Amy Winehouse's cd.....nasty

  • Thread starter Thread starter jmorris
  • Start date Start date
jmorris

jmorris

New member
Winehouse's "Back to Black". I love the song writting and she has a great voice and feel. But.... the cd sounds like shit. Anyone else feel the same? They seem to have tried to go for that older "Motown" feel but missed badly. It sounds like mbox Protools stuff I've heard but kids. Many people here on this site have created much better sounds. How do these "pro's miss so badly?
 
jmorris said:
How do these "pro's miss so badly?
Click to expand...
Nice timing...this was bugging just yesterday in the car listening to some random Ben Harper (Ground on Down, Burn to Shine, Steal My Kisses, etc.) and thinking that if I or any of us submitted them to the MP3 forum claiming them as ours, we'd be lambasted for such sloppy work.

I can't comment on Winehead's album as I have not heard enough of it with engineer's ears, but in general, it can be one of a combination of any number of reaons:

- "pro" does not necessarily mean good. Every occupation on this planet has mor ethan it's share of "pros" who are in the wrong line of work.

- Time & Money. Sometimes a project either doesn't book a whole lot of studio time or books a lot but they burn it up before they're done and they have to cut corners on production value. Especially true when they are on a tight time schedule to get the disc out before their scheduled road tour meant to actually sell tickets and CDs,

- Sonetimes the artist and/or producer has an artistic vision that simply sounds different from the way we would do it or expect it to be done. Often this can include purposely low-fidelity or garage-band sounding production values. In Winehead's case, it might be possible they were trying to sonically reproduce how it feels to be as hungover and strung out as the artist?

- Sometimes they just don't care abut the "normal" things to care about regarding production value, but rather just want a certain element of the mix to dominate as a simple form of sales pitch.

For example, I was wondering yesterday if this may have been what was up with Harper's "Burn to Shine", where it's really all just about the vocal and the guitar groove he's got running. Those both sound OK, but the rest of it (drums, bass, backup vocals, etc.) sounds awful. But those listening in a car with entertainment ears and not engineer's ears will be happy enough, and nothing of the song is actually lost by playing it on a crap system, even AM radio. Kind of the Auratone production addtiude there.

But then again, the problem with "Steal My Kisses" is more about inappropriate-sounding overdrive and clipping distortion which (to my ears) does absolutely nothing but detract from the production. It cannot even be explained away as Volume Wars; that song could have been crushed toghter more than it is without sounding that bad. So maybe Ben Harper hand his gang are just detail deaf or something, and I'm giving "Burn To Shine" too much credit and simply sounds like crap. I don't know.

G.
 
It's art.

You hit and you miss on a few.

Hopefully in the end, you have a few more hits than misses. But that's never a guarantee. I can certainly applaud anyone willing to take a few chances along the way. Otherwise, it all starts sounding the same.

That's what I would chalk this particular instance up to. It sounds like people took some chances, with the idea in mind of creating a certain effect or mood. And maybe a few people out-smarted themselves. Had worked, it could have been a stroke of genius.

.
 
You can record and present music, no matter what the genre, in so many different ways...Unless Amy Winehouse recorded her music herself and had her vagina mix it, I'm sure it's intentional. Sometimes what sounds 'best' doesn't sound good at all. Overproduction is just as dangerous as underproduction.
 
One man's garbage is another man's treasure. I haven't heard any of the tunes you guys are talking about so I can't comment but I've been having an ongoing conversation on this topic with my son. He loves that lofi sound that a lot of bands seem to have and I (for better or for worse) have seen the man behind the curtain and I can only hear the flaws in production.
 
Do you really think a big name artist, or specifically her label, would publish an obviously bad mix? Chances are, it was intentional.
As for Ben Harper, I think they recorded and mixed in 7 days on all analogue equipment. In both cases, Winehouse and Harper, I think the mix was supposed to resemble the 60s and 70s vibe. Props for that.

Mike
 
Nightfire said:
Do you really think a big name artist, or specifically her label, would publish an obviously bad mix? Chances are, it was intentional.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to figure that statement out.

