You ever wonder......

R

RAMI

Guest
....what kind of reviews some of the biggest songs in rock history would get here in the MP3 Clinic if being heard for the first time?

I often hear tunes and notice things that, if it was just some home-recorder posting it, would be shot down right away.

"Stairway" to Heaven" is way too long and the drums don't come in until about 5 minutes into the tune. I'm sure some of our "experts" here would be telling the OP that it's a long, boring song (I realize many people think it's a long boring song anyway) and that it has to lose about 2 minutes to ever become a hit. Those flutes are really corny, too. You might want to try another patch, like an organ or something, but the flutes gotta go.

"I am the Walrus". That electric piano at the beginning is way too distorted and so are the vocals. You need to re-track those. The fade-out's way too long and gets really noisy. Remove some of those tracks, will ya?

I was going to post 4 or 5 other examples, but you get the point. Just look at the guitar "solos" Neil Young gets away with. If anyone posted any of that, they'd get laughed off the board.

So, my point is....I have no idea what my point is....I guess it's that, once you're an established star, you could put out crap that an un-known home recorder would be told "This sucks".:laughings:



(Chili, if you want to move this, no problem. I really didn't know where to put it, and it sort of has something to do with the MP3 Clinic, but not really)
 
I hear ya...But music is music and sometimes being too critical kills everything good about music...At the end of the day it is about sharing, communicating, expressing, feelings and soul...If you get off by listening to someone scream distorted for 3 hours straight then that's beautiful, no matter the technical aspects that make it "on paper" a horrible idea...

There is a time and place to be critical and get into all of it...totally...but I have found the key to music for me...is raw, passionate, real, imaginative, etc...

Those are how I approach it now...I often get so much from the intent and soul of a Neil Young song or solo way more then a monster technical band or artist that has the greatest technique and time signatures changes that would fry your nut hair straight off....or whatever

Check my songs, see if my feelings come through at all...

Glad we can talk about this stuff though, good place and good points....at the end of it all boys...we love music....so be glad!
 
...Just look at the guitar "solos" Neil Young gets away with. If anyone posted any of that, they'd get laughed off the board...

Yeah, but Neil Young sucks balls, anyway. I swear, I have NEVER seen where he had any talent, the man can't write a freakin' SENTENCE much less a song, and that whiny, nasal voice is like fingers on a chalkboard.

He was the WORST thing that ever happened to CS&N.
 
(Chili, if you want to move this, no problem. I really didn't know where to put it, and it sort of has something to do with the MP3 Clinic, but not really)

Thanks brother. I think the real place for it would be something like Prime Time, but it would probably die a quick death there. This is too good of a thread to let that happen, so maybe the Mixing forum.

And I've always said I like Neil Young covers better than Neil Young originals... :eek: :D :laughings:
 
I agree about Neil Young... but he got credit from his earlier days (and his massive guitar collection?)

Remember...those "stairway" songs were in effect breaking ground in those days. "Freebird"... boy that guy can shred... ya right! Take note Eddie!!
I might as well say that about any live Hendrix recording too. You're digging up old stuff and using "today" standards. But judge them for the song. So... who did the Beatles imitate?

That said... if Lady Gaga, "Bad Romance" was in the clinic... (and I KNOW you all love her!! :laughings: ).... you'd hear the difference.
Compare her recording quality to anything there.

I see the point and there IS a lot of stuff that qualifies your statement, but the stuff that's at the top... Usually there is a reason, (even if it is just strickly marketing).

oh and.. Bonhom's drums would have been praised. I'm sure of that.

One last thought... for all the shredder lovers (that don't exist here!). Stick a current Steve Vai song in the clinic. Nobody could touch it. ....Unless they were a pose -er !!

But you're talking about the old stuff still comparing... Put Simon and Garfunkle in there... You'd say....back the verb off, but amazing singing.
 
Great topic, Rami. I just had the same thought last night, listening to Kansas & Carry On Wayward Son.

In the clinic, it might go something like this: way too long of an intro. You've got 7 seconds to hook the listener. Too many solos. And on & on & on...
 
....what kind of reviews some of the biggest songs in rock history would get here in the MP3 Clinic if being heard for the first time?

I often hear tunes and notice things that, if it was just some home-recorder posting it, would be shot down right away...

The conclusion I come to is that everybody is way, way too concerned about which interface, which mic pre and all that crap. Everybody is concerned about making everything sound "good", but sound isn't #1, feel is.

Ever seen really well drawn comics that aren't funny? There's tons.

And then you can see a comic strip drawn with stick figures with a funny joke and it makes you laugh.
 
I agree about Neil Young... but he got credit from his earlier days (and his massive guitar collection?)

Remember...those "stairway" songs were in effect breaking ground in those days. "Freebird"... boy that guy can shred... ya right! Take note Eddie!!
I might as well say that about any live Hendrix recording too. You're digging up old stuff and using "today" standards. But judge them for the song. So... who did the Beatles imitate?

That said... if Lady Gaga, "Bad Romance" was in the clinic... (and I KNOW you all love her!! :laughings: ).... you'd hear the difference.
Compare her recording quality to anything there.

I see the point and there IS a lot of stuff that qualifies your statement, but the stuff that's at the top... Usually there is a reason, (even if it is just strickly marketing).

oh and.. Bonhom's drums would have been praised. I'm sure of that.

One last thought... for all the shredder lovers (that don't exist here!). Stick a current Steve Vai song in the clinic. Nobody could touch it. ....Unless they were a pose -er !!

But you're talking about the old stuff still comparing... Put Simon and Garfunkle in there... You'd say....back the verb off, but amazing singing.
I totally agree with your response. In fact, in my OP I was going to say something like "If someone posted these songs and made it clear they were going for a 60's feel, or a 70's feel". I still think the responses would be the same.

I wasn't trying to say that the songs we consider to be classics actually suck. On the contrary, I was trying to say that, given a little "rep" leeway, many people that are so-called nobodies might be considered geniuses if formulas and over-critical analysis didn't get in the way, which often happens here.

And I'm not ranting against anything that goes on here. This was really just a passing thought that popped into my mind while listening to "Rocky Racoon" and thinking "Man, if I posted this tune, I'm sure it would get crucified for the mix, the vocal performance, etc..." But it's an AWESOME little ditty.
 
....what kind of reviews some of the biggest songs in rock history would get here in the MP3 Clinic if being heard for the first time?

I often hear tunes and notice things that, if it was just some home-recorder posting it, would be shot down right away.

That's for sure. :)


Just look at the guitar "solos" Neil Young gets away with. If anyone posted any of that, they'd get laughed off the board.

There's method to his madness...:D …the "genius" of his playing is that he's NOT trying to be a meticulous *lead guitar player*...he's just conveying emotion and mood, and he does it extremely well. I love Neil's style...every sour note he ever hit.

But hey...imagine hearing some of Hendrix' or Page's playing for the very first time today…? They're not always very precise...but there's just something there that really works.

I think a lot of critiques stem from personal tastes rather than absolute objectivity. If you really like a tune, you will find less to pick at…and the opposite also holds true.
Also…there’s a lot that has to do with whatever is current. Someone mentioned Gaga…I can’t find a damn to like (she doesn’t even look good)…but yet you got millions going gaga over Gaga….go figure.
How would she fare in the MP3 Clinic? ;)
 
... I love Neil's style...every sour note he ever hit...

Me too, one of my all time heroes. Goes right to my soul.

... imagine hearing some of Hendrix' or Page's playing for the very first time today…? They're not always very precise...

What I've noticed is that the greatest players always have a childlike quality that is full of flaws. They're "playing", like a child plays with toys. Playing music, what a concept.

... Someone mentioned Gaga…I can’t find a damn to like (she doesn’t even look good)…but yet you got millions going gaga over Gaga….go figure. How would she fare in the MP3 Clinic? ;)

She wouldn't do well I don't think because that type of music isn't popular on this site. But if it was, people would say that it sounds like pro stuff and how do you get that sound?

I found this video the other day. I know there's guys who can slap way faster... and Louis' playing, by today's standards, is sloppy as shit. But his feel, more than makes up for all that 10X over. Scary.



Way back in the 70's a great rock drummer named Garfield White from Halifax gave me some pointers and he told me "It's all about feel". I remember him looking me right in the eye and tellin' me that.
 
CSN was the worst thing to happen to Mr Young!
I LOVE his ferral/febrile solos - as was mentioned - he's not about the technical playing - I'm sure he may be able to be - but he's not.
In terms of RAMI's original assertion - excellent points mate!
There's that zone inhabited by skilled, talented, in some cases, brilliant hobbyists that bristles with comaprison, contrast & condescention. I need just think of the last gig I went to & the secret, (or not so secret), comment made about the bassist, amp choice etc. Not always sour grapes either - sometimes a little knowledege...
The coin has both sides within the clinic because we tend, whilst trying to nurture, to be over critical, to get anal about stuff and point out the 7 second disjointed modal phrase etc. The cross pollination of comments and suggestions may, at times, lead to an anticeptic or bland but well received result.
The important parts are: a) someone listened to my song (& that's no small thing); b) someone thought about my song and offered a suggestion in good faith & c) it takes the music making process a little bit away from the "All By Myself" zone.
All of that within the context of getting to know other people's work, biases, predelictions and taste (now, what's the 1st thing I'm going to suggest if the bass is a bit wooly & isn't cutting through the mix?).
Posters in the clinic need to be aware of that.
I try almost every suggestion made & post a result partly as experimentation, partly as I trust many who make comments and partly as a matter of respect as the person bothered to consider & offer so it's an acknowledgement of that to try to implement it.
I do know that my personal taste doesn't always run to the results that get positive responses in the clinic - but popular wisdome can be a wonderous thing & I keep the popular as well as personal mixes that I prefer of many of the tracks I've posted.
What I enjoy about the clinic is watching/listening to something/someone develop.
None of the posters seem to have had a hit with a posted track but many, many posted tracks outstrip the chart toppers & even subgenre favs for all sorts of reasons. Quality playing, quality writing, quality mixing, passion, emotion, intent and joy at making music.
Stairway to Heaven - play the album but skip that track - seriously - it's a MONSTER rock album & STH actually stalls the momentum of it as a work.
I Am the Walrus has massive noise build up due to the technology limmitations of the times - but have you heard cleaned up versions of the Stones or Beatles - crystal clear but lacking something (noise & mud do nicely fill a hole in the audio spec sometimes).
Thanks for the point to ponder RAMI.
 
From March, 2006:
SouthSIDE Glen said:
The big irony to me is that if anyone submitted a mix to these forums for evaluation that had similar sonic qualities to the original production release of "Street Fighting Man", they'd be ridiculed right off this board for things like lack of frequency spread, poor dynamics, lousy noise floor, and an amateur sound to the guitar. And the very same people who look at the old Stones stuff through the sticky, brown sugar-tinited glasses of nostalga and say it sounds great would be the same ones leading the parade of ridicule.
I only used the Stones as one example, it's not a commentary on them, so let's not start a Neal Young Sucks/Is God type of distraction over the Stones.

The point was - exactly like Rami said - that for a lot of popular commercial recordings that a majority of folks deify, if you took the Big Names off of the credits and put the name of your average unknown home recorder on them, changing absolutely nothing else, they'd be slammed instead.

It's the bias of "professionalism": When [famous name here] did it, we tend to be much more forgiving with our critical listening skills.

G.
 
RAMI, let me just say "absolutely" to your original post.

There is no question in my mind if LedZep's 1971 Stairway to Heaven was posted on this forum we'd all rip it to shreds and say it's absolute shit, from a recording and technological perspective.

I think that's for good reason though... clearly, the world has changed.

First and foremost, the technology used in recording has changed significantly across the last 100 years. 78's sounded like shit, but in the 20's that was the norm. Then came 45's and 33's which had a better frequency response. Then came cassette tapes which had an even better frequency response and more headroom than records, and eventually consumer grade decks started to have Dolby and DBX compression built in, giving even more headroom to the recording. Then came the digital formats - DAT, CD, DVD, mp3 and the other stuff we're all familiar with. Early on those mediums were recorded in pure analog then "converted" to digital by the mastering engineer just before mass production. Nowadays, it's not uncommon for the only analog signal to be in the microphone cord, because that plugs into a digital do-dad and it's digital from that point on. VST plug ins, co-processing boards, Computers, et al.

Heck, now even some "darn good mics" have a USB connector on them and it's digital in that mic cord!!!

The other thing that has significantly changed over the past 100 years is roles and responsibilities. Back in the 20's musicians played music, recording engineers recorded songs, mixing engineers worked off the tape to produce a mix, a mastering engineer converted and tweaked that final mix to fit into the medium(s) of the day, and the producer acted as a manager of all those processes and people. Musicians didn't touch console knobs and mixing engineers didn't play guitar.

Obviously, that has changed and today, in a home/pro studio those lines are blurred - there is no shortage of solitary musicians these days composing, singing, playing all the music parts him/herself on a multi-track, mixing, and mastering. Some of them do a pretty damn good job too.

But, there are also social and culture factors to recording history as well and in the mid 60's and into the 70's, drugs and drug culture was very popular for the common man - and we could easily sit around to listen to the 3 minute buildup in "Freebird" and "Stairway to Heaven" because we'd be enjoying those records while passing joints around to our friends in the same room.

Also, in the early 70's, the idea of an "epic" came to light - putting an album together of highly-related songs that together as a set told a story - Pink Floyd did this, Styx and Rush even tried it, so did many other bands.

People enjoyed music differently in 1970 than they do today, and that's why in today's world the goal is often to get to the chorus as fast as possible - because you know what? No one walks down the street with their mp3 player going singing:

"I want your ugly, I want your disease, I want your everything as long as it's free I want your love..."

No, fuck no, but everyone on the planet knows this part: "Rah Rah ah ah ah Roma Roma ma"

We've become a society of highly-short attentions spans, and the music industry reflects this.

Everything these days is faster, quicker, move it a long please. That's the whole idea behind being able to successfully sell inferior food for high prices because customers can drive up to a window, pay and get handed a bag of this shit in less than 2 minutes. God forbid we get off our fat lazy asses and sit down for a meal like we did 20 years ago.

The music industry has become the very same thing philosophically, because they had to - they had to conform to this "give it to me now" mentality of our society.

Why? Because today we have 8 gazillion artists world-wide trying to peddle their tunes and not one of us is going to buy it all - we pick and choose - so it has become the trend to jump right into the chorus because that's what simpletons/zombies seem to remember - i.e. the general population.

Just last week I was in a music store flipping through albums to pass time and a lady was asking the store clerk who sings "I'd like to amke myself believe, that planet earth turns slowly I'd hard to say I'd rather stay.." and so on.

I burst out laughing because wow, that one's so obvious but okay, she had the chorus down pat and could actually carry a tune. Sadly, the kid behind the counter had no idea what she was singing, so I said "Owl City" to help out. That in and of itself was really amusing. Though the kid behind the counter clearly listens to "old metal", i.e. hairband stuff from MY era. If she asked for a Maiden album I'd bet he'd know where that was.

They all are trying to "hook" you and I to buying their's instead of someone elses, since there is only so much disposable income to be spent on music these days.

Also don't forget, and this is VERY key, music is big business - while a lot of artists are doing their own thing trying to breakout on their own, and I applaud them for that, the big record labels are still today what makes it happen - the OWN radio and they OWN distribution. That's a big reason why this whole idea of "rush to the chorus" came to be - the record labels know that the more people sing the chorus while driving to work, the more people will buy the freaking album and the 11 other songs on that album that suck (well, not always, but often that's the case and it's a pet peeve of mine).

Today it's often more about "if it will sell" than "if it's any good".

So yeah, if Stairway to Heaven was put up here as a "new" song in the way that it was composed, performed, and recorded back then, we'd laugh them right off the BBS because by today's technical standards, it's garbage.

It's still a great, moving song though. I have it in vinyl and they'll have to pry it from my cold, dead hands. But, the world has changed. In some ways for the better, in other ways, well, not so much. No different than any other era and it's massive changes. Sometimes good, sometimes not.
 
This is a neat thread RAMI !
I made an observation with baited breath a few months back that as a relative newcomer, I felt the bar was set really high in home recording, far higher than anything I've ever observed out there in musicland. There's a good side to that - speaking personally it's encouraged me to work somewhat harder and I'm just a hobbyist ! But there's a dark side to that force too and sometimes, it can feel that music isn't being enjoyed because other, ultimately irrelevant to the enjoyment of a song, things get in the way. I'm not saying that's how it is, just how it sometimes feels.
To be honest, that's why I don't think that I'm really any great use in something like the MP3 clinic. I tend to accept what an artist brings forth without preconceived notions of whether it's long, if the electric piano is distorted, if the drums are panned to the left, if the sound is a little muddy, if the drums sound like cardboard boxes or are electric etc, etc. And the funny thing is that even by today's superclean digitized standards, I don't think the tracks of yesteryear sound crap. I accept some of them weren't recorded particularly well (of course, that still applies now !) - the Stones 60s output being a case in point - but for me, a song is a song and much as I love reading about the circumstances that led to the writing/subject matter, much as I love reading about the recording process and the whole historical attendant package, everything to me is secondary to the song. How the song is captured is by no means unimportant, but in my head, it knows it's place !
 
Back
Top