[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Dead-Air

Attacking "production" often strikes me as a way to try and claim that one's own taste is backed up by some sort of technical reality, when more often, it's just taste.

That can be the case, in terms of backing up 'taste' with some sort of 'objective' technical reality. Production issues are, by and large, issues of taste alone. I'd probably say that a record like White Zombie's Soul-Crusher is well produced, when in fact it just happens to have been produced in a way that I tend to like.

As such I'm sort of contradicting myself here when I still maintain that good ideas on Goo are largely buried under sonic flab. That said, reading Atari's and others comment's about Disappearer, I must've missed something. I've just stuck it on again to check that I'm not mad ... hmm, maybe I was a bit harsh. Looks like my reassessment is in chronic need of reassessment!

[atsonicpark]

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.

[Dead-Air]

Originally Posted by Rab

Well, I'm glad some of us have at least helped you revise your opinion - I listened to Murray St today and liked it more then I had ever done before.

It isn't a patch on Goo, though, which some of us (well, me anyway) hold to be the best album of all time - ever!

Rab

Yes, it's a good idea for all of us to remember that Sonic Youth often create listening experiences that often aren't designed to be taken in quickly in a few listens. I suppose I should take that into consideration myself and go back and listen to 1,000 Leaves a few more times through...

[Dead-Air]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

no.

i'm saying that the production is muddy and makes it sound weird, especially for a major lable debut. that's pretty much a fact that 99% of people agree with. i even said in my first post "bad production can't hide that it's a good song"; but it can make it a chore to listen to.

99% except for the 100% so far that have responded to say they don't agree with you. Nothing the matter with you having your taste in production styles, just silly that you try to act like that makes you the God of technical production know-how. If you like looking silly keep at it.

I happen to love the produciton on White Light/White Heat by the Velvets, which makes Goo seem like a Carribean beach scene in terms of "muddiness". But that's just my taste, and I'm not going to make some ludicrous claim that it makes me more "right" than other people, or that 99% of the people agree with me.

[atsonicpark]

actually, there are people in this thread who agree the production sucks and have said something about it in their assessments. if i recall correctly, even the book "confusion is next" realizes the production sucks and makes a note of it!... i'm not really sure why anyone would DEFEND the production -- it's obvious that it's muddy and muffled sounding. that's like saying "man, steve albini's production doesn't accentuate the drum sound at ALL!" it's obviously not true -- regardless if you can tolerate the production or not (which i can certainly tolerate goo's), you have to hear it's pretty crappily-produced.. or you don't have ears. it's not like you have to have dog's ears to hear it, it's not something to have to do with the frequencies; the vocals versus the guitars versus the bass vs the drums sound like a muffled swamp of murk. nothing sounds right. the eq .. or SOMETHING .. is just off all over the album. it's no big deal. when the remaster came out, i remember a big deal being made about how goo "finally sounds a bit better". and the remaster is a bit better. but it's been a longstanding fact that goo sounds kinda.. well.. murky. that's just how it is.

[Dead-Air]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

actually, there are people in this thread who agree the production sucks and have said something about it in their assessments. if i recall correctly, even the book "confusion is next" realizes the production sucks and makes a note of it!... i'm not really sure why anyone would DEFEND the production -- it's obvious that it's muddy and muffled sounding. that's like saying "man, steve albini's production doesn't accentuate the drum sound at ALL!" it's obviously not true -- regardless if you can tolerate the production or not (which i can certainly tolerate goo's), you have to hear it's pretty crappily-produced.. or you don't have ears. it's not like you have to have dog's ears to hear it, it's not something to have to do with the frequencies; the vocals versus the guitars versus the bass vs the drums sound like a muffled swamp of murk. nothing sounds right. the eq .. or SOMETHING .. is just off all over the album. it's no big deal. when the remaster came out, i remember a big deal being made about how goo "finally sounds a bit better". and the remaster is a bit better. but it's been a longstanding fact that goo sounds kinda.. well.. murky. that's just how it is.

Yes, in your personal taste murky = bad. You've proved that over and over again about your personal taste. Congratulations.

[atsonicpark]

No, murky IS bad. That's not MY definition, it is the definition. It has nothing to do with "personal taste", I'm all for noise or filth or muddiness or murk or whatever if the band wants that kind of sound -- however, it's obvious to me that this recording wasn't produced by the best hands, a fact probably even Sonic Youth themselves can attest to (the reissue does sound much better, by the way, and a few songs don't sound like crap -- "Dirty Boots" sounds amazing! But they really dropped the ball on the production of some of the songs; specifically "Mote" "My Friend Goo" and "Mary Christ")... I mean, it's like MBV's "Loveless"; man, for a band who puts so much emphasis on sound, it's sad that the drums sound so tinny... the drums deserve to be heard on that record; can we all agree on that? Then, you can see my point: if THIS album were better-produced, we could hear the instruments better, which would be swell! How can anyone listen to "Mary Christ" and think it's well-recorded? Give me a break. It's just common sense, it has nothing to do with personal taste... if you understand production at all, you'll know what I'm talking about. It's obvious! The point you're trying to make isn't about the facts -- since the fact is that it was poorly-recorded -- but about my opinion: My opinion is that the production never has nor ever will interfere with the songs (which are pretty good). But it's still a shame that the production isn't better.

