Home Recording's Dirty Little Secret

[Outlaws]

I listened to a lot of underground music in middle school and highschool. Not so much anymore. But when I loaded that credit card up with a Roland VS1680 my senior year, I was making music that far surpassed the sound quality of most anything I was listening to at the time.

But no, I never thought I would make "commercial" studio quality, but I did think I would get the commercial quality that I had been buying.

 

[Todzilla]

I started recording back in the 60s on a tiny tinny mini reel-to-reel.

I've progressed considerably since those days, but I find, the more I learn and advance, the more I realize I have to learn.

 

[JonPaulP]

I can totally relate. I have no idea how to achieve the "studio sound" I hear on my favorite tracks and I thought buying a condensor microphone and adding reverb was the trick.

Now, I'm reading stuff about room acoustics and mastering and curves!!

 

[chrisghost]

I was sure I could do it!!!!!!!!!!!

I took out a loan for $4000 and bought me a Roland VS 1680, the latest thing (back then): Hard Disc Recording, 16 tracks and all.

I was already thinking about cool fotoshoot ideas for my Rolling Stone magazine 6 page feature... you know...

Three years down the drain wondering why I just couldn't get anything to sound just a bity punchy.

Sucker!!!!!

But guess what, I'm starting over. New Gear, new start, new dissapointments on the horizon.

That's the thing isn't it. We just can't help doing this.

 

[VocabularyIgor]

The musician ship, and having good material is the most important thing of course, but I do beleive we will all be able to make recording comparable to the big boys, eventually.

I wouldn't be doing this at all - if I didn't think I wouldn't get to the level of quality I hear on commercial CD's.

I think really good equipment is a major factor.

But I think knowledge, experience and wisdom is even more important than that.


By the time we all get to the level of quality we are looking for - we'll have to all swap songs and enjoy each other's work...... because we all know the general public could care less about the quality coming out of their i-pods.

We're all busting our asses and our bank accounts here - when unfortuantly I feel most of that effort extra will be lost after converted to MP3.

I'm sure it's the same for most you guys here - but I work really really hard at this, every single day. I am forever reading books, watching tutorials, scanning this site and gearslutz, and saving up for my next piece of gear.

I've done my share of agonizing over this when I FIRST started. My dad works for the radio where I'm from, and he would come in and hear my recordings and give me that you almost made it but not QUITE laff!

Of anybody I know he probably has the best "ear" I've ever seen. I think that we as home producers, songwriters, instrumentalist, and vocalist have the upperhand on the commercialized dipped in glitter industry fleas.... Why? We don't have the voice-processors, guide vocalist, and all that other CRAP that alot of these industry people have. We have to work at our craft with bare bones, and its better that way.

Every note we sing or play is better than theirs, whether you suck or not. I say that because we have to refine in so near perfection on our own, without the use of high-dollar consoles and pre-madonna engineers that when the select few of us actually make it to the big tent, they look at us and say "damn he/she is good!"... Sure the recordings may not sound as great as we want them to, but WE sound great. Do you get me??? Afterall, if we had all that stuff in our homes, we woud be just as crappy as alot of these people because we would depend on the technology to pick-up the pieces that we couldn't...

 

[VocabularyIgor]

I've done my share of agonizing over this when I FIRST started. My dad works for the radio where I'm from, and he would come in and hear my recordings and give me that you almost made it but not QUITE laff!

Of anybody I know he probably has the best "ear" I've ever seen. I think that we as home producers, songwriters, instrumentalist, and vocalist have the upperhand on the commercialized dipped in glitter industry fleas.... Why? We don't have the voice-processors, guide vocalist, and all that other CRAP that alot of these industry people have. We have to work at our craft with bare bones, and its better that way.

Every note we sing or play is better than theirs, whether you suck or not. I say that because we have to refine in so near perfection on our own, without the use of high-dollar consoles and pre-madonna engineers that when the select few of us actually make it to the big tent, they look at us and say "damn he/she is good!"... Sure the recordings may not sound as great as we want them to, but WE sound great. Do you get me??? Afterall, if we had all that stuff in our homes, we woud be just as crappy as alot of these people because we would depend on the technology to pick-up the pieces that we couldn't...[/QUOTE]

 

[gecko zzed]

I've done my share of agonizing over this when I FIRST started. My dad works for the radio where I'm from, and he would come in and hear my recordings and give me that you almost made it but not QUITE laff!

