Interesting. That’s one of my favorite albums. I’ve never had an issue with the recording quality on it.
Strangely enough, I like the compressed, overproduced original mix much better–the album itself is one of their weakest, but I don’t think the …“Naked” version improves the material one iota.
Back to the original topic, I detested the production of every John Lennon solo album; it all sounded so limp wristed and fey when you knew deep down inside the guy was screaming to make a punk album somewhere down the line (and might have, had he lived). By his own admission, he stated there wasn’t a single Beatles track he wouldn’t have re-made if he had the chance.
Very few KISS fans out there, but the hardcore ones would say “Unmasked” and “Dynasty” would both have benefited from better production.
That late 90s, early 2000s remastering sounds fantastic to me. It truly does sound like the music is going to grab you by the throat and pull you into the speaker. Many hardcore fans hated the extra vocals Iggy added much later, but to me they don’t ruin it.
Absolutely.
My pick is Emerson Lake & Palmer Brain Salad Surgery. Muddy and muted, poor separation of instruments, and drums lost in the background. It sounds like it was recorded on a 4-track cassette.
Runners-up…
Led Zeppelin (just about everything). They’re idea of stereo separation and mixing was twiddling a balance knob back and forth.
Jethro Tull, Aqualung, it is painfully obvious where takes and tracks have been cut and spliced in. They’re earlier albums are pristine in comparison, so I don’t know what got screwed up in this album’s sessions.
One of the things I’ve learned from visiting “audiophile” message boards and thumbing through their magazines, is that every single album I’ve ever loved (be it by the Beach Boys, or Dylan, or any punk band, or whatever) was “badly produced/recorded” and has “muddy sound.” I must therefore posit that there is, generally speaking, an inverse relationship between the quality of the recording and the quality of the music.
I rest my case.
I’d go with Strawberry Switchblade’s one and only album. Pre-album single “Trees and Flowers” had a lovely acoustic sound, but the album was produced with a mid-80s synthpop sound that hasn’t dated very well, e.g. top single “Since Yesterday”, which has some incredibly lifeless drums.
I can sort of understand the rationale - the band had an artificial, bubblegum pop image, and presumably the guy behind the mixing desk wanted to create an artificial, bubblegum pop sound - but the songs on the record deserve a second chance, they’re really good. Smothered by thin, weedy-sounding synths and simple 4/4 electronic drums.
I was listening to the album on repeat all afternoon today, and I’m really curious now. What is it that you don’t like about the recording? There’s nothing that stands out as being terrible to me. It’s got a nice, loose, airy vibe to it. It sounds casual and sincere without being muddy, garbled, and lo-fi.
I always notice how the bass drum “bottoms out” at 2:46 on the Knack’s “My Sharona” (cued up clip here, about five seconds in). It’s easier to notice in a car or with headphones. It gives off that “whub whub” sound of a speaker trying to move too much air, reagrdless of the volume, or playback device. I wonder if there’s a way to fix it on the original mix, or if the signal is too saturated to do anything but let it ride. I’m no expert in any of this.
I agree with you about 100%. There are a few outliers. Neil Young for example. To me, he has the best production/engineering out there. Very natural. There should be a course in most music production schools titled: Broken Arrow. That album is the closest thing to live music…which means it sounds nothing like a live or studio album.
Conversely RHCP’s classic album **Californication **is produced at redline levels the whole way though, and is consequently compressed to hell. I’d love to hear a re-done version of that where they allow the listener to turn it up if they want.
I’m with astorian on this one. I made a CD mix that happens to have “Picture Book” on it…and, when I played the CD on a Bose in the bathroom, something was definitely off in the sound for that one song. I think it was the bass and drums drowning out the vocals and, especially, the guitar riff, which is so important to the song.
(I do recall the “original” CD – not ripped and reburned – sounding rather better, when played in the car. Not sure if that was due to the different speakers, or to the extra digital steps in the mix CD.)
Well, the first two were recorded at the legendary Surrey Sound Studios. What? You’ve never heard of it? That’s because it was producer Nigel Gray’s barn. Nigel Gray was a doctor by training, not a sound engineer, and I think it shows - especially on the first two albums on the low volume stuff. The start of “Masoko Tango” on Outlandos always sounds like someone recorded it with an Ampex recorder in front of a house speaker.
Zenyatta was recorded in Wisselord in Belgium, which is a much better studio. Sting apparently chatted with XTC’s Andy Partridge about the sound on their records, and he suggested Steve Lillywhite’s engineer, Hugh Padgham. Padgham ended up co-producing both Ghost in the Machine and Synchronicity, which I think are sonically ten times better quality than the first two and also the third. But I agree, the albums sound softer, especially when compared to XTC’s albums at the same period.
Perhaps outside the scope of the OP, but I’d suggest as a category the great old blues records of the 1920’s-30’s…some really amazing stuff, but few listeners nowadays are willing to put up with the sound limitations inherent in the scratchy old 78’s that are the only available source recordings (here’s a favorite track of mine, collected on Harry Smith’s 1952 Anthology of American Folk Music).
Most of the stuff by the band Curve. I really like their sound and most of their songs, but damn, it sounds like they were recorded in a garbage can. Some tracks, though (like “Chinese Burn”) are awesome and sound great, which makes the ones that sound like crap all the more frustrating to me.
No and no and maybe. Early Dead and Airplane albums were recorded in LA, because there were no recording studios in San Francisco. The albums were produced by staff producers who had no idea what rock & roll was all about. It wasn’t until After Bathing At Baxter’s that one was recorded in SF. That one has lousy production values because there wasn’t a producer - the band just got toasty and jammed in the studio. It was supposed to be an audio version of an acid trip. It ended up a complete mess.
The Mamas & The Papas also recorded in LA. Lou Adler was the producer, so there is really no excuse there.
Thanks, Silenus.
I was thinking this about Leonard Cohen’s “I’m your Man.” Leonard of course was great, and the songs are great, but the backing music uses a lot of synth, which really doesn’t fit the music, and then the background singers is a bunch of very pretty sounding female voices, which again don’t really mesh well with Leonard’s extremely unique, deep delivery.
The only one that needs remixing is Doppelganger. All the early singles sound like they were released yesterday, they’re that timeless.
Sly and the Family Stones Greatest Hits is butchered beyond belief.
It doesn’t take a keen ear to appreciate that some of the best music ever
was criminally defaced.
The youtube version of Hot Fun… is representative. Ack!
Metallicas “And Justice For All” never seemed like it was mixed properly. And their “Death Magnetic” album suffered from all the volumes being maxed.