having heard the last 2 singles, one on vinyl and the other one on my computer (i still need to buy freakshow), i have to say the production is IMHO the ugliest one the cure has ever done.
any part is upfront, no matter which one, and i suffocate each time i try to listen to any track : no breathing, no space, no depth --- this loudness-radio-itunes-friendly mix is becoming not only ridiculous, but painful to hear, even on vinyl!
worse : it gets even more painful with the b-sides, mud mud mud.
i really don't understand how one can bash the last self-titled LP and like this new non-production : lost, labyrinth, fake (yes, i love fake), this morning, to name my favorite ones, could not have had a better sound --- no space, no depth (well, there is, actually) here neither maybe, but because it fits some tension, because it is an aesthetical point of audition, so it works : lost is just a great compressed version of forever, and for this reason needs some musical compression. tight & speed & breathtaking, i'm exhausted before the song ends.
new songs ? just fat. the small piano part in the only one, which is the best thing this track has to offer, sounds just swallowed and split up.
i'm really afraid of what will, or probably already has, happen(ed) to underneath the stars & sleep when i'm dead, these 2 great songs, and the other ones.
i like concerts recordings, but for the first time i might just listen to them, forgetting about the studio tracks --- hoping some other ones will be played, in case the whole album is produced this way.
Yes, I've noticed this on the singles so far. It's the worst they've ever done (although the previous recent stuff was still troubling).
So you're saying that the vinyl versions aren't any better? I know there are two ways that vinyl is made these days:
1) mastered properly for dynamics with attention to quality
2) they just use the hammered CD master source and lower the volume to make it fit on vinyl
So I guess it's #2? That's really sad to hear. :(
You know, I was just about to order the vinyl singles and transfer them to digital, but I guess it's pointless now. If you could confirm this, I'd really appreciate it.
Quote from: mahood on June 19, 2008, 02:51:51i like concerts recordings, but for the first time i might just listen to them, forgetting about the studio tracks --- hoping some other ones will be played, in case the whole album is produced this way.
Yeah, it's funny how The Cure's recent live shows have tons of dynamic range. I know some bands compress their live sound to a certain degree just like studio recordings, but The Cure in 2008 don't seem to be doing it at all. It's really refreshing.
So I totally agree - even though audience recordings may not have perfect fidelity, I still find them more pleasant to listen to than modern studio recordings. They actually breathe and have life to them!
Quote from: mahood on June 19, 2008, 02:51:51
this loudness-radio-itunes-friendly mix is becoming not only ridiculous, but painful to hear, even on vinyl!
worse : it gets even more painful with the b-sides, mud mud mud.
just listening to 'all kinds of stuff' from the cd single right now and this is by far the WORST cure studio sound i've EVER heard. one can't even focus on the song, to start listening to it whether it's a good or bad piece of music - it doesn't matter because the sounds is just SO utterly awfully bad anyway.
:(
Quote from: japanesebaby on June 19, 2008, 07:36:54
Quote from: mahood on June 19, 2008, 02:51:51
this loudness-radio-itunes-friendly mix is becoming not only ridiculous, but painful to hear, even on vinyl!
worse : it gets even more painful with the b-sides, mud mud mud.
just listening to 'all kinds of stuff' from the cd single right now and this is by far the WORST cure studio sound i've EVER heard. one can't even focus on the song, to start listening to it whether it's a good or bad piece of music - it doesn't matter because the sounds is just SO utterly awfully bad anyway.
:(
I thought NY Trip had the worst sound of all the new stuff. I mean, I like the song - but it just sounds terrible. Very shrill treble and weak bass.
I've honestly wondered if there's a trend toward taking more bass out of recordings so they can pump up the volume even more? :smth011
Again, I'll say it's "funny" how all the pre-WMS albums sounded superior to anything after that, even though the equipment and technology they were made with might be considered ancient by today's standards.
Even Three Imaginary Boys blows away what they're putting out now. Yeah, it sounds kind of "cheap" - but at least there's warmth and dynamics!
It's nice to see that people here also care about such matters. I haven't yet listened to the new Cure singles in adequate conditions so that I can judge them fairly, but this 'loudness war' thing is something that has become really ugly...
I know the example I'm going to give should mean nothing to most or even any of you, but my standard for 'ugly loud production' is the album 'The Antichrist', by German thrash-metallers Destruction. The sound has no depth, the riffs are not only weak but come with a guitar tone/mix that is completely POWERLESS, but at the same time the whole thing is so damn loud that after 2 or 3 songs I'm starting to get a headache. And I do like heavy and loud music!
Anyway, I guess this "louder-than-thou" nonsense started in the 80's, no? I remember that songs like "Lovesong" and "Pictures of You" sounded way more loud in their maxi-single (12") versions than in the albums...
Still not possible to get freakshow here in HK :smth011 :evil: :smth011 But I agree the only one/nytrip is flat
Quote from: lostflower4 on June 19, 2008, 07:56:25
Quote from: japanesebaby on June 19, 2008, 07:36:54
Quote from: mahood on June 19, 2008, 02:51:51
this loudness-radio-itunes-friendly mix is becoming not only ridiculous, but painful to hear, even on vinyl!
worse : it gets even more painful with the b-sides, mud mud mud.
just listening to 'all kinds of stuff' from the cd single right now and this is by far the WORST cure studio sound i've EVER heard. one can't even focus on the song, to start listening to it whether it's a good or bad piece of music - it doesn't matter because the sounds is just SO utterly awfully bad anyway.
