OK, since there is a lot of Bob Rock bashing here (me included) I've decided to start a thread to see which album the faithful think has the best production. I'm going to suspend judgment for now until I do some serious listening, but off the top of my head I'd have to say PP and FC have some edge, at least to me.
How about you?
Well, WATS has fantastic production, whether or not you like it is personal opinion. I personally love the way IBE sounds, but it's very raw and messy. I love the way DFN sounds too. I don't think any of their albums, save for the E.P., are poorly produced though, it's more about personal tastes. I suppose you could argue that FC isn't too well produced as the sound doesn't really fit the band too well. I think the fact that they had the songs remixed for Yer Favourites says something.
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Day for Night.
I have to agree with Skippy on this one. Day for Night but Phantom Power is a close second in my books!
cygnus8595 Wrote:OK, since there is a lot of Bob Rock bashing here (me included) I've decided to start a thread to see which album the faithful think has the best production. I'm going to suspend judgment for now until I do some serious listening, but off the top of my head I'd have to say PP and FC have some edge, at least to me.
How about you?
I heard that the band thought this album was mixed poorly and that's why they remastered the FC songs on Yer Favourites. The remastered songs, to me, sounded exponentially better than they did on the album. It'd be nice to see a remastered re-release like Pearl Jam's Ten.
trevor Wrote:skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Day for Night.
I have to agree with Skippy on this one. Day for Night but Phantom Power is a close second in my books!
Agreed
Escape@Hand Wrote:Well, WATS has fantastic production, whether or not you like it is personal opinion. I personally love the way IBE sounds, but it's very raw and messy. I love the way DFN sounds too. I don't think any of their albums, save for the E.P., are poorly produced though, it's more about personal tastes. I suppose you could argue that FC isn't too well produced as the sound doesn't really fit the band too well. I think the fact that they had the songs remixed for Yer Favourites says something.
Produced
(Re)mixed
(Re)mastered
Different things with different goals and results.
I think that DFN is the best produced and mixed album.
FC is probably the best produced, but it is so poorly mixed. (As evidenced by the remixed and remastered tracks on Yer Favs.)
You can remix, and remaster, but you cannot re-produce an album.
chris Wrote:Escape@Hand Wrote:Well, WATS has fantastic production, whether or not you like it is personal opinion. I personally love the way IBE sounds, but it's very raw and messy. I love the way DFN sounds too. I don't think any of their albums, save for the E.P., are poorly produced though, it's more about personal tastes. I suppose you could argue that FC isn't too well produced as the sound doesn't really fit the band too well. I think the fact that they had the songs remixed for Yer Favourites says something.
Produced
(Re)mixed
(Re)mastered
Different things with different goals and results.
I think that DFN is the best produced and mixed album.
FC is probably the best produced, but it is so poorly mixed. (As evidenced by the remixed and remastered tracks on Yer Favs.)
You can remix, and remaster, but you cannot re-produce an album.
Yes it's true you can't reproduce an album, but Chris Tsangarides produced, engineer and mixed the album. So you could argue that it is not produced well, as the Hip weren't happy with the reuslts of that album (musically), and all they could do was remix it. I suppose I could have made that more clear.
skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Day for Night.
Arguably their best album, possibly the best produced, BUT sadly...one of the worst
sounding.
Dire Wolf Wrote:skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Day for Night.
Arguably their best album, possibly the best produced, BUT sadly...one of the worst sounding.
I think that is probably part of the appeal for me. It actually has parts that sound like I am playing on vinyl which just has so much nostalgia when I think of it that way. Yes, it isn't as clean and crisp as the audio files of today but I think that's why I like it so much! It immediately transports me back to my younger-years when I first heard the album. When an album can still do that for me, I hold that in high regard.
