DCC Archive Is it me or do today's producers/engineers suck?!?

Yep,Page I think doesn't get the kudos he deserves,I mean many people love Zep but what made Zep really stick out was Page's great production,WTTB when I first heard that I played it for a hour solid to this day it's my fave all-time Zep track,I never tire of it.You listen to so many of the heavy hitters of the era and their recorded efforts in the main don't seem to measure up to their live reputations but Zep's albums are better than their live sound(IMHO) where as the Who are the complete opposite,awful is the only way to describe their 60's studio recordings,Happy Jack is just ****,compare the studio version to the thunder of the live one it may as well have been a different band.One CD I dragged out of the box that I haven't heard in ages is Mariaane Faithfull's 1966 album "North Country Maid" it's her best album IMO beautifully recorded,just two acoustic guitars,acoustic bass as the core instrumentation and cello and harmonica on various songs and MF doing old folk songs,new folk songs that sound like old ones,it kicks off with a great version of Bert Jansch's "Green Are Your Eyes".It was engineered by future Elton John producer Gus Dudgeon who seems to have been a house engineer at Decca studios in London,he also engineered the John Mayall/Eric Clapton "Bluesbreakers" album.Excellent engineer.

 

Wow, never thought I'd see Bert Jansch mentioned here. I was just recently listening to a couple of CDs I have of him with John Renbourn. Not Pentangle, just those two.

Gus Dudgeon did a bad thing with the Yellow Brick Road remaster. Too much digital processing. I assume the rest of the Rocket remasters are similar.

 

Originally posted by Dave:
Hey Johnny,
The type of negative lyrics that you speak of is a ploy by government to create hostile feelings in our youth and adults as well so that they will go out and be hostile and commit criminal acts as a defiance towards "the system" and then they have justification for massive police force expansions as well as more prisons. This appears to work hand on hand with their self serving "Drug war" as well as making people less sensitive to physical acts of violence.
I know a lot about this particular topic and it's not based on conjectier, just the facts.
After all you did ask

Reply from Grant T.
Oh Dave, that's a bunch of sh**! That's the same crap they tried to push on us in the 50s and 60s. The religious people didn't like rock & roll because had it's basis in sexually explicit blues. Conservatives didn't like it so they tried to tell us it was a communist plot to corrup our youth. Racists didn't like it because it was originated by Blacks and it promoted "race mixing". Later, social scientists tried to tell us that listening to rock made you stupid.

Now, the reason we are getting so many cds that have the volume digitally maxed out is because the record companies want it, the artists want it, the public (average consumer) likes it, and I think a few, some admittedly, like the challenge of trying to get things louder.

Oh Grant,
Even your own statements are 2 right, 2 wrong and 3 maybe.
It's not even close to the crap, some of which was true. The religious people were right to some degree but who really cares. They were blaming anything they didn't like on Communism back in those days. Remember? The social scientists are going to push whatever their employer tells them to push.
Are you sure the record companys want it? I'm not as I haven't spoken to anyone at Capitol have you? Have you spoken to artists about this particular problem?
The consumer likes it. Ha! Name five. My friends seventeen year old hates it and so do all his friends.
What the hell kind of skill does it take to make it louder? None!

 

Hmmmm... Daves original post re: music being a government plot, was so over the top and ended with a "smiley" that I thought serious comment on it was not in order. I think it was just a chain yanker (maybe I'm wrong).

I always remember a discussion I had with an older audiophile friend who loved big band and classical, and he didn't hate rock n' roll as much as he hated electric music. The way many people weened on 50's and 60's music don't care for the modern, synthesized, sampled, intentionally distorted sound of todays music, was the way he felt about the demise of acoustic instruments to electric guitars and keyboards.

Also: (on topic) - todays producers are doing just fine, the criteria we are judging them against is wrong. While they are guilty of all the sins that are mentioned in this thread, they are trying to make the song a hit - not an audiophile delight. This is the same criteria that popular music producers have been following fo 40 years - I am sure that George Martin wasn't too concerned about how The Beatles would sound on a high end setup. When a producer comes in and delivers a top 10 record or album, he gets "atta boys" from the record company, the artist, and the distributors. He also gets the kind of job offers he dreams about. A full work schedule, food on the table and a roof over your head beat kudos from the audiophile community everyday. BTW - MOST of these people know HOW to get good sound down on tape; this is evidenced by the existence of DCC itself. If the sound is generally screwed from the onset, no amount of "fairy dust" is going to make a large improvement. The fact is: great sound quality neither puts food on the table or advances a pop producers career.

[ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: Uncle Al ]

[ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: Uncle Al ]

 

Guess what, mastering engineers are STILL doing it for CD releases. THEN the max the hell out of the volume and call it new mastering for better sound. I believe this is what Rhino does on some of it's releases these days. I guess they want the CDs to dound good on your average mini stereo or car stereo.

 

I believe YOU were talking about LYRICAL CONTENT, NOT VOLUME. The religious people were, and many are ignorant and mistrust anything different. Go back and review your rock history, Dave. All of what I said is true. I'll bet now you're going to try to tell me that the KKK and the Alabama White Citizen's council was right too. They called all rock & roll n****r music and said it would corrupt our pure, white youth.

Sorry, I DO talk with industry people and they confirm what I stated about record companies and consumers liking LOUD, compressed sound. They like it LOUD so the can compete with the next guy's CD. It's the loudness game. They also mistakenly think that it will make their CD sound louder on radio and catch the ear of a busy program director. The average consumer may not know what compression is, or that it destroys dynamics like we do, but people like it. Also, you and I may listen to quality playback systems, or else we probably wouldn't spend $30 on DCC discs, but the avaerge consumer listens to music on anything but quality hifi set ups, and like the compressed sound so they can use it as effective background music or hear it well in the car. Most AVERAGE consumers do other thins while playing music. We are in the 1% minority.

Check it out.

One more thing, most mastering engineers shudder at having to miximize an album, but it the job they get PAID for. They do what the client wants at the end of the day despite their best efforts to educate the client. I have read interviews by some big name engineers that get a kick out of trying to make things louder, and don't see anything wrong with it.

[ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: Grant T. ]

 

Yeah they did a couple of albums I think before they formed Pentangle and re:Gus D,unfortunately all true,he is another old-timer in love with the latest thing,I read an in-depth interview with him at the time of the Elton John re-releases and he certainly loved his digital work station and CEDAR.Back in the 60's tho'he was a superb engineer,many people have heard the Bluesbreakers album and still regard it as the best showcase for Eric Clapton's "tone" that exists and I couldn't agree more,Dudgeon captured the classic Les Paul/Marshall overdriven sound first and I still think the best.The Marianne Faithfull album is another that I really like the sound of,all acoustic instruments,beautifully recorded.

 

Dave,

I believe YOU were talking about LYRICAL CONTENT, NOT VOLUME. The religious people were, and many are ignorant and mistrust anything different. Go back and review your rock history, Dave. All of what I said is true. I'll bet you also believe that the KKK and the Alabama White Citizen's council was right too. They called all rock & roll n****r music and said it would corrupt our pure, white youth. Now, blues and rock & roll has ALWAYS had a sexual element in it but that does not mean that it is evil, or bad. It was just a way for people to express feelings but most of white society in those days were offended by the subject. Witness all of the pop music of the 50s and early 60s. Doris Day, Gogi Grant, Johnny Mathis, Guy Mitchell, Mitch Miller...YUCK!

Sorry, I DO talk with industry people and they confirm what I stated about record companies and consumers liking LOUD, compressed sound. They like it LOUD so the can compete with the next guy's CD. It's the loudness game. They also mistakenly think that it will make their CD sound louder on radio and catch the ear of a busy program director. The average consumer may not know what compression is, or that it destroys dynamics like we do, but people like it. Also, you and I may listen to quality playback systems, or else we probably wouldn't spend $30 on DCC discs, but the avaerge consumer listens to music on anything but quality hifi set ups, and like the compressed sound so they can use it as effective background music or hear it well in the car. Most AVERAGE consumers do other things while playing music. We are in the 1% minority.

Check it out.

One more thing, most mastering engineers shudder at having to maximize volume on an album, but its the job they get PAID for. They do what the client wants at the end of the day despite their best efforts to educate the client. I have read interviews by some big name engineers that get a kick out of trying to make things louder, and don't see anything wrong with it.

[ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: Grant T. ]

 

Grant T.
I think you totally misunderstand totally where I'm coming from. It wasn't about audio quality or a racist thing. I was responding to the question from Johnny K. "What's with all the negative, abusive lyrics in todays songs". and I stand by what I said. I am coming at it from a socio-psychological point of view. Case in point. Lock yourself in a room. Turn on a loud bass drum and let it run for about an hour or 2 and tell me your not going to be agitated after 1 or 2 hours of nothing but that bass drum pounding in your ear drums. Ever hear of the Chinese water torture? Now take that bass drum and add negative lyrics to an already agitated human being telling them to kill, shoot the cop and f___k their mother. Now try to tell me nothing will happen. I stand by what I've said!

 

That was my point, ya know. Sarcasm.

 

Dave, those types of lyrics have ALWAYS been in music. I think it is perhaps the part we don't like is the messanger, or artists making the music, or the music itself.

 

Grant T. Now I'm curious. You say these types of negative lyrics has always been around. Funny, I seem to remember the most vulgar songs that I could think of were The Pusher and Who Are You which never offended me one bit.This includes Blues, Folk, Classical and jazz. As for the messenger. I have to listen to real songwriters and musicians to call it music. Not some nursery ryhming, zero skilled (musically speaking), just looks pretty in front of the camera, person trying to pass themselves off as a musician/recording artist when in reality they're actors/dancers. Please explain further.


[ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: Dave ]

 

Hey Dave, do you find these lyrics vulgar and offensive?

"If your man is nice and sweet
Serving you lots of young pigmeat
Oh yes, keep it to yourself"

Or how about:

"Loving is the thing I crave
For your love I'll be your slave
You gotta give me some, yes give me some
Can't you hear me pleading, you gotta give me some

Said mister Jones to old butcher Pete,
I want a piece of your good old meat
You gotta give me some, oh give me some
I crave your round steak, you gotta give me some

Sweet as candy in a candy shop
Is just your sweet sweet lollypop
You gotta give me some, please give me some
I love all day suckers, you gotta give me some

To the milkman I heard Mary scream
Said she wanted a lots of cream
You gotta give me some, oh give me some
Catch it when you come sir, you gotta give me some

Hear my cryin' on my bended knees
If you wanna put my soul at ease
You gotta give me some, please give me some
Can't stand it any longer, you gotta give me some

Seeper called to Pele-Mele, sugar lump
Said I'm going crazy about your hump
You've got to give me some, please give me some
I can't wait eight days, you gotta give me some

Jaybird said to the peckerwood,
I like to peck like a pecker should
But give me some, yes give me some
I'm crazy about them worms, you've gotta give me some"

 

Patrick M. Sexually motiviated lyrics don't offend me at all. Somehow it doesn't effect me the same as "F**k your Mother up her a**".

[ November 17, 2001: Message edited by: Steve Hoffman ]

 

Sorry Steve.

 

Where did you come up with that? Eminem?

 

Actually I heard it on a car stereo boom system driving down the street. I myself would never be caught dead listening the over powering bass electronic type of entertainment. Eminem? Could be as I wouldn't know one rapper from the next.

[ November 18, 2001: Message edited by: Dave ]

 

Yup, it appears to me to be the artist or the type of music that offends you more than the lyrics.

If you go back even as far as the 1920s you will find all sorts of lyrics in jazz, blues and otherwise that have sexually suggestive (explicit) lyrics. There were also many violent songs. This is nothing new. The only difference is in the words. In earlier days certain segments of society got offended by mere suggestion.

Many also seem to dismiss many rock songs with the same lyrical content you describe.

It seems that people only get offendeed these days if it is from a rapper. The song "Cop Killer" by Body Count was a heavy metal song but it just happened to be by a band that a rapper put together, so people got bent out of shape just because it was Ice-T. If It Had Been Metalica or Pantera I doubt many people would have cared.

Dave, as far as religious types being right or misguided, do you recall a guy named Gary Larson? He used to write books linking popular 70s songs to sex and satanism. He went so far as to say that ABBA promoted promiscuity and fornication. He tried to say that Chic's music hypnotized dancers into being horny by the heavy rhythmic music. He out and out branded every rock group satanic. He tried to say the group Styx was satanic because of the name. The tried to say that Led Zepplin tried to convert people to the church of satan. He thinks Daryl Hall makes satanic music because he once syudied Alextier Crowley. Sheesh! He actually thought Mick Jagger beleived he was Lucypher because of the song "Sympathy For The Devil". God only knows what Gary Larson thinks of rappers and Trent Reznor! He will no longer comment on this stuff.