:(
I thought NY Trip had the worst sound of all the new stuff. I mean, I like the song - but it just sounds terrible. Very shrill treble and weak bass.
seriously, this one's the worst. i listened to it once and that's it - i can't bother to listen to it for a second time (even though i'd like to since i'd like to learn the song), since it's too painful, complete crap production.
i almost can't believe it the cure is screwing it all up like this! :x :x :x
Quote from: lostflower4 on June 19, 2008, 07:56:25
I've honestly wondered if there's a trend toward taking more bass out of recordings so they can pump up the volume even more? :smth011
that's been a silly trend for far too many live unofficial recordings and i always comforted myself that at least the studio stuff still includes the concept of bass - now it seems like it's going to be gone too.
i'm really pissed about this today! :x
Quote from: lostflower4 on June 19, 2008, 07:56:25
I've honestly wondered if there's a trend toward taking more bass out of recordings so they can pump up the volume even more? :smth011
that's been a silly trend for far too many live unofficial recordings and i always comforted myself that at least the studio stuff still includes the concept of bass - now it seems like it's going to be gone too.
i'm really pissed about this today! :x
[/quote]
I can't say I'm sure this is the case, but I have noticed that a lot of recordings from the last few years don't have a strong bass presence.
There was a big trend in the mid-late '90s / early 2000s where recordings were extra bassy, but it doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
Yet recordings continue to get louder and louder, so that's just a conclusion I had.
Quote from: lostflower4 on June 19, 2008, 07:56:25
I thought NY Trip had the worst sound of all the new stuff. I mean, I like the song - but it just sounds terrible. Very shrill treble and weak bass.
I've honestly wondered if there's a trend toward taking more bass out of recordings so they can pump up the volume even more? :smth011
Again, I'll say it's "funny" how all the pre-WMS albums sounded superior to anything after that, even though the equipment and technology they were made with might be considered ancient by today's standards.
Even Three Imaginary Boys blows away what they're putting out now. Yeah, it sounds kind of "cheap" - but at least there's warmth and dynamics!
What do you think of the dynamics of the remasters? I don't have all of the originals to compare them with, or the new vinyls.
(hmm -- apparently the new vinyls on Vinyl Lovers stink: http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/76/761294.html (http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/vinyl/messages/76/761294.html))
It seems the bass tone is overall quite different - things like 39 and most of the new album are very growly in tone (Thunderbird?) but don't fill out the bottom end quite as much :(
Quote from: firecrasher on June 19, 2008, 18:39:17What do you think of the dynamics of the remasters? I don't have all of the originals to compare them with, or the new vinyls.
It seems the bass tone is overall quite different - things like 39 and most of the new album are very growly in tone (Thunderbird?) but don't fill out the bottom end quite as much :(
I've found the remasters to be varied in how they were processed. I noticed the first batch (1979-1981) was pumped up quite a bit in places, but still not nearly as bad as the new stuff.
The second batch of remasters (1983-1987) was more conservative. Those all have really full dynamics - basically just like the originals, only a few decibels louder, and a bit "stronger" sound with more bass, for example.
Join the Dots has some compression going on, but it's not horrible on the earlier stuff. Yes, you can see the levels are pushed - but there's still dynamic range in there, so I can live with it. Really, if the record companies would just stick with something more reasonable like that, I think everyone could be generally happy.
On a side note, I think a good happy medium (albeit a bit on the "loud" side) - is the original version of Burn from the Crow soundtrack. That was just right before the loudness war really took off, but labels were concious of getting stuff a bit louder than it used to be. And it was a good tradeoff between keeping the dynamics and getting the volume up. But then it just got crazy a couple years after that.
Back to Join the Dots, the newer stuff (especially 1995 and beyond) is the same old loudness war crap. I never really compared the "remasters" against the originals, but they seem about the same.
Of course, stuff like Galore and Greatest Hits was all crushed to crap just like everything else. I'm really happy they pretty much spared the more fan-oriented stuff like the remasters, bonus discs, and Join the Dots. That would have been a tragedy if that stuff got completely mangled too.
But a remastered 39? I guess you're talking about the German "remastered" Bloodflowers? Never heard that one...
Quote from: lostflower4 on June 19, 2008, 14:04:36
There was a big trend in the mid-late '90s / early 2000s where recordings were extra bassy, but it doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
Yet recordings continue to get louder and louder, so that's just a conclusion I had.ause
to answer the question in your first post, lf4 : possibility #2, unfortunately --- the vinyl just sounds as if they tried to apply the same treatment to the songs, very low quality here. if you already have the CDs, there is no need to have them on this format, i would say. except for the artwork, maybe.
i really don't understand this pissing contest, especially since the production has been so important & so great on cure records ; i mean, RS is not the newcomer here, how could he butcher his own songs like this ?
i had hopes about mike hedges rejoining them, after the 2004 re-recordings known as 4play, which have a sound i totally enjoy : simple, sparse, and so breathing. and i thought it was a "natural" direction to follow, because why would you reduce the number of players & instruments in the band, if you don't want a more direct, more simple sound (& of course simplicity is always the most difficult thing to obtain) ? strangely enough, this is what we hear live, hence the fact i prefer listening to "unprofessional" audience recordings.
anyway, i have also noticed this tendency to produce/master with less bass these days (after very bassy 90s indeed, this came from the electronic field mainly). but i think this has to do with the references too : new bands clearly are indebted to late 70s - early 80s post punk & "punk funk" or whatever, and so use a similar production. back then, you wouldn't hear so much bass, or only the bass would sound, well, bassy.
