[Glice]

Originally Posted by shabbray2.0

I hevent read all the posts yet, so here is my non-biased opinion on it:

the loudness war seems to never end.
I think almost everybody tends to be louder then the next artist.
I also think a lot managed to let it sound good, squashed to the limiter ceiling, like flying lotus, madlib etc. it fits their style. they also get it done to let everything breath despite the squashedness. or to say it better they create motion inside their music with the stilistic technique of overcompressing.
but there multiple examples of how to do it completely wrong. (like metallica).
to keep this short:
it depends. electronic music, can gain something from it when its used right. but loudness just for loudness sake is just wrong. I can turn up the volume levels by myself, but I cant restore destroyed musical information which hurts my ears.
the biggest problem which argues me the most is clipping (metallica (cymbals // hi hats)) and cutting of the lows to much that they loose their punch (kickdrum). of curse its easier to make shit louder which doesnt have to create a lot of force in the bass region (cause there is the most energy needed to become audible), but I prefer a kick where it belongs: in my stomache and/or the chest, not just the low mids of it which leave me wanting more.
most of the time it isnt an artistical decision (again FlyLo, Madlib), its just the decision of the labels which tell the mastering engineers to make it louder (Metallica, thats th ereason why the version on the Ps2 sounds better, cause its the version before overlimiting).
the problem isnt the loudness, its the sacrifices that needs to be made to be the loudest.

This post made me think about whether this thread really has any bearing on most people on this forum - Metallica are a huge band, and by their very nature, incredibly commercial. The whole thing with the mastering wars, at its most vulgar and preposterous (Death Magnetic) is that it's about competing for space on the radio. I don't think forum this is some great Mecca of underground music, but it's largely not dealing with the sort of people who are seriously competing with the Metallicas of this world. Quite a lot of the c95 dnb tracks had massively rattly bass drums, but that's not quite the same as mastering things to sound like shite; like Shabbers says above, plenty of people can use limits to their advantage.

Yeah, basically, I'm wondering if this thread even applies to bands who mostly aren't going to be heard on drive-time radio.

[shabbray2.0]

no. cause you are right the loudness war is a mainstream syndrome.
I dont think indie culture have to fight the loudness war. or: I cant think of a bad example.
there albums of course I dont like production wise, but they were made artistically, not because they need to compete on the radio with all the other overblown tunes.

the thing I am asking myself regarding the radio-loudness war is:
the stations themselves use limiting and compression on everything like mad, cause they cant allow themselves signals to peak...
so all the already overblown tunes get scrambled a second time. which could lead to massive audiodestruction and//or nullifies the loudness "advantage" that has been squeezed out of the tune at the mastering stage!!!
the only reason for the industry to "win" the loudness war must be direct comparison from the end user over the same system, without any normalize function...
and I tend to say that 99% of these users would never recognize the vol. increasement. so where is the damn point then?
btw clubs use the same technique as radiostations to prevent their PA being blown up by a bad DJ, so they are out of the quest for a reason too.
I just dont get it.

note: the above is just referring to the non-artistic loudness examples ( see post before)

[Derek]

 

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

It'd be really interesting to hear the results of a producer working completely out of their genre, like Rudy Van Gelder working with Eyehategod, or Albini recording a symphony orchestra. It'd be interesting to see just how much (or little) difference it would actually make to the final recording.

i'm fairly sure albini produced the rachels which isn't a symphony or even classical but neither is it rock, and from what i remember their records sound very good.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by Count Mecha

Usually when I think about production and how important it is, I tend to think about that Slint record Tweez. I don't really think a whole lot of that record though some of the tracks are pretty cool. But I have some live shows on the computer here where they play those Tweez tracks and they aren't um, Albini-ized like they are on Tweez and they're much more enjoyable to listen to. To go further, comparing the version of Rhoda that's on Tweez to the version that's on the EP, I can't imagine anyone NOT picking the EP version.

So that's usually the example I think of when I want to convince myself that yeah, the production is important.

being that tweez was recorded in 1989 it was probably one of the first records albini produced, so if it doesn't sound that great then it could be down to albini still not having found his stride. not that i'm particularly inclined to make excuses for him but the trend to slag him off gets on my nerves bearing in mind his clearly excellent job of recording a large number of bands, for example can anyone imagine a better job being done of recording the jesus lizard than he did?

[Glice]

Rachels aren't far away from chamber stuff, and while Albini's done a fair crack at it, it's barely up to Naxos standard, let alone BIS or somesuch. Can't really say he did badly at that, but... well, he's not got the ear for chamber music, to my mind.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels

can anyone imagine a better job being done of recording the jesus lizard than he did?

On the other hand, his work with Melt Banana is easily their worst album, and they're one of the better bands of ever.

[nicfit]

Originally Posted by Glice

Pssh. There are more women than just Niblett and harptwat in the world. Believe me, I've met some of them.

Now, don't take what I said literally.
I was merely talking about the women I read you post about lately.
*Insert smiley face of choice every 3-4 words*

It would be interesting to start a new "lists" thread for "the best produced album".
Could be nice.

naif p.s. : with some Albini records I noticed that the higher the volume you play them, the better they sound. It's cool.

[Toilet & Bowels]

Originally Posted by Glice

On the other hand, his work with Melt Banana is easily their worst album, and they're one of the better bands of ever.

yeah they are one of the better bands of ever but i don't think any of their records have captured their betterness with any real degree of success

[shabbray2.0]

the loudness war doesnt occur at the production stage, or the producers stage, even if they master it.
most of the time, the label force the already mastered songs to be made louder from a different engineers (sounds like they let it be dne from the janitor).
and THIS of course is a huge problem I think. Because not only the Band / Artist decision is been skipped, also the engineers (producer or not)work to let things sound good to this stage, will be ignored.

[nicfit]

yeh, but I was talkin about the "discussion" going on about albini etc, instead of going on in here.
IF you're talkin to me, bro!

[shabbray2.0]

I am talking in general and still about the topic, hahahaha
maybe I am the only one.


btw regarding ot the question if a record would sound different if different producer produce them (what a sentence) I would say "NO" if they are good producers. cause in my opinion a good producer should be able to see a band / artists talent and bring it in the foreground while hiding the not so telented parts.

(of course I am aware of a producers trademark sound, but he should be able to "control" the usage of this sound and if it fits the projects style)