Super Noodles
Discussions have cropped up frequently on Song, By Toad about the relative benefits of different degrees of recording values in music. Much of the gamut has been covered, from the extreme DIY Low-Fi sometimes known as ‘No-Fi’ to the over-polished FM-friendly MOR found at the other end of the spectrum, and typified by bands who, when mentioned on these pages, tend to find some of the more expressive adjectives inserted into their name. (See ‘Bon Fucking Jovi’ and the ‘Fucking Dave Fucking Matthews Fucking Band’)
I personally tend to find myself tarred with the brush of being a pop-bitch, meaning that I’m regarded as having safe and wholesome tastes in recording values that preclude anything but the most established of techniques. I actually think that’s a little unfair, but I do find myself questioning the value – or occasionally the point – in an artist presenting their work in a wilfully obtuse manner, and deliberately obscuring their finished products.
But it does remain an open question for me; I’m by no means resolved on the matter. I recognise the value in an artist challenging their audience and encouraging them to do a little work in order to gain greater and more lasting reward in the long term. I also understand the desire for a songwriter to get something down ‘on tape’ and out in the public realm as quickly as possible, and yet I still occasionally find myself exasperatedly thinking “Come on, you don’t have to book out Mountain Studios in Montreux, but you could stand a little fucking closer to the mic!”
Low-Fi artists are noted for basic recording methods
That thought, in turn, found me associating the challenges of No-Fi with other genres that have provided obstacles to vast swathes of the listening public. The question I’m struggling with is whether the notion of leaving tape-hiss, static and random mix levels in place on your final release is akin to – say – the pompous excesses of Prog-Rock, or the masturbatory noodling of Neo-Classical Metal.
If some Low-Fi artists use ambient noise and distortion to excess, are they just guilty of self-indulgent noodling too?
I don’t pretend to be an expert in any such genres – I wouldn’t presume to call myself an expert in any musical genre really – so I’m hesitating to criticise them too generally. However I do find myself wondering if that very unfamiliarity and alien air is the basis for my concerns. The argument has been presented to me, regarding Low-Fi and No-Fi, that if I were to spend enough time listening to these rough-edged recordings to develop a taste for them, I would soon be compelled to seek out ever rougher recordings to satisfy my appetite.
Such addictions sound dangerous to me. Nevertheless, it’s certainly true that most experiences that appear daunting to begin with, from spicy food to extreme sports, need practice and perseverance in order to obtain their full rewards.
Rick Wakeman of Yes relaxes at home
So is it therefore safe to say that dabbling in a little light Genesis or Yes on the weekends will soon see you rabidly hunting down the Henry Cow 40th Anniversary 10 CD box set? Or that appreciating that a particular instrumental passage required dexterity and practice from the performer will inevitably lead to irretrievable immersion in the works of Yngwie Malmsteen? I’m not sure.
The other question I find myself contending with is whether or not it really matters. No-one would argue that any artist has the right to present their art to the world in whatever manner they see fit. However, does the artist, if they’re assuming the mantle of entertainer, have a responsibility to show enough respect to the audience to put a little effort into presentation? At what point does free artistic expression cross over into taking the piss?
As abhorrent as it may sound to purists, surely there should be a ring-fence around certain styles. If you’re going to write a jaunty, foot-tapping, upbeat little rock n’roll number, then that genre dictates certain recognised criteria to adhere to. Is it really appropriate to abandon the rhythm and play the song wilfully out of time? Will your audience thank you for it?
The trouble with that statement is, of course, that the counter-argument holds water too. The very nature of art is to challenge perceptions and push boundaries. As soon as you start ring-fencing and applying rules to someone’s means of artistic self-expression, you’re on a short and slippery slope to the realms of Simon Cowell and The X-Factor.
So, to conclude, the question frustratingly remains. If someone – anyone, even you – likes your work, does that make it okay, whatever it is? Or is the movement to abandon the aesthetic no more than an ever-reducing spiral that will eventually vanish up its own arse?