But enough of that. I hate Bikini Kill. I hate Kathleen Hanna. And holy shit i'm rocking the song "Jet Ski" for an hour!

[Dead-Air]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

No, murky IS bad. That's not MY definition, it is the definition. It has nothing to do with "personal taste", I'm all for noise or filth or muddiness or murk or whatever if the band wants that kind of sound -- however, it's obvious to me that this recording wasn't produced by the best hands, a fact probably even Sonic Youth themselves can attest to (the reissue does sound much better, by the way, and a few songs don't sound like crap -- "Dirty Boots" sounds amazing! But they really dropped the ball on the production of some of the songs; specifically "Mote" "My Friend Goo" and "Mary Christ")... I mean, it's like MBV's "Loveless"; man, for a band who puts so much emphasis on sound, it's sad that the drums sound so tinny... the drums deserve to be heard on that record; can we all agree on that? Then, you can see my point: if THIS album were better-produced, we could hear the instruments better, which would be swell! How can anyone listen to "Mary Christ" and think it's well-recorded? Give me a break. It's just common sense, it has nothing to do with personal taste... if you understand production at all, you'll know what I'm talking about. It's obvious! The point you're trying to make isn't about the facts -- since the fact is that it was poorly-recorded -- but about my opinion: My opinion is that the production never has nor ever will interfere with the songs (which are pretty good). But it's still a shame that the production isn't better.

But enough of that. I hate Bikini Kill. I hate Kathleen Hanna. And holy shit i'm rocking the song "Jet Ski" for an hour!

I love Bikini Kill. Kathleen was always really cool to me, but that has no bearing on the fact I thought her band was great.

I also really like the way Loveless sounds. My tastes are often quite different from yours, and you've proved that over and over too. What you have failed to prove is that the way you feel about the sound of a given record is any more valid than the way I do. That can't be proven as it's aesthetics and not a matter of technical, er, chops. There are some records I love for big drum sounds and others I love for burrying the drums, really depends on a given intended aesthetic.

If there were truly a perfect technical formula for the perfectly produced music that everyone likes, then lo and behold there would only need to be one album. Oh sure, there could be different songs, but the recording would always be exactly the same. What an exciting world you wish for.

[k-krack]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

No, murky IS bad. That's not MY definition, it is the definition. It has nothing to do with "personal taste", I'm all for noise or filth or muddiness or murk or whatever if the band wants that kind of sound -- however, it's obvious to me that this recording wasn't produced by the best hands, a fact probably even Sonic Youth themselves can attest to (the reissue does sound much better, by the way, and a few songs don't sound like crap -- "Dirty Boots" sounds amazing! But they really dropped the ball on the production of some of the songs; specifically "Mote" "My Friend Goo" and "Mary Christ")... I mean, it's like MBV's "Loveless"; man, for a band who puts so much emphasis on sound, it's sad that the drums sound so tinny... the drums deserve to be heard on that record; can we all agree on that? Then, you can see my point: if THIS album were better-produced, we could hear the instruments better, which would be swell! How can anyone listen to "Mary Christ" and think it's well-recorded? Give me a break. It's just common sense, it has nothing to do with personal taste... if you understand production at all, you'll know what I'm talking about. It's obvious! The point you're trying to make isn't about the facts -- since the fact is that it was poorly-recorded -- but about my opinion: My opinion is that the production never has nor ever will interfere with the songs (which are pretty good). But it's still a shame that the production isn't better.

It sounds more like they WANTED it to sound murky, and I think it's a better album for it. It wouldn't sound right all clean and polished, it would actually sound SHITTY. About as shitty as you seem to think it sounds as is.
It sounds great, you can blame it on production or whatever the hell you want but do you not think Mary-Christ sounds perfect sounding like all the instruments just crawled out of a swamp? And the vocals all sound rad, almost blending in to the music, yet still standing out and clearly being vocals.
Same thing with Loveless, I don't think anything about either albums was a mistake of equalization or mixing or whatever.

Clearly it IS personal whether or not people like that sound, as there is many differences of opinion in just this thread.

**Dead-Air, see rep.

[atsonicpark]

hmm.

Valid points. I mean, I think in terms of a black metal record: some of that shit is SO shittily-produced, that it's hard to listen to... but I guess some people don't mind that. So, I get what you guys are saying.

I just think that some of the songs could have benefitted from better production... But then I think of something else: You all probably listen to records/cd's/tapes and they sound COMPLETELY different to your ears (I listen on portable CD player headphones or in my car stereo usually).. and I've noticed some albums sound GREAT on certain devices and terrible on others... so, yeah, taste aside, that may be a factor too.