Quote from: mahood on June 19, 2008, 19:54:14
i had hopes about mike hedges rejoining them, after the 2004 re-recordings known as 4play, which have a sound i totally enjoy : simple, sparse, and so breathing. and i thought it was a "natural" direction to follow, because why would you reduce the number of players & instruments in the band, if you don't want a more direct, more simple sound (& of course simplicity is always the most difficult thing to obtain) ? strangely enough, this is what we hear live, hence the fact i prefer listening to "unprofessional" audience recordings.
this is exactly what i've been thinking: why on earth this unnatural, artificial sound when the band is actually pretty bare and simple. why leave out the keyboards is they are going to add some artificial crap synth sounds over everything in the studio?
i don't get it at all.
unless this is proof that robert has lost much of his hearing and is going deaf, literally. :/
Quote from: mahood on June 19, 2008, 19:54:14
if you already have the CDs, there is no need to have them on this format, i would say. except for the artwork, maybe.
again, you steal my lines mahood! ;)
because i was just about to post on the other thread (the threa about the realese of the new singles): "very nice artwork from porl (i really do think so) but unfortunately this record is a lot better when only watched and not listened to - and that's pretty alarming for any musical release..."
Quote from: mahood on June 19, 2008, 19:54:14anyway, i have also noticed this tendency to produce/master with less bass these days (after very bassy 90s indeed, this came from the electronic field mainly). but i think this has to do with the references too : new bands clearly are indebted to late 70s - early 80s post punk & "punk funk" or whatever, and so use a similar production. back then, you wouldn't hear so much bass, or only the bass would sound, well, bassy.
I can understand that, and I know that mega-bass was never big in the '80s and before.
But if these bands want to be more '70s/'80s-like, then why all this loudness war crap???
Well, the sad truth is that most of this is beyond the bands' and even the producers' control.
Record labels will basically demand that a record meet a certain loudness level. And if the producer/engineer doesn't follow the orders, they'll simply be replaced or fired - and possibly even blacklisted as a bad person to work with. :(
Even though Robert has always maintained a high degree of control over the band's work, he may not have any control over this aspect. It seems to be the same in terms of the double album idea failing once again.
Really, I think we need to come up with some massive protest here - DOWN WITH THE LOUDNESS WAR! :twisted:
Quote from: lostflower4 on June 19, 2008, 20:12:48
Really, I think we need to come up with some massive protest here - DOWN WITH THE LOUDNESS WAR! :twisted:
yes we certainly do, i've no doubt about that. but how?
should we put together an petition, trying to get it through to the band - sounds hopeless... or does it?
then again, this IS a serious thing: because we are forced to watch while they are ruining our most beloved music here! that's outrageous and calls for action, for sure. :evil:
Quote from: japanesebaby on June 19, 2008, 20:20:00
Quote from: lostflower4 on June 19, 2008, 20:12:48
Really, I think we need to come up with some massive protest here - DOWN WITH THE LOUDNESS WAR! :twisted:
yes we certainly do, i've no doubt about that. but how?
should we put together an petition, trying to get it through to the band - sounds hopeless... or does it?
then again, this IS a serious thing: because we are forced to watch while they are ruining our most beloved music here! that's outrageous and calls for action, for sure. :evil:
I know that Smashing Pumpkins fans were able to get the attention of Billy Corgan over this issue on their last album. I don't think it was successful, but they actually got him to say something about it.
Well, Cure fans have certainly got Robert to publicly respond to certain issues in the past (the cancellation of the 2007 U.S. tour, certain rumors, etc.)
I think we have the ability to garner the attention if we put our minds to it.
Quote from: lostflower4 on June 19, 2008, 20:36:02
I think we have the ability to garner the attention if we put our minds to it.
let's!
I absolutely love this topic... I just said on a previous post how crappy the production on "NY Trip" and all of the new singles is. It's utterly painful and inexcusable. For goodness sake, Robert and The Cure built all of the earlier albums on breathtaking dynamics, sudden swells of volume and superior sound. Hell, the inserts on the CDs and tapes all had notes saying: This was mixed to be played LOUD - So turn it UP!!!
How I hope that the lousy sound quality of these new tunes are simply the result of "Mix 13" that they're attaching to each single. For example, on iTunes "The Only One" is listed as The Only One (Mix 13) or something... I have my fingers crossed.
Even the dodgy production on "The Cure" at least allowed for dynamics.
I am really beginning to hate the digital age (and this comes from a guy who records and produces exclusively on ProTools - but at least I know how to mix with dynamics without just jacking up volume levels).
Quote from: splitmilk34 on June 19, 2008, 21:38:44
This was mixed to be played LOUD - So turn it UP!!!
