Home› Other Music

Can bad production ruin an otherwise decent record?

muppetmuppet Posts: 980
edited January 2008 in Other Music
Listening to Bruce Springsteen's new album, the production sounds terrible. I usually don't have an ear for this but lately I've been listening to a lot of different music and you can really tell if an album 'sounds' good or not. I don't think that makes 'Magic' a bad record - just kind of frustrating that some of the instruments are lost in a kind of muddy mess. It's strange because I find that Pearl Jam - who use the same producer (most of the time, I think) - don't have this problem.

On the other hand, "Raising Sand" by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss sounds beautiful. Less is more.

So does anyone really pay attention to how an album is produced or mixed? Does it hamper the 'experience' for you or can the actual music itself transcend it?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Rhinocerous SurpriseRhinocerous Surprise Posts: 4,423
    I found that as well. The songs just kind of blur into each other because there's no clarity to them. I'm not an audiophile or anything, but it stood out to me on this record.
    Smokey Robinson constantly looks like he's trying to act natural after being accused of farting.
  • DaytimeDilemmaDaytimeDilemma Posts: 2,008
    I'm not saying The Pumpkins' new one Zeitgeist was good, but the production was fucking horrible. It would have ben at least decent with better production.
  • muppetmuppet Posts: 980
    DaytimeDilemma wrote:
    I'm not saying The Pumpkins' new one Zeitgeist was good, but the production was fucking horrible. It would have ben at least decent with better production.

    Yeah that's another one I've noticed.
  • Cropduster84Cropduster84 Posts: 1,283
    Magic sounds very jumbled and muddy to me, hard to pick out parts, and again im no expert but it all sounds very 'trebley' (lol somebody help me out)

    In Rainbows on the other hand.....just beautiful.....clarity, and every instrument shines.....
    'The more I studied religions the more I am convinced that man never worshipped anything but himself.' - Sir Richard Francis Burton
  • restlesssoulrestlesssoul Posts: 6,951
    i always listen for production and check who produced it. i definately noticed that the production was weak on MAGIC, then was surprised to see brendan at the helm. his work is usually good. I enjoy listening to magic however, it just could have had a little clarity.
    Van '98, Sea I+II '00, Sea '01, Sea II '02, Van '03, Gorge, Van, Cal, Edm '05, Bos I+II, Phi I+II, DC, SF II+III, Port, Gorge I+II '06, DC, NY I+II '08, Sea I+II, Van, Ridge , LA III+IV' 09, Indy '10, Cal, Van '11, Lond, Van, Sea '13, Memphis '14, RRHOF '17, Sea I+II '18, Van I+II, Vegas I+II '24
  • harmless_little_f***harmless_little_f*** Posts: 8,005
    Rarely 'ruin', but definitely hinder. I'm not wild about the Avocado production.
    'We're learning songs for baby Jesus' birthday. His mum and dad were Merry and Joseph. He had a bed made of clay and the three kings bought him Gold, Frankenstein and Merv as presents.'

    - the great Sir Leo Harrison
  • SomethingCreativeSomethingCreative Posts: 3,371
    I LOVE My Morning Jacket's Live album...but I can't stand most of the studio stuff because of the way its mixed
    "Well, I think this band is incapable of sucking."
    -my dad after hearing Not for You for the first time on SNL .
  • fadafada Posts: 1,032
    Ocean Colour Scene's album "one from the Modern" was mixed very bad.
  • Evacuation RulesEvacuation Rules Posts: 2,162
    The probelm with the Springsteen and Pumpkins albums is not necessarily the production, but the way that they were mastered & prepared for CD. They're very, very compressed, loud and trebly, which is sadly the standard these days. The new Paul McCartney and Red Hot Chili Peppers are some of the worst examples of this. A lot of record labels and artists deliberately do bad mastering work because they think that's what people want to hear. It's called the "loudness wars" and there have been countless articles and even youtube videos about it. That's why I buy a lot of new albums on vinyl (and even they can be mastered badly).
  • PearlJamaholicPearlJamaholic Posts: 2,018
    JWBusher wrote:
    The probelm with the Springsteen and Pumpkins albums is not necessarily the production, but the way that they were mastered & prepared for CD. They're very, very compressed, loud and trebly, which is sadly the standard these days. The new Paul McCartney and Red Hot Chili Peppers are some of the worst examples of this. A lot of record labels and artists deliberately do bad mastering work because they think that's what people want to hear. It's called the "loudness wars" and there have been countless articles and even youtube videos about it. That's why I buy a lot of new albums on vinyl (and even they can be mastered badly).

