Red Mosquito

dad wrote:

spike wrote:

RockPusher wrote:trollgabigzanda.

sick graphics.

trag: The low-bit rate is hurting my eyes.

McParadigm wrote: 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

I agree completely, and it should be. Not every tool is equally appropriate or inappropriate in all music. So it makes sense to me that listeners would register their responses, and then back into why certain things did or didn’t work for them, with the understanding that something that might work in one context might not work in another. I don’t see anyone speaking in absolutes here; even Trag said that this production style works differently in pop music.

I think it’s even snakier when there is some expectation that listeners observe consistency in regards to how they respond to artist intent, which is why your Beatles example lost me. The Beatles double-tracked their vocals with the goal of making more commercial records, and Pearl Jam applied a bunch of compression and boosted the volume of their track toward (we will assume) the same end. It seemed like you were surprised that a listener wouldn’t be equally resistant to those two things, despite the fact that they are remarkably different things sonically, just because they both were done with a similar intent. Speaking for myself at least, I’m not responding to intent. I’m just responding to the sound as it hits my ears and reflecting back, to the best of my ability, how it plays into my enjoyment of the recording.

I might be misreading your initial post; if that’s the case I apologize.

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.

I guess I just don’t get it — the music and the production are part of the same sonic experience. Some ears focus on different things, for sure. But I am confident that using nothing but Audacity and a couple buttons, I could apply “production flourishes” that would instantly render anyone’s favorite song utterly unlistenable. There is always a relationship between a song and its presentation, and the many elements that are contained therein, that work together to ultimately register a final impression. Some folks register production less intuitively; others register lyrics less intuitively; others are less attuned to the physical performance qualities (i.e. Ed’s diminishing voice). I guess it just feels like there is this implication that anyone too hung up on any of these things is focused on something superfluous as opposed to the art itself, and my take has increasingly become that it’s all one and the same.

Also, I recently discovered that the US mix of the Beatles’ “And I Love Her” contains single-tracked vocals from Paul. It is glorious.

Jorge wrote:There's production that is "bad" because it's lo-fi, or amateurish, with a lot of bleed-through and wonky levels all over the place, and then there's production that is "bad" because it's too touched-up, sanitized and scrubbed clean of all grit, sterile and plastic-sounding. For rock music I tend to be much more forgiving of the former, the latter really bugs me. It's the difference between Blood and Chocolate vs. Lightning Bolt. But yeah if the songs are good that overrides everything else

whereas with a few exceptions, I tend to hate extremely lo-fi, scratchy, punky music; I like precision, minute details, especially rhythmically (a great example would be Meshuggah; it's all really aggressive but also immaculately precise); to me, recording music is essentially a completely different art form to playing it live; Riot Act really is the sweet spot, where it sounds "played in the room" with acoustic instruments, but every detail is crystal clear

this new iteration of pearl jam is dividing us.

i don't like it.

Ms Harmless wrote:

Jorge wrote:There's production that is "bad" because it's lo-fi, or amateurish, with a lot of bleed-through and wonky levels all over the place, and then there's production that is "bad" because it's too touched-up, sanitized and scrubbed clean of all grit, sterile and plastic-sounding. For rock music I tend to be much more forgiving of the former, the latter really bugs me. It's the difference between Blood and Chocolate vs. Lightning Bolt. But yeah if the songs are good that overrides everything else

whereas with a few exceptions, I tend to hate extremely lo-fi, scratchy, punky music; I like precision, minute details, especially rhythmically (a great example would be Meshuggah; it's all really aggressive but also immaculately precise); to me, recording music is essentially a completely different art form to playing it live; Riot Act really is the sweet spot, where it sounds "played in the room" with acoustic instruments, but every detail is crystal clear

I would say that Comes Then Goes has that same feel.

dad wrote:this new iteration of pearl jam is dividing us.

i don't like it.

I don't think its dividing, we love this.

"you're working so hard to convince yourself Dark Matter sounds OK" - Trag

just putting that here for the next time someone wonders what I'm reacting to; it's the very idea that you can make a personal response into an "objective" diagnosis and critique about other responses; I think this is bullshit in.any artform; some people think The Blair Witch Project is hilarious, amateurish junk; I think it's the best horror movie ever made; we all have good reasons to say what we do

RockPusher wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:

Jorge wrote:There's production that is "bad" because it's lo-fi, or amateurish, with a lot of bleed-through and wonky levels all over the place, and then there's production that is "bad" because it's too touched-up, sanitized and scrubbed clean of all grit, sterile and plastic-sounding. For rock music I tend to be much more forgiving of the former, the latter really bugs me. It's the difference between Blood and Chocolate vs. Lightning Bolt. But yeah if the songs are good that overrides everything else

whereas with a few exceptions, I tend to hate extremely lo-fi, scratchy, punky music; I like precision, minute details, especially rhythmically (a great example would be Meshuggah; it's all really aggressive but also immaculately precise); to me, recording music is essentially a completely different art form to playing it live; Riot Act really is the sweet spot, where it sounds "played in the room" with acoustic instruments, but every detail is crystal clear

I would say that Comes Then Goes has that same feel.

I think a lot of Gigaton did and I was mega happy about it! I *completely* hear that Dark Matter is further towards the Lightning Bolt end of the spectrum than Gigaton, but it isn't there, it is better than that; I don't hear Watt trying to make Pearl Jam into Taylor Swift; maybe Green Day? a little? I can hear a little MCR, maybe? if the album doesn't push it a lot further than that, I'll be happy; I just want to hear ghost notes again

Hey guys and gals, what is going on in here?

I just popped in here after a couple of busy days where I really didn't have much time.

Miserable vibes going on in this thread.

idk I'm vibing in a good way

guitar_davey wrote:I just popped in here after a couple of busy days where I really didn't have much time.

Miserable vibes going on in this thread.

I dunno, man...you're blessed if this is your idea of miserable...

I'd call it fascinating conversation

Ms Harmless wrote:"you're working so hard to convince yourself Dark Matter sounds OK" - Trag

just putting that here for the next time someone wonders what I'm reacting to; it's the very idea that you can make a personal response into an "objective" diagnosis and critique about other responses; I think this is bullshit in.any artform; some people think The Blair Witch Project is hilarious, amateurish junk; I think it's the best horror movie ever made; we all have good reasons to say what we do

Interesting because TBWP is pretty punk rock in its production values

Kevin Davis wrote:I guess it just feels like there is this implication that anyone too hung up on any of these things is focused on something superfluous as opposed to the art itself, and my take has increasingly become that it’s all one and the same.

I don’t think someone who finds that they can’t like this song because of the production is too hung up on the production. It’s music. Everyone has their own journey to make, dependent entirely upon their own hierarchy of likes and concerns.

I think someone who expresses that feeling outwardly at other people as something they should be feeling (or would be feeling, if they weren’t either trying to convince themselves otherwise or suffering from hearing damage) IS too hung up on it.

I don’t dislike discussing production. I think it can be super interesting…although I admit I find analyzing exciting or inventive production far more interesting than repeating why an obvious bad thing is bad. That too is just a personal preference.

I will go back to the thing I said that started this call and response, which you’ll note was a comment about my own attitude and was not an expectation for how others should be.

End of the day, if a record has great production, I find that to be provocatively elevational. If it doesn’t, and if the song affects me, then I default to not paying it much attention.

Haven’t been really active on RM the last month or so. Just listened to Dark Matter for the first time. What a jam! I see this thread has over 150 pages, wow, you guys must be just as stoked as me about it, looking forward to reading the thread and see what you have to say!

Let's get my song with dave a to 155 pages. Let's start fights over there

Trag hasn't pooped on the production yet though so no chance

Jorge wrote:

Ms Harmless wrote:"you're working so hard to convince yourself Dark Matter sounds OK" - Trag

just putting that here for the next time someone wonders what I'm reacting to; it's the very idea that you can make a personal response into an "objective" diagnosis and critique about other responses; I think this is bullshit in.any artform; some people think The Blair Witch Project is hilarious, amateurish junk; I think it's the best horror movie ever made; we all have good reasons to say what we do

Interesting because TBWP is pretty punk rock in its production values

I agree

I absolutely love found footage movies, they're my favourite method of horror film-making; some people don't find them extra immersive and real, some people don't appreciate the intimacy of connecting with characters as if they could be your friends; I love it, but I don't think I love the "punk aesthetic" for its own sake across different artforms

probably the closest thing I love to punk is The Pogues, but I wouldn't be nearly as interested if not for my love of Irish folk; so when they mix that with The Clash I'm like "fuck yeah!", but I could only name you one actual Clash song

going back to horror movies, though, I love folk horror; I loved the movie "Enys Men" last year; that, "Skinamarink" and "The Outwaters" were my top 3; and The Blair Witch Project, as well as being punk, innovative at the time, and "about" technology (as much as it's "about" anything], is definitely a folk horror film; its story-telling fuel is the folklore of a small town

maybe rather than "punk aesthetic", I would say I love a folk aesthetic; and Irish folk music *is* very often precise and exact... bodhrán playing, or fiddle playing, or Uilleann pipes, or Sean-Nós singing... all highly detailed and ornamented

bodysnatcher wrote:Haven’t been really active on RM the last month or so. Just listened to Dark Matter for the first time. What a jam! I see this thread has over 150 pages, wow, you guys must be just as stoked as me about it, looking forward to reading the thread and see what you have to say!