While you ponder, here’s a little light music.
Yngwie Malmsteen – Far Beyond The Sun
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Genesis – Watcher Of The Skies
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Navigator – Danger Dragon
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
DISCLAIMER: Having read this back, I have found it to be wildly off-topic.
————
Can’t decide.
Can’t decide.
BRAIN ANEURSYM!
I guess, it’s like anything. Home recording has changed music as much for bad as for good. I think constraints are fundamental in the creative process but ony to make you work harder; not to say “You can’t do this/that”.
Led Zep did their first 2 albums in about 24 hours. So they had to be able to play that stuff standing on their heads before they went in. Now there is a f**king myspace page for every c*nt that has decided to record himself spewing into a dictaphone cos it doesn’t fit one his other (shit) band’s page.
But how much of the music being made today would get studio time by the standards back then?
Is there a balance? I don’t know. Case in point:
Pro: I like making music in my bedroom.
Con: David Beddingfield made his 1st album in his bedroom.
What was the question again?
Well, you seem to have covered both sides of the argument pretty thoroughly in your post Dylan. The answer, as always, is “it depends.” I imagine John Cage was taking the piss a bit when he “wrote” 4’33″, and yet he also making an important “artistic” statement about the role silence and ambience plays in music.
Some artists deliberately deny themselves access to studio gadgetry they could easily afford (think Bruce Springsteen’s Nebraska) because doing so requires discipline, forcing them to reduce their vision down to its barest essence.
Others move in exactly the opposite direction, like Bowie in the Low and “Heroes” albums, where he brought in guys like Eno, Fripp, and Visconti who knew how to use the studio as an instrument rather than just a glorified tape recorder.
All these approaches “work” if they’re done with a spirit of curiosity and honesty. Even Henry Cow didn’t suck in the beginning. Ever hear Bitter Storm Over Ulm? Fred Frith was a genius.
I think it all comes down to getting the idea across. If you want to say something in a pop song across 3 and a half minutes, there’s no point throwing in a huge guitar solo immediately after the intro. If you want to make a political folk album; there’s little point in slathering reverb on your voice or employing recording techniques that obscure the lyrical content.
I think every artist should be looking at where the strengths in their material lie and how to bring those forward in the recording. There’s nothing wrong with experimentation. Juxtaposing contrasting elements in a recording is usually successful. I just can’t understand why an artist would record a pop song in any other way than makes it the best representation of the song possible.
Things like random mix levels and tape hiss gleefully left on recordings kind of pisses me off. It’s just posturing. “We’re ‘old skool’, we record straight to tape; tape sounds better/warmer etc etc” That’s fine, but most current artists haven’t a ‘scooby’ whether tape sounds better or not because most haven’t recorded to an ampex mutitrack recorder because the tape is too expensive and it’s not financially feasible for most independents.
Often I think those undertaking their own recordings suffer from the same mentality that those entering pop idol without a spot of talent do – They want to record their songs and expect that the smattering of effort required to press the record button is enough to display to the world they are the most talented entity to walk the face of the earth and they have been right about that all along. Once it’s up on Myspace the cash will undoubtedly start flowing.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t try to break the mold in your recordings. I just think that if you’re going to experiment, it still takes thought and perseverance to get it right.
I suppose my point is that I don’t want to listen to a final master that sounds like you’re at the bottom of a well or that’s distorting or that hasn’t been loved as a piece of work. What does that say about the artist and how they feel about their work? If we all start buying into the whole ‘purist’; straight to tape; I can’t really be arsed mentality then it just becomes the norm and we all lose as listeners and artists.
Sorry if this seems harsh but I’m quite passionate about this.
I want that Fisher Price tape recorder so much.
Why not make production a reason to dislike (or like for that matter) a band? I remmeber a couple punk kids talking in a record store in the early 90s about “their” band putting out a CD. The jump to digital was enough for them to abandon the band – The Mr T Experience. I always think of those two little punk girls when this question arises. And now that no, lo, or hiss – fi seems to have become a genre unto itself (i guess it’s taking the place of indie as the go-to music for the counter culture) the punk’s statement still seems pertinent. I love noisy, crashy, lo-fi reverbified whatever if it sounds cool to me. What’s my criteria? Who the fuck knows. I tend to put more value on crappy recordings because it can often be more interesting to hear something great come from crap than something great coming from something that sounds like it should be great. But really it’s an endless argument because eventhough I pose as someone who hates good production, I still like some bands that use good production.
But I think holding the position that underproduced music has more value than overproduced music is important because the crappy sounding music the few enjoy is in direct contrast to the overproduced crappy music the many enjoy. It kind of parallels my own life which would definitely be a lo-fi humanoid approach as opposed to an overly produced or even just a well produced humanoid.
All music is pretentious – even the low fi people who believe that being lo fi is unpretentious, It’s best to accept this and move on. And really these value judgements vary so often it can give one a head ache – not that I don’t think this is an interesting discussion. But so many things have an influence on the music we like or don’t like – even to the extent of not even liking music – it becomes like trying to scoop water from a pond with a piece of paper…it just goes all over the place.
In the end I see no problem with liking a band or not because pluto is alligned with saturn…as long as people stay open to the fact that there might be a good song residing in the scorpio ascendency.
Some artists deliberately deny themselves access to studio gadgetry they could easily afford (think Bruce Springsteen’s Nebraska) because doing so requires discipline, forcing them to reduce their vision down to its barest essence.
If Springsteen had added a
Oops..
Some artists deliberately deny themselves access to studio gadgetry they could easily afford (think Bruce Springsteen’s Nebraska) because doing so requires discipline, forcing them to reduce their vision down to its barest essence.
I think that’s kinda my point C&B, that it’s important to stay true to the material.
If Springsteen had added a few nice juicy Prophet synth solos, a couple of electric guitar wig-outs, and then smeared a load of artificial tape hiss over the top, would he have improved the finished article?
“it’s important to stay true to the material”
- the problem is, who makes the value judgement about whether an artist is being true to their material. There is so much lying and deception that goes on with musicians (both with themselves and those who listen to them) who in the end knows what is true and what isn’t? Was neil young being true to his music when he made a rockabilly album just to piss off his record company? Or was he just being a cantankerous bastard? Maybe the music had value solely based on the fact that he was sticking it to big wigs and little to do with the sounds he was making.
I get a strange experience when we get a band playing live here whose record is drenched in reverb or noise.
Like when I engineered Pains of Being Pure at Heart, they wanted something live that sounded like the record.
Well personally I just wanted to hear the songs, I’ve already got the record, and I felt like them obfuscating the material live with loads of reverb and super-tinny sounds didn’t help the show.
I think scummy sounding records have their own aesthetic, but it belongs on record. Live, I just want to band to sound Good.
A little note about Springsteen … He recorded in mono because it sounds more immediate, and apparently he did it because Phil Spector did it.
I’m a big fan of Steely Dan (mock away) and those guys did some incredible things in the studio, recording pretty much everything with session musicians. I struggle to imagine a band like Steely Dan emerging today, maybe a band like TV On the Radio is as close as we’re getting.
I think US acts seem to struggle the most with studio production, probably from a legacy of horrible 80s hair bands and faceless R&B records. Their biggest alternative bands – Sonic Youth, Pixies, Nirvana, Pavement – pretty much perfected the template for lo-fi.
UK indie seemed to go through the same touble in the 1980s when you had the Mary Chain and the whole c86 things rebelling against the synth pop. Then dance music came along and the studio became a fashionable place to be again. The three most celebrated British albums of the 90s were all heavy on production – The Stone Roses, Screamadelica and OK Computer (yeah, the first one was out in 1989 but it shifted most copies in the 90s).And neither The Stone Roses nor Screamadelica were particularly popular in the States.
The thing with those bands you mention (Gary) Is that with the exception of Sonic Youth, they all had really fucking good songs. I wouldn’t care if a band recorded on a 4 track portastudio if I could hear the songs and they were great.
I love Springsteen and would listen to anything he released. I respect the man as an artist and if he wanted to release some thing next month with questionable production value, I’d probably still buy it because he takes himself seriously. Even if he didn’t, I’d still enjoy the opportunity to hear some crappy home demo’s recorded round one mic and I feel the same about some of the independents I’m really into.
I guess I’m willing to hear great art that’s poorly recorded but am unwilling to listen to lazy, indulgent bollocks recorded at the hit factory.
As someone who records lots of other artists, with the availability of recording equipment and info on how to do it well, there’s no reason you should be doing it poorly. It’s just lazyness. A lot of musicians can’t see that they now need to be learning how to record themselves properly. It’s now just another part of being a musician.
There’ve been a few really interesting thoughts in the post as well as the comments..even though it all boils down to personal taste and there’s no way to make any objective judgments about it there’s one important point which makes me appreciate lo-fi/no-fi stuff a lot more, and that is the entanglement and subsequent confusion of music (you know, sounds and stuff!) with music production. With many “well-produced” bands/albums you have to wonder whether they actually care about the songs they write, or whether they know that the content actually matters, not just the packaging. This goes way beyond Pop and the utter shit the major labels have been putting out in the last decade or so (successful only because people thought: hey, that sounds exactly like that last thing, so it must be good!). There are tons, literally TONS of shitty indie bands out there which only started out because they thought that writing a few songs which sound like Bloc Party is cool or the thing to do or would potentially make them famous or whatever. A few of them might actually be good of course, but the majority of them which mainly pursue the sound of some big (and therefor properly produced) band they like, consequently end up sounding just as “neat”, are simply missing the point. And the worst thing about it is that they don’t even know it because they’re being misled by huge amounts of music-related bullshit which might of course have an effect on the music and is consequently interesting to know, but not the point of music itself. People spend hours ranting on about which album was produced and recorded and mixed and whatever by X who also mixed album Y by Z and they waste all their time chasing down trivia and trying to figure out what kind of influence that actually had on the record, instead of simply concentrating on the fucking songs. Of course recording is an important ingredient of what songs sound like, but the more you put into it, the more likely it is to distract from the actual content (and also wander off to become its own self-justified area of interest). It’s a bit like the ugly organic carrot from the farmer’s market down the street vs. the perfectly symmetric, polished-up and neatly cut vegetable packs from M&S. Of course the latter might be just as good, but chances are there’s a good reason why they’ve been polished up that much.
I can’t stand music journalism and the reason why I read this blog is because there’s a guy who tells you straight to the face if he thinks that something is shit, rather than trying to fill up a record review with bloomy terminology and obscure cross-references and then finally giving it a number of stars so that you know whether you should like it/check it out or not. I think it’s quite telling that there’s no such rating-system in place here and that’s great.
I guess this rant is (not only totally random and full of grammatical mistakes but also) more against the idea of doing music “professionally” in general rather than recording techniques alone..
in short, it’s all about the songs ain’t it?
If Springsteen had added a few nice juicy Prophet synth solos, a couple of electric guitar wig-outs, and then smeared a load of artificial tape hiss over the top, would he have improved the finished article?
But the tape hiss on Nebraska IS “artificial” in the truest sense of the word. It was an artifice; it didn’t need to be there. Springsteen deliberately recorded with one hand tied behind his back so to speak, presumably because he thought that lo-fidelity would suit the material better than the full-on band and studio sound of Born to Run or The River. Who’s to say how the Nebraska material would have sounded if it had been arranged differently and performed with the E Street Band? Would some Ray Bittan keyboard washes have ruined it? Probably not. It would have been different from the Nebraska we’re all used to, but it wouldn’t necessarily have been worse.
And to go back to my Bowie example, some “nice juicy synth” work from Eno, coupled with “a couple of electric guitar wig-outs” from Robert Fripp is what makes “Heroes” one of the greatest songs of the 1970s. “Warszawa,” from Low, is nothing but a “nice juicy synth solo” by Brian Eno, and it inspired a generation of great musicians, Joy Division not least. Eno and Adrian Belew would bring many of the same techniques to the sessions for Remain In Light by Talking Heads. Totally “artificial,” and totally brilliant.
Agreed Steven, all those bands had good songs shining through, even Sonic Youth. But at some point they all shoved some pretty questionable material on record under the guise of ‘challenging the listener’. Like the whole of Pavement’s ‘Westing by Musket and Sextant’ (admittedly a B-sides album, but they asked people to buy it nonetheless), some of Cobain’s more ‘fuck you’ stuff on In Utero, or 3/4 of most Sonic Youth albums.
With Springsteen, I find his stripped down stuff more interesting than the overblown stuff, especially his recent stuff like Working on Dream which feels padded out.
One album I always thought was unfairly lambasted at the time for its perceived OTT production was Dog Man Star. I think it stands up pretty well and its pomp is a big part of its appeal.
in short, it’s all about the songs ain’t it?
Well no, not really.
If when you say “all about the songs”, you mean how they would appear on manuscript paper, written out on a stave with the lyrics underneath, then no.
What we’re talking about is the dicking about that people are often inclined to do with the song after that stage.
So it’s all about the recording and the finished product, but not really about the songs themselves.
I agree.
It’s all about the songs.
You haven’t read any of it, have you Bart?
Dylan, i don’t think you truly understand what Bart and i are saying.
Wouldn’t be the first time I’ve had trouble with your interminable inane ramblings, Chutters..
I’ll spell it out for you then
it’s all about the song then, is it not?
Good songs can easily be ruined by poor engineering or production choices – usually by what’s added, rather than what’s taken away, I’ll grant you – so it’s not entirely about the songs.
Indeed, and I didn’t have the notion of quality songwriting specifically a craft on my mind when I wrote this post.
It is all about the song…that is why Bruce Springsteen sucks moose dick and Sonic Youth doesn’t. BS is a bargain basement Dylan at best and the only reason he is even being discussed is because of another crappy band – Arcade Fire. Plus, Sonic Youth will always have my respect for cutting deals with the majors for less money so they have more control. Bruce Springsteen is just a sad musician type making mediocre songs for lawyers to enjoy when they are on vacation in Aruba.
Ah yes, Sonic Youth. If only they’d been able to write songs they might have been a half-decent band.
So in that sense yes, maybe you have a point, maybe it is more about the song than I’d realised.
And I have absolutely never understood the Arcade Fire/Springsteen comparisons.
I like jam.
Of course, it is about the song in so far as it’s frustating when you hear what is clearly a good song ‘on paper’ that’s been fucked up by bad production choices.
But sometimes the production (or lack thereof) has such an overwhelming, smothering effect on the song that it’s impossible to tell whether the songwriting’s actually any good or not.
Only because you envy Paul Weller’s haircut.
he meant blackcurrant jam, Bart has no idea who Paul Weller is!
Arcade Fire and Echo and the Bunnymen i get…..but i’m the same as Toad….just don’t get the Springsteen comparison at all!
Band (Arcade Fire) talks about other band (Bruce Dingsteen). Suddenly Dingsteen is a genius.
Bruce Dingsteen = the conventional boring song structure.
Sonic Youth = the unconventional.
Nothing wrong with the conventional, it’s the proper way to go. right? And what rock and roll needs are more proper songs from proper musicians who hold their guitars properly – that is, you must hold your guitar just below the tit to play it properly. Let’s all hear it for the tit-level bands. By the way, if you do see a musician holding their guitar at tit level, turn the other way and run as fast as you can – 9x out of 10 it’s gonna be boring, shitty, proper music for proper people.
