Best sounding album you have ever heard?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mystasynasta
  • Start date Start date
Wonder Whats Next- Chevelle
The Black Album- Metallica
Nevermind- Nirvana
pretty much any pink floyd album ever made.
 
oh my

Well i guess when something is in the "recording techniques" section thered be more about actual techniques rather than just lists of recordings. Maybe this thread belongs in a section just called "recordings". Thats probably why i thought it was a little lame just to list records.

Although Nirvana was a pretty good band for their time, "Nevermind" sounds like ass in many ways. The band themselves admit to hating the way it sounded and if youve read about the production process that went into Nevermind youd see that they kept having to bring in all these guys to remix it cause it wasnt sounding right and they were doubling things and just overproducing the hell out of it. Dont get me wrong, there are classic songs on the album, but alot of the sounds are just too overblown and not very indicative of what Nirvana was really about live. The proof of this is that they went the total opposite way on their next record which was done by Albini. I think that "Bleach" and "In Utero" are ten times more interesting production wise, for their own respective reasons. Nevermind is a lesson on how to overproduce a record and make it REEK of its production date.

PS: Im i the only person a little sick of hearing about OK Computer? I remember when it came out all these people lost their shiit over it as if they had never heard music before. I guess its all relative to what you were into around the time you heard it. If you were listening to techno and Oasis when OK Computer came out you probably thought Thom Yorke had invented God. But all i heard is a couple guys that finally learned to write a decent melody and a decent change. The kinds that exist in droves in the music of the Beatles, the Kinks, and about a million other good pop songs between the beginning of music and now. I was listening to Village Green era Kinks around the time OK Computer came out and i didnt really think it was THAT musically innovative. Yes there were "new" sounds and modern surprises, but the hooks that lie underneath are the same ones that were always used in great songwriting so i dont see the big deal. Great record. But not better than what had already been done to the point where people are calling Radiohead the "future of rock" and all that shit. Those magazine headlines should have read "the past of rock, dressed up as the future of rock".

Its always strange how people will give tons of credit to newness just because they dont realize its not that new at all. What was so BRILLIANT about OK Computer? The cut up beats? People had been cutting up beats for years. And many of them cutting them with their actual hands and actual tape. Was it the use of mellotrons? Im sure somebody used mellotron before somewhere. Was it the use of computer editing and trickery? Im sure somebody in the late 90s was using a computer to dress up their recordings besides Radiohead (yeah almost everyone). OK Computer was a homerun hit in the world series for Radioheads career, but it wasnt that innovative or original that it should be dragged to the surface constantly as one of the greatest records of all time. I think the scene that Radiohead is a part of and its common target fans were just blown away because they had been listening to stale shit for too long before it came out. I say this because i knew ffuckers who lost their mind over OK Computer and it always kinda baffled me why they dug it SO much. I felt like saying "how can you love this yet reject this?" (some other older but equally as mind blowing record)

I guess its like if i took a tv set to a village of pygmies who had never seen a tv before theyd think I INVENTED it. Their limited perspective would make me seem like it was me. But if they knew more theyd realize i didnt invent shit, and that i dont even know how electronics work. I guess my ridiculous point is that records impact on people lives are mostly based on what else they have been exposed to. So the whole thing is just BS, normal and understood maybe, but still BS.
 
Last edited:
even though this isnt my style of music (anymore) AND I have lost some respect for the band after the whole napster thing...I still think a damn NICE sounding album has got to be:

"And justice for all" by Metallica (or at least I remmeber it being so in my high school days hehe)

EDIT: Ok i admit I posted after reading the first post instead of reading all 5 pages. After reading all posts I will for sure have to second some of the following:

Soundgarden - SuperUnknown
Radiohead - OK Computer

and would like to add:

Cake - Fashion Nugget ( some cool ass horn sounds in this puppy )

and btw - noise - you dont get the beatles sound? ;)) how is that hehe!
 
Good Friend said:
Although Nirvana was a pretty good band for their time, "Nevermind" sounds like ass in many ways. The band themselves admit to hating the way it sounded and if youve read about the production process that went into Nevermind youd see that they kept having to bring in all these guys to remix it cause it wasnt sounding right and they were doubling things and just overproducing the hell out of it. Dont get me wrong, there are classic songs on the album, but alot of the sounds are just too overblown and not very indicative of what Nirvana was really about live. The proof of this is that they went the total opposite way on their next record which was done by Albini. I think that "Bleach" and "In Utero" are ten times more interesting production wise, for their own respective reasons. Nevermind is a lesson on how to overproduce a record and make it REEK of its production date.
Click to expand...

never said that album was a good representation of them as a band. It's just their best SOUNDING album. nothing wrong with doubling tracks, almost every album out there in relatively recent history has tracks that are doubled in it. Even symphonic music uses that principal of making things sound bigger by doubling up on it. Whether it was remixed 100 times, the final product sounded really great. Was it the best for that particular band's vision? not really. But it did sound pretty bitchin.
 
There's alot of great sounding "new" stuff that isn't on the "charts" (I couldn't even name a song on any of the charts today)
Richard Shindell's stuff always sounds great. John Jennings does some great stuff (listen to Tracy Grammar's Flower of Avalon) and Matt Rollings (played piano on Lovett's JJR) does some nice stuff on some recent Mary Chapin Carpenter albums. Also, all of Allison Krauss & Union Station's stuff sounds great.

T. Bone Burnett also has some great sounding "recent" stuff (CC's August and Everything After might not be as recent) with Natalie Merchant and Gillian Welch.

The new stuff is out there, you just have to look beyond the "charts" :)
 
You should probably go back and listen to OK Computer if you think that it sounds like everything else during the late 90s.

Some people are not going to like something because it was "critically acclaimed" or because everyone else likes it. It was an innovative record for many reasons. Tell me where you've heard that solo tone in Paranoid Android before? How about the strings in Climing up the Walls?

Its a good fucking album. Its in my top 5 all time. Does that mean I have to reject other albums that are good but came before it? No way. Just because they came first, does that make them better? No way. Just because someone cut drum loops by hand, does that mean that cutting them by computer is worse? Yeah right. It wasn't recorded in a traditional studio, which accounts for much of the "sound" of the record. It sounds different from most other records, at least since modern recording studios.

It all boils down to personal preference. Dark Side of the Moon was an innovative record. OK Computer was an innovative record. They're both amazing and will undoubtedly withstand the "test of time".

By the way, I'm still waiting for those techniques.
 
Powderburns by The Twilight Singers (really any Twilight Singers)
Grace by Jeff Buckley
Ballads for Little Hyenas by Afterhours

These 3 records have it all. Very dynamic sounds.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
I, for one, found that a refreshing entry into this simplistic popularity contest. It's a wonderful reminder that a recording can only sound good if the music sounds good, and that "sounds good" can have many meanings. In the case of the old blues stuff, that stuff often times sounds better with lower production values than it does with the best. If Robert Johnson were recorded today in a modern vocal booth with a U47 via 196/24 Pro Tools, it wouldn't sound any better than his original wax, and in some ways would be considered inferior. It would be like colorizing Citizen Kane.

G.
Click to expand...

Amen brother. Robert Johnson was one of the best guitar players that will ever exist.
 
mystasynasta said:
What is your favorite sounding album/song that you have ever heard?

Mine has to be "Songs About Jane" by Maroon 5, "Hell Freezes Over" by the Eagles, and The Black Album by Metallica.

(notice I didn't say "favorite album." I am curious to see what other people like to use as reference material. What albums give you goose bumps when you listen to them?)
Click to expand...

ALL of The Beatles albums were pioneering, sound engineering marvels considering the crude equipment used during that time and they sound incredible for what they are. For example, the Sgt Pepper albums was done on just a 4 track reel to reel - which technologically speaking wasn't any more advanced than your old Tascam 4 track cassette. Could YOU have done a Pepper-like album on your old Tascam?

In modern day albums, the best sounding album to me (using a Linn turntable, McIntosh tube preamp & amp, and dbx expander) is Boston's Third Stage. Tom Scholz was definitely on his A game with that record; it's clean, airy, yet enough bass to rumble the windows.

In the last 10 years (particularly the last 3-4), the albums are geared for LOUD: they are tremendously over-compressed and heavily clipped. I can't listen to half an album anymore because hearing fatigue sets in. Same goes for radio...I hit the search button seeking relief.

I keep hoping the pendulum starts swinging back towards audiophile quality albums once again but in today's corporate greed-laden society, I'm hoping the Indie labels take notice.
 
i dunno. i love the beatles, but when you're talking sound quality of their albums, i wouldnt always put them up in the high ranks. On certain speakers, their mixes are just...well, disgusting. For example, on my Studiophile's, the bass part on "Michelle" is just obnoxious, and the drums, especially on earbuds and such, tend to be a bit thin and boxy.
 