Of anybody I know he probably has the best "ear" I've ever seen. I think that we as home producers, songwriters, instrumentalist, and vocalist have the upperhand on the commercialized dipped in glitter industry fleas.... Why? We don't have the voice-processors, guide vocalist, and all that other CRAP that alot of these industry people have. We have to work at our craft with bare bones, and its better that way.

Every note we sing or play is better than theirs, whether you suck or not. I say that because we have to refine in so near perfection on our own, without the use of high-dollar consoles and pre-madonna engineers that when the select few of us actually make it to the big tent, they look at us and say "damn he/she is good!"... Sure the recordings may not sound as great as we want them to, but WE sound great. Do you get me??? Afterall, if we had all that stuff in our homes, we woud be just as crappy as alot of these people because we would depend on the technology to pick-up the pieces that we couldn't...

There's a lot to like in your post; the way you engender a sense of self-confidence and solidarity amongst the home-recording fraternity. I also agree that there are more than enough prima donna engineers and talent-challenged artists out there, and that technology does not always create a gripping performance.

But . . . there are also problems for me in your post.

Because some engineers are prima donnas doesn't mean that all are. And likewise, because some mainstream artists lack talent doesn't mean that all are "glitter industry fleas". After all, don't we have participating on this home recording site a number of commercial engineers who are by no means prima donnas, but who are only too willling to help with their knowledge and experience? And aren't there many truly talented people enjoying mainstream success?

I don't think it is fair to compare the good of home recording with the bad of commercial recording and conclude, therefore, that commercial recording sucks.

Nor can I agree that "Every note we sing or play is better than theirs, whether you suck or not." If you suck, you suck, and it doesn't matter whether you suck in your loungeroom or in a million dollar studio. How can every note be better if you suck?

From whom were you getting advice? "My dad works for the radio" . . . but I don't suppose he was operating a pedal radio in the outback of Australia. I expect he developed his ear working for many years in a technology-rich environment with constant exposure to the mass of material that goes through a radio station. His wisdom comes from that commercial environment.

And we would only "depend on the technology to pick up pieces" if we allow ourselves to become dependent. Technology is a means to an end, where that end is a quality recording, not a quality performance.

What concerns me is that the post reflects a very common thought pattern, that 'amateur and small' is intrinsically good and 'professional and big' is intrinsically bad. I saw this at another forum, where a similar thought was expressed about singing lessons; that somehow untrained voices were better than trained voices.

Whenever we engage the services of someone else . . . a doctor, a mechanic, a plumber, a bus driver . . . we expect a professional, competent and effective response. I can't see why home recording should be exempt from this.

 

[VocabularyIgor]

Mr. Gecko zzed... I'm sorry if I offended you in any way, shape, or form. The post I placed was just the industry in general I was speaking of. Yes, I do know that generalization is the central reason for discrimination, I'm far from incompetent.(I don't say that to patronize you) But, the post was pretty cut and dry as far as who it was directed towards, but I also wanted people to think. I KNOW that there are vast amounts of engineers, producers, artists, songwriters, instrumentalist, etc. that are REALLY talented and actually Love what they do and can't be compromised.

The post was directed at those commercialized industrialist who fill the airwaves and cyberspace with stuff that they call music, but the reality is that its "cookie-cutter" and "dumbed-down" to the max right now. I have a great deal of respect for all of the people who can maintain there integrity as well as their sanity in the industry. (by the way my uncle is Mike Cooper from Confunkshun)

The main problem that I have with it is this: Entertainers in general are put on a plane of untouchable. Why? Yes, fame and fortune bring more problems and more craziness out of the woodwork, but come on man. Yeah I would enjoy my success too if I ever get that far, but some of this stuff is just to much. I think that you should be able to do what you want with your money, but when you have people in you ear constantly telling you this and that, what to do and when and HOW you should do it, how is that decision you made truly yours?

Alot of artists don't want to do a large percentage of the things they have to, but marketing and image make sure they do... We all have seen an artist(s) that we thought were great, fade suddenly... Do you ever wonder why? Do you wonder why artist(s) that have never taken a drink or smoke their whole life until they got famous and end up ruining their life? And how does it look to your fans who aren't "well-off" who helped you get to where you are, and they can't even get a ticket to your show because its to expensive?