How I hope that the lousy sound quality of these new tunes are simply the result of "Mix 13" that they're attaching to each single. For example, on iTunes "The Only One" is listed as The Only One (Mix 13) or something... I have my fingers crossed.
i remember this quote to be written on disintegration sleeve notes ; and, oh yes, i played it loud :D
i had hopes about the mix 13 thing too -hoping it would be the bad thing that would not appear on the album-, but unfortunately these are the tracks that sound less awful (still they sound so, regardless of their qualities --- i for one like freakshow!) when compared to the Bsides.
i do agree with a "let's declare war to loudness war" action.
it would be interesting to know who decides in the end : i hear your point, lf4, about the label deciding what's good or not (i.e. commercially speaking, although i seriously doubt this can have any effect on the sales ; in the case of bands like cure, i may even think it does the opposite). but the production seems to go this way, i mean, before even any mastering is done - this later process will just add to the ugliness of it ; so you are right perhaps, and the coproducer and RS decide that anyway it has to be done like this, because the label has said so --- then it would really be a shame.
who is to blame then ? who do we send our comments to ? maybe both.
Sadly I doubt theres that much we can really do about it. I just try to ignore it myself. I mean its still the same music you just have to take it in differently.
"Perhaps this is just part of their MASTER PLAN"
Quote from: lostflower4 on June 19, 2008, 19:16:26
I've found the remasters to be varied in how they were processed. I noticed the first batch (1979-1981) was pumped up quite a bit in places, but still not nearly as bad as the new stuff.
The second batch of remasters (1983-1987) was more conservative. Those all have really full dynamics - basically just like the originals, only a few decibels louder, and a bit "stronger" sound with more bass, for example.
Back to Join the Dots, the newer stuff (especially 1995 and beyond) is the same old loudness war crap. I never really compared the "remasters" against the originals, but they seem about the same.
Of course, stuff like Galore and Greatest Hits was all crushed to crap just like everything else. I'm really happy they pretty much spared the more fan-oriented stuff like the remasters, bonus discs, and Join the Dots. That would have been a tragedy if that stuff got completely mangled too.
But a remastered 39? I guess you're talking about the German "remastered" Bloodflowers? Never heard that one...
I'm sorry, I did an edit on my post and didn't separate my thoughts well - I just meant the overall bass sound on 39 as opposed to earlier recordings.
I don't mind the remastered recordings... isn't the actual purpose of remasters to "cleaning up" some of the sound quality rather than just cranking the volume? It's possible quiet sounds to still be clear. I sadly read that the "new" colored vinyls on Vinyl Lovers are of poor sound quality. :(
I'm wondering if a lot of the recent loudness war has to do with the move to digital music files and things being compressed all to hell. Wasn't there an interview with Robert in the last few years where he mentioned not having as much sway in the music industry as he thought he did? The sound of the ST really jumped out at me as being harsh. :(
I'll do some searching on The Pumpkins' Zeitgeist, I know it was recorded entirely on analog. A while back I listened to Siamese Dream on 128 mp3 and CD over a pair of studio headphones and the difference was astounding.
Quote from: KingOfSomeIsland on June 20, 2008, 03:34:01
Sadly I doubt theres that much we can really do about it. I just try to ignore it myself. I mean its still the same music you just have to take it in differently.
"Perhaps this is just part of their MASTER PLAN"
Yes that's right! There's nothing we can do about it. Sure it's noisy and crowded, but that's how they wanted it I suppose. It does make you think though, what it would be like if they would do something like Faith again, simple and subtle. But then, that would be making a step backwards and fans would crucify them for repeating themselves.
As far as remasters go I've always preffered the remasters over the originals for a much clearer sound. In my opinion.
In conclusion, I really do like the new songs.
Hmm.. I started to get curious as to how much the volume increased in remastering and just put some screenshots of A Forest and The Hanging Gardens on my flickr account. Take a look if you'd like, A Forest is quite a lot louder!!! I'm not a big fan of Audacity so I didn't really look for clipping.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/firecrasher/sets/72157605713349371/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/firecrasher/sets/72157605713349371/)
Quote from: tigermilk on June 20, 2008, 05:43:16
Quote from: KingOfSomeIsland on June 20, 2008, 03:34:01
Sadly I doubt theres that much we can really do about it. I just try to ignore it myself. I mean its still the same music you just have to take it in differently.
"Perhaps this is just part of their MASTER PLAN"
Yes that's right! There's nothing we can do about it.
come on guys, at least we could do what the SP fans did and try to get it into the beand's attention - can they change it anymore? you're right, probably nothing can be donw. but that doesn't mean it's futile to even discuss it, try to bring the topic up. good causes are always worth discussing - even when things can't be changed just like that.
Quote from: tigermilk on June 20, 2008, 05:43:16
Sure it's noisy and crowded, but that's how they wanted it I suppose.
seriously i can't believe they'd ever want this. like stated in the thread above by some, just listen to the past cure albums, listen to 'disintegration' and listen to the depth of the sound in it. robert is not some "let's make everything fast and easy blahblahblah" kind of american idols winner, he's a professional musician who knows what quality should sound like.
but are you saying he really wanted to ruin his own music? i cannot believe such a thing at all.
Quote from: japanesebaby on June 20, 2008, 09:31:16
Quote from: tigermilk on June 20, 2008, 05:43:16
Quote from: KingOfSomeIsland on June 20, 2008, 03:34:01
Sadly I doubt theres that much we can really do about it. I just try to ignore it myself. I mean its still the same music you just have to take it in differently.
