of their songs.  To the contrary, I tend to think
that the Ramones "fell short" of compositional greatness but were arranged,
recorded and performed in such a manner as to communicate a vitality and energy
that was welcomed by popular music fans of their day.
 
But I guess I really should just "let this go" as it has nothing to do with
micro-tones.
 Mark Stephens
ProgPositivity - The Best Prog and Fusion - Positively!
http://www.progpositivity.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]