I know they all aren't that way, but alot of them are. For example, Radiohead gave their album away, but they were charging $250 minimum for a ticket. Come on... I'm a HUGE fan of Tom Yorke and his genius, but I don't have $250 to sit and watch you for a couple hours just to leave and face bad traffic. For that price I should at least get an autograph or a picture or SOMETHING! Then the bad traffic. Went to Kanye Wests' show, and they wanted $100 for a t-shirt with a print of his face with some plastic mirror sunglasses on. Really now? $100 for a $5 t-shirt with three cents worth of plastic and ten cents worth of ink that will fade in the first wash? Lets get serious.(jermaine was the man for that one LOL!) I'm a HUGE fan of Kanye as well, but man they gotta restructure this industry for several reasons that would take me thirty post to explain.

These people have money coming from there ears, and still treat us, the FAN kinda bad, and the average person doesn't understand the "networkings" behind the scenes that makes this pillage happen. But we Blame the artist fully, when in turn its these agents and others who inflate egos and create over-confidence and gaudiness. Henceforth, "hotness" is essentially gone from them, sales drop, "friends" disappear, and the spiral down begins... (for SOME)

I do know the logic and theory behind supply and demand, but I honestly don't think that should be threaded thru the music industry. There is a way I think it could be lessened or removed even, but that's another post. Music is supposed to be about expression and genuineness no matter what genre. Not, how many albums I can sale so I don't have to pay the record company all that money they fronted me back! The fleas are the people who allow there souls to be taken, and the "puppetmasters" that try and sell us shell it was in.

As far as the "even if you suck" thing... Some people just suck at things. But I've seen some groups and bands that weren't good live or on "wax" in my opinion, that had better material and image than some industry folks... Sorry for not elaborating on that. And I never said that commercial recording sucks. If it sucked, why would we be trying to achieve that "sound" at home? Please send me the link for that post about trained voices vs. untrained, because I want to see who sides with the untrained and why... Nobody wants an untrained pet wandering in the house, so what makes an untrained voice so good is what I wanna know!

As far as my dad, he started to develop his "ear" as a kid listening to phonographs and picking out the nuances in the music... and as time passed sound was developed and coddled and spawned into what it is today and he loves it for the most part. He loves many aspects about the way technology speeds up the process of his craft, but like me he sees the way people depend on it (tech) to do everything for them pretty much.

I don't know how old you are, but by looking at the pic my dad and you may be close in age, so you should know what I mean when I say the Golden Oldies were the best. Yeah the recordings weren't that great due to technology, but you heard the realness of the music. Nowadays you don't know who is using pitch control and other gadgets to sound like they have what it takes until you spend you 80 bucks for the show...

And yes, I concur to the statement that if and when you want professional things done you hire one. So the people that make these products that say "professional quality", no matter what it is (degreaser or a home studio workstation) need to be held accountable, and either the products need to do what it says or it needs to be changed to say what it really does... The same way the FDA makes these drug companies put all the side-effects their product causes on labels and commercials, they all should have to...

This post was just an answer. In no way is this meant to ensue a "cyber argument" in any way. I respect the opinion of all, and I think we all should... Have a Good One...

 

[gecko zzed]

The big bold type is a bit scarey, but I think we agree on most things.

I realise the point you are making, and that using generalisations was a rhetorical device used to make that point. However I've seen a lot of generalisations that start being treated as truth, e.g. sound guys are idiots, mastering engineers keep secrets, and so on.

I agree about the dumbing-down of entertainment these days. It's not just about music; it's also happens in the news, TV programs and commercials. We live in the era of the sound bite and the cult of celebrity, and I guess Paris Hilton epitomises that; someone who is famous for . . . what? Doing nothing, really.

The saddest thing is that people buy into it. They will pay $100 for a T-shirt. And the law of supply and demand is working well . . . so long as people are content with buying pap, the suppliers will continue to manufacture it.

But it's not all pap. For all the tinsel and glitter covering lack-lustre talents, there are still many high quality, genuine acts out there. I agree that music is about "expression and genuineness no matter what genre", but it is also about quality and professionalism. I do a lot of live mixing, and as you can imagine, I get a mixture of the good, the bad and the ugly. I've no doubt that even the poor acts sincere and genuine, but that's not enough for me to forgive awful performances.

You mentioned the 'golden oldies', and I harbour a warm nostalgic feeling for those days, but they had their fair share of artificiality as well. The Monkees and Peter, Paul & Mary are two examples of manufactured bands, along with the mass-produced faceless (and, in probably my view alone, soulless) music of Motown. Before the sixties the radio was just as drenched in insipid dross ("Itsy bitsy teeny weeny yellow polka dot bikini" and similar). As you note, recording quality was highly variable.

