Production Values Today...Compared to Yesterday

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 1:32 pm

I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this, but..

what do people like so much about the Abbey Road kick sound? or the entire recording for that matter.

Maybe it's because I'm young (19) but I just don't get it. I listen to it and to me it just sounds so.... weak. It sounds distant, or something.

Again, maybe I'm just too young to understand it, but when I hear the words "great recording" I think of highly produced metal bands.

These are some of my favorite recordings, production-wise. These are what immediately come to mind when someone is talking about a great quality recording:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOLgBgnnUUE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-68oA61_yuw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGNIHMR4gv0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hLRfa5_nV0 (this song kind of sucks in my opinion, but the production is top notch.)

Someone please enlighten me, I'm not trying to be disrespectful.. obviously the Beatles have had a huge influence on where music has gone, and I'm not trying to take that or anything away from them... but like I said, I just don't get it.

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:43 pm

Quote:

what do people like so much about the Abbey Road kick sound? or the entire recording for that matter.

Maybe it's because I'm young (19) but I just don't get it. I listen to it and to me it just sounds so.... weak.

No, it sounds REAL.

Eventually you'll get it.

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:52 pm

dhassay wrote:

i vote for the D6 from audix.

yuck, i hate my d6. anyone want to buy it?

the d6 doesnt let you do anything with it. it's ok live because you dont have to do anything for a rock sound. but unusable in the studio.

beta52 is totally sculptable. if you know how they work it's easy to dial-in a good sound real fast ... live or studio

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 3:32 pm

Clowd-

To elaborate on Ben's comments comment: The drum sounds on Abbey Road are more like an unamplified kit. You are used to drums that are individually miced, gated, compressed and then mixed. A very popular sound, but not my favorite. Not all drums have to sound like that. What's more they shouldn't. Note that the vocal performances in all of the songs you put up were very similar. They have to be in order to cut through the dense, uniform sound texture of the instruments. Yes, the instruments are "strong" but they don't leave any room for harmony vocals or any kind of delicacy. The Beatles had two of the best vocalists in rock and a strong third. All could sing harmony and they blended extremely well. The style of drums you hear on Abbey Road suits complex, natural vocals extremely well. While it has gone out of style in Pop music, it (or something like it) is still used by artists Diana Krall, Nora Jones, Allison Krause. It works in that situation.

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:52 pm

Thanks Bob.

It's one thing to go for a new or different sound.
It's totally another to mix yet again more Hollywood Records drum sounds.

Bore ring!

What separates Lars from the pack?

How about Bonham?

Or Collins?

Check out the first album by The Cure, and "Marquee Moon" by Television.

Do those drum sounds suck?

If so............. I bite my tongue.......

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:50 pm

Yes you are to young.
I am 21, and was rather recently like you. I also did not get it (in full). Not to say I did not like bands from that era, I just did not quite get what was so awful about the new music I was listening to.
Part of it was maturity, part of it was having knowledgeable people explain it to me, and part of it was getting into professional audio, and for the first time actually hearing what really sets them apart. Not just listening to every thing on shitty headphones, or a $200 sony shelf system.

Right now is a particularly bad time to be a new artist. If you get on a major label, chances are your album is going to be produced to sound as close to the best selling product out there. And right now the best selling product is over produced and compressed to all hell.

Unless your album sounds like it was done by Andy Sneap, very few labels will release it (coming from the hard rock/metal area of music). There are plenty of times where albums have been sent back to mix, with a library of what the label wants the drums to sound lie. And all the replacements are done.
Back in the 60's if something was not right, It was re recorded. But it was always a real recording.

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:22 pm

TheFraz wrote:

Yes you are to young.
I am 21, and was rather recently like you. I also did not get it (in full). Not to say I did not like bands from that era, I just did not quite get what was so awful about the new music I was listening to.
Part of it was maturity, part of it was having knowledgeable people explain it to me, and part of it was getting into professional audio, and for the first time actually hearing what really sets them apart. Not just listening to every thing on shitty headphones, or a $200 sony shelf system.

Right now is a particularly bad time to be a new artist. If you get on a major label, chances are your album is going to be produced to sound as close to the best selling product out there. And right now the best selling product is over produced and compressed to all hell.

