Thread: reassessing goo
View Single Post
Old 09.02.2007, 09:03 AM   #42
atsonicpark
invito al cielo
 
atsonicpark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 28,843
atsonicpark kicks all y'all's assesatsonicpark kicks all y'all's assesatsonicpark kicks all y'all's assesatsonicpark kicks all y'all's assesatsonicpark kicks all y'all's assesatsonicpark kicks all y'all's assesatsonicpark kicks all y'all's assesatsonicpark kicks all y'all's assesatsonicpark kicks all y'all's assesatsonicpark kicks all y'all's assesatsonicpark kicks all y'all's asses
what i said over there, atari: what does shitty, muddy production have to do with good songs?

i never said "i'm a big fan of early 90's alternative band production"... i'm a fan of their music..

the production on goo is quite bad. the production on dirty and experimental are extremely clean (maybe too glossy) but not bad. the rest of sy's output has really great production. i'm simply commenting on the production; it has nothing to do with my enjoyment of the songs.
__________________




 
atsonicpark is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|