You talked about entertainers ruining their lives. There are some notable current examples, but they are not unique to this era. We should not forget Joplin, Hendrix, Morrison and the others who also burnt the candle at both ends and in the middle. Perhaps they too suffered the pressures of fame. My own theory is that the gene that produces great creativity is often also responsible for instability, and that these talents are like sky-rockets . . . they soar into the sky, amazing everyone, only to disappear in their own dazzling explosions.

Anyway, nothing you said offended me. I don't do 'offence'. There were only a few things I disagreed with, that's all.

Cheers.

 

[VocabularyIgor]

You hit a lot of proverbial nails on the head Gecko...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

It never ceases to amaze how these Methuselah threads just keep staying around loooong after they have outlived their usefulness, like the guest who didn't know enough to leave the party when it was over. Man, I wish people would stop being so lazy and put expiration dates on these polls.

I say that because we have to refine in so near perfection on our own

The tone of this post is one of hard-working, nose to the grindstone home recorders who have to put in that extra sweat equity just to hope to compete sound-wise with the lazy, slack-jawed Big Boys who just phone in their jobs.

I just gotta ask what color the sky in on the planet of someone who sees reality with this much of a slant. It's like watching a scene in the Joker's lair on the old Batman TV series.

Sure, there are plenty - tens of thousands - of hard-working home wreckers out there, but for every one of them, there are ten more - totaling in the millions - who expend far more energy looking for freebies, "secrets", canned recipes and other non-existent shortcuts and mythical fountains of youth than they ever will in actually trying to do some good engineering. The sense of entitlement amongst this slack majority leaves the taste of bile in one's mouth far stronger than most "pro" engineer's work ethics will.

And I'm tired of hearing people complaining about the lack of quality of music. This is a sign of laziness on the part of the consumer. There is more great stuff out there than any one of us will ever have time to find or mine in our lifetime. If one can't find it, it's because they ain't lookin' for it. It's not going to get handed to you on the local radio station, unless you happen to live in a large half-a-megawatt market with a strong music history (Chicago, Memphis, NYC, etc.), and even then you gotta be willing to explore and not just tune into the station with the most billboards.

What one has to remember is that Top200 is designed for and marketed to the 14-to-18-yr-old demographic, just like soda pop and tobacco. That is where the gold mine of large pools discretionary money managed unwisely is found. Going there expecting to find decent music is like going to McDonalds to find decent food or television to find compelling theater. And using that as the standard for judging the state of music is like using cheese fries to judge the state of modern Western cuisine.

When I was a punk kid, the local ma & pa record store with eclectic tastes was the place to go to find the real music behind the Beatles and Elvis crap. Now days, it's the Internet. And no, I don't mean sifting through the piles of hay on meSpace - though on can find the occasional gold needle there; I'm talking about going out and finding the alternative-to-alternative radio stations that simulcast on their websites.

Man, this is SO much better than Vic's Record Shop and Sports Trophies, as much as I loved that place when I was a kid. But the Internet gives you access to the entire world, with music acts and genres you might have never even heard of, many of them quite excellent. This summer, a friend turned me on to a radio station out of Hawaii that played almost nothing but a form of alt Hawaiian reggae, with a playlist a few dozen times longer than the playlist of your average Clear Channel radio station. Go ahead and try to find that on your radio dial or your local national record chain. Yet that is not an isolated example.

And don't blame the engineer, he/she is - for the most part - doing their job just as in any other profession. And just as in any other profession, only 20% of them are really good at what they do. Just because they are "pro" doesn't mean they are "good"; it just means they get paid for it. But rarely to they not take pride in the amount of sweat equity they put into it.

G.

 

[bassbrad]

I expected I could reasonably equal the quality of commercial recordings.
I am the poster child for reasonalbly moderate means but my experience level in recording tips things in my favor. As a musician I have been working in recording studios for 30 years, keeping my eyes and ears open all the time because I always had the recording bug. Recording has always been a subject I am interested in so I have stacks of magazines and books that I have read, reread and refer to all the time. I also worked for several years as an assistant engineer for several highly skilled engineers in state of the art studios at the time. Over the years I have collected orphan gear that gets good use in my set up but for the most part I keep things simple relying more on simplicity and technique over high priced gear that I simply cannot afford.

 

[Seafroggys]

the Beatles and Elvis crap

WHAT!?!?!?!?!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

WHAT!?!?!?!?!

Well, maybe the word "crap" was kinda harsh, but the truth is that not everybody at the time thought those guys were exactly the second coming of Christ.