"Perhaps this is just part of their MASTER PLAN"
Yes that's right! There's nothing we can do about it.
come on guys, at least we could do what the SP fans did and try to get it into the beand's attention - can they change it anymore? you're right, probably nothing can be donw. but that doesn't mean it's futile to even discuss it, try to bring the topic up. good causes are always worth discussing - even when things can't be changed just like that.
Quote from: tigermilk on June 20, 2008, 05:43:16
Sure it's noisy and crowded, but that's how they wanted it I suppose.
seriously i can't believe they'd ever want this. like stated in the thread above by some, just listen to the past cure albums, listen to 'disintegration' and listen to the depth of the sound in it. robert is not some "let's make everything fast and easy blahblahblah" kind of american idols winner, he's a professional musician who knows what quality should sound like.
but are you saying he really wanted to ruin his own music? i cannot believe such a thing at all.
I see it as less self-sabotage and more of a want to adopt a more modern sound. I mean they did the same thing in '87 with Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me being specifically mastered for CD rather than vinyl. And with RS being the infamous control freak that he is I seriously doubt he would ever allow music that he didn't approve of to be officially released.
I don't see it to be so much of an issue anyways. Its not as if they're bastardizing their old recordings with bad modern-style mastering. It's just their new stuff...
The loudness thing doesn't bother me half as much as it seems to bother most people in this thread. For me, it's a mild irritation. It doesn't stop me from enjoying the new songs, not by a long shot. I guess I just don't get it. I know, the recordings are louder, that that affects the dynamic range, yada yada; I guess it just doesn't bother me very much. And I think I'm the average person out there in that respect; we just don't care, if we even notice.
Good luck with the petition, though.
Quote from: KingOfSomeIsland on June 20, 2008, 09:55:30
I see it as less self-sabotage and more of a want to adopt a more modern sound. I mean they did the same thing in '87 with Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me being specifically mastered for CD rather than vinyl.
but these are two completely different things, to adopt something that could be called "a modern sound" and to actually let someone intentionally distort your recording...
and if the "modern sound" means all recordings are being partially destroyed during the mastering process (because they are getting distorted due to the insane volume boost, which means they have artifacting all over them), why on earth would anyone want to adopt such a thing? it's not the same things as accepting to use something "modern", somehting that's been upgraded - it's giving up into a bad trend that seems to dominate. but even if it's a dominating trend, it doesn't mean it's good and should be accepted without questioning.
seriously, why would anyone want to make their recordings sound shittier than they are, before releasing them to the public? it makes no sense to me at all and no "modern sound" can really explain it. because this "modern sound" is simply a crappy sound.
as i work with music myslef but never worked in a studio environment, it's a really huge mystery to me, why the studios do this. you would think that the biggest hi-fi freaks are the ones that work there in the studios, people who really pay attention to every little detail of the sound and who can work for weeks, just in order to find exactly the sound that they want. i know some studio people and they are mostly like this - but thanks to this volume destroying trend, they are being forced to destroy their own detailed work? sounds horrible.
Quote from: KingOfSomeIsland on June 20, 2008, 09:55:30
I don't see it to be so much of an issue anyways. Its not as if they're bastardizing their old recordings with bad modern-style mastering. It's just their new stuff...
i'm not sure i understand what you mean. maybe it doesn't matter people who only listen to the old stuff and don't even intend to listen to the new material, if that's what you're saying. but to anyone whos interested to the new stuff too...
just their new stuff? maybe... but why would that be any less important than the old stuff?
this IS a very serious issue because it means that everything that enters the shelves is already mangled, distorted, mishandled and partially ruined. it's like selling goods that had their "best before" date three years ago and pretednign it's brand new and fresh.
i think unfortunately the studios are counting on the buying public not caring about it so much because they've already gotten everyone used to the distortion with itunes, crappy earphones that people use with ipods etc. - and i do find this rather alarming and sad. this general inflation of quality. that people accept volume-destruction and distortion it causes on the sound as something that's "supposed to be" part of the original release. because whichever way you look at it, it shouldn't be!
Yeah, there's nothing really "modern" about this trend. It's just basically that the record labels want Britney Spears' new album to be just as loud, or a tad louder than, Hilary Duff's new album.
And I guess The Cure's label is concerned that if their recordings aren't pumped to this level, people might decide to buy one of the above-mentioned releases instead. Seriously, it almost makes me laugh - but it's the sad truth.
As for people who say we can't do anything about it, it sure as heck can't hurt to try. There are tons of people out there fed up with this practice, and it's about time something serious was done!
There's really not much new music out there that grabs my interest, so it's been easy for me to be passive about this. But when my favorite band starts getting mangled like this, it's another story.
To the people who "aren't that bothered by it", consider yourself lucky, I guess. It doesn't mean the problem isn't there.
Here's a great video demonstrating the practice. It might open the eyes of some people who are less educated on these matters:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ
Yeah, and let me add this: When I started using ProTools I got a book on the program. It said within the first 10 pages of "How to Record using ProTools" that you should record everything at the highest volume possible without the sound clipping. Not only did this go against everything I'd ever learned previously, but it also was just plain wrong... Imagine if your acoustic guitar was as loud as your drums AND vocals.
This whole "practice" is very annoying, but I do believe that the band will not allow such a terrible thing to take place on the final mix of the new album. It just bothers me that people who don't love music are able to ruin it for the rest of us.
