Worst commercial mix you've ever heard? MIX CRIMES

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alchemist3k
  • Start date Start date
...wtf??????

hUH? CREATURES IS AN AWESOME MIX.

That album has a very powerful drum mix, one of the best drum mixes of the early 1980's by any rock group. The drums sounds like cannons and for there music it sounded great.

I mean the mix on Hotter Than Hell was horrible and cheaply done. Creatures was done with a lot of attention to detail.

You must have this album confused, because I've heard much crappier souning albums by KISS than this one. The early albums were done cheap and by in experienced producers.
By 1982 KISS was spending big money on studios.
They recorded this album in the same studios as the masters.
 
personally I think REM - Monster is a great sounding record.

Guitars/drums/bass/vocals...thats really all there is and they sound awesome.

"Strange Currencies" - mmm...

I love that record.

Also, the comment about Cakes first record. Well...that was made in a really tiny studio with pretty low end equipment on an 8 track machine....so, it sounds like what it is.

Personally except for the fact that it is a little quiet I think it sounds great.

But hey, what do I know...I just go for stuff that seems *sonically interesting* - if not "perfect"

-wes
 
Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime." One awesome 80s album with some sorry-ass production. There's no low end!
 
Interesting thread.

But I don't want to hear anyone slamming my patron saint Brian Eno - he could take a crap and it would sound good to me :p

As for Kiss, Paul Stanley once said that their early demos sounded way better than their first couple of albums. very weak and thin sounding. I still remember the first time I heard the studio version of "Detroit Rock City" on my car radio - "This sounds GREAT! It CAN'T be Kiss!"
 
Transient Random Bursts with Announcements by Stereolab.

Genius record, shi-tay sound, one of those "we meant it to be bad" numbers i suspect.
 
it's threads like this that reinforce my faith in the mixing I do... some of the best sounding recordings I can imagine have gotten savaged in this thread, while others I think suck have gotten big kudos...

Beauty is ,obviously very much, in the ear of the beholder.
 
wes480 said:
personally I think REM - Monster is a great sounding record.

Guitars/drums/bass/vocals...thats really all there is and they sound awesome.

"Strange Currencies" - mmm...

I love that record.

Also, the comment about Cakes first record. Well...that was made in a really tiny studio with pretty low end equipment on an 8 track machine....so, it sounds like what it is.

Personally except for the fact that it is a little quiet I think it sounds great.

But hey, what do I know...I just go for stuff that seems *sonically interesting* - if not "perfect"

-wes
Click to expand...

Well as I said perhaps it was only the tapes. I had 2 of the tapes brand new and they both sounded like crap. Now I had a record that seemed ok, so maybe I got stiffed? I am fairly certain it was creatures of the night. You know blue album with white boxes with siluetted faces in them, I love it loud, god of thunder.

Like I said maybe Oregon got the bad tapes, they all sounded muffled.

Later

F.S.
 
esactun said:
Queensryche's "Operation Mindcrime." One awesome 80s album with some sorry-ass production. There's no low end!
Click to expand...

How true.

None of queensryche's records have bottom. In fact most of prog rock/metal doesnt have much going on bet 170 and 350Hz. The emphasis is on detail, technique and transparency which means theres alot going on bet 1k and 10k. For better or worse.
 
Anyone ever heard Glenn Danzig's pre-solo album band Samhain?
Their debut album november coming fire was the washiest ride of all time. Reverb tails 'till...well along time. Kinda sounded like it was recorded in a huge bathroom. The engineering on his stuff didn't get better until the Danzig days.

Actually the Misfits albums had an almost good crappieness to them..if that makes sense. Crunched into hells bowels, like the music itself was back from the dead.

JAKE
 
While we're on the subject on bad metallica things

"Blood in the foyer, the bathroom,
The tea room, the kitchen
And knives splayed
I swallow your sharpest cutter
Like a colored man's dick
Blood spurting from me"


:facepalm:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The first Foo Fighters album was a crappy mix. Not that I care because I don't like FF, but it was still a crappy mix.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've only heard some of it.
Anythings specific you hated about it?

Not too long ago there was a 2 hour special on Dave Grohl and his journey from Nirvana to Foo Fighters...and toward the end they also had some footage of those sessions with Butch Vig at the controls. Not sure if they are lying about "No digital editing", but both the footage and the magazine interviews they did said they didn't use anything digital.

I'm not saying it's impossible that they did it all analog...but....???
 
miroslav said:
Anythings specific you hated about it?
Click to expand...
The mix or the album?

The mix was okay. Typical radio-rock sound. Glossy and commercial. Sounded like any other modern commercial release.

The songs are sterile, generic, and boring.

I keep wanting to like them, being as they're one of the few remaining rock bands, but they always let me down. Total fluffy pap. There's no danger or energy with the Foo Fighters. Might as well listen to Nickelback.
 
I love that first Foo Fighters record, a lot....so maybe I'm just not hearing it as being a shitty mix. One thing to remember is its context; it was a home recording project....all Grohl. In fact it sounds pretty damn good on vinyl, even reminding me of a lesser Steve Albini sound. Oh, George & Exhausted...

I like seeing "no digital editing" in liner notes. The White Stripes - Elephant goes a step further and says no computers were used. Love that album, too.
 
Context is important. There's lots of shitty mixes that i love because i love the music. But the Foo fighters suck, so their shitty mixes stand out to me.

I don't believe the "no computers" nonsense.
 
Greg_L said:
The songs are sterile, generic, and boring.
Click to expand...

I think maybe they've run out of new ideas. It's happend to other bands, they find some sound/style that works, then they run it into the ground, and all of a sudden their stuff starts sounding like a poor copy of what they did earlier.

I think the fact that they were doing the "home rec" all-analog approach was an attempt to get "fresh"...I think they know they were running out of things to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top