I just happen to greatly dislike the production on this particular record. As far as albums I think are well-produced, I think of stuff like "Spiderland", "at Action Park" (many things Albini has recorded actually), "NYC Ghosts and Floiwers" .. stuff like that ..

And as far as MBV goes, I prefer "Isn't Anything" in many ways, including production -- feed me with your kiss fucking kills when it comes on.

I do, however, disagree with " don't think anything about either albums was a mistake of equalization or mixing or whatever." .. perhaps not on Loveless so much, since it was Kevins's baby, but I certainly think that Sonic Youth may not have had 100% say in how everything sounded on all their albums.. again, the drum samples that Butch Vig added on "Dirty" comes to mind..

[k-krack]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

(many things Albini has recorded actually)

That's simply because he's probably the best "producer" (HAHAHA SUCK ON THAT, ENGINEER-BOY!!!) of all time.

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

And as far as MBV goes, I prefer "Isn't Anything" in many ways, including production -- feed me with your kiss fucking kills when it comes on.

Really? That's so weird to me. I find Isn't Anything to have some of the worst production ever, regardless of the fact that I probably like it just as much, maye even more, than Loveless.

[atsonicpark]

My only problem with isn't anything is it's too.. quiet... though a lot of albums seem to have that problem (especially that goddamn Bastro album I have where you turn it up to 10 and it sounds like a fucking whisper from the next room).

[Everyneurotic]

i feel the same way about another ron saint germain album.

i against i, amazing songs, crap overproduction (with the probable exception of "sacred love").

i thought daydream nation was really crappy because the dgc remaster was dross; now that i have the deluxe edition, i like ddn a lot more.

[demonrail666]

For what it's worth, this quote from Thurston in the Confusion is Next book sort of confirms that the band itself weren't happy with the production on the Goo album:

'... those demos are preferable in a way, just because that's the feel that we were into and that's more us. The finished album is what it is - what are you going to do, re-record it?'

Taste is ultimately subjective, but if a band complain that the production on their record isn't what they wanted, then it's fair to say that you aren't hearing what the originally wanted you to hear.

Funny though how all this petty chit chat about production comes from someone whose music sounds like amateurish power electronics at best. And where the fuck does production come into play in all this? They didn't use a producer till fucking Dirty, unless I'm mistaken.

[deadrockstar]

production is only objective when there is a clear direction the producer/band/whatever have declared they want to take (e.g. bass driven mirge) and it doesn't come anywhere close (e.g. it sounds like hank marvin). even then, you'd have a hard job defining it terrible objectively as everyone would hear it differently anyway. e.g. for me heavy music is that sweeping guitar in becuz, to others it is slipknot and to yet others it is ac/dc.

i don't see any such evidence of a failure to produce in the way desired, only ever-so-slight hints that it didn't come out exactly how they hoped. i don't think they expected anything different, but perhaps they just expected it to turn out a bit better.

that said, my subjective view of it is that it has a wonderful sound. perhaps not absolutely perfect production, but far from a disaster.

[therealglenstyler]

hmm the productio thing is a weird one, its never sounded bad to me, it does i suppose reflect its time and the hand of ron st germain a bit but not to the dtriment of the songs or the album.

ron st germain seems to have been the producer of choice in those tricky situations of underground/challenging band getting a bit of a scrub up for radio for a particular, brief period of time before the alternative music deluge settled on its paradigm 'sound' of organic/realness sometime around in utero, but I don't think any of those things qualifies as 'bad' sound, I can see that as time has passed that to some ears it hasn't aged well but i have to say I love it, particularly when put up against some of the production jobs on others in that first wave of bigger more ambitious alternative music from around that time (say, anything by janes addiction or nevermind). to me a lot of those qualities of the sound which typify a post eighties 'how best to present this new sound, is it metal is it indie?' kind of approach to the sound actually harmonise it with the agrressive urbanised dense and sheeny productions of public enemy, which is very cool. to me anyway. its a hip hop record.

[atsonicpark]

sarramkrop, my music hasn't nor ever will sound like "power electronics"; the fact that I decide to produce it the way I do has nothing to do with my tastes in other band's production; and ALL OF THEIR RECORDS have had a producer (except maybe some ep's or something), so what the hell are you talking about? nutty.

the quote in confusion is what i was referring to.. seems like the band was a bit unhappy with the sound of the finished product.. the performances were just as good, so i'm assuming he was referring to the production.. that's all! and if so, he was right: the production doesn't ruin the album, but it doesn't help. and the dude IS not the best producer in the world.

i totally agree with what everyneurotic said, though.. daydream also always sounded weird.. the way the instruments coalesced sounded a bit.. i dunno.. rubbery.. like the bass.. it never sounded quite right.. though i LOVED the way the vocals sound on daydream.. so majestic. and the reissue pretty much makes it all sound great!