    ive heard about this too. and it kinda sucks. all stereos have a volume knob so i really dont understand this. i dont think most people care. if they can sell mp3s to people and they almost always sound tinny compared to the cd, i dont think most people notice how bad a song or album sounds they just notice how catchy and/or popular it is.
    http://db.etree.org/PearlJamaholic
  • PJGARDENPJGARDEN Posts: 1,484
    I'm no expert so please correct me if I'm wrong. I love some of the albums Brenden O'brian has produced but some other albums I don't care for too much. I know he has a reputation for finising albums quick but I sometimes feel like he rushed through them. I thought this on Magic and the last Audioslave album.
  • prytocorduroyprytocorduroy Posts: 4,355
    DaytimeDilemma wrote:
    I'm not saying The Pumpkins' new one Zeitgeist was good, but the production was fucking horrible. It would have ben at least decent with better production.
    Yes I agree the album cut is awful compared to the live versions. The songs are good, but the studio recordings do no justice because of this. American Gothic is a bit better thankfully.
  • Lukin66Lukin66 Posts: 3,063
    I agree...production is a HUGE part of the album quality. Listen to Tool's Aenema. The shitty quality of the sound almost outweighs Maynard's voice. Almost
    deep, deep blue of the morning
    gets to me every time
  • JoahJoah Posts: 18
    The Red Hot Chili Peppers' Californication and the Foo Fighters' One by One are mastered very loudly/badly. I usually stick to listening to live versions of songs because of this (the unmastered version of Californication sounds very good, though).
    My band, Red Stone of Faith (http://www.myspace.com/redstoneoffaith).
  • lephtylephty Posts: 770
    To go from RHCP BSSM to Californication is probably the worst thing you can subject your ears to. BSSM is extremely low in volume so you turn your stereo up, then Californication comes on and you are like HOLY SHIT THIS IS WAY TOO LOUD NOW.

    they really need to release a remastered BSSM album anyways since its so classic!
  • DaytimeDilemmaDaytimeDilemma Posts: 2,008
    lephty wrote:
    To go from RHCP BSSM to Californication is probably the worst thing you can subject your ears to. BSSM is extremely low in volume so you turn your stereo up, then Californication comes on and you are like HOLY SHIT THIS IS WAY TOO LOUD NOW.

    they really need to release a remastered BSSM album anyways since its so classic!



    But this has to do with the advancing technology in mastering techniques. All older albums aren't as loud as their newer counterparts.


    Ten is much quiter than Pearl Jam.
  • Evacuation RulesEvacuation Rules Posts: 2,162
    DaytimeDilemma wrote:
    But this has to do with the advancing technology in mastering techniques. All older albums aren't as loud as their newer counterparts.

    It has nothing to do with advancing technology. It's just a stupid industry trend. There's no real reason to master something so loud.
  • lalalalaaaaaaaalalalalaaaaaaaa Posts: 2,445
    muppet wrote:
    Listening to Bruce Springsteen's new album, the production sounds terrible. I usually don't have an ear for this but lately I've been listening to a lot of different music and you can really tell if an album 'sounds' good or not. I don't think that makes 'Magic' a bad record - just kind of frustrating that some of the instruments are lost in a kind of muddy mess. It's strange because I find that Pearl Jam - who use the same producer (most of the time, I think) - don't have this problem.

    On the other hand, "Raising Sand" by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss sounds beautiful. Less is more.

    So does anyone really pay attention to how an album is produced or mixed? Does it hamper the 'experience' for you or can the actual music itself transcend it?
    I don't think I ever listen to an album and think "wow, this is really well-produced". I think good production can add to the value of the album, but I don't think it can ruin it. If the music is good, the album is good. I think a good test is to listen to a band's older stuff before they had the $ to get good production...if the band is good, those records still sound good despite the low-quality. Nirvana and Yeah Yeah Yeahs would be a good examples of that.
  • searchlightsoulsearchlightsoul Posts: 583
    JWBusher wrote:
    The probelm with the Springsteen and Pumpkins albums is not necessarily the production, but the way that they were mastered & prepared for CD. They're very, very compressed, loud and trebly, which is sadly the standard these days. The new Paul McCartney and Red Hot Chili Peppers are some of the worst examples of this. A lot of record labels and artists deliberately do bad mastering work because they think that's what people want to hear. It's called the "loudness wars" and there have been countless articles and even youtube videos about it. That's why I buy a lot of new albums on vinyl (and even they can be mastered badly).

    I haven't heard Springsteen's new album, is it anything like " Devils and Dust " production wise? Whenever he plays the harmonica I have to turn the volume down on that album especilly the title track.
  • AzwethinkweizAzwethinkweiz Posts: 547
    A good album that I have a problem enjoying, because of the production, is Californication by Red Hot Chili Peppers.

    That album is just too "loud".
  • transplanttransplant Posts: 1,088
    muppet wrote:
    So does anyone really pay attention to how an album is produced or mixed? Does it hamper the 'experience' for you or can the actual music itself transcend it?
    I don't pay attention unless it is extremely bad (St. Anger-like). Plenty of my favorite CD's are those from the SST early-mid 80's days. I honestly feel like the production is a reason why people don't put Husker Du on the highest pedestal possible.

    I can't wait for the day a kind soul seeks out all SST releases produced by SPOT and pulls a remaster.
  • fadafada Posts: 1,032
    What do people think of "Long Long Long" on the white album. Was it produced at a way too low volume level?
  • AnonAnon Posts: 11,175
    if you want to hear shitty production listen to the last Thursday record.
  • Brian V.Brian V. Posts: 51
    I'm glad I'm not the only one who hates the production of Californication. I think even though the songs are great, it's one of my least listened to RHCP cds.
  • JoahJoah Posts: 18
    I hope this isn't against the rules, but you can download the unmastered version of Californication here.
    My band, Red Stone of Faith (http://www.myspace.com/redstoneoffaith).
  • Brian V.Brian V. Posts: 51
    As soon as I saw that mentioned I looked it up.. it is definitely a big improvement.

    Emit Remmus is listenable now!
  • Blind MelonBlind Melon Posts: 911
    This is a major problem with most of the White Stripes' records... maybe they're going for the "old" sound recording style... but most of their albums sound as if they record the album in a shoebox; it's just downright terrible. There's always like crackling on the albums since they have the treble too high or the bass too high, or whatev... it's just not good. This is what kills most of the WS albums... especially Get Behind Me Satan and the new one.
    If I could, think I would give in.
  • Blind MelonBlind Melon Posts: 911
    Also, this is what kills most of the older bands albums for me... like the Rolling Stones, Beatles, Led Zeppelin, etc... it's just because of the technology they used back then, which sounded good back then... but in this day and age, it sucks hard.
    If I could, think I would give in.
  • FinsburyParkCarrotsFinsburyParkCarrots Posts: 12,223
    Take most Dylan material between in 1978 and 1997, and there's your answer.
  • FinsburyParkCarrotsFinsburyParkCarrots Posts: 12,223
    fada wrote:
    What do people think of "Long Long Long" on the white album. Was it produced at a way too low volume level?

    Nah, your ears are still ringing after "Helter Skelter". ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.