 

Grant,
And how dare Guy Larson forget about Ozzie and Black Sabbath.:?)
I agree there are all kinds of religious fanatics out there who have a lot of conjecture and unproven ideas.
Something to perhaps think about. When did the serious violence of todays teens come into play? Approx. in 1994, at least where I live and I do live in a metropolis. The 3 generations prior to that, I witnessed no one growing up and acting so tough that they would kill, with fire-arms, until the year mentioned. I wonder where they got the idea that killing people, and other violent acts against humans was acceptable?
By the way, I have heard 2 or 3 rap songs that I do like. Surprisingly, they do not contain any talk of violence or female degredation can you believe that? Just kidding

[ November 18, 2001: Message edited by: Dave ]

 

I love The Far Side.



And that's Aleister Crowley. You know, Jimmy Page bought his house and stuff.

 

I just try to ignore that stuff. It doesn't speak to me at all, so it is basically irrelavent in terms of my existence. There's not enough time, and the ocean is too big.

 

C'mon, now Dave, you can't blame violence of our youth on rap music! That is ridiculous! Violence is something that is learned from your enviornment. The music is only a result of it.

The violent trend started long before the mid-nineties. It was always around in the urban areas of most large metropolitain centers. It wasn't until the suburban kids pickled up on it that the establishment decided it was a threat. As long as it was out of sight, it was out of mind. It got going in the mid 80s, right around the time crack and crystal meth appeared on the streets. The teenage birth rate skyrocketed and the jails became filled with youth. And, at that time, rap was NOT violent. Rap was still basically Run DMC and Beastie Boys. Grandmaster Flash was rapping about the NEGATIVE effects of doing wrong. Kurtis Blow was rapping about basketball, of all things! It wasn't until the west coast guys and the Miami guys got into the act that rap changed. NWA came from LA and 2-Live Crew from Miami.

Also remember, rap couldn't even get on MTV until the early 90s.

There are LOTS of rap songs that don't degrade women and speak of violence. The rap that does is a very small percentage but is the one that gets all the attention and sales from those suburban and rural kids.

 

Grant,
I agree with you about not all rap being negative with all the things we've discussed. I don't agree that violence (harsh) was started within the eighties. All that I'm saying is that the degree of violence, with murder in mind surfaced only within the last 8-9 years. Prior to that the youth were content to kick the crap out of each other, pretty much with out weapons, as the humility of losing was a far greater reward than taking their life. Enviormentally learned, maybe if you're raised in a military prison. Break bones, yes, lacerations, yes, bruises, yes. Murder was reserved for someone raping your sister or mother, or because someone murdered someone close to you unjustifiabley not because of a disagreement! In closing, violence is a learned behavior just like alcoholism. Someone or something encouraged that sort of behavior. Prime example is us not agreeing on this subject. Admittedly we're not teens but just because we don't agree on this subject doesn't give either you or I the right to commit a violent act on each other, and I myself would not even consider commiting an act of violence on you or anyone else just because we don't agree. Where does this ignorant behavior come from? It's learned somewhere and I don't see the parents teaching this.
Ayways, you and I could disagree on this subject forever and ya know what? The sad fact is that to some degree you and I are both making valid points and are both right.

[ November 18, 2001: Message edited by: Dave ]

 

First, my apologies to Steve H and DCC for getting off into this issue, but it's good, there is no flaming, and we are being quite civil (now!).

Dave, I think that parents, in a way, ARE to blame. Collectively, that is. I think it comes from the inability of the elders in our society to demonstrate patience and non-violent ways to handle our anger. When the kid sees daddy hit mommy he may be thinking that it's wrong, but when he gets older he falls back on the only example he knows. He knows it's wrong to beat his woman but he can't help it. He's been trained that way. He is also exhibiting anger in seeing his loved ones being beaten. Why did Janie get a gun? What did her daddy do?

For us who didn't see this stuff or live it may or may not understand how these behavior patterns get repeated but it's a reality. When a kid grows up in a world of violence, a war, really, he learns that killing is the way to live. TV and other examples showing otherwise means nothing to him. That non-violent world is like Mars to him.