So... please forgive me because I'm going out on a limb here. I'm hoping I can convey this in the right way to cause people to think before answering because the obvious answer I would probably agree with the status quo as well.
Anyway, here's my thought as I've been listening to about 300 albums from the 1960s/1950s.
Growing up I remember hearing a lot that ew... that record is overproduced and sucks. And I'd have to agree, for the most part. One thing I hate about U2's All That You Can't Leave Behind or Foo Fighters' There's Nothing Left to Loose or the Beatles song The Long and Winding road... they are missing the raw music and have been a bit over-produced.
If you listen to these songs live (or maybe the Let It Be Naked version), they actually are much better songs, ergo over-production kinda ruined them?
Now the flip side comes along... Some punk rock records or early recordings from the 30s through probably mid 60s, I think I'd appreciate it more if the music was easier to listen to, meaning sometimes you could only hear the vocals and the rest of the music is barely intelligible, or the recording is super muffled, etc... but it actually is a great song. Some of Leadbelly comes to mind, for example.
I'm finding I'm rating some of the music from this early time period slightly lower because the recording/production value of the record sucks and not the music itself, especially for things that I don't know well. On the flip side, knowing about Elizabeth Cotten's voice being the way it is because she recorded it later in life, makes all the difference on how something is rated.
So now questions for discussion:
How much does production value mean to you?
Which albums do you love for their LO-FI quality as much as their music?
Do you think if that LO-FI band were recorded better, but not over produced, you'd like them more or worse?
What is over-production and when does it hinder the music? When does it make it better?
Are there records you love that you wish were re-recorded etc?
Are there albums you wish you had the demo tapes for or something to get rid of over-production.
Dave Grohl even wants to re-record Foo's first record, and I don't think for over-production, just a better recording, and that's only like 20 years old.
poor production can't hinder great songwriting (mm's the lonesome crowded west, dj's 1990)
great production can't help poor songwriting (u2's all that you can't leave behind, ac's centipede hz)
i think what we coin "overproduced" is more often than not a byproduct of an artist trying to polish a turd. _________________ follow me on the bandcamp.
my opinion on this:
i think what we coin "overproduced" is more often than not a byproduct of an artist trying to polish a turd.
hehehehe
So you've never listened to a Leadbelly song or something with equally terrible recording quality and kinda wished the quality was the same as something more modern?
Have you ever experienced something that was over produced and then heard a different version of it and liked it better and then maybe realized the song was much better?
Another example of this possibly is All Along the Watchtower - Dylan vs Hendrix. Hendrix had a better recording/production to it, right? It wasn't over-produced, but it was recorded much better (regardless of arrangement).
So you've never listened to a Leadbelly song or something with equally terrible recording quality and kinda wished the quality was the same as something more modern?
It doesn't always work this way, though. Robert Johnson's pretty great the way he sounds. I'm not sure if better production would actually improve the experience of listening to his songs. _________________ Always shouts out something obscene
how come I can type in "the beatles used the" into google and it autocompletes with "the studio as an instrument" since the statement is in cliche territory, yet it seems hard for people to look at production as being a part of songwriting? they're always talked about as separate and I'm just like "how many decades does this take?"
So you've never listened to a Leadbelly song or something with equally terrible recording quality and kinda wished the quality was the same as something more modern?
It doesn't always work this way, though. Robert Johnson's pretty great the way he sounds. I'm not sure if better production would actually improve the experience of listening to his songs.
Oh I totally agree.
I also wonder though because there are a few Robert Johnson tracks or Leadbelly tracks that I can't always make out what they are saying or sometimes the guitar isn't always terribly clear/distorted... and not that it sucks like that, sometimes that's what makes it great, I'm just wondering if a higher production quality would make it better or would it make it worse. See also other questions asked to maybe get what I'm getting at.
Also to open up the discussion, why do you think it doesn't always work that way. In which times does it work and in which times does it doesn't? Do you feel Robert Johnson recordings are LO-FI or sound perfectly good/decent quality to your ear?
So you've never listened to a Leadbelly song or something with equally terrible recording quality and kinda wished the quality was the same as something more modern?
well, sure. i wish lonesome crowded west was a high fidelity album mixed and mastered by someone who knew what they were doing, but it wasn't, and i love the album anyway.
sethmadsen wrote:
Have you ever experienced something that was over produced and then heard a different version of it and liked it better and then maybe realized the song was much better?
this has not been my experience, no. at the very least, i can't think of any examples of this off the top of my head. _________________ follow me on the bandcamp.
how come I can type in "the beatles used the" into google and it autocompletes with "the studio as an instrument" since the statement is in cliche territory, yet it seems hard for people to look at production as being a part of songwriting? they're always talked about as separate and I'm just like "how many decades does this take?"
this is an interesting take. with electronic music, they're certainly one and the same. i don't think it's fair to say that's ubiquitous though. an outfit like Lunasa, for instance, plays traditional celtic folk music, and i would hazard to guess they spend very little time in the studio when they're coming out with a new album. the songwriting is all done on their fiddles and etc. with a group like them, no level of over or under production is going to make much of a difference, imo. _________________ follow me on the bandcamp.
how come I can type in "the beatles used the" into google and it autocompletes with "the studio as an instrument" since the statement is in cliche territory, yet it seems hard for people to look at production as being a part of songwriting? they're always talked about as separate and I'm just like "how many decades does this take?"
Very good point. Sometimes the artistry/music is the post section and the framework is the "music" with "real instruments".
Also tell us more what you mean about it's separate and how many decades does it take?
well, sure. i wish lonesome crowded west was a high fidelity album mixed and mastered by someone who knew what they were doing, but it wasn't, and i love the album anyway.
this has not been my experience, no. at the very least, i can't think of any examples of this off the top of my head.
Yes, there's that too... even if an album isn't the best recorded, it still is great. I mean that is still a modern album though and is no where near close to terrible recording/production.
You probably hate these songs to begin with and so did I, but I at least appreciated them more when I heard these versions of them... and then I dare say began to like them much more.
well... damn, I just tried to find the long and winding road Naked version and I can't find something I can link here... but if you get a chance listen to that version.
As for Stuck In A Moment by U2... I thought it was a terrible song the first time I heard it. Over-produced and just meh...
Then I heard this version of it stripped down to just the song. Michael Stipe said something like you know the true quality of a song when it is performed with an acoustic arrangement and I'd have to agree. The turnaround at about 1 minute in is simple and beautiful. Bono's vocals and lyrics seem less contrived.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
