Appreciate the response. Makes a bit more sense if we're talking radio-play rock, but the inclusion of James Brown—which would've been a different billboard chart back then—made me think your argument had extensions beyond top-40 pop.

I'm all for human error (it's my favorite kind) and absolutely agree that the resultant rough edges define rock more than fastidious virtuosity, &c. I also agree with your point that "a great band can replace one of its members with someone who's technically a more skillful musician, only to discover that their instrumental chemistry isn't there anymore." (In another sense, this is why Tommy, the opera, when not performed by the Who, immediately assumes a veneer of schlock.)

Rock succeeds based on force of personality, and I think we can both come down in opposition to any hypersanitization of the latter. Keep the dream alive!

~Ted

Is a song better because it's in artificially-perfect pitch? That still isn't going to fix the lyrics or the melody. This is something like saying that calligraphy would become monotonous if done by computer. Yes, a certain degree of individuality would be lost, and in that we might also lose some unique sounds, ear-catching sounds, and yes a certain element of musicianship, jazziness, eloquent imperfection may be lost, but if 5 seconds of Abbey Road are what makes it a great song then we're in a lot of trouble regardless. Likewise if perfecting the pitch of the music actually sells a lot of records. But like most things this has good and bad sides. It makes some songs more enjoyable and other songs less enjoyable, and this is subjective. But the problem is in trying to make your subjective tastes the issue and not the presence or absence of mass-market appeal that results from the use of these tools. You have to consider that for everything that you like there are 5,000 people who hate it, who want it changed in ways that you would hate. So subjectively this point has merit for you, but for others it's nonsense. And likewise for every song that is made worse through the misuse of digital editing tools, there are 5000 songs that are made better through the use of those same tools in good hands. That's just how it is. Why? Because most musicians do not have good pitch or even good technique much less good ears and most people care a lot more about good musicianship on average than the occasional spectacular performance.

And your complaint applies to just about every human endeavor. The very good are made worse, and the average made better. But there are far more average performers than excellent ones. Just think that every now and then someone who is very restrained yet very talented in terms of editing hooks up with an excellent musician and brings us the best of both worlds.

Just to clarify, the kind of "pop music" that I was suggesting frowns on mistakes is the genuinely mainstream kind, as opposed to stuff like Jay Reatard that has subcultural buzz but not much in the way of radio traction. (The White Stripes are a special case.) I didn't name any contemporary Billboard-rock-song-chart bands who are Doing It Wrong because I didn't want to make anybody a whipping boy, but I guess I ended up with a straw man instead....

You're absolutely right that studio perfectionism isn't unique to rock. I think it's totally appropriate for a lot of kinds of popular music--just not always the kinds that rely on real-time interaction between musicians.

And, as I understand, just about everybody in mainstream popular music uses Auto-Tune--the T-Pain effect is what happens when you set it so its pitch modification is perceptible, but most of the time it just nudges things so they're correctly in tune.

Good point on the codgerism of citing exclusively four-decade-old songs ("Sex Machine" was '70). I pulled those out because they're examples of the kind of broad, obvious mistakes that barely ever showed up on mainstream hits after live-in-the-studio performances became less common.