What do you think music fans think?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Earth Burn
  • Start date Start date
E

Earth Burn

New member
I have a question for both the novice and the pros,
no disrespect intended, but I wanted to see how many will
honestly agree or disagree with what I have to say.

Here it is.

If a band is really talented and versatile with something prolific
and profound to say, and hooks from heaven or hell...
...the kind of band that say their first album is chock full of
potential Hits, and not one song is filler, but they all smoke,

Do you think 8 tracks recorded well on tape and then mastered
using say BonJovi's IT'S MY LIFE and Kid Rock's Only God Knows
as reference points to shoot for in punch and volume for eqing,

Do you think
Any music fan who loves the band's sound and lyrics actually
could tell the difference between a well done 8 track recording
done analog then digitally mastered and the million dollar job
KID ROCK OR JOVI had done???

Secondly
Do you not think that an over processed 24 or 48 track recording
with tons of effects and several vocal tracks actually does a band
that is great to begin with -> a disservice?

Thirdly
If a band is great, with all the makings of the next Aerosmith
or Jovi (when he was a hit writer), does it matter that their
debut album is good in sound, or done by the greatest studio
and cost 2 million...Sound-wise if it rocks, Do any of you think
a band that did it all themselves says a whole lot more about
a group than a band Bob Ezrin did start to finish with a polished
fake sound say like Def Leppard, or Bon Jovi IT'S MY LIFE that
they butcher live every time I see them on TV?

My opinions to the above are

1- Fans don't know the difference
between Good and OH MY GOD THE SOUND PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE
THEIR BALLS BRONZED FOR DOING SUCH AN EXCEPTIONAL JOB!!!

2- I hate fake crap like Britney or anything over done.
I want to hear a great Rock band and it's what they play,
how it's played, talent in the singer and the words and messages.
A great song or songs is what hits me first, not so much how
wonderfully it is perfectly mastered.

3- If I was a rep for a major distributor and I heard
a band's debut album that is almost as good in sound
as VanHalen's first couple albums or close to Jovi's punch in
IT'S MY LIFE, and the band's music, singer emotes great stuff,
all I would be worried about is if it is marketable and decent
as far as the sound goes to get it radio play....The fact they had no money and
did it on 8 tracks analog and then mastered it digitally on a
pc...would truly impress me and make me think that when I get
them in a studio to do their next album with pro's just imagine
what they will be able to do?

Lastly....Music is all opinion and it depends on what the listener
hears because sound men don't by albums and generate cash flow......Average people do.

Many are hacks, with opinions that always seem to say
IF I DID IT, IT WOULD HAVE SOUNDED BETTER. LOL

I took a quick eq version to a major facility in Boston.
I was told it was less than and that they should record it over
because nothing could be done with it, even though the songs rocked.

I went back to the first mix, mastered it for months till it stood up
close to Jovi's recording and went back to Boston and played it for
another guy at the facility claiming it was done at a pro studio
and told them I just wanted it duplicated and the guy loved it and
kept asking what they used on it. I played stupid. Uh Don't know for sure.
So in my opinion.....what you got is either magic and good or bad
a phenomenal sound can't make a crappy band a hit band and
you have to go by what your guts says and fans of that genre
who are not your friends think.
Lastly .....if you want something done right,
and aren't a millionaire......do it yourself with pointers from those
who may know more than you.
Get a sound from a top notch band you want to emulate soundwise in the way the song punches and feels and just
keep plugging and comparing till you practically can't tell the difference. Many will say what you got sucks because they
want you to come into their studio and blow your wad of cash.
I bet Ezrin and Tony BonGiove could bicker about what they
would have done studiowise with any particular song.
Doesn't mean one is better than the other.
It's what they want to hear.

What you want is what counts.
It's your album and you will either smile or cringe when you hear it
over and over year after year.

WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK?
Just Curious
EB
Some of my favorite songs were not the best sounding recordings...
...They sounded like a real band ...not millions in processing tools.
Sgt Pepper, Indiana Wants Me BY R. Dean Taylor, Squire's debut
album DON'T SAY NO ...etc...
 
It depends on the type of music..Production is dictated by the style of music..listeners are trained to expect certain prod. values..Be they simple or fullblown..The three "artist" you have listed were state of the art for their times..Beatles S. Peppers was a watershed album of production in pop music..Indiana Wants Me had all of the prod. of most of the AM radio top40 hits of the day{including the crappy 70's drum sounds}..And Billy Squire's album was a pretty big prod. job{Big gated 'verbed drums and layered vox/Queen was a infuence}..Depends on what you are doin' I guess..Louie Louie by the Kingsmen was acually recorded in a garage in the Seattle area{1 mic. I belive}..Could anyone get away with that now? I dont know!I think the answer is to listen to different productions by the same producer..Like Todd Rund.'s production of the N.Y.Dolls and XTC's Skylarking, two different bands two different production values.Depends on what the artist is tryin' to acheave..So many styles of production ..I guess what I'm sayin' is try to match your production with your style..The listeners are gonna be able to tell !They like it when its something they dont have to fight to understand..Be it simple or full on..

Don
 
1 If your homegrown recording's really good, I don't think most fans would or could notice an important difference between that and professionally produced material. But the thing is, professionally produced material (unless you're paying the studio out of your own pocket, of course) comes with that professional distribution machinery that the label has. That means your hot tunes actually REACH thousands of people and get heard.