They wouldn't publish a bad mix....unless they do it intentionally???:eek: :eek:
 
Last edited:
Nightfire said:
Do you really think a big name artist, or specifically her label, would publish an obviously bad mix?
Click to expand...
While a lot there depends upon one's definition of "bad", I would answer that with an unqualified "Yes". Often intentional, sometimes not. Believe it or not, even labels are run by humans that make mistakes, and sometimes even big labels are captive to other events not completly under their control.

Sometimes they trust the producer and the producer has a misfire. Sometimes the artist is under contract to produce an album by Date X and the artist pulls a Lindsay Lohan with studio time and performance. Sometimes things fall behind schedule and they have to change plans in order to getthe album out in time for the concert tour which is already booked and sold. Sometimes they are trying to appease the listeners like Track Rat's kid who actually think that over-limiting or over-filtering sound "k3wl". Sometimes things are fine up until a mistake or mistakes made in the final stages of mastering or burning. And so on.

To say that just because it's a big label that they can not accidentally produce with crap production value would be like saying that just because it's a major TV network that they cannot produce "Lost In Space" or "Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader?" ;)

Nightfire said:
Chances are, it was intentional.
As for Ben Harper, I think they recorded and mixed in 7 days on all analogue equipment. In both cases, Winehouse and Harper, I think the mix was supposed to resemble the 60s and 70s vibe.
Click to expand...
You're probably right on all that, though I'd qualify the "props" part, at least for the Ben Harper stuff. The distortion in "Steal My Kisses" is not typical of 60s or 70s, but more of the 90s and 00s, and IME/FWTW, does not sound all that intentional, other than as a bad artifact of trying to do accomplish something else with the dynamics. "Burn To Shine" may have been an attempt at retro, but I gotta say that 95% of the 60s and 70s stuff put out had *much* higher fidelity than that recording does.

Even intentional can be a mistake, even by the "pros".

But then again, it's all in the ears of the beholder anyway.

G.
 
I think it is the same old problem: killing it in the mastering. I like the tunes and with something like this with horns and what have you, there is no excuse for brickwalling the bejesus out of it in mastering. Last I checked, 60es recordings still had dynamic range. Reference today: Solomon Burke, doing "Cry to Me."

I practice bass to some of the tunes, and you can easily hear the distortion within the tracks. And not 'good, intentional' distortion either. Pity. And pity too that so many casual listeners will think it sounds fine.

The loudness war rolls on....:mad:

C.
 
this reminds me of a while back when my wife was rocking some old otis redding tunes...and all i could think was "man, i don't know a soul in the world who would find that snare sound acceptable today"

it obviously worked for him though, because 40+ years later the tunes still make chicks horny
 
Nightfire said:
Do you really think a big name artist, or specifically her label, would publish an obviously bad mix? Chances are, it was intentional.
As for Ben Harper, I think they recorded and mixed in 7 days on all analogue equipment. In both cases, Winehouse and Harper, I think the mix was supposed to resemble the 60s and 70s vibe. Props for that.

Mike
Click to expand...
Yeah, it may have supposed to resemble a 60/70's mix but in no way came close. At least to my ears. It does stand on it's own for the writting and vocals perormance. But the sound? Come on!:( Another thing, was she "known" before her Back to Black cd? If not, it may explain the quality and/or limited budget/production. I did not check out the studios she recorded the cd at. There were 3 I believe,all in London. Maybe top end places, don't know. I just find it hard to believe the cheezy sound was intended. I have heard many, if not all, 60/70's recordings sound much better.
 
Ironklad Audio said:
this reminds me of a while back when my wife was rocking some old otis redding tunes...and all i could think was "man, i don't know a soul in the world who would find that snare sound acceptable today"

it obviously worked for him though, because 40+ years later the tunes still make chicks horny
Click to expand...

So how would one get these types of sounds intentionally, without sounding like junk?

More specifically, I'd like to be able to get a sound like a 60's soul record or a 30's jazz 78...