Can someone please elaborate on the types of things I'm supposed to listen for when I distinguish between good production, good mixing, good mastering? A thread came up a few years ago on the Yahoo Hip email group about FC and how it was horribly produced (or mastered, or something er other), and I had (and still have) no clue what the problem is? I love FC.... WTH is wrong with it?! I was so mad at that stupid conversation after too.... now I'm getting mad again
sadohert Wrote:Can someone please elaborate on the types of things I'm supposed to listen for when I distinguish between good production, good mixing, good mastering? A thread came up a few years ago on the Yahoo Hip email group about FC and how it was horribly produced (or mastered, or something er other), and I had (and still have) no clue what the problem is? I love FC.... WTH is wrong with it?! I was so mad at that stupid conversation after too.... now I'm getting mad again
That's a good question, and somewhat hard to define (esp. production) so I'll start with mixing. Basically, mixing is the placement and levels of the instruments/vocals in the song. For example, I've heard some people complain (and I think rightfully so) that a lot of Robbie's guitar work is too quiet and overshadowed by the string arrangments on WATS. That's being "buried in the mix", and the role of a mixer is to balance out each track to get the appropriate sound for a tune.
Mastering is the final stage of production where all the songs are normalized (so that there isn't to big a discrepancy of volume levels from song to song) among other things. The "new" style of mastering is to crank the volume of the album, and compress the crap out of it. This works well for listening to songs on your ipod, but sounds like crap. I remember reading a really goo article in Rolling Stone a while back on this. They were comparing new albums like The Arctic Monkey's first album, to older records. There was virtually no dynamic range on the Arctic Monkey's album and it was very loud, which tires your ears out quickly. For an example of what mastering does, go listen to Road Apples, and then listeng oto a newer Hip album, like WATS. I can pretty much guarantee that WATS will be much louder overall.
There is a lot more to production, but to keep it as simple as possible, it's basically the recording of an album. Produers do lots of things, but I guess you could say they shape the sound of the songs. Phil Spector became famous for his "wall of sound" style of production, where he would use numerous instruments/tracks to build a huge sounding song.
Hope that helps a bit.
Dire Wolf Wrote:skippy the wonder dog Wrote:Day for Night.
Arguably their best album, possibly the best produced, BUT sadly...one of the worst sounding.
^Agreed.
Don't get me wrong, I think the overall sound and feel of the record perfectly embraces the mood and theme of the content, so that in that aspect, the production squarely hits its mark. Many of the songs on DFN have an extremely "noir" theme, and the production encapsulates it perfectly.
That said, it's a dingy, muddy, cold, dark "sound" -- a sound which which is not at all aesthetically pleasing in and of itself. It fits well with the material, but it is a style that is brutal on certain elements -- like the percussion, for example. On some of those tunes, it sounds like Johnny's hitting a frisbee covered in tinfoil, or and overturned rusted-out bucket or something.
Escape@Hand Wrote:sadohert Wrote:Can someone please elaborate on the types of things I'm supposed to listen for when I distinguish between good production, good mixing, good mastering? A thread came up a few years ago on the Yahoo Hip email group about FC and how it was horribly produced (or mastered, or something er other), and I had (and still have) no clue what the problem is? I love FC.... WTH is wrong with it?! I was so mad at that stupid conversation after too.... now I'm getting mad again
compress the crap out of it. This works well for listening to songs on your ipod, but sounds like crap. I
BINGO! If you're listening to the radio or in the car, they sound similar. If you're listening on a Hi-Fi, there is a BIG difference, as I discovered.
Wow, I've actually learned a lot from this thread!
I guess what I asked for is similar to what Escape@Hand said about production, basically which album has the best overall sound as far as recording techniques, not necessarily the mix or the mastering. Of course the newer albums (especially WC and WATS) are going to be louder, and some will be mixed better or worse, but they all have an overarching sound that is driven in large part by the producer. Look for things like guitar layering, multi-instrument sections (like horns over guitar, etc.) vocal tracks (how many overdubs for backing vocals), the sound of the guitars/drums/bass/vocals (like whether they sound "live" or have heavy effects on them), etc.
And if this thread was a bad idea, then just stop responding and let it die.
I'm still listening to examples from each album. I'll make my decision later today.