Is this a good mixing/mastering job?

[chessrock]

Obviously, the original question pertained strictly to sonics. How does this poison record sound from an engineering / production / mixing standpoint?

The fact that poison were a pretty gay band -- a sad reality that our friend Six would do himself a favor to realize at some point -- is not relevent to the original question posed.

Now on the same path of logic . . . if you really look in to the point Cloneboy was trying to make, you might notice that he did address the question rather directly at some point. And that is simply: If you like it, and you think it sounds great, then yes, it is a good production/mixing job from your perspective, and yes it is something you should strive for.

I don't know how much plainer it can get than that. If your goal is to make mixes that you like and are happy with . . . then your benchmark should be recordings/mixes that you like. And if you like gay, girlie bands like poison and think their mixes are da bomb . . . then there ya go.

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

Honestly Native Tongue sounds pretty much like most 90's hair bands stuff--VERY glossy. Someone obviously chained together a few 24 track machines to get a huge tape count.

If you really want that sound:

Get really clean recordings

OVERDUB OVERDUB OVERDUB

Throw on tons of chorus and reverb (that's where you're getting your depth)

Just don't make it sound like Wingers wretched first album... blech.... Beau Hill is *NO* Mutt Lange, that's for sure.

 

[borntoplease]

I can't comment... I honestly have never heard an album by Poison. If it's anything like Metallica's St.Anger, then it's bad - real bad.....!

i think metallica achieved the sound they were going for. im not a fan, but i liked the production on the CD. if you read about the band and where they were at the time, it was meant to reflect them... it was raw and emotional, much like the guys were at the time. i think the recording reflects that well. and i liked the unconventional snare sound they used. bob rock produced it, and im sure they had a pretty much unlimited budget... i dont think it was sub par. i think it was what they wanted. it was embraced by the critics. it a fucking metal album. metal is raw. thats what they got. once again bluebear we butt heads on mixing styles ... and please feel free to correct my spelling . i didnt sleep last night... spent too much time drooling over gear on the internet. aahhhh, gear.

 

[borntoplease]

and oh yeah... if that poison mix is as good as their hair was... IT FUCKING ROCKS!!!!!

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

once again bluebear we butt heads on mixing styles ...

I freely admit that I have no use for that "lo-fi" sound some artists & producers intentionally use/put out. To me, the audio quality is as critical as the other artistic elements of a song, and IMO, lo-fi doesn't cut it.

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

I don't want to get into this but....

i think the recording reflects that well. and i liked the unconventional snare sound they used.

Unconventional? Dude, the average person off the street could get a better sound than that. The fact that they *wanted* it that way is ridiculous.

Honestly, St. Anger is the sharpest criticism of the flaws of Pro-Tools/digital recording--it allows for UNABASHED AND UNRESTRICTED TURD POLISHING.

When Metallica release their next album, which will probably be so pristine it makes "The Black Album" look lo-fi, and they are completely bashing on St. Anger (like they do to EVERY album after the fact) and saying 'it was an experiment gone wrong but the feeling was there and that's all that mattered' or other similar Metcamp Metbullshit trying to justify yet another stupid move on their behalf... maybe then people will see it for what it is.

Heck, the DVD version sounds twice as good as the darn CD! There is no reason for that CD to even be in existence.

But beauty and sonic warm fuzzies are in the ear of the beholder. If you dig it--cool. At least recognize it for what it was.

Incidently one of the best things IMHO that Metallica did was the Garage Days Re-Revisited EP... that is how "raw" should sound. Still some fidelity, it still sounds full and fairly clear.

 

[tkingen]

Years ago I took my young teenage sister to her first concert...David Lee Roth. The opening act was Poison and she thought they were great. Right then and there I realized why she liked them...their hair, makeup and tights looked just like hers!

 

[Ronan]

i think metallica achieved the sound they were going for. ... it was raw and emotional, much like the guys were at the time. i think the recording reflects that well.

My problem with Saint anger is not that it is raw and emotional, its that it just sounds like crappy engineering. sort of like they let a bunch of first week full sail students record the album. If you want raw and emotional check out Corosion of Conformity's "anamosity" album. the awful recording on the St. Anger detracts from the power of the music.

all that said I think its kind of cool that they put the album out. i would rather look back on my life and have made a bunch of albums that people hated and had arguments about a year after the release, then a bunch of albums no one cared about with Ok engineering.

 

[six]

cloneboy:

AS YOU PLUS ONE!

honestly, I like you for that one . That somehow brought back peace to this thread.

chessrock: did I say I like poison for their looks and acting? no way. I don't like pam anderson, so why should I like bret michaels look?

I know that "what sounds good IS good". but as we now can see you have to expand it to "what sounds good to me IS good in my opinion" - which, somehow, says as much as nothing.

I think even though I like the sound of that album it wouldn't suit my material so this was more a question about if I can trust my ears . obviously I can't .

tkingen:

is it true you like my curls
do you think we look like girls
would it cause a sexual block
if you saw our great big socks

there are people loving these bands for their outfits. there are people hating these bands (and their music) for their outfits. and there are people loving this music inspite of the band's outfits.

 

[Cloneboy Studio]

One quickly finds out that liking a sound and reproducing it are two things entirely. I'm not sure if you want to be influenced by this sound, or figure out how to clone it somewhat.

Best bet is to do some experimenting and if you're hardcore, try to reach someone that worked on the album from an engineering standpoint. Chances are the musicians would be clueless how to get 'that' sound, or overestimate their personal contribution to the sound.

Musicians often have less to do with the band's studio sound than is often percieved... especially nowadays.

Heck for all we know 90% of the album could have been done by session players. I doubt Kotzen's parts, but technically was he a session player or a real member of the band? Hard to say....

 

[tkingen]

Six,

Looks like you responded to my comment about the way Poison looked. Hopefully, you didn't take offense as it was merely a humorous observation. Truth be told, I've never been interested in Poison's brand of music or the way they looked. If they found a way to make a few bucks by dressing up like teenage girls and playing loud rock music, more power to them. If it wasn't for my little sister's interest in going to her first concert, I would never have given them a second thought. And now, through this thread, I have!
In the final analysis, you should like whatever you want to like without feeling the need to defend or explain your tastes. Listen to what you want, and if you want to strive for a mastered product that is modeled after Poison, Metallica, or anybody else, have fun and learn all you can while you're doing it.

Terry