Springsteen was a genius way before Arcade Fire talked about him (if they did at all) fact!
and Chris there are plenty of Sonic Youth songs that follow the conventional structure…..
I don’t think Sonic Youth were very unconventional or challenging at all.
Or good for that matter.
Why are we talking about them?
Sonic Youth are awesome Dylan…..Fact!
doh! i dunno if i’m allowed to love both Springsteen and Sonic Youth….Chris can you help me out here!
Arcade Fire claimed Sprinsteen (I think Nebraska LP) as a major influence, then suddenly all the pitchfork kids love Springsteen.
Same thing happened with Brian Wilson/Beach Boys – The High LLamas started yaking about um and suddenly said Beach of Boys are forgotten genuises.
Sure RCC you can love them both. But just remember Sonic Youth never played a Super Bowl halftime show.
So Springsteen is up there with the Dead Rolling Stones, a Who whos lead singer can’t sing anymore with a guitar player who is a pedophile and Up With People – Springsteen is in good company.
I’m not sure that the notable talents and contribution of either Bruce Springsteen or The Beach Boys ever slipped so far from the consciousness of music fans that it needed a couple of new bands to cite them as influences to remind everyone of their achievements.
Erm, yeah, I sincerely doubt that Springsteen would have quietly slipped into obscurity had it not been for the Arcade Fire rescuing his career.
Springsteen’s always had that schmaltzy, sentimental stadium rock side to him though. And even though I don’t really like anything he’s written since, erm, well maybe Born in the USA, at least with any real consistency anyway, I’d still defend the genius of his earlier stuff.
Besides, he only came up here because the contrast between, say Nebraska and Born in the USA is a perfect ‘compare and contrast’ for a production values discussion, not because anyone was trying to say that he was better or worse than anyone else.
Wrong Dylan. Beach Boys where considered a bunch of nerdy throwbacks to a time when music was simple minded. And nobody, accept maybe 2 or 3 people actually liked the original Smile album. It wasn’t until they were talked up by bands and critics in the early to mid 90s that Smile became the work of a tortured genuis. Pet Sounds is a great LP but genuis does not come to mind when I hear it. And Springsteen was never a musical genuis.
Not obscurity Matthew – but he would certainly still be considered a dinosaur rocker rather than a hip genuis if it weren’t for Arcade Fire.
Beach Boys where considered a bunch of nerdy throwbacks
By whom? I’m not aware of such a time.
Really Dylan?
By the then music hipsters/cool bunch.
Ohh… Them.
Wankers.
If…
Mt. Goats early boom box songs—————————————————————-Born in The USA…
Nebraska would be a little left of BITUSA but very far from Mt. Goats…and only a crazy person would enjoy the Dingsteen over early Mt/Goats…but even Mt/Goats blew it by upping their production: now John Darneille is a serious musician type with good production but I’d never trade my early MT/Goats tapes for any of his newer stuff.
This thread is unnecessary. A circle has no beginning or end.
You prefer early Mountain Goats to the likes of, say Nebraska or the Wild the Innocent & the E-Street Shuffle? Well it’s close, and I like both a lot, but I really don’t know if I’d agree on that one.
“A circle has no beginning or end”
Cosmic Matthew, absolutely cosmic – you just blew my mind.
i’m picking up some garrotting wire on my way home tonight…..
Hey Chris, are you going Xiu Xiu tonight?
I might if I can get my transporter working…otherwise I’m stuck here in the US of KKK.
damn!
Short of time, must say something:
I heard that Nebraska was released as the demo version because Springsteen preferred it that way – apparently he tried to record it proper likes but the proper recordings robbed the demos of their innate soul – I don’t think the tape hiss was an artifice I think it was just there because he used demo worthy equipment.
In terms of this debate, I think it boils down to the artist in question, how in control they are of their recordings and how much they care about “sound”.
Some artists are not audiophiles and don’t obsess about the sound of their instruments to the same extent as others. Others maybe do but they’re maybe not paying for the recording and the producer and are inexperienced and don’t get the choice. In certain circumstances they may be destined for mainstream radio in which case its difficult to get played unless you have pretty well produced songs (this is at least true for alt/indie bands – dance/urban records seem to get away with some terrible pish).
Christ, I could go on forever on this topic but I’m not going to. It’s about choice and opinion in my view. And if you know what you’re doing and can execute it it’s about identifying what sort of production suits what sort of song, which can be difficult in the context of an album – disparate sounds are hard to make into a cohesive album.
Disclaimer: this was written ina real hurry so it may be total contradictory pish.
Wow, everyone is so mean and snarky. Excellent!
Actually I find myself agreeing with a lot of what Chris says here. Apart from Nebraska and the odd song here or there, I’ve never really found Springsteen appealing, although that’s probably because I never saw him live during his prime in the 70s. The Beach Boys? Just don’t get it. Even Pet Sounds irritates me. Where’s the sense of disorientation? Rock and roll is supposed to fuck with the head.
I haven’t listened to Sonic Youth much since Dirty, but their 1980s output–Evol, Sister, and Daydream Nation in particular–makes way more of an impression on me than anything Springsteen or the Beach Boys ever produced. That is propulsive, disorientating stuff.
And Matthew, “if only they’d been able to write songs they might have been a half-decent band”? Pu-leeeze. How about “Silver Rocket”? “‘Cross The Breeze”? “Star Power”? “Disappearer”? “Drunken Butterfly”? That’s like saying the Replacements couldn’t write tunes.
“Where’s the sense of disorientation? Rock and roll is supposed to fuck with the head.”
- exactly!
I can accept – just barley – why Matthew might think SY doesn’t write songs. But, if he dares say anything negative about THE MATS then we gonna fight!
TT, the argument was never meant to be about polished production vs. rough production, but more about artists deliberately and petulantly wrong-footing their audience by showing off, pouting and generally making an unpleasant spectacle of themselves.
The production on the Yngwie Malmsteen track is positively dripping in bling, while the production on the Genesis is, to be fair, quite warm, clear and true to the sound of the instruments. It’s mainly Tony Banks’ interminable keyboard wanking that does my head in.
“artists deliberately and petulantly wrong-footing their audience by showing off, pouting and generally making an unpleasant spectacle of themselves”
- yr talkin’ ’bout the boss, right?
Haha! Nicely done, Chris.
I try.
God, do I try.
I can genuinely think of lots of albums where the production has not been to “my taste” but that I still like cause the songs are good. So in many ways I agree. If a songs shit it’s shit whether the production is good or not. If a song is good then it shouldn’t matter if you don’t like the production, the quality should shine through surely?
Well that’s kinda the point I’ve been lumbering haphazardly towards I think, E-Man, but sort of from the other direction.
If the song’s good, just dish it up to us. Don’t fuck around with it for the sake of it. No-one likes to see anyone waving their dick about in public.
That doesn’t mean every recording has to be plain, neutral, vanilla. I’m very interested on the notion of using the studio as another instrument, but extra instruments should only be added to enhance the final track.
Dylan, I completely disagree with you; I think there are a large number of people who want to see others waving their dicks in the air.
Is it that music hipsters/cool bunch again?
“Dylan, I completely disagree with you; I think there are a large number of people who want to see others waving their dicks in the air.”
For example, everyone who watches Olympic ice dancing. “Sex bomb” anyone?
i think Dylan has turned into a spinning top!
Before anyone starts worrying, I actually don’t know anything at all about Sonic Youth, I was just arsing around.
Same with the likes of MBV – for some reason I’ve just never made the time to sit down and listen to their music.