DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: KevShmev on March 01, 2023, 03:10:05 PM
-
1) "It's self-indulgent." Art, by its very nature, is self-indulgent.
2) "It sounds dated." Since when does is sounding like a specific time a bad thing?
Discuss.
-
Interesting OP, Kev.
Some thoughts...
I always view "self-indulgent" as playing not for what the song requires, but to feed an ego. It's a very, very fine line, and many bands cross it without even intending to. It is, as is much in life, a very subjective adjective. I mean, to play devil's advocate, who is the one who decides what the song requires? The writer, or the listener? Both?! So, generally speaking, in a vacuum, it's just that personal feeling when you think as the listener that something being done isn't meant to serve the song, but to serve the ego. And where that line is, and who decides, obviously, differs among us all.
Regarding "sounding dated," that one is a bit easier, at least for me. Most of us here are music snobs. And it took a while for us all to develop a sense of recognizing songwriting and performance, and separating that from the production value a song has based on when it was recorded. I mean, compared to some of the brilliant mixes today and the technology, Led Zeppelin songs sound like dogshit! :lol Fuck, so does early Rush! :rollin
But we know, as music nerds and snobs, after many years, that "dated" production sound is just the byproduct of the era in which something was recorded.
Of course, that's "dated" relative to the production, not necessarily to the style of song.
I mean, yeah, you hear a gang vocal with a poppy chorus in 4/4 time, with high vocals and a swaggy guitar solo with lyrics about tits and ass, you're probably going to guess the 1980s, and most of the time, you'd be right. I mean, but whether it is a negative adjective or not really depends.
Cool topic. Probably a lot of differing opinions.
I can tell you one thing, TAC is one dated fogey. :lol
-
I can tell you one thing, TAC is one dated fogey. :lol
Oh, I definitely sound dated! :lol :lol
Kev.. what about..
"They sold out"?
-
1) "It's self-indulgent." Art, by its very nature, is self-indulgent.
2) "It sounds dated." Since when does is sounding like a specific time a bad thing?
As fan of progressive rock/metal, I don't have any issue with exercises in self-indulgence.
As far as dated, I think fashion is the best analogy (although I'm probably the last person who should be making fashion references). If you're wearing something that was in fashion 20 years ago but isn't at all in fashion now, you could be called "dated." I think it's the same with music. Look at La Villa Strangiato. The song is 45 years old, but (to me at least) it still sounds as fresh as the day it was made. The song transcends the time in which it was made. On the other hand, Goodbye to You by Scandal is easily pegged as having been made in the mid-'80s. At the end of the day, I think whether it's good or bad to be "dated" depends on whether you like the style.
-
I agree with you, Kev. The opposite of self-indulgent is what, pandering to what your audience wants? Is that better art? I do think there is something to be said for music that can connect with a broader audience, and if nobody can connect with what the artist is saying maybe that’s not so great. But I still think good art should 1) express what the artist wants to express, and 2) challenge the audience. If it also does 3) connects with a broad audience, even better. But it’s not essential for good art.
I also hate the “it sounds dated” criticism when one is just saying it sounds like something from a certain time period that you don’t like. I can sort of see that criticism having merit if the artist was just chasing a trend that hasn’t lasted, but that’s more of an issue of the artist failing to do numbers 1 and 2 above.
-
But I still think good art should...2) challenge the audience.
I don't think that's necessary at all. There's plenty of great music that's fun, fine for relaxing, or is soothing. Not everything has to be difficult to listen to.
-
But I still think good art should...2) challenge the audience.
I don't think that's necessary at all. There's plenty of great music that's fun, fine for relaxing, or is soothing. Not everything has to be difficult to listen to.
I agree, and this brings to mind something a friend posted on Facebook about a week ago. He linked a YouTube video of a song called Talkin' 'bout a Revolution by Tracy Chapman. I know nothing about the song and didn't listen to it, but what I found truly odd was his caption on the post: "This is why I tell my daughter it’s a no on Taylor swift and other pop acts. It has to mean something. No bubble gum." His daughter is probably 8-10yo. I thought, WTF?! Music with a meaning is all well and good, but at that age to say that pop music is "a no" is just ridiculous.
-
But I still think good art should...2) challenge the audience.
I don't think that's necessary at all. There's plenty of great music that's fun, fine for relaxing, or is soothing. Not everything has to be difficult to listen to.
Yeah, I don’t mean it has to be hard to listen to. More that it shouldn’t really be confined to what the audience might expect or is familiar with. But I think I will walk back saying “good” art has to do that. There are lots of good albums that are a band playing to somewhat of a sweet spot of what has become their sound that people expect. But I think great art has a tendency to push boundaries or do something unexpected.
-
But I still think good art should...2) challenge the audience.
I don't think that's necessary at all. There's plenty of great music that's fun, fine for relaxing, or is soothing. Not everything has to be difficult to listen to.
I agree, and this brings to mind something a friend posted on Facebook about a week ago. He linked a YouTube video of a song called Talkin' 'bout a Revolution by Tracy Chapman. I know nothing about the song and didn't listen to it, but what I found truly odd was his caption on the post: "This is why I tell my daughter it’s a no on Taylor swift and other pop acts. It has to mean something. No bubble gum." His daughter is probably 8-10yo. I thought, WTF?! Music with a meaning is all well and good, but at that age to say that pop music is "a no" is just ridiculous.
I don’t love Taylor Swift like Kev does (I have a Swift obsessed daughter and listen to her most days on the way to her school), but I wouldn’t call her bubble gum. I think she has challenged her audience quite a bit over the years and is a much more thoughtful artist than this guy is giving her credit for.
-
Yeah, I don't want to turn this into a Taylor Swift thread (honest), but if someone calls her bubble game pop, they clearly haven't listened a lot of her music. She has a few bubble gum pop songs (ME!!) out of her 200+, but that's about it.
Tim, "they sold out" is another dumb one, yes. That is usually code for "I liked this band more when they were obscure, before they appealed to the masses." Fans don't like it when a band they felt was "theirs" suddenly has a lot of casual fans. See: Metallica in the early 90s.
Good chatter so far overall. :hat :hat
-
I don't think I have ever leveled those first two criticisms at any band, and can't say I hear them that often.
However, I do not need to hear anyone say any band is a "sell out" ever again.
-
But I still think good art should...2) challenge the audience.
I don't think that's necessary at all. There's plenty of great music that's fun, fine for relaxing, or is soothing. Not everything has to be difficult to listen to.
Yeah, I don’t mean it has to be hard to listen to. More that it shouldn’t really be confined to what the audience might expect or is familiar with. But I think I will walk back saying “good” art has to do that. There are lots of good albums that are a band playing to somewhat of a sweet spot of what has become their sound that people expect. But I think great art has a tendency to push boundaries or do something unexpected.
I think that people in musician aficionado and particularly progressive music communities tend to think that a band always has to be doing something new and different, or they're not any good. But I often view it more like finding a great meal you like. Once you've identified one you like, you generally want it to taste pretty similar the next time you have it. If you want a different meal, there's plenty of other dishes to try. Most artists are lucky to have one or two really good ideas in their career. To expect them to continually reinvent the wheel each time with the same level of quality is a standard that vanishingly few can ever meet. I'd rather most bands find their sound and marginally improve or push at the edges of it.
-
But I still think good art should...2) challenge the audience.
I don't think that's necessary at all. There's plenty of great music that's fun, fine for relaxing, or is soothing. Not everything has to be difficult to listen to.
Yeah, I don’t mean it has to be hard to listen to. More that it shouldn’t really be confined to what the audience might expect or is familiar with. But I think I will walk back saying “good” art has to do that. There are lots of good albums that are a band playing to somewhat of a sweet spot of what has become their sound that people expect. But I think great art has a tendency to push boundaries or do something unexpected.
I think that people in musician aficionado and particularly progressive music communities tend to think that a band always has to be doing something new and different, or they're not any good. But I often view it more like finding a great meal you like. Once you've identified one you like, you generally want it to taste pretty similar the next time you have it. If you want a different meal, there's plenty of other dishes to try. Most artists are lucky to have one or two really good ideas in their career. To expect them to continually reinvent the wheel each time with the same level of quality is a standard that vanishingly few can ever meet. I'd rather most bands find their sound and marginally improve or push at the edges of it.
Yeah, I don’t think something has to be totally original to be good or even great art. I do tend to bristle at the idea that to be progressive you have to always be doing something new, in part because I think that is somewhat of a limitation in itself (it’s a criticism often leveled at prog bands who sound like or take cues from 70s acts other than Pink Floyd who are allowed to be copied with impunity). I might sound like I’m contradicting myself, but I think an artist can challenge listeners even while playing in a style that has been done before (and it can get really reductive when you start calling one thing unoriginal, because everything derives from something that has been done before).
-
Yeah, I don't want to turn this into a Taylor Swift thread (honest), but if someone calls her bubble game pop, they clearly haven't listened a lot of her music. She has a few bubble gum pop songs (ME!!) out of her 200+, but that's about it.
Tim, "they sold out" is another dumb one, yes. That is usually code for "I liked this band more when they were obscure, before they appealed to the masses." Fans don't like it when a band they felt was "theirs" suddenly has a lot of casual fans. See: Metallica in the early 90s.
Good chatter so far overall. :hat :hat
I think bubble gum pop is a horrible, pejorative label anyway. To whose abitrary standard is music apparently being held?
As for the premise of the thread, wholeheartedly agree with self-indulgence. For me, it's rivalled only by 'uninspired'.
-
1) "It's self-indulgent." Art, by its very nature, is self-indulgent.
2) "It sounds dated." Since when does is sounding like a specific time a bad thing?
Discuss.
1. Art is not necessarily self-indulgent.
(Is all music art?)
2. That depends on what you’re going for. If the execution doesn’t meet the intention, then it could be a bad thing. That said, whenever something reflects the time it was created, that’s not something you could hold against it.
—-
The worst ‘criticism’ about music I can think of is when a reviewer clearly has no clue what he’s talking about. I believe anyone can and could review music, but if you’re going a ‘technical’ way and discuss music in term of music theory or comparisons to other genres, at least make sure you get your stuff straight. And it’s not a big deal if you don’t know, but a review is by definition an opinion and therefore subjective, so make it so that the reader knows this.
-
Ad 1). I think it depends on what exactly people mean when they say "self-indulgent". If it means "musician play and compose primarily to satisfy themselves", then I am in a complete agreement with Kev. I mean, my first criteria for writing or playing something is - is this something I want to read or listen to? The question "Will anyone else like it? is only secondary.
If they mean "playing something of little musical value just because you want to show to everyone you have great chops or are a bold experimenter", then I suppose this criticism could be valid sometimes.
But as someone with a bit of classical music background, I think Bach or Mozart (not to mention Liszt or Rachmannnoff) could be as easily accused of this sin by the same critics who typically play the self-indulgence card most often. And this would be certainly ridiculous.
On a related note, I relly despise people who criticize or mock prog just for being what it is, that is, being musically ambitious. I mean, what kind of person mocks and disparages others just because they flat out say "I want to try to be like those greatest artists in history, I want to push the boundaries and try create something great and beautiful."
2) Nothing new to add here, just a complete agreement. I think it is partially result of neomania, a contradictory belief that everything is bound to progress toward better and more advanced forms and any aesthetics is just a product of its period.
-
If self indulgence is done in a way that seeks to create a musically pleasing soundscape,, then I'm all for it. Conversely, if it is an attempt to showcase one's ability and prowess at their instrument, then I usually don't connect with it.
-
I read an interesting chapter in a book yesterday that like in visual arts where uou can categorise artworks in being ‘realistic’ (the paintint depicts something that actually exists in the real world and/or is an accurate representation of that) or ‘non-realistic’ (anything that doesn’t fit the other category), you can do the same with music. It seems that people have a preference towards one or the other. In this case ‘realistic’ music is music that sounds as if it’s played by a band in that very moment, with no alterations whatsoever. Non-realistic music is everything else. The first example was a CCR song, while the latter was something by Daft Punk, but also in-studio edits, stuff like autotune and the use of non-real instruments belong in the ‘non-realistic’ category.
And just to be clear, the book made a very good point that one is not better than the other, but the distinction can help one in the perception and/or appreciation of the music. Can you imagine a real band with actual musicians playing this? If you paint a mental image of this music being played, what does it sound like? Is the music too ‘perfect’ to ever replicate in a live setting?
-
But I still think good art should...2) challenge the audience.
I don't think that's necessary at all. There's plenty of great music that's fun, fine for relaxing, or is soothing. Not everything has to be difficult to listen to.
Yeah, I don’t mean it has to be hard to listen to. More that it shouldn’t really be confined to what the audience might expect or is familiar with. But I think I will walk back saying “good” art has to do that. There are lots of good albums that are a band playing to somewhat of a sweet spot of what has become their sound that people expect. But I think great art has a tendency to push boundaries or do something unexpected.
Well, I'm sort of with HOF, but "challenging" is open to interpretation. I'm "challenged" by Taylor Swift and Bruce Springsteen but only because both artists lyrically give me something to think about. I'm "challenged" by Van Halen in a sense - this is a bigger stretch - just by the almost requirement to be in a certain mood for - or to adapt my mood to - the music. As I get older, and I rely on music more and more for an escape, "challenging" for me is less and less about 34/15 time signature and 8,000 notes per second. If anything, if it's complicated for the sake of being complicated, it's no longer challenging, but rather taxing.
-
My least favorite criticism by far is: "the production". I have something like 2,000+ CDs in my collection, and I can probably point to maybe 20 that I would single out for just outright sounding shitty (I'm not counting live stuff that sounds boot-leggy).
-
My least favorite criticism by far is: "the production". I have something like 2,000+ CDs in my collection, and I can probably point to maybe 20 that I would single out for just outright sounding shitty (I'm not counting live stuff that sounds boot-leggy).
That's really interesting. It might be a product of when I was born (91') but I cannot listen to music that is older than the early/mid 1980's. There is definitely a timeframe there when either the production process/tools/techniques improved and it's very noticeable. Maybe it became mainstream? I love rock and other classic records from the 70's etc but many of them have such bad production they are unlistenable to me.
-
My least favorite criticism by far is: "the production". I have something like 2,000+ CDs in my collection, and I can probably point to maybe 20 that I would single out for just outright sounding shitty (I'm not counting live stuff that sounds boot-leggy).
Was going to write a separate post, but this pretty much sums up my thoughts.
