Red Mosquito

McParadigm wrote:I broadly agree with what you, plat, and trag are saying about it. But I also think we tend to romanticize heavy-handed production decisions if we like the resulting work…if the results pleased us, we see the choices as having a degree of artistic authenticity that isn’t always factual.

Nobody gives two shits that the Beatles switched over from recording their own doubling vocal tracks to using an artificial method that reduced the human imperfections in favor of the lads just generally not wanting to bother. Double tracking was about commercial viability, not artistic vision. It wasn’t a creativity-based decision. And the Beatles jumped on the opportunity to do it with the most artificial means available to them. But we’re not going to bitch about fucking Revolver, because sometimes you just have to grow up and not think about this shit.

I have a pretty high threshold for variance in production choices, even on records I don't especially care for. I don't have a vendetta against aesthetic fauxs-pas of yesteryear, or against production decisions being made in pursuit of commercial ends; I like the way those little fads and hallmarks contribute to the story of music history. And to be completely honest, I didn't even register this stuff for most of my life. But there has been a pretty sharp turn in the last five years in regards to how my ears naturally respond to records that feel aggressively loud and compressed. This is very likely due to changes in my hearing/general biology as I get older, but it does seem relatively unique to records that have been released in the past...10 years? 15 years? Records from the '50's and '60's simply don't possess these same characteristics, unless they're foisted upon them by way of a modern remastering.

And just to be clear, this isn't me "thinking about this shit" so much as it is trying to articulate, for the sake of discussion, what it is that I'm naturally hearing and feeling when I listen to the recording, the same way I would try to articulate what I'm hearing in an arrangement, or a performance, or a set of lyrics. I don't know going into a new song what my brain and ears are going to respond to or focus on, but I enjoy following the thread whatever it may be. That's all I'm trying to do here.

I like thinking about this shit

McParadigm wrote:

digster wrote:

McParadigm wrote: Nobody gives two shits that the Beatles switched over from recording their own doubling vocal tracks to using an artificial method that reduced the human imperfections in favor of the lads just generally not wanting to bother. Double tracking was about commercial viability, not artistic vision. It wasn’t a creativity-based decision. And the Beatles jumped on the opportunity to do it with the most artificial means available to them. But we’re not going to bitch about fucking Revolver, because sometimes you just have to grow up and not think about this shit.

But is anyone doing that here? You're right that no one shits on Revolver because of a change in production methods, because the results speak for themselves. I don't think anyone here is saying Dark Matter sounds incredible, but they still have to hate it based on principle due to the way it was made.

I can see how, if one severs that paragraph from the one it was elaborating on directly above it, it can be misread in this way.

Fortunately, that context can be reinserted, and the point can remain what it actually was (“when we like something, we romanticize the reasons for it being the way it is”) and not the misunderstanding version that you describe here (which appears to be “as listeners, we consider the details first, and then selectively admit to liking the content if the details meet the right criteria”).

But I also think we tend to romanticize heavy-handed production decisions if we like the resulting work…if the results pleased us, we see the choices as having a degree of artistic authenticity that isn’t always factual.

Then I guess I didn't understand what you were saying, because why would anyone be bitching about Revolver in your scenario?

why do some bands still prefer to record in analog?

tragabigzanda wrote:I'm lost. Does McP know this song sounds like crap or not?

Does trag know that an opinion is not fact?

Fact: recorded within certain parameters, some of which can express themselves harshly to certain ears
Opinion: song sounds like crap

Context is everything here, though....If I'm listening to a death metal demo for a band I recorded in high school, where the singer sounds like he's singing through the end of a plunger, and submerged underwater in a toilet bowl, I don't expect it to sound like a Steely Dan record. I can listen to absolutely anything and enjoy it. Limited production won't hinder my enjoyment of great music, regardless of genre or budget.

Some of my most treasured listening experiences in my life involve Blind Willie McTell and Robert Johnson records which were recorded in the mid-1930s.

I only really take issue when you're a major-label, arena-filling rock band with unlimited resources making bone-headed decisions, chasing modern trends to make your dad rawk records sound "current."

Kevin Davis wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I broadly agree with what you, plat, and trag are saying about it. But I also think we tend to romanticize heavy-handed production decisions if we like the resulting work…if the results pleased us, we see the choices as having a degree of artistic authenticity that isn’t always factual.

Nobody gives two shits that the Beatles switched over from recording their own doubling vocal tracks to using an artificial method that reduced the human imperfections in favor of the lads just generally not wanting to bother. Double tracking was about commercial viability, not artistic vision. It wasn’t a creativity-based decision. And the Beatles jumped on the opportunity to do it with the most artificial means available to them. But we’re not going to bitch about fucking Revolver, because sometimes you just have to grow up and not think about this shit.