2 A disservice? Not if that's what the song requires. Not if it makes the song sound good.

3 Well, it says a lot about their recording accomplishment, that's for sure. It takes a *lot* of skill and work to put a good-sounding album together at home. On the other hand, it might also say that the band didn't have the imagination, brain or promotional skills to get the pros to do it all for them. :D This isn't just a joke. Why go to all that trouble if you can get somebody else to do it for you? I can think of only one good reason - because you LIKE doing it. I think that if you're concerned about what homerecording *says* about a band, then you're focussing on image rather than the music. I'm more concerned about the music.
 
Outside of our little world of recording, no one cares. No one cares where their cd was recorded, no one cares how it was done, and no one will be able to tell how the production fares until someone else points it out to them. The outside world only knows about bass and treble boosts.. and if it sounds decent on their stereo system, not one will even consider the differences one cd will sound on different systems.. And when they change cds from Van Halen to the Eagles, their ears will subconsciously adjust from the "liveness" of one to the "dryness" of the other.

This is where we have the advantage, because if it sounds good to us, then production wise it will sound good to the masses.. An excellent example is mp3s.. As long as the format is convenient, people will continue to burn mp3s to CD. We recording nuts are the only people who complain about the near-fake quality, shaky highs, and clipping on these things..

Cy
 
Blah...

Try not to get caught up with such thoughts...

Go make music, however you can. Record it if you like. If you need to worry about pleasing anyone but yourself then perhaps you should reconsider your priorities.

BTW, Bon Jovi?

:confused:

Huh? ;)
 
I think music fans are stupid jackasses! Fuck 'em! If they knew anything about music, they'd be playing it themselves instead of listening to it! Music fans should get down on their knees and suck the butt of Kid Rock in gratefullnes that they get any music at all to listen to! Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
 
I wouldn't say that Bon Jovi was a hit maker...but good luck anyway.
 
The quality of recording needed is inversely proportional to the quality of musicianship.
 
If true Quality really mattered to the masses. The best selling band in the world would be Steely Dan. Bush would never be president. And britney Spears would just be a model, and the backstreet boys would all be male prostitutes.
 
darrin_h2000 said:
If true Quality really mattered to the masses. The best selling band in the world would be Steely Dan. Bush would never be president. And britney Spears would just be a model, and the backstreet boys would all be male prostitutes.
Click to expand...

Hear hear.
 
1. Yes
2. Maybe
3. Dunno

I do believe that the "masses are asses," however, and anytime you can shove a homegrown tune down their throat, and make 'em like it... one has the obligation of doing so. :cool:

I never really liked the sound of the first couple of VH albums though...
 
"Do you think Any music fan who loves the band's sound and lyrics actually could tell the difference between a well done 8 track recording done analog then digitally mastered and the million dollar job KID ROCK OR JOVI had done???"

I think the answer to your first question depends on the band. I happen to think Radio Head falls in the category of bands you're talking about. And as far as they are concerned, you bet your ass a Radio Head fan would sense something wasn't sounding quite right if it were recorded simplistically as you are suggesting. They would have their heads! Hell, enough people bitch about Kid A as it is! :)

"Secondly, Do you not think that an over processed 24 or 48 track recording with tons of effects and several vocal tracks actually does a band that is great to begin with -> a disservice?"

Same thing here, guy. For Trent Reznor or Radio Head, I think it would only enhance the sound, if done right. However, for a band like Nirvana, I think it most certainly would do a great dis-service. I thought Nevermind was a great album, and could have been better were it produced the way Bleach was.

And as for your third question, I think the best scenario is a team effort. The producer should understand the band's strengths as well as limitations, and work within them. Whether or not we think it's lame, the record company's goal is to sell records. Love him or hate him Mutt Lange worked some wonders with Def Lepard and others.

And he is an old man with an EXTREMELY HOT WIFE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

So who am I to knock his methods.
 
I'm going to jump in on this one. There are lots of the 'masses' who enjoy listening to music, and appreciate a top notch recording/production. Why do you think people who can't play a note go out and spend thousands of dollars on stereo gear? Because they enjoy listening to music, and a good production. I was listening to some Larry Carlton today, and I'm glad his production is top notch. It makes me enjoy the music that much more. And that's how the 'masses' listen to music too. Don't kid yourself that regular people don't have taste and don't appreciate quaility. I agree that most 10 an 12 year olds don't have a clue, they just want to know the words to the song, but they'll grow up and develop an apprecition for musicianship and quality. Why do you think all the 'classic' rock is still all over the airwaves? Because there is a quality in the music and the production that stands the test of time. My point is don't under-estimate the music buying public. There will always be Britneys and all the teen idol stuff, that's a whole separate thing from real music. I have a case in point from the old days. When Sprinsteen's Born to Run album was released, me and several friends all agreed it sounded pretty muddy - especially the song Born to Run - on a good stereo. We were just a bunch of pot heads who liked sitting around blasting the stereo, but we knew good production when we heard. To this day I would like to hear this song re-recorded with a bigger, fuller sound.
 
I feel the same for Layla and other asorted love songs. If all recordings were done by Gary Katz there would be alot less mudd in the world.

Bruce did a good job on that though, he was doing his own stuff at night, at the same place BonJovi did his debut lp, pretty much sweeping the floor durring the day in exchange for free recording time at night. It wasnt home recording but close because It was done by the artist who got to learn alot durring the prossess.

Tom Scholtz was a real home reccer actually did that first boston record in his basement, Modified a two track Akai reel machine to record on 8 tracks made his own channel strips. Face it he was a genius. And what a record It was for only 2000.00 he sold 16 million copies. Im not worthy to shine his shoes, but I do admit that I do have advantages getting to record in this day and age.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top