Red Mosquito

tommy wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

tommy wrote:Mia Goth > Ice Spice

Who?

Ice Spice is a rapper who makes music for teenagers and developmentally disabled adults.

Jesus dude.

I'm a developmentally disabled adult and so are some people here's children but go off

RockPusher wrote:My sound engineer bro is going to listen to Dark Matter (song) and report back. When I spoke with him, he mentioned an artist his wife represents (she's in PR)- Molly Lewis. That lady can WHISTLE. She's like a theramin. Crazy.

She does some good stuff!

Birds in Hell wrote:

RockPusher wrote:My sound engineer bro is going to listen to Dark Matter (song) and report back. When I spoke with him, he mentioned an artist his wife represents (she's in PR)- Molly Lewis. That lady can WHISTLE. She's like a theramin. Crazy.

She does some good stuff!

Agreed!

that was mesmerising

digster wrote:

stip wrote: i mean i think i can. when we say we prefer a song live isnt that at least partially what we are doing?

It does, and I'm not saying a good song can't get captured poorly. My point is more in terms of judging how an album succeeds, that thinking about the production seems as important as judging any other decision the band makes in terms of how a song sounds. Whether or not the guitars sound like shit, for example, seems as important (or almost as important) as what the guitar player is actually playing, especially because presumably the musician and/or producer have put thought into both of those things.

I think you can absolutely separate composition from performance, and then composition/performance from production, and all combinations of these -- and all of these things (composition, performance, production) are in and of themselves multi-faceted (i.e. a song can have great lyrics but dull music, excellent singing but a lousy arrangement, great mixing but poor mastering). In the end, an album could conceivably hook (or lose) any given listener with any element of any of these things, rendering all other elements "overlookable," but it's always a matter of degree -- specifically, (a) the degree to which the music succeeds at what it does well, and (b) the degree to which the things it doesn't do well are able to get out of the way.

I have no issues with the concept of looking past production value. I've been doing it my whole life. I've listened to concert recordings made from the audience, tapes recorded by my friends' bands in their basements, lots of '80's shit with unpleasant drum effects, my fair share of lo-fi indie records and absolutely my share of overproduced, oversugared pop and rock music. In any of those situations, could there have been a situation where the mitigating factor was just mitigating enough to turn me off? Absolutely. I have no issues with audience tapes, but it's possible that any given taper may have just been too far back for the music to be audible. I have no problem with recordings made in a basement, but if you put your mic right next to your water heater, it's possible that the environmental elements might push an already tough-to-listen-to recording over the edge. I am confident that I could take anyone's favorite song, dump it into Audacity as a wave file, and make it unlistenable within seconds just by adding compression and limiting. I think everyone has limits for this stuff, whether they recognize it or not. It's just, again, all a matter of degree.

So far, Watt's production on the Dark Matter tracks plays a pretty aggressive tug of war -- even if I approach the songs with the mindset of disregarding the production to see through to the songwriting and performance, it is still there, nipping at my ears, pulling my attention back. To use Stip's spice analogy, trying to ignore Watt's production is not like trying to overlook a slightly off-kilter hint of something; it's like trying to taste subtleties in the meat when he's used 15x the amount of recommended sugar in the sauce. Now, people have different thresholds for sugar, and yes, to some extent you can look past the superficial "sound" of a record to hear through to other things in it, but on the other hand, music is sound -- that's all it is, everything you process about music is based on your hearing of it, and how your ears interpret the presentation of these other things that really only exist conceptually (performance, composition, etc.). Telling someone to ignore that is like telling someone to stop focusing on the taste of the food, but to pay attention to the ingredients in the recipe. It's conceptually possible, but disingenuous to experience.

Partypooper!

15x? To me it feels more like 1.5x.

an overcooked steak is still steak and ill devour. But, its not as good as medium rare.

A pizza is still a pizza unless you burn it.

You can't unburn toast.

It was always a bad metaphor.

tommy wrote:developmentally disabled adults.

lick my taint

oneway23 wrote:

tommy wrote:developmentally disabled adults.

lick my taint

No, I don't think I will.

However, I will apologize for that joke. It was in poor taste.

Kevin Davis wrote:

digster wrote:

stip wrote: i mean i think i can. when we say we prefer a song live isnt that at least partially what we are doing?