Newbie dude said:
i dunno. i love the beatles, but when you're talking sound quality of their albums, i wouldnt always put them up in the high ranks. On certain speakers, their mixes are just...well, disgusting. For example, on my Studiophile's, the bass part on "Michelle" is just obnoxious, and the drums, especially on earbuds and such, tend to be a bit thin and boxy.
Click to expand...
I'm not disagreeing with you; I think the God-like aura surounding the Beatles is overhype in the flavor of many legends, especially the early stuff.

However... :rolleyes: :D

I have a bit of a problem with comments like "the drums...[are] a bit thin and boxy". I'm not saying that's "wrong", per se; if they sound thin and boxy then they sound thin and boxy. However, who's to say that's not the sound they wanted?

To put it another way, whenever someone makes such a comment, it's really a comparison to what the commenter thinks it should sound like if they had their druthers.

I just listened to a song that did something I would have never done if I were wearing the producer's hat for that recording. It was cover of "Wasted Days and Wasted Nights" as done by the Sir Douglas Quintet in 1971 (any of you old-timers remember them? :p ). The entire 2-mix, including an opening spoken line, was awash in heavy spring reverb. This is something I would 999 times out of 1000 throw out if I were in the CR as waaaay over-processed and cheezy-sounding.

This is not a limitation of the the technology (Phillips label, 1971) or a natural artifact of the music genre (country swing). It was a conscious decision by the producers (Doug Sahm & ?) to go for that partcular sound. It would not have been my decision, but it works for the effect it wants.

So should I say that track has way too much cheap reverb? I have in the past been just as guilty of that type of subjective judgement as everyone else, I admit. But it's probably wrong for me (or anyone else) to make such judgenemts.

Are the drums on "Michelle" thin and boxy? Maybe, maybe not. Do they sound the way George Martin intended them to sound? Probably. We don't have to agree with his choice of sounds, but just because his choice doesn't fit our production tastes doesn't make it "bad". (But also, just because it's George Martin and the Beatles doesn't by definition make it "good" either. ;) )

G.
 
yeah, i agree thats probably how they intended them to sound. If you're working for the beatles,or any other major group, you dont half-ass their album; you get it exactly as they want it. And I also think that not every album needs to have cookie-cutter, squeaky-clean mix on it. It's good to experiment, I just think you need to realize when your experiments have produced some crappy results.
 
michaelst said:
Despite it's age, the Beatles "Abbey Road" remains an incredible example of studio engineering. The absolute peak of analogue recording.
Click to expand...
No, Beatles White Album is ultimate.
 
although they may of sounded how they wanted it, thats probably because they didnt know of what better could be apart from live!
im sorry but i just cant accept the fact that some people actually believe thats "the best sounding album youve ever heard" because the guitars are so trebily the drums sound like theve been recorded with one mic by a spectator in the crowd (if there was one) the bass sounds bandwidth limited and theres just something lacking in the vox

im not saying that the beatles arnt a great band -they were. im just saying ive heard better bootlegs when someone actually is recording from one mic in the crowd and have gotten a better sound
 
fishkarma said:
i just cant accept the fact that some people actually believe [something different than I do]
Click to expand...
Wow. The al Qaeda recruiting office is just oown the street...

:D

G.
 
Im Hamas actually! :D

Cheers for the Edit! but seriously the whole thing... im not gonna bother arguing!
i should have said i dont believe that people really believe their own arguments!
 
fishkarma said:
Im Hamas actually! :D

Cheers for the Edit! but seriously the whole thing... im not gonna bother arguing!
i should have said i dont believe that people really believe their own arguments!
Click to expand...
Apologies for mixing up Shi'ia and Sunni :D.

Yeah, I think there are some opinions that are, if not parroting, at least heavily influenced by, "conventional wisdom" and not enough by personal, objective, and critical assessment. There's a whole lot of wikiality in this topic, where a concensus of popular myth and opinion winds up morphing into "truth".

G.
 
The best sounding record? To me, that would be "Close To The Edge"
(1972) by Yes, produced by Eddie Offord. The pinnacle of their work, and that's saying something. Truly amazing work by the band and their
producer.
 
The Radiant Monkeys!!!

It won't be released before September but when it comes out you kinda owe it to yourself to pick up a copy and check it out!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top