Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
name and shame...
flaming lips post yoshimi sound pretty dire.
list the cardinal sins.
off Black Kids album is horrible
or Get Cape Wear Cape Fly
I got my money back from itunes store for tracks 12 & 13 on the Searching For The Hows & Whys album. The static just broke up into long gaps of silence.
After 2 months they still haven't loaded a replacement for track 13 'Better Things'.
I noticed a few gliches of static during his live performance as well; I was taken by surprise as he had live backing available on stage at the time.
Muddy shite it is.
they could've had so much better for their album, but instead it sounds kinda weird in places. Like the synths were just tacked on top and not given much thought in the mix, and the drums are quite weak, don't like the snare sound.
That foo fighters one, in your honour, just sounds too busy for my liking too.
Do you know who produced that album?
Hugh Padgham who produced all the Genesis and Phil Collins stuff. But seriously, are you telling me the drums, especially the snare, don't sound kind of lame? A snare is meant to push through the mix and sound kind of snappy, wheras on the IWACS album it just sort of sits there, sounding as if its being hit really lamely. Just my opinion though...
it's been compressed to buggery during the mastering process.
Producers and engineers who believe that pro tools, compression and autotune are the 3 most important recording studio essentials should be taken outside and shot in the soul for crimes against music.
which can arguably, stand such treatments die to lack of instruments/dynamics?
or just cocks.
"rock" bands who overcompress/autotune are the real baddies
because it contains a lot of natural space. Whilst a pop-rock song will tend to be a fatiguing chug of endless guitars, an R&B song will be Bass-silence-bass-silence mixed with snare-silence-snare-silence etc so there's still a lot of room to manouvre within it. And the fact that they aren't always trying to mimic "real" instruments mean they have a a bit more artistic licence
You could also say that R&B/hip hop producers are more interested in sound, and so use compression in a more pleasing way. Rock bands just compress like n00bs
Well, you said "overcompress" and didn't mean it in a bad way, so... aye, ok.
"use a lot of compression so it removes any sense of dynamism or realism in the sound"
that's bad with instruments/constant noise, but if there is a lot of space then it can work just fine.
overdoing anything in the studio is badness. A bit of compression here and there is good, obviously. Putting it on the master track of every popular song of the last 10 years and squeezing everything's life out of the radio is like plopping a jobbie into my earhole.
if so, i was just suggesting that a lot of the over compressed stuff on the radio is produced in that way because so many of the biggest selling singles are things such as we have come to expect from timbalaand and the neptunes..this sort of song responds better to the plastic, overly compressed production method because it is often a ver minimal arrangment, just beats, synth, vocal etc... it is the idiots in other genres who belive this approach is transeferable that are the problem.
if you didn't mean me, sorry for the waffle.
But yeah, i completely understand why these things are used and i know why music is recorded the way it is. It just all sounds absolutely soulless, samey and horrific to my ears, especially coming out of a car stereo (the only time i ever have the radio on).
It's probably the number one reason why i listen to so much 60s and 70s stuff. When records sounded AMAZING.
- all records produced in this way sound 'soulless'
- some records produced in this way sound both 'soulless' AND 'airless', which is bloody worse.
gets a lot of stick, but it's just a standardised set of I/O and a hard disk recording system, so not necessarily anything to do with overproduction.
The same with compression. Compression *is* one of the most important studio essentials, it's the thought that every song needs to sound as loud as possible when it's played on the radio as an essential goal of production that's at fault there.
It's the reliance on it that is the problem. The basic fact that wrong takes and downright bad musicianship can be "fixed" is almost sickening.
Compression is not essential in the slightest. Used sparingly, it's obviously a fantastic tool to have at your disposal, but definitely not something that makes music better. In most cases, it makes it worse. The idea that songs "need to sound as loud as possible" (as you put it) on the radio is what ruins popular music and sucks the life out of it.
is fairly essential when recording vocals, though.
I thought a microphone, a voice and a tape machine were the only essentials?
but you'll not get a usable vocal without it, as every time the singer moves about, the volume will change. You generally don't want this.
And you're completely missing my point. Go and listen to Pet Sounds or something. Compression = good. Thinking it is, in any way, an "essential" tool in the creation of music = bad.
on Pet Sounds were no doubt compressed in exactly the same way vocals have been compressed since compressors have been used. A quick google check confirms this. Most channel strips have them built in. Compressors have got a bad name from th fact that they've been abused recently, but they're still a fairly essential tool in removing unwanted dynamics of a singer moving their head around whilst singing, or getting a whispered vocal audiable.
But, again, you're missing my point!
This is pretty much my point...
not every piece of music, though, and as you kind of implied, different kinds of music require different approaches to compression. Most tracks don't need a big 5 band ultrasquash on the stereo mix that mainstream pop and rock gets subjected to, but there's a lot more pumping house around than there was in 1983.
about the production of most popular radio/chart bands ^
That's all i was talking about, not all types of music. I think we've got kinda mixed up along the way :)
The production of chart/radio music has been about whatever trashy, quick fix technique will get it noticed over everything else being played with as little creative effort as possible for years before everything got crunched under 5 band EQ units. Trashy pop is trashy pop and the production values of crap PWL singles were much worse than the overcompressed modern equivelant.
5 band compressor units. Clearly.
The Pro tools fixing wrong takes thing has been going on since the 60s, it's just that it was done by splicing the tape of the correct bits of various takes, rather than the quick way of cutting and pasting it digitally. Unless you mean autotune, in which case I suspect that's rarely used in the kinds of things the people on here listen to.
It's not that these methods are all completely wrong and is what makes music sound bad ALL OF THE TIME, it's the fact that, with computers and the ever-growing ease that they bring, a lot of engineers will now OVERUSE them, to the point where the music they are producing sounds worse than if they got the band to either tune up, play it again or just generally be an all round better band or performer.
I'm saying that a really, really good producer/engineer who records proper musicians will have a wildly different list of studio essentials than one who makes "hits".
But yeah, i'm confusing even myself now. Let's stop this :(
I was sharing a car with a couple of colleagues recently. We got into the habbit of playing one song each off our ipods in rotation on our journey.
When my friend who liked chart style stuff on played her song it completely filed the car with sound. When I or my other friend put our more 'alternative' stuff on it sounded very very weedy at the same volume (and of course the pop picker would complain if we turned the volume up for our stuff).
this is exactly why producers do it. Who wants their song to sound quiet and weedy after what's just been played?
You can notice it when tuning into different radio stations, as well, as they apply heavy compression to the signal going out, too. Radio 1 and commercial radio sounds markedly different to Radio 2 and 6 Music.
Funny that :)
I think the problem is that 'radio pop' is mixed to be noticeable even when played as a background, in cars, during conversations etc.
'alternative' stuff is not morally superior, but without the worry of radio play is mixed to be listened to by someone who has actually decided to listen to an album and can appreciate shifts in dynamics, it doesn't have to do the same job of screaming for your attention with every beat.
Flaming Lips - At War With The Mystics
Wrong side of overproduced.
I would have hated Californication even witout the production though.
"yeah, but they're supposed to sound like that"
I was listening to some early Lou Barlow the other day. He made lo-fi in the 90's sound so beautifully fragile and stark, even when it was powerful and abrasive. Times New Viking, on the other hand, just make my brains hurt by completely over doing it :(
on mini transportable speakers earlier
it made it sound even more tinny, i actually got a headache after 3 songs.
But they hurt me.
because it sound more RAWK and less FUZZZZ
I enjoy watching their live videos on youtube though, more than listening to their records... which is just plain weird :)
times new viking i really dislike. i love a lot of lo-fi music but with them it's so obviously fake and unimaginative. i think they should grow up.
As opposed to what 'authentic' distortion? I like the TNV sound myself.
i just don't like the way that they have submerged the whole thing it. it's completely indiscriminate. obv it's an attempt to sound raw and lofi and like it was recorded super cheaply etc but it just sounds as if they're trying to compensate for a lack of ideas.
I dont think it is in anyway a continuation of lofi lineage.
Lofi is making the best you can with little means. TNV is trying to sound bad.
and authentic distortion? On old analogue equiptment when the volume goes too high you get tape saturation, an it distorts in a pleasing way.
Im no expert and am sure TNV probably did record using tape but then had it mastered in an extreme and modern way to boost the quiet bits and horribly mangle the loud bits. Its not the lofi way and sounds horrible. Shame as they are a great band.
there's never going to be a consensus on any band on here, nor should there be.
Personally I think that they aren't in any way required to continue any lo-fi heritage. Yes, they use distoriton differently to other bands, but surely innovation can be a good thing?
its not really innovation it is a mainstream technique they have pushed to an extreme and makes it sound like its playing through a mobile phone. I could be completely wrong, i'd like to hear the vinyl version to see if it is the cd mastering or whether they do geniunely sound that bad
im not really sure how theyre trying to sound bad, all these comments like 'unecessarily badly recorded' are bit weird, i like how it sounds, id imagine they probably do as well
"Its not the lofi way"
this is kinda lame, what is the 'lofi way', if youre gonna take this purists route why is it that so many pioneers of the 'lofi' way think theyre so great
recording the best you can on a really low budget, so there is a lot of tape hiss, distortion if levels are set too high, mistakes are left in. The imperfections are often part of its charm.
TNV is different, to me sounds like something that has been recorded in a lo-fi way then mastered so badly that the whole recording is too loud, so the quiet bits are loud and the loud bits get clipped resulting in harsh blarring and distortion. I like distortion, I like it when people push tape too far and it saturates and distorts, this is different it is a modern artifical technique that sounds grating and harsh and isnt how lofi people did it.
When I said unnecessarily bad and trying to sound bad I meant it, it is clearly intentional and am certain it would sound infinately better if they just mastered it better
so what? a lot of the guys who were involved in 'lofi' first time round are involved in some way in and around TNV and related bands, they dont care, why do you (or anyone else who is bothered by it) this purists idea of what lofi means is boring
i get what you meant about it sounding 'bad', the point im making is that it doesnt (at least to me) and i dont really see why people would want it to sound any different than it does, the fuzz is part of the songs
all 3 albums sound like this, the sound is probably something they decided on when they didnt have a record deal or whatever, im glad they havent abandoned it just yet, a lot of the older bands who did that got pretty boring pretty quick
"The imperfections are often part of its charm"
couldnt agree more...
by saying they are continuing in the lofi tradition and paying homage etc. and im just pointing out their approach is very different from lofi it is a method used by the biggest bands in the world they have just pushed it to an extreme.
I actually like them alot but think their music would sound infinately better if it was mastered properly and think anyone who could compare the two side by side would agree, I think it is an objective fact that music compressed until the point practically the whole wave is clipped sounds bad.
I have nothing against fuzzy sounding records but this can be achieved in otherways, overdriving analogue recordings produces natural compresion and distortion that sounds great, rather than mastering of cds to make it sound like a cheese grater to the ear
lofi is a relatively meaningless thing, fair enough i have no real idea who or what youre talking about in terms of people defending them like that, also what youre talking about in terms of paying homage to previous bands isnt restricted to the production rly.
having read interviews with them ive seen the band say they 'like how it sounds' and 'dont know why it needs to be more of a statement than that' which i think is fair enough. you have 100s of songs out there that sound the same as each other and TNV are that bit louder and fuzzier and it sounds cool. i dont think theres anything objectively wrong about it, you could make the songs sound cleaner but, so what, i dont really know what thatd improve
the overriding point is, fair enough its not your bag but that doesnt mean there's anything inherently wrong with it
if they and people like it that is fine but it seems abit strange. Listening to their album at normal volume through ear phones is actually uncomfortable and causes ear fatigue, they could have made could sound just as fuzzy without it having this effect if they wanted and it would be alot more pleasurable to listen to.
"Listening to their album at normal volume through ear phones is actually uncomfortable and causes ear fatigue"
was to turn the volume down a bit...
i guess we're never gonna agree on what makes good or bad production though, so huh, lets wrestle
where the peaks and troughs are pretty much at the same level, but the peaks would be at the same level as normally produced stuff. So it is actually forcing you to listen to it at quieter volume than normal because it 'sounds' louder when infact it isnt
Music is more enjoyable loud and by producing it in a way it sound so harsh you have to turn it down to bellow normal level it is robbing people of listening pleasure.
I am all for loud bits being loud but quiet bits shouldnt be loud.
If it was produced properly you could play it as loud as you want
so theyre deliberately doing something which sounds different
again, so what? they arent the only band doing this, why is it 'bad' if the band want it to sound like that and people like it. whats wrong with doing something which sounds different
its not robbing me of any listening pleasure, i like it, i cant imagine im the only one, idk whether id like it cleaned up, maybe i would who knows
'produced properly'/'normal level'/'normally produced' - okay, you dont like how it sounds, because it doesnt conform to certain ways of how you want a record to sound, that fair enough, whatever, i dont have any issue with that
what i do have issue with is the suggestion there's something intrinisically wrong with what theyre doing, if you dont like it you dont like it, thats cool, i do, its not like there's a malicious 'we're gonna turn people deaf with this record'...
anyway, i dunno, here's an interview i read
which is great but to me this is the equivelent of someone saying they prefer to listen to music through their built in laptop speakers rather than a stereo, I would find it hard to believe and I would raise an eyebrow. I still like their records but it is inspite of the production rather than because of it.
I do think there is something wrong with what they are doing, it is contrived and gimmicky, and they have taken to an extreme a style of production that is having a permanant adverse affect on music production.
stick to Richard Clayderman granddad!
Everything after Madonna was horrible.
Don't think there actually was any production on there though.
The Smiths - The Smiths - songs sound much better when redone, just a big sludge.
REM - Up - could have been an awesome album but some of the songs just sound too weak, for example 'Walk Unafraid' is brilliant when performed live, but doesn't sound that great on the album.
seconded, brutal production
get a hold of the Troy Tate sessions and the production will go up in your estimation, as rough as the finished product sounds, the original attempt to record it sounds even harsher, albeit they are nothing more than demos really.
would have drastically improved things...that and a different album title.
sound wimpy, pathetic and muffled. Some of the worst remastering production jobs I have ever heard.
i really dont like metallica but the sound of that album is just terrible, particularly the drums, isnt it? maybe im wrong. id like a metallica fan's view
I heard they didn't EQ the drums FFS.
I'd go for them, too.
The drums sound like they were recorded in my wardrobe on my phone.
Also, didn't they turn the bass on And Justice For All right down, just because they liked picking on Jason Newstead?
and anything that Jacknife Lee has touched.
good call. i was going to mention a weekend in the city which he produced, u2's last album and editors as well. pray that your favourite band never get into bed with jackknife lee
is R.E.M. I prayed hard, but it happened anyway.
I wasn't expecting too much from it when I heard he was involved as he made Bloc Party not as good and had been involved with some worrying names U2, Snow Patrol, etc but the REM album is actually pretty good.
sound like they were recorded on a mobile phone/single broken microphone.
however it makes me feel better about my home recordings.
the new Meneguar album sounds really amazing. Really soft, beautiful lo-fi, like the old days :)
but parts do sound like someone recording a drum kit on a mobile phone
lo-fi shouldn't be as good as it is
Not great songs, but still not helped by the production.
It's difficult to understand what they were going for - it's the guy who did Muse innit? So maybe arena sized odd-rock? My theory on that album is they wanted to ram it with stuff like 'Pioneer' and 'Lighthouse' but either ran out of time or inclination and filled it with underwritten Interpol-by-numbers stuff instead, which wasn't suited at all by the BIG, bass ignoring, production.
The producer came in and tried to make Nick Drake more sellable by over-doing it. He failed :)
the orchestral work is absolutely wonderful
Tell me 'Northern Sky' would sound better done in a Pink-Moon-style and you're lying.
you know, album that got me into radiohead who became fav band 4lyf and all that stuff, but it just sounds really not very good, I don't think. You can't hear jonny's guitar enough at points and it gets a bit too rythmy and I don't like the drum sound.
Also, any song by pendulum.
Oh you're doing drum and bass but faster and louder, are you? Is there any way in which you could make that more obvious for me?
The answer is no. There is no other way.
I never listen to it because of that.
I'm always really dissapointed, they are all over the top and theres no rhythm or continuity, leaving me listening to records from 1983 to hear something well produced with good sound levels. And always preferring the demos or live versions.
albums which are let down by poor production despite having marvellous songs on them.
Sounds pretty fucking great to me.
I realise it's not all lo-fi and scrappy and blah blah, but I don't care, it's great.
I like No Culture Icons too y'know
It's very listenable.. kind of stripped down but still chunky enough.
"I Want To Tell You" from Revolver. It just sounds, to me anyway, very out of synch, the piano sounds out of tune. It just sounds horrible to my ear. Good tune though!
Wonderful songs almost completely ruined by horrific tinny 80s production. The synths sound dire. I'm talking pre-remaster, wouldn't know about the 5.1 gubbins.
Thankfully Stop Making Sense has superior live versions of most of the songs.
the production on the Johnny Flynn album sucked. such a shame really.
it's a cliche of course but it just sounds waay too polished. live he sounds really organic and totally natural but the record just completely fails to capture that imo.
having said that the songs themselves are still really great.
It's a poor production job and the band were never happy with it. But it is a fucking awesome album.
great songs, sound like crap...
That's kind of the point, though, the loudness and in your face-ness. It's a genre of music that's supposed to be compressed to within an inch of its life.
the production on 'The Body, The Blood, The Machine'. The production on 'Antics' sucks. Also, 'Stoned and Dethroned' by The Jesus and Mary Chain.
That's some bad production, right there.
The first Drugstore album (the band hated it).
but what's wrong with it? I don't remember thinking it was badly produced back in the 90s when I was listening to it daily.
completely ruins the album
its a fucking brilliant album.
It has some of Metallicas best songs, but I find it near-impossible to sit through. If the stories are true, I cant believe that a band would jeopardise their best
record (even Metallica) because they disliked a particular band member.
that melodica sounds so fucking INCORRECT.
i SWEAR i have a mis-pressing.
Shame, as the rest of the album is ace.
is The Destruction Of Small Ideas. Terrible how a self-righteous little stunt from a band made an album with huge amounts of potential almost unlistenable.
but when my brother got St.Anger by Metallica i almost died laughing at the pots and pans drum sounds
it sounds so... weedy.
just because the producer's in Broken Social Scene it doesn't make him good.
he's right up there^
sorry mr. los campesinos! man but your record sounds shit. bye! xx
y'know, they don't.
We don't like the overcompressed modern sound and yet we piss all over 65dos for rebelling against it.
I think it sounds fab
In fact those two albums were perfect examples of what could be achieved in terms of dynamics - they were delicate when they needed to be, or they could rip your eyebrows off with volume.
The third album, by contrast, is in a lot of situations, literally inaudible. It's no good rebelling if no-one can hear you.
it's one of my favourite albums.
NOT because what he does is actively bad, more the principle behind it. He just makes thin, sub motown records that pinch their best moves from better guys. Some things on wander through 'borrowing' straight into pastiche-ville.
By Terror Twilight Pavement genuinely had no real inspiration, admittedly made much more obvious my Nigel Godrich's rampant overproduction (mind you still like Spit On A Stranger...), but Brighten The Corners could have been a great record, if it was recorded in the same way as Crooked Rain.
it's a really warm and bright sounding LP. It suits the songs, there's not a great deal of fuzzy guitar compared to the earlier albums.
most 80's music (those horrible drums with fuck loads of reverb on make alot of potentially great music unlistenable)
Burn Piano Island Burn - it just sounds so sloppy.
JoFo - the songs are awesome, but it lacks clarity - still my favourite british debut of the year though.
Wolfsane - 'Live Fast, Die Fast' - Produced by Rick Rubin.
Officially the worst drum sound EVER
But quite frankly, the fact that it sounds like one of the most thrilling, dirty, noisy and downright fucking rocking mess ever put to record is down to the production as well? I know it's loud as hell, but everything somehow works.
Either way, they cleaned it up, and their last two albums were great production jobs.
to Young Machetes, which I thought was a bit too compressed and hard on the ears- it's another record I find hard to listen to all the way through.
It kind of fits with their aesthetic doesn't it?
Wouldn't mind being able to hear the guitar like
by The Slints.
no one's mentioned Puzzle by Biffy. Heard Whose Got A Match live a year before it came out - all Mclusky-esque rumbling bass and great vocal harmonies - then on the album it's a bouncy pop song. Cheers, Ggggggggggfuckoffgggarth.
And despite it being a classic, Raw Power has HORRIBLE production. When the lead lines on Search and Destroy come in they're about five times louder than the vocals / anything else.
i can't believe no one's mentioned that.
it sounds awful. the production on sister is way better.
and most of the original Bowie produced Raw Power by The Stooges
also Warehouse: Songs and Stories by Hüsker Dü - the drums in particular sound terrible, like they're made out of tupperware
hideously compressed to the point that the more rocking songs on 'mellon collie' are quieter and tinnier than the mellow ones - 'Jellybelly' being the worst culprit.
Seeing MBV live confirms the album fails in capturing the ferocity of the material. The drums sound pretttttty bad. Hopefully the re-master will sort it.
on both libertines albums is fucking shocking
I want to understand what they were banging on about up there ^^^
is when the dynamic range of a sound wave is flattened, boosting the quietbits and lowering the loud bits so the overall volume is of a similar level. Recording to tape naturally compresses things slighly. Using a compression pedal on a guitar will do it.
Recently it refers to mastering for cd's, they have an upper volume limit, record producers seem to think the louder a cd the more it will stand out so they boost the quiet bits louder, the loud bits can't get any higher because they have reached the ceiling of vloume limit for cd and this means the top of the sound wave basically gets chopped of resulting in harsh sounding music.
I think I could be wrong though
guv! Good explaination.
Over compressing a song can totally strip it of its dynamics, therefore its overall impact. Modern mastering techniques are heading towards making stuff as loud as possible to get stuff noticed on the radio, which is frankly crap. Listen to an older record, such as the Pixies surfer rosa, and whilst the actual volume of the CD is lower than modern records, if you turn it up the dynamics are much more exciting and, well, REAL.
Loads of interesting articles floating around on the net about it all that are worth checking out.
Mastering engineers use and abuse compressors so the top of the sound wave *doesn't* get distorted and chopped off, at least not in a noticable way.
Compression basically reduces the volume of sounds over a set volume level. That has lots of different applications. If you set a slight reduction of sounds over a relatively low level, it has the effect of smoothing out the volume differences in the sound. Most vocals you'll ever hear put onto record will have this kind of compression applied, as the singer is likely to move around, and on a non-compressed signal, you'll get subtle changes in volume, so it gets compressed to take out the fact that the volume dips and increases for no particular reason. You'll also have compressors on the vocals at every live gig, so the singer can move around a bit, and it doesn't matter if they sing from 2cm away from the microphone or from a foot away, it all comes out at around the same volume. Which is what you want.
The abuse the most people are talking about is loudness maximizing. You can make a song louder if you reduce the volume of the loudest parts. On a normal, uncompressed recording, your soundwave will have a thin, dense bit around the middle, which is most of the music, and every so often, a peak, which is usually the bass drum hit, that's much louder (in peak terms, it doesn't necessarily sound louder) than everything up. If you try to make the main music too loud, you'll also push the bass drum peak so it goes past the level at which it distorts. Your music will sound plenty loud, but the bass drum will sound like it's going through a distortion pedal. So engineers use a compressor to reduce the volume level of that peak, meaning they can turn up the overall level of everything without the bass drum distorting. The thick, dense bit of the soundwave, that was quite narrow, now fills up the waveform display.
can be used in other ways, though, both as an effect and as something transparent that makes things sound better, and when not abused for loudness maximising purposes, is pretty much a studio essential as fundamental as EQ. You can use it to make music pump along with the bassline, to de-ess vocals (when a microphone is naturally more sensitive to the harder consonants, which make them sound unnaturally loud), to make a full mix sound more coherant, rather than a load of seperate parts playing together, to emphasise the transient of a sound (making drums, for example, sound snappier) or to de-emphasise the transient of a sound (to dull the initial impact of a drum hit or guitar strum).
You won't walk into any studio that doesn't have lot of compressors
Tis true. The CD version sounds like someone rustling celophene into your speakers.
Sleater Kinney - not sure if its intended but I downloaded it in advance and thought I had a rubbish copy - bought the LP and its the same scratchy sound (drums in Modern Girl are a particular example)
all the bloody Smiths records to start with!
Kiss - Hotter Than Hell
I quite liked Silent Alarm but the follow-up was a terrible mess. Jacknife Lee strikes again
Has anyone apart from me & DanTHW ever heard The Stapler? They are one of TNV's ohio noisey lofi contempories and there lo-fi sounds honest and though a lot of their songs probably aren't as good as TNV at least you can listen to it without getting a sore brain.
'Some Loud Thunder' hasn't had a mention. Pretty sure some will agree, but I actually like it.
it fits the songs perfectly. Superb production.
"Recorded and Produced by Jared Phillips of Times New Viking"
ida thought the only difference is that the TNV record is louder, they both sound as fuzzy as each other to me, unsurprisingly
First album the production is shoddy, yes, but in a really great, scuzzy, completely of the time sort of way.
Second album, I agree. It tries to do the same as UTB but I don't think the songs are right for it and it just sounds too...empty
gang of losers.
brilliant album, horrid production.
Other than to post this
Surprising since the previous one was so well done. Guess they were going for a 'back to basics' approach (see also St Anger) and just ended up with a muddy mess.
BUTCH MOTHERFUCKING VIG?
there's a funny Butch Vig making of Nevermind video on youtube.
It's completely in your face.
is fucking awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwful.
I fucking hate it when they do that.
See: Young Team.
because apparently everyone and their mum disagrees with me but I think At War With The Mystics sounds grreat.
And I have no problem with the Black Kids album. It's a big, dumb, smutty pop record so it sounds bright and poppy as fuck. Works for me.
And I like TNV. Just fuck the lot of you, basically.
then there's just irritatingly loud.
sleater kinney was just irritatingly loud.
it clips! god it's painful to listen to, which is a shame as some of the songs on there are pretty good.
and Black Kids
both Bernard Butler.
both completely ruined by the production.
Both attempts at it were muddy as hell.
(nearly) Ruined some of their best work imo: Reel, Suffer Little Children, Still Ill etc
Free all angels
Such a shame...I heard some of the stuff live before the album came out and was blown away, but the recording was completely lacking in the subtlety that makes her so lovely.
I put it down to a lack of confidence on her part. It was as if she felt she needed to actually put in all of the grander musical effects she had kind of hinted at with her voice on her previous stuff, without realising that this subtle hinting was one of her main charms. A real shame...
people are still complaining about the production on Times New Viking records.
My vote goes to Jeffrey Lee Pierce - Wildweed. I have no idea if the production is technically 'good' or 'bad', but it is wildly inappropriate.
But yes, I agree, it's as much a part of their band as any of the rest of the elements they include. Don't hate the production, hate the band, if you must. (but you'd be a stupid bastard to hate the band)
ctrl+f The Replacements
I love these bands, but can you even imagine how amazing Let It Be would sound if it had been produced well? Seriously.
it was pressed onto celophane rather than vinyl. What happened to the bass?
makes baby jesus and the orphans cry
such a shame, because the tunes are there.
i dont mind Flip Yr Wig though
and early 90'salbums that are ruined by overproduction. Pere Ubu being an example I can quickly think of.
PIL-Metal box and throbbing gristles 20 jazz-funk greats. Good ideas and good music ruined by production that makes it sound like theyre playing in a phone booth at the bottom of a lake. And dont say 'thats the point' because It means I'll have to stop liking the bands.
But I unfortunatly heard not only the song with the worst production but also the song with worst vocals and the worst song ever. The Galvantron's - When We Were Kids.
It literally makes Bon Jovi seem like Captain Beefheart.
album has horrible horrible production. Next to no bottom end amongst many other things. Yuk.
pre-grunge. They were all produced by Pat Collier and all had the worst, thinnest guitar sound imaginable.
I think i'd like "instant coffee baby" a lot more if it were better produced. Still a good album though
I think thats kind of the point of The Wave Pictures though...to be a wee bit lo-fi, in similar vein to recordings by the Modern Lovers and stuff.
If you think 'Instant Coffee Baby' is badly produced, then dont listen to any of their previous albums then!
by sonic youth. just doesn't sound right, particularly when compared to their previous albums