It does, and I'm not saying a good song can't get captured poorly. My point is more in terms of judging how an album succeeds, that thinking about the production seems as important as judging any other decision the band makes in terms of how a song sounds. Whether or not the guitars sound like shit, for example, seems as important (or almost as important) as what the guitar player is actually playing, especially because presumably the musician and/or producer have put thought into both of those things.

I think you can absolutely separate composition from performance, and then composition/performance from production, and all combinations of these -- and all of these things (composition, performance, production) are in and of themselves multi-faceted (i.e. a song can have great lyrics but dull music, excellent singing but a lousy arrangement, great mixing but poor mastering). In the end, an album could conceivably hook (or lose) any given listener with any element of any of these things, rendering all other elements "overlookable," but it's always a matter of degree -- specifically, (a) the degree to which the music succeeds at what it does well, and (b) the degree to which the things it doesn't do well are able to get out of the way.

I have no issues with the concept of looking past production value. I've been doing it my whole life. I've listened to concert recordings made from the audience, tapes recorded by my friends' bands in their basements, lots of '80's shit with unpleasant drum effects, my fair share of lo-fi indie records and absolutely my share of overproduced, oversugared pop and rock music. In any of those situations, could there have been a situation where the mitigating factor was just mitigating enough to turn me off? Absolutely. I have no issues with audience tapes, but it's possible that any given taper may have just been too far back for the music to be audible. I have no problem with recordings made in a basement, but if you put your mic right next to your water heater, it's possible that the environmental elements might push an already tough-to-listen-to recording over the edge. I am confident that I could take anyone's favorite song, dump it into Audacity as a wave file, and make it unlistenable within seconds just by adding compression and limiting. I think everyone has limits for this stuff, whether they recognize it or not. It's just, again, all a matter of degree.

So far, Watt's production on the Dark Matter tracks plays a pretty aggressive tug of war -- even if I approach the songs with the mindset of disregarding the production to see through to the songwriting and performance, it is still there, nipping at my ears, pulling my attention back. To use Stip's spice analogy, trying to ignore Watt's production is not like trying to overlook a slightly off-kilter hint of something; it's like trying to taste subtleties in the meat when he's used 15x the amount of recommended sugar in the sauce. Now, people have different thresholds for sugar, and yes, to some extent you can look past the superficial "sound" of a record to hear through to other things in it, but on the other hand, music is sound -- that's all it is, everything you process about music is based on your hearing of it, and how your ears interpret the presentation of these other things that really only exist conceptually (performance, composition, etc.). Telling someone to ignore that is like telling someone to stop focusing on the taste of the food, but to pay attention to the ingredients in the recipe. It's conceptually possible, but disingenuous to experience.

i mean its all how you want to assemble your metaphor. you eat with your eyes first - maybe what we have broadly been calling the production is the presentation, but the compostion is the ingredients and the performance is how you cook them.

For all the hyperbolic pearl cluching about how this sounds Dark Matter was pearl jam’s first number one hit in decades. Maybe the world tolerates more sugar in their diet than some folks here, but clearly people like what they are hearing. so either:

A: everyone but a subset of enlightened people physically cant hear how offensive this is
B: thie production is an important part of how some folks experience music, but not all (or even a majority)
C: maybe its not as bad as the hyperbolic posturing from some might lead you to believe
D: some people have the cilantro gene that makes it taste like soap, and some dont


again if this matters to you, and it is what you privelage in your listening experience, then how this is produced is a deal breaker. and thats real and true to your experience. But i would strongly push back against the production of the song being the foundation that either makes or legitimates everything that follows

RockPusher wrote:15x? To me it feels more like 1.5x.

Again, people have different tastes for sugar. Whatever the number, what feels like a little too much to you feels intrusive to me.

To be clear, as I have said elsewhere, I like both Earthling and Hackney Diamonds, in spite of themselves. I like “Dark Matter” the song (I have only heard the snippets for the others, but liked them less). I know what I am in for, and can adjust my internal settings a bit. But, I would argue, the lift to do so here is heavier in this case than is often enjoyable, and I suspect that it will impact my eagerness to return to the record over time, as it has both of the aforementioned albums.