Unless your album sounds like it was done by Andy Sneap, very few labels will release it (coming from the hard rock/metal area of music). There are plenty of times where albums have been sent back to mix, with a library of what the label wants the drums to sound lie. And all the replacements are done.
Back in the 60's if something was not right, It was re recorded. But it was always a real recording.

I see what you are saying, and I'm not trying to be ignorant, but I _LIKE_ overproduced and compressed to hell... and apparently a lot of other people do too or else it wouldn't have become the standard to the point where I have grown up with it so much that it has become what I compare myself and other bands to, right?

I don't know. I know I'm just showing my immaturity but I felt the need to get to the bottom of it.

I like when the snare and bass drum sound consistent throughout the song. I understand that it's not as expressive.. but to me, the drums aren't really an emotion-conveying instrument. They are there to keep the groove. I like consistency in general, in fact. Again, perhaps it's not as "expressive", but it has never prevented me from successfully interpreting the emotional impact of a song?

Is that so wrong?

It's not my fault - it's just what I have grown up with and become accustomed to!

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:46 pm

Most engineers would much rather listen to a real kit then one that fabricated.
You can still make an acoustic kit sound huge. Just look at the black album. Plus that album sounds incredible large with out it being compressed to shit. In fact that extra bit of power is because its not compressed to shit. It allows the track to have varying degrees of volume. Now the tracks are compressed so that the loudness of the softer parts is just as loud as the harder parts. Which takes away from the true power of the harder parts since there is zero contrast.

The reason why every thing is so compressed is that all the labels want their song to be the loudest heard on the radio. They are under the impression that the louder the song, the more people will like it. Bat fucking crazy? I would say so. the same thin is being done to commercials. You may find your self turning down the volume during them lately.
It has nothing to do with the true preference of listening public, but rather the ignorance of the people trying to sell music.
You are just so god damn used to it since your ears did not have the time to get used to how it used to be.
I would be in the same boat, but a profound love for artist like David Bowie and Deep Purple, I got to the see the other side of it.

When you get your self some high end sound systems you will hear the difference. One sounds great at high volumes, and the other sounds like noise.

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:50 pm

If you can't hear the grove in a song like I Want You (She's So Heavy), then there might be some problems.
Sure the sound may not be in your face, but that leaves room for every thing to sound its best. Crank the tune up and listen to the real power of it. Notice how the vocals sit so well on top of the mix and a great deal of dynamic and tonal contrasting is being used. Every instrument can effortlessly be listened to since they are not fighting for their space. They are given the proper amount of room to sit perfectly in the track.

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:22 pm

Interesting. I will have to check all that stuff out.

Here's a thought though. What do you think these metal bands would sound like if they were produced in an oldschool way? Don't you think it is actually appropriate for the genre to be produced the way it is?

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:36 pm

Perhaps a 4 track recording of a drum set may not suit metal all that great, but this does not mean every thing needs to be sampled and compressed to shit. Once again, listen to the black album. HUGE sounding kit. none of it which was not actually recorded.
You don't have to fallow the status quo to make things sound appropriately heavy. There are plenty of ways to achieve huge sounds. The real shame is that now, no one is given the chance to create something new. Every thing now is just far to cookie cutter. And most people begin to resent that. Well at least the people that value the music they listen to.

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:39 pm

Hm. I would call the black album drums pretty average. They may be huge but they still sound "distant"

I guess I just really like dry sounds?

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:41 pm

Quote:

What do you think these metal bands would sound like if they were produced in an oldschool way?

Geez, I dunno...

Let's see.

Iron Maiden
Judas Priest
AC/DC
Metallica
Slayer
Anthrax
Black Sabbath
Dio
Quiet Riot
Megadeth
Twisted Sister
Death
Venom
King Diamond
Mercyful Fate
???

Who knows what the newbies might sound like....?

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:48 pm

BTW Clowd, I think you're confusing 'Huge' (i.e. Bonham, Moon, Mason) with 'Brickwall Limited' (i.e. Band Du Jour).

A common misconception.

Just a thought...

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 11:50 pm

bent wrote:

BTW Clowd, I think you're confusing 'Huge' (i.e. Bonham, Moon, Mason) with 'Brickwall Limited' (i.e. Band Du Jour).

A common misconception.

Just a thought...

I think you are right, but, it's to the point where I wouldn't call any of those sounds huge. They sound outdated to me.

This topic sponsored by: