Author Topic: The two worst criticisms used about music  (Read 2165 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline soupytwist

  • Posts: 2725
  • Gender: Male
  • Star Trekkin
Re: The two worst criticisms used about music
« Reply #35 on: March 03, 2023, 02:58:30 AM »
"Your just a music snob".

Ugh..

Online LithoJazzoSphere

  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 7442
  • Placid Eruption
Re: The two worst criticisms used about music
« Reply #36 on: March 04, 2023, 07:49:46 AM »
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. 

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 43014
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2014!
Re: The two worst criticisms used about music
« Reply #37 on: March 06, 2023, 07:11:12 AM »
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.  :) :) :) :)

Online Buddyhunter1

  • Professional Mellotron Spotter
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6906
  • Gender: Male
  • Observe The Train
Re: The two worst criticisms used about music
« Reply #38 on: March 06, 2023, 08:02:19 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2023, 08:11:36 AM by Buddyhunter1 »
BUDDYHUNTER | Debut Demo Out Now! FREE DOWNLOAD: https://buddyhunter.bandcamp.com/
RYM: https://rateyourmusic.com/~buddyhunter1

Offline HOF

  • Posts: 8634
Re: The two worst criticisms used about music
« Reply #39 on: March 06, 2023, 08:04:31 AM »

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.

Online Buddyhunter1

  • Professional Mellotron Spotter
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6906
  • Gender: Male
  • Observe The Train
Re: The two worst criticisms used about music
« Reply #40 on: March 06, 2023, 08:10:39 AM »
(double post)
BUDDYHUNTER | Debut Demo Out Now! FREE DOWNLOAD: https://buddyhunter.bandcamp.com/
RYM: https://rateyourmusic.com/~buddyhunter1

Offline Phoenix87x

  • From the ashes
  • Posts: 8386
  • The Phoenix shall rise
Re: The two worst criticisms used about music
« Reply #41 on: March 06, 2023, 08:11:03 AM »
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. 

Online Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 43014
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2014!
Re: The two worst criticisms used about music
« Reply #42 on: March 06, 2023, 08:29:22 AM »
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.