I don't want to get into it here, but it was hard to get excited about the mopheads when your record shop was already playing Jimmy Reed and Ray Charles.

G.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

I don't want to get into it here, but it was hard to get excited about the mopheads when your record shop was already playing Jimmy Reed and Ray Charles.

G.

I grew up on Ray Charles, way before it was "cool" to listen to the guy, thanks to my dad. He, and in turn I, would heartily endorse this post.

The White Album is about all by the Beatles I can get into, and by then it barely sounds like the same band that cut "I Want to Hold Your Hand."

 

[DrewPeterson7]

I was just in Somerville this morning. Had a great work out at the Bally's in Porter Square.

Just saw this - cool, I live within spitting distance of Porter. It's a great neighborhood.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I grew up on Ray Charles, way before it was "cool" to listen to the guy, thanks to my dad. He, and in turn I, would heartily endorse this post.

The White Album is about all by the Beatles I can get into, and by then it barely sounds like the same band that cut "I Want to Hold Your Hand."

I don't really want to dis the Beatles, they did some good stuff for sure, and George Martin was a producer ahead of his time. But there are plenty of people who grew up during that time - including myself - who never drank the Koolaid and to this day don't buy into the mythological legend that they became. Not all, but a major part of it, I think was that I was lucky enough to be exposed to the music from which the Beatles (and the rest of the British invasion) took their inspiration before or at the same time that the invasion itself happened. Back then when you told someone that John, Paul, George, Luke and Matthew were just regurgitating old Elmore James stuff, they either had no idea what you were talking about, or they called you a n____r lover.

I admit that I was just a child in the 60's, but my older brother had a friend who was one of those guys that listened to anything and everything that was out there and spent every dime he had on records. He was always coming by my house with a pile of records under his arm. And since my brother and I shared a bedroom at the time, I was lucky enough to listen in as well.

Then add to that Ted's Sporting Goods (not Vic's, that was a my-type), which was really a record shop that also sold local team jerseys and sports trophies, and the Beverly Record Mart, both of which sold and played more blues, jazz, standards, classical, Caribbean, and folk stuff then could ever be found on the radio in those days, and I was lucky to be exposed to a much wider palate of music growing up than just the Top40.

Man, what I would have given back then for the world access of the Internet we have today. With that available, to bitch about the commerciality today's music is like complaining you can't get a decent meal anywhere because you're too lazy to get out of the McDonald's drive thru line.

G.

 

[Seafroggys]

Well, Elvis is overrated, but he pretty much did inspire a crapton of people. And you have to give him credit....back in segregated America, he made white people listen to black music by doing it himself (maybe not as well, but still).

The Beatles are my favorite band. I'm pretty young, just turned 22 a month ago. I got into The Beatles before it was hip to do so (before Love, 1, and Across the Universe came out)....hell, I was dancing and singing along to the Yellow Submarine movie at age 4!

Now I listen to a lot of other groups nowadays, many which are you can call "underground" nowadays (King Crimson, Deep Purple, etc.) and some even more popular bands (Cream, The Who, and yes, even Metallica), and many of them you can consider "better" on a technical level than The Beatles, but in all honesty....they were good. Their songwriting is top notch (the whole ripping off ordeal....everybody does that anyway), their melodies are amazing, their harmonies beautiful.

Even their older stuff is amazing...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Now I listen to a lot of other groups nowadays, many which are you can call "underground" nowadays (King Crimson, Deep Purple, etc.)

I give you a lot of credit, Seafroggys; a guy your age getting into all that stuff is like a guy my age getting into Jelly Roll Morton, George Gershwin or Count Basie; something you don't see very often.

Though even calling Deep Purple and King Crimson "underground" kind of hints at the general narrowness of popular palate I'm referring to. I guarantee you that if you were around back in the 70s with the same open ears you have now, you wouldn't consider them even close to "underground". Hell, Deep Purple went Top40 a few times ("Hush", "Smoke on the Water", etc.) OK, King Crimson comes a bit closer, but I don't know very many people my age that aren't intimately familiar with both the cover and the contents of the "In The Court Of The Crimson King" album.

and many of them you can consider "better" on a technical level than The Beatles, but in all honesty....they were good.

Well, as I said, it was wrong for me to refer to them as "crap". I think that was more of a comment on my part to the legendary, mythological, superhero status that surrounded them then and now. Sure they were good, but they really were not - in the opinion of many who don't just parrot populist history - any better than a dozen other bands to come along at the time. I know, it's all a matter of personal taste, but for me, if I had to select just among the British invasion bands, I'd take the Animals and the Stones over the Beatles any day.

But the point remains that even the Beatles themselves would tell you (and have on many occasions in many ways) that the major "we're bigger than Jesus" legend-status hype around the Beatles that put them above the rest was never anything they ever actually earned, but rather was far more an artificial construct of the media than anything. Sure, they were a fine British rock band headed by a solid songwriting team and a couple of lead singers. So were a dozen other bands like them at the time.

And their older stuff is amazing...

In what way? No, I don't mean that sarcastically, that is an honest question. I really would like to know what it is you hear in "Love Me Do", "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" or "I Saw Her Standing There" that makes them stand above the rest, or wasn't already done with more energy and/or more soul by the jump bluesers and rock n rollers of the 50s?

As far as both Elvis and the Beatles "opening up" blues and rock n' roll to the white folk, what that really means is that because they were white, American Top40 radio was willing to hand to to the kids on a silver platter. But the kids who weren't willing to wait for butlers to hand them stuff on a silver platter had no problem finding the good stuff on their own.

How do you think the British Invasion started to begin with? It started because in fact what was called "race music" in the States was handed to the British kids on a silver platter via Armed Forces Radio during and after WWII. John Lennon and Keith Richards and Mick Fleetwood and John Mayall and Van Morrison and Pete Townsend and Eric Burton and Jimmy Page and Rod Stewart and all the rest of those guys grew up listening to the stuff our main (white) radio stations were in the meantime censoring and blacklisting.

It's not a question of stealing in this light, it's just that for those of us who were already ignoring the blacklists and digging into the *truly* underground catalogs, what the Beatles brought on to the scene was not all that new or amazing, but rather derivative; and in fact sounded a bit sanitized and uninspired compared to a lot of the stuff they were honoring and emulating.

I'm not saying you're wrong or right; what you like is what you like, and more power to you. I just ask that you remember that you are coming at this from the perspective of looking at a musical history book in which you can open any page you wish in any order, and that most white kids in 1962 that didn't bother digging for the real history of American music on their own were handed histories so censored that the Beatles and Elvis seemed to magically appear with their sound out of nowhere as if by divine creation like some musical big bang.

If you open you book to the Beatles first, yeah they will seem amazing. But when actually experiences things in fairly chronological order, the "magic aura" surrounding the Beatles does tend to disappear and get replaced by a bit of a "what's the big deal all about?" puzzlement.

Oh, I haven't even mentioned the "Stairway To heaven Effect"; yet, have I? Just wait until you've heard the entire Beatles catalog three hundred thousand times over, and let's see how amazing they sound . When one has heard "Help" and "Hey Jude" an average of twice a day, every day of the year, every year for several decades, one tends to not crave hearing anything by or about the Beatles for a while, if ever again. This is also known as the "Clockwork Orange" effect .

G.

 

[Seafroggys]

Oh yeah I'm quite aware of the whole British deal, with them being more accepted of 'black' blues than the American audience. That's probably why the British Invasion worked....great music played by people that the biggots would accept! Learned that from a college class no doubt

The reason why their older stuff rings a bell with me is moreso the melodies than the lyrical or musical virtuosity. I think John/Paul/George were the masters of strong melodies, and IMO no one can touch them in that regard (though someone can present a strong case against them in other departments). The melody to All My Loving is probably one of my favorites ever. Sure the song itself may not be the most artistic thing in the world as a whole, but I LOVE that melody. Take the vocal line and play it on a synth pad or whatever and its still as great.

The whole mentioning of Purple and Crimson as being underground is irrelevant to the time, but to now. I know Purple were HUGE, from 1973-1976 they were the highest selling popular group in the world. But go to your average young musician/engineer around my age and Deep Purple all of a sudden becomes underground, save for one overplayed/overrated song (Smoke on the Water, which has suffered from the "Stairway effect" for me). Crimson is pretty niche, you might have someone only vaguely aware of their debut album as you mentioned (which I just got for Christmas, haven't listened to it yet) but I would still consider them niche in the prog-head realm.

I know you've mentioned a bunch of times you disgust at people who think Sgt. Pepper's is the greatest engineering feat of all time. I do agree to an extent that the album on the whole was overrated (though I still enjoy it), but to me the greatest produced album is Abbey Road. I would have made the drums a little more lively, but that's the only difference I would make personally. Another great sounding album was DP's Machine Head, which is an even greater feat considering it was recorded at a mobile studio in a hotel over the course of like two weeks.