As someone who's 'produced' (and I use that term loosely) a fair amount of music over the years, I've grown more appreciative of the different approaches artists and producers take. I LIKE that a lot of albums from indie bands have a DIY/bedroom feel, if only for the change of sonic pace it provides.
To that point, I feel that the majority of production criticisms come from fellow musicians and producers. In my admittedly singular view, the vast majority of music listeners don't really care about 'tones' and 'snares' and all the other vernacular blokes like me toss around when discussing a band.
If I attempt to discuss the production choices in any of the music my 14-year-old listens to, it usually goes something like this:
Me: "Hey, I love the low end in that Kanye song...sounds like he sample a Chick Corea album and then dropped an 808 on top of it"
Son: "Huh?" *shruggs* "Um, cool." *returns gaze to phone*
-
Tim, "they sold out" is another dumb one, yes. That is usually code for "I liked this band more when they were obscure, before they appealed to the masses." Fans don't like it when a band they felt was "theirs" suddenly has a lot of casual fans. See: Metallica in the early 90s.
Definitely some truth to this, and Metallica is, of course, the prime example. At the same time I think most of us noticed a very definite shift in their sound which is what enabled them to get massive, continual, ceaseless, interminable radio play. Compared to Justice, Sandman was a decidedly poppier tune.
when a band they felt was "theirs" suddenly has a lot of casual fans is certainly true, but I don't think it's entirely invalid. If a band stops playing the songs you want to hear in lieu of music the masses want to hear, you shouldn't like it. Maybe the music is still good and maybe it's not, but that doesn't mean you have to like what they did.
-
My least favorite criticism by far is: "the production". I have something like 2,000+ CDs in my collection, and I can probably point to maybe 20 that I would single out for just outright sounding shitty (I'm not counting live stuff that sounds boot-leggy).
It doesn't help that people in these loudness wars days are often using mastering as a synonym of production. Grr.
-
Tim, "they sold out" is another dumb one, yes. That is usually code for "I liked this band more when they were obscure, before they appealed to the masses." Fans don't like it when a band they felt was "theirs" suddenly has a lot of casual fans. See: Metallica in the early 90s.
Definitely some truth to this, and Metallica is, of course, the prime example. At the same time I think most of us noticed a very definite shift in their sound which is what enabled them to get massive, continual, ceaseless, interminable radio play. Compared to Justice, Sandman was a decidedly poppier tune.
when a band they felt was "theirs" suddenly has a lot of casual fans is certainly true, but I don't think it's entirely invalid. If a band stops playing the songs you want to hear in lieu of music the masses want to hear, you shouldn't like it. Maybe the music is still good and maybe it's not, but that doesn't mean you have to like what they did.
Remember the outcry, El Barto when Metallica all cut their hair? The outcry?
-
But I still think good art should...2) challenge the audience.
I don't think that's necessary at all. There's plenty of great music that's fun, fine for relaxing, or is soothing. Not everything has to be difficult to listen to.
Yeah, I don’t mean it has to be hard to listen to. More that it shouldn’t really be confined to what the audience might expect or is familiar with. But I think I will walk back saying “good” art has to do that. There are lots of good albums that are a band playing to somewhat of a sweet spot of what has become their sound that people expect. But I think great art has a tendency to push boundaries or do something unexpected.
I think that people in musician aficionado and particularly progressive music communities tend to think that a band always has to be doing something new and different, or they're not any good. But I often view it more like finding a great meal you like. Once you've identified one you like, you generally want it to taste pretty similar the next time you have it. If you want a different meal, there's plenty of other dishes to try. Most artists are lucky to have one or two really good ideas in their career. To expect them to continually reinvent the wheel each time with the same level of quality is a standard that vanishingly few can ever meet. I'd rather most bands find their sound and marginally improve or push at the edges of it.
But it's so often hypocritical. I won't speak for him, but Dave From Manchester has written eloquently in the past about Chinese Democracy from Guns'n'Roses in this regard. That WAS something new and different, and fans shat all over it because it wasn't Appetite II. Look over at the Metallica countdown; you'd think the band got lobotomies after ...AJFA for all the criticism the latter years are taking for "not sounding like Metallica". They're not 24 year old drunk assholes giving the finger to the world anymore. James is a dad and a husband, dealing with dad and husband (and personal) issues. This is the music you get when you filter through that. Metallica IS doing something new and unexpected and they're taking a ton of crap for it. (Forget about when Load came out and they - GASP! - GOT HAIRCUTS!)
I get it; sometimes an artist can over-extend, and sometimes the new work - separate and apart from the newness - just isn't that representative of what the artist was trying to achieve (my criteria for whether it's "good" or not).
-
My least favorite criticism by far is: "the production". I have something like 2,000+ CDs in my collection, and I can probably point to maybe 20 that I would single out for just outright sounding shitty (I'm not counting live stuff that sounds boot-leggy).
That's really interesting. It might be a product of when I was born (91') but I cannot listen to music that is older than the early/mid 1980's. There is definitely a timeframe there when either the production process/tools/techniques improved and it's very noticeable. Maybe it became mainstream? I love rock and other classic records from the 70's etc but many of them have such bad production they are unlistenable to me.
I don't say this to argue, but point/counterpoint, I say the exact opposite. I lament how Abbey Road (1969), Who's Next (1971), Zeppelin IV (1971) and Dark Side Of The Moon (1973) sound SO GOOD, and yet today, over 50 years later, only a small handful of records approach that level of warmth, clarity and sonic immersiveness.
-
But I still think good art should...2) challenge the audience.
I don't think that's necessary at all. There's plenty of great music that's fun, fine for relaxing, or is soothing. Not everything has to be difficult to listen to.
Yeah, I don’t mean it has to be hard to listen to. More that it shouldn’t really be confined to what the audience might expect or is familiar with. But I think I will walk back saying “good” art has to do that. There are lots of good albums that are a band playing to somewhat of a sweet spot of what has become their sound that people expect. But I think great art has a tendency to push boundaries or do something unexpected.
I think that people in musician aficionado and particularly progressive music communities tend to think that a band always has to be doing something new and different, or they're not any good. But I often view it more like finding a great meal you like. Once you've identified one you like, you generally want it to taste pretty similar the next time you have it. If you want a different meal, there's plenty of other dishes to try. Most artists are lucky to have one or two really good ideas in their career. To expect them to continually reinvent the wheel each time with the same level of quality is a standard that vanishingly few can ever meet. I'd rather most bands find their sound and marginally improve or push at the edges of it.
But it's so often hypocritical. I won't speak for him, but Dave From Manchester has written eloquently in the past about Chinese Democracy from Guns'n'Roses in this regard. That WAS something new and different, and fans shat all over it because it wasn't Appetite II. Look over at the Metallica countdown; you'd think the band got lobotomies after ...AJFA for all the criticism the latter years are taking for "not sounding like Metallica". They're not 24 year old drunk assholes giving the finger to the world anymore. James is a dad and a husband, dealing with dad and husband (and personal) issues. This is the music you get when you filter through that. Metallica IS doing something new and unexpected and they're taking a ton of crap for it. (Forget about when Load came out and they - GASP! - GOT HAIRCUTS!)
I get it; sometimes an artist can over-extend, and sometimes the new work - separate and apart from the newness - just isn't that representative of what the artist was trying to achieve (my criteria for whether it's "good" or not).
Yea, there is definitely a lot of nuance that isn't being discussed. I can only speak for me, but I often want bands to try new things. I haven't gotten the latest DT or Kamelot (among other) albums because I feel they're just in a creative rut repeating the same style (this is more Kamelot than DT to be fair) but then a band will do something VERY different (like St. Anger) and I won't like that either. Because it's not JUST principle. I need to enjoy the outcome too. So the ideal is something different that I also enjoy. But just being different doesn't make it enjoyable. So I can very much criticize band X for not changing things up and then also not like the album that they do change things up. But that's just me. I know many others have very different perspectives that are a bit harder to make sense of.
-
Tim, "they sold out" is another dumb one, yes. That is usually code for "I liked this band more when they were obscure, before they appealed to the masses." Fans don't like it when a band they felt was "theirs" suddenly has a lot of casual fans. See: Metallica in the early 90s.
Definitely some truth to this, and Metallica is, of course, the prime example. At the same time I think most of us noticed a very definite shift in their sound which is what enabled them to get massive, continual, ceaseless, interminable radio play. Compared to Justice, Sandman was a decidedly poppier tune.
when a band they felt was "theirs" suddenly has a lot of casual fans is certainly true, but I don't think it's entirely invalid. If a band stops playing the songs you want to hear in lieu of music the masses want to hear, you shouldn't like it. Maybe the music is still good and maybe it's not, but that doesn't mean you have to like what they did.
Far, far too many people - dare I say, most people - can't or won't separate "I don't like it" from "they now suck". There really ARE a fair number of people that blame Metallica for that shift and not their own personal preferences. For me, who doesn't have ANY of the context clues of the first four records, I honestly - I do - believe that Metallica are better players, better writers, better performers, better ARTISTS starting with The Black Album. I absolutely understand that those are fighting words, an incitement to riot, for people like you, Jammin and Adami, but I see it as objectively true.
Kiss and I; I much prefer the original six albums. But it's undeniable, and foolish to not accept, that Paul Stanley is a far better songwriter now than he was in 1976. I accept that. He had a need to connect to people, and he went out and did it. I can't begrudge an artist for wanting people to hear their work.
-
My least favorite criticism by far is: "the production". I have something like 2,000+ CDs in my collection, and I can probably point to maybe 20 that I would single out for just outright sounding shitty (I'm not counting live stuff that sounds boot-leggy).
That's really interesting. It might be a product of when I was born (91') but I cannot listen to music that is older than the early/mid 1980's. There is definitely a timeframe there when either the production process/tools/techniques improved and it's very noticeable. Maybe it became mainstream? I love rock and other classic records from the 70's etc but many of them have such bad production they are unlistenable to me.
I don't say this to argue, but point/counterpoint, I say the exact opposite. I lament how Abbey Road (1969), Who's Next (1971), Zeppelin IV (1971) and Dark Side Of The Moon (1973) sound SO GOOD, and yet today, over 50 years later, only a small handful of records approach that level of warmth, clarity and sonic immersiveness.
A lot of this stuff is just taste/preference. I used to struggle with the sound of a lot of pre-1980s music. Most of my music listening is still stuff from 1980 and after. But over time I’ve come to really appreciate the production quality of old records. Just how they were able to get certain sounds and performances down without all of the digital editing tools available today impresses me.
Most of the time when I’m griping about production it’s because I don’t feel like I’m able to hear certain sounds that are there in the recording but they are buried in the mix or distorted by the master. Or that the performances themselves might be stripped of personality by the way they are recorded/edited/mixed. Those aren’t technically all “producer” type issues I know, but they are part of the overall presentation of the music.
I also don’t think everything has to sound pristine and flawless to be great production. It’s all more nuanced than that. Some older recordings that don’t sound that great by today’s standards may still be more effective than newer recordings in part because of the human quality to them. There are also times when some unusual sonic choices yield a more interesting final product than just going for a certain pristine type of production.
-
But I still think good art should...2) challenge the audience.
I don't think that's necessary at all. There's plenty of great music that's fun, fine for relaxing, or is soothing. Not everything has to be difficult to listen to.
Yeah, I don’t mean it has to be hard to listen to. More that it shouldn’t really be confined to what the audience might expect or is familiar with. But I think I will walk back saying “good” art has to do that. There are lots of good albums that are a band playing to somewhat of a sweet spot of what has become their sound that people expect. But I think great art has a tendency to push boundaries or do something unexpected.
I think that people in musician aficionado and particularly progressive music communities tend to think that a band always has to be doing something new and different, or they're not any good. But I often view it more like finding a great meal you like. Once you've identified one you like, you generally want it to taste pretty similar the next time you have it. If you want a different meal, there's plenty of other dishes to try. Most artists are lucky to have one or two really good ideas in their career. To expect them to continually reinvent the wheel each time with the same level of quality is a standard that vanishingly few can ever meet. I'd rather most bands find their sound and marginally improve or push at the edges of it.
But it's so often hypocritical. I won't speak for him, but Dave From Manchester has written eloquently in the past about Chinese Democracy from Guns'n'Roses in this regard. That WAS something new and different, and fans shat all over it because it wasn't Appetite II. Look over at the Metallica countdown; you'd think the band got lobotomies after ...AJFA for all the criticism the latter years are taking for "not sounding like Metallica". They're not 24 year old drunk assholes giving the finger to the world anymore. James is a dad and a husband, dealing with dad and husband (and personal) issues. This is the music you get when you filter through that. Metallica IS doing something new and unexpected and they're taking a ton of crap for it. (Forget about when Load came out and they - GASP! - GOT HAIRCUTS!)
I get it; sometimes an artist can over-extend, and sometimes the new work - separate and apart from the newness - just isn't that representative of what the artist was trying to achieve (my criteria for whether it's "good" or not).
Yea, there is definitely a lot of nuance that isn't being discussed. I can only speak for me, but I often want bands to try new things. I haven't gotten the latest DT or Kamelot (among other) albums because I feel they're just in a creative rut repeating the same style (this is more Kamelot than DT to be fair) but then a band will do something VERY different (like St. Anger) and I won't like that either. Because it's not JUST principle. I need to enjoy the outcome too. So the ideal is something different that I also enjoy. But just being different doesn't make it enjoyable. So I can very much criticize band X for not changing things up and then also not like the album that they do change things up. But that's just me. I know many others have very different perspectives that are a bit harder to make sense of.
Agreed; I'd put The Astonishing here as well. But I think one step is just acknowledging that me liking it is very separate from them producing it (and whether they as artists approached their intent in doing so). I don't begrudge bands from wanting people to hear and like their music, and I'm sort of skeptical that those that profess to not caring or not wanting that are being self-protective (that is to say, they would if they COULD).
-
My least favorite criticism by far is: "the production". I have something like 2,000+ CDs in my collection, and I can probably point to maybe 20 that I would single out for just outright sounding shitty (I'm not counting live stuff that sounds boot-leggy).
Yup. It always baffles me when I see someone refer to an album that I think sounds perfectly fine as "unlistenable" (because the 8" rack tom goes "thump" instead of "thud").
-
Remember the outcry, El Barto when Metallica all cut their hair? The outcry?