And don't think for one second that some of this "loudness" isn't due to anticipation of illegal downloads. The mastering tech is probably making things a little extra loud for the multiple times it will be converted to crappy 128kpbs mp3. I may be stretching a bit with this point, though.
Quote from: splitmilk34 on June 20, 2008, 16:12:45
Yeah, and let me add this: When I started using ProTools I got a book on the program. It said within the first 10 pages of "How to Record using ProTools" that you should record everything at the highest volume possible without the sound clipping. Not only did this go against everything I'd ever learned previously, but it also was just plain wrong... Imagine if your acoustic guitar was as loud as your drums AND vocals.
This whole "practice" is very annoying, but I do believe that the band will not allow such a terrible thing to take place on the final mix of the new album. It just bothers me that people who don't love music are able to ruin it for the rest of us.
And don't think for one second that some of this "loudness" isn't due to anticipation of illegal downloads. The mastering tech is probably making things a little extra loud for the multiple times it will be converted to crappy 128kpbs mp3. I may be stretching a bit with this point, though.
You're right, both my Firebox and Cubase/Ableton etc all recommend recording at the highest possible volume before the evil Clip light appears.
Do you think that has something to do with why Robert's vocals have been mixed into the stratosphere on the last couple of albums, just to stand out from the wash of volume?
I'm sure the downloads factor into it, but there are plenty of people who just rip their cds to their computer or copy them for car usage. Or buy them off iTunes etc.
I can't really guess at why Robert's vocals have been mixed really high. That could certainly have something to do with it... plus, when levels are pushed to the limit on all of the instruments it makes it really hard to not only mix vocals in, but to the EQ them to give them the proper "spacing"... hence the claustrophobic sound of the new singles.
Quote from: mahood on June 20, 2008, 02:13:11
Quote from: splitmilk34 on June 19, 2008, 21:38:44
This was mixed to be played LOUD - So turn it UP!!!
How I hope that the lousy sound quality of these new tunes are simply the result of "Mix 13" that they're attaching to each single. For example, on iTunes "The Only One" is listed as The Only One (Mix 13) or something... I have my fingers crossed.
i remember this quote to be written on disintegration sleeve notes ; and, oh yes, i played it loud :D
i had hopes about the mix 13 thing too -hoping it would be the bad thing that would not appear on the album-, but unfortunately these are the tracks that sound less awful (still they sound so, regardless of their qualities --- i for one like freakshow!) when compared to the Bsides.
yes it's scary that especially the b-sides are so badly destroyed too. if only the "mix 13" a-sides were being crushed but b-sides were better, there might be some hope...
but this spells b-a-d for the whole album now... :(
Quote from: japanesebaby on June 24, 2008, 19:33:01
yes it's scary that especially the b-sides are so badly destroyed too. if only the "mix 13" a-sides were being crushed but b-sides were better, there might be some hope...
but this spells b-a-d for the whole album now... :(
one last hope, although i fear the same thing : lots of b-sides had a very different mix from the singles & albums they were related to : the peak of this was when the 3 singles from wish had very differently mixed b-sides (as far as i remember, there were parts of the same session, or am i wrong?).
even if usually, the "loud" sound is for the album ; the opposite way would be a good idea this time.
i really can't imagine underneath the stars with this sound ; sure, the waves would break, but everything else would too, and so nothing would.
Quote from: KingOfSomeIsland on June 20, 2008, 09:55:30
I see it as less self-sabotage and more of a want to adopt a more modern sound. I mean they did the same thing in '87 with Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me being specifically mastered for CD rather than vinyl. And with RS being the infamous control freak that he is I seriously doubt he would ever allow music that he didn't approve of to be officially released.
I don't see it to be so much of an issue anyways. Its not as if they're bastardizing their old recordings with bad modern-style mastering. It's just their new stuff...
i agree, but lost of other artists concerned with the same problem still don't sound that awful - i mean, this time : these two singles, i just can't listen to them.
adopting a modern sound (i.e. commercially speaking) is the most stupid idea anyway : they didn't think about that when recording the so-called trilogy, or disintegration ; and wish was a very personal dialogue with what was happening in the shoegazing scene.
and so you're right, and i'm glad the remasters didn't suffer from this : try to imgine secrets or the caterpillar with this treatment.
Quote from: japanesebaby on June 24, 2008, 19:33:01
yes it's scary that especially the b-sides are so badly destroyed too. if only the "mix 13" a-sides were being crushed but b-sides were better, there might be some hope...
but this spells b-a-d for the whole album now... :(
I listened to Freakshow on my ipod with a set of good headphones and it clipped so horribly :(
an example from RHCP fans:
http://www.petitiononline.com/RHCPWBCD/petition.html
not sure if it ever accomplished anything but at least they are trying to say something - go sign today! :!:
another thing: for whatever it was worth, the fact is that robert doesn't read us here.
so everyone should go post on the official site (yes, that godforsaken place :|], harrass him about this issue a bit. at least something might catch his eye then... for whatever it's worth.
Quote from: japanesebaby on June 27, 2008, 14:20:50
an example from RHCP fans:
http://www.petitiononline.com/RHCPWBCD/petition.html
The band's 1991 album 'Blood Sugar Sex Magik' represents the highest sound quality of any Red Hot Chili Peppers album. It features wonderfully written music, superbly produced, arranged, performed, recorded, mixed, and mastered. The current CD communicates impressively the outstanding performances of the band members during those memorable sessions. So true. This was one of the first CDs I ever bought, and I always thought it sounded great.