Obviously gear and technology make a big difference, but what about the mixing styles and philosophy makes them sound the way they do?

And how can I emulate these sounds with modern gear? Specifically interested in late 30's Holiday / Horne type vocal sounds... almost sounds like a trumpet through a harmon mute. Top end is missing of course, but there's a particular kind of distortion that I haven't figured out.
 
She won like multiple grammys for that album. They were trying for that oldschool feel I think but it just not cool trying to replicate a sound becuase usually you just cant do it.
 
I have very limited experience but to me that cd sounds like the snare rolls in "My Girl", so if it is the "Motown thing" they were emulating then they've succeeded. :o
 
qiktune said:
I have very limited experience but to me that cd sounds like the snare rolls in "My Girl", so if it is the "Motown thing" they were emulating then they've succeeded. :o
Click to expand...

Not even close to the "my girl" feel/sound to me. I think people fall into a trap of " it is a star ,or it was recorded at big name studio so it has to be great" mentality. I mean, John Lennons' "Rock and Roll" album from 1975 is one of the worst sounding albums I have. I love Lennon and the Beatles but that one sounds like shit. Distorted drums and such. Muddy mix. But.....the feel is cool. Not old school feeling or retro, but cool just the same
 
That album was produced by Mark Ronson, who is widely known to run everything to tape at very hot levels (theres a SOS article before this cd was done) which could be why theres nasty distortion (overloading input circuit rather than tape saturation)
I havent listened to the CD, her voice annoys me and that Valerie cover stalked me for like two months... radio sucks
 
There are so many variables that are part of a "sound". It can be difficult to recreate the performance of the same song, with the same performer, same studio, on a completely different session let alone something that was done 30 or 40 years ago. The gear was often hand-wired or created by the engineer (back when that meant something). The components used then were different, the studios were different, the instruments were different, the drugs were different, the vibe was different.

You can put anyone today on a 60's strat with an old Marshall and if they try to copy Hendrix won't sound exactly like Hendrix. Likewise there are a couple of artists out now that are trying to copy a 60's soul vibe, some better than others, but none seem the have the "soul" of the original artists. Maybe it has something to do with being a copy rather than an original. Likewise I couldn't imagine anyone in the 60's doing today's Metal, alt-rock, Hip-Hop, or Rap the way it's done today. Why should it be different in reverse? Why try to perfect perfection?
 
masteringhouse said:
Maybe it has something to do with being a copy rather than an original. Likewise I couldn't imagine anyone in the 60's doing today's Metal, alt-rock, Hip-Hop, or Rap the way it's done today. Why should it be different in reverse? Why try to perfect perfection?
Click to expand...

Time warping back to the 60's isnt exactly my aim... neither is perfection. I don't want to copy that music, in fact quite the opposite.

I make hiphop music but I have an aversion to sampling. I understand that its part of the vocabulary and tradition of hiphop, but something about looping other people's music that i love and respect doesnt sit right with me. plus I don't think I can afford to license things properly...

So I play or sing my own loops and sample myself... but I still want it to sound like its sampled from an old beat up 78 or a jukebox single played 500 times... like I went crate digging and found a super rare record, only one copy.

I use Izotope Vinyl to degrade the sound plus another plugin I can't remember right now to add surface hiss and dust... I can then put it into djDecks (its like serato) and scratch it to further the vinyl illusion...

But some mic or mixing techniques, especially those of really old vocals and drums, elude me... there's a certain distortion that I can't get with "distortion" plugins, a physical or mechanical distortion, something inherent in the mic or recording medium... it just can't capture or reproduce certain frequencies and fails in a very particular way.

I'd like to be able to evoke the feeling of these records without sampling them, not try to make an entire record that way.
 
I don't know, I kinda like the sonics on back to black.


Sure, its distorted to fuck. But I like the old-school feel to it. I think its balls-y to go for that sorta thing - and it certainly make the album a sonic stamp on the market. I do think the "distorting tape" effect is just a taaad over used but I like the general feel of the album.

Whether good or bad - it certainly stands out when compared to other recent top-charters..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top