"Friends don't let friends get Friends haircuts!" :lol
-
My least favorite criticism by far is: "the production". I have something like 2,000+ CDs in my collection, and I can probably point to maybe 20 that I would single out for just outright sounding shitty (I'm not counting live stuff that sounds boot-leggy).
Yup. It always baffles me when I see someone refer to an album that I think sounds perfectly fine as "unlistenable" (because the 8" rack tom goes "thump" instead of "thud").
Metallica's St. Anger checks off 2 boxes mentioned for me:
1. The Production - As much as it's been beaten to death over the years, that snare sound makes that album absolutely unlistenable for me.
2. Sounding Dated - As Kirk mentions in Some Kind Of Monster, the lack of guitar solos 100% dates that album. They were chasing a trend popular in Nu Metal at the time. Without his soloing, that album might as well have been recorded as a trio because he's absent. Whether it's a good or bad thing is for everyone to decide on their own. It's kinda like Alex during Rush's keyboard phase.
-
Tim, "they sold out" is another dumb one, yes. That is usually code for "I liked this band more when they were obscure, before they appealed to the masses." Fans don't like it when a band they felt was "theirs" suddenly has a lot of casual fans. See: Metallica in the early 90s.
Definitely some truth to this, and Metallica is, of course, the prime example. At the same time I think most of us noticed a very definite shift in their sound which is what enabled them to get massive, continual, ceaseless, interminable radio play. Compared to Justice, Sandman was a decidedly poppier tune.
when a band they felt was "theirs" suddenly has a lot of casual fans is certainly true, but I don't think it's entirely invalid. If a band stops playing the songs you want to hear in lieu of music the masses want to hear, you shouldn't like it. Maybe the music is still good and maybe it's not, but that doesn't mean you have to like what they did.
Agreed. I just hate the cries of "sellout" when a fan is upset over a band's change in direction. There have certainly been bands I would call favorites to varying degrees that went in directions I wasn't wild, but I don't think I ever thought any of them were selling out, even when the music did, in a few cases, seem like it was trying to be a bit more mainstream. The idea of a starving artist seems noble in theory, but I want my favorites to have success and make bucks, and if it takes writing some songs or albums that appeal more to the masses, I am okay with it, generally speaking.
-
"Your just a music snob".
Ugh..
-
My least favorite criticism by far is: "the production". I have something like 2,000+ CDs in my collection, and I can probably point to maybe 20 that I would single out for just outright sounding shitty (I'm not counting live stuff that sounds boot-leggy).
Part of that may be that you mostly seem to listen to older music. I don't think it was as much of an issue back then, because if you were good enough to get a record deal and get some money upfront to record an album, you were probably pretty good, and to run a studio you had to be reasonably competent, so the bar for releasing an album was far higher. With the proliferation of musical styles and cheaper availability of home recording technology over the last few decades, the range of quality has widened dramatically. There are lots of people now who have intriguing ideas, but not necessarily the know-how to execute them, and a broader range of notions of how music "should" sound. You can now write, record, and release an album in your bedroom, and naturally this means that barrier to entry for music is lower, and the level of quality is all over the map.
I'm also finding out that I probably care about production details a fair amount more than most people. The timbre and texture of a note is often if not more important than what the note itself is, and this preference has only increased over time as I've gotten better at listening to music, to playing it, and know more about gear and the process of recording. But I still feel I'm in the middle relatively speaking, I go on Discogs, the Steve Hoffman forums, and various recording, engineering, and audiophile sites and see people talking about the vast difference between particular pressings and remasterings, and while sometimes I do notice, I usually don't care that much about the granular level of detail some of them get into.
-
My least favorite criticism by far is: "the production". I have something like 2,000+ CDs in my collection, and I can probably point to maybe 20 that I would single out for just outright sounding shitty (I'm not counting live stuff that sounds boot-leggy).
Part of that may be that you mostly seem to listen to older music. I don't think it was as much of an issue back then, because if you were good enough to get a record deal and get some money upfront to record an album, you were probably pretty good, and to run a studio you had to be reasonably competent, so the bar for releasing an album was far higher. With the proliferation of musical styles and cheaper availability of home recording technology over the last few decades, the range of quality has widened dramatically. There are lots of people now who have intriguing ideas, but not necessarily the know-how to execute them, and a broader range of notions of how music "should" sound. You can now write, record, and release an album in your bedroom, and naturally this means that barrier to entry for music is lower, and the level of quality is all over the map.
I'm also finding out that I probably care about production details a fair amount more than most people. The timbre and texture of a note is often if not more important than what the note itself is, and this preference has only increased over time as I've gotten better at listening to music, to playing it, and know more about gear and the process of recording. But I still feel I'm in the middle relatively speaking, I go on Discogs, the Steve Hoffman forums, and various recording, engineering, and audiophile sites and see people talking about the vast difference between particular pressings and remasterings, and while sometimes I do notice, I usually don't care that much about the granular level of detail some of them get into.
I'm familiar with the Steve Hoffman forums (a font of information, by the way). I wouldn't make that assumption, though. One, I do listen to a certain amount of newer music, even if it is often newer music from established artists. Two, "production" often today is code word for "brickwalling", but the criticisms of "production" go back to the '80s. I remember hearing criticisms of Iron Maiden's first album; Kiss's Dynasty and Unmasked. There are others.
I think this is more a point of view than anything else. I too (sometimes) enjoy the details. The timber of notes, as you say. But for me, the most important thing is the intent of the artist. FOR ME, there are only really two albums for which the "production" complaint is legit (and it's not really "production", though it is sound) and that's Death Magnetic and Vapor Trails, because the artists have explicitly (or in the case of Metallica, implicitly) admitted "that doesn't sound like we intended it to sound". Oasis is new(er) music, and they've got a lot of complaints about their production, but Noel Gallagher WANTED it that way, PURPOSEFULLY MADE it that way. That's his artistic expression. I can only say whether I like it or not.
There used to be a guy that posted over at Mike Portnoy's site, went by the name of "Glass Dream" who used to make this the crux of almost all his posts. He claimed (and I'm not agreeing or refuting that claim, just stating it) that his ears were exceptionally attuned to music. He claimed to be able to discern the most minute details (even if sometimes the science didn't back him up).
Look, if "production" really is the difference maker for you, I'm not here to tell you otherwise. I do, though, think there's a difference between saying "eh, I don't like it, it makes my ears hurt" and the references you make to "quality". "Quality" to me is "how close did the artist come to their vision", period. I do not feel like I can say whether an artist's work is "quality" or not.
Except for Radiohead. They suck. :) :) :) :)
-
I certainly notice the production quality when I'm listening to music, and have my own thoughts about what constitutes good and bad production. Like Stadler though, there's only a handful of albums I can think of where it's so bad that it actually lowers my enjoyment of them somewhat:
- Gold And Grey by Baroness
- Nonagon Infinity by KG&TLW
- ...And Again Into The Light by Panopticon
In most other cases, even if I'm not too big a fan of the production, if the music is good enough I can look past it. A lot of production critiques on the internet do annoy me, mainly because it's just a boring-ass criticism. Your only thoughts on this album are that the production sucks? Wow, so insightful. You're really adding a lot to the conversation, dude. Why don't you make a critique that actually requires writing out a few sentences to explain?
I also think that not enough people are willing to admit that like with all other aspects of music, production quality is subjective. Some people like a clean, clear sound, others think it's "overproduced". Some people like the raw, low-fi aesthetic, others think it sounds like shit. All those albums I mentioned above no doubt have their defenders in regards to the production, and I'm also certain the production choices on them were deliberate, even if I think they were a bad idea.
-
There used to be a guy that posted over at Mike Portnoy's site, went by the name of "Glass Dream" who used to make this the crux of almost all his posts. He claimed (and I'm not agreeing or refuting that claim, just stating it) that his ears were exceptionally attuned to music. He claimed to be able to discern the most minute details (even if sometimes the science didn't back him up).
I remember that guy. Had some interesting opinions, especially the stuff about his hearing. Definitely an odd duck, but we had some interesting chats at least.
-
(double post)
-
The dated part I think really depends on the artist and the quality of music they put out.
Uninspired pop music ages like milk, but some really genuine, well written tunes with heart last for ages.
-
I certainly notice the production quality when I'm listening to music, and have my own thoughts about what constitutes good and bad production. Like Stadler though, there's only a handful of albums I can think of where it's so bad that it actually lowers my enjoyment of them somewhat:
- Gold And Grey by Baroness
- Nonagon Infinity by KG&TLW
- ...And Again Into The Light by Panopticon
In most other cases, even if I'm not too big a fan of the production, if the music is good enough I can look past it. A lot of production critiques on the internet do annoy me, mainly because it's just a boring-ass criticism. Your only thoughts on this album are that the production sucks? Wow, so insightful. You're really adding a lot to the conversation, dude. Why don't you make a critique that actually requires writing out a few sentences to explain?
I also think that not enough people are willing to admit that like with all other aspects of music, production quality is subjective. Some people like a clean, clear sound, others think it's "overproduced". Some people like the raw, low-fi aesthetic, others think it sounds like shit. All those albums I mentioned above no doubt have their defenders in regards to the production, and I'm also certain the production choices on them were deliberate, even if I think they were a bad idea.
This. Iron Maiden is another one; they get lambasted on the regular for their production. Well, 99% of their material has been produced by Martin Birch or Kevin Shirley, who both are highly regarded in the general rock space for their capabilities (Shirley is more controversial, but he keeps getting work from some of the biggest bands in the world, so I'm going to err on the side of the professionals, not the keyboard warriors). Iron Maiden doesn't take a crap without Steve Harris' (and now, to a lesser extent, Bruce Dickinson's) so that "production" complaint is really just a taste issue, a preference.