Birds in Hell wrote:

RockPusher wrote:My sound engineer bro is going to listen to Dark Matter (song) and report back. When I spoke with him, he mentioned an artist his wife represents (she's in PR)- Molly Lewis. That lady can WHISTLE. She's like a theramin. Crazy.

She does some good stuff!

If you enjoy whistling, listen to Andrew Bird. He’ll whistle his way right into your heart.

Kevin Davis wrote:

RockPusher wrote:15x? To me it feels more like 1.5x.

Again, people have different tastes for sugar. Whatever the number, what feels like a little too much to you feels intrusive to me.

To be clear, as I have said elsewhere, I like both Earthling and Hackney Diamonds, in spite of themselves. I like “Dark Matter” the song (I have only heard the snippets for the others, but liked them less). I know what I am in for, and can adjust my internal settings a bit. But, I would argue, the lift to do so here is heavier in this case than is often enjoyable, and I suspect that it will impact my eagerness to return to the record over time, as it has both of the aforementioned albums.

which is fair for you - its what youre hearing

Kevin Davis wrote:

digster wrote:

stip wrote: i mean i think i can. when we say we prefer a song live isnt that at least partially what we are doing?

It does, and I'm not saying a good song can't get captured poorly. My point is more in terms of judging how an album succeeds, that thinking about the production seems as important as judging any other decision the band makes in terms of how a song sounds. Whether or not the guitars sound like shit, for example, seems as important (or almost as important) as what the guitar player is actually playing, especially because presumably the musician and/or producer have put thought into both of those things.

I think you can absolutely separate composition from performance, and then composition/performance from production, and all combinations of these -- and all of these things (composition, performance, production) are in and of themselves multi-faceted (i.e. a song can have great lyrics but dull music, excellent singing but a lousy arrangement, great mixing but poor mastering). In the end, an album could conceivably hook (or lose) any given listener with any element of any of these things, rendering all other elements "overlookable," but it's always a matter of degree -- specifically, (a) the degree to which the music succeeds at what it does well, and (b) the degree to which the things it doesn't do well are able to get out of the way.

I have no issues with the concept of looking past production value. I've been doing it my whole life. I've listened to concert recordings made from the audience, tapes recorded by my friends' bands in their basements, lots of '80's shit with unpleasant drum effects, my fair share of lo-fi indie records and absolutely my share of overproduced, oversugared pop and rock music. In any of those situations, could there have been a situation where the mitigating factor was just mitigating enough to turn me off? Absolutely. I have no issues with audience tapes, but it's possible that any given taper may have just been too far back for the music to be audible. I have no problem with recordings made in a basement, but if you put your mic right next to your water heater, it's possible that the environmental elements might push an already tough-to-listen-to recording over the edge. I am confident that I could take anyone's favorite song, dump it into Audacity as a wave file, and make it unlistenable within seconds just by adding compression and limiting. I think everyone has limits for this stuff, whether they recognize it or not. It's just, again, all a matter of degree.

So far, Watt's production on the Dark Matter tracks plays a pretty aggressive tug of war -- even if I approach the songs with the mindset of disregarding the production to see through to the songwriting and performance, it is still there, nipping at my ears, pulling my attention back. To use Stip's spice analogy, trying to ignore Watt's production is not like trying to overlook a slightly off-kilter hint of something; it's like trying to taste subtleties in the meat when he's used 15x the amount of recommended sugar in the sauce. Now, people have different thresholds for sugar, and yes, to some extent you can look past the superficial "sound" of a record to hear through to other things in it, but on the other hand, music is sound -- that's all it is, everything you process about music is based on your hearing of it, and how your ears interpret the presentation of these other things that really only exist conceptually (performance, composition, etc.). Telling someone to ignore that is like telling someone to stop focusing on the taste of the food, but to pay attention to the ingredients in the recipe. It's conceptually possible, but disingenuous to experience.

Well written.

I would add (and this is specific to me but maybe some others see it this way too): the production on DM thus far isn’t offensive enough to overcome my enjoyment of the composition. Further, I guess I am so glad that the guitars are finally loud and aggressive again that it’s more important to me than the amount of undeniable sheen on these babies.

Really - think about this for a second: where were distorted guitars on backspacer and bolt, aside form a few brief instances? Gig did better with WES, SBWM, Never, and TTLW, but still wasn’t what we got back on ten-vit.

I’m hearing instrumentation and effects choices that I be happy about for the first time in a while. Production is not ruining that for me to this point (of course part of producing a record is those very choices so - I suppose I like some elements of the “production” and am not overly put off by others).

Fattie_Vedder wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

RockPusher wrote:My sound engineer bro is going to listen to Dark Matter (song) and report back. When I spoke with him, he mentioned an artist his wife represents (she's in PR)- Molly Lewis. That lady can WHISTLE. She's like a theramin. Crazy.

She does some good stuff!

If you enjoy whistling, listen to Andrew Bird. He’ll whistle his way right into your heart.

He also plays violin pretty well! Seen him live- a delight!

DDWJMUVW wrote:

Kevin Davis wrote:

digster wrote:

stip wrote: i mean i think i can. when we say we prefer a song live isnt that at least partially what we are doing?

It does, and I'm not saying a good song can't get captured poorly. My point is more in terms of judging how an album succeeds, that thinking about the production seems as important as judging any other decision the band makes in terms of how a song sounds. Whether or not the guitars sound like shit, for example, seems as important (or almost as important) as what the guitar player is actually playing, especially because presumably the musician and/or producer have put thought into both of those things.

I think you can absolutely separate composition from performance, and then composition/performance from production, and all combinations of these -- and all of these things (composition, performance, production) are in and of themselves multi-faceted (i.e. a song can have great lyrics but dull music, excellent singing but a lousy arrangement, great mixing but poor mastering). In the end, an album could conceivably hook (or lose) any given listener with any element of any of these things, rendering all other elements "overlookable," but it's always a matter of degree -- specifically, (a) the degree to which the music succeeds at what it does well, and (b) the degree to which the things it doesn't do well are able to get out of the way.

I have no issues with the concept of looking past production value. I've been doing it my whole life. I've listened to concert recordings made from the audience, tapes recorded by my friends' bands in their basements, lots of '80's shit with unpleasant drum effects, my fair share of lo-fi indie records and absolutely my share of overproduced, oversugared pop and rock music. In any of those situations, could there have been a situation where the mitigating factor was just mitigating enough to turn me off? Absolutely. I have no issues with audience tapes, but it's possible that any given taper may have just been too far back for the music to be audible. I have no problem with recordings made in a basement, but if you put your mic right next to your water heater, it's possible that the environmental elements might push an already tough-to-listen-to recording over the edge. I am confident that I could take anyone's favorite song, dump it into Audacity as a wave file, and make it unlistenable within seconds just by adding compression and limiting. I think everyone has limits for this stuff, whether they recognize it or not. It's just, again, all a matter of degree.

So far, Watt's production on the Dark Matter tracks plays a pretty aggressive tug of war -- even if I approach the songs with the mindset of disregarding the production to see through to the songwriting and performance, it is still there, nipping at my ears, pulling my attention back. To use Stip's spice analogy, trying to ignore Watt's production is not like trying to overlook a slightly off-kilter hint of something; it's like trying to taste subtleties in the meat when he's used 15x the amount of recommended sugar in the sauce. Now, people have different thresholds for sugar, and yes, to some extent you can look past the superficial "sound" of a record to hear through to other things in it, but on the other hand, music is sound -- that's all it is, everything you process about music is based on your hearing of it, and how your ears interpret the presentation of these other things that really only exist conceptually (performance, composition, etc.). Telling someone to ignore that is like telling someone to stop focusing on the taste of the food, but to pay attention to the ingredients in the recipe. It's conceptually possible, but disingenuous to experience.

Well written.

I would add (and this is specific to me but maybe some others see it this way too): the production on DM thus far isn’t offensive enough to overcome my enjoyment of the composition. Further, I guess I am so glad that the guitars are finally loud and aggressive again that it’s more important to me than the amount of undeniable sheen on these babies.

Really - think about this for a second: where were distorted guitars on backspacer and bolt, aside form a few brief instances? Gig did better with WES, SBWM, Never, and TTLW, but still wasn’t what we got back on ten-vit.

I’m hearing instrumentation and effects choices that I be happy about for the first time in a while. Production is not ruining that for me to this point (of course part of producing a record is those very choices so - I suppose I like some elements of the “production” and am not overly put off by others).

this is a good point