Actually, it does use some limiting/compression to get the levels up - but just to the right point without harming the sound.
And no surprise this was their last "well produced" record, just as is the case with Wish from The Cure. The loudness war had exploded by the time of each band's next album, only a few years later.
Ah, the good old days. :(
Quote from: lostflower4 on June 27, 2008, 15:04:45
And no surprise this was their last "well produced" record, just as is the case with Wish from The Cure. The loudness war had exploded by the time of each band's next album, only a few years later.
Ah, the good old days. :(
and the guilty parties...:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/jan/18/pop.music#article
Compromised CDs:
Oasis
(What's the Story) Morning Glory (Creation, 1995)
Exceptionally loud album that forced others to compete in volume.
not a surprise - because anything good ever come out of the britpop scene? :(
When I lived in Portland, Maine I used to live down the street from Gateway Mastering (Bob Ludwig's company). This mastering studio does most of the major artists (Springsteen, ect). The local paper featured an interview with one of the sound engineers who said that a lot of the new engineers coming out had been trained to make things as loud as possible (just use compression to keep those peaks down).
Yes, this has been going on since the mid-90's. But most of the stuff since then has been crap to me anyways (good music seemed to die shortly after Nirvana's Nevermind came out)so it hasn't affected me much. I stay away from major label purchasing anyway. I hate the current litigation strategy they employ. Plus if you know how most music contracts work....it's just not something I want my money to fund. But I digress....
I have noticed, however, that this trend has extended a bit to concerts broadcast over TV or FM. Take Coldplay's recent BBC-1 FM broadcast (June 16). Loud as all f*%k and compressed half to death. And it sounds like crap.
Quote from: WaxlyMolding on June 28, 2008, 02:27:03
Yes, this has been going on since the mid-90's. But most of the stuff since then has been crap to me anyways (good music seemed to die shortly after Nirvana's Nevermind came out)so it hasn't affected me much.
This is quite a strong statement, no? I guess you're not into electronic music at all, then, because in the 1994-1997 period that scene (if we can call it a "scene") was at its creative peak, probably...
Anyway, even if we consider only pop/rock groups and artists that are at least a bit outside the mainstream, you still have a few post-Nevermind things that are wortwhile: Morphine, PJ Harvey, Nick Cave, Tindersticks, Kristin Hirsh / Throwing Muses, Mazzy Star, GYBE!, Tortoise, Einstuerzende Neubauten, Laika, Cat Power, Soul Coughing... Some of these use some electronic devices/sounds and some of these were also active long before Nirvana appeared but they are all good and they all fall in the pop/rock category, I think.
Then, of course, you could also mention pop/rock groups/artits that definitely merge their sound with electronica, like Portishead, Lamb, Lali Puna, Bjork...
And then there´s also the vast world of METAL, which really wasn't killed by Nirvana.
Its funny how in this day and age of super sophisticated technology year after year quality seems to drop further down the list of priorities.
Maybe its just the '13 mix' but i think we all know thats wish(ha,har)ful thinking.
It gets to a point where someones modified live boot of a gig can actually sound better and fuller than an album session recording(and all the money allegedly involved there) which to me is slightly ridiculous.
Although, at the end of the day I think little will change while a-bob n co are not made aware of this annoyance, assuming they don't already know. b-while their stuck to the not so mighty universal, releasing another seperate album already mentioned could speed such a process up time to go indepententish again methinks
Quote from: DroidAKov on July 02, 2008, 04:01:30
Its funny how in this day and age of super sophisticated technology year after year quality seems to drop further down the list of priorities.
Too true.
Quote from: DroidAKov on July 02, 2008, 04:01:30It gets to a point where someones modified live boot of a gig can actually sound better and fuller than an album session recording(and all the money allegedly involved there) which to me is slightly ridiculous.
Also true. And maybe not even "better" or "fuller", but certainly more enjoyable to listen to, which really says something about modern "professional" production methods.
The Loudness War is not a matter of production. It's a matter of mastering. Please try to keep those two things apart.
The production of the 2004 self titled album is plain shit, and nothing could possibly save it from being shit.
The production on the new songs is much better, but how they are being mastered is an entirely different matter!
Quote from: Oso Blanco on July 04, 2008, 21:57:11
The Loudness War is not a matter of production. It's a matter of mastering. Please try to keep those two things apart.
except when music is produced just to be loudnessed when mastered.
there are just part of a similar process ; i don't think the production has been butchered at the only time of mastering. any sound in the new singles is already pushed to its limit, with no idea of how it could sound, which is not the case in any of the live versions.
the production of the 2004 album was way better than what we heard so far, i think.
and i don't mean to be cynical, or critical, or anything, just for the sake of it : i'm critical just because the cure care about these things, and now, i cannot even listen to the first singles, just because of their sound. and there is no sound engineer who will master their songs so badly, if what he hears is a sparse production, for example - it just seems impossible.
I think it's hard to tell what's going on here. I think the new singles would sound plenty listenable with a simply a bit better EQ job (more bass, less treble) and no volume slamming.