I have a pretty high threshold for variance in production choices, even on records I don't especially care for. I don't have a vendetta against aesthetic fauxs-pas of yesteryear, or against production decisions being made in pursuit of commercial ends; I like the way those little fads and hallmarks contribute to the story of music history. And to be completely honest, I didn't even register this stuff for most of my life. But there has been a pretty sharp turn in the last five years in regards to how my ears naturally respond to records that feel aggressively loud and compressed. This is very likely due to changes in my hearing/general biology as I get older, but it does seem relatively unique to records that have been released in the past...10 years? 15 years? Records from the '50's and '60's simply don't possess these same characteristics, unless they're foisted upon them by way of a modern remastering.

And just to be clear, this isn't me "thinking about this shit" so much as it is trying to articulate, for the sake of discussion, what it is that I'm naturally hearing and feeling when I listen to the recording, the same way I would try to articulate what I'm hearing in an arrangement, or a performance, or a set of lyrics. I don't know going into a new song what my brain and ears are going to respond to or focus on, but I enjoy following the thread whatever it may be. That's all I'm trying to do here.

I’m not saying it’s not worth discussing, and I have said I don’t disagree with the broad points you have made. I’m only saying that our impatience or irritation with these things is often conditional, and dependent on our opinion of the music involved. We like or dislike the record first, and then we begin the post mortem. If the music was sufficiently enthralling, the production ceases to be a hurtle.

You’re certainly right that the last 10-15 years has normalized a lot of bad behaviors in music production. Some of the records that suffered from these choices have been appreciated in the OB forum. And why not? The music was good.

When the point is “the production is unfavorable or harsh,” then I agree. But when that becomes a barrier to someone’s ability to like the song, that’s just a matter of their personal preferences and priorities. That’s all that is.

McParadigm wrote:When the point is “the production is unfavorable or harsh,” then I agree. But when that becomes a barrier to someone’s ability to like the song, that’s just a matter of their personal preferences and priorities. That’s all that is.

Thank you for distilling this perfectly to its essence.

McParadigm wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I broadly agree with what you, plat, and trag are saying about it. But I also think we tend to romanticize heavy-handed production decisions if we like the resulting work…if the results pleased us, we see the choices as having a degree of artistic authenticity that isn’t always factual.

Nobody gives two shits that the Beatles switched over from recording their own doubling vocal tracks to using an artificial method that reduced the human imperfections in favor of the lads just generally not wanting to bother. Double tracking was about commercial viability, not artistic vision. It wasn’t a creativity-based decision. And the Beatles jumped on the opportunity to do it with the most artificial means available to them. But we’re not going to bitch about fucking Revolver, because sometimes you just have to grow up and not think about this shit.

I have a pretty high threshold for variance in production choices, even on records I don't especially care for. I don't have a vendetta against aesthetic fauxs-pas of yesteryear, or against production decisions being made in pursuit of commercial ends; I like the way those little fads and hallmarks contribute to the story of music history. And to be completely honest, I didn't even register this stuff for most of my life. But there has been a pretty sharp turn in the last five years in regards to how my ears naturally respond to records that feel aggressively loud and compressed. This is very likely due to changes in my hearing/general biology as I get older, but it does seem relatively unique to records that have been released in the past...10 years? 15 years? Records from the '50's and '60's simply don't possess these same characteristics, unless they're foisted upon them by way of a modern remastering.

And just to be clear, this isn't me "thinking about this shit" so much as it is trying to articulate, for the sake of discussion, what it is that I'm naturally hearing and feeling when I listen to the recording, the same way I would try to articulate what I'm hearing in an arrangement, or a performance, or a set of lyrics. I don't know going into a new song what my brain and ears are going to respond to or focus on, but I enjoy following the thread whatever it may be. That's all I'm trying to do here.

I’m not saying it’s not worth discussing, and I have said I don’t disagree with the broad points you have made. I’m only saying that our impatience or irritation with these things is often conditional, and dependent on our opinion of the music involved. We like or dislike the record first, and then we begin the post mortem. If the music was sufficiently enthralling, the production ceases to be a hurtle.

This feels particularly true

Jorge wrote:I like thinking about this shit

Same! What I was really meaning to say is that the thought process doesn’t come at the expense of an unfiltered, “raw” response to the music. I never really understand what people mean when they say things like that (“stop thinking about this shit”) — is there some kind of thinking button I can just turn off so that my ears no longer hear the thing that I dislike about the song (which I like overall), and I will suddenly like whatever I previously disliked, while (presumably) continuing to like what I liked to begin with?

oneway23 wrote:Context is everything here, though....If I'm listening to a death metal demo for a band I recorded in high school, where the singer sounds like he's singing through the end of a plunger, and submerged underwater in a toilet bowl, I don't expect it to sound like a Steely Dan record. I can listen to absolutely anything and enjoy it. Limited production won't hinder my enjoyment of great music, regardless of genre or budget.

Some of my most treasured listening experiences in my life involve Blind Willie McTell and Robert Johnson records which were recorded in the mid-1930s.

I only really take issue when you're a major-label, arena-filling rock band with unlimited resources making bone-headed decisions, chasing modern trends to make your dad rawk records sound "current."

It seems like if you aspire to be more than dad rawk this could be helpful. That sounds a little mercenary, but if the dude who is mixing/mastering your album has won a few grammys for their work it's not unreasonable to seek them out and trust them and see if they can help translate your music to current audiences. And if a certain mixing/production style is well situated for playing music through spotify, or on your phone, or on your sirus XM computer speakers, or what have you, rather than the cloistered audiophile headphones approach doesn't feel that 'bone headed'?

tragabigzanda wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

McParadigm wrote:I broadly agree with what you, plat, and trag are saying about it. But I also think we tend to romanticize heavy-handed production decisions if we like the resulting work…if the results pleased us, we see the choices as having a degree of artistic authenticity that isn’t always factual.

Nobody gives two shits that the Beatles switched over from recording their own doubling vocal tracks to using an artificial method that reduced the human imperfections in favor of the lads just generally not wanting to bother. Double tracking was about commercial viability, not artistic vision. It wasn’t a creativity-based decision. And the Beatles jumped on the opportunity to do it with the most artificial means available to them. But we’re not going to bitch about fucking Revolver, because sometimes you just have to grow up and not think about this shit.

I have a pretty high threshold for variance in production choices, even on records I don't especially care for. I don't have a vendetta against aesthetic fauxs-pas of yesteryear, or against production decisions being made in pursuit of commercial ends; I like the way those little fads and hallmarks contribute to the story of music history. And to be completely honest, I didn't even register this stuff for most of my life. But there has been a pretty sharp turn in the last five years in regards to how my ears naturally respond to records that feel aggressively loud and compressed. This is very likely due to changes in my hearing/general biology as I get older, but it does seem relatively unique to records that have been released in the past...10 years? 15 years? Records from the '50's and '60's simply don't possess these same characteristics, unless they're foisted upon them by way of a modern remastering.

And just to be clear, this isn't me "thinking about this shit" so much as it is trying to articulate, for the sake of discussion, what it is that I'm naturally hearing and feeling when I listen to the recording, the same way I would try to articulate what I'm hearing in an arrangement, or a performance, or a set of lyrics. I don't know going into a new song what my brain and ears are going to respond to or focus on, but I enjoy following the thread whatever it may be. That's all I'm trying to do here.

I’m not saying it’s not worth discussing, and I have said I don’t disagree with the broad points you have made. I’m only saying that our impatience or irritation with these things is often conditional, and dependent on our opinion of the music involved. We like or dislike the record first, and then we begin the post mortem. If the music was sufficiently enthralling, the production ceases to be a hurtle.

You’re certainly right that the last 10-15 years has normalized a lot of bad behaviors in music production. Some of the records that suffered from these choices have been appreciated in the OB forum. And why not? The music was good.

When the point is “the production is unfavorable or harsh,” then I agree. But when that becomes a barrier to someone’s ability to like the song, that’s just a matter of their personal preferences and priorities. That’s all that is.

I think this oversimplifies, to the point of negating, what is for some (for me) a wholly visceral experience. It's not couched in some sort of logical scaffolding; the post-mortem happens after I hear the music and my face involuntarily starts wincing.

that's not your personal preference?

tragabigzanda wrote:I think this oversimplifies, to the point of negating, what is for some (for me) a wholly visceral experience. It's not couched in some sort of logical scaffolding; the post-mortem happens after I hear the music and my face involuntarily starts wincing.

You are feeling your opinion very strongly and passionately. Things we don't like make us wince. The fact that you are having a physical reaction doesn't change the truth of what he said.

tragabigzanda wrote:You're working so hard to convince yourself Dark Matter sounds ok!

I think I am in my board rights to say Fuck You to this comment. I know I dig the song. It is you that is trying hard to convince people they shouldn't, trollgabigzanda.

stip wrote:
It seems like if you aspire to be more than dad rawk this could be helpful. That sounds a little mercenary, but if the dude who is mixing/mastering your album has won a few grammys for their work it's not unreasonable to seek them out and trust them and see if they can help translate your music to current audiences. And if a certain mixing/production style is well situated for playing music through spotify, or on your phone, or on your sirus XM computer speakers, or what have you, rather than the cloistered audiophile headphones approach doesn't feel that 'bone headed'?

You're absolutely right on this point, stip. 100%. My use of the word bone-headed was, perhaps, a case of needless editorializing.

I'm a bit worn out today and, fortunately for all of you, I'm lacking the energy to write anything close to the missives I was pumping out yesterday, but, I really want to be clear:

for my part, I've never tried to make an argument that any aspect of this "issue" is anything but subjective. No one is out here spitting universal truths, least of all me, and, I certainly don't expect any of my opinions or personal preferences to be codified as unassailable fact.

I hope I've previously made that clear. If not, well, I have now.

RockPusher wrote:trollgabigzanda.

spike wrote:

RockPusher wrote:trollgabigzanda.

sick graphics.