I personally prefer the sound of the 2004 album. If you want a good example of how much better that album could have sounded, take a listen to the instrumental tracks from the "making of" bonus DVD. These don't suffer from extreme volume compression like their album counterparts.
Refereshing to hear to hear this stuff, actually. I always kind of preferred The Promise without vocals anyway. :smth023
But damn, it really shows how much the sound was ruined when you listen to the album version afterwards. :smth011
Quote from: lostflower4 on July 05, 2008, 03:01:03
I always kind of preferred The Promise without vocals anyway. :smth023
I would have preferred the whole album without vocals!
it seems kind of approriate to resurrect this topic (too) as it's (half-)official by now just what 4:13 turned out to be...
Quote from: mahood on July 05, 2008, 02:38:58
the production of the 2004 album was way better than what we heard so far, i think.
i'm still not exactly sure which way it is: did the sound-destruction of 4:13 happen because robert was in charge or because he wasn't in charge? it's a bit hazy to me, just what part this keith uddin played in the production of the singles. the (very sparse) sleeve notes obly say "produced & mixed by robert smith & keith uddin".
not sure (yet) if the album will state the same credits.
in any case, a year ago i would have never thought i'd say this today - but i do miss ross robinson today!
Quote from: japanesebaby on October 23, 2008, 11:10:16
but i do miss ross robinson today!
I feel the same about David Allen, Michael Hedges, and Phil Thornalley.
I think the sound quality on the finished product is better than the 'Mix 13' versions of the songs.
Quote from: crowbi_wan on October 23, 2008, 15:17:37
Quote from: japanesebaby on October 23, 2008, 11:10:16
but i do miss ross robinson today!
I feel the same about David Allen, Michael Hedges, and Phil Thornalley.
well, mike hedges did the best production for cure (again!) in 2005 (i.e., the best production they have had in the last 16 years), with the 4play re-recordings of songs from the first 4 LPs.
3 musicians, a wonderful sound, wonderful versions, and that was it.
simple as that.
but apparently not.
and i still think it was a totally different story with ross robinson (from the one happening with 4:13 dream) : you can say & criticize what you want about this album, at least there was an aesthetical choice, a rather radical one, and i can definitely respect him & robert for that. it may not have suited every song on the album, but some like lost & this morning gained an emergency & a tension whe didn't hear since the best B-sides from wild mood swings (despite huge differences in the production).
had the 2004 LP been not loudness-wared, it would have been great (the 3 "demos" from these sessions are the best proof of that).
de-loudnesswar (OK, after this one i stop writing neologisms) the new album, it would be exactly the same mud, only lower (which apparently is the case).
That reminds me, why can't Mike Hedges just be employed to produce everything?
Although I understand it is also a question of good mastering.
Is it some sort of contractual issue with the Mighty U or is it simply Roberts choice?
Or does Mike/Robert want more control than the other is prepared to give?
Time to start a petition demanding The Hedges be allowed to 'save' the proposed dark album methinks!
It's really a shame that all this time spent working on the album and rescheduling the tour LAST year ended up being kind of marred by the really disappointing sound engineering on 4:13. Porl has so much wah and flanger stuff going on with his guitar work, and Jason has so many cymbal crashes, and even Simon went heavy on the bass distortion, that mixed with the terrible compression, a lot of the new songs sound...mashed up? It's hard to even hear the bass drum on some of the songs. It's too bad, but hopefully the said "dark" album won't turn out that way! If you listen to Disintegration, it is one of the loudest and heaviest Cure albums, yet it creates such an atmosphere by resisting the urge to crank up the volume levels, which 4:13 did not. Whoever was in charge of the sound engineering on 4:13 should have taken another listen before finalizing everything. While I do think the album versions of the singles were better than the "mix 13's", the album versions still had room for improvement, sound mixing wise. It's too bad really
Otherwise, I think the album is pretty good, but it brings it down a little not being able to even process what is going on in the guitar portions of the songs. Theoretically speaking, there is "too much cowbell" :)
Quote from: AStaticWhiteSound on November 01, 2008, 04:02:25
Jason has so many cymbal crashes
In 4:13 Dream he has played less cymbals than in the previous albums! in the self-titled Jason abused using LOTS of cymbals, using crashes to keep time, etc.
But this is not new: just watch/listen how he adds cymbals in the intro of Prayers for Rain, A night like this, Open, Lullaby, etc. The guy destroys many classic songs.
Quote from: patitodark on November 01, 2008, 19:47:41
Quote from: AStaticWhiteSound on November 01, 2008, 04:02:25
Jason has so many cymbal crashes
In 4:13 Dream he has played less cymbals than in the previous albums! in the self-titled Jason abused using LOTS of cymbals, using crashes to keep time, etc.
But this is not new: just watch/listen how he adds cymbals in the intro of Prayers for Rain, A night like this, Open, Lullaby, etc. The guy destroys many classic songs.
Wow, well I don't own the self titled album yet, lol, but that's too bad to hear really! Boris had the capability to overdo it, but he held back and didn't, which made him a great drummer. He used simplicity to add to the beauty of the songs as they were crafted. Just listen to A Night Like This or any of the other really "pretty" Cure songs and you can hear that he is doing it just right. Maybe Jason thinks that he has to use complicated fills to prove that he is a good enough drummer for the Cure, even though the Cure was founded upon simpler, minimalistic beats. Oh